Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity-score matched studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcomes of elderly (≥65 years) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR) are debated. We compared the surgical and oncological outcomes after LLR and OLR in elderly HCC patients based on matched cohort studies that performed propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS: A computer search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases until January 31, 2022, was conducted using a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and other terms. The Newcastle-Ottawa literature evaluation scale was used for quality assessment of the included studies that met the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria. The postoperative LLR and OLR markers after PSM were summarized. RESULTS: Seven matched cohort studies were included. There were 1346 patients after PSM, of which 673 (50%) underwent LLR and 673 (50%) underwent OLR. All studies were of high quality. For surgical outcomes, the length of surgery was longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (RR = 29.47, 95% CI = 26.55-32.39, P < 0.00001), but the length of hospitalization was significantly shorter (RR = -1.05,95% CI = -1.24 to -0.86, P < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and severe complications were significantly fewer (RR = 0.69,95% CI = 0.60-0.79, P < 0.00001; RR = 0.49,95% CI = 0.35-0.71, P = 0.0001, respectively). There were no significant differences in overall survival or disease-free survival between the two groups (HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.63-1.21, P = 0.41; HR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.69-1.08, P = 0.20, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with HCC, LLR was associated with better surgical outcomes than OLR, but there was no significant difference in oncological outcomes. LLR should be the preferred surgical method for elderly patients with HCC.
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 | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".