ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2022
Factors Related to Textbook Outcome in Laparoscopic Liver Resections: a Single Western Centre Analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The "Textbook Outcome" Isn't Textbook: Significant Variation in "Textbook Outcome" Definitions following a Systematic Review of the Surgical Oncology Literature.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Towards standardized assessment of surgical difficulty in robotic hepatobiliary surgery: a comparative validation study.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Does calculating the textbook outcome based on its negative predictors enhance the transparency of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma surgery assessment?Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
- Portal vein reconstruction reduces textbook outcome achievement following radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Achieving textbook outcome in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: malnutrition's pivotal role.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Textbook outcomes in the laparoscopic common bile duct exploration of choledocholithiasis: a new comprehensive quality evaluation criterion.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Realizing Textbook Outcomes Following Liver Resection for Hepatic Neoplasms with Development and Validation of a Predictive Nomogram.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Defining and predicting textbook outcomes for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of factors improving achievement of desired postoperative outcomes.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe selection of the most informative quality of care indicator for laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) is still debated; among those proposed, textbook outcome (TO) seems to provide a compositive measure of the outcomes of surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors related with the TO in a cohort of patients who underwent LLS.
methodsPatients who underwent LLS from 2014 to 2021 were included. TO for LLS (TOLLS) was defined as: R0 resection, absence of intraoperative incidents, severe complications, reintervention, 30-day readmission and in-hospital mortality. When also considering no prolonged length of hospital stay (LOS), the outcome was called TOLLS+.
resultsFour hundred twenty-one patients were included; TOLLS was achieved in 80.5%, TOLLS+ in 60.8% cases. R0 resection was obtained in 90.2% cases, intraoperative incidents occurred in 7.8%, severe complications in 5.0%, reintervention in 0.7%, readmission in 1.4% and in-hospital mortality in 0.2%. 32.5% of patients showed prolonged LOS. After univariate and multivariate analysis, factors influencing TOLLS were age (OR 0.967; p=0.003), concomitant surgery (OR 0.380; p=0.003), operative time (OR 0.996; p=0.008) and blood loss (OR 0.241; p<0.001); factors influencing TOLLS+ were ASA-score (OR 0.533; p=0.008), tumour histology (OR 0.421; p=0.021), concomitant surgery (OR 0.293; p<0.001), operative time (OR 0.997; p=0.016) and blood loss (OR 0.361; p=0.003).
conclusionsTOLLS can be achieved in most patients undergoing LLR, and it seems to be influenced mostly by surgery-related factors; conversely, TOLLS+ is achieved less frequently and seems to be influenced also by patient- and tumour-related factors.
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.