IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0248534.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Wei Tang
  • Jian-Guo Qiu
  • Xin Deng
  • Shan-Shan Liu
  • Luo Cheng
  • Jia-Rui Liu
  • Cheng-You Du

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial. Methods: To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed. Results: Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was comparable in blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes received, overall morbidity, severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo classification > = 3), bile leakage rate, wound infection rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, days until oral feeding, 1-year overall survival, 2-year overall survival and postoperative mortality with OS. Although operation time was longer (mean difference (MD) = 93.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.10 to 122.91, P

Suggested Citation

  • Wei Tang & Jian-Guo Qiu & Xin Deng & Shan-Shan Liu & Luo Cheng & Jia-Rui Liu & Cheng-You Du, 2021. "Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0248534
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248534
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0248534&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0248534?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0248534. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.