ArticleScientific reports2024
Laparoscopic versus open surgery for liver resection: a multicenter cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal symptom dynamics in postoperative patients with liver cancer: A cross-lagged panel network analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Efficacy of glutamine supplementation in postoperative patients undergoing hepatic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for benign liver disease: an international bicentric study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2026Article
- Better outcomes of robotic liver resection in segment VII/VIII compared to open and laparoscopic approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Outcomes of bile duct-guided right hepatic inflow occlusion and extended procedures in laparoscopic liver surgery.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) combined with radiofrequency ablation versus traditional radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 3 cm: a phase III randomized controlled trial.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The relative risk and benefits of Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative and survival outcomes for three primary malignant liver tumors related outcomes following LLR. Data from three Homogeneous-High-Volume-Expert-Centers were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for the association between LLR, and major complications defined as Clavien-Dindo Classification grade ≥ II. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to explore the impact of LLR on primary malignant liver tumor survival. Overall, 5886 patients underwent liver resection, of which 1991 underwent LLR. After adjusting for covariables, LLR had significantly lower rate of CDC grade ≥ II (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.48-0.67, P < 0.001). Interaction analysis showed that LLR had significant association with sex, drinking status, history of abdominal surgery, and platelet count (all P < 0.05). The overall survival for each primary malignant liver tumor shown potential risk but without significantly different between LLR and OLR (all P > 0.05). LLR was associated with lower rate of major complications, especially in women, non-drinkers, those without a history of abdominal surgery, and those with normal platelet. For primary malignant liver tumors, the survival outcomes did not differ significantly between LLR and OLR.
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.