Outcome of laparoscopic major liver resection for colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:2451-2455. [PMID: 22358126 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2209-4]

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM)

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Open versus laparoscopic liver resection of colorectal metastases: a meta-analysis of matched patient populations

In recent years, the management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has evolved significantly. Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being performed, despite a lack of major randomized controlled trial evidence or widespread international consensus. The objective of this review was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes following open and laparoscopic CRLM resection. A systematic review of comparative matched population studies was performed. Evaluated endpoints included surgical outcomes and survival outcomes. Twelve studies were included in this review, reporting on 3095 patients. R0 (negative margins) rates were higher in the laparoscopic CRLM group (89.3% versus 86.9%). In addition, laparoscopic resection was associated with less blood loss (486 mls versus 648 mls, p ≤ 0.0001*) and reduced blood transfusion rates (6.7% vs. 12.2%, OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08-4.19, p = 0.03*). Major complication rates were higher in the open CRLM group (12.5% vs. 8.1%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.30-2.33, p = 0.03*), as was overall hospital length of stay (median 7 versus 5.5 days, p = 0.001*). Perioperative mortality was similar between both groups, and there was no significance in 5-year overall survival for open or laparoscopic CRLM resection groups (58% and 61% respectively). Laparoscopic CRLM resection is associated with less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, major complications, and overall hospital length of stay with comparable oncological outcome.

Performance of image guided navigation in laparoscopic liver surgery - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery, minimally invasive liver resection has improved short term outcomes. It is however technically more challenging. Navigated image guidance systems (IGS) are being developed to overcome these challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of their current capabilities and limitations.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using free text terms and corresponding controlled vocabulary. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened for inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the retrieved data it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Therefore results are presented in tabulated and narrative format.

RESULTS

Out of 2015 articles, 17 pre-clinical and 33 clinical papers met inclusion criteria. Data from 24 articles that reported on accuracy indicates that in recent years navigation accuracy has been in the range of 8-15 mm. Due to discrepancies in evaluation methods it is difficult to compare accuracy metrics between different systems. Surgeon feedback suggests that current state of the art IGS may be useful as a supplementary navigation tool, especially in small liver lesions that are difficult to locate. They are however not able to reliably localise all relevant anatomical structures. Only one article investigated IGS impact on clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Further improvements in navigation accuracy are needed to enable reliable visualisation of tumour margins with the precision required for oncological resections. To enhance comparability between different IGS it is crucial to find a consensus on the assessment of navigation accuracy as a minimum reporting standard.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

The actual management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancers in the world and between 50% and 60% of patients will develop colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the disease. There have been great improvements in the management of CRLM during the last decades. The combination of modern chemotherapeutic and biological systemic treatments with aggressive surgical resection strategies is currently the base for the treatment of patients considered unresectable until few years ago. Furthermore, several new treatments for the local control of CRLM have been developed and are now part of the arsenal of multidisciplinary teams for the treatment of these complex patients. The aim of this review was to summarize and update the management of CRLM, its controversies and relevant evidence.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Highlights, limitations and future challenges of laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

The liver is the most common site for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRLM). Despite advances in oncologic treatment, resection of metastases is still the only curative option. Although laparoscopic surgery for primary colorectal cancer is well documented and widely used, laparoscopic surgery for liver metastases has developed more slowly. However, in spite of some difficulties, laparoscopic approach demonstrated strong advantages including minimal parietal damage, decreased morbidity (reduced blood loss and need for transfusion, fewer pulmonary complications), and simplification of subsequent iterative hepatectomy. Up to now, more than 9 000 laparoscopic procedures have been reported worldwide and long-term results in colorectal liver metastases seem comparable to the open approach. Only one recent randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic and the open approach. The purpose of the present update was to identify the barriers limiting widespread acceptance of laparoscopic approach, the benefits and the limits of laparoscopic hepatectomies in CRLM.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

RESULTS

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

Minimally Invasive Management of Secondary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic liver surgery for secondary liver cancer is increasing. The most common indications are colorectal cancer liver metastases followed by adenocarcinoma metastases from other solid organs, such as breast, pancreatic neuroendocrine, and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. This article provides a comprehensive review of crucial concepts when managing secondary liver cancer minimally invasively, a summary of the up-to-date literature, and a discussion of the development of the application of this technique over time.

Long term outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Because of the advancements in the surgical techniques of liver resection and improvements in anesthesia and postoperative critical care, the simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis either by the laparoscopic procedure or by the open resection method has been considered as a safe and acceptable option. However, there is limited information on the comparison of postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. This study investigated the clinical results and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis in comparison with those of open surgery.

METHODS

Patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastasis who underwent simultaneous resection at Shuang Ho Hospital from 2009 to 2017 were identified. The patient demographics, perioperative morbidity, and survival rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. Laparoscopic procedure was performed for 16 patients, and the remaining 22 patients underwent open surgery. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics between the two groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 56% and 35% in the laparoscopic group and 70% and 15% in the open surgery group, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 100% and 84% in the laparoscopic group and 73% and 48% in the open surgery group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic surgery for simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis seems to be safe and had a similar outcome to that of open surgery.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with augmented reality-assisted indocyanine green fluorescence versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis: A propensity analysis at a single center

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is considered an acceptable treatment of choice in selected patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether indocyanine green (ICG) immunofluorescence, a new technology, may improve surgery outcomes has yet to be tested. The aim of the present study was to investigate and compare the effect of ICG fluorescence imaging on the outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy for primary HCC with background cirrhosis.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2016, 20 patients with HCC and liver cirrhosis underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence. The outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence were compared with those of open hepatectomy. To avoid selection bias, patients were propensity score matched in a ratio of 1 : 6, with 20 patients in the laparoscopic group and 120 in the open group.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had 20 patients, and the open group had 120 patients. The laparoscopic group had less blood loss (125 vs 450 mL, P < 0.001), a shorter operation time (200 vs 250 min, P = 0.003), and a shorter hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < 0.001). The complication rate was 0% in the laparoscopic group compared to 15.0% in the open group (P = 0.135). All patients in the laparoscopic group had negative margin involvement. Four patients (3.3%) in the open resection group had positive margin involvement. Two patients in the ICG immunofluorescence group had additional lesions identified and resected during operation.

CONCLUSION

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence for primary HCC can be carried out safely with favorable short-term outcomes even in cirrhotic patients. Better identification of the bile duct structure and better assessment of the tumor resection margin and perfusion are advantages of this new technique.

Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies.

METHODS

All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective studies with 1679 colorectal liver metastases patients were analyzed: 683 patients treated with laparoscopic liver resection and 996 patients with open liver resection. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss (MD, -216.7, 95% CI, -309.4 to -124.1; P < 0.00001), less requiring blood transfusion (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), lower postoperative complication morbidity (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization time (MD, -3.85, 95% CI, -5.00 to -2.71; P < 0.00001). However, operation time and postoperative mortality were no significant difference between the two approaches. With respect to oncological outcomes, laparoscopic liver resection group was prone to lower recurrence rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61−0.99; P = 0.04), but surgical margins R0, overall survival and disease-free survival were no significant difference.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases have the same effect on oncological outcomes, but laparoscopic liver resection achieves better surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proposed as a safe and feasible treatment option for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the short-term and oncologic outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for CRLM have not been adequately assessed. Thus, we herein provide an updated systematic review comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of CRLM patients undergoing LLR versus OLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until November 2, 2016) with a limitation to the publications in English. Quality assessment was performed based on the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies enrolling 4591 patients with CRLM were included. With respect to short-term outcomes, patients in LLR group showed significantly reduced blood loss (WMD: -143.64; 95% CI: -180.56 to -106.73; I2 = 86%; P < 0.001), lower operative transfusion requirement (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.53; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.94; I2 = 82%; P < 0.001), reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42-0.66; I2 = 38%; P < 0.001) and reduced severe morbidity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; I2 = 35%; P < 0.001). Regarding oncologic outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two surgical procedures in recurrence and 1-, 3-, and 5-overall survival and disease-free survival except for slightly higher R0 resection rate in LLR group was slightly higher than that of OLR group (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03-1.97; I2 = 37%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR should be the standard approach for selected patients with CRLM, and further research should focus on determining which patients would benefit most from LLR.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains uncertain in current liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant publications. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Continuous variables were calculated by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas dichotomous variables were calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible studies with 1130 patients were identified, of which 455 (40.3%) patients in the LMH group and 675 (59.7%) patients in the OMH group. LMH was associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18, p < .00001), less transfusion requirement (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.29-0.82, p = .007), decreased postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.76, p = .0001), and shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.24, p < .0001) when compared with the OMH group. But the operative time was significantly longer in LMH group (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.79-1.86, p = .01). Both the two groups achieved similar surgical margin and R0 resection rate for malignant lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LMH appeared to be feasible and safe in current liver surgery. LMH is associated with less blood loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncological outcomes compared with OMH.

Stepwise introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery: validation of guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) could compromise postoperative outcomes. A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training is advised. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of such a stepwise introduction.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center case series assessing short term outcomes of all consecutive LLS in the period November 2006-January 2017. The technique was implemented in a stepwise fashion. To evaluate the impact of this stepwise approach combined with structured training, outcomes of LLS before and after a laparoscopic HPB fellowship were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 135 laparoscopic resections were performed. Overall conversion rate was 4% (n = 5), clinically relevant complication rate 13% (n = 18) and mortality 0.7% (n = 1). A significant increase in patients with major LLS, multiple liver resections, previous abdominal surgery, malignancies and lesions located in posterior segments was observed after the fellowship as well as a decrease in the use of hand-assistance. Increasing complexity in the post fellowship period was reflected by an increase in operating times, but without comprising other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training reduced the clinical impact of the learning curve, thereby confirming guideline recommendations.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic compared to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now established as standard of care for a variety of gastrointestinal procedures for benign and malignant indications. However, due to concerns regarding superiority to open liver resection (OLR), the uptake of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow. Data on long-term outcomes of LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long-term outcomes of LLR compared to OLR for CRLM.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing LLR and OLR for CRLM and reporting on survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and resection margins.

RESULTS

Eight non-randomized studies (NRS) were included (n=2,017 total patients). Six were matched cohort studies. LLR reduced estimated blood loss [mean difference: -108.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), -214.0 to -3.7) and major morbidity [relative risk (RR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83], but not mortality. No difference was observed in operative time, LOS, resection margins, R0 resections, and recurrence. Survival data could not be pooled. No studies reported inferior survival with LLR. OS varied from 36% to 60% for LLR and 37% to 65% for OLR. RFS ranged from 14% to 30% for LLR and 22% to 38% for OLR. According to the grade classification, the strength of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. The use of parenchymal sparing resections with LLR and OLR could not be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited retrospective evidence, LLR offers reduced morbidity and blood loss compared to OLR for CRLM. Comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. Although LLR cannot be considered as standard of care for CRLM, it is beneficial for well-selected patients and lesions. Therefore, LLR should be part of the liver surgeon's armamentarium.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Current status and future perspective of laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary disease

Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery include laparoscopic and robotic surgery. These surgical techniques have changed the paradigm of surgical treatment for hepatobiliary diseases. Minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of minimal wound extension for cosmetic effect, early postoperative recovery, and few postoperative complications in patients. For laparoscopic liver resection, the indications have been expanded and oncological outcome was proven to be similar with open surgery in the malignant disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a classical operation for benign gallbladder diseases and the effort to decrease the surgical wound resulted to perform single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For choledochal cyst, laparoscopic surgery is applied gradually despite of the difficulties associated with anastomosis, and robotic surgery for hepatobiliary disease is also performed for more minimally invasive surgery; however, while admitting the advantage of robotic surgery, robotic technology should be improved for development of more convenient and cheaper instrument and continuous efforts to enhance surgical technique to overcome long operation is necessary. In this review, the status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery for hepatobiliary diseases are summarized and discussed.

Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Elderly Patients: A Comparative Study From a Single Center

The life expectancy continues to gradually increase worldwide. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was recently reported to be a relatively safe procedure for treatment of liver disease because of the development of new techniques and instruments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of elderly patients who underwent LLR. Of these 61 patients who underwent LLR in our institute from January 2010 through April 2014, 21 were aged 75 years and above (group E), and 40 were aged below 75 years (group NE). Patient characteristics were retrospectively analyzed between the 2 groups. The results showed that patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups, although the incidence of hypertension was significantly greater among patients in group E. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay between the 2 groups. In conclusion, LLR for elderly patients was a feasible procedure compared with nonelderly patients.

What is the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is rapidly expanding with more than 9500 cases performed worldwide. While initial series reported non-anatomic resection of benign peripheral hepatic lesions, approximately 50-65 % of laparoscopic liver resections are now being done for malignant tumors, primarily hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal cancer liver metastases (mCRC).

METHODS

We performed a literature review of published studies evaluating outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection, defined as three or more Couinaud segments.

RESULTS

Initial fears of adverse oncologic outcomes or tumor seeding have not been demonstrated, and dozens of studies have reported comparable 5-year disease-free and overall survival between laparoscopic and open resection of HCC or mCRC in case-cohort and propensity score-matched analyses. Increased experience has led to laparoscopic anatomic liver resections including laparoscopic major hepatectomy. A steep learning curve of 45-60 cases is evident for laparoscopic hepatic resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of benign and malignant liver tumors when performed in specialized centers with dedicated teams. Comparable to other complex laparoscopic surgeries, laparoscopic major hepatectomy has a learning curve of 45-60 cases.

Appraisal of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Treatment of Liver Metastasis with Special Reference to Outcome in Colorectal Malignancies

Treatment of metastatic liver disease is at the crossroads of an evolutionary transformation with more and more reports reiterating the benefits of resectional therapy in various cancers. A quest for application of laparoscopic approaches to the management of liver metastasis has arisen due to the projected benefits of less morbidity, early recovery, and equivalent oncological outcome in selected malignancies. However, the diverse and heterogenous data on indications, operative technique, and outcome evaluation make a comparative analysis of these studies difficult. This review is an appraisal of technique and outcome of minimally invasive liver resection as reported in the current literature with special reference to treatment of metastatic colorectal cancers.

Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to clarify the surgical outcome and long-term prognosis of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared with conventional open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

A one-to-two propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied. Covariates (P < 0.2) used for PSM estimation included preoperative levels of CEA and CA19-9; primary tumor differentiation; primary pathological lymph node metastasis; number, size, location, and distribution of CRLM; existence of extrahepatic metastasis; extent of hepatic resection; total bilirubin and prothrombin activity levels; and preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and long-term survival were compared.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2010, 1,331 patients with hepatic resection for CRLM were enrolled. By PSM, 171 LLR and 342 OLR patients showed similar preoperative clinical characteristics. Median estimated blood loss (163 g vs 415 g, P < 0.001) and median postoperative hospital stay (12 days vs 14 days; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the LLR group. Morbidity and mortality were similar. Five-year rates of recurrence-free, overall, and disease-specific survival did not differ significantly. The R0 resection rate was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected CRLM patients, LLR is strongly associated with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay and has equivalent long-term survival comparable with OLR.

The role of adult living donor liver transplantation and recent advances

Twenty years since the first cases were described, adult living donor liver transplantation (ALDLT) is now considered a valid option to expand the donor pool in view of the ongoing shortage of organs and the high waiting list mortality rate. Despite the rapid evolution and acceptance of this complex process of donation and transplantation in clinical practice, the indications, outcome, ethical considerations and quality and safety aspects continue to evolve based on new data from large cohort studies. This article reviews the surgical and clinical advances in the field of liver transplantation, focusing on technical refinements and discussing the issues that may lead to a further expansion of this complex surgical procedure and the role of ALDLT.

The impact of laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery on subsequent laparoscopic resection of liver metastases: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of 610 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The objective of this manuscript was to perform a metaanalysis comparing outcomes of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatic mCRC, and to identify which patients were suitable candidates for LLR.

STUDY DESIGN

A PubMed search identified 2,122 articles. When filtered for case-matched articles comparing LLR with OLR for mCRC, 8 articles were identified consisting of 610 patients (242 LLR, 368 OLR). A random effects metaanalysis was performed.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, number of metastases, extent of major hepatectomy, and use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of metastases in the LLR and OLR groups were 1.4 and 1.5, respectively (P = .14). Estimated blood loss was less in LLR group (262 vs 385 mL; P = .049). Transfusion rate was significantly less in LLR group (9.9 vs 19.8%; P = .004). There was no difference in operative time (248.7 vs 262.8 min; P = .85). Length of stay (LOS) was less in the LLR group (6.5 vs 8.8 days; P = .007). The overall complication rate was less in LLR group (20.3% vs 33.2%; P = .03). Importantly, there was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) rates.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients with limited mCRC (1 or 2 tumors), LLR provides marked perioperative benefits without compromising oncologic outcomes or long-term survival. Specifically, LLR offers decreased blood loss, LOS, and overall complication rates with comparable 5-year OS and DFS.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in elderly patients: a single-center, case-matched study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) among elderly patients has increased; therefore, older patients are increasingly being considered for hepatic resection. However, data regarding the outcome of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) in elderly patients are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LMH in elderly patients with CRLM.

METHODS

From January 1998 to September 2013, a total of 31 patients aged ≥ 70 years (elderly group) were matched with 62 patients < 70 years (young group) by demographics, tumor characteristics, and details of surgical procedures.

RESULTS

The elderly group was characterized by a higher incidence of hypertension (41.9 vs. 17.7 %, P = 0.022), ≥ 2 comorbidities (32.3 vs. 11.3 %, P = 0.021), and lower prevalence of metastatic rectal cancer (12.9 vs. 38.7 %, P = 0.015). Intraoperative variables, such as surgical duration (300 vs. 240 min, P = 0.920), blood loss (400 vs. 300 mL, P = 0.361), and transfusion rate (9.7 vs. 12.9 %, P = 0.726), were not notably different between the groups. Postoperative mortality (0 vs. 0 %), complications (54.8 vs. 41.9 %, P = 0.276), and major complications (27.4 vs. 16.1 %, P = 0.303, respectively) were comparable between the groups. The 3-year overall survival rates were 61.7 % in the young group (median 40 months) and 57.9 % in the elderly group (median 39 months), respectively (P = 0.842).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly demonstrated that LMH for CRLM could be safely performed in elderly patients; thus, advanced age itself should not be regarded as a contraindication for LMH.

[Laparoscopic liver surgery]

Liver resection remains the method of choice for curative treatment for liver tumors. Development in diagnostic and surgical techniques has improved operative results as well as long-term outcomes. In the last decade minimally invasive laparoscopic (LAP) surgery has been increasingly adopted by liver units. The trend in LAP liver resection has been moving from limited resections towards major hepatectomy. This process, however, is relatively slow, which can be due to technical difficulties of the procedure and fear of haemorrhage. Despite having a hard time at the start, major resections become more common. Up to now approximately 6000 LAP liver resections were performed worldwide, number of major hepatectomies is estimated between 700-800. LAP liver resections are feasible with significant benefits for patients consisting of less blood loss, less narcotic requirements, and shorter hospital stay with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resections. It is an accepted management of both benign and malignant liver lesions. There is no difference between LAP and open surgery in late survival after resection for colorectal liver metastases. Overall survival of LAP resected hepatocellular carcinoma cases seems to be superior compared with open surgery.

Laparoscopic liver resection in the semiprone position for tumors in the anterosuperior and posterior segments, using a novel dual-handling technique and bipolar irrigation system

Background

Hepatic tumors in the lower edge and lateral segments are commonly treated by laparoscopic liver resection. Tumors in the anterosuperior and posterior segments are often large and locally invasive, and resection is associated with a higher risk of insufficient surgical margins, massive intraoperative bleeding, and breaching of the tumor. Laparoscopic surgery for such tumors often involves major hepatectomy, including resection of a large volume of normal liver tissue. We developed a novel method of laparoscopic resection of tumors in these segments with the patient in the semiprone position, using a dual-handling technique with an intercostal transthoracic port. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and usefulness of our technique.

Methods

Of 160 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection at our center from June 2008 to May 2013, we retrospectively reviewed those with tumors in the anterosuperior and posterior segments. Patients were placed supine or semilateral during surgery until January 2010 and semiprone from February 2010.

Results

Before the introduction of the semiprone position in February 2010, a total of 7 of 40 patients (17.5 %) with tumors in the anterosuperior and posterior segments underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and after introduction of the semiprone position, 69 of 120 patients (57.5 %) with tumors in the anterosuperior and posterior segments underwent laparoscopic liver resection (P < 0.001). There were no conversions to open surgery, reoperations, or deaths. The semiprone group had a significantly higher proportion of patients who underwent partial resection or segmentectomy of S7 or S8, lower intraoperative blood loss, and shorter hospital stay than the supine group (all P < 0.05). Postoperative complication rates were similar between groups.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic liver resection in the semiprone position is safe and increases the number of patients who can be treated by laparoscopic surgery without increasing the frequency of major hepatectomy.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3469-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic liver resection compared to open approach in patients with colorectal liver metastases improves further resectability: Oncological outcomes of a case-control matched-pairs analysis

AIMS

Liver resection is considered the standard treatment of colorectal metastases (CRLM). However, to date, no long term oncological results and data regarding repeat hepatectomy after laparoscopic approach are known. The aim of this study is to analyze single center long-term surgical and oncological outcomes after liver resection for CRLM.

METHODS

A total of 57 open resections (OR) were matched with 57 laparoscopic resections (LR) for CRLM. Matching was based mainly on number of metastases, tumor size, segmental position of lesions, type of hepatectomy and type of resection.

RESULTS

Morbidity rate was significantly less in the LR group (p = 0.002); the length of hospital stay was 6.5 ± 5 days for the LR group and 9.2 ± 4 days for the OR group (p = 0.005). After a median follow up of 53.7 months for the OR group and 40.9 months for the LR group, the 5-y overall survival rate was 65% and 60% respectively (p = 0.36) and the 5-y disease free survival rate was 38% and 29% respectively (p = 0.24). More patients in the LR group received a third hepatectomy for CRLM relapse than in the OR group (80% vs. 14.3% respectively; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection for CRLM offers advantages in terms of reduced blood loss, morbidity rate and hospital stay. It provides comparable long-term oncological outcomes but can improve further resectability in patients with recurrent disease.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.

Results

Finally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR = 0.57, 95%CI:0.42–0.78, P = 0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR = 2.44, 95%CI:1.21–4.94, P = 0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD = −3.40, 95%CI:−4.37–2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.

Benefits of simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases

INTRODUCTION

Recently, consensus on the optimal strategy for resectable synchronous colorectal liver metastases (LM) seems to have shifted toward simultaneous resection. However, there are still relatively few reports about simultaneous laparoscopic resection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of patients who underwent simultaneous laparoscopic resection.

METHODS

We evaluated 14 patients who underwent simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer and LM in our hospital from 2004 to 2012. Patients were selected by matched pair analysis based on the number of LM (≤4) and tumor size (≤5 cm). We divided them into two groups: the simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary colorectal cancer and LM (Lap-S) group (n = 7) and the simultaneous open resection of primary colorectal cancer and LM (Open-S) group (n = 7). Clinical and oncologic outcomes were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The Lap-S patients were significantly older than the Open-S patients. The mean operative times of Lap-S and Open-S were 472 min and 466 min, respectively. The mean blood loss was significantly smaller in the Lap-S group (153 mL) than in the Open-S group (496 mL). There was no surgical mortality in either group. The incidence of postoperative complications in the Lap-S and Open-S groups was 12.3% and 33.0%, respectively. The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Lap-S group (16 days) than in the Open-S group (36 days). There was no significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Lap-S patients had equivalent long-term outcomes to Open-S patients. Therefore, given its technical feasibility and safety, Lap-S may be one of the most promising options in selected patients.

Laparoscopic liver resection as a safe and efficacious alternative to open resection for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remain to be established. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for CLM with respect to surgical and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed to retrieve all relevant articles published in the English language by the end of March 2013. Data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 8 nonrandomized controlled studies with 695 subjects were analyzsed. Intra-operative blood loss, the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, morbidity and the length of hospital stay were all significantly reduced after LLR. Postoperative recurrence, 5-year overall and disease-free survivals were comparable between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for CLM is safe and efficacious. It improves surgical outcomes and uncompromises oncologic outcomes as compared with OLR.