Trial reportBMC surgery2023
Safety and efficacy of precision hepatectomy in the treatment of primary liver cancer.
Trial report in BMC surgery, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and effectiveness of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Survival and safety outcomes of hepatectomy versus ablation in hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria and clinically significant portal hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Exploratory evaluation of combined handgrip strength and Age-Adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index for prognosis in patients with primary liver cancer undergoing hepatectomy: a single-centre pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Progress and clinical translation in hepatocellular carcinoma of deep learning in hepatic vascular segmentation.Digital healthReview
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of precision hepatectomy in the treatment of primary liver cancer.
methodsAn randomized controlled trial of 98 patients with primary liver cancer admitted to our hospital from February 2020 to February 2021 were analyzed for the study, and they were divided into 49 cases each in the control group (conventional hepatectomy) and the study group (precision hepatectomy) according to the different surgical methods. The surgical condition, complications and follow-up results of the two groups were counted, and the liver function and immune function of the two groups were observed before and 1 week after surgery.
resultsThe operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization time and anal venting time in the study group were less than those in the control group (P < 0.05). One week after surgery, AST, TBiL, ALT and ALB levels decreased, with in the study group significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05); CD4+, CD3 + and CD4+/CD8 + levels were significantly higher in the study group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). After 2 years of follow-up, the recurrence rate and mortality rate of the study group were lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05); the difference was not statistically significant when comparing the metastasis rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).
conclusionPrecision hepatectomy can effectively treat primary liver cancer with high safety and could be promoted in clinical practice.
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.