Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Summary of studies included in the meta-analysis of laparoscopy-assisted versus open living donor hepatectomy.

Author	Region	Study design	Year	Study period	Lobe	Incision	Approach	Sample size	Age (year)	BMI	Sex (M/F)	Follow-up (month)	Parenchyma dissection	Graft weight (g)	Wound infection rate (%)	Incisional hernia rate (%)	Dindo- Clavien
Baker et al. [8]	USA	OCS (R)	2009	2006–2008	Ri	UMI	LA	33			15/18	3	—		3.0	—	Yes
							Open	33			13/20		—		—	—
Thenappan et al. [9]	USA	OCS (R)	2011	2005–2009	Le, Ri	UMI	LA	15		—	7/8	—	—	—	6.7	6.7	No
							Open	15		—	6/9		—	—	0	13.3
Choi et al. [10]	Japan	OCS (R)	2012	2008–2011	Ri	TI	LA	20			12/8	—	CUSA	—	10	0	No
							Open	90			58/32		CUSA	—	5.5	1.1
Marubashi et al. [11]	Japan	OCS (P)	2013	2009–2012	Le	UMI	LA	31			13/18		—	—	—	—	Yes
							Open	79			54/25		—	—	—	—
Makki et al. [12]	India	OCS (P)	2014	2011–2013	Ri	UMI	LA	26			13/13	14 (6–22)	—		11.5	—	Yes
							Open	24			18/6		—		4.2	—
Soyama et al. [13]	Japan	OCS (R)	2015	1997–2014	Le, Ri	UMI	LA	67	41 (26–65)	21.6 (16.9–29.0)	33/34	27	—	—	0	0	Yes
							Open	137	39 (19–67)	22.1 (16.4–34.7)	57/80	21–86	—	—	1.5	0
Suh et al. [14]	Korea	OCS (P)	2014	2010–2013	Ri	TI	LA	14			206/62	32.6 (6.4–55.4)	—	—	0	0	Yes
							Open	268			1/13		—	—	1.1	0
Shen et al. [15]	China	OCS (R)	2016	2011–2014	Ri	UMI	LA	28			15/13	—	CUSA		0	0	Yes
							Open	20			13/7		CUSA		0	0
Kitajima et al. [5]	Japan	OCS (R)	2017	2011–2016	Le, Ri	UMI	LA	153	42 (20–67)	22.4 (16.5–28.7)	36/40	36.6 (1.4–66)	—	668 (460–1100)	0	0	Yes
							Open	77	43 (21–64)	22.7 (16.8–29.8)	43/34		—	655 (505–1025)	1.3	0

OCS, observational clinical study; P, prospectively collected data; R, retrospectively collected data; LA: laparoscopy-assisted; O: open; Le, left lobe; Ri, right lobe; UMI, upper median incision; TI, transverse incision; CUSA, Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator; .