ArticleCancer medicine2024
Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for caudate lobe solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for caudate lobe solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching study.Cancer medicine · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of the hepatic caudate lobe.
methodsPatients with hepatic caudate lobe HCC who underwent LLR or RFA at three hospitals in China between February 2015 and February 2021 were included. In total, 112 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 52 underwent RFA and 60 underwent LLR. The outcomes of the two groups were compared and analyzed using propensity score matching (PSM) method.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, HBV/HCV positivity, AFP positivity (>100 ng/mL), tumor position, Child-Pugh score, or preoperative liver function tests (ALT, AST, TBIL, ALB, and PT) (p > 0.05). Compared to the LLR group, the RFA group had a shorter operation time, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Despite the larger tumor size, the LLR group had better postoperative recurrence-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.00027) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0023) than the RFA group. After one-to-one PSM, 31 LLR patients and 31 RFA patients were selected for further analyses. The advantages of LLR over RFA were observed in terms of RFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.00029).
conclusionLLR should probably be recommended as the preferred method for solitary caudate lobe HCC.
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.