SynthesisWorld journal of surgery2026
Laparoscopic Versus Open Parenchymal-Preserving Liver Resection for Tumors in the Posterosuperior Segments a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity Score-Matched Studies.
Synthesis in World journal of 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for posterosuperior (PS) segments remains technically challenging. Prior meta-analyses comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) often incorporated unmatched retrospective data, introducing severe selection bias, and predated recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the safety, short-term recovery, and oncological efficacy of LLR versus OLR specifically for parenchymal-preserving liver resection in PS segments (Couinaud segments 1, 4a, 7, and 8).
methodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through March 2026. Inclusion was strictly limited to RCTs and propensity score-matched (PSM) retrospective cohorts comparing LLR and OLR for tumors in PS segments. Major hepatectomies were intentionally excluded. Evaluated outcomes included estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), length of hospital stay (LOS), and R0 resection rate.
resultsSixteen studies (2 RCTs, 14 PSM cohorts) encompassing 2372 patients (LLR = 1125; OLR = 1247) were included. In the PSM cohort, LLR significantly reduced EBL (MD = -161.07 mL; p < 0.00001) and major complications (OR = 0.55; p = 0.002), whereas RCTs showed no statistical difference but exhibited extreme heterogeneity. Both study designs confirmed LLR significantly shortened LOS (RCT: MD = -1.50 days, p = 0.003; PSM: MD = -2.30 days, p < 0.00001). For tumors isolated in segments 7 and 8, LLR required marginally longer operative time (MD = 32.59 min; p = 0.09). Oncological radicality was identical between approaches in the PSM cohorts with zero statistical heterogeneity (I
conclusionsLLR for parenchymal-preserving resection of PS liver tumors offers a highly favorable risk-to-benefit profile. Despite a modest increase in operative time, LLR significantly reduces blood loss, lowers major complication rates, and accelerates hospital discharge without compromising R0 resection rates. This minimally invasive approach should be strongly considered as a safe alternative to OLR in specialized, high-volume hepatobiliary centers performing over 30 to 50 of these procedures annually.
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.