ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Comparing laparoscopic and open resection in elderly hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 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.
- Pooled it
- Minimally invasive surgery in the elderly population in Korea: temporal trends across major abdominal surgeries.Journal of minimally invasive 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been accepted as a safe and effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its impact on elderly patients remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in elderly HCC patients. Methods: We conducted a search across the Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies involving primary HCC in elderly patients (≥65 years). Efficacy-related outcomes encompassed overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), while safety-related outcomes included post-operative mortality, complications, and length of stay (LOS). Results: We identified nine eligible cohort studies comprising 1,599 patients. LLR demonstrated comparable 3- and 5-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR) =1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98-1.02; HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.05] and 3- and 5-year OS (HR =1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.02; HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06, respectively) compared to OLR. In terms of safety, there was no significant difference between LLR and OLR in in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR) =0.19; 95% CI: 0.02-1.69], 30-day mortality (OR =0.33; 95% CI: 0.03-3.20), and 90-day mortality (OR =0.70; 95% CI: 0.32-1.53). Additionally, LLR presented fewer overall complications (OR =0.53; 95% CI: 0.41-0.67), a lower rate of major complications (OR =0.51; 95% CI: 0.35-0.74), a reduced incidence of liver failure (OR =0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.94), and a shorter LOS compared to OLR (mean difference: -14.47 days). Conclusions: LLR exhibited comparable clinical efficacy and superior safety and fewer complications when compared to OLR in elderly patients with HCC requiring surgery.
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.