SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation to percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07238894 (Peking University People's Hospital Breast Surgery Department), which is not on this 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.
Peking University People's Hospital Breast Surgery Department
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis from Eastern and Western referral centers.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Outcomes of robotic liver resection and intraoperative radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterior segments VII and VIII.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The comparative evaluation of laparoscopic and percutaneous techniques for liver radiofrequency ablation remains unexplored. This study aims to determine the most effective ablation technique and patient selection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by analyzing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA). Methods: Two investigators (Y-QW and PZ) independently performed a literature search in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted with Review Manager 5.4, applying either fixed- or random-effects models depending on study heterogeneity. The chi-square test (χ²) and I² statistics were employed for heterogeneity analysis. Results: Eight publications involving 1059 patients were included. Among them, 456 underwent LRFA and 603 underwent PRFA. LRFA showed a significantly better 3-year RFS than PRFA (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.27-2.83, p = 0.002), the incidence rate of local recurrence was significantly fewer in the LRFA group (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23-0.69, p = 0.0010), but the postoperative hospital stay time was slightly shorter in the PFRA group (MD = 1.30; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.35; p=0. 01). Patients in the LRFA group had no significant difference in total postoperative complications, ablation success rates, overall survival (OS) and 1,5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Conclusion: Both LRFA and PRFA are effective treatments for HCC. LRFA shows better oncologic outcomes, including lower local recurrence and improved mid-term DFS. PRFA is simpler, less invasive and shorter hospital stays. The choice should be tailored to individual patient needs, considering tumor characteristics, comorbidities, and available expertise. Future research should focus on large-scale, prospective trials to validate these findings. Systematic review and registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42024601797.
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.