ArticleJournal of hepatocellular carcinoma2024
Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Anatomical versus Non-Anatomical Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma, 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.
- Transforming liver cancer care: long-term outcomes of robotic liver resection for hepatocellular cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of lymphatic vessel density in the capsule of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for postoperative recurrence risk.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes between laparoscopic anatomical liver resection (LAR) and laparoscopic non-anatomical liver resection (LNAR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 1773 patients, from January 2009 to December 2017, were assessed for inclusion. After exclusions, 661 patients were included: 304 patients received LAR and 357 patients received LNAR. Propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the selection bias between LAR and LNAR groups. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used for survival analysis. Results: After PSM, 250 patients were in LAR or LNAR group, respectively. The overall survival (OS) had no significant difference between LAR and LNAR by Kaplan-Meier analysis. While, LAR had better disease-free survival (DFS) compared with LNAR (Log-rank P=0.035). The cumulative 5-year DFS rates were 48% for LAR, and 38% for LNAR. By Cox analysis, LAR was an independent risk factor of DFS (HR=1.308, P=0.030). In subgroup analysis for tumor size ≤ 5 cm, 207 patients were in LAR or LNAR subgroup after PSM. LAR had better DFS compared with LNAR (Log-rank P=0.033). LAR was an independent risk factor of DFS (HR=1.333, P=0.036). The cumulative 5-year DFS rates were 50% for LAR, and 39% for LNAR. In another subgroup analysis for tumor size > 5 cm, 43 patients were in LAR or LNAR subgroup after PSM. The DFS had no significant difference between LAR and LNAR (Log-rank P=0.912). Conclusion: LAR is preferred for HCC patients with tumor size ≤5cm compared with LNAR because of the better DFS. For patients with tumor size >5cm, LAR and LNAR might be alternative procedures with comparable long-term outcomes.
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.