ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
A snapshot on current approaches to lymphadenectomy in liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: results from an international survey.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Robotic Hepatoduodenal and Cardinal Lymphadenectomy during Hepatectomy for Left-Sided Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of lymphadenectomy (LND) during resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still debated, leading to differing practices in different centers and countries. The aim of this study was to assess such differences. A survey on LND for ICC was distributed to the members of the International Hepato-PancreatoBiliary Association (IHPBA) and the Italian Chapter of IHPBA (AICEP). Two-hundred thirty-four surgeons completed the survey (88% males; median age 46 years). Preoperative nodal staging was deemed mandatory/very important by 65%. Adequate LND was defined as hepatoduodenal ligament LND by 33%, LND at specific nodal stations by 28% and retrieval of > 5 nodes by 28%. The decision to perform LND was influenced by comorbidities (48%), chronic liver disease (38%) and satellitosis (32%). Most participants modify perioperative management in case of clinically positive nodes, 50% stating they would give neoadjuvant therapy. The role of LND in clinically node negative disease was adequate staging for 88%, survival benefit for 50.5% and clinical trials eligibility for 18.5%. Our survey confirms heterogeneity in the evaluation of role and extent of LND for ICC, how this relates to subjective perception of importance of LND, and need of a systematic approach in this area.
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.