Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background: a propensity score matching study

Recurrence and survival after robotic vs laparoscopic liver resection in very-early to early-stage (BCLC 0-A) hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Robotic (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provide similar short-term outcomes, but data focused on recurrence and survival are still lacking. We hypothesized non-inferior oncologic results of RLR compared to LLR for HCC of stage BCLC 0-A.

METHODS

RLRs and LLRs on patients with HCC of stage BCLC 0-A and preserved liver function (Child A or B if cirrhosis) were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. The primary endpoints were recurrence-free (RFS) and overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were incidence, pattern, and treatment of recurrences.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, two groups (RLR = 68; LLR = 68) of patients with similar characteristics, liver function and HCC features were obtained: median age 71-years, males 73.5%, underlying cirrhosis 91.2% (Child A, 96.8%, MELD ≤ 9, 96.0%), portal hypertension 22.1%, single-HCC 90.4%. Two- and 5-year RFS were 78.0 vs 59.0% and 54.0 vs 53.0% (p = 0.107), while OS was 97.0 vs 90.0% and 87.0 vs 90.0% (p = 0.951) for RLR vs LLR, respectively. Incidence of HCC recurrence was similar (35.3 vs 39.7%; p = 0.723). Recurrences developed mostly within the liver (29.4 vs 30.9%; p = 1.000) and within 2 years after hepatectomy (19.1 vs 32.4%, p = 0.116) in RLR vs LLRs. Curative-intent treatment of recurrences did not differ (liver transplantation 19.6%, redo-resection 15.7%, locoregional treatments 52.9%) except for a tendency toward more redo-resections for recurrences after RLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologic outcomes of RLR were not inferior to those of LLR in selected HCC patients of stage BCLC 0-A with underlying cirrhosis. Both techniques guaranteed similar salvageability in case of HCC recurrence.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic central hepatectomy: a comparison with open surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection has advantages over open liver resection, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays. Laparoscopic central hepatectomy (CH) is a highly challenging procedure, and such outcomes can only be achieved with a high level of expertise in laparoscopic liver surgery. Laparoscopic CH remains challenging, with safety and efficacy unclear. This study retrospectively evaluated the intra- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open CH and assessed safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

CH included anterior sectionectomy (AS) and central bisectionectomy (CBS) (excluding cases with biliary reconstruction). The study comprised 38 patients receiving CH in our department from January 2010 to November 2023.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group included 14 cases and the open group 24. AS/CBS was performed in 14/10 open group cases and 6/8 laparoscopic group cases. Short-term surgical outcomes showed no significant between-group difference in operative time, but the laparoscopic group lost significantly less blood (250 vs. 985 mL; p = 0.001) and the transfusion rate was lower (14% vs. 46%; p = 0.004). Among postoperative outcomes, incidence of bile leakage was not significantly different (33% vs. 42%; p = 0.42), but the laparoscopic group had significantly less postoperative ascites (0% vs. 17%; p = 0.047), fewer surgical site infections (SSI) (0% vs. 21%; p = 0.02), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (14 vs. 30 days; p = 0.005). The risk factor for bile leakage in CH by univariate and multivariate analysis was tumor proximity to the right anterior Glissonean pedicle (OR = 6.84; 95% CI = 1.67-32.7; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic CH could be performed safely. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic CH was effective in reducing blood loss, postoperative ascites, SSIs, and shortening postoperative hospital stay. However, tumors close to the root of the right anterior Glissonean pedicle were considered a risk factor for postoperative bile leakage and require caution.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has now been established as a safe and minimally invasive technique that is deemed feasible for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, the role of LLR in treating combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) patients has been rarely reported. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of LLR when compared with open liver resection (OLR) procedure for patients with cHCC-CC.

METHODS

A total of 229 cHCC-CC patients who underwent hepatic resection (34 LLR and 195 OLR patients) from January 2014 to December 2018 in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University were enrolled and underwent a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between the LLR and OLR groups to compare perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) parameters were assessed by the log-rank test and the sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 LLR and 68 OLR patients were included after PSM analysis. The LLR group displayed a shorter postoperative hospital stay (6.61 vs. 8.26 days; p value < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group. No significant differences were observed in the postoperative complications' incidence or a negative surgical margin rate between the two groups (p value = 0.409 and p value = 1.000, respectively). The aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and inflammatory indicators in the LLR group were significantly lower than those in the OLR group on the first and third postoperative days. Additionally, OS and RFS were comparable in both the LLR and OLR groups (p value = 0.700 and p value = 0.780, respectively), and similar results were obtained by conducting a sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

LLR can impart less liver function damage, better inflammatory response attenuation contributing to a faster recovery, and parallel oncologic outcomes when compared with OLR. Therefore, LLR can be recommended as a safe and effective therapeutic modality for treating selected cHCC-CC patients, especially for those with small tumors in favorable location.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Current evidence on posthepatectomy liver failure: comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Despite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.

RESULTS

Uniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.

DISCUSSION

Strict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study comparing open hepatectomy

Background

To compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) based on propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate therapeutic safety, efficacy, and value for clinical application.

Methods

Forty-nine patients with rHCC who underwent surgery at Wenzhou People’s Hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and classified into LLR (n=30) and OLR (n=22) cases based on the surgical method. Thirty-eight patients were screened using PSM for data analysis to compare basic clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative recurrence in both groups.

Results

Before PSM, the tumour diameter was larger, tumor staging (BCLC staging system), intraoperative blood loss, units of blood transfused, constituent ratio of liver cirrhosis, incidence of MVI and intravascular tumour thrombus and postoperative complication were higher, and duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in the OLR group compared to those in the LLR group (p &lt; 0.05). After PSM, there were no significant differences regarding tumour diameter, MVI incidence, blood transfusion amount or postoperative complication rate in the LLR and OLR groups. The tumor staging, incidence of vascular cancer thrombus, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative duration of hospitalisation were significantly higher in the OLR group than in the LLR group (p&lt;0.05). The difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.383).

Conclusion

LLR for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma can reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complication rate, shorten the duration of hospitalisation, and is superior to OLR regarding perioperative and short-term efficacy, demonstrating good safety and feasibility.

Outcome of major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients; does surgical approach matter? A propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

Major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients still represents a great challenge for liver surgeons. Hence, the aim in the present study is to investigate the clinical impact of major hepatectomy and to assess whether the surgical approach influences the outcome of cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study including cirrhotic patients undergoing major laparoscopic (mjLLR) and open liver resection (mjOLR) in 14 Western liver centers was performed (2009-2020). Clinical, demographic, and perioperative data were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Long-term outcome after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 352 patients were included; 108 after mjLLR and 244 after mjOLR. After PSM, 88 patients were matched in each group. In the mjLLR group, compared to mjOLR, less blood loss (P = .042), lower overall and severe complication (P < .001, .020), such as surgical site infection, acute kidney injury and liver failure were observed, parallel to a shorter length of hospital stay. Stratifying patients based on the type of resection, less severe complications was observed only after laparoscopic left hepatectomy (P = .044), while the advantages of laparoscopy tend to decrease during right hepatectomy. Subgroup analysis of long-term survivals following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma showed no difference between mjLLR and mjOLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter experience suggests potential short-term benefits of mjLLR in cirrhotic patients compared to mjOLR, without compromising long-term outcome. These findings might have interesting clinical implications for the management of patients with chronic liver disease.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The exact role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying liver cirrhosis (LC) is not well defined. In this meta-analysis, both long- and short-term outcomes following LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) were analysed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched systematically for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies reporting outcomes of LLR versus OLR of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This was analysed using one-stage (individual participant data meta-analysis) and two-stage (aggregate data meta-analysis) approaches. Secondary outcomes were operation duration, blood loss, blood transfusion, Pringle manoeuvre utilization, overall and major complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), 90-day mortality and R0 resection rates.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 1618 patients (690 LLR versus 928 OLR) were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analysis, an approximately 18.7 per cent lower hazard rate (HR) of death in the LLR group (random effects: HR 0.81, 95 per cent confidence interval [C.I.] 0.68 to 0.96; P = 0.018) was observed. Two-stage meta-analysis resulted in a pooled HR of 0.84 (95 per cent C.I. 0.74 to 0.96; P = 0.01) in the overall LLR cohort. This indicated a 16-26 per cent reduction in the HR of death for patients with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent LLR. For secondary outcomes, LLR was associated with less blood loss (mean difference [MD] -99 ml, 95 per cent C.I. -182 to -16 ml), reduced overall complications (odds ratio 0.49, 95 per cent C.I. 0.37 to 0.66) and major complications (odds ratio 0.45, 95 per cent C.I. 0.26 to 0.79), and shorter LOHS (MD -3.22 days, 95 per cent C.I. -4.38 to -2.06 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of HCC in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival and perioperative outcomes.

[Laparoscopic Posterolateral Sectionectomy in Hepatocellular Cacinoma - Increasing Oncological Precision by Combining the Glissonean Pedicle Approach and Fluorescence Guidance]

AIM

Minimally invasive procedures have been increasingly performed in liver surgery. Benefits include lower intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity and shorter lengths of hospital stay in comparison to open liver surgery. Exact resection margins seem advantageous in primary liver cancer but challenging to implement with minimally invasive techniques. In this case report, we aimed to increase surgical precision by combining the Glissonean pedicle approach and intraoperative fluorescence guidance.

INDICATION

A 73-year-old female patient with CHILD A liver cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus infection was transferred to our hospital with high levels of alpha-fetoprotein (792 ng/ml). Sectional imaging confirmed the suspected diagnosis of a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with a size of 2.2 cm in segments VI/VII. In line with the local tumour board recommendation, an anatomical posterolateral sectionectomy using the Glissonean pedicle approach was planned.

METHODS

The patient was placed in the French position. After mobilisation of the right liver, the posterolateral pedicle was encircled and transected. 0.2 mg/kg of body mass indocyanine green (ICG) was then injected intravenously. The perfused parenchyma of segments I-V and VIII turned green, but the unperfused posterolateral segment VI and VII remained native. The transection line was marked under ICG-imaging to indicate the transition of the posterolateral to the anteromedial sector. Parenchymal transection was performed under intermittent ICG-guided imaging. Pathological workup confirmed R0 resection of a well differentiated HCC in a cirrhotic liver (grade 4). The patient was discharged from the hospital on the 6th postoperative day after an uncomplicated course and was confirmed to be tumour-free six months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

As an additional intraoperative tool, ICG-imaging may provide visualisation of segment and sector boundaries and thus may enable precise anatomical resection. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the added value of this technique, especially with regard to the rate of R0 resections.

Long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Long-term survival is the most important outcome measurement of a curative oncological treatment. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the long-term disease-free and overall survival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is shown to be non-inferior to the current standard of open liver resection (OLR). Some studies have reported a superior long-term oncological outcome in LLR when compared to OLR. It has been argued that improvement of visualization and instrumentation and reduced operative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion may contribute to reduced risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. On the other hand, since most of the comparative studies of the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR for HCC are non-randomized, it remained inconclusive as to whether LLR confers additional survival benefit compared to OLR. Despite the paucity of level 1 evidence, the practice of LLR for HCC has gained wide-spread acceptance due to the reproducible improvements in the perioperative outcomes and non-inferior oncological outcomes demonstrated by large-scaled, matched comparative studies. Meta-analyses of the outcomes of these studies by multiple systematic reviews have also returned noncontradictory conclusions. On the basis of a theoretical advantage of LLR over OLR in preventing tumor recurrence, the current review aims to dissect from the current meta-analyses and comparative studies any evidence of such superiority.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Survival analysis between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been widely used in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is generally believed that the long-term outcomes of LH are not inferior to open hepatectomy (OH). However, the quality of evidence is low. The purpose of this study was to reconstruct time-to-event data for meta-analysis based on Kaplan-Meier curves from propensity-score matched studies and compare survival rates following LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

All published propensity-score matched studies reported in English that compared LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma with Kaplan-Meier curves were screened. Patients' survival information was reconstructed with the aid of a computer vision program. Different models (fixed-effects model for two-stage survival analysis and Cox regression for one-stage survival analysis) were performed for sensitivity analysis. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, two specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients by types of resection, cirrhosis status.

RESULTS

Time-to-event data were extracted from 45 propensity-score matched studies (N = 8905). According to the time-to-event data and the reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative overall survival rate was 49.0% and 50.9% in the LH and OH cohorts, respectively, a log-rank test did not demonstrate statistical significance (p > 0.05). The cumulative recurrence-free survival (RFS) probability was both close to 0.0%. The median RFS time was 49.1 (95% CI 46.1 ~ 51.7) and 44.3 (95% CI 41 ~ 46.1) months. The difference in disease status was statistically significant by the Log-rank test (p < 0.05). Using the random-effects model of two-stage analysis, the minor hepatectomy subgroup (HR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], I² = 6.2%, p = 0.383) and the shared fragile model of one-stage analysis (HR = 1.44 95% CI [1.23, 1.69], p < 0.001) suggested that LH could significantly prolong RFS of patients compared with OH. This result was consistent with sensitivity analysis using different models.

CONCLUSION

This study was the first reconstructed time-to-event data based on a high-quality propensity-score matching study to compare the survival outcomes of LH and OH in the treatment of HCC. Results suggested that LH can improve RFS in patients with HCC undergoing minor hepatectomy and may also benefit long-term RFS in overall patients.

Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing, despite effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus infection and the application of preventive measures such as vaccination at birth against HBV infection. This is mainly due to the increase in metabolic syndrome and its hepatic components, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Liver resection and transplantation are the main treatment options, offering long-term survival and potential cure. In this review, the recent advances in the surgical management of HCC are presented. More specifically, the role of liver resection in the intermediate and advanced stages, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, is analyzed. In addition, the roles of minimally invasive surgery and of living-related liver transplantation in the management of patients with HCC are discussed. Finally, recent data on the role of molecular markers in the early diagnosis and recurrence of HCC are presented. The management of HCC is complex, as there are several options for each stage of the disease. In order for, each patient to get the maximum benefit, an individualized approach is suggested, in specialized liver units, where cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies

Background

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P  <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD −69.16; 95% CI −101.72 to −36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD −2.65; 95% CI −3.41 to −1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Case Controlled Study with Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested that laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, this issue remains controversial since the data may have been attributable to an imbalance in patients' background.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 290 hepatectomies for HCC undertaken between 2011 and 2019. Liver resection difficulty was based on the 3 levels of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Resection ratio was calculated using computed tomography volumetry. Patient characteristics were compared between the LLR and OLR groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was adopted to adjust the imbalance between the cohorts, and the incidence of postoperative complications was compared.

RESULTS

The difficulty and resection ratio were significantly lower in LLR (n = 112) than in OLR (n = 178) (difficulty grade I/II/III: 84/10/18 vs. 43/39/96, p < 0.001; resection ratio: 11.4 ± 12.7 vs. 22.7 ± 17.2%, p < 0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III or more) was lower in LLR (2.7% vs. 21.9%, p < 0.001), which was mainly attributable to fewer incidences of ascites and pleural effusion. PSM generated 68 well-matched patients in each group. The lower incidence of postoperative complications in LLR was also maintained in the PSM cohort (2.9% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.017). On multivariate analysis, LLR was the independent predictor of postoperative complications (OR 0.184, 95% CI 0.051-0.672, p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that a laparoscopic approach reduces the incidence of postoperative complications in liver resection for HCC.

Comparison of Perioperative Complications Between Anterior Fusion and Posterior Fusion for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures in Elderly Patients: Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Using Nationwide Inpatient Database

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study using a nationwide inpatient database.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the perioperative complications post-anterior fusion (AF) and posterior fusion (PF) for osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) with a large National Inpatient Database.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

OVF of the thoracolumbar spine often occur because of bone fragility and low-energy trauma in elderly patients. Though AF and PF are 2 representative surgical methods, there have been few studies focusing on perioperative complications of each method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The total 2446 (AF: 435 cases, PF: 2011 cases) patients who diagnosed thoracic or lumbar OVF and received either AF or PF were included from 2012 to 2016 with the Diagnosis Procedure Combination (DPC) database. After one-to-one propensity score-matching, total 866 cases were analyzed to evaluate systemic and local complication rates, reoperation rates, costs, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 433 pairs were made between the surgical procedures after matching. At least 1 systemic complication was seen in 26.6% of the AF group compared with 16.9% of the PF group (P=0.001). Specifically, the incidence of pulmonary embolism (P=0.045), urinary tract infection (P=0.012), and pleurisy (P=0.004) were significantly higher in the AF group. Blood transfusion (P=0.007) and the operation for systemic complications (P=0.020) were required more often in the AF group. The cost for hospitalization was also higher in the AF group (P<0.001). There were no differences in the mortality rates between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

More systemic complications were observed in the AF group. Surgeons need to take careful consideration of the merits and demerits described in this study when deciding the surgical method for OVF.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019 Edition)

BACKGROUND

Primary liver cancer, around 90% are hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people.

SUMMARY

Since the publication of Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2017 Edition) in 2018, additional high-quality evidence has emerged with relevance to the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer in and outside China that requires the guidelines to be updated. The new edition (2019 Edition) was written by more than 70 experts in the field of liver cancer in China. They reflect the real-world situation in China regarding diagnosing and treating liver cancer in recent years.

KEY MESSAGES

Most importantly, the new guidelines were endorsed and promulgated by the Bureau of Medical Administration of the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China in December 2019.

A comparison of prognoses between surgical resection and radiofrequency ablation therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and esophagogastric varices

There has been insufficient investigation of the differences in long-term outcomes between surgical resection (SR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and esophagogastric varices (EGV). We retrospectively enrolled 251 patients with treatment-naïve HCC and EGV who underwent SR or RFA as a first-line treatment. Prognostic factors were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. A total of 68 patients underwent SR, and the remaining 183 patients received RFA. Patients who underwent SR were younger, had better liver functional reserves, and had larger tumors. After a median follow-up duration of 45.1 months, 151 patients died. The cumulative 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was significantly higher among patients who underwent SR than those treated with RFA (66.7% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age > 65 years, multiple tumors, RFA, albumin bilirubin grade > 1, and the occurrence of major peri-procedural morbidity were the independent risk factors that are predictive of poor OS. In conclusion, SR could be recommended as a first-line treatment modality for HCC patients with EGV if the patients are carefully selected and liver function is well preserved.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS-FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS-FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.

Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: What Are the Advantages in Patients with Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Personal Experience

Background: Laparoscopic surgery is a choice of treatment for liver diseases; it can decrease postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension may benefit from minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) instead of open liver resections (OLRs). Whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional ones is still a matter of debate. We thus aimed to gather the available literature on this specific topic to achieve greater clarity. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Sciences databases were assessed for studies comparing OLRs versus MILRs for HCC in cirrhotic patients up to February 2020. Data from our surgical experience from June 2010 to February 2020 were also included. Demographic characteristics, liver function, the presence of portal hypertension, tumor number, and tumor size and location were assessed; operative time, need for Pringle maneuver, estimated blood loss (EBL), major or minor hepatectomy performance, and conversion rate were evaluated for operative findings. Postoperative outcomes and liver-related complications, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, blood transfusion (BT) rate, need for reintervention, LOS, in-hospital or 30-day mortality, and radicality of resection were also considered. Meta-analysis was performed employing Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: One thousand three hundred twenty-one patients from 13 studies and our own series were considered in the meta-analysis. At preoperative settings, the OLR and MILR groups differed significantly only by tumor size (4.4 versus 3.0, P = .006). Laparoscopic procedures resulted significantly faster (120.32-330 minutes versus 146.8-342.75 minutes, P = .002) and with lower EBL than open ones (88-483 mL versus 200-580 mL, P < .00001), thus requiring less BTs (7.9% versus 13.2%, P = .02). In terms of overall morbidity, minimally invasive surgeries resulted significantly favorable (19.32% versus 38.04%, P < .00001), as well as for ascites (2.7% versus 12.9% P < .00001), postoperative liver failure (7.51% versus 13.61% P = .009), and SSI (1.8% versus 5.42%, P = .002). Accordingly, patients who had undergone MILRs had significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than patients who underwent conventional open surgery (2.4-36 days versus 4.2-19 days P < .00001). Both groups did not differ in terms of mortality rate and radicality of resection (OLR 93.8% versus 96.1% laparoscopic liver resection, P = .12). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence in the literature, laparoscopic resections rather than open liver ones for HCC surgery in cirrhotic patients seem to reduce postoperative overall morbidity, liver-specific complications, and LOS. The lack of randomized studies on this topic precludes the possibility of achieving defining statements.

Comparison of Perioperative Complications Between Anterior Decompression With Fusion and Laminoplasty For Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: Propensity Score-matching Analysis Using Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective comparative study with a large national database.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the perioperative complications and costs of anterior decompression with fusion (ADF) and laminoplasty (LAMP) for patients who had cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

CSM is the most common spinal cord disorder in the upper middle-aged people in Japan. ADF and LAMP represent 2 major treatments; however, few studies have reported large-scale investigations for perioperative complications with CSM. Thus, it is controversial which surgical approach will lead to the best clinical outcome in CSM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data in this study were collected from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database for patients diagnosed with CSM. We adjusted for known confounding biases with propensity score matching. One-to-one matched pairs between each surgical procedure were analyzed for the purposes of comparing systemic complication rates, local complication rates, medical costs, and mortality.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 1638 pairs of patients undergoing ADF and LAMP were made. More perioperative systemic complications were observed in the ADF group, such as atrial fibrillation (ADF/LAMP=0.7%/0.2%, P=0.032), respiratory failure (1.4%/0.1%, P<0.001), dysphagia (2.2%/0.2%, P<0.001), and sepsis (0.5%/0.1%, P=0.019). In contrast, a high rate of pulmonary embolism was observed with LAMP groups (ADF/LAMP=0%/0.2%, P=0.045). Local complications, such as infection (ADF/LAMP=0.8%/1.7%, P=0.026) and meningitis (0%/0.2%, P<0.045), were more common in the LAMP group. Conversely, spinal fluid leakage (ADF/LAMP=0.6%/0%, P=0.003) was more common in the ADF group. The costs (P<0.001) were higher in the ADF group.

CONCLUSIONS

More systemic complications, such as respiratory disease, cardiovascular events, and sepsis, were observed in the ADF group, although local infection was more frequently seen in the LAMP group. Medical costs were higher in the ADF group. The findings in this study will contribute to each CSM patient by allowing suitable adaptation of cervical surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Inconsistent Outcomes from Matched or Weighted Cohorts

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate the role of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) among patients with early-stage (stage I or II) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing partial hepatectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to identify patients with early-stage HCC who underwent partial hepatectomy in the USA from 2010 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared in three cohorts: crude; stabilized inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting (IPTW); and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Among 4027 patients included in the study, only 11.7%, (n = 473) underwent MILR. In the stabilized IPTW cohort, patients who underwent MILR versus open resection were more likely to have tumors greater than 3 cm (63.9%, n = 285 vs. 51.4%, n = 228, p < 0.001) and poorly/undifferentiated tumors (21.5%, n = 96 vs. 12.9%, n = 57, p < 0.001). Within the crude cohort, a 5-year OS was superior among patients in the open surgical group (67.8%) compared with patients who underwent MILR (56.6%) (p < 0.001). After classic PSM analysis, the 5-year OS of patients undergoing MILR and open surgery were noted to be comparable (57.3% vs 63.8%, p = 0.17; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92-1.45). In contrast, after applying IPTW, the 5-year OS of patients who underwent MILR (55.5%) was worse compared with patients who had an open resection (67.5%) (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.84; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MILR were comparable with patients who had open surgery when assessed by standard PSM. The use of IPTW resulted in more unbalanced groups leading to residual confounding and bias.

Future liver remnant function as a predictor of postoperative morbidity following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma - A risk factor analysis

BACKGROUND

Advances in anaesthesia and surgical technique have considerably reduced mortality in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver resection. However, extended resections in patients with liver cirrhosis still represent a challenge. The aim of this study was to investigate the predictive value of volume/function analysis for the prediction of morbidity in HCC patients following liver resection.

METHODS

Between 2001 and 2014, a total of 261 patients who underwent open hepatectomy for HCC were enrolled in this study. Future liver remnant volume (FLRV) and future liver remnant function (FLRF) based on LiMAx testing were obtained retrospectively. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors for postoperative ascites, post-hepatectomy haemorrhage (PHH), and wound healing disorders (WHD) within the total cohort and in a subgroup of cirrhotic patients.

RESULTS

The most commonly observed complication was ascites (57.1%), followed by liver failure (25.3%), PHH (19.5%), and WHD (19.2%). FLRF was a major predictor of postoperative ascites (AUC 0.776; OR 0.987, p = 0.001), PHH (AUC 0.717; OR 0.984, p = 0.001), and WHD (AUC 0.660; OR 0.994, p = 0.032) in total cohort. Multivariable analysis of the cirrhosis subgroup showed FLRF to be an independent predictor of ascites (AUC 0.814; OR 0.989, p = 0.021), PHH (AUC 0.677; OR 0.991, p = 0.040), and WHD (AUC 0.615; OR 0.989, p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

FLRF is a major predictor of postoperative ascites, haemorrhage, and wound healing disorders in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients whereas FLRV failed to show significant correlations. Preoperative calculation of FLRF may augment surgical decision-making in high-risk patients and thereby improve perioperative outcome.

Laparoscopic versus open limited liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis: a propensity score matching study with the Hiroshima Surgical study group of Clinical Oncology (HiSCO)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved as a safe and effective alternative to conventional open liver resection (OLR) for malignant lesions. However, LLR in cirrhotic patients remains challenging. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis compared with OLR using propensity score matching.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective analysis of records of patients who underwent limited liver resection for HCC and were histologically diagnosed with liver cirrhosis between January 2009 and December 2017 in the eight institutions belonging to the Hiroshima Surgical study group of Clinical Oncology was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: the LLR and OLR groups. After propensity score matching, we compared clinicopathological features and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 256 patients with histological liver cirrhosis who underwent limited liver resection for HCC were included in this study; 58 patients had undergone LLR, and the remaining 198 patients OLR. The number of tumors was higher, tumor size was larger, and difficulty score was significantly higher in the OLR group before propensity matching. After the matching, the data of the well-matched 58 patients in each group were evaluated; the intraoperative blood loss was lower in the LLR group (p = 0.004), and incidence of the postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OLR group (p = 0.019). The duration of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLR group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between two groups in overall survival and recurrent-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR decreased the incidences of postoperative complications, shortened the duration of postoperative hospital stay. Thus, LLR is a safe and feasible procedure even in patients with cirrhosis.

Minimally Invasive Approach in the Setting of ALPPS Procedure: a Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) represents a new surgical technique for the resection of advanced hepatic malignancies with predicted insufficient future liver remnant. In some patients, ALPPS can be associated with an increased risk of poor outcomes. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been proposed in combination with ALPPS with the intent to minimize this risk. We systematically evaluated the outcomes of MIS-ALPPS cases to compare the relative outcomes of open ALPPS versus MIS-ALPPS.

METHODS

A systematic review was done in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms utilized included the following: ("ALPPS"[Title/Abstract] OR "associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy"[Title/Abstract] OR "in situ split"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("minimally invasive"[Title/Abstract] OR "laparoscopic"[Title/Abstract] OR "robotic"[Title/Abstract]).

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were identified, with a total of 27 patients reported. Colorectal metastatic disease was the most commonly observed indication for MIS-ALPPS (66.7%), followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (25.9%). Time passed from the first to the second stage ranged 7-30 days. MIS-ALPPS patients did not experience procedure failures between the first and second stages. Only four (15.4%) subjects had a grade IIIb complication. No perioperative mortality after the first or second stage was reported. Compared with open ALPPS, MIS-ALPPS demonstrated better results. Hospital stay duration ranged 8-33 days with a follow-up ranging 1-20 months.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS-ALPPS appears to be safe, with potentially lower morbidities and mortalities relative to open patients. The present results should be considered with caution. A limited number of articles exist on this topic. Furthermore, selection biases exist when comparing open versus MIS-ALPPS data. Registry studies are needed to better define the outcomes of patients undergoing MIS-ALPPS.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy in Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been reported as a safe and efficacious treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, in cirrhosis patients, LH may be more complex and challenging. So, the short- and long-term outcomes should be well evaluated between LH and open hepatectomy (OH) in HCC patients with cirrhosis. Objectives: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LH with OH in HCC patients with cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify the clinical trials published until July 2018 on the comparison of LH and OH in HCC patients with cirrhosis. The statistical analysis was conducted by the Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Short-term outcomes included blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, postoperative complications, mortality, postoperative hospital stay, tumor size, and surgical margin. Long-term outcomes included 1-, 3-, 5-year overall survival (OS) and 1-, 3-, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Seventeen studies with 2004 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For short-term outcomes, LH suggested less blood loss, lower blood transfusion rates, reduced occurrence of postoperative complications, wider surgical margin, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and declined rate of mortality (all P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in operation time (P = .67) between the two groups, whereas tumor size was larger in OH (P = .004). As to long-term outcomes, 1-, 3-, 5-year OS and 1-year DFS were higher in LH group (all P < .05). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year DFS (P = .23 and .83, respectively). Conclusions: For the HCC patients with cirrhosis, current evidence suggests that LH shows not only better outcomes in short term, but also a comparable and even improved long-term prognosis.