ArticleUpdates in surgery2022
Is minimally invasive liver surgery a reasonable option in recurrent HCC? A snapshot from the I Go MILS registry.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review of propensity score-matched studies.Updates in surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Essential updates 2022/2023: A review of current topics in robotic hepatectomy.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2024Review
- Article
- Therapeutic Approach to Post-Transplant Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Certainties and Open Issues.Cancers · 2023Review
- Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking.Updates in surgery · 2023Article
- Propensity Score Matching Analysis of the Safety of Completion Total Pancreatectomy for Remnant Pancreatic Tumors Versus that of Initial Total Pancreatectomy for Primary Pancreatic Tumors.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Challenging Scenarios and Debated Indications for Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2023Review
- Case report: Conversion therapy to permit resection of initially unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a safe procedure. Repeat surgery is more often required, and the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not yet clearly defined. The present study analyzes data compiled by the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) on LLR. To compare repeated LLR with the first LLR for HCC is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the outcome of repeat LLR in the case of primary open versus primary MILS surgery. The data cohort is divided into two groups. Group 1: first liver resection and Group 2: Repeat LLR. To compare the two groups a 3:1 Propensity Score Matching is performed to analyze open versus MILS primary resection. Fifty-two centers were involved in the present study, and 1054 patients were enrolled. 80 patients underwent to a repeat LLR. The type of resection was different, with more major resections in the group 1 before matching the two groups. After propensity score matching 3:1, each group consisted of 222 and 74 patients. No difference between the two groups was observed. In the subgroup analysis, in 44 patients the first resection was performed by an open approach. The other 36 patients were resected with a MILS approach. We found no difference between these two subgroups of patients. The present study in repeat MILS for HCC using the IGoMILS Registry has observed the feasibility and safety of the MILS procedure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34601669What 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.