ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023
Laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a narrative review of principles, technical nuances, and emerging strategies.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Review
- Current insights and future perspectives of treatment strategies for biliary tract cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic Versus Open Caudate Lobe Resection: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Should lymphadenectomy be recommended in radical surgery of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients? A retrospective study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Development of a novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection procedure in patients with intrahepatic duct stones.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely used in the treatment of benign and malignant liver diseases, its applicability in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap-ICC) and open hepatectomy (Open-ICC) in ICC patients. Methods: The PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and other databases were searched for the relevant literature. The research data were extracted according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Seventeen studies, including 3975 ICC patients, were selected for the meta-analysis. Compared to Open-ICC, Lap-ICC had lower rates of lymph node dissection (OR=0.44, P=0.01) and metastasis (OR=0.58, P=0.03), along with less intraoperative bleeding (MD=-128.43 ml, P<0.01) lower blood transfusion rate (OR=0.43, P<0.01), shorter hospital stay (MD=-2.75 day, P<0.01), higher R0 resection rate (OR=1.60, P<0.01), and lower tumor recurrence rate (OR=0.67, P=0.01). However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of operation time, number of lymph node dissection, incision margin distance, overall complications rate, severe complications rate, and the 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS and OS rates. Conclusion: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is partially superior to open hepatectomy in terms of less bleeding, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection rate, while the long-term efficacy of the two approaches is similar.
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.