ArticleCancers2020
Elderly Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Open or Laparoscopic Approach?
Article in Cancers, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- EAES/SAGES evidence-based recommendations and expert consensus on optimization of perioperative care in older adults.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in the elderly: systematic review and meta-analysis.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- A multicenter case-controlled study on laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open liver resection as first-line therapy for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients aged at least 80 years: retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.BJS open · 2025Article
- Comparing laparoscopic and open resection in elderly hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Observational
- Chronic Liver Disease in the Older Patient-Evaluation and Management.Current gastroenterology reports · 2023Review
- Article
- Indications for open hepatectomy in the era of laparoscopic liver resection: a high volume single institutional study.Journal of liver cancer · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatectomy patients: inverse probability of treatment weighting.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Realization of improved outcomes following liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma patients aged 75 years and older.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) accrue to elderly patients with medical comorbidities. The aim of the present study was to compare the outcomes between LLR and open liver resection (OLR) in elderly patients (≥65 years) with solitary, treatment-naïve solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). From January 2013 to August 2017, 256 elderly patients with solitary treatment-naive HCC underwent liver resection. All patients were Child-Pugh class A and older than 65 years. The OLR and LLR groups contained 160 and 96 patients, respectively. The median tumor size in the OLR group was significantly larger than that in the LLR group (3.9 vs. 2.6 cm), but the tumor size did not differ between the two groups after matching. The median operation time, blood loss, transfusion rate, and postoperative complications in the OLR group did not differ from those in the LLR group, but the operation time in the LLR group was longer than that in the OLR group after matching. The median hospitalization in the LLR group was significantly shorter than that in the OLR group. Disease-free survival (DFS) in the LLR group was better than that in the OLR group before and after matching, but the difference was not significant. Patient survival (PS) in the LLR group was similar to that in the OLR group. LLR is feasible and safe for elderly patients with solitary, treatment-naïve HCC. The short- and long-term benefits of LLR are evident in geriatric oncological liver surgery patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.