ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a multicenter propensity score-matched analysis from Eastern and Western referral centers.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity-score-matched studies.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical Resection of a Giant Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an 89-Year-Old Patient with Multiple Comorbidities: The Role of Frailty Assessment and Preoperative Optimisation-A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Elective Laparoscopic Resection Following Transarterial Embolization and Anticoagulation for a Giant Hepatocellular Adenoma with Hemorrhage and Venous Thrombosis: A Case Report.Surgical case reports · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long- term outcomes of MILS versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC.
methodsData regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from Asian (South Korean) and European (Italian and French) referral HPB centers. The cases were propensity score matched for age, center, extent of the resection, tumor size, and tumor number.
resultsA total of 198 patients were included in the study. Before matching there were statistically significant differences in tumor size (p < 0.01) and rates of major hepatectomies performed (p = 0.03). After PSM two cohorts of 39 patients were obtained, with no statistically significant differences in all the compared preoperative characteristics. No significant differences were found in terms of major complications, in-hospital mortality, and operative time, between the matched cohorts. The median length of hospital stay was significantly lower after MILS (7 vs. 10 days, p < 0.01), as well as the median intraoperative estimated blood loss (500 ml vs 800 ml, respectively; p = 0.02) and the rates of intraoperative transfusions (25.6% vs 48.7%, respectively; p = 0.03). After a median follow-up of 52 months, there were no significant differences between OLR and MILS in median OS (44 vs. 93.6 months, respectively; p = 0.07). Median DFS was improved after MILS (49.8 vs. 7 months, respectively; p < 0.01).
conclusionMILS for huge HCC can be safe and effective in selected cases in referral centers, being able to reduce intraoperative blood loss, and to shorten median hospital stay.
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.