ReviewCancers2022
Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for difficult posterosuperior segments: a systematic review with a meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis from Eastern and Western referral centers.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Outcomes of bile duct-guided right hepatic inflow occlusion and extended procedures in laparoscopic liver surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Caudate Lobe Resection: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection in the last two decades: lessons from 2000 cases at a referral Korean center.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- Selecting the Best Approach for the Treatment of Multiple Non-Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2022Review
- Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A promising therapeutic option for advanced disease.World journal of hepatology · 2022Review
- Preoperative Assessment and Perioperative Management of Resectable Gallbladder Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine and Novel Technologies: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had a slower diffusion compared to other surgical fields, mainly due to inherent peculiarities regarding the risks of uncontrollable bleeding, oncological inadequacy, and the need for both laparoscopic and liver major skills. Recently, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with an improved postoperative course, including reduced postoperative decompensation, intraoperative blood losses, length of hospitalization, and unaltered oncological outcomes, leading to its adoption within international guidelines. However, LLR for HCC still faces several limitations, mainly linked to the impaired function of underlying parenchyma, tumor size and numbers, and difficult tumor position. The aim of this review is to highlight the state of the art and future perspectives of LLR for HCC, focusing on key points for overcoming currents limitations and pushing the boundaries in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).
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.