ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with large or huge HCC: a multicenter study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare both perioperative and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with large (5-10 cm) or huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
methodsThis study analyzed consecutive patients with large or huge HCC who underwent either LLR or OLR across eight medical centers between January 2015 and December 2021. Clinical data were collected from prospectively maintained databases. To address potential selection bias inherent in retrospective studies, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.
resultsWe enrolled 560 patients undergoing OLR and 421 patients undergoing LLR based on predefined inclusion criteria. After PSM (369 patients per group), the LLR group demonstrated superior perioperative outcomes compared to the OLR group, including significantly reduced operative duration, decreased intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospitalization. Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between approaches, with no significant differences in overall survival (OS) or recurrence-free survival (RFS). Multivariate Cox regression identified several independent prognostic factors for both OS and RFS: serum alpha-fetoprotein > 400 ng/mL, tumor size (both 5-10 cm and > 10 cm), multifocal disease, and microvascular invasion. Subgroup analyses confirmed the advantages of LLR across tumor size categories. For large HCC, LLR patients exhibited significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays. Similarly, in huge HCC, the LLR group showed reduced blood loss and faster recovery compared to the OLR group.
conclusionLLR is a safe and effective alternative to OLR for selected patients with large or huge HCC, offering superior perioperative outcomes while maintaining equivalent long-term survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41408435What 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.