ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of subcapsular hepatocellular carcinomas: risk factors related to a technical failure.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Outcomes of Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinomas: Effects of the Electrode Type and Placement Method.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status, challenges, and prospects.Liver research (Beijing, China) · 2023Review
- Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for subphrenic hepatocellular carcinoma.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinomas Smaller Than 3 cm: Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching.Korean journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the risk factors related to a technical failure after laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for subcapsular hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 110 patients with 114 HCCs who underwent laparoscopic RFA for HCCs (new HCC [n = 85] and local tumor progression [LTP] [n = 29]) between January 2013 and December 2018 were included. We evaluated the incidence of technical failure on immediate post-RFA CT images. Risk factors for a technical failure after laparoscopic RFA were assessed using univariable logistic regression analyses. The cumulative LTP rate was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
resultsTechnical failure was noted in 3.5% (4/114) of the tumors. All four tumors that showed a technical failure were cases of LTP from previous treatment and were invisible on laparoscopy. On univariate analysis, LTP lesion, invisibility of the index tumor on laparoscopy, and peri-hepatic vein location of the tumor were identified as risk factors for a technical failure. The cumulative LTP rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were estimated to be 2.8%, 4.8%, and 4.8%, respectively.
conclusionsLTP lesion, invisibility of the index tumor on laparoscopy, and peri-hepatic vein location of the tumor were identified as the risk factors for a technical failure after laparoscopic RFA.
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.