Open Versus Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Fabio Giannone, Gabriela Del Angel Millan, Gianluca Cassese, Fabio Benedetti, Marco Palucci, Fabrizio Panaro
{"title":"Open Versus Laparoscopic and Robotic Approach in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis With Trial Sequential Analysis.","authors":"Fabio Giannone, Gabriela Del Angel Millan, Gianluca Cassese, Fabio Benedetti, Marco Palucci, Fabrizio Panaro","doi":"10.1002/jhbp.70124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of minimally invasive (MI) techniques for Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) has increased in the last years, but high-quality evidence remains limited. This study aims to assess the safety of laparoscopic (LPS) and robotic (ROB) approaches compared to open surgery in the treatment of HCCA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After a systematic search, a frequentist network meta-analysis and a Trial sequential analysis were performed. Primary outcomes set for the study were major complications and R0 rate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies including 1169 patients were found eligible, of which 403 were LPS (34.5%) and 137 operated with a ROB approach (11.7%). ROB and LPS techniques showed statistically similar rates of major complications (p = 0.251 and p = 0.143), while ROB was associated with a higher rate of negative resection margins (OR: 2.856, 95% CI: 1.585-5.144; p < 0.001). No differences were observed in the secondary outcomes assessed, except for the operative time, higher in both MI approaches, and length of stay, shorter in the ROB group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Global experience in MI surgery for HCCA remains limited and subject to potential bias. Nevertheless, both LPS and ROB approaches seem to represent safe and viable options for carefully selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":16056,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.70124","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of minimally invasive (MI) techniques for Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) has increased in the last years, but high-quality evidence remains limited. This study aims to assess the safety of laparoscopic (LPS) and robotic (ROB) approaches compared to open surgery in the treatment of HCCA.

Methods: After a systematic search, a frequentist network meta-analysis and a Trial sequential analysis were performed. Primary outcomes set for the study were major complications and R0 rate.

Results: Fourteen studies including 1169 patients were found eligible, of which 403 were LPS (34.5%) and 137 operated with a ROB approach (11.7%). ROB and LPS techniques showed statistically similar rates of major complications (p = 0.251 and p = 0.143), while ROB was associated with a higher rate of negative resection margins (OR: 2.856, 95% CI: 1.585-5.144; p < 0.001). No differences were observed in the secondary outcomes assessed, except for the operative time, higher in both MI approaches, and length of stay, shorter in the ROB group.

Conclusions: Global experience in MI surgery for HCCA remains limited and subject to potential bias. Nevertheless, both LPS and ROB approaches seem to represent safe and viable options for carefully selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers.

开放、腹腔镜和机器人入路治疗肝门胆管癌:一项具有试验序列分析的网络荟萃分析。
背景:近年来,微创(MI)技术在肝门胆管癌(HCCA)中的应用有所增加,但高质量的证据仍然有限。本研究旨在评估腹腔镜(LPS)和机器人(ROB)入路与开放手术治疗HCCA的安全性。方法:经过系统检索,进行频率网络元分析和试验序列分析。研究的主要结局是主要并发症和R0率。结果:14项研究纳入1169例患者,其中LPS 403例(34.5%),ROB入路137例(11.7%)。ROB和LPS技术的主要并发症发生率在统计学上相似(p = 0.251和p = 0.143),而ROB与较高的切除边缘阴性率相关(OR: 2.856, 95% CI: 1.585-5.144; p结论:全球在HCCA心肌梗死手术方面的经验仍然有限,存在潜在的偏倚。尽管如此,对于精心挑选的患者,在高容量中心由经验丰富的外科医生进行手术时,LPS和ROB方法似乎都是安全可行的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
自引率
10.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences (JHBPS) is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences. JHBPS publishes articles dealing with clinical research as well as translational research on all aspects of this field. Coverage includes Original Article, Review Article, Images of Interest, Rapid Communication and an announcement section. Letters to the Editor and comments on the journal’s policies or content are also included. JHBPS welcomes submissions from surgeons, physicians, endoscopists, radiologists, oncologists, and pathologists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书