ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging in minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: lesion detection and surgical outcomes-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Is prolonged operative time associated with postoperative complications in liver surgery? An international multicentre cohort study of 5424 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic versus open surgery for liver resection: a multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
- The differential benefit of laparoscopic over open minor liver resection for lesions situated in the anterolateral or posterosuperior segments.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2024Article
- Caudo-dorsal approach combined with the occlusion of right hepatic vein and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical resection of segment 7.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Caudodorsal approach combined with in situ split for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?Cancers · 2022Review
- Laparoscopic liver right posterior sectionectomies; surgical technique and clinical results of a single surgeon experience.Turkish journal of surgery · 2022Article
- The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs. open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy.The British journal of surgery · 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
14 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).
methodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.
resultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.
conclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.
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.