SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. 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.
- LaparoscopicTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- Traditional Chinese Medicine in post-resection liver cancer therapy: a meta-analysis of efficacy.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC. Methods: A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis. Results: Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005). Conclusion: LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.
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.