ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Indications for and limitations of laparoscopic anatomical liver resection: assessment of postoperative complications stratified by complexity of liver resection.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. 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.
- Adoption of pure laparoscopic liver resections: a single-institution experience with the first 1000 consecutive resections.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Does complexity compromise outcomes in robotic hepatectomy?Surgical endoscopy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough complex anatomical liver resections are more often being performed laparoscopically, the short-term outcomes following laparoscopic anatomical liver resection (LALR), its optimal indications, and limitations remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the indications for and limitations of LALR by assessing the short-term outcomes.
methodsThis retrospective study included 233 patients who underwent LALR. The complexity of LALR was categorized into three levels: Grade I (low), grade II (moderate), and grade III (high). Short-term outcomes were compared among these groups, and the risk factors for severe morbidity were identified.
resultsThe patients' backgrounds were similar across the three groups. Intraoperative blood loss, Pringle maneuver time, and postoperative hospital stay were comparable between grade I (n = 59) and grade II (n = 65) LALR but were greater for grade III (n = 109). The transfusion and conversion rates were similar among the three groups. The operative time increased with the rise in difficulty grade. The rate of severe morbidity was 3.4% in grade I, 6.2% in grade II, and 16.5% in grade III LALR (P = 0.012). Multivariable analysis identified three perioperative risk factors for severe morbidity: Operative time of ≥ 540 min (odds ratio [OR] = 4.762, P = 0.009), intraoperative blood loss of ≥ 350 mL (OR = 3.982, P = 0.024), and preoperative serum albumin of ≤ 3.8 g/dL (OR = 3.518, P = 0.035).
conclusionsGrade II LALR can be performed with the same level of safety as grade I LALR. However, grade III LALR has a higher complication rate than grades I and II LALR, and the risk increases further due to longer operative time and greater blood loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39884993What 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.