ArticleBMC cancer2023
Biliary-enteric reconstruction in laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic, laparoscopic, and open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and direct pairwise meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of the outcomes of biliary-enteric reconstruction in robotic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single-center propensity score matching analysis.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility and quality of biliary-enteric reconstruction (BER) in laparoscopic radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (LsRRH) versus open surgery and propose technical recommendations.
methodsData of 38 LsRRH and 54 radical laparotomy resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (LtRRH) cases were collected from our institution. BER was evaluated via biliary residuals numbers, number of anastomoses, anastomosis manner, suture method, time consumption, and postoperative complication.
resultsIn the LsRRH group, patients were relatively younger; Bismuth type I had a higher proportion while type IIIa and IV were less and required no revascularization. In LsRRH and LtRRH groups, respectively, the biliary residuals number was 2.54 ± 1.62 and 2.47 ± 1.46 (p > 0.05); the number of anastomoses was 2.04 ± 1.27 and 2.57 ± 1.33 (p > 0.05); the time of BER was 65.67 ± 21.53 and 42.5 ± 19.77 min (p < 0.05), 15.08 ± 3.64% and 11.76 ± 2.54% of the total operation time (p < 0.05); postoperative bile leakage incidence was 15.79% and 16.67% (p > 0.05); 14 ± 10.28 and 17 ± 9.73 days for healing (p < 0.05); anastomosis stenosis rate was 2.63% and 1.85% (p > 0.05). Neither group had a biliary hemorrhage or bile leakage-related death.
conclusionThe selection bias in LsRRH mainly affects tumor resection than BER. Our cohort study indicates that BER in LsRRH is technically feasible and equals anastomotic quality to open surgery. However, its longer and a more significant proportion of total operation time represent that BER has higher technical requirements and is one of the critical rate-limiting steps affecting the minimal invasiveness of LsRRH.
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.