ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparison of a novel endoscopic approach versus laparoscopic deroofing for symptomatic simple hepatic cysts.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic hepatic cyst deroofing (LHCD) stands as the preferred treatment modality for simple hepatic cysts (SHCs), but it has limitations. This study aimed to introduce endoscopic transgastric hepatic cyst deroofing (ETGHCD) as a minimally invasive alternative and to compare its safety and efficacy with LHCD in treating SHCs.
methodsWe retrospectively enrolled 10 patients with 15 symptomatic SHCs treated by ETGHCD and 53 patients with 72 SHCs treated by LHCD at Shanghai General Hospital from June 2021 to August 2024. Based on anatomical complexity, patients were categorized into a standard-difficulty laparoscopy group (S2, S3, S5, S6, S4-inferior) and a high-difficulty laparoscopy group (S1, S7, S8, S4-superior). Comparisons were performed in patient characteristics, treatment outcomes, and follow-up data in each group.
resultsETGHCD and LHCD were comparable in safety and both achieved a 100% success rate with complete symptom relief, with no serious complications reported. Notably, the ETGHCD group exhibited significantly lower post-procedure pain scores (0.40 ± 0.52) than the LHCD group (5.81 ± 2.94). During a median follow-up of 22.4 months, no symptom recurrences occurred in the ETGHCD group, whereas 3 patients (5.7%) in the LHCD group experienced recurrences. Both treatments significantly reduced cyst volume (ETGHCD: 85.97 ± 10.93%, LHCD: 77.28 ± 27.22%). Stratified analysis by liver segment revealed that ETGHCD achieved more favorable outcomes for the patients in the high-difficulty laparoscopy group, but no difference for the patients in the standard-difficulty laparoscopy group.
conclusionETGHCD demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy to LHCD in treating SHCs, with reduced post-procedure pain and potential benefits for treating SHCs in S1, S7, S8, S4-superior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40355736What 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.