A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy. RESULTS: Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on choice of central venous access device for delivery of chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: Ensuring reliable central venous access with the fewest complications is vital for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of different types of central venous access devices (CVADs) for patients receiving chemotherapy. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to August 20, 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing the various CVADs (ie, nontunneled central venous catheters [CVCs], peripherally inserted CVCs [PICCs], totally implantable venous access ports [TIVAPs], and tunneled CVCs). RESULTS: A total of 11 eligible randomized controlled trials of 2585 patients were identified. TIVAPs were associated with a lower odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and thrombotic and mechanical complications compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.69; OR, 0.49; 95% CI 0.26-0.93; OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.62; and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.95, respectively). Tunneled CVCs were associated with a higher odds of overall complications, device removal due to complications, and infective complications compared with TIVAPs (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.30-2.17; OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.34-4.73; and OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.14-3.90, respectively). The ranking probability using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values indicated that TIVAPs had the lowest probability of overall complications, removal due to complications, and thrombotic complications. CONCLUSIONS: TIVAPs were found to be superior in terms of complications and quality of life compared with other CVADs, without compromising cost-effectiveness, and should be considered the standard of care for patients receiving chemotherapy.