ArticleUpdates in surgery2025
Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large (≥ 5 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Surgical Resection of a Giant Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an 89-Year-Old Patient with Multiple Comorbidities: The Role of Frailty Assessment and Preoperative Optimisation-A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: Perioperative Outcomes in the Modern Minimally Invasive Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- 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 laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with large or huge HCC: a multicenter study.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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large (≥ 5 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly (≥ 70 years old) patients have not been deeply investigated so far. The aim of the study was to compare short- and long-term results of LLR vs. open liver resection (OLR) in this setting. Data regarding all patients undergoing liver resection for large HCC were retrospectively collected from referral European and Asian HPB centers. The cases were propensity score matched for age, BMI, center, underlying liver cirrhosis, comorbidities, extent of the resection, tumor size, and numbers. After matching 363 patients with large HCC aged ≥ 70 years old, two cohorts of 90 patients were compared. The laparoscopic group showed a shorter median length of hospital stay (7 vs 9 days, p = 0.01), with a lower rate of R1 resections (4.4% vs 13.3%, p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found in the median operative time (p = 0.34), intraoperative blood transfusions (p = 1.00), severe postoperative complications (p = 0.29), postoperative hemorrhage (p = 0.30), post-hepatectomy liver failure (p = 0.47), or in-hospital mortality (p = 0.31). After a median follow-up of 35 months (95% CI 27.6-42.3), there were no statistically significant differences in both overall survival (p = 0.28) and disease-free survival (p = 0.42). LLR was safe and effective in selected cases of large HCC in elderly patients and was proven to shorten median hospital stay and to reduce the R1 rates, without affecting both short- and long-term survival outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40172781What 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.