Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2017; 23(20): 3730-3743
Published online May 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3730
Published online May 28, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3730
Table 1 Quality of cohort studies evaluated with modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale
Ref. | Case definition | Selection | Definition of controls | Comparability | Outcomes | Quality score | |||
Represen- tativeness | Selection of controls | Comparable for 1, 2, 3 | Comparable for 4, 5 | Assessment of outcomes | Integrity of follow-up | ||||
Choi et al[16], 2012 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
Choi et al[17], 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 5 |
Makk et al[19], 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 8 |
Marubashi et al[20], 2013 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 2, 3 | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Nagai et al[21], 2012 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 1, 3 | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Samstein et al[22], 2015 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Soubrane et al[12], 2006 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 1,3 | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Suh et al[23], 2015 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 5 |
Table 2 Quality of case-controlled studies evaluated with modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale
Ref. | Case definition | Selection | Definition of controls | Comparability | Outcomes | Quality score | |||
Represen- tativeness | Selection of controls | Comparable for 1, 2, 3 | Comparable for 4, 5 | Ascertainment of exposure | Non-response | ||||
Baker et al[13], 2009 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Kim et al[14], 2009 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Kim et al[18], 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | 1, 3 | Yes | Yes | Yes | 6 |
Thenappan et al[15], 2011 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Zhang et al[24], 2014 | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | 4 | Yes | Yes | 7 |
Table 3 Characteristics of included studies
Ref. | Level of evidence | Patient no. | Left/right | Recipients | TMI | TCI | Matching | Quality score | |
MILDH | CLDH | ||||||||
Baker et al[13], 2009 | 3b | 33 | 33 | Right | W | LA | Midline epigastric | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 7 |
Choi et al[16], 2012 | 2b | 60 | 90 | Right | W/O | LA | Right subcostal | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 8 |
Choi et al[17], 2014 | 4 | 25 | 484 | Right | W/O | HAL or LA | Mercedes-Benz or L-shaped | NA | 5 |
Kim et al[14], 2009 | 3b | 23 | 23 | Right | W | Upper midline | J-shaped | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 7 |
Kim et al[18], 2011 | 3b | 11 | 11 | Left | W | L | J-shaped or midline | 1, 3, 4, 5 | 7 |
Makk et al[19], 2014 | 2b | 26 | 24 | Right | W | LA | Right subcostal with midline extension | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 | 8 |
Marubashi et al[20], 2013 | 2b | 31 | 79 | Left | W | LA | Mercedes | 2, 3, 4 | 7 |
Nagai et al[21], 2012 | 2b | 28 | 30 | Right | W | Hal or upper midline | Mercedes | 1, 3, 4 | 7 |
Samstein et al[22], 2015 | 2b | 22 | 20 | Left | W | L | Midline | 1, 2, 3 | 7 |
Soubrane et al[12], 2006 | 2b | 16 | 14 | Left | W | L | Subcostal | 1, 3, 4 | 7 |
Suh et al[23], 2015 | 4 | 161 | 268 | Un | W | LA or Upper midline | L-shaped | NA | 5 |
Thenappan et al[15], 2011 | 3b | 15 | 15 | Un | W | LA or Minimally-access | Midline epigastric with subcostal | NA | 6 |
Zhang et al[24], 2014 | 3b | 25 | 25 | Right | W | LA | Right subcostal | 1, 2, 3, 4 | 7 |
Table 4 Results of meta-analysis comparison of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy and conventional living donor hepatectomy
Outcome of interest | Study (n) | MILDH (n) | CLDH (n) | WMD/OR (95%CI) | P value | Study heterogeneity | P value | ||
I2 | df | I2, % | |||||||
Graft weight (g) | 5 | 123 | 119 | -3.32 (-22.25,15.61) | 0.73 | 6.56 | 4 | 39 | 0.16 |
Donor outcomes | |||||||||
Operative time (min) | 13 | 476 | 1116 | 20.68 (-6.25,47.60) | 0.13 | 147.62 | 12 | 92 | < 0.01 |
Estimated blood loss (mL) | 12 | 450 | 1092 | -32.61 (-80.44,15.21) | 0.18 | 61.26 | 11 | 82 | < 0.01 |
Hospital cost (dollar) | 2 | 36 | 36 | 0.56 (-0.62,1.74) | 0.35 | 4.24 | 1 | 76 | 0.04 |
Length of hospital stay (d) | 10 | 392 | 575 | -1.25 (-2.35,-0.14) | 0.03 | 99.31 | 9 | 91 | < 0.01 |
Post complications | 12 | 451 | 632 | 0.62 (0.44,0.89) | 0.009 | 4.40 | 11 | 0 | 0.96 |
Analgesic use (h) | 5 | 139 | 167 | -7.97 (-14.06,-1.87) | 0.01 | 7.50 | 4 | 47 | 0.11 |
Liver function | |||||||||
Post AST peak (IU/L) | 7 | 334 | 471 | 6.41 (-3.79.16.60) | 0.22 | 13.60 | 6 | 56 | 0.03 |
Post ALT peak (IU/L) | 8 | 350 | 485 | 11.86 (-10.84,34.57) | 0.31 | 15.39 | 7 | 55 | 0.03 |
Post TB peak (mg/dL) | 7 | 324 | 461 | -0.10 (-0.26,0.06) | 0.21 | 2.10 | 6 | 0 | 0.91 |
Recipient outcomes | |||||||||
Liver function | |||||||||
Post AST peak (IU/L) | 3 | 59 | 59 | -28.73 (-86.76,29.31) | 0.33 | 0.90 | 2 | 0 | 0.64 |
Post ALT peak (IU/L) | 3 | 59 | 59 | -29.98 (-87.65,27.7) | 0.31 | 0.31 | 2 | 0 | 0.86 |
Post TB peak (mg/dL) | 3 | 59 | 59 | -0.96 (-2.57,0.65) | 0.24 | 1.26 | 2 | 0 | 0.53 |
Surviving | 3 | 0.96 (0.27,3.47) | 0.95 | 0.11 | 2 | 0 | 0.95 | ||
Post complications | 6 | 272 | 375 | 0.93 (0.66,1.31) | 0.68 | 3.28 | 5 | 0 | 0.66 |
- Citation: Li H, Zhang JB, Chen XL, Fan L, Wang L, Li SH, Zheng QL, Wang XM, Yang Y, Chen GH, Wang GS. Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(20): 3730-3743
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i20/3730.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3730