ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Laparoscopic
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review of propensity score-matched studies.Updates in surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Association of Laparoscopic Surgery with Improved Perioperative and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Resectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from Propensity-Score Matched Studies.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Multi-omics-driven discovery of invasive patterns and treatment strategies in CA19-9 positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection as a treatment option for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Surgical Aspects of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Cancers · 2022Review
- A Retrospective, Single-Centre Study on the Learning Curve for Liver Tumor Open Resection in Patients with Hepatocellular Cancers and Intrahepatic Cholagangiocarcinomas.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection is the only widely accepted curative method for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, little is known about the efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC, especially in patients with early-stage disease. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term effects of laparoscopy and open surgery for the treatment of ICC.
methodsData from 1,084 patients treated at three hospitals from January 2011 to December 2018 were selected and analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the long-term outcomes (overall survival and recurrence-free survival) and short-term outcomes (perioperative outcomes) of all-stage and early-stage patients.
resultsAfter matching, 244 patients (122
conclusionPatients treated with laparoscopy seemed to have better short-term outcomes, such as less blood loss, shorter operation duration, and shorter hospital stay, than patients undergoing open surgery. Based on the long-term results, laparoscopic treatment for early ICC may have certain advantages.
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.