Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34631539›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Stereotactic and Robotic Minimally Invasive Thermal Ablation of Malignant Liver Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pascale Tinguely, Iwan Paolucci, Simeon J S Ruiter, Stefan Weber, Koert P de Jong, Daniel Candinas, Jacob Freedman, Jennie Engstrand

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Robotic Assistance in Percutaneous Liver Ablation Therapies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Pascale TinguelyDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Iwan PaolucciARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Simeon J S RuiterDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Stefan WeberARTORG Center for Biomedical Engineering Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Koert P de JongDepartment of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Daniel CandinasDepartment of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Jacob FreedmanDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jennie EngstrandDivision of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet at Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStereotactic navigation techniques aim to enhance treatment precision and safety in minimally invasive thermal ablation of liver tumors. We qualitatively reviewed and quantitatively summarized the available literature on procedural and clinical outcomes after stereotactic navigated ablation of malignant liver tumors.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed on procedural and clinical outcomes when using stereotactic or robotic navigation for laparoscopic or percutaneous thermal ablation. The online databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched. Endpoints included targeting accuracy, procedural efficiency, and treatment efficacy outcomes. Meta-analysis including subgroup analyses was performed.

resultsThirty-four studies (two randomized controlled trials, three prospective cohort studies, 29 case series) were qualitatively analyzed, and 22 studies were included for meta-analysis. Weighted average lateral targeting error was 3.7 mm (CI 3.2, 4.2), with all four comparative studies showing enhanced targeting accuracy compared to free-hand targeting. Weighted average overall complications, major complications, and mortality were 11.4% (6.7, 16.1), 3.4% (2.1, 5.1), and 0.8% (0.5, 1.3). Pooled estimates of primary technique efficacy were 94% (89, 97) if assessed at 1-6 weeks and 90% (87, 93) if assessed at 6-12 weeks post ablation, with remaining between-study heterogeneity. Primary technique efficacy was significantly enhanced in stereotactic vs. free-hand targeting, with odds ratio (OR) of 1.9 (1.2, 3.2) (n = 6 studies).

conclusionsAdvances in stereotactic navigation technologies allow highly precise and safe tumor targeting, leading to enhanced primary treatment efficacy. The use of varying definitions and terminology of safety and efficacy limits comparability among studies, highlighting the crucial need for further standardization of follow-up definitions.

Indexed as

ablation techniquescomputer-assisted therapiesliver neoplasmsminimally invasive surgical proceduresstereotaxic techniques

Identifiers

PMID34631539
PMCPMC8495244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.