IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0165319.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Jun Xu
  • Chen Hu
  • Hua-Li Cao
  • Mang-Li Zhang
  • Song Ye
  • Shu-Sen Zheng
  • Wei-Lin Wang

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun Xu & Chen Hu & Hua-Li Cao & Mang-Li Zhang & Song Ye & Shu-Sen Zheng & Wei-Lin Wang, 2016. "Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165319
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165319
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165319
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0165319&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0165319?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0165319. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.