ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2020
A Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes between Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection in Elderly Patients.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A commentary on "Feasibility of robotic liver resection compared with laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Spontaneous rupture and hemorrhage of a giant simple hepatic cyst in a 94-year-old woman: a case report.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: my trials and current status in Korea.Journal of minimally invasive surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in elderly patients with hepatic tumors. Methods: From January 2013 to December 2019, a retrospective study was conducted for a total of 143 patients with over 70 years of age, who underwent liver resection for hepatic tumors. Forty-five patients who received biliary reconstruction at the same time were excluded. According to surgical approaches, 98 patients were classified into LLR and OLR groups. All postoperative complications were classified according to the Clavien-Dindo grading system and the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Results: Incidence of the postoperative complications was not statistically different between LLR and OLR groups. The CCI was significantly lower in the LLR group, with a median of 8.556, and a median of 19.698 in the OLR group ( Conclusion: LLR is safe and feasible as a treatment for hepatic tumor in elderly patients with potentially less postoperative complications compared to OLR.
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.