ArticleSurgery today2022
Liver retraction using an L-shaped retractor during sleeve gastrectomy.
Article in Surgery today, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobilization of the Left Liver for Optimal Hiatal Exposure During Bariatric Surgery Procedures.Obesity surgery · 2025Article
- Advancements in liver retraction techniques for laparoscopic gastrectomy.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Elastic Intra-corporeal Retractor for Bariatric and Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Feasibility of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass with the novel robotic platform HUGO™ RAS.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe Nathanson liver retractor (NLR) and the snake liver retractor (SLR) are commonly used in bariatric surgery and their use is associated with some disadvantages. We developed an L-shaped liver retractor (LLR) and herein evaluated its efficacy and safety.
methodsThe present retrospective study enrolled patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy in our department between June 2014 and December 2020. The patients were divided into three groups according to the liver retractor used (LLR, SLR or NLR) for a comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of the devices. The procedural time (PT) of each retractor type, defined as the time from retractor insertion to liver fixation, was compared.
resultsIn total, 140 patients successfully underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. The LLR, SLR and NLR were used in 37, 91, and 12 of these patients, respectively. The PT for the LLR was the shortest. AST/ALT elevation was significantly more frequent in the NLR group than in the SLR group and tended to be less frequent in the LLR group in comparison to the NLR group (p = 0.09). The length of hospital stay in the NLR group was significantly longer in comparison to the LLR group.
conclusionOur study suggested that the LLR was superior to the conventional liver retractors used in sleeve gastrectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34853882What 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.