ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2021
Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study.Hepatology international · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection or enucleation for giant hepatic hemangioma: how to choose?Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Article
- Pure Laparoscopic Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) for a Giant Hepatocellular Carcinoma (> 15 cm) Abutting the Liver Hilum.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023Article
- 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
- Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Short-term outcomes of robotic versus open hepatectomy among overweight patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-matched study.BMC surgery · 2023Article
- Association of tumor morphology with long-term prognosis after liver resection for patients with a solitary huge hepatocellular carcinoma-a multicenter propensity score matching analysis.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Robotic hepatectomy: challenge and progression.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe application and feasibility of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) for huge liver tumours (≥10 cm) has not been well documented.
methodsRetrospective analysis of data on 6,617 patients who had MILR for liver tumours were gathered from 21 international centers between 2009-2019. Huge tumors and large tumors were defined as tumors with a size ≥10.0 cm and 3.0-9.9 cm based on histology, respectively. 1:1 coarsened exact-matching (CEM) and 1:2 Mahalanobis distance-matching (MDM) was performed according to clinically-selected variables. Regression discontinuity analyses were performed as an additional line of sensitivity analysis to estimate local treatment effects at the 10-cm tumor size cutoff.
resultsOf 2,890 patients with tumours ≥3 cm, there were 205 huge tumors. After 1:1 CEM, 174 huge tumors were matched to 174 large tumors; and after 1:2 MDM, 190 huge tumours were matched to 380 large tumours. There was significantly and consistently increased intraoperative blood loss, frequency in the application of Pringle maneuver, major morbidity and postoperative stay in the huge tumour group compared to the large tumour group after both 1:1 CEM and 1:2 MDM. These findings were reinforced in RD analyses. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate and open conversion rate were significantly higher in the huge tumor group after only 1:2 MDM but not 1:1 CEM.
conclusionsMILR for huge tumours can be safely performed in expert centers It is an operation with substantial complexity and high technical requirement, with worse perioperative outcomes compared to MILR for large tumors, therefore judicious patient selection is pivotal.
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.