Laparoscopic versus conventional open treatment of hepatic cystic hydatidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Introduction
There still exist controversies about the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic and traditional open surgery.

Aim
This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic versus traditional laparotomy in hepatic cystic hydatidosis.

Material and methods
A systematic literature search was conducted for studies about liver hydatid surgery. After the quality assessment and relevant data extraction, the article was screened and included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results
Thirteen studies included 1211 cases, 362 in the laparoscopic group, and 849 in the open surgery group. According to meta-analysis, laparoscopic surgery is superior to traditional open surgery in terms of length of hospital stay, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, total complications, and the risk of incision infection. There were no significant differences between laparoscopic surgery and traditional open surgery in operation time, postoperative time of abdominal drainage tube removal, recurrence rate, bile leakage rate, biliary fistula rate, and residual cavity infection rate.

Conclusions
Laparoscopy is superior to traditional open surgery in terms of length of hospital stay, the recovery time of gastrointestinal function, total complications, and the risk of incision infection. There was no significant difference in postoperative recurrence between laparoscopy and open surgery. In addition, we think laparoscopy can achieve the same clinical effect as laparotomy. However, the reliability and validity of our conclusion need to be verified by more randomized controlled trials (RCTs).