Laparoscopic vs. open left lateral sectionectomy: An update meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_MACACARI_Laparoscopic_vs_open_left_lateral_sectionectomy_An_update_2019.PDF (2.23 MB)
Citações na Scopus
36
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
Autores
Citação
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, v.61, p.1-10, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is thought to be the anatomical liver resection most suitable for the laparoscopic approach. Despite increasing popularity, comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open LLS are mostly limited to retrospective, underpowered studies with small sample size. Recent population-based studies and prospective trials have generated new data; however, this new body of knowledge has not been submitted systematic reviews or meta-analyses and high quality evidence regarding the actual benefits of minimally invasive LLS is lacking. Methods: Systematic review of studies published until December 31st, 2017 and indexed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and Scielo/LILACS databases. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing perioperative results of laparoscopic and open LLS were included. Studies with patients submitted to LLS for living donation were excluded. Treatment outcomes, including conversion rates, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, operative time, length of in-hospital stay, morbidity and mortality rates, were evaluated. Results: The primary search yielded 2838 articles, 23 of which (21 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials; 3415 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall conversion rate was 7.4%. Patients submitted to laparoscopic LLS had less blood loss (mean difference, MD = - 119.81 ml, 95% CI = - 127.90, - 111.72, P < .00001, I-2 = 32%, N = 618), lower transfusion rates (4.1% vs. 10.1%; risk difference, RD = - 0.06, 95% CI = - 0.08, - 0.05, P < .00001, I-2 = 13%, N = 2968) and shorter length of in-hospital stay (MD = - 2.02 days, 95% CI = - 2.15, - 1.89, P < .00001, I-2 = 77%, N= 3160) compared to those undergoing open surgery. Marginally decreased overall complication (21.4% vs. 27.5%; RD = -0.03, 95% CI = - 0.06, 0.00, P =. 05, I-2 = 0%, N= 3268) and perioperative mortality (0.3% vs. 1.5%; RD = - 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.02, - 0.00, P =. 01, I-2 = 0%; N= 3332) rates were also observed. Operative time and biliary, cardiac or pulmonary complication rates did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion: Current evidence supports the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic LLS. The laparoscopic approach is associated with reduced blood loss, lower transfusion rates and shorter length of in-hospital stay and should be considered the gold-standard for LLS.
Palavras-chave
Hepatectomy, Laparoscopy, Liver neoplasms/surgery, Review [publication type], Meta-analysis [publication type]
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/30847
Referências
  1. Abu Hilal M, 2013, SURG ENDOSC, V27, P2542, DOI 10.1007/s00464-012-2779-1
  2. Aldrighetti L, 2008, J GASTROINTEST SURG, V12, P457, DOI 10.1007/s11605-007-0244-6
  3. Azagra JS, 1996, SURG ENDOSC-ULTRAS, V10, P758, DOI 10.1007/s004649900150
  4. Ban D, 2014, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V21, P745, DOI 10.1002/jhbp.166
  5. Bell R, 2015, HPB, V17, P332, DOI 10.1111/hpb.12354
  6. Buell JF, 2013, HPB, V15, P845, DOI 10.1111/hpb.12043
  7. Buell JF, 2009, ANN SURG, V250, P825, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b3b2d8
  8. Cai XJ, 2008, SURG ENDOSC, V22, P2350, DOI 10.1007/s00464-008-9789-z
  9. Carswell KA, 2009, BMC SURG, V9, DOI 10.1186/1471-2482-9-14
  10. Cherqui D, 2000, ANN SURG, V232, P753, DOI 10.1097/00000658-200012000-00004
  11. Cheung TT, 2016, WORLD J SURG, V40, P198, DOI 10.1007/s00268-015-3237-8
  12. Coelho F. F., 2018, HPB OXFORD
  13. Coelho FF, 2017, J LAPAROENDOSC ADV S, V27, P1236, DOI 10.1089/lap.2017.0074
  14. Coelho FF, 2016, WORLD J GASTRO SURG, V8, P5, DOI 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i1.5
  15. Descottes B, 2003, SURG ENDOSC, V17, P23, DOI 10.1007/s00464-002-9047-8
  16. Ding GQ, 2015, SURG LAPARO ENDO PER, V25, P392, DOI 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000120
  17. Dokmak S, 2014, HPB, V16, P183, DOI 10.1111/hpb.12108
  18. Endo Yuichi, 2009, Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, V19, pe171, DOI 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3181bc4091
  19. Farges O, 2014, ANN SURG, V260, P916, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000950
  20. GAGNER M, 1992, SURG ENDOSC, V6, P99
  21. Gigot JF, 2002, ANN SURG, V236, P90, DOI 10.1097/01.SLA.0000018658.57709.09
  22. Goh B. K., 2016, J SOC LAPAROENDOSC S, V20
  23. Goumard C, 2015, J VISC SURG, V152, P107, DOI 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2015.02.003
  24. Goutte N, 2017, HPB, V19, P118, DOI 10.1016/j.hpb.2016.11.004
  25. Group OLoEW, OXFORD 2011 LEVELS E
  26. Hasegawa Y, 2013, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V20, P525, DOI 10.1007/s00534-012-0591-x
  27. Higgins JPT, 2011, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V343, DOI 10.1136/bmj.d5928
  28. Hirokawa F, 2015, SURG ENDOSC, V29, P458, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3687-3
  29. Hozo Stela Pudar, 2005, BMC Med Res Methodol, V5, P13, DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-5-13
  30. Huscher CGS, 1997, J ROY COLL SURG EDIN, V42, P219
  31. Kaneko H, 1996, SURGERY, V120, P468, DOI 10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80065-1
  32. Kawaguchi Y, 2016, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V23, P283, DOI 10.1002/jhbp.340
  33. Kim Y, 2015, SURGERY, V157, P1055, DOI 10.1016/j.surg.2015.01.015
  34. Kobayashi S, 2013, SURG ENDOSC, V27, P610, DOI 10.1007/s00464-012-2499-6
  35. Koffron AJ, 2007, ANN SURG, V246, P385, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318146996c
  36. Lee KF, 2011, WORLD J SURG, V35, P2268, DOI 10.1007/s00268-011-1212-6
  37. Lee W, 2016, J LAPAROENDOSC ADV S, V26, P457, DOI 10.1089/lap.2016.0063
  38. Lesurtel M, 2003, J AM COLL SURGEONS, V196, P236, DOI 10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01622-8
  39. Nanashima A, 2009, HEPATO-GASTROENTEROL, V56, P447
  40. Nomi T, 2015, BRIT J SURG, V102, P796, DOI 10.1002/bjs.9798
  41. Peng L, 2017, INT J SURG, V40, P117, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.02.068
  42. Rao A, 2011, SURG ENDOSC, V25, P1603, DOI 10.1007/s00464-010-1459-2
  43. Ratti F, 2016, SURG ENDOSC, V30, P3618, DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4665-0
  44. Rau HG, 1998, HEPATO-GASTROENTEROL, V45, P2333
  45. REICH H, 1991, OBSTET GYNECOL, V78, P956
  46. Campos RR, 2009, CIR ESPAN, V85, P214, DOI 10.1016/j.ciresp.2008.11.002
  47. Shimada M, 2001, SURG ENDOSC-ULTRAS, V15, P541, DOI 10.1007/s004640080099
  48. Shin YC, 2016, SURG ENDOSC, V30, P259, DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4200-3
  49. Stoot JHMB, 2012, DIGEST SURG, V29, P70, DOI 10.1159/000335739
  50. Tang CN, 2005, SURG ENDOSC, V19, P1232, DOI 10.1007/s00464-004-8184-7
  51. Vanounou T, 2010, ANN SURG ONCOL, V17, P998, DOI 10.1245/s10434-009-0839-0
  52. Vigano L, 2009, ANN SURG, V250, P772, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bd93b2
  53. Wakabayashi G, 2015, ANN SURG, V261, P619, DOI [10.1097/SLA.0000000000001180, 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001184]
  54. Wells G., 2011, NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCA, V2015
  55. Wong-Lun-Hing EM, 2017, BRIT J SURG, V104, P525, DOI 10.1002/bjs.10438
  56. Zhang Y, 2015, INT J CLIN EXP MED, V8, P904

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MGT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/02
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/35
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/37