Abstract
In 1723, Vater first described choledochal cyst and in 1977, Todani et al classified this disease. For many years, open excision (OP) as the standard procedure made a great impact in the treatment of choledochal cyst. Since 1995, when Farello et al first reported laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision, laparoscopic excision (LA) has been used worldwide. However, its safety remains a major concern. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare OP with LA in treating choledochal cyst and then to determine whether LA is safe and valid. The design of this study involved systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources were Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane library. The study selection entailed comparative cohort studies. For data extraction, 2 investigators independently assessed selected studies and extracted the following information: study characteristics, quality, outcomes data, etc. For the results, 7 comparative cohort studies about the effectiveness of LA compared with OP were performed meta-analysis. The results showed that although the LA group had a longer operative time (MD = 56.57; 95% CI = 32.20-80.93; P < 0.00001), LA had a shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -1.93; 95% CI = -2.51 to -1.36; P < 0.00001), and recovery of bowel function (MD = -0.94; 95% CI = -1.33 to -0.55; P < 0.00001). Meta-analysis found no significant difference between most of the 2 groups: bile leak (RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.29-1.24; P = 0.17), abdominal bleeding (RR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.01-8.98; P = 0.51), pancreatitis (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.06-1.03; P = 0.06), total postoperative complications (RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.66-1.62; P = 0.88). The LA group had significant lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (RR = 0.20; 95% CI = 0.11-0.38; P < 0.00001), and adhesive intestinal obstruction (RR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04-0.77; P = 0.02). In conclusion, compared with open excision, laparoscopic excision is a safe, valid, and feasible alternative to open excision.