Laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
- 662 Downloads
Open portoenterostomy (OPE) remains the mainstay in treatment of biliary atresia, while during the past several years, the laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) has been widely introduced. However, safety of LPE remains a major concern. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to review the currently available data comparing LPE and OPE.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar Embase, Cohrane library.
Comparative cohort studies.
Two investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc.
Eleven studies about the effectiveness of LPE compared with OPE were performed by meta-analysis. Meta-analysis found no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, early clearance of jaundice, cholangitis and variceal bleeding. In addition, the rate of 2-year survival with native liver was significantly high in OPE group than in LPE group.
Laparoscopic portoenterostomy could not replace open portoenterostomy and open Kasai portoenterostomy remains the gold standard in the treatment of biliary atresia.
KeywordsLaparoscopic portoenterostomy Open portoenterostomy Biliary atresia Meta-analysis
We thank those authors who provided us with the full text and the relevant data from their studies.
Conflict of interest
- 2.Puri PHM (2009) Pediatric surgery diagnosis and management. 537–540Google Scholar
- 8.Kasai M, Suzuki S (1959) A new operation for “non-correctable” biliary atresia: hepatic portoenterostomy. Shujjutsu 733Google Scholar
- 15.Wells G The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analysis. In: Shea B (ed) Proceedings of the third symposium on systematic reviews. Beyond the basics: improving quality and impactGoogle Scholar
- 17.Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D et al (2000) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Rev Esp Salud Publ 74:107–118Google Scholar
- 21.Xu S (2013) Laparoscopic versus open Kasai portoenterostomy in infants with type III biliary atresia: a prospective study. In: Long L (ed). pp 22–25Google Scholar
- 23.Nakamura H, Koga H, Okazaki T, Urao M, Miyano G, et al. (2014) Does pneumoperitoneum adversely affect growth, development and liver function in biliary atresia patients after laparoscopic portoenterostomy? Pediatr Surg IntGoogle Scholar
- 28.Wen Ying H, Long L, Shuli L, Jun Z, Liuming H, et al. (2008) Comparison of laparoscopic and open portoenterostomy for type III biliary atresia. Chin J Min Inv Surg 8:769–771Google Scholar
- 30.Xuelai L, Long L, Jun Z, Wenying H, Liuming H (2006) A comparison study of laparoscopic versus open Kasai portoenterostomy for pediatrics biliary atresia. Chin J Minim Invasive Surg 6:761–763Google Scholar