Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases -- a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

RESULTS

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

Minimally Invasive Management of Secondary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic liver surgery for secondary liver cancer is increasing. The most common indications are colorectal cancer liver metastases followed by adenocarcinoma metastases from other solid organs, such as breast, pancreatic neuroendocrine, and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. This article provides a comprehensive review of crucial concepts when managing secondary liver cancer minimally invasively, a summary of the up-to-date literature, and a discussion of the development of the application of this technique over time.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective studies with 1679 colorectal liver metastases patients were analyzed: 683 patients treated with laparoscopic liver resection and 996 patients with open liver resection. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss (MD, -216.7, 95% CI, -309.4 to -124.1; P < 0.00001), less requiring blood transfusion (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), lower postoperative complication morbidity (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization time (MD, -3.85, 95% CI, -5.00 to -2.71; P < 0.00001). However, operation time and postoperative mortality were no significant difference between the two approaches. With respect to oncological outcomes, laparoscopic liver resection group was prone to lower recurrence rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61−0.99; P = 0.04), but surgical margins R0, overall survival and disease-free survival were no significant difference.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases have the same effect on oncological outcomes, but laparoscopic liver resection achieves better surgical outcomes.

A Match-Pair Analysis of Open Versus Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Background and Objectives:

In addition to general advantages of laparoscopic over open surgery, such as better cosmesis and faster recovery, laparoscopic liver surgery offers specific advantages. Improved liver function and potentially earlier postoperative oncologic treatment are suggested by the literature as benefits of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. The purpose of this analysis was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery in our department.

Methods:

All laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) performed from January 2011 through July 2016 were identified from the institutional database and matched 1:2 to open liver resections (OLRs). Data were analyzed regarding perioperative outcome, and significance was set at P < .05.

Results:

Of 1525 liver resections, 120 patients were included in this analysis. Forty resections were performed laparoscopically. Patients in the LLR group more often had benign tumors. No patient died after LLR, but 2 required conversion to open surgery (5%) because of bleeding. Blood loss (200 vs 500 mL, P < .001) was less and hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = .001) shorter after LLR. Iwate score, operating time, and the size of the resection margins did not differ between the groups. Iwate score correlated with operative time (P = .027).

Conclusions:

Laparoscopic liver surgery was safe, and several advantages over open surgery were confirmed in our series.

Laparoscopic liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: comparison with long-term results using the conventional approach

Background

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) have been shown to be both feasible and safe. However, no randomised control studies have been performed to date comparing results with those of the open surgery approach.

Main aim

To analyse LLR long-term results and compare them with a similar group of open resections in patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis (CRCLM).

Methods

Retrospective study on a prospective database. All patients with anatomopathological diagnosis of CRCLM resected between July 2007 and July 2015.

Results

Twenty-two open resections and 18 laparoscopic resections which presented favourable lesions for laparoscopic approach were analysed. Postoperative grade III morbidity was similar in both groups (p = 0.323). Disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 8 years in the laparoscopy group (n =16) was 81%, 58%, and 58%, respectively, while in the open surgery group (n = 17) it was 64%, 37%, and 19% respectively; no differences were found (p = 0.388). Global survival in the laparoscopy group was 93%, 60%, and 40%, respectively, and 88%, 74.5%, and 58.7%, respectively, in the open surgery group; no differences were found (p = 0.893) with a 37 months average follow-up.

Conclusion

LLR in patients with technically favourable CRCLM had similar morbidity to open resections and resection margins were not compromised because of laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases: comparative study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic hepatectomy with those of open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) using a propensity score matching (PSM) in two university hospital settings.

METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic approach (LA) surgery group was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach (OA) group using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. No patients of the LA group were excluded for the matching. Matching criteria included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American society anesthesiologists score, potential co-morbidities, hepatopathies, synchronous or metachronous lesions, size and number of CCLM, preoperative chemotherapy, minor or major liver resections. Intraoperative, postoperative data, and survival were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2015, a total of 242 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, of which 119 for CCLM, namely 101 in the OA group (84.9%) and 18 in the LA group (15.1%). The conversion rate was 5.6% (n=1). The mortality rate was 1% in the OA group and 0% in the LA group. Prior to PSM, there was a statistically significant difference favorable to the LA group regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and the rate of medical complications. After PSM, there was no difference regarding operative time or length of hospital stay. However, there was a trend towards less blood loss (P=0.066) and fewer medical complications (44.4% vs.16.7%, P=0.07). The R0 resection rate was 94.4% (n=17) in the two groups. In addition, there was no difference regarding overall survival (P=0.358) and recurrence-free survival [HR =0.99 (0.1-12.7); P=0.99].

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resections for CCLM seem to yield short- and long-term results, which are similar to open hepatectomies, and could well be considered an alternative to open surgery and become the gold standard in carefully selected patients.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become the standard procedure for most choledocholithiasis patients, the application of this procedure to liver cirrhosis is still in debate. The aim of current study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with compensated liver cirrhosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2012, 346 LCBDE performed in our hospital. According to previous defined liver condition, the patients were divided into group A (liver cirrhosis, n=132) and group B (without cirrhosis, n=214). The perioperative data for the 2 groups were retrospectively reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

LCBDE was successfully completed in 326 patients. Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary for 20 patients (5.7%) mainly because of hemorrhage (5, 25%) and severe adhesions (8, 40%); a T-tube was placed in 211 patients (64.7%), and primary closure was done in 115 (35.3%). There was significant difference for groups A and B in term of intraoperative blood loss (85 vs. 35 mL; P<0.01). However, the 2 groups showed no significant differences with respect to mean operation time (2.1 vs. 1.9 h; P=0.07), complication rates (10.6% vs. 8.8%; P=0.6), and mean hospital stay (4.2 vs. 4.0 d; P=0.6), conversion rate (5.3% vs. 6.1%; P=0.77), and retained choledocholithiasis rate (8.3% vs. 7.1%; P=0.65). There was no mortality in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

LCBDE is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical procedure for choledocholithiasis patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Influence of body mass index on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing prevalence of obesity, the impact of body weight on postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) still remains poorly evaluated. The present study aimed to explore the impact of body mass index (BMI) on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing LLR.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing LLR from January 2008 to December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. BMI was subdivided into normal weight (<24.9 kg/m(2)), overweight (25.0-29.9 kg/m(2)), and obese (≥30.0 kg/m(2)). These three groups were compared in terms of demographic data, intraoperative factors, and postoperative outcomes. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals and evaluate BMI as an independent risk factor for morbidity.

RESULTS

Among 228 selected patients, 83 (36.4%) patients were overweight and 32 (14.0%) were obese. Despite higher rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease with an increase in BMI, no significant difference in operative time, blood loss, and conversion rate was observed in the three groups. There were no significant differences in postoperative mortality rate between the groups (0.9 vs. 1.2 vs. 0%). The rate of overall complications (31.0 vs. 31.3 vs. 40.6%) and major complications (14.2 vs. 9.6 vs. 18.8%) did not differ in the three groups. Major hepatectomy (HR 6.810, CI 1.437-32.267, p = 0.016) and operative time >180 min (HR 2.639, CI 1.179-5.908, p = 0.018) were independently associated with postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated that BMI does not negatively affect the postoperative short-term outcomes. Therefore, obesity and overweight should not be a contraindication for LLR.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in cirrhotic patients with choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has become the standard procedure for most choledocholithiasis patients, the application of this procedure to liver cirrhosis is still in debate. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LCBDE in choledocholithiasis patients with compensated liver cirrhosis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2012, 346 LCBDEs were performed in our hospital. According to the previously defined liver condition, the patients were divided into group A (liver cirrhosis, n=132) and group B (without cirrhosis, n=214). The perioperative data for the 2 groups were retrospectively reviewed and compared.

RESULTS

LCBDE was successfully completed in 326 patients. Conversion from laparoscopic to open surgery was necessary for 20 patients (5.7%) mainly because of hemorrhage (5, 25%) and severe adhesions (8, 40%). A T-tube was placed in 211 patients (64.7%), and primary closure was performed in 115 (35.3%) patients. There was a significant difference for groups A and B in terms of intraoperative blood loss (85 vs. 35 mL; P<0.01). However, the 2 groups showed no significant differences with respect to the mean operation time (2.1 vs. 1.9 h; P=0.07), complication rates (10.6% vs. 8.8%; P=0.6), mean hospital stay (4.2 vs. 4.0 d; P=0.6), conversion rate (5.3% vs. 6.1%; P=0.77), and retained choledocholithiasis rate (8.3% vs. 7.1%; P=0.65). There was no mortality in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LCBDE is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical procedure for choledocholithiasis patients with compensated cirrhosis.

Experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases

Backgrounds/Aims

We present our experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases.

Methods

From April 2008 to August 2012 in Chungnam National University, 68 of 253 liver resections were performed laparoscopically. During the first year, laparoscopy-assisted liver resection was mainly performed and subsequently totally laparoscopic liver resection was the main operative type. Surgery type for treatment purposes was decided preoperatively. Clinical data were collected retrospectively and analyzed.

Results

Preoperatively, 43 patients (63.2%) were diagnosed with benign disease, 19 patients (27.9%) were malignant liver tumors and 6 patients (8.8%) were indeterminate liver tumor but favorable towards malignancy. Anatomical major liver resection was performed in 58 cases (85.3%) and 10 cases (14.7%) were non-anatomical resection. Left hemihepatectomy was performed in 38 cases (55.8%) followed by left lateral sectionectomy in 18 cases (26.5%), and segment IV and IVa segmentectomy, were each in 1 case. Mean operation time was 235.0 minutes (range, 60-470) and 14 patients (18.6%) had intraoperative transfusion. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.2 days (range, 4-32). Mean operation time of laparoscopy-assisted left lobectomy was 317 minutes and totally laparoscopic left lobectomy was 281 minutes, but there was no significant statistical difference between these two operation types. There were 11 episodes of postoperative complications in 8 patients. There was no mortality after laparoscopic liver resection.

Conclusions

We concluded that laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible operation, but needs to be carefully conducted in malignant tumors.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of 610 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The objective of this manuscript was to perform a metaanalysis comparing outcomes of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatic mCRC, and to identify which patients were suitable candidates for LLR.

STUDY DESIGN

A PubMed search identified 2,122 articles. When filtered for case-matched articles comparing LLR with OLR for mCRC, 8 articles were identified consisting of 610 patients (242 LLR, 368 OLR). A random effects metaanalysis was performed.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, number of metastases, extent of major hepatectomy, and use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of metastases in the LLR and OLR groups were 1.4 and 1.5, respectively (P = .14). Estimated blood loss was less in LLR group (262 vs 385 mL; P = .049). Transfusion rate was significantly less in LLR group (9.9 vs 19.8%; P = .004). There was no difference in operative time (248.7 vs 262.8 min; P = .85). Length of stay (LOS) was less in the LLR group (6.5 vs 8.8 days; P = .007). The overall complication rate was less in LLR group (20.3% vs 33.2%; P = .03). Importantly, there was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) rates.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients with limited mCRC (1 or 2 tumors), LLR provides marked perioperative benefits without compromising oncologic outcomes or long-term survival. Specifically, LLR offers decreased blood loss, LOS, and overall complication rates with comparable 5-year OS and DFS.

[Laparoscopic liver surgery]

Liver resection remains the method of choice for curative treatment for liver tumors. Development in diagnostic and surgical techniques has improved operative results as well as long-term outcomes. In the last decade minimally invasive laparoscopic (LAP) surgery has been increasingly adopted by liver units. The trend in LAP liver resection has been moving from limited resections towards major hepatectomy. This process, however, is relatively slow, which can be due to technical difficulties of the procedure and fear of haemorrhage. Despite having a hard time at the start, major resections become more common. Up to now approximately 6000 LAP liver resections were performed worldwide, number of major hepatectomies is estimated between 700-800. LAP liver resections are feasible with significant benefits for patients consisting of less blood loss, less narcotic requirements, and shorter hospital stay with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resections. It is an accepted management of both benign and malignant liver lesions. There is no difference between LAP and open surgery in late survival after resection for colorectal liver metastases. Overall survival of LAP resected hepatocellular carcinoma cases seems to be superior compared with open surgery.

A comparison of open and minimally invasive surgery for hepatic and pancreatic resections using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

The use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques for pancreatic and liver operations remains ill defined. We sought to compare inpatient outcomes among patients undergoing open versus MIS pancreas and liver operations using a nationally representative cohort.

METHODS

We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for all major pancreatic and hepatic resections performed between 2000 and 2011. Appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9) coding modifiers for laparoscopy and robotic assist were used to categorize procedures as MIS. Demographics, comorbidities, and inpatient outcomes were compared between the open and MIS groups.

RESULTS

A total of 65,033 resections were identified (pancreas, n = 36,195 [55.7%]; liver, n = 28,035 [43.1%]; combined pancreas and liver, n = 803 [1.2%]). The overwhelming majority of operations were performed open (n = 62,192, 95.6%), whereas 4.4% (n = 2,841) were MIS. The overall use of MIS increased from 2.3% in 2000 to 7.5% in 2011. Compared with patients undergoing an open operation, MIS patients were older and had a greater incidence of multiple comorbid conditions. After operation, the incidence of complications for MIS (pancreas, 35.4%; liver, 29.5%) was lower than for open (pancreas, 41.6%; liver, 33%) procedures (all P < .05) resulting in a shorter median length of stay (8 vs 7 days; P = .001) as well as a lower in-hospital mortality (5.1% vs 2.8%; P = .001).

CONCLUSION

During the last decade, the number of MIS pancreatic and hepatic operations has increased, with nearly 1 in 13 HPB cases now being performed via an MIS approach. Despite MIS patients tending to have more preoperative medical comorbidities, postoperative morbidity, mortality, and duration of stay compared favorably with open surgery.

Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: Toward the future with caution

After the rapid acceptance of laparoscopy to manage multiple benign diseases arising from gastrointestinal districts, some surgeons started to treat malignancies by the same way. However, if the limits of laparoscopy for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies. Cancerous patients represent an important group with peculiar aspects including reduced survival expectancy, worsened quality of life due to surgery itself and adjuvant therapies, and challenging psychological impact. All these issues could, potentially, receive a better management with a laparoscopic surgical approach. In order to confirm such aspects, similarly to testing the newest weapons (surgical or pharmacologic) against cancer, long-term follow-up is always recommendable to assess the real benefits in terms of overall survival, cancer-free survival and quality of life. Furthermore, it seems of crucial importance that surgeons will be correctly trained in specific oncologic principles of surgical oncology as well as in modern miniinvasive technologies. Therefore, laparoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies requires more caution and deep analysis of published evidences, as compared to those achieved for inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease or diverticular disease. This review tries to examine the evidence available to date for the use of laparoscopy and robotics in malignancies arising from the gastrointestinal district.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.

Results

Finally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR = 0.57, 95%CI:0.42–0.78, P = 0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR = 2.44, 95%CI:1.21–4.94, P = 0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD = −3.40, 95%CI:−4.37–2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.

Laparoscopic-assisted one-stage resection of rectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis utilizing a pfannenstiel incision

Laparoscopic approaches have been increasingly used in selected patients with either colorectal or liver cancer. However, simultaneous resection of colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases is still a subject of debate. The present case describes combined laparoscopic rectal and liver resections for a patient with primary rectal cancer and a synchronous liver metastasis utilizing a Pfannenstiel incision for specimen extraction. The operative time was 370 min and estimated blood loss was 400 mL. Postoperatively, the patient required parenteral analgesia for 48 h, resumed normal diet on day 3 and was discharged on day 7 after the operation. A laparoscopic approach utilizing a Pfannenstiel extraction incision may present an advantageous and attractive option for simultaneous laparoscopic rectal and liver resection in selected patients with the aim of improving short-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection as a safe and efficacious alternative to open resection for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remain to be established. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for CLM with respect to surgical and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed to retrieve all relevant articles published in the English language by the end of March 2013. Data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 8 nonrandomized controlled studies with 695 subjects were analyzsed. Intra-operative blood loss, the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, morbidity and the length of hospital stay were all significantly reduced after LLR. Postoperative recurrence, 5-year overall and disease-free survivals were comparable between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for CLM is safe and efficacious. It improves surgical outcomes and uncompromises oncologic outcomes as compared with OLR.

Laparoscopic hepatic resection for metastatic liver tumor of colorectal cancer: comparative analysis of short- and long-term results

BACKGROUND

With the progress of surgical techniques and devices, laparoscopic hepatectomy (Lap-Hx) became a realizable option for patients with liver tumors. However, the feasibility of Lap-Hx for metastatic liver tumor of colorectal cancer also should be guaranteed oncologically. This study evaluated the short- and long-term outcomes of Lap-Hx compared with open hepatectomy (Open-Hx) for patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) by matched-pair analysis.

METHODS

This study enrolled 21 patients who underwent Lap-Hx and compared them with 21 matched patients who underwent Open-Hx. The following parameters were matched between the two cohorts: tumor size, tumor location, and operative procedures. Both short- and long-term outcomes of Lap-Hx were compared with those of Open-Hx.

RESULTS

No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of age, gender, tumor size, or operative procedures. With regard to short-term outcomes, the operative time for Lap-Hx (377 ± 29 min) was similar to that for Open-Hx (369 ± 31 min), whereas the blood loss for the patients who underwent a Lap-Hx (198 ± 39 ml) was significantly less than for those who underwent an Open-Hx (326 ± 50 ml). The incidence of postoperative complications among the patients who underwent Lap-Hx tended to be lower than for the patients who underwent Open-Hx, and intraabdominal abscess was observed only in the Open-Hx group. The hospital stay for Lap-Hx (average, 18.3 days) tended to be shorter than for Open-Hx (27 days). With respect to long-term outcomes, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Lap-Hx is a safe and feasible option for selected patients with CLM. The short- and long-term outcomes of Lap-Hx also are considered to be acceptable.