ArticleBMC surgery2020
Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- A Technique for Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy Following Portal Vein Embolization in a Patient With Portal Vein Thrombosis: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- LaparoscopicTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- A Decade of Experience Between Open and Minimally Invasive Hepatectomies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Anatomic Liver Segmentectomy Using the Extrahepatic Glissonean Approach.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Article
- Open Versus Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Sequential TACE-PVE: A Multicentric Comparative Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: Conversion and Ability to Rescue.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Facility Volume Thresholds for Optimization of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Tumors.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?Cancers · 2022Review
- Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022Article
- LAPAROSCOPIC LIVER RESECTION FOR BENIGN TUMORS: THE CURRENT POSITION.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2022Article
- Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs)
methodsConsecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups
resultsDuring study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).
conclusionsMIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.
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.