ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Benefits of laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumors in obese patients: a meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Better outcomes of robotic liver resection in segment VII/VIII compared to open and laparoscopic approach.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Clinicopathologic differences before and after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy according to obesity.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Indocyanine green-assisted liver resection for colorectal liver metastases and factors associated with resection margin: a single-center retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 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
Objective: The superiority of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in obese patients remains controversial. The study aims to assess the available literature and compare the perioperative outcomes of LLR and OLR for liver tumors in obese patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies comparing LLR and OLR. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Nine studies were included, with a total of 1116 patients (LLR group: 482 patients; OLR group: 634 patients). Compared with OLR, LLR has lower overall morbidity (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34, 0.64), major complications (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25, 0.82), surgical site infection (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07, 0.48), bile leak (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22, 0.95), less blood loss (MD, -329.12 mL; 95% CI, -623.35, -34.88), and shorter length of stay (MD, -5.20 days; 95% CI, -7.43, -2.97). There were no significant differences in mortality, operation time, liver failure, and blood transfusion between the two groups. Conclusions: LLR for obese patients is safe and feasible. Compared to OLR, it offers better short-term outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials to verify the potential advantages of LLR over OLR are warranted.
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.