Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma presents less respiratory complications compared with open procedure: A propensity score analysis in the elderly

Incidental gallbladder cancer detected during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: conversion to extensive resection is a feasible choice

Background

Re-resection is recommended for patients with incidental gallbladder carcinoma (iGBC) at T1b stage and above. It is unclear whether continuation of laparoscopic re-resection (CLR) for patients with intraoperatively detected iGBC (IDiGBC) is more beneficial to short- and long-term clinical outcomes than with conversion to radical extensive-resection (RER).

Methods

This single-centre, retrospective cohort study of patients with iGBC was conducted between June 2006 and August 2021. Patients who underwent immediate reresection for T1b or higher ID-iGBC were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to match the two groups (CLR and RER) of patients, and differences in clinical outcomes before and after matching were analyzed.

Result

A total of 102 patients with ID-iGBC were included in this study. 58 patients underwent CLR, and 44 underwent RER. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 56 patients were matched to all baselines. Patients in the RER group had a lower total postoperative complication rate, lower pulmonary infection rate, and shorter operation time than those in the CLR group did. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the overall survival rate of patients who underwent CLR was significantly lower than that of patients who underwent RER. Multivariate analysis showed that CLR, advanced T stage, lymph node positivity, and the occurrence of postoperative ascites were adverse prognostic factors for the overall survival of patients.

Conclusion

Patients with ID-iGBC who underwent RER had fewer perioperative complications and a better prognosis than those who underwent CLR. For patients with ID-iGBC, conversion to radical extensive-resection appears to be a better choice.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Safety of advanced laparoscopic hepatectomy for elderly patients: a Japanese nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Although basic laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has become the standard procedure for hepatectomy, the safety of advanced LH remains to be clarified, especially in elderly patients. We investigated the safety of advanced LH in elderly Japanese patients.

METHODS

Elderly patients (≥ 65 years) who underwent advanced LH between 2016 and 2021 were analyzed using a nationwide claims database in Japan. The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent open hepatectomy (OH group) or LH (LH group) were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The E-value method was performed to assess the strength of the outcome point estimates against possible unmeasured confounding factors.

RESULTS

Among 5,021 patients, eligible patients were classified into the OH (n = 4,152) and LH (n = 527) groups. The median patient age was 74 years in both groups. Hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic liver tumors were the major indications for hepatectomy (OH: 52.5% versus 30.6%; LH: 60.7% versus 26.4%). After PSM, in-hospital mortality rates for OH and LH were 1.7 and 0.76%, respectively. The risk ratio was 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.25; E-value = 3.87). Compared with OH, LH was associated with a longer anesthesia time (411 versus 432 min), lower rate of blood product use (red blood concentrate: 33.5% versus 20.3%; fresh frozen plasma: 29.2% versus 17.1%), and shorter hospital stay (13 versus 12 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, the safety of advanced LH was similar to that of advanced OH, or might be better in Japan under the current policy of hospital accreditation.

Short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of combined major vessel resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score analysis

Purpose

In the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA), combined resection of important hepatic vessels remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative complications and prognosis of combined and non-combined major vessel resections in patients undergoing radical resection for HCCA.

Methods

In this study, patients with HCCA who underwent curative resection between January 2007 and December 2018 were retrospectively enrolled. Postoperative complications and prognosis between the groups were compared using propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis.

Results

There were 310 patients included in this study. The portal vein resection (PVR) and hepatic artery resection (HAR) groups had a higher incidence of postoperative complications than the control group. Patients in the HAR group had an increased risk of abdominal and pleural effusion after surgery. Patients who underwent combined PVR had better overall survival (OS; P = 0.020) and disease-free survival (DFS; P = 0.020). After curative-intent resection, patients in the HAR group had improved OS (P = 0.027) and DFS (P = 0.023). The postoperative complications of combined vascular resection (VR) did not worsen long-term survival for patients.

Conclusion

In patients with HCCA, combined VR improved prognosis. The postoperative complications of combined VR do not worsen patient survival. Therefore, radical surgical resection is recommended.

Timing of surgery in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer liver metastases (SLM) remains controversial. We plan to analyze whether the choice of different surgical timings will have different effects on the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of patients.

METHOD

We retrospectively collected all patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria from 2010 to 2020 in West China Hospital. Patients were grouped according to time interval (TI) after NAC to surgery. The perioperative and oncologic outcomes of the two groups were compared after propensity score matching. Univariate and multivariate analyzes were used to screen factors associated with prognosis.

RESULT

Among 255 enrolled patients, 188 were matched with comparable baseline (94 each group). Patients in the 6≦TI≦8 group had longer operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, and less postoperative complications than those in the 4≦TI < 6 group. However, the overall survival (OS) (p = 0.012) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.013) of the patients in the 4≦TI < 6 group were better than those in the 6≦TI≦8 group. Subgroup analysis found that the above conclusions still apply in age ≥ 60, non-anemic patients, and patients who underwent R0 resection. OS was inversely correlated with TI in patients without preoperative jaundice. DFS was negatively correlated with TI in patients with preoperative jaundice. Multivariate analysis showed that the prolongation of TI after NAC to surgery was an independent prognostic risk factor for OS and DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with SLM may be a better choice for surgery within 4-6 weeks after receiving NAC. Although patients with SLM undergoing surgery 4-6 weeks after NAC has a higher rate of postoperative complications, radical surgery is still recommended for a better survival benefit.

Postoperative infectious complications following laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score analysis of 3876 patients

OBJECTIVES

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common indication for hepatectomy that is often complicated by postoperative complication. The authors sought to investigate the relationship between the open with laparoscopic approach of hepatectomy and incidences of postoperative infectious complications.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a multicenter database, HCC patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) or open hepatectomy (OH) were reviewed and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM), inverse probability of treatment weight (IPTW), and multivariate logistic regression analyses were utilized to assess the association of the operative approach with postoperative infectious complications, including incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, and remote infection (RI).

RESULTS

Among 3876 patients, 845 (21.8%) and 3031 (78.2%) patients underwent LH and OH, respectively. The overall incidence of infection was 6.9 versus 14.6% among patients who underwent LH versus OH, respectively ( P <0.001). Of note, the incidences of incisional SSI (1.8 vs. 6.3%, P <0.001), organ/space SSI (1.8 vs. 4.6%, P <0.001), and RI (3.8 vs. 9.8%, P <0.001) were all significantly lower among patients who underwent LH versus OH. After PSM (6.9, 1.8, 1.8, and 3.8% vs. 18.5, 8.4, 5.2, and 12.8%, respectively) and IPTW (9.5, 2.3, 2.1, and 5.5% vs. 14.3, 6.3, 4.5, and 9.8%, respectively), LH remained associated with statistically lower incidences of all types of infectious complications. After adjustment for other confounding factors on multivariate analyses, LH remained independently associated with lower incidences of overall infection, incisional SSI, organ/space SSI, and RI in the overall, PSM, and IPTW cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared with open approach, laparoscopic approach was independently associated with lower incidences of postoperative infectious complications following hepatectomy for HCC.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is considered a safe and feasible treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent studies. However, in elderly patients, application of LH still remains controversial, and the outcomes of LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) have not been fully evaluated. Our objective is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LH with OH in elderly patients with HCC. Materials and Methods: All studies comparing LH and OH in elderly patients with HCC were systematically searched in the databases of PubMed, EmBase, and Web of Science. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). The last search was performed on March 20, 2022. Short-term outcomes include blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, overall and major postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, tumor size, and surgical margin. Long-term outcomes include 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS); 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS); and 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Fourteen studies involving 1596 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The short-term outcomes of LH were a shorter postoperative hospital stay and fewer overall and major postoperative complications (all P < .00001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, surgical margin, tumor size, and mortality. For the long-term outcomes, LH is comparable with OH in terms of 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS; 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS; and 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS. Conclusions: Compared with OH, LH is a safe and feasible treatment for elderly patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

Purpose

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Results

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P &lt; 0.00001, I2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD −285.69, 95% CI −481.72 to −89.65, P = 0.004, I2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD −7.88, 95% CI −11.38 to −4.37, P &lt; 0.0001, I2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI −6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Conclusions

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.