Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2023 Jan 13;408(1):25.
doi: 10.1007/s00423-023-02764-0.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Zigang Ding et al. Langenbecks Arch Surg. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

Methods: Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

Results: The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

Conclusions: LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Keywords: Hepatectomy; Laparoscopic; Meta-analysis; Right posterior sectionectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Llovet JM, Bruix J (2008) Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol 48(Suppl 1):S20-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2008.01.022 - PubMed
    1. Reich H, McGlynn F, DeCaprio J, Budin R (1991) Laparoscopic excision of benign liver lesions. Obstet Gynecol 78(5 Pt 2):956–958 - PubMed
    1. Yang TH, Chen JL, Lin YJ, Chao YJ, Shan YS, Hsu HP, Su ZM, Chou CC, Yen YT (2018) Laparoscopic surgery for large left lateral liver tumors: safety and oncologic outcomes. Surg Endosc 32(10):4314–4320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6287-9 - PubMed
    1. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Belli A, Cioffi L, Russolillo N (2006) Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic lobectomy: a safer and faster technique. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 13(2):149–154 - PubMed
    1. Cho HD, Kim KH, Hwang S, Ahn CS, Moon DB, Ha TY, Song GW, Jung DH, Park GC, Lee SG (2018) Comparison of pure laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy by multivariate analysis: a retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 32(2):643–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5714-7 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources