Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39398946›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2024

Total hepatic inflow occlusion vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion for laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ting An, Jie Liu, Liwei Feng

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Ting AnDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jie LiuDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Liwei FengDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The control of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is still a focus of research. However, the advantages of the main bleeding control methods, including total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) vs. hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO), during LLR remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who received TIO and patients who received HIO. This meta-analysis searched the Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Ovid, and Cochrane Library databases. The language of the studies was restricted to English, and comparative studies of patients treated with TIO and HIO during LLR were included. The primary outcome was to compare the intraoperative details, such as the operative time, occlusion time, and volume of blood loss, between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, ascites, pleural effusion, and hospital stay. Five studies including 667 patients, 419 (62.82%) of whom received TIO and 248 (37.18%) of whom received HIO, were included in the analysis. The demographic data, including age, sex, hemoglobin, total bilirubin, albumin, and alpha-fetoprotein, were comparable. No significant differences noted in operative time, occlusion time, volume of blood loss, conversion, overall complications, liver failure, biliary leakage, hemorrhage, ascites, or pleural effusion. The hospital stay in patients who received HIO was significantly shorter than that for patients who received TIO [mean difference (MD), 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.87;

Indexed as

hemihepatic inflow occlusionlaparoscopicliver resectionmeta-analysistotal hepatic inflow occlusion

Identifiers

PMID39398946
PMCPMC11467754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.