ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis from Eastern and Western referral centers.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with large or huge HCC: a multicenter study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer strategy adherence in hepatocellular carcinoma and its influence on long-term outcomes.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with high-risk pathological features: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of 350 robotic liver resections performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery: clinical outcomes and critical appraisal of the learning curve.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
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
backgroundThere is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC from real-life data from consecutive patients.
methodsData regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from a Korean referral HPB center. Primary outcomes were the postoperative results, while secondary outcomes were the oncologic survivals.
resultsSixty-three patients were included in the study: 46 undergoing OLR and 17 LLR. Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications, and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 48.4 (95% CI 8.9-86.8) months, there were no statistically significant differences in 3 years OS (59.3 ± 8.7 months vs. 85.2 ± 9.8 months) and 5 years OS (31.1 ± 9 months vs. 73.1 ± 14.1 months), after OLR and LLR, respectively (p = 0.10). Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference in both 3 years DFS (23.5% ± 8.1 months vs. 51.6 ± months) and 5 years DFS (15.7 ± 7.1 months vs. 38.7 ± 15.3 months), respectively (p = 0.13), despite a potential clinically significant difference.
conclusionLLR for huge HCC may be safe and effective in selected cases. Further studies with larger sample size and more appropriate design are needed to confirm these results.
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.