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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |