Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024938›Full record

Observational studySurgical endoscopy2022

Dorsal vs ventral approach to the middle hepatic vein during laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: multicenter retrospective observational study.

Masaki Ueno, Hiroya Iida, Koji Komeda, Hisashi Kosaka, Fumitoshi Hirokawa, Shinya Hayami, Haruki Mori, Masaki Kaibori, Hiroki Yamaue

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Masaki UenoSecond Department of Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan. ma@wakayama-med.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6310-0795
Hiroya IidaDepartment of Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Japan.
Koji KomedaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Osaka, Japan.
Hisashi KosakaDepartment of Surgery, Kansai Medical University Hirakata Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Fumitoshi HirokawaDepartment of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka Medical and Pharmaceutical University, Osaka, Japan.
Shinya HayamiSecond Department of Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan.
Haruki MoriDepartment of Surgery, Shiga University of Medical Science, Otsu, Japan.
Masaki KaiboriDepartment of Surgery, Kansai Medical University Hirakata Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Hiroki YamaueSecond Department of Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, 811-1 Kimiidera, Wakayama, 641-8510, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeft hemihepatectomy requires exposure of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) at the cutting-surface. Two procedures are used to approach the MHV: a conventional ventral approach and a laparoscopy-specific dorsal approach. This multicenter retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of these two procedures.

methodsClinical records of 38 consecutive patients that underwent laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy in four university hospitals between 2016 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Outcome measurements were operative blood loss, operating time, trend of postoperative laboratory data within 7 days after hepatectomy, and postoperative complications. Quality of MHV exposure was also evaluated and compared by three-grade evaluation (excellent/good/poor) using recorded still images of the cut-surface of the remnant liver (n = 35).

resultsDorsal and ventral approaches were performed in 9 and 29 patients, respectively. Median operating time was 316 min (dorsal) and 314 min (ventral) (P = 0.71). Median operative blood loss was 45 ml (dorsal) and 105 ml (ventral) (P = 0.10). Two patients in the ventral approach group had bleeding in excess of 500 ml, which was not seen in the dorsal approach group. Excellent/good/poor MHV appearance on the cutting-surface was observed in 5/3/1 patients in the dorsal approach group, respectively, and in 7/8/11 patients in the ventral approach group, respectively (P = 0.03). In the ventral approach group, significant increases of aspartate aminotransferase (on postoperative day 1 and day 4/5) and of alanine aminotransferase (on postoperative day 2/3 and 4/5) were observed (P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were observed only in the ventral approach group (n = 3).

conclusionsThe dorsal approach could achieve safe and precise anatomical left hemihepatectomy with operation time and operative blood loss comparable to the conventional ventral approach.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyLiver NeoplasmsBlood Loss, SurgicalHepatectomyHepatic VeinsHumansOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesDorsal approachLaparoscopic liver resectionLeft hemihepatectomyMiddle hepatic vein

Identifiers

PMID35024938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.