PURPOSE: A previous meta-analysis study demonstrated that bleeding and the duration of the hospital stay following laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap) were significantly smaller and shorter, respectively, than for patients undergoing an open approach (Op). The aim of the present study was to re-evaluate perioperative variables and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing Lap versus (vs) Op after 2000. METHODS: A PubMed and Ovid Medline search identified clinical studies that compared the outcomes of Lap vs Op patients after 2000. A meta-analysis and power analysis were performed. RESULTS: Operative time was not significantly different between the two approaches (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.063 to 0.992). Patient bleeding in the Lap group was significantly lower than in the Op group (95% CI: -1.027 to -0.390). Complications with Lap patients were significantly less frequent (95% CI: 0.231-0.642), and the duration of the hospital stay for Lap patients was significantly shorter (95% CI: -0.950 to -0.530) than for Op patients. Only one paper presented 80% power with 0.05 α-errors in all four outcomes, whereas four studies did not have sufficient statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefits of Lap include a smaller incidence of complications and a shorter duration of hospital stay at the current time. Several studies had too few cases to sufficiently evaluate these factors, although other studies were appropriately analyzed.
PURPOSE: A previous meta-analysis study demonstrated that bleeding and the duration of the hospital stay following laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap) were significantly smaller and shorter, respectively, than for patients undergoing an open approach (Op). The aim of the present study was to re-evaluate perioperative variables and adverse outcomes in patients undergoing Lap versus (vs) Op after 2000. METHODS: A PubMed and Ovid Medline search identified clinical studies that compared the outcomes of Lap vs Op patients after 2000. A meta-analysis and power analysis were performed. RESULTS: Operative time was not significantly different between the two approaches (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.063 to 0.992). Patientbleeding in the Lap group was significantly lower than in the Op group (95% CI: -1.027 to -0.390). Complications with Lap patients were significantly less frequent (95% CI: 0.231-0.642), and the duration of the hospital stay for Lap patients was significantly shorter (95% CI: -0.950 to -0.530) than for Op patients. Only one paper presented 80% power with 0.05 α-errors in all four outcomes, whereas four studies did not have sufficient statistical power. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical benefits of Lap include a smaller incidence of complications and a shorter duration of hospital stay at the current time. Several studies had too few cases to sufficiently evaluate these factors, although other studies were appropriately analyzed.
Authors: Chandrakanth Are; Mithat Gonen; Kathleen Zazzali; Ronald P Dematteo; William R Jarnagin; Yuman Fong; Leslie H Blumgart; Michael D'Angelica Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Roberto Troisi; Roberto Montalti; Peter Smeets; Jacques Van Huysse; Hans Van Vlierberghe; Isabelle Colle; Steven De Gendt; Bernard de Hemptinne Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: R Santambrogio; L Aldrighetti; M Barabino; C Pulitanò; M Costa; M Montorsi; G Ferla; E Opocher Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2008-06-14 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Emmanuel Melloul; Martin Hübner; Michael Scott; Chris Snowden; James Prentis; Cornelis H C Dejong; O James Garden; Olivier Farges; Norihiro Kokudo; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Nicolas Demartines Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.352