Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Difficult Lesions: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for difficult lesions (located in segments I, IVa, VII, and VIII) is still controversial nowadays. The aim of this study was to summarize quantitatively the evidence related to this issue. Materials and Methods: Two investigators independently searched the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Cochrane Library databases for eligible studies published before December 2017. The RevMan 5.3 software was utilized for statistical meta-analysis. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Results: Five studies with a total number of 638 patients were included in the present meta-analysis, with 274 patients in the LLR group and 364 in the open liver resection (OLR) group. The LLR did not increase the operative time (WMD 12.42 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] -8.54 to 33.38 minutes; P = .25) or blood transfusion requirement (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.40-1.64; P = .57) compared with OLR. Conversely, LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (WMD -140.57 mL; 95% CI -203.39 to -77.76 mL; P < .001), shorter hospital stay (WMD -2.88 days; 95% CI -4.84 to -0.92 days; P = .004), and lower overall morbidity (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.28-0.65; P < .001). The oncologic outcomes of R0 resection rate, surgical margin, and tumor recurrence were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion: LLR for difficult lesions in selected patients is safe, technically feasible, and advantageous when performed by experienced surgeons.