Nicole R. Jackson · JSLS Journal of the Society of Laparoscopic & Robotic Surgeons 2015 · systematic review and meta-analysis · n=49 studies (3,702 patients)

The Safety and Efficacy of Approaches to Liver Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Cited 80 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative observational studies

OpenAlex W1993001535 · doi:10.4293/jsls.2014.00186 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

A systematic review and meta-analysis of PubMed and Embase was conducted to compare open laparotomy, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Comparative studies reporting operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality, and costs were included. Random-effects models pooled mean net differences and relative risks across 49 studies encompassing 3,702 patients (1,901 laparoscopic, 1,741 open, and 60 robotic).

What was found

No significant differences were identified among groups in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates, nor between laparoscopic and robotic approaches across all outcomes. Compared to minimally invasive approaches, open laparotomy had: - Greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change: 152.0 mL; 95% CI: 103.3 to 200.8 mL) - Longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference: 2.22 days; 95% CI: 1.78 to 2.66 days) - Higher total complication rate (odds ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.57, favoring minimally invasive surgery)

Why it matters

This analysis confirms that minimally invasive hepatectomy achieves equivalent margin safety and perioperative survival to open surgery while significantly reducing morbidity and recovery time. It also demonstrates that robotic liver resection provided no proven clinical advantage over standard laparoscopic techniques.

Limits

The robotic cohort was tiny (60 patients, 1.62% of the sample), severely limiting statistical power for robotic comparisons. The primary studies are largely non-randomized observational series subject to baseline selection bias (e.g., reserving open surgery for larger or more complex tumors). Cost data mentioned in the methods were not reported with numerical values in the abstract.

Cited by