ArticleBMC surgery2026
Laparoscopic anatomical liver resection versus enucleation in the treatment of giant hepatic hemangioma larger than 10 cm: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHepatic hemangiomas (HH) are the most common benign liver tumors. This study aimed to provide a clinical basis for selecting the most appropriate surgical approach for managing giant hepatic hemangiomas (> 10 cm).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 126 patients with giant hepatic hemangiomas treated at our hospital between January 2019 and May 2025. Of these, 54 had right hemi-hepatic hemangiomas, and 72 had left hemi-hepatic hemangiomas. Patients were divided into laparoscopic anatomical liver resection (LR) and laparoscopic hemangioma enucleation (LE) groups based on surgical approaches. Intraoperative parameters, postoperative outcomes, length of hospital stay, and complication rates were compared between the two groups.
resultsNo cases required conversion to open surgery. In patients with right hemi-hepatic hemangiomas, LE showed significantly shorter operative time [230.0 (175.0, 280.0) vs. 355.0 (235.0, 555.0) min, P = 0.001], shorter occlusion time [30.0 (15.0, 45.0) vs. 55.0 (45.0, 77.5) min, P < 0.05], less blood loss [200 vs. 300 mL, P < 0.001], and fewer autologous blood transfusions [12 vs. 15, P < 0.05] compared to LR. In contrast, no significant differences were observed in operative or postoperative outcomes between LR and LE for left hemi-hepatic hemangiomas (P > 0.05). Overall, across the entire cohort, there were no significant differences in operative time, occlusion time, hospital stay, or complication rates between LR and LE groups.
conclusionBoth LR and LE are safe and effective for treating giant hepatic hemangiomas. However, LE is particularly recommended for right hemi-hepatic hemangiomas, due to shorter operative and occlusion times, reduced intraoperative blood loss, and greater preservation of normal liver tissue.
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.