| Title |
Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background: a propensity score matching study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6296-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xinqiang Wu, Zejian Huang, Wan Yee Lau, Wenda Li, Pai Lin, Lei Zhang, Yajin Chen |
| Abstract |
Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has advanced into a safe and effective alternative to conventional open liver resection (OLR), it has not been widely accepted by surgeons. This article aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term benefits of LLR versus OLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in selected patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background. A retrospective study was conducted on 1085 patients with HCC who underwent liver resection at Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from July 2010 to July 2015, and 346 patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background were selected. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), which is the best option to overcome selection bias, was conducted to compare the surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis between LLR and OLR. After PSM, a logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictive risk factors of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). By using PSM, the two groups were well balanced with 86 patients in each group. In the LLR group, only the median operation time was significantly longer than the OLR group, but the hospital stay, overall morbidity, and the incidence of PHLF were significantly decreased compared to OLR. There were no significant differences in the overall survival and disease-free survival rates between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, OLR was identified to be the only independent risk factor for PHLF. In selected HCC patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background, LLR could be a better option compared to OLR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 55% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,931,319
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#3,042
of 6,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,153
of 326,642 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#59
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,123 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 326,642 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.