SynthesisUpdates in surgery2021
Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Synthesis in Updates in surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Short-Term Outcomes After Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- The optimal number of examined lymph nodes for cancer specific death of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in octogenarians: a single-center analysis.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Minimally Invasive Approach Provides Oncological Benefit in Patients with High Risk of Very Early Recurrence (VER) After Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA).Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- RoboticHeliyon · 2024Article
- Lymph Node Dissection in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: a Critical and Updated Review of the Literature.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Review
- Update on the Applications of Radiomics in Diagnosis, Staging, and Recurrence of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score-matched study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Bile Duct Tumor Thrombus: A Case Report and Literature Review of 890 Patients Affected by Uncommon Primary Liver Tumor Presentation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients aged 60 and older: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Resection type is a predictor of postoperative complications in laparoscopic partial liver resection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Review
- Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors-Possibilities and Limitations.Cancers · 2022Review
- Review
- State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma.Langenbeck's archives 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.
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.