ArticleSurgical endoscopy2023
Outcomes of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 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
- Application of laparoscopic intraoperative ultrasound in laparoscopic hepatic resection for liver tumor.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have compared the therapeutic outcomes in patients with HCC who underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, this study compared the recurrence and survival outcomes of the two RFA methods in patients with HCC.
methodsRecurrence and overall survival outcomes were evaluated in 307 patients who underwent LRFA (n = 151) or PRFA (n = 156) as a treatment method for de novo HCC. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed to reduce the impact of treatment selection bias.
resultsThere were no significant differences in major baseline characteristics between the LRFA and PRFA groups. However, the proportion of cirrhotic patients was higher in the LRFA group, whereas the LRFA group had more tumors and a more advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage. Moreover, the mean tumor size was significantly larger in the LRFA group than in the PRFA group. In a multivariate analysis, serum albumin level, more than three tumors, and the RFA method were identified as significant predictors of recurrence-free survival. Moreover, for the overall survival of HCC patients, serum albumin levels, days of hospital stay during RFA, and the RFA method were independent predictors. In the IPTW-adjusted analysis, the LRFA group showed significantly higher recurrence-free survival and overall survival.
conclusionsOur study revealed that compared with PRFA, LRFA was associated with longer recurrence-free survival and favorable overall survival in patients with HCC. Therefore, LRFA should be considered the primary therapy in patients with HCC eligible for RFA.
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.