Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017
Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Bin, Pan Yu, Chen Ke, Maher Hendi, Chen Ming-Yu, Zhu He-Pan, Zhu Yi-Bin, Dai Yi, Chen Jiang, Cai Xiu-Jun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.
BACKGROUND: LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.
METHODS: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.
RESULTS: Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.
BACKGROUND: LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.
METHODS: A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.
RESULTS: Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.