ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery
First 100 minimally invasive liver resections in a new tertiary referral centre for liver surgery.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Implementation of a patient blood management in an Italian City Hospital: is it effective in reducing the use of red blood cells?Updates 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the last decades, there has been an exponential diffusion of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate our initial experience of 100 patients undergoing MILS resection comparing their outcomes with the standard open procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred consecutive MILS from 2016 to 2019 were included. Clinicopathological data were reviewed to evaluate outcomes. Standard open resections were used as the control group and compared exploiting propensity score matching.
resultsIn total, 290 patients were included. The rate of MILS has been constantly increasing throughout years, representing the 48% in 2019. Of 100 (34.5%) MILS patients, 85 could be matched. After matching, the MILS conversion rate was 5.8% (n = 5). The post-operative complication rates were higher in the open group (45.9% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.004). Post-operative blood transfusions were less common in the MILS group (4.7% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.021). Biliary leak occurred in 2 (2.4) MILS versus 13 (15.3) open. The median comprehensive complication index was higher in the open group (8.7 [0-28.6] vs. 0 [0-10.4], P = 0.0009). The post-operative length of hospital stay was shorter after MILS (median 6 [5-8] vs 8 [7-13] days, P < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe rate of MILS has been significantly increasing throughout the years. The benefits of MILS over the traditional open approach were confirmed. The main advantages include lower rates of post-operative complications, blood transfusions, bile leaks and a significantly decreased hospital stay.
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.