Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center propensity-score-matching comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center

BACKGROUND

There is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC from real-life data from consecutive patients.

METHODS

Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from a Korean referral HPB center. Primary outcomes were the postoperative results, while secondary outcomes were the oncologic survivals.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included in the study: 46 undergoing OLR and 17 LLR. Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications, and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 48.4 (95% CI 8.9-86.8) months, there were no statistically significant differences in 3 years OS (59.3 ± 8.7 months vs. 85.2 ± 9.8 months) and 5 years OS (31.1 ± 9 months vs. 73.1 ± 14.1 months), after OLR and LLR, respectively (p = 0.10). Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference in both 3 years DFS (23.5% ± 8.1 months vs. 51.6 ± months) and 5 years DFS (15.7 ± 7.1 months vs. 38.7 ± 15.3 months), respectively (p = 0.13), despite a potential clinically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

LLR for huge HCC may be safe and effective in selected cases. Further studies with larger sample size and more appropriate design are needed to confirm these results.

A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The indication of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. In this study, we compared the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched eligible articles about LLR versus OLR for large HCC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE and performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving 1,338 patients were included. Among them, 495 underwent LLR and 843 underwent OLR. The operation time was longer in the LLR group (MD: 22.23, 95% CI: 4.14-40.33, p = 0.02). but the postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter (MD : -4.88, CI: -5.55 to -4.23, p < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and major complications were significantly fewer (OR: 0.49, 95% CI:0.37-0.66, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.36 - 0.82, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic group had no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion rate, resection margin size, R0 resection rate, three-year overall survival (OS) and three-year disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

LLR for large HCC is safe and feasible. This surgical strategy will not affect the long-term outcomes of patients.

Short-term and long-term outcomes after robotic versus open hepatectomy in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) is currently widely accepted and it is associated with some benefits when compared to open hepatectomy (OH). However, whether such benefits can still be achieved for patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing RH or OH.

METHODS

Perioperative and survival data from patients with large HCC who underwent RH or OH between January 2010 and December 2020 were collected from eight centres. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimise potential biases.

RESULTS

Using predefined inclusion criteria, 797 patients who underwent OH and 309 patients who underwent RH were enroled in this study. After PSM, 280 patients in the robotic group had shorter operative time (median 181 vs. 201 min, P <0.001), lower estimated blood loss (median 200 vs. 400 ml, P <0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (median 6 vs. 9 days, P <0.001) than 465 patients in the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall survival and recurrence-free survival. Cox analysis showed AFP greater than 400 ng/ml, tumour size greater than 10 cm, and microvascular invasion were independent risk factors for overall survival and recurrence-free survival. After PSM, subgroup analysis showed that patients with a huge HCC (diameter >10 cm) who underwent RH had significantly lower estimated blood loss (median 200.0 vs. 500.0 min, P <0.001), and shorter length of stay (median 7 vs. 10 days, P <0.001) than those who underwent OH.

CONCLUSION

Safety and feasibility of RH and OH for patients with large HCC were comparable. RH resulted in similar long-term survival outcomes as OH.