. 2021 Oct 24;10(21):4907. doi: 10.3390/jcm10214907

Table 4.

Comparative studies’ outcomes LCL vs. OCL.

Author	N	Age, (Years)	Operative Time (min)	Blood Loss (mL)	Length of Stay (Days)	R0 Resection	Total Complications	Bile Leak
Li et al. [26]	3 vs. 8	42.67 ± 9.45 ^b vs. 47.62 ± 8.85 ^b	225± 18 ^b vs. 264± 59 ^b	133± 33 ^b vs. 368± 105 ^b p = 0.22	6.3± 0.3 ^b vs. 15.5± 2.3 ^b p = 0.006	n/a	1 vs. 3 p = 0.72	n/a
Xu et al. [31]	18 vs. 36	48.22 ± 12.59 ^b vs. 46.68 ± 11.43 ^b	186.5(128.5–219) ^a vs. 200.0 (163.75–238) ^a	75(48.75–200) ^a vs. 200(100–325) ^a p < 0.001	6(4.75–8) ^a vs. 8(7–9) ^a p = 0.003	8 vs. 28 p = 0.021	2 vs. 4	1 vs. 3 p = 0.649
Ding et al. [19]	10 vs. 12	48 ± 17.01 ^b vs. 59.22 ± 7.87 ^b	216.50 ± 49.59 ^b vs. 372.78± 96.73 ^b	50 (50–125) ^a vs. 300 (200–350) ^a p = 0.004	15(11.25–15) ^a vs. 16(15–25) ^a p = 0.034	n/a	0 vs. 5 p >0.05	0 vs. 1 p = 0.545
Peng et al. [28]	31 vs. 71	50(24–73) ^a vs. 48(18–79) ^a	210(82–495) ^a vs. 195(105–375) ^a	100(20–1600) ^a vs. 200(30–1000) ^a p = 0.017	5(2–7) ^a vs. 6(4–39) ^a p < 0.001	n/a	5 vs. 16 p = 0.462	0 vs. 0
Parikh et al. [37]	12 vs. 9	62(38–89) ^a vs. 62(48–68) ^a	204.5(75–450) ^a vs. 200(120–550) ^a	250(0–650) ^a vs. 400(100–1500) ^a	4(2–10) ^a vs. 7(2–27) ^a	12/12 vs. 8/9	2(16.7%) vs. 3(33%)	1 vs. 0
Ruzzenente et al. [39]	47 vs. 177	60± 15 ^b vs. 58 ± 14 ^b	309 ± 116 ^b vs. 235± 120 ^b	175 ± 153 ^b vs. 343 ± 292 ^b	4.9± 3.7 ^b vs. 8.7 ± 9.9 ^b	26/30 vs. 27/30	6 vs. 3	0 vs. 7

Abbreviations: ^a, median (range); ^b, mean ± Standard Deviation; n/a, not available; LCL, laparoscopic caudate lobectomy; OCL, open caudate lobectomy.