Comparison of laparoscopic portoenterostomy and open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia.
bit.ly shows its articles on its own site.
Read the article on bit.ly ↗Article · Dec 2019 · 1 min read
In brief
In brief
Meta-analysis of 434 patients comparing laparoscopic versus open portoenterostomy for biliary atresia shows comparable safety and efficacy, with laparoscopic approach requiring longer operative time but achieving similar outcomes in jaundice clearance, survival, and complications. Recent studies suggest improved jaundice clearance rates with laparoscopic technique.
Written by the GCMD Library team from the article.
BACKGROUND: Although open portoenterostomy (OPE) is considered the standard treatment for biliary atresia (BA), laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) is conducted and reported by many investigators. Data on the safety and efficacy of LPE remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LPE and OPE for the treatment of BA.
METHODS: Three electronic databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The eligible studies were limited to those published in English. The following keywords were used: "biliary atresia," "laparoscopic portoenterostomy," "Kasai portoenterostomy," "open portoenterostomy," "surgery," and "treatment."
RESULTS: Nine studies, including 434 patients, were analyzed. The operative time of LPE was significantly longer than that of OPE (MD = 40.55 min, 95% CI 4.83-76.27 min, P = 0.03). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the time of hospital stay, the volume of intraoperative blood loss, or the rates of cholangitis, early clearance of jaundice or two-year survival with the native liver. The subgroup analyses revealed that the rate of early clearance of jaundice in the LPE group was significantly higher than that in the OPE group in studies published after 2016 (95% CI 1.04-1.75; P = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis provides evidence that LPE is a feasible option for patients with BA. LPE should be revaluated by further studies and longer follow-up.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-06905-9