search for




 

Procedural outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobe resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2023 Feb;27(1):6-19
Published online February 28, 2023;  https://doi.org/10.14701/ahbps.22-045
Copyright © 2023 The Korean Association of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.

Shahab Hajibandeh1,*, Ahmed Kotb2,*, Louis Evans3,*, Emily Sams3, Andrew Naguib4, Shahin Hajibandeh5, Thomas Satyadas6

1Cardiff Liver Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, United Kingdom,
2Department of General Surgery, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhyl, United Kingdom,
3Department of General Surgery, Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Cwm Taf University Health Board, Pontyclun, United Kingdom,
4Undergraduate Department, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom,
5Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom,
6Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Manchester Royal Infirmary Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
Correspondence to: Shahab Hajibandeh, MBChB, MRCS
Cardiff Liver Unit, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park Way, Cardiff, CF14 4XW, United Kingdom
Tel: +44-7766106423, E-mail: shahab_hajibandeh@yahoo.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3294-4335

*These authors contributed equally to this study.
Received June 16, 2022; Revised July 8, 2022; Accepted July 12, 2022.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 Abstract
A systematic review was conducted in compliance with PRISMA statement standards to identify all studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic resection of benign or malignant lesions located in caudate lobe of liver. Pooled outcome data were calculated using random-effects models. A total of 196 patients from 12 studies were included. Mean operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 225 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 181–269 minutes), 134 mL (95% CI, 85–184 mL), and 7 days (95% CI, 5–9 days), respectively. The pooled risk of need for intraoperative transfusion was 2% (95% CI, 0%–5%). It was 3% (95% CI, 1%–6%) for conversion to open surgery, 6% (95% CI, 0%–19%) for need for intra-abdominal drain, 1% (95% CI, 0%–3%) for postoperative mortality, 2% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for biliary leakage, 2% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for intra-abdominal abscess, 1% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for biliary stenosis, 1% (95% CI, 0%–3%) for postoperative bleeding, 1% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for pancreatic fistula, 2% (95% CI, 1%–5%) for pulmonary complications, 1% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for paralytic ileus, and 1% (95% CI, 0%–4%) for need for reoperation. Although the available evidence is limited, the findings of the current study might be utilized for hypothesis synthesis in future studies. They can be used to inform surgeons and patients about estimated risks of perioperative complications until a higher level of evidence is available.
Keywords : Laparoscopy; Caudate lobe; Liver resection; Hepatectomy
INTRODUCTION

Despite a steep learning curve and technical challenges, laparoscopy for liver resections has been an alternative surgical approach for liver tumors in recent years. Studies have shown advantages of laparoscopic liver resections over the traditional open approach, including reduced postoperative morbidity, less blood loss, less need for blood transfusion, and shorter length of hospital stay [1,2]. This has been the case even for tumors in posterosuperior segments [3]. Nevertheless, its steep learning curve has frequently been seen as the hindrance to the widespread adoption of laparoscopic liver resection, with posterior segment resections being very technically challenging and requiring high level technical skills [4].

Laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe of liver is particularly difficult for several reasons. The caudate lobe, which consists of Spiegel’s lobe, the paracaval portion, and the caudate process, is located in the posterior part of the liver in front of inferior vena cava and behind hepatic vessels and portal vein [5]. Moreover, multiple short hepatic veins with varying numbers and sizes drain the caudate lobe directly into the inferior vena cava [6]. All of these could make dissection challenging and potentially hazardous with respect to bleeding. Nevertheless, safety and feasibility of laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe have been reported by several individual studies, providing a basis for performing a systematic review. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate procedural outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobe resection by conducting a systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement standards were followed to prepare the study protocol, conduct the study and report a systematic review [7].

Eligibility criteria

All randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series evaluating outcomes of laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe of liver were considered eligible. Adult patients who had malignant or benign lesions in the caudate lobe of liver were defined as population of interest. The intervention of interest included laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe of liver.

Types of outcome measures

Outcomes included need for intraoperative transfusion, conversion to open surgery, need for intra-abdominal drain, postoperative mortality, biliary leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, biliary stenosis, postoperative bleeding, pancreatic fistula, pulmonary complications, paralytic ileus, and need for reoperation.

Search methods

The search strategy provided in Appendix 1 was used by two independent authors to search Scopus, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, and MEDLINE without applying any language limitations. Moreover, we screened references cited in relevant papers for more eligible studies. The last date for the search was September 1, 2021.

Study selection and data extraction

Two independent authors screened the title and abstract of each article obtained. We obtained full-texts of potentially eligible articles and included studies that met the eligibility criteria. A data extraction sheet was then created using a pilot-testing technique. We extracted information on bibliographic data, design of each study, sample size of each study, included population description, tumor size, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, operative time, need for intraoperative transfusion, need for intra-abdominal, conversion to open surgery, drain, biliary leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, biliary stenosis, postoperative bleeding, pancreatic fistula, pulmonary complications, paralytic ileus, postoperative mortality, and need for reoperation. A third independent author was consulted when there was a disagreement between the first two authors.

Risk of bias assessment

We used the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) Critical Appraisal tool for case-series for assessing the risk of bias [8]. The JBI tool takes into account eligibility criteria used in each study, methods used for measurement of condition of interest, detail of recruitment process, baseline characteristics, outcome measures, and statistical models used in each study. Risk of bias assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers. An independent author was consulted in case of any disagreements.

Data analysis

To construct a proportion meta-analysis model, we integrated quantitative risks of need for intraoperative transfusion, conversion to open surgery, need for intra-abdominal drain, postoperative mortality, biliary leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, biliary stenosis, postoperative bleeding, pancreatic fistula, pulmonary complications, paralytic ileus, and need for reoperation from individual studies. MetaXL plug-in for Microsoft Excel was used to calculate overall effect according to methods suggested by Petrie et al. [9] Weighted summary proportions were calculated using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Random effects modelling was applied for analyses. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity by calculating I2 using Cochran Q test (χ2) (low heterogeneity = I2 0%–25%; moderate heterogeneity = I2 25%–75%; high heterogeneity = I2 75%–100%). Symmetry of Doi plot and LFK index were used to assess publication bias.

Additional analyses

Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of primary analyses. Influence of fixed and random effects modelling on pooled risk of each outcome was assessed. Moreover, the influence of each study on pooled risk of each outcome was evaluated by repeating analyses after eliminating one study at a time.

RESULTS

Search results

Using the search strategy described above, 140 articles were identified. We excluded 125 articles directly because they did not match the subject of this review. Full texts of the remaining 15 articles were evaluated, which resulted in exclusion of another three articles which were review articles. Consequently, 12 articles [6,10-20] consisting of four retrospective cohort studies [17-20] and eight case-series [6,10-16] including 196 patients were considered eligible for inclusion. The study flow chart is shown in Fig. 1. Three studies [6,10,11,15] included only patients with malignant liver lesions and nine studies [11-14,16-20] included patients with malignant or benign lesions. The mean tumor size was 3.8 cm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9–4.8 cm). Mean operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 225 minutes (95% CI: 181–269 minutes), 134 mL (95% CI: 85–184 mL), and 7 days (95% CI: 5–9 days). The baseline characteristics of the included studies and included population are provided in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

Table 1 . Baseline characteristics of included studies

StudyCountryJournalDesignIncluded patientSample size
Chen et al. 2013 [10]TaiwanJ Gastrointest SurgCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant caudate lobe tumor8
Oh et al. 2016 [6]KoreaJ Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech ACase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant caudate lobe tumor6
Salloum et al. 2016 [11]FranceJ Am Coll SurgCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor5
Araki et al. 2016 [12]FranceSurg EndoscCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor15
Chai et al. 2018 [13]ChinaJ Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech ACase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor6
Jin et al. 2018 [14]ChinaBiomed Res IntCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor12
Hayami et al. 2019 [15]JapanAsian J Endosc SurgCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant caudate lobe tumor6
Cappelle et al. 2020 [16]BelgiumLangenbecks Arch SurgCase seriesPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor32
Ding et al. 2020 [17]ChinaLangenbecks Arch SurgRetrospective cohortPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor10
Xu et al. 2021 [18]ChinaSurg EndoscRetrospective cohortPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor18
Peng et al. 2021 [19]ChinaANZ J SurgRetrospective cohortPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor31
Ruzzenente et al. 2022 [20]ItalySurg EndoscRetrospective cohortPatients undergoing laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for malignant or benign caudate lobe tumor47


Table 2 . Baseline characteristics of included population

StudyAge (yr)*Male sexTumour originPart of caudate lobe resectedOperative time (min)*Blood loss (mL)*Length of stay (day)*


Hepatocellular carcinomaCholangiocarcinomaMetastasisBenignCaudate processParacaval portionSpiegel lobe
Chen et al. 2013 [10]556 out of 84 out of 80 out of 84 out of 80 out of 86 out of 87 out of 86 out of 82542027
Oh et al. 2016 [6]584 out of 64 out of 61 out of 61 out of 60 out of 65 out of 66 out of 66 out of 63822438
Salloum et al. 2016 [11]663 out of 54 out of 50 out of 50 out of 51 out of 52 out of 51 out of 53 out of 52492806
Araki et al. 2016 [12]647 out of 151 out of 150 out of 1512 out of 152 out of 1515 out of 1515 out of 1515 out of 15150758
Chai et al. 2018 [13]504 out of 64 out of 60 out of 60 out of 62 out of 60 out of 63 out of 66 out of 62492607
Jin et al. 2018 [14]485 out of 127 out of 120 out of 120 out of 125 out of 1212 out of 1212 out of 1212 out of 12141989
Hayami et al. 2019 [15]676 out of 65 out of 60 out of 61 out of 60 out of 60 out of 60 out of 66 out of 6207358
Cappelle et al. 2020 [16]6120 out of 320 out of 321 out of 3226 out of 325 out of 329 out of 3215 out of 3220 out of 321551003
Ding et al. 2020 [17]485 out of 105 out of 100 out of 100 out of 105 out of 1010 out of 1010 out of 1010 out of 102175015
Xu et al. 2021 [18]478 out of 197 out of 190 out of 191 out of 1911 out of 195 out of 195 out of 1916 out of 19187756
Peng et al. 2021 [19]5016 out of 3110 out of 310 out of 314 out of 3117 out of 315 out of 316 out of 317 out of 312101005
Ruzzenente et al. 2022 [20]6124 out of 4717 out of 470 out of 4716 out of 4713 out of 470 out of 4715 out of 4745 out of 473091755

*Average value (mean or median).



Fig 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart.

Risk of bias in included studies

Results of risk of bias assessment using the JBI assessment tool are presented in Fig. 2.

Fig 2. Outcomes of methodological quality assessment of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool for case-series.

Outcome synthesis

Need for intraoperative transfusion: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled intraoperative blood transfusion rate of 2% (95% CI: 0%–5%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.85). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be low (LFK index: 1.81; minor asymmetry) (Fig. 3A).

Fig 3. Forest plots and Doi plots for: (A) need for intraoperative transfusion; (B) conversion to open surgery; (C) need for intra-abdominal drain; (D) postoperative mortality; (E) biliary leakage; (F) intra-abdominal abscess; (G) biliary stenosis; (H) postoperative bleeding; (I) pancreatic fistula; (J) pulmonary complications; (K) paralytic ileus; and (L) need for reoperation.

Conversion to open surgery: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled conversion to open surgery rate of 3% (95% CI: 1%–6%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be low (LFK index: –1.00; minor asymmetry) (Fig. 3B).

Need for intra-abdominal drain: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled intra-abdominal drain use rate of 6% (95% CI: 0%–19%) with a high statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 90%, p < 0.001). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be low (LFK index: 0.00; no asymmetry) (Fig. 3C).

Postoperative mortality: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled postoperative mortality rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–3%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p > 0.99). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be high (LFK index: 5.19; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3D).

Biliary leakage: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled biliary leakage rate of 2% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be low (LFK index: 1.66; minor asymmetry) (Fig. 3E).

Intra-abdominal abscess: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled intra-abdominal abscess rate of 2% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p > 0.99). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be high (LFK index: 2.08; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3F).

Biliary stenosis: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled biliary stenosis rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be high (LFK index: 3.63; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3G).

Postoperative bleeding: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled postoperative bleeding rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–3%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p > 0.99). The risk of publication bias was high (LFK index: 5.19; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3H).

Pancreatic fistula: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled pancreatic fistula rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The risk of publication bias was high (LFK index: 3.63; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3I).

Pulmonary complications: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled pulmonary complications rate of 2% (95% CI: 1%–5%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.92). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be low (LFK index: 1.48; minor asymmetry) (Fig. 3J).

Paralytic ileus: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled paralytic ileus rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be high (LFK index: 3.63; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3K).

Need for reoperation: Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 studies showed a pooled need for reoperation rate of 1% (95% CI: 0%–4%) with a low statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 0.98). The probability of publication bias was deemed to be high (LFK index: 3.63; major asymmetry) (Fig. 3L).

Sensitivity analyses

Application of fixed effect and random effects modelling did not affect overall results. Moreover, eliminating one study at a time did not affect overall results for any outcomes except for the need for intra-abdominal drain where removal of Ruzzenente et al. [20] 2022 significantly reduced the heterogeneity.

DISCUSSION

We conducted a systematic review to provide evidence for procedural outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobe resection. Evaluation of 196 patients from 12 case series showed that laparoscopic approach was safe, feasible, and promising for resecting lesions located in the caudate lobe of liver as indicated by a low rate of perioperative complications and a short length of hospital stay. The statistical heterogeneity was deemed to be low for most outcomes. Sensitivity analyses supported consistency of findings.

The current study provides the best available and the most recent evidence on outcomes of laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe. It quantifies risks of postoperative complications. Although four of the included studies compared laparoscopic approach with the open approach, we decided against synthesising comparative evidence due to a significant risk of selection bias, confounding by indication and the small sample size of included studies. Nevertheless, Ding et al. [21] have compared safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection in a meta-analysis of seven comparative studies and concluded that laparoscopic approach is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter length of hospital stay. Most data in the study by Ding et al. [21] were from unpublished dissertations. Their results were subjected to several limitations as acknowledged by the authors. Taking these evident limitations into account, results of current study are consistent with findings of the study by Ding et al. [21].

We have previously demonstrated that laparoscopic resection of posterosuperior liver segments is associated with a lower risk of postoperative morbidity, less intraoperative blood loss, and shorter length of hospital stay than open approach [3]. Reported outcomes of the laparoscopic arm in our previous meta-analysis were consistent with results of current study in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, need for intraoperative transfusion, postoperative mortality, biliary leakage, intra-abdominal abscess, and pulmonary complications [3]. All of these results suggest that laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe might be safe and feasible.

As mentioned earlier, laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe of liver is particularly challenging and potentially hazardous with respect to bleeding due to its close relation with inferior vena cava, hepatic vessels, portal vein, and multiple short hepatic veins draining the caudate lobe directly into the inferior vena cava [5,6]. Nevertheless, findings of current study suggest that laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe is associated with a very low risk of blood loss and intraoperative blood transfusion requirement.

The low risk of bleeding associated with laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe found in the current study might be justified by several explanations. The caudal view achieved during laparoscopic approach might have facilitated precise dissection of the liver parenchyma along the inferior vena cava [18]. In fact, laparoscopic approach provides an excellent view and access to veins of caudate lobe originating from portal vein or inferior vena cava behind the liver which is normally difficult to achieve during an open approach [18]. Moreover, the balance between the central venous pressure and carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum might help reduce venous bleeding [18]. We know from available evidence that large tumors can increase the risk of bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection [18]. The average tumor size in this study was 3.8 cm, which might have contributed to low risk of intraoperative bleeding in this study.

We are indeed mindful about the level of evidence which is currently available regarding outcomes of laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe. The current evidence, which is mainly derived from a limited number of case-series with small sample sizes, does not provide a robust basis for definite conclusions. However, findings of the current study might be utilized for hypothesis synthesis in future studies. They can be used to inform surgeons and patients about estimated risks of perioperative complications associated with laparoscopic resection of caudate lobe until a higher level of evidence is available.

This study has several limitations. As mentioned above, all included studies had a retrospective design with small sample sizes, subjecting our results to selection bias, confounding by indication, and possible type 2 error. Although the level of statistical heterogeneity was low, the level of clinical heterogeneity was significant among included studies. There was heterogeneity in terms of origin of tumor among included studies. In some studies, metastatic lesions were more common. However, in other studies, primary liver tumors were more common pathology. On the other hand, the part of caudate lobe resected was not homogeneous among studies, ranging from total caudate lobe resection to resection of Spiegel’s lobe only. The clinical heterogeneity seen in above variables, together with variability in terms of surgical techniques used, would subject available evidence to potential risk of bias and low certainty. Future prospective studies with adequate statistical power and randomized control trials are needed to address aforementioned limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach might be feasible, safe, and promising for resecting lesions in caudate lobe of liver. The available evidence is limited to data from case series with conspicuous clinical heterogeneity in terms of included population and operative techniques used. Findings of the current study might be utilized for hypothesis synthesis in future studies. They can also be used to inform surgeons and patients about estimated risks of perioperative complications until a higher level of evidence is available.

FUNDING

None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: Shahab H, TS. Data curation: AK, LE, AN, Shahin H. Methodology: Shahab H, Shahin H. Visualization: Shahab H, Shahin H, TS. Writing - original draft: AK, LE, Shahin H. Writing - review & editing: All authors.

References
  1. Wang ZY, Chen QL, Sun LL, He SP, Luo XF, Huang LS, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies. BMC Cancer 2019;19:1047.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Zhang XL, Liu RF, Zhang D, Zhang YS, Wang T. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with propensity score-based analysis. Int J Surg 2017;44:191-203.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Dave M, Tarazi M, Satyadas T. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for tumors in the posterosuperior segments: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2020;30:93-105.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Kazaryan AM, Røsok BI, Marangos IP, Rosseland AR, Edwin B. Comparative evaluation of laparoscopic liver resection for posterosuperior and anterolateral segments. Surg Endosc 2011;25:3881-3889.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  5. Koh YX, Lee SY, Chiow AKH, Kam JH, Goh BKP, Chan CY. Laparoscopic caudate lobe resection: navigating the technical challenge. Ann Laparosc Endosc Surg 2017;2:39.
    CrossRef
  6. Oh D, Kwon CH, Na BG, Lee KW, Cho WT, Lee SH, et al. Surgical techniques for totally laparoscopic caudate lobectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2016;26:689-692.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. Checklist for Case Series [Internet]. Adelaide: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017 [cited 2021 Sep 1].
  9. Petrie A, Bulman JS, Osborn JF. Further statistics in dentistry Part 8: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Br Dent J 2003;194:73-78.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Chen KH, Jeng KS, Huang SH, Chu SH. Laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy for cancer--an innovative approach to the no-man's land. J Gastrointest Surg 2013;17:522-526.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Salloum C, Lahat E, Lim C, Doussot A, Osseis M, Compagnon P, et al. Laparoscopic isolated resection of caudate lobe (Segment 1): a safe and versatile technique. J Am Coll Surg 2016;222:e61-e66.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Araki K, Fuks D, Nomi T, Ogiso S, Lozano RR, Kuwano H, et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for caudate lobe: technical strategy and comparative analysis with anteroinferior and posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 2016;30:4300-4306.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Chai S, Zhao J, Zhang Y, Xiang S, Zhang W. Arantius ligament suspension: a novel technique for retraction of the left lateral lobe liver during laparoscopic isolated caudate lobectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2018;28:740-744.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Jin B, Jiang Z, Hu S, Du G, Shi B, Kong D, et al. Surgical technique and clinical analysis of twelve cases of isolated laparoscopic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:5848309.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Hayami S, Ueno M, Kawai M, Miyamoto A, Suzaki N, Hirono S, et al. Standardization of surgical procedures for laparoscopic Spiegel lobectomy: a single-institutional experience. Asian J Endosc Surg 2019;12:232-236.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  16. Cappelle M, Aghayan DL, van der Poel MJ, Besselink MG, Sergeant G, Edwin B, et al. A multicenter cohort analysis of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobe resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020;405:181-189.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Ding Z, Huang Y, Liu L, Xu B, Xiong H, Luo D, et al. Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2020;405:737-744.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Xu G, Tong J, Ji J, Wang H, Wu X, Jin B, et al. Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy: a multicenter, propensity score-matched report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Surg Endosc 2021;35:1138-1147.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Peng Y, Liu F, Xu H, Guo S, Wei Y, Li B. Propensity score matching analysis for outcomes of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobectomy. ANZ J Surg 2021;91:E168-E173.
    CrossRef
  20. Ruzzenente A, Ciangherotti A, Aldrighetti L, Ettorre GM, De Carlis L, Ferrero A, et al. Technical feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection: an IgoMILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) registry-based study. Surg Endosc 2022;36:1490-1499.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  21. Ding Z, Liu L, Xu B, Huang Y, Xiong H, Luo D, et al. Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2021;406:1307-1316.
    Pubmed CrossRef