ArticleUpdates in surgery2024
Comparison of laparoscopic hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a SEER population-based propensity score matching study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Long-term outcomes of thermal ablationWorld journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Open inguinal hernia repair under ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal block is the procedure of choice in elderly patients.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
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
Abstract
This study was designed to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in terms of their therapeutic effect on small hepatocellular carcinoma (SHCC). The SEER database was employed to integrate SHCC patients who had received treatment with either LH (n = 1132) or RFA (n = 797). The LH group (n = 623) and the RFA group (n = 623) were matched with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) in order to reduce the possibility of selection bias. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression method were employed to ascertain the prognostic factors associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Both before and after PSM, the 1, 3 and 5-years OS and DSS were significantly higher in the LH groups compared to the RFA group. Besides, for SHCC with tumor size ≤ 2cm (n = 418), even P values not reaching statistical significance, the survival curves were compatible with a superiority of LH over RFA for OS and DSS in overall (P = 0.054 and P = 0.077), primary SHCC (P = 0.110 and P = 0.058) and recurrent SHCC (P = 0.068 and P = 1.000) cohorts. In contrast, for SHCC with tumor size between 2 and 3 cm (n = 828), LH group always had a better OS and DSS in the all cohorts (all P < 0.05). In addition, higher AFP level, poor differentiation grade, recurrent tumor and treatment type were independent prognostic factors for OS, while poor differentiation grade, larger tumor size and treatment type were the independent prognostic factors for DSS (all P < 0.05). LH was associated with better OS and DSS than RFA in SHCC patients. Even in tumor size ≤ 2 cm, LH still should be the first choice as its long-term survival benefits.
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.