ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2022
Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients aged 60 and older: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of survival outcomes and prognostic factors between intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection: a propensity score-matched study based on the SEER database.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Multi-omics-driven discovery of invasive patterns and treatment strategies in CA19-9 positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of robot-assisted, open, and laparoscopic-assisted surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a network meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- The potential of indocyanine green fluorescence detection in surgical cut margin of breast conserving surgery.Gland surgery · 2024Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of blood transfusion rates during liver resection by country.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective laparoscopic surgical excision is the recommended treatment for liver cancers, yet its benefits in patients aged 60 and older remain poorly understood. Thus, this study evaluated the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients aged 60 and older with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).MethodsAfter screening, 107 patients who underwent hepatectomy for ICC were enrolled and grouped into either laparoscopic (LH) or open hepatectomy (OH) groups. Baseline characteristics, pathological findings, and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.ResultsAmong baseline characteristics and pathological findings, only pre-operative albumin was higher in the LH group. The LH group had more favorable short-term outcomes such as incision length, level of postoperative total bilirubin, and length of postoperative stays than the OH group. The postoperative complication, lymph node dissection and R0 resection rate, and long-term outcomes including OS and DFS were not significantly different between the two groups. Cancer Antigen-19-9(CA-19-9) and pathological differentiation were independent prognostic factors for OS, whereas CA-19-9 and neutrophil count were independent prognostic factors for DFS.ConclusionLH is safe, reliable, and feasible for treatment of ICC patients aged 60 and older as it had better short-term clinical outcomes than OH and achieved long-term prognoses that were comparable to those of OH.
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.