ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2021
Proposal for a revised system for classifying difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of liver transection depth on surgical difficulty in robotic versus laparoscopic limited liver resection (TAKUMI-5).Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- The Liver Transection Area Is a Novel Predictor for Surgical Difficulty in Laparoscopic Liver Resection.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Sub-classification of laparoscopic left hepatectomy based on hierarchic interaction of tumor location and size with perioperative outcomes.Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2023Article
- 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
- Resection type is a predictor of postoperative complications in laparoscopic partial liver resection.Surgical endoscopy · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate a revised classification system for predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection.
methodsPatients who had undergone initial laparoscopic partial liver resection for a solitary lesion from January 2012 to February 2021were classified into two groups according to the type of procedure performed, "scooping-out" versus "cutting." The participants were then further divided into "small" and "large" subgroups according to the tumor's depth and diameter. Finally, they were categorized into two groups, namely "standard" and "advanced." Operative outcomes were compared between the two groups and the proposed revised system for classifying difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection compared with the existing scoring system.
resultsOf the 65 procedures assessed, 40 were categorized as standard and 25 as advanced. Tumor size (P < 0.001), operation time (P < 0.001), volume of intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.001), rate of the Pringle maneuver (P = 0.044), and resected liver weight (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the advanced than in the standard group. Differences in operation time and intraoperative blood loss were not identified by the existing difficulty scoring system.
conclusionThe proposed revised classification is useful for predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection.
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.