SynthesisUpdates in surgery2025
Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver tumors: a systematic review of contemporary evidence and technical strategies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Commentary on: "Efficacy and safety of terlipressin infusion during liver surgery: a meta-analysis".Updates in surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLiver resection is still the most effective and curative treatment for recurrent liver cancer, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) offers an option for recurrent liver cancer due to invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based LRLR has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of LRLR compared with laparoscopic and open surgery for recurrent liver cancer by meta-analysis.
methodsRelevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science databases up to January 16th, 2022. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.
results12 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 1315 patients with 602 undergoing LRLR and 713 undergoing open repeat liver resection (ORLR). Compared with ORLR, LRLR had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD - 0.7, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.39; P < 0.0001), shorter hospital stay (SMD - 0.57, 95% CI - 0.88 to - 0.27; P = 0.0002), less overall postoperative complications (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.2-0.68; P = 0.001), and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.5-4.17, P = 0.0004); However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRLR and ORLR regarding operative time (P = 0.68), transfusion rate (P = 0.08), mortality (P = 0.8), and 3-year overall survival (P = 0.72).
conclusionsLRLR has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, complications rate and R0 resection. LRLR is a very useful, safe technology and feasible choice in patients with the recurrent liver cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40796708What 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.