ArticleBMC surgery2023
Appropriate indications for laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy.
Article in BMC surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver tumors: a systematic review of contemporary evidence and technical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has increased, but appropriate indications for LRH are unclear. This study aimed to clarify appropriate indications for LRH.
methodsWe retrospectively compared surgical outcomes between open RH (ORH) (n = 57) and LRH (n = 40) groups. To detect difficult cases of complete pure LRH, we examined patients with unplanned intraoperative hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)/open conversion (n = 6).
resultsIn the LRH versus ORH group, as previous hepatectomy, laparoscopic (75% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (73% vs. 37%, p = 0.002) were more frequently performed, and as RH procedure, partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (88% vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) was more frequently performed. S1 tumor cases were higher in ORH group (11% vs. 0%), but S2-6 cases were higher in LRH group (73% vs. 49%) (p = 0.02). In LRH group, compared to the pure LRH patients, HALS/open conversion patients underwent significantly more previous hepatectomy with more than lobectomy (Hr2-3) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.033) and more RH procedures with segmentectomy (HrS) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.03). All LRH requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach were HALS conversions.
conclusionAppropriate indications for LRH were previous hepatectomy was laparoscopic partial hepatectomy (Hr0), and RH procedure was partial hepatectomy (Hr0) for S2-6 tumor location. When RH is more than segmentectomy (HrS) requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach, planned HALS or ORH may be a better approach than pure LRH.
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.