Safety and efficacy of three-dimensional reconstruction technology-assisted percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of the 15 included studies

Ref.	Sample size 3D/tradition	Age 3D/tradition, mean ± SD	Gender (male/female) 3D tradition	Timing of 3D	Imaging modality	Design
Liu et al[22], 2023	81/73	66.5 ± 10.6/67.9 ± 11.4	46/35, 38/35	Pre-operation and intraoperation	3D of CT and MR	Cohort study
Li et al[10], 2020	42/45	NR	NR	Intraoperation	3D of CT	RCT
Zhou et al[11], 2021	30/30	61.1 ± 5.3/60.3 ± 5.5	20/10, 18/12	Pre-operation	3D of MR	Cohort study
Li et al[23], 2017	63/64	38.73 ± 11.34/35.16 ± 10.65	34/29, 32/32	Intraoperation	3D of ultrasound	Cohort study
Duan et al[12], 2017	50/50	47.6 ± 6.7/46.5 ± 5.4	28/22, 27/23	Intraoperation	3D of ultrasound	RCT
Zhuo et al[13], 2024	32/32	NR	22/10, 21/11	Intraoperation	3D of ultrasound	RCT
Zhou et al[24], 2022	120/60	NR	NR	Pre-operation	3D of CT and MR	Cohort study
Liu et al[14], 2022	30/30	NR	NR	Intraoperation	3D of CT	RCT
Kinoshita et al[15], 2017	12/10	NR	NR	Pre-operation	3D of CT	Cohort study
Wang[16], 2019	52/52	47.34 ± 4.08/47.15 ± 4.16	27/25, 26/26	Pre-operation and intraoperation	3D of ultrasound and CT	Cohort study
Huang et al[17], 2016	60/60	48.6 ± 5.2/47.5 ± 6.8	28/32, 31/29	Pre-operation and intraoperation	3D of ultrasound and CT	RCT
Huang et al[18], 2016	40/40	63.45 ± 3.62/62.97 ± 3.59	21/19, 22/18	Intraoperation	3D of ultrasound	RCT
Huang et al[19], 2020	30/30	51.95 ± 17.58/51.67 ± 17.35	22/8, 21/9	Intraoperation	3D of ultrasound	RCT
Chen et al[20], 2020	80/80	NR	46/34, 45/35	Pre-operation and intraoperation	3D of ultrasound and CT	RCT
Yang et al[21], 2023	20/36	66.5 ± 12.4/62.4 ± 10.9	9/11, 23/13	Pre-operation and intraoperation	3D of ultrasound and CT	Cohort study

3D: Three-dimensional; CT: Computerized tomography; NR: Not reported; MR: Magnetic resonance; RCT: Randomized controlled trial.