Table 2 Summary of our analysis
Analysis | RR and 95%CI | P-value | Heterogeneity | No. of studies | Conclusion | Figure | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p-value | I2 | |||||||
Overall survival at 1 year | 1.01, 95% CI [1, 1.02] | p = 0.05 | P = 0.55 | I2 = 0%, | 18 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 2 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 1.01, 95% CI [1, 1.02 | p = 0.09 | P = 0.57 | I2 = 0% | 11 | No significant difference between PRFA and LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S3 |
LRFA | 1.01, 95% CI [0.96, 1.07] | P = 0.64 | P = 0.14 | I2 = 46% | 4 | No significant difference between LRFA and LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S3 | |
Overall survival at 3 years | 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.16] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 83%, | 17 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 2 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 1.08, 95% CI [1, 1.16] | P = 0.05 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 84% | 10 | LLR significantly outperformed PRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S4 |
LRFA | 1.13, 95% CI [0.96, 1.34] | P = 0.14 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 74% | 4 | No significant difference between LRFA and LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S4 | |
Overall survival at 5 years | 1.17, 95% CI [1.06, 1.3] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 75% | 13 | higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 2 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 1.15, 95% CI [1.02, 1.31] | P = 0.03 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 77% | 7 | LLR significantly outperformed PRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S7 |
LRFA | 1.26, 95% CI [0.98, 1.63] | P = 0.07 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 81% | 5 | No significant difference between LRFA and LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S7 | |
Overall survival PSM at 1 year | 1, 95% CI [0.98, 1.02], | P = 0.99 | P = 0.33 | I2 = 13% | 7 | No significant differences were observed between LLR and RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S11 | |
Overall survival PSM at 3 years | 1.1, 95% CI [1.03, 1.18] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.22 | I2 = 28% | 7 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S11 | |
Overall survival PSM at 5 years | 1.06, 95% CI [0.86, 1.31] | P = 0.6 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 82% | 5 | No significant differences were observed between LLR and RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S11 | |
Disease-free survival at 1 year | 1.19, 95% CI [1.05, 1.35] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 69% | 8 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 3 | |
Disease-free survival at 3 years | 1.61, 95% CI [1.31, 1.98] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.03 | I2 = 56% | 8 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 3 | |
Disease-free survival at 5 years | 1.61, 95% CI [0.98, 2.64] | P = 0.06 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 81% | 6 | No significant differences were observed between LLR and RFA | Fig. 3 | |
Disease-free survival PSM at 1 year | 1.37, 95% CI [1.09, 1.71] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.02 | I2 = 74% | 3 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S16 | |
Disease-free survival PSM at 3 years | 1.99, 95% CI [1.24, 3.2] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 79% | 3 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S16 | |
Disease-free survival PSM at 5 years | 2.27, 95% CI [0.78, 6.64] | P = 0.13 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 92% | 2 | No significant differences were observed between LLR and RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S16 | |
Recurrence-free survival at 1 year | 1.21, 95% CI [1.09, 1.35] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 77% | 10 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 4 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 1.24, 95% CI [1.09, 1.41] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 82% | 7 | LLR significantly outperformed PRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S22 |
LRFA | 0.99, 95% CI [0.65, 1.51] | P = 0.97 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 85% | 3 | no significant difference was observed between LLR and LRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S22 | |
Recurrence-free survival at 3 years | 1.45, 95% CI [1.15, 1.84] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 88% | 9 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 4 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 1.63, 95% CI [1.29, 2.07] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 86% | 6 | LLR significantly outperformed PRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S23 |
LRFA | 1.11, 95% CI [0.52, 2.38] | P = 0.78 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 93% | 3 | no significant difference was observed between LLR and LRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S23 | |
Recurrence-free survival at 5 years | 2, 95% CI [1.21, 3.33] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 91% | 7 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Fig. 4 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 2.24, 95% CI [1.5, 3.34] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.04 | I2 = 64% | 4 | LLR significantly outperformed PRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S28 |
LRFA | 1.57, 95% CI [0.57, 4.33] | P = 0.39 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 94% | 3 | no significant difference was observed between LLR and LRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S28 | |
Recurrence-free survival PSM at 1 year | 1.2, 95% CI [1.04, 1.38] | P = 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 71% | 5 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S31 | |
Recurrence-free survival PSM at 3 years | 1, 49% CI [1.1, 2.02] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 80% | 5 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S31 | |
Recurrence-free survival PSM at 5 years | 2.33, 95% CI [1.13, 4.79] | P = 0.02 | P = 0.02 | I2 = 74% | 3 | Higher with LLR compared to RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S31 | |
Local recurrence | 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.47] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 65% | 10 | Significantly lower with LLR | Fig. 5 | |
Type of RFA | PRFA | 0.28, 95% CI [0.16, 0.5] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 70% | 7 | Significantly lower with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S36 |
LRFA | 0.16, 95% CI [0.01, 1.84] | P = 0.65 | P = 0.02 | I2 = 74% | 3 | no significant difference was observed between LLR and LRFA | Supplementary file Fig. S36 | |
Intrahepatic recurrence | 0.7, 95% CI [0.5, 0.97] | P = 0.03 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 72% | 8 | Significantly lower with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S39 | |
Extrahepatic recurrence | 1.41, 95% CI [0.62, 3.2] | P = 0.41 | P = 0.83 | I2 = 0% | 4 | no significant difference between LLR and RFA | Supplementary file Fig. S41 | |
Duration of surgery | SMD = 2.78, 95% CI [1.38, 4. 18] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 98% | 8 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S42 | |
Incidence of blood transfusion during surgery | 4.14, 95% CI [1.33, 12.88] | P = 0.01 | P = 0.14 | I2 = 42% | 5 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S44 | |
All complications | 2.01, 95% CI [1.51, 2.68] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.1 | I2 = 36% | 13 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S45 | |
90-days mortality | 0.54, 95% CI [0.36, 0. 81] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.9 | I2 = 0% | 4 | Significantly lower with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S46 | |
30-days mortality | 3.42, 95% CI [1.5, 7. 79] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.39 | I2 = 0% | 7 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S47 | |
Major complications | 2.02, 95% CI [1.26, 3. 24] | P < 0.01 | P = 0.83 | I2 = 0% | 9 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S48 | |
Duration of hospital stay | SMD = 1.14, 95% CI [0.66, 1. 62] | P < 0.01 | P < 0.01 | I2 = 92% | 10 | Significantly higher with LLR | Supplementary file Fig. S49 | |