Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score-matching Analysis

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.

Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background and Objectives: The feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (cHCC 1 cm of the hilum, major hepatic veins, and inferior vena cava) is still controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LLR for cHCC and compare the perioperative outcomes with those of open liver resection (OLR). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 110 patients who underwent LLR (n = 59) or open liver resection (OLR) (n = 51) for cHCC between January 2004 and September 2018. LLR group was divided into the following two subgroups according to the date of operation: Group 1 (n = 19) and Group 2 (n = 40), to account for the advancement in the laparoscopic techniques. Results: No mortality within 3 months was observed. There were no significant differences in operation time (285 vs. 280 min; p = 0.938) and postoperative complication rate (22.0% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.510) between both groups. However, intraoperative blood loss (500 vs. 700 mL; p < 0.001), transfusion rate (10.2% vs. 31.4%; p = 0.006), and hospital stay (6 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LLR group than in the OLR group. In the LLR group, Group 2, showed a shorter hospital stay than Group 1 (6 vs. 8 days; p = 0.006). There were improvements in the operation time (280 vs. 360 min; p = 0.036) and less intraoperative blood loss (455 vs. 500 mL; p = 0.075) in Group 2. Conclusions: We demonstrated that LLR can be safely performed in highly selected patients with cHCC.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for centrally located liver lesions-a case series

BACKGROUND

Resection of centrally located liver lesions remains a technically demanding procedure. To date, there are limited data on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for benign and malignant lesions. It was therefore the objective of this study to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for liver tumors at a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive anatomic mesohepatectomy using a Glissonean pedicle approach from April 2018 to November 2021 were identified from a prospective database. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics for continuous and categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of ten patients were included, of whom five patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, one patient had cholangiocarcinoma, three patients had colorectal liver metastases, and one patient had a hydatid cyst. Two and eight patients underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic resections, respectively. The median operative time was 393 min (interquartile range (IQR) 298-573 min). Conversion to laparotomy was required in one case. The median lesion size was 60 mm and all cases had negative resection margins on final histopathological analysis. The median total blood loss was 550 ml (IQR 413-850 ml). One patient had a grade III complication. The median length of stay was 7 days (IQR 5-12 days). Time-to-functional recovery was achieved after a median of 2 days (IQR 1-4 days). There were no readmissions within 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy is a feasible and safe approach in selected patients with benign and malignant liver lesions.

Case report of pure single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the da Vinci SP system

INTRODUCTION

Since its first appearance in the early 1990s, laparoscopic hepatic resection has become increasingly accepted and recognized as safe as laparotomy. The recent introduction of robotic surgery systems has brought new innovations to the field of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci line of surgical systems has recently released a true single-port platform called the da Vinci SP system, which has 3 fully wristed and elbowed instruments and a flexible camera in a single 2.5 cm cannula. We present the first case of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system and demonstrate the technical feasibility of this platform.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS

A 63-year-old woman presented with elevated liver function test results and abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed multiple intrahepatic duct stones in the left lateral section and distal common bile duct stones near the ampulla of Vater.

INTERVENTIONS

The docking time was 8 minute. The patient underwent successful da Vinci SP with a total operation time of 135 minute. The estimated blood loss was 50.0 ml. No significant intraoperative events were observed.

OUTCOMES

The numerical pain intensity score was 3/10 in the immediate postoperative period and 1/10 on postoperative day 2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 after verifying that the CT scan did not show any surgical complications.

CONCLUSION

We report a technique of left lateral sectionectomy, without the use of an additional port, via the da Vinci SP system. The present case suggests that minor hepatic resection is technically feasible and safe with the new da Vinci SP system in select patients. For the active application of the da Vinci SP system in hepatobiliary surgery, further device development and research are needed.

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.

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.

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.

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 hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for tumors located in right posterior segment: A single institution study

OBJECT

With the gradual advancement of laparoscopic technology, surgeries can be successfully performed with the help of laparoscopy increasingly. This study initially explored the difference between laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS)of liver in our center, discussed the effectiveness, benefits and safety of LRPS and introduce some surgical techniques in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyze 96 cases of liver tumor located in the right posterior lobe of liver in our institution from January 2015 to January 2018. There were 46 cases performed the LRPS surgery and 50 cases performed the ORPS surgery. Through analysis of the perioperative outcomes of these two groups by a case control study, we compare the differences between these two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LRPS and ORPS group in demographic and baseline characteristics before surgery. Patients in the LRPS group were significantly superior to ORPS in terms of postoperative liver function recovery, postoperative inflammatory factor level, pain sensation (3.03 ± 0.79 vs 4.58 ± 1.25), abdominal incision length (6.25 ± 2.34 vs 32.15 ± 3.21), carrying abdominal drainage tube time (3.26 ± 0.77 vs 4.83 ± 0.76), recovery of bowel function time (1.6 ± 0.61 VS 3.05 ± 0.85)and postoperative hospital stay (5.73 ± 0.99 vs 7.16 ± 0.95) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional ORPS, LRPS has the advantages of minor injury, faster recovery and mild inflammatory reaction. The LRPS is safe and feasible, and it should be gradually promoted in clinical practice.

Postoperative outcomes of purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy compared to open living donor hepatectomy: a preliminary observational study

Purpose

To lessen the physical, cosmetic, and psychological burden of donors, purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has been proposed as an ideal method for living donors. Our study aimed to prospectively compare the effect of PLDH and 2 other types of open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) on postoperative pain and recovery.

Methods

Sixty donors scheduled to undergo donor hepatectomy between March 2015 and November 2017 were included. Donors were divided into 3 groups by surgical technique: OLDH with a subcostal incision (n = 20), group S; OLDH with an upper midline incision (n = 20), group M; and PLDH (n = 20), group L. The primary outcomes were postoperative pain and analgesic requirement during postoperative day (POD) 3. Other variables regarding postoperative recovery were also analyzed.

Results

Although pain relief during POD 3, assessed by visual analog scale (VAS) score and analgesic requirement, was similar among the 3 groups, group L showed lower VAS scores and opioid requirements than group M. Moreover, group L was associated with a rapid postoperative recovery evidenced by the shorter hospital length of stay and more frequent return to normal activity on POD 30.

Conclusion

This pilot study failed to verify the hypothesis that PLDH reduces postoperative pain. PLDH did not reduce postoperative pain but showed faster recovery than OLDH.

Minimally invasive versus open right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy for central liver malignancies: a propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The utility of minimally-invasive liver resection (MILR) for deep centrally located tumours (CLT) remains controversial. We aimed to review our institution's experience and outcomes with minimally invasive central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for CLT in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical database revealed 23 patients who underwent MILR (6 CH, 17 RAS) and 53 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR; 24 CH, 29 RAS) for CLT. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were then compared.

RESULTS

There was one laparoscopic-assisted, one robot-assisted and two laparoscopic-converted-open procedures in the MILR cohort. Across the unmatched cohort, there was only one mortality (MILR) and five patients with major morbidity (all OLR). MILR was associated with a longer operating time (P < 0.001), but shorter post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.002) and decreased morbidity (P = 0.018) in the unmatched cohort. Examination of peri-operative outcomes after PSM revealed that MILR was similarly associated with a longer operating time (P = 0.001) and shortened post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.043). OLR was associated with a significantly reduced application of Pringle manoeuvre (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between MILR and OLR with regards to blood loss, blood transfusions, morbidity and margin status in the PSM analysis.

CONCLUSION

MILR for CLT is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with shorter hospital stays but at the expense of longer operation times and more frequent application of Pringle manoeuver.

Safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic extended cholecystectomy: comparison with the open technique in a propensity analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to validate the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic extended cholecystectomy (LEC) by comparing the outcome with that of open extended cholecystectomy (OEC). Moreover, on the basis of our experience, we also aimed to investigate the learning curve of pure LEC.

METHODS

This single-center study enrolled patients who were diagnosed primary gallbladder cancer with pathologically confirmed and underwent R0 resection with curative intent between January 2016 and December 2019. A total of 31 patients who underwent OEC and 17 patients who underwent LEC were selected. Propensity score matching analysis was performed in a 1:1 ratio using the nearest-neighbor matching method, and clinical information was retrospectively collected from medical records and analyzed.

RESULTS

The postoperative hospital stay was statistically shorter in the LEC group (7 days) than in the OEC group (12 days). The overall surgical complication rate did not differ between the two groups. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 82.4% and 82.4% in the OEC group and 94.2% and 71.5% in the LEC group, respectively (P = 0.94). Considering the correlation between the number of cumulative cases and the operation time and between the number of cumulative cases and the number of retrieved lymph nodes in the LEC group, as the cases were accumulated, both the operation time and the number of retrieved lymph nodes had a statistically significant correlation with the number of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LEC showed a significant advantage in terms of achieving shorter postoperative hospital stay and similar results to OEC with respect to overall complications and pathological outcomes. The present results confirm that laparoscopy can be considered a safe treatment for primary gallbladder cancer in selected patients.

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.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The short- and long-term prognoses are unclear following laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH vs. open major hepatectomy (OMH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

All studies comparing LMH with OMH for HCC published until April 2019 were identified independently by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We analyzed data for surgical and oncological outcomes, namely, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major complications, mortality, hospital stay, margin distance, negative margin rate, long-term overall survival, and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

We included 13 studies involving 1,225 patients with HCC (LMH: 534 patients; OMH: 691 patients) in the meta-analysis. Regarding short-term outcomes, the pooled data showed that LMH was associated with longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 72.14 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.07-101.21; P<0.00001], less blood loss (WMD: -102.32 mL; 95% CI: -150.99 to -53.64; P<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -3.77 d; 95% CI: -4.95 to -2.60; P<0.00001), lower morbidity [risk difference (RD): -0.01; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06; P<0.00001], and lower major complication rates (RD: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.05; P<0.00001). However, the need for blood transfusion (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.05; P=0.78), mortality (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.01; P=0.57), margin distance (WMD: 0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.1 to 0.19; P=0.52), and negative margin rate (RD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.05; P=0.65) were significantly comparable between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there was no difference in 3-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72-1.37; P=0.95], 3-year overall survival (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.70-2.21; P=0.45), 5-year DFS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64-1.38; P=0.76), and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45-1.99; P=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

LMH can be performed as safely as OMH in select patients and provides improved short-term surgical outcomes without affecting long-term survival. However, confirming our results requires more evidence from high-quality and prospective randomized controlled trials.

Knockdown of interferon-stimulated gene 15 affects the sensitivity of hepatocellular carcinoma cells to norcantharidin

Interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG15) serves a crucial role in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression. The present study explored the effect of ISG15 knockdown on the sensitivity of HCC cells to norcantharidin. The expression of ISG15 in HCC tissues and cell lines was assessed by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry. Pearson's χ² test was conducted to analyze the correlation between the clinicopathological features and ISG15 expression of patients with HCC. In addition, HCC cells were transfected with small interfering RNA against ISG15, ISG15 overexpression plasmid or respective negative controls. Cell proliferation, clonogenic ability and apoptosis were examined by Cell Counting Kit-8, colony formation and Annexin V/propidium iodide staining assays, respectively. Protein expression was assessed by western blot analysis. The results revealed that ISG15 was overexpressed in HCC tissues, and that ISG15 expression was positively correlated with HCC differentiation and metastasis. Downregulation of ISG15 increased the sensitivity of HCC cells to norcantharidin, and norcantharidin treatment reversed the tumor-promoting effects of ISG15 overexpression exerted in HCC cells. Furthermore, the expression levels of apoptosis-associated proteins were regulated by ISG15 and norcantharidin. Taken together, the observed increase in the sensitivity of HCC cells to norcantharidin was facilitated by ISG15 knockdown and may provide novel insights for HCC therapy.