SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2024
Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma within Milan criteria: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation or transarterial chemoembolization for early multinodular BCLC-A hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Article
- Comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Minimally invasive techniques have significantly gained popularity for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on the Milan criteria. However, whether or not laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a better treatment option remains debatable. We conducted a meta-analysis to review the published data comparing LLR and RFA for HCC through Milan criteria depending on tumor recurrence risk and survival. Methods: PubMed, OvidSP, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to December 31, 2023. The studies comparing the outcomes and methods between LLR and RFA for HCC within the Milan criteria were included. Results: We recruited 19 cohort studies with 2532 patients. The postoperative complication rate was low, and hospital stays were shorter in the RFA group than in the LLR group. The total tumor recurrence, the local tumor recurrence rate, and the intrahepatic tumor recurrence rate were lower within the LLR group than in the RFA group. There was no significant difference in the extrahepatic recurrence rate between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were observed between the groups concerning 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) and 1-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). However, 3-year and 5-year RFS were better within the LLR group than among the RFA group. Conclusions: The treatment of HCC within the Milan criteria is moving toward multidisciplinary and minimally invasive approaches. Our meta-analysis identified a lower postoperative complication rate and higher recurrence rate for RFA than LLR. RFA could be an alternative treatment due to its comparable long-term efficacy with LLR.
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.