ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hepatic caudate lobectomy: a retrospective study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Resection of the paracaval portion of the caudate lobe of the liver through complete right approach: advantages of a laparoscopic perspective.Updates in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of laparoscopic and open approach in the treatment of heterotopic pregnancy following embryo transfer.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was designed to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy (LHCL) for treating liver tumor by comparing with the open hepatic caudate lobectomy (OHCL).
methodsIn the LHCL group, we included 24 patients with liver tumor received LHCL in Qilu Hospital of the Shandong University from January 2014 to January 2019. Meanwhile, 24 matched liver tumor patients underwent OHCL in our hospital served as control. Then we compared the patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes between LHCL group and OHCL group.
resultsThere were no significant differences in gender, age, degree of cirrhosis, tumor size, preoperative liver function, Child-Pugh grading, proportion of liver cirrhosis, and tumor size between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). No death was reported in both groups. The length of incision in LHCL group was significantly lower than that in OHCL group (4.22 ± 1.14 cm vs. 22.46 ± 4.40 cm, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in LHCL group was significantly lower than that of OHCL group (116.82 ± 71.61 ml vs. 371.74 ± 579.35 ml, P = 0.047). The total operation time, Pringle maneuver occlusion time, and blocking rate in LHCL group showed no statistical difference compared with those of the OHCL group (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 24 and 48 h showed no statistical differences between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). Compared with the OHCL group, significant decrease was noticed in the proportion of patients with severe pain 48 h after surgery (0 vs. 4.25 ± 0.46, P < 0.001) and dezocine consumption (90.45 ± 45.77 mg vs. 131.6 ± 81.30 mg, P = 0.0448) in the LHCL group.
conclusionLHCL is effective and feasible for treating liver tumor, which is featured by reducing intraoperative blood loss and serious pain.
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.