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

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 < 0.00001) and hospital cost (MD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.33, P = 0.04) was higher in MIS, MIS was associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness, that was less blood loss (MD = -81.85, 95% CI = -92.09 to -71.62, P < 0.00001), less postoperative pain (MD = -1.21, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.79, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -5.65 to -2.80, P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA is acceptable in selected patients. MIS is a remarkable alternative to OS for providing comparable outcomes associated with a benefit of minimal invasiveness and its application should be considered more.