| Title |
Combined Portal Vein Resection for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11605-013-2202-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiang-Song Wu, Ping Dong, Jun Gu, Mao-Lan Li, Wen-Guang Wu, Jian-Hua Lu, Jia-Sheng Mu, Qi-Chen Ding, Lin Zhang, Qian Ding, Hao Weng, Ying-Bin Liu |
| Abstract |
Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) frequently invades into the adjacent portal vein, and portal vein resection (PVR) is the only way to manage this condition and achieve negative resection margins. However, the safety and effectiveness of PVR is controversial. Studies analyzing the effect of PVR on the surgical and pathological outcomes in the management of HCCA with gross portal vein involvement were considered eligible for this meta-analysis. The outcome variables analyzed included postoperative morbidity, mortality, survival rate, proportion of R0 resection, lymph node metastasis, microscopic vascular invasion, and perineural invasion. From 11 studies, 371 patients who received PVR and 1,029 who did not were identified and analyzed. Data from patients who received combined PVR correlated with higher postoperative death rates (OR = 2.31; 95 % CI, 1.21-4.43; P = 0.01) and more advanced tumor stage. No significant difference was detected in terms of morbidity, proportion of R0 resection, or 5-year survival rate. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that in centers with more experience or studies published after 2007, combined PVR did not cause significantly higher postoperative death. No strong evidence could suggest that combined PVR leads to more morbidity or mortality for patients with HCCA when the portal vein is grossly involved. In addition, combined PVR is oncologically valuable because R0 resection and 5-year survival did not differ significantly between two cohorts, despite the fact that the PVR cohort consisted of patients with more advanced HCCA. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 23 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 52% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2013.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#2,085
of 2,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,789
of 209,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
#23
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.