The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prediction, prevention and management of postresection liver failure
Abstract
Background: Postresection liver failure (PLF) is the major cause of death following liver resection. However, there is no unified definition, the pathophysiology is understood poorly and there are few controlled trials to optimize its management. The aim of this review article is to present strategies to predict, prevent and manage PLF. Methods: The Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies using the terms ‘liver resection’, ‘partial hepatectomy’, ‘liver dysfunction’ and ‘liver failure’ for relevant studies from the 15 years preceding May 2011. Key papers published more than 15 years ago were included if more recent data were not available. Papers published in languages other than English were excluded. Results: The incidence of PLF ranges from 0 to 13 per cent. The absence of a unified definition prevents direct comparison between studies. The major risk factors are the extent of resection and the presence of underlying parenchymal disease. Small-for-size syndrome, sepsis and ischaemia–reperfusion injury are key mechanisms in the pathophysiology of PLF. Jaundice is the most sensitive predictor of outcome. An evidence-based approach to the prevention and management of PLF is presented. Conclusion: PLF is the major cause of morbidity and mortality after liver resection. There is a need for a unified definition and improved strategies to treat it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Michalopoulos, G. K. (2007) · Journal of Cellular Physiology · doi:10.1002/jcp.21172 · Cited by 1,384
Epidemiology of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Bellentani, S., Scaglioni, F., Marino, M., & Bedogni, G. (2010) · Digestive Diseases · doi:10.1159/000282080 · Cited by 1,026
Liver regeneration and repair: Hepatocytes, progenitor cells, and stem cells
Fausto, N. (2004) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.20214 · Cited by 720
Das, B. C., Isaji, S., & Kawarada, Y. (2001) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s002680020059 · Cited by 72
Cited by
Randomized clinical trial on enhanced recovery versus standard care following open liver resection
Jones, C., Kelliher, L., Dickinson, M., Riga, A., Worthington, T., Scott, M. J., Vandrevala, T., Fry, C. H., Karanjia, N., & Quiney, N. (2013) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.9165 · Cited by 266
Management of post-hepatectomy complications
Jin, S. (2013) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i44.7983 · Cited by 260
New Paradigms in Post-hepatectomy Liver Failure
Golse, N., Bucur, P. O., Adam, R., Castaing, D., Sa Cunha, A., & Vibert, E. (2013) · Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2048-6 · Cited by 100
Primavesi, F., Maglione, M., Cipriani, F., Denecke, T., Oberkofler, C. E., Starlinger, P., Dasari, B. V. M., Heil, J., Sgarbura, O., Søreide, K., et al. (2023) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1093/bjs/znad233 · Cited by 97
Matot, I., Nachmansson, N., Duev, O., Schulz, S., Schroeder‐Stein, K., Frede, S., & Abramovitch, R. (2017) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.201700153r · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Hammond, J. S., Guha, I. N., Beckingham, I. J., & Lobo, D. N.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-07-04
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1188-1200
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2135647077
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 15.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.