Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To document the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy in comparison with open liver resection for living donor liver transplantation.Methods
Medline database, EMASE and Cochrane library were searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by January 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate donors' perioperative outcomes.Results
Nine studies met selection criteria, involving 1346 donors of whom 318 underwent LLDH and 1028 underwent OLDH. The Meta analysis demonstrated that LLDH group had less operative blood loss [patients 1346; WMD: -56.09 mL; 95%CI: -100.28-(-11.90) mL; P = 0.01], shorter hospital stay [patients 737; WMD: -1.75 d; 95%CI: -3.01-(-0.48) d; P = 0.007] but longer operative time (patients 1346; WMD: 41.05 min; 95%CI: 1.91-80.19 min; P = 0.04), compared with OLDH group. There were no significant difference in other outcomes between LLDH and OLDH groups, including overall complication, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complication, wound complication, time to dietary intake and period of analgesic use.Conclusions
LLDH appears to be a safe and effective option for LDLT. It improves donors' perioperative outcomes as compared with OLDH.
SUBMITTER: Xu J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5082914 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85?min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92?ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47?d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31?g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.
| S-EPMC5697375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.ResultsFinally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR=0.57, 95%CI:0.42-0.78, P=0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR=2.44, 95%CI:1.21-4.94, P=0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD?=?-3.40, 95%CI:-4.37-2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.ConclusionsLaparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.
| S-EPMC3906170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.A total of 14 retrospective studies with 1679 colorectal liver metastases patients were analyzed: 683 patients treated with laparoscopic liver resection and 996 patients with open liver resection. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss (MD, -216.7, 95% CI, -309.4 to -124.1; P < 0.00001), less requiring blood transfusion (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), lower postoperative complication morbidity (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization time (MD, -3.85, 95% CI, -5.00 to -2.71; P < 0.00001). However, operation time and postoperative mortality were no significant difference between the two approaches. With respect to oncological outcomes, laparoscopic liver resection group was prone to lower recurrence rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = 0.04), but surgical margins R0, overall survival and disease-free survival were no significant difference.We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases have the same effect on oncological outcomes, but laparoscopic liver resection achieves better surgical outcomes.
| S-EPMC5356680 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic hepatectomy with those of open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) using a propensity score matching (PSM) in two university hospital settings.MethodsA patient in the laparoscopic approach (LA) surgery group was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach (OA) group using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. No patients of the LA group were excluded for the matching. Matching criteria included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American society anesthesiologists score, potential co-morbidities, hepatopathies, synchronous or metachronous lesions, size and number of CCLM, preoperative chemotherapy, minor or major liver resections. Intraoperative, postoperative data, and survival were compared in both groups.ResultsFrom January 2012 to January 2015, a total of 242 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, of which 119 for CCLM, namely 101 in the OA group (84.9%) and 18 in the LA group (15.1%). The conversion rate was 5.6% (n=1). The mortality rate was 1% in the OA group and 0% in the LA group. Prior to PSM, there was a statistically significant difference favorable to the LA group regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and the rate of medical complications. After PSM, there was no difference regarding operative time or length of hospital stay. However, there was a trend towards less blood loss (P=0.066) and fewer medical complications (44.4% vs.16.7%, P=0.07). The R0 resection rate was 94.4% (n=17) in the two groups. In addition, there was no difference regarding overall survival (P=0.358) and recurrence-free survival [HR =0.99 (0.1-12.7); P=0.99].ConclusionsLaparoscopic liver resections for CCLM seem to yield short- and long-term results, which are similar to open hepatectomies, and could well be considered an alternative to open surgery and become the gold standard in carefully selected patients.
| S-EPMC4960421 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.
| S-EPMC8100033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: -147.46 [-195.78 to -99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30-0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: -2.36 [-3.06 to -1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.
| S-EPMC5430829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.ResultsA total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD -69.16; 95% CI -101.72 to -36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD -2.65; 95% CI -3.41 to -1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).ConclusionLH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.
| S-EPMC8139628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aim: To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) with that of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We conducted a literature search without a language restriction to identify relevant available articles that had been published with the EMBASE and PubMed databases and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing the outcomes of LH versus RFA for HCC were eligible for inclusion. Results: A total of 10 studies with 1570 patients was included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that LH was superior to RFA in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.40, 0.69, p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis of small HCCs, there was still a significantly better 5-year overall survival rate in the LH group compared with the RFA group (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.33, 0.66, p<0.001). Additionally, the LH group had better 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rate and a lower local recurrence rate, compared with the RFA group. However, the complication rate was higher in the LH group than the RFA group (OR=0.64, 95% CI=0.46, 0.89, p=0.008). Conclusion: Patients who underwent LH had a better long-term prognosis and a lower recurrence rate than those who received RFA. However, we did not obtain conclusive evidence for the superiority of LH over RFA for the treatment of HCCs due to the inclusion of retrospective studies in the present meta-analysis, and well-designed RCTs are needed.
| S-EPMC6600087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The application of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has expanded rapidly in recent decades. Although multiple authors have reported LLR shows improved safety and efficacy in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic (LMLR) and open (OMLR) major liver resections for HCC treatment remain inadequately evaluated. This work aimed to test the hypothesis that LMLR is safer and more effective than OMLR for HCC. METHODS:Comparative cohort and registry studies on LMLR and OMLR, searched in PubMed, the Science Citation Index, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and published before March 31, 2018, were collected systematically and meta-analyzed. Fixed- and random-effects models were employed for generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q-statistic. RESULTS:Nine studies (1173 patients) were included. Although the pooled data showed operation time was markedly increased for LMLR in comparison with OMLR (weighted mean difference [WMD] 74.1, 95% CI 35.1 to 113.1, P?=?0.0002), blood loss was reduced (WMD?=?-?107.4, 95% CI -?179.0 to -?35.7, P?=?0.003), postoperative morbidity was lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, P?<? 0.0001), and hospital stay was shorter (WMD?=?-?3.27, 95% CI -?4.72 to -?1.81, P?<? 0.0001) in the LMLR group. Although 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was increased in patients administered LMLR (OR?=?1.55, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.31, P?=?0.03), other 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival outcomes (overall survival [OS] and/or DFS) were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with OMLR, LMLR has short-term clinical advantages, including reduced blood loss, lower postsurgical morbidity, and shorter hospital stay in HCC, despite its longer operative time. Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable in both groups.
| S-EPMC6833163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Laparoscopic repair (LR) for perforated peptic ulcer (PPU) has been introduced since 1990. Although many studies comparing LR with open repair (OR) have been published, controversy remains regarding the clinical utility of laparoscopic techniques for the treatment of PPU. Thus, it is necessary for us to broaden our knowledge on this subject with the newly published articles. Twenty-four nonrandomized controlled studies (NRS) and five randomized controlled trails (RCTs) were included in our meta-analyses, which comprised 5,268 patients (1,890 in the LR group and 3,378 in the OR group). In the analysis of high quality NRS and RCTs, compared with OR, high quality evidence suggested that LR was associated with a lower incidence of overall postoperative complications; moderate evidence showed that the two procedures had the similar reoperation rate; based on the low quality evidence, LR had reduced hospital mortality and similar operative time; Moreover, LR was observed having the advantages of earlier resumption of oral intake, shorter hospital stay and less analgesic use, which were supported by very low evidence. All the evidences suggest that LR is better than OR for PPU, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed for further validation.
| S-EPMC4563564 | biostudies-other