The impact of Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score on deceased donor liver transplant outcomes in low volume liver transplantation center: a retrospective and single-center study

Outcome of split liver transplantation vs living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) from different grafts have been studied individually and in combination, but the reports were conflicting with some researchers finding no difference in both short-term and long-term outcomes between the deceased donor split LT (DD-SLT) and living donor LT (LDLT).

AIM

To compare the outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The following databases were searched for articles comparing outcomes of DD-SLT and LDLT: PubMed; Google Scholar; Embase; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/). The search terms used were: "liver transplantation;" "liver transplant;" "split liver transplant;" "living donor liver transplant;" "partial liver transplant;" "partial liver graft;" "ex vivo splitting;" and "in vivo splitting."

RESULTS

Ten studies were included for the data synthesis and meta-analysis. There were a total of 4836 patients. The overall survival rate at 1 year, 3 years and 5 years was superior in patients that received LDLT compared to DD-SLT. At 1 year, the hazard ratios was 1.44 (95% confidence interval: 1.16-1.78; P = 0.001). The graft survival rate at 3 years and 5 years was superior in the LDLT group (3 year hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.63; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that LDLT has better graft survival and overall survival when compared to DD-SLT.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for choledochal cyst in children: a systematic review and proportional meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Most commonly, cyst excision and Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy reconstruction are the optimal treatment for choledochal cysts (CC). Robotic surgery (RS) is being conducted with increasing frequency to treat CC. It is unclear whether RS can overcome the limitations of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and improve the prognosis of patients. In terms of efficacy, evidence concerning which minimally invasive surgery is preferred is, however, sparse. Our objective is to further compare the efficacy of RS and LS in children with CC and draw a useful clinical conclusion.

METHODS

Studies meeting inclusion criteria were identified from a series of databases, consisting of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and their reference list of articles up to May 2022. Eligible articles comprised at least five objects that were younger than 18 years of age and the language was limited to English. Two authors independently evaluated selected studies and extracted data for analysis.

RESULTS

Forty studies were selected for analysis, with thirty-six reporting data on LS and eight containing data on RS. The pooled conversion rate and pooled postoperative complication rate of RS were lower than those of LS, but none of them was statistically significant. Moreover, comparisons of the following detailed postoperative complication rates were not statistically significant, such as intestinal obstruction or ileus, anastomotic bleeding, anastomotic or bile leakage, and anastomotic stenosis. However, the intraoperative blood loss and the postoperative hospital stay in RS group were significantly lower than those in LS group.

CONCLUSIONS

RS is a safe and feasible option for children with CC. Further studies with more cases, long-term efficacy and health economics analysis are needed to confirm whether RS is more advantageous.