Hepatobiliary Surgery Department, PLA General Hospital, 28th FuXing Road, HaiDian District, Beijing, China.
Surg Endosc. 2019 Aug;33(8):2396-2418. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06781-3. Epub 2019 May 28.
Several studies have been conducted comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however, the optimal therapeutic approach has not been established. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing LLR versus OLR for HCC.
MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were systematically searched for relevant studies.
Fifty-one studies were identified including a total of 6812 patients (2786 patients underwent LLR and 4026 patients were subjected to OLR). Blood transfusion rate, hospital stay in days, 30-days mortality rate and morbidity were significantly lower in LLR comparing with OLR (odds ratio (OR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.69; P = 0.001; I = 55.83%), (MD - 3.87; 95% CI - 4.86 to - 2.89; P = 0.001; I = 87.35%), (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.16-0.66; P = 0.001; I = 0%), and (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34-0.52; P = 0.001; I = 39.64), respectively. There was no significant difference between LLR and OLR regarding the operative time in minutes, resection margin in centimeter and R0 resection (MD 18.29; 95% CI - 1.58 to 38.15; p = 0.07; I = 91.73%), (MD 0.04; 95% CI - 0.06 to 0.14; P = 0.41; I = 48.03%) and (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.98-1.76; P = 0.07; I = 0%), respectively. The 1-year overall survival (1-OS) and 5-OS rates were significantly higher in LLR comparing with OLR (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.06-1.99; P = 0.02; I = 25.59%) and (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.07-1.72; P = 0.01; I = 14.88%), respectively.
LLR is superior to OLR regarding intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, hospital stay in days, 30-days mortality and morbidity, however, randomized controlled trials are needed to identify the superiority of either strategy.
已经有几项研究比较了腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)与开腹肝切除术(OLR)治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)的效果,但尚未确定最佳治疗方法。因此,我们对比较 LLR 与 OLR 治疗 HCC 的研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。
系统检索 MEDLINE 和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库中相关研究。
共确定了 51 项研究,纳入了 6812 例患者(2786 例接受了 LLR,4026 例接受了 OLR)。与 OLR 相比,LLR 的输血率、住院天数、30 天死亡率和发病率显著降低(比值比(OR)0.45;95%置信区间(CI)0.30-0.69;P=0.001;I=55.83%),(MD -3.87;95%CI -4.86 至-2.89;P=0.001;I=87.35%),(OR 0.32;95%CI 0.16-0.66;P=0.001;I=0%)和(OR 0.42;95%CI 0.34-0.52;P=0.001;I=39.64%)。在手术时间(MD 18.29;95%CI -1.58 至 38.15;p=0.07;I=91.73%)、切缘(MD 0.04;95%CI -0.06 至 0.14;P=0.41;I=48.03%)和 R0 切除(OR 1.31;95%CI 0.98-1.76;P=0.07;I=0%)方面,LLR 与 OLR 之间无显著差异。LLR 的 1 年总生存率(1-OS)和 5 年总生存率(5-OS)明显高于 OLR(OR 1.45;95%CI 1.06-1.99;P=0.02;I=25.59%)和(OR 1.36;95%CI 1.07-1.72;P=0.01;I=14.88%)。
与 OLR 相比,LLR 在术中出血量、输血率、住院天数、30 天死亡率和发病率方面具有优势,但需要随机对照试验来确定哪种策略更具优势。