ArticleCureus2024
Spray-Type Adhesion Barrier Enhances Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Repeat Liver Resection: Initial Experience and Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Article
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
Background Although various types of adhesion barriers are widely utilized in liver surgery, the safety and feasibility of their use during repeat robotic liver resection (R-RLR) are still unknown. Methods Among the 68 patients undergoing RLR with the application of the spray-type adhesion barrier at Kokura Memorial Hospital, Kitakyushu, Japan, between 2021 and 2023, 24 cases that underwent R-RLR were included in this study. The included patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent previous hepatectomy with the use of a spray-type adhesion barrier (R-RLR-B, n = 14) and those without its previous use (R-RLR-NB, n = 10). The perioperative outcomes were compared between the groups. Results There were no differences between the R-RLR-B and R-RLR-NB groups in background characteristics, difficulty scores, operative and console time, or surgical blood loss. Although no difference was found between the groups in the time required for adhesiolysis before the robotic operation, both the time required for robotic adhesiolysis (75 minutes vs. 58 minutes, p = 0.034) and total time for adhesiolysis (192 minutes vs. 141 minutes, p = 0.014) were significantly shorter in the R-RLR-B group than in the R-RLR-NB group. Otherwise, there was no conversion to open hepatectomy, no intraoperative transfusion of red blood cells, no cases of grade B or C post-hepatectomy liver failure, and no mortality in the whole cohort. Conclusions The spray-type adhesion barrier may not be associated with an increase in the incidence of postoperative complications, including bile leakage or intraperitoneal abscess. In addition, its application during the previous hepatectomy can facilitate a secure R-RLR with reduced time for adhesiolysis. Thus, the use of the spray-type adhesion barrier for R-RLR is safe, effective, and time efficient.
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.