ArticleBJS open2025
Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients aged at least 80 years: retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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.
- Dynamic changes in frailty and related factors in older patients with liver cancer: A latent transition analysis approach.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: Perioperative Outcomes in the Modern Minimally Invasive Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
59 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity than, and similar global outcomes to, open liver resection. There is no robust evidence that these outcomes lead to similar clinical outcomes in patients aged over 80 years. The aim of this study was to analyse the short-term outcomes between open and laparoscopic liver resection in patients over 80 years old.
methodsA retrospective analysis was undertaken. The study population comprised patients aged ≥ 80 years who underwent laparoscopic or open liver resection between January 2014 and December 2019, and who presented with resectable malignant tumours. The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity, according to Dindo-Clavien grading. Cox regression models were used to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Propensity score matching (1 : 1) was performed to balance the two groups according to independent prognostic factors for morbidity.
resultsA total of 988 patients were analysed from 34 centres (16 from Asia, 14 from Europe and 4 from America): 487 in the open group and 501 in the laparoscopic group. Independent risk factors associated with severe morbidity were the open approach (hazard ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 2.11; P < 0.001), Charlson Co-morbidity Index score > 7 (HR 1.69, 1.26 to 2.27; P < 0.001), more than one resected tumour (hazard ratio 1.55, 1.13 to 2.11; P = 0.006), major hepatectomy (hazard ratio 1.86, 1.22 to 2.83; P = 0.003), and Iwate score ≥ 7 (hazard ratio 1.43, 1.02 to 2.01; P = 0.03). Before propensity score matching, severe morbidity, length of intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and readmission were better in the laparoscopic group (P < 0.050). These observations were confirmed after propensity score matching.
conclusionThe laparoscopic approach is a safe procedure for elderly patients, with better morbidity and mortality outcomes than the open approach, and should be considered as a default option.
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.