Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39548479›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2024

Comparison of the outcomes between ultrasonic devices and clamping in hepatectomy: a meta-analysis.

Zhang-Neng Yu, Liang-Liang Xu, Lian Li, Hua Zhang, Yong-Yuan Ma, Liang Wang, Jin-Ting Jiang, Ming Zhang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Zhang-Neng YuDivision of Liver Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Liang-Liang XuDivision of Liver Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Lian LiDivision of Liver Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Hua ZhangKey Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Yong-Yuan MaWest China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Liang WangDivision of Liver Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Jin-Ting JiangWest China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Ming ZhangDivision of Liver Surgery, Department of General Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. zmhxdoctor@wchscu.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in ultrasound technology have led to widespread adoption of ultrasonic energy devices in liver resections. While various studies have assessed the comparative advantages of ultrasonic devices and traditional clamp-crushing, their findings vary. Moreover, a specific systematic review on this topic has not yet been conducted.

objectivesThis study aims to present a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis comparing outcomes between ultrasonic devices and conventional clamp-crushing methods in liver resection, based on currently available literature. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in databases such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to November 2023. Studies that compared the efficacy or safety of ultrasonic devices against traditional clamp-crushing methods in hepatectomy were included. The analysis covered intraoperative outcomes like operating time, blood loss, and transfusion rate, as well as postoperative outcomes such as complication rate, mortality, postoperative bleeding, and bile leakage. Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) and Stata 17.0 (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA) were used for data analysis.

resultsThirteen studies, involving a total of 1,417 patients (630 using ultrasonic devices and 787 using clamp-crushing methods), were included. The clamp-crush method resulted in a shorter operation time. Contrarily, the ultrasonic device group experienced reduced blood loss and lower transfusion rates. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in mortality or postoperative bleeding between the groups. However, the ultrasonic group had a lower overall complication rate, particularly a reduced incidence of bile leakage. Overall, the ultrasonic devices were associated with improved perioperative outcomes.

conclusionsThe findings suggest that ultrasonic devices provide better outcomes in hepatectomy compared to traditional clamp-crushing techniques. Nonetheless, large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results due to potential heterogeneity and biases. The choice of using ultrasonic devices should consider the surgeon's experience and individual patient circumstances.

Indexed as

HepatectomyBlood Loss, SurgicalConstrictionHumansLiver NeoplasmsOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsUltrasonic Surgical ProceduresUltrasonic TherapyClampLiver neoplasmLiver resectionUltrasonic

Identifiers

PMID39548479
PMCPMC11568570

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.