Cargando…

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors

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 hepatec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Jun, Hu, Chen, Cao, Hua-Li, Zhang, Mang-Li, Ye, Song, Zheng, Shu-Sen, Wang, Wei-Lin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27788201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165319
_version_ 1782463149968982016
author Xu, Jun
Hu, Chen
Cao, Hua-Li
Zhang, Mang-Li
Ye, Song
Zheng, Shu-Sen
Wang, Wei-Lin
author_facet Xu, Jun
Hu, Chen
Cao, Hua-Li
Zhang, Mang-Li
Ye, Song
Zheng, Shu-Sen
Wang, Wei-Lin
author_sort Xu, Jun
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5082914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50829142016-11-04 Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors Xu, Jun Hu, Chen Cao, Hua-Li Zhang, Mang-Li Ye, Song Zheng, Shu-Sen Wang, Wei-Lin PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2016-10-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5082914/ /pubmed/27788201 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165319 Text en © 2016 Xu et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Xu, Jun
Hu, Chen
Cao, Hua-Li
Zhang, Mang-Li
Ye, Song
Zheng, Shu-Sen
Wang, Wei-Lin
Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title_full Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title_fullStr Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title_full_unstemmed Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title_short Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors
title_sort meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for live liver donors
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27788201
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165319
work_keys_str_mv AT xujun metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT huchen metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT caohuali metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT zhangmangli metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT yesong metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT zhengshusen metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors
AT wangweilin metaanalysisoflaparoscopicversusopenhepatectomyforliveliverdonors