부산대학교 도서관

Objective: Our goal was to compare laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia.Materials and methods: 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.Results: 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.Conclusions: 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.