SynthesisInternational journal of clinical oncology2023
A meta-analysis and systematic review of the comparison of laparoscopic ablation to percutaneous ablation for hepatic malignancies.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation to percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- International Society of Paediatric Surgical Oncology (IPSO) Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) Guidelines.Ecancermedicalscience · 2026Article
- The role of the minimally invasive surgery in the management of paediatric liver tumours.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Radiofrequency ablation versus microwave ablation for colorectal liver metastases: long-term results of a retrospective cohort surgical experience.Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal access for thermal ablation of the liver has not been evaluated in the literature for the laparoscopic versus percutaneous techniques. The aim of this manuscript was to determine the optimal ablation technique and patient selection for hepatic malignancies by comparing the efficacy and recurrence-free survival of laparoscopic and percutaneous thermal ablation.
methodsA detailed literature search was made in PubMed, Web of Science, Google scholar, and EMBASE for related research publications. The data were extracted and assessed by two reviewers independently. Analysis of pooled data was performed, and Odds Ratio (OR) or Hazard Ratio (HR) with corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated and summarized respectively.
resultsA total of 10 articles were included with 1916 ablation patients. Laparoscopic ablation success (Median 100%) was found to be higher than percutaneous ablation success (median 89.4%) (p = ns). There was a higher percentage of both local and non-local hepatic recurrence in the patients treated with percutaneous ablation versus laparoscopic ablation. Meta-analysis indicated no difference in the adjusted hazard rate of recurrence by procedure type (p = 0.94). Laparoscopic ablation had a higher percentage of complications compared to percutaneous ablation (median lap 14.5% vs. perc 3.3%).
conclusionsWhile laparoscopic and percutaneous ablation are both effective interventions for hepatic malignancies, laparoscopic ablation was found to have improved ablation success and less local and non-local hepatic recurrence compared to percutaneous ablation.
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.