Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39333309›Full record

SynthesisSurgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA2024

Clinical implications of aberrant anatomy of the common hepatic duct in liver surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Juan José Valenzuela-Fuenzalida, Constanza Avalos-Díaz, Antonia Droguett-Utreras, Javier Guerra-Loyola, Pablo Nova-Baeza, Mathias Orellana-Donoso, Alejandra Suazo-Santibañez, Gustavo Oyanedel-Amaro, Juan Sanchis-Gimeno, Alejandro Bruna-Mejias and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. A Systematic Review of Gallbladder Anomalies.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Juan José Valenzuela-FuenzalidaDepartamento de morfología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile. Juan.kine.2015@gmail.com.
Constanza Avalos-DíazFacultad de medicina, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile.
Antonia Droguett-UtrerasFacultad de medicina, Universidad de Antofagasta, Antofagasta, Chile.
Javier Guerra-LoyolaDepartamento de morfología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Pablo Nova-BaezaDepartamento de morfología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Mathias Orellana-DonosoEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Finis Terrae, Santiago, 7501015, Chile.
Alejandra Suazo-SantibañezFaculty of Health Sciences, University of the Americas, Santiago, Chile.
Gustavo Oyanedel-AmaroFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago, 7501019, Chile.
Juan Sanchis-GimenoGIAVAL Research Group, Department of Anatomy and Human Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, 46001, Spain.
Alejandro Bruna-MejiasDepartamento de morfología, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Andrés Bello, Santiago, Chile.
Gkionoul Nteli ChatzioglouDepartment of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Health and Technology University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionKnowledge of anatomical variants that affect the hepatic duct (HD) are of particular clinical relevance during hepatobiliary surgical procedures. More specifically, the aberrant anatomy of the common HD is the most common anatomical variation affecting the biliary tree. Below, we describe different classifications of anatomical variants that affect this canal. According to Huang's classification, variations are determined depending on the insertion of the right posterior hepatic duct (RPHD). MATERIALS AND

methodsMedline, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and LILACS databases were investigated until January 2024. The methodological quality was assessed with an anatomical studies assurance tool (AQUA). Pooled prevalence was estimated using a random effects model. For the subgroup analysis, Student's T-test was used.

resultsThe prevalence rate of aberrant hepatic duct (AHD) was 15% (confidence interval [CI] of 7-22%). The first subgroup had cadavers and images. For the cadavers, the prevalence was 15.83% (CI: 11.22-18.3%), while the images had a prevalence of 22.06% (CI: 18.12-25.33%). This subgroup analysis showed no statistically significant difference between these groups (p = 0.127). The second subgroup comprised the continents where the included studies were from. In this subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found (p = 0.613). Finally, regarding the right or left laterality of the HD variant, there were no statistically significant differences (p = 0.089).

conclusionA AHD corresponds to a finding that can occur in a significant percentage of our society, which could be an accidental discovery during surgeries or present asymptomatically throughout life and be a cadaveric discovery later. We believe it is important for surgeons to have prior knowledge of the possible variants of HD to prevent possible complications during and after surgery.

Indexed as

Anatomic VariationHepatic Duct, CommonCadaverHepatectomyHumansLiverPrevalenceAberrant hepatic ductClinical anatomyHepatic left ductRight hepatic ductVariations of the common hepatic duct

Identifiers

PMID39333309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.