Clinical response after laparoscopic fenestration of symptomatic hepatic cysts: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic fenestration is one of the treatment options for symptomatic hepatic cysts, either solitary or in context of polycystic liver disease (PLD), but indications, efficacy and surgical techniques are under debate. METHODS: A systematic literature search (1950-2017) of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library was performed (CRD42017071305). Studies assessing symptomatic relief or symptomatic recurrence after laparoscopic fenestration in patients with symptomatic, non-parasitic, hepatic cysts were included. Complications were scored according to Clavien-Dindo. Methodological quality was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random effects model for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Out of 5277 citations, 62 studies with a total of 1314 patients were included. Median NOS-score was 6 out of 9. Median follow-up duration was 30 months. Symptomatic relief after laparoscopic fenestration was 90.2% (95% CI 84.3-94.9). Symptomatic recurrence was 9.6% (95% CI 6.9-12.8) and reintervention rate was 7.1% (95% CI 5.0-9.4). Post-operative complications occurred in 10.8% (95% CI 8.1-13.9) and major complications in 3.3% (95% CI 2.1-4.7) of patients. Procedure-related mortality was 1.0% (95% CI 0.5-1.6). In a subgroup analysis of PLD patients (n = 146), symptomatic recurrence and reintervention rates were significantly higher with respective rates of 33.7% (95% CI 18.7-50.4) and 26.4% (95% CI 12.6-43.0). Complications were more frequent in PLD patients, with a rate of 29.3% (95% CI 16.0-44.5). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic fenestration is an effective procedure for treatment of symptomatic hepatic cysts with a low symptomatic recurrence rate. The symptomatic recurrence rate and risk of complications are significantly higher in PLD patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".