ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2025
Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic central hepatectomy: a comparison with open surgery.
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic counterclockwise modular mesohepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a standardized anatomical approach (with video).Frontiers in 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeLaparoscopic liver resection has advantages over open liver resection, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. Laparoscopic central hepatectomy (CH) is a highly challenging procedure, and such outcomes can only be achieved with a high level of expertise in laparoscopic liver surgery. Laparoscopic CH remains challenging, with safety and efficacy unclear. This study retrospectively evaluated the intra- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open CH and assessed safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery.
methodsCH included anterior sectionectomy (AS) and central bisectionectomy (CBS) (excluding cases with biliary reconstruction). The study comprised 38 patients receiving CH in our department from January 2010 to November 2023.
resultsThe laparoscopic group included 14 cases and the open group 24. AS/CBS was performed in 14/10 open group cases and 6/8 laparoscopic group cases. Short-term surgical outcomes showed no significant between-group difference in operative time, but the laparoscopic group lost significantly less blood (250 vs. 985 mL; p = 0.001) and the transfusion rate was lower (14% vs. 46%; p = 0.004). Among postoperative outcomes, incidence of bile leakage was not significantly different (33% vs. 42%; p = 0.42), but the laparoscopic group had significantly less postoperative ascites (0% vs. 17%; p = 0.047), fewer surgical site infections (SSI) (0% vs. 21%; p = 0.02), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (14 vs. 30 days; p = 0.005). The risk factor for bile leakage in CH by univariate and multivariate analysis was tumor proximity to the right anterior Glissonean pedicle (OR = 6.84; 95% CI = 1.67-32.7; p = 0.01).
conclusionLaparoscopic CH could be performed safely. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic CH was effective in reducing blood loss, postoperative ascites, SSIs, and shortening postoperative hospital stay. However, tumors close to the root of the right anterior Glissonean pedicle were considered a risk factor for postoperative bile leakage and require caution.
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.