Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with type 2 diabetes mellitus: multicenter propensity score-matched study

Development of a novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection procedure in patients with intrahepatic duct stones

BACKGROUND

For intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is currently a reliable treatment. However, the current LLR difficulty scoring system (DSS) is only available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM

To explore the development of a DSS for IHD stone patients with LLR and the validation of its reliability.

METHODS

We used clinical data from 80 patients who received LLR for IHD stones. Forty-six of these patients were used in multiple linear regression to construct a scoring system. Another 34 patients from different centers were used as external validation. The completeness of our DSS was then evaluated in patients with varying degrees of surgical difficulty based on documented surgical outcomes in the study group of patients.

RESULTS

The following five predictors were ultimately included and scored by calculating the weighted contribution of each factor to the prediction of operative time in the training cohort: Location of stones, number of stones ≥ 3, stones located in the bile ducts of several grades, previous biliary surgery less than twice, distal bile duct atrophy. Subsequently, the data set was validated using a DSS developed from the variables. The following variables were identified as statistically significant in external validation: Operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, postoperative alanine aminotransferase, and Clavien-Dindo grading ≥ 3. These variables demonstrated statistically significant differences in patients with three or more grades.

CONCLUSION

Patients with IHD stones have varying degrees of surgical difficulty, and the newly developed DSS can be validated with external data to effectively predict risks and complications after LLR surgery.

Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low.

CONCLUSION

Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.