ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Ability of 3-D liver reconstruction to estimate liver resection volume after anatomical minor resection: a prospective study.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic hepatectomy for benign liver disease: single-centre consecutive series and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive and open approaches.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimation of liver resection volume (LRV) is a key step to plane safe liver surgery. Modern 3D liver reconstruction software (3-D) allows to calculate LRV based on the portal blood supply, overcoming some limits of the conventional hand-trace method. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the ability of 3-D to estimate the LRV after minor anatomical resections (mAR). The consistency of virtual LRV (vLRV) and real weighted specimen (rLRV) was evaluated. Factors affecting the median discrepancy between vLRV and rLRV were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included inadequate contrast-enhanced computed tomography, left lateral sectionectomy, and changes in the surgical plan based on intraoperative ultrasound findings. Thirty-five consecutive mARs were analyzed: 4 subsegmentectomies, 9 segmentectomies, and 22 bisegmentectomies. A strong positive correlation was found between vLRV and rLRV (r = 0.945, p < 0.001). The median vLRV and rLRV were 236 mL and 180 mL, respectively. The median discrepancy between vLRV and rLRV was - 38 mL, indicating a slight tendency of the 3D software to overestimate LRV. The median discrepancy was greater in cases of large subglissonian lesions (> 3 cm) (65 mL vs. 22.5 mL for other lesion types, p = 0.028) and bisegmentectomies (60.5 mL vs. 16 mL for segmentectomies/subsegmentectomies, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that bisegmentectomy was the only factor independently associated with increased discrepancy [RR 2.724 (12.8-88.9), p = 0.010]. 3D software provided accurate predictions of liver specimen volume in patients who underwent minor anatomical resections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42010110What 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.