ArticleSurgery today2024
A clinical assessment of three-dimensional-printed liver model navigation for thrice or more repeated hepatectomy based on a conversation analysis.
Article in Surgery today, 2024. 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.
- Imaging-based 3D-printed anatomical models for preoperative planning in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery: a single-center pilot study, cost analysis, and systematic review.La Radiologia medica · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of three-dimensional hepatic models on oncological outcomes and survival after hepatectomy: Prognostic factor analysis in a retrospective cohort.Annals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposesWe performed a conversation analysis of the speech conducted among the surgical team during three-dimensional (3D)-printed liver model navigation for thrice or more repeated hepatectomy (TMRH).
methodsSeventeen patients underwent 3D-printed liver navigation surgery for TMRH. After transcription of the utterances recorded during surgery, the transcribed utterances were coded by the utterer, utterance object, utterance content, sensor, and surgical process during conversation. We then analyzed the utterances and clarified the association between the surgical process and conversation through the intraoperative reference of the 3D-printed liver.
resultsIn total, 130 conversations including 1648 segments were recorded. Utterance coding showed that the operator/assistant, 3D-printed liver/real liver, fact check (F)/plan check (Pc), visual check/tactile check, and confirmation of planned resection or preservation target (T)/confirmation of planned or ongoing resection line (L) accounted for 791/857, 885/763, 1148/500, 1208/440, and 1304/344 segments, respectively. The utterance's proportions of assistants, F, F of T on 3D-printed liver, F of T on real liver, and Pc of L on 3D-printed liver were significantly higher during non-expert surgeries than during expert surgeries. Confirming the surgical process with both 3D-printed liver and real liver and performing planning using a 3D-printed liver facilitates the safe implementation of TMRH, regardless of the surgeon's experience.
conclusionsThe present study, using a unique conversation analysis, provided the first evidence for the clinical value of 3D-printed liver for TMRH for anatomical guidance of non-expert surgeons.
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.