ArticleWorld journal of surgery2022
Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Liver Resections in Low and High-Volume Centers: A Multicentric Case-Matched Comparative Study.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is the gold standard for liver resections. Despite its feasibility and safety in high-volume centers (HVC), its performance is controversial in low-volume centers (LVCs). We aimed to evaluate the results of LLR performed in LVC.
methodsPatients who underwent LLR between 2013 and 2019 in three LVCs were compared after case-matching with those in an HVC using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris LLR Difficulty Score (IMMLDS).
resultsSeventy-six patients treated in three LVCs were matched to 152 in HVCs for age, body mass index, and resection type. The incidence of LLR significantly increased in LVCs over time (2013-2016 vs. 2017-2019) (21.2% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.002 and) while abdominal drainage rate decreased (77.4% vs. 51.1%; p = 0.003). In IMMLDS group I (60 vs. 120 patients), higher Pringle maneuver (43.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), median blood loss (175 ml vs. 50 ml; p < 0.0001), abdominal drainage (58.3% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001), and conversion rate (8.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.04) were observed in LVCs. The overall postoperative morbidity was comparable (Clavien I-II: p = 0.54; Clavien > II: p = 0.71). In IMMLDS groups II-III, Pringle maneuver (56.5% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.0001), blood loss (350 ml vs. 175 ml; p = 0.02), and abdominal drainage (75% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.004) were different; however, postoperative morbidity was not. The surgical difficulty notwithstanding, length of stay (group I: p = 0.13; group II-III: p = 0.93) and R0 surgical margin (group I: p = 0.3; group II-III p = 0.39) were not different between LVCs and HVCs.
conclusionsLLR performed at an LVC can be feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34734322What 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.