ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Current difficulty scoring systems may underestimate the technical complexity of segment 6 laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLaparoscopic hepatectomy is a standard treatment for selected Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Although segment 6 (S6) is generally classified as a favorable location, its deep transection plane, restricted working angle, and proximity to major vessels may increase operative difficulty. This study reassesses the technical complexity of S6 by comparing perioperative outcomes and established scoring systems across liver segments.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy for primary HCC and compared S6, favorable location (FL), and unfavorable location (UFL) groups using the IWATE, Hasegawa, IMM, and SHH scoring systems. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to strengthen the robustness of our findings.
resultsAmong 153 patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC, 32 were in the S6 group, 68 in the UFL group, and 53 in the FL group. S6 was consistently classified as low-to-intermediate difficulty with IWATE scores 6 vs. 9 vs. 6, Hasegawa 3 vs. 4 vs. 1, IMM 2 vs. 2 vs. 1, and SHH 4 vs. 6 vs. 4 (S6 vs. UFL vs. FL). However, S6 showed longer operative time (246 vs. 198 vs. 171 min, p = 0.005), prolonged Pringle time (78 vs. 62 vs. 46 min, p = 0.036), greater blood loss (300 vs. 200 vs. 150 mL, p = 0.011), longer hospital stay (6 vs. 7 vs. 6 days, p = 0.022), and comparable major complication rates (3.1% vs. 4.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.314). These findings suggest that current scoring systems may underestimate the true technical complexity of S6 resections.
conclusionsAlthough S6 has conventionally been considered a favorable anterolateral segment, laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC in this location demonstrated greater operative complexity than predicted by existing difficulty scoring systems. These results suggest that current anatomical classifications may oversimplify segment-specific challenges and support the need for more precise difficulty assessment models that better reflect actual surgical demands.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426399What 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.