ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with sarcopenia: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sarcopenia identifies patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have reduced physiological reserve and an increased risk of adverse outcomes after hepatectomy. However, whether laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with better perioperative and long-term outcomes than open liver resection (OLR) in this vulnerable population remains uncertain. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive adults with pathologically confirmed HCC and preoperative computed tomography-defined sarcopenia who underwent curative-intent liver resection at a high-volume center in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). One-to-one propensity score matching was used as the primary adjustment method, with overlap weighting and stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting as sensitivity analyses. Results: Among 285 patients, 110 underwent LLR and 175 underwent OLR. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower estimated blood loss (median, 150 vs. 200 mL), a shorter postoperative hospital stay (12 vs. 13 days), and fewer Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II complications (20.9% vs. 34.3%), whereas major complications, anatomical resection rates, and wide resection margins were comparable. After propensity score matching, 96 patients were retained in each group. During a median follow-up of approximately 55 months, LLR was associated with longer RFS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.84) and OS (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.87). Similar associations were observed in the overlap-weighted and stabilized inverse probability-weighted analyses. Conclusion: Among selected HCC patients with computed tomography-defined sarcopenia, LLR was associated with a lower perioperative burden and favorable long-term outcomes without an apparent compromise in major morbidity or technical oncologic quality. Prospective multicenter studies are required to confirm these findings and determine whether reduced surgical stress contributes to preservation of muscle health and functional recovery.
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.