Abstract
Our goal was to compare laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia. Using the databases EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane, we carried out a thorough literature search up to 2022. Studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of biliary atresia were included. Twenty-three studies comparing laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) (n = 689) and open portoenterostomy (OPE) (n = 818) were considered appropriate for meta-analysis. Age at surgery time was lower in the LPE group than OPE group (I2 = 84%), (WMD -4.70, 95% CI -9.14 to -0.26; P = 0.04). Significantly decreased blood loss (I2 = 94%), (WMD -17.85, 95% CI -23.67 to -12.02; P < 0.00001) and time to feed were found in the laparoscopic group (I2 = 97%), (WMD -2.88, 95% CI -4.71 to -1.04; P = 0.002). Significantly decreased operative time was found in the open group (I2 = 85%), (WMD 32.52, 95% CI 15.65-49.39; P = 0.0002). Weight, transfusion rate, overall complication rate, cholangitis, time to drain removal, length of stay, jaundice clearance, and two-year transplant-free survival were not significantly different across the groups. Laparoscopic portoenterostomy provides advantages regarding operative bleeding and the time to begin feeding. No differences in remain characteristics. Based on the data presented to us by this meta-analysis, LPE is not superior to OPE in terms of overall results.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
