Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Summary of characteristics of included studies

Study	Study type	Procedure	n (LR)	n (OR)	Age (lap)	Age (open) (yr)	M:F (lap)	M:F (open)	Conversion to open	CP A:B ratio (lap)	CP A:B ratio (open)
Kanazawa et al[18]	Cohort comparison	Single or multiple resection	28	28	69 (40-85)	68 (47-78)	16:12	17:11	10.7%	20:8	21:7
Cheung et al[23]	Cohort with case-matched controls	Single resection	32	64	59.5(39-79)	61(29-82)	22:10	50:14	18.8%	32:0	62:4
Truant et al[33]	Cohort with case-matched controls	Single or multiple resection	36	53	60.6 +/- 10.2	63.3 +/- 7.6	31:5	47:6	19.4%	A only	A only
Belli et al[32]	Cohort comparison	Single or multiple resection	54	125	63.3 +/- 6.1	61.5 +/- 7.8	31:23	78:47	7%	49:5	117:8

LR: Laparoscopic resection; OR: Open resection; CP: Childs-Pugh.

Table 2 Risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale

Study	Selection				Comparability	Outcome
	Representativeness of exposed cohort	Selection of non-exposed cohort	Exposure	Outcome of interest not present at start	Comparability of laparoscopic vs open	Assessment of outcome	Follow-up	Adequacy of follow-up/missing data	Score
Kanazawa et al[18]	Truly representative	Same	Surgical records	Yes	No restrictions, not matched	Record linkage	5 yr	Unclear	7
Cheung et al[23]	Truly representative	Same	Surgical records	Yes	No restrictions, matched	Record linkage	5 yr	None	8
Truant et al[33]	Truly representative	Same	Surgical records	Yes	Restricted to subcapsular tumours located in the anterior or lateral segments II-VI, matched	Record linkage	5 yr	Unclear	7
Belli et al[32]	Truly representative	Same	Surgical records	Yes	Restricted in exophytic or subcapsular tumours, no matching	Record linkage	3 yr	Unclear	7