ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2020
Laparoscopic repeat liver resection.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver tumors: a systematic review of contemporary evidence and technical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A feasible and safe approach for repeat laparoscopic liver resection and patient selection based on standardized preoperative prediction of surgical difficulty.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Article
- Short-term Outcomes and Difficulty of Repeat Laparoscopic Liver Resection.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2022Article
- Article
- Caudal Approach to Laparoscopic Liver Resection-Conceptual Benefits for Repeated Multimodal Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Extended Right Posterior Sectionectomy in the Left Lateral Position.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Laparoscopic repeat liver resection.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrence of liver cancers inside the liver are often treated with liver resection (LR). However, increased risks of complications and conversion during operation were reported in laparoscopic repeat LR (LRLR). The indication is still controversial. One multi-institutional propensity score matching analysis of LRLR vs open repeat LR for hepatocellular carcinoma, two propensity score matching analyses for colorectal metastases, and two meta-analyses including hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastases, and other tumors have been reported to date. LRLR was reported with better to comparable short-term and similar long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the shorter operation time and the smaller amount of intraoperative bleeding for LRLR was reported for the patients who had undergone laparoscopic rather than open LR as an earlier procedure. The speculations are presented, that complete dissection of adhesion can be dodged and laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize the liver functional deterioration in cirrhotic patients. LRLR, as a powerful local therapy, could contribute to the long-term outcomes of those with deteriorated liver function. However, the procedure is now in its developing stage worldwide and further accumulation of experiences and evaluation are needed.
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.