Trial reportWorld journal of hepatology2025
Not all reoperative laparoscopic liver resection procedures are feasible for hepatolithiasis patients with a history of biliary surgery.
Trial report in World journal of hepatology, 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.
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
backgroundLaparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been applied in the treatment of hepatolithiasisa in patients with a history of biliary surgery and has already achieved good clinical outcomes. However, reoperative LH (rLH) includes multiple procedures, and the no studies have examined the clinical value of individual laparoscopic procedures.
aimTo evaluate the safety and feasibility of each rLH procedure for hepatolithiasisa in patients with a history of biliary surgery.
methodsPatients with previous biliary surgery who underwent reoperative hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis were studied. Liver resection procedures were divided into three categories: (1) Laparoscopic/open left lateral sectionectomy [reoperative laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (rLLLS)/reoperative open left lateral sectionectomy (rOLLS)]; (2) Laparoscopic/open left hemihepatectomy [reoperative laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (rLLH)/reoperative open left hemihepatectomy (rOLH)]; and (3) Laparoscopic/open complex hepatectomy [reoperative laparoscopic complex hepatectomy (rLCH)/reoperative open complex hepatectomy (rOCH)]. The clinical outcomes were compared between the rLLLS, rLLH, and rLCH groups, and subgroup analyses were performed for the rLLLS/rOLLS, rLLH/rOLH, and rLCH/rOCH subgroups.
resultsA total of 185 patients were studied, including 101 rLH patients (40 rLLLS, 50 rLLH, and 11 rLCH) and 84 reoperative open hepatectomy (40 rOLLS, 33 rOLH, and 11 rOCH). Among the three types of rLH procedure, rLLLS required the shortest operation time (240.0 minutes
conclusionThe rLH is safe for hepatolithiasis patients with a history of biliary surgery. The rLLLS and rLLH can be recommended for these patients, whereas rLCH should be applied with 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.