OBJECTIVETo evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) vs. open surgery (OS) for portal hypertension.

METHODSRelevant literature was retrieved from databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Journal Full Text Database, Chinese Vip Datebase, and Chinese Wanfang. All the relevant trials were collected and then we performed the literature screening. The quality of the included trials was assessed by Cochrane Systematic Review Handbook 5.1. Meta-analyses were conducted by RevMan 5.1 software.

RESULTSEight studies were involved and 435 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was significant difference in intraoperative blood loss [MD = -140.95, 95% CI = (-233.58--48.32), P=0.003], total abdominal drainage volume [MD = -544.32, 95% CI= (-789.97--298.67), P<0.0001], postoperative exhaust time [MD = -28.30, 95% CI= (-41.90--14.69), P<0.0001], length of postoperative hospital stay [MD =-3.61, 95% CI= (-4.16--3.07), P<0.00001], postoperative complication [OR=0.35, 95% CI= (0.15-0.82), P=0.02] between HALS group and OS group. However, the operative time was not significantly different between these two groups [MD = -7.44, 95% CI = (-36.00 -21.12), P=0.61].

CONCLUSIONSCompared with the traditional OS, HALS can reduce intraoperative bleeding, postoperative exhaust time, hospitalization time, surgical trauma, and postoperative complications.The patients often recover more quickly from the HALS. However, its long-term effictiveness and safety still needs to be further verified by randomized controlled trials.