RF Safe

Radiofrequency-assisted liver resections: comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques.

Hepato-gastroenterology · 2014 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream
UnclearLow evidencePaper 3048

In 134 radiofrequency-assisted liver resections (47 laparoscopic, 87 open), mean blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic group (68.7 mL) with a statistically significant difference (p=0.046). Length of stay was 7.5 vs 8.7 days (p=0.071). Five-year survival (…

Study snapshot

PublicationHepato-gastroenterology · 2014
Study typecohort
Reported directionUnclear
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: After the first reported laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) twenty years ago, liver surgery still remains one of the last areas of resistance to the offensive of laparoscopy. Radiofrequency assisted laparoscopic liver resection has been recently developed technique for treatment of primary and secondary liver tumors. METHODOLOGY: Over a 5-year period, a total of 134 laparoscopic and open radiofrequency assisted operations were performed in a single institution. LLR was done in 47 patients, and open liver resection (OLR) in 87 patients. RESULTS: The study selection criteria were fulfilled by 134 patients. The mean blood loss for LLR was 68.7 mL, the difference between the groups was significant with lower median of blood loss using laparoscopy (p=0.046). The mean of length of hospital stay in LLR was 7.5 days versus 8.7 days in OLR (p=0.071). The 5-year survival rate was 67.0% after LLR and 63.8% after OLR. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 59.4% after LLR, and 62.2% after OLR. The difference between groups was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible procedure. The hand-assisted laparoscopic radiofrequency technique can be applied effectively for selected patients. Preliminary oncological results suggest non-inferiority of laparoscopic to open procedures.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecohort
Effect directionunclear
PopulationPatients undergoing radiofrequency-assisted liver resection for primary and secondary liver tumors
Sample size134
ExposureOver a 5-year period
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In 134 radiofrequency-assisted liver resections (47 laparoscopic, 87 open), mean blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic group (68.7 mL) with a statistically significant difference (p=0.046). Length of stay was 7.5 vs 8.7 days (p=0.071). Five-year survival (67.0% vs 63.8%) and 5-year disease-free survival (59.4% vs 62.2%) did not differ significantly between groups; authors conclude laparoscopic approach is safe/feasible with preliminary non-inferior oncologic results.

Outcomes measured

  • Blood loss
  • Length of hospital stay
  • 5-year survival rate
  • 5-year disease-free survival rate
  • Safety/feasibility

Limitations

  • Single-institution study
  • Non-randomized comparison (laparoscopic vs open)
  • Exposure parameters (frequency, power, SAR) not reported
  • Patient selection criteria and tumor characteristics not detailed in abstract
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "radiofrequency-assisted surgical technique",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "Over a 5-year period"
  },
  "population": "Patients undergoing radiofrequency-assisted liver resection for primary and secondary liver tumors",
  "sample_size": 134,
  "outcomes": [
    "Blood loss",
    "Length of hospital stay",
    "5-year survival rate",
    "5-year disease-free survival rate",
    "Safety/feasibility"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In 134 radiofrequency-assisted liver resections (47 laparoscopic, 87 open), mean blood loss was lower in the laparoscopic group (68.7 mL) with a statistically significant difference (p=0.046). Length of stay was 7.5 vs 8.7 days (p=0.071). Five-year survival (67.0% vs 63.8%) and 5-year disease-free survival (59.4% vs 62.2%) did not differ significantly between groups; authors conclude laparoscopic approach is safe/feasible with preliminary non-inferior oncologic results.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Single-institution study",
    "Non-randomized comparison (laparoscopic vs open)",
    "Exposure parameters (frequency, power, SAR) not reported",
    "Patient selection criteria and tumor characteristics not detailed in abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "radiofrequency-assisted",
    "liver resection",
    "laparoscopic",
    "open surgery",
    "blood loss",
    "hospital stay",
    "survival",
    "disease-free survival"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 25699383

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library