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

Using the win ratio to compare laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases

Background

We sought to assess the overall benefit of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) using the win ratio, a novel methodological approach.

Methods

CRLM patients undergoing curative-intent resection in 2001-2018 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Patients were paired and matched based on age, number and size of lesions, lymph node status and receipt of preoperative chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on margin status, severity of postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to recurrence, and time to death.

Results

Among 962 patients, the majority underwent open hepatectomy (n=832, 86.5%), while a minority underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (n=130, 13.5%). Among matched patient-to-patient pairs, the odds of the patient undergoing laparoscopic resection "winning" were 1.77 [WR: 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-2.34]. The win ratio favored laparoscopic hepatectomy independent of low (WR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.20-6.39), medium (WR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.10) or high (WR: 7.25, 95% CI: 1.13-32.0) tumor burden, as well as unilobar (WR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25-2.31) or bilobar (WR: 4.57, 95% CI: 2.36-8.64) disease. The odds of "winning" were particularly pronounced relative to short-term outcomes (i.e., 90-day mortality and severity of postoperative complications) (WR: 4.06, 95% CI: 2.33-7.78).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had 77% increased odds of "winning". Laparoscopic liver resection should be strongly considered as a preferred approach to resection in CRLM patients.

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 vs open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of surgical margin status and survival

BACKGROUND

Liver resection represents the curative treatment of choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Laparoscopic hepatectomy in CRLM is considered a safe approach. However, the information on their oncological results in the different series is deficient. This study aimed to compare the surgical margin, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with oncological resections of CRLM according to the type of surgical approach performed.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and June 2017, 263 patients with CRLM underwent hepatic resection. Inclusion criteria were initial resectability, tumor size ≤ 50 mm, 3 or less metastases, no bilobar involvement, and absence of extrahepatic disease. A propensity score was performed to adjust the indication bias.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included (56 open and 26 laparoscopic). Twenty-eight (50%) patients had synchronous presentation in the open approach and 6 (23%) in the laparoscopic approach (p = 0.021), with more frequent simultaneous open resections (p = 0.037). The resection margin was positive (R1) in 5 patients with an open approach and 2 with a laparoscopic approach (8.9% and 7.6% respectively; p = 0.852). Nine patients (16%) with conventional approach and 2 (7.7%) with laparoscopic approach had local complications (p = 0.3). There was one death in the open group and none in the laparoscopic. There were no significant differences in OS and DFS rate between both groups (1-3 years, OS: 92-77% and 96-75% respectively; 1-3 years, DFS: 63-20% and 73-36% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in terms of surgical margin, OS rate, and DFS rate between the laparoscopic and open approach in patients with CRLM.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes After Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases : A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the recent worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery, no high-level evidence supports the oncologic safety of this approach.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic versus open liver resection in patients with colorectal metastases.

DESIGN

A single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial (OSLO-COMET [Oslo Randomized Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases Trial]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01516710).

SETTING

Oslo University Hospital, the only provider of liver surgery for the 3 million inhabitants of southeastern Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomly assigned to have open or laparoscopic liver resection.

INTERVENTION

From February 2012 to January 2016, a total of 280 patients were included in the trial (laparoscopic surgery: n = 133; open surgery: n = 147).

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was postoperative morbidity within 30 days. Five-year rates of overall and recurrence-free survival were predefined secondary end points.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 70 months, rates of 5-year overall survival were 54% in the laparoscopic group and 55% in the open group (between-group difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -11.3 to 12.3 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 0.93 [CI, 0.67 to 1.30]; P = 0.67). Rates of 5-year recurrence-free survival were 30% in the laparoscopic group and 36% in the open group (between-group difference, 6.0 percentage points [CI, -6.7 to 18.7 percentage points]; hazard ratio, 1.09 [CI, 0.80 to 1.49]; P = 0.57).

LIMITATION

The trial was not powered to detect differences in secondary end points and was not designed to address a noninferiority hypothesis for survival outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized trial of laparoscopic and open liver surgery, no difference in survival outcomes was found between the treatment groups. However, differences in 5-year overall survival up to about 10 percentage points in either direction cannot be excluded. This trial should be followed by pragmatic multicenter trials and international registries.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority.

A comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and open adrenalectomies in dogs

OBJECTIVE

To compare short- and long-term outcomes of dogs with adrenal tumors treated by adrenalectomy with laparoscopy or laparotomy.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study of dogs that underwent adrenalectomy with laparoscopy or laparotomy.

SAMPLE POPULATION

Fourteen dogs treated with laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) and twenty-six dogs treated with open midline adrenalectomy (OA).

METHODS

Dogs treated with LA were matched with 1 or 2 dogs treated with OA on the basis of histological nature, size, and side of the tumor. Intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and long-term survival were compared between LA and OA.

RESULTS

Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 2 of 14 (14.3%) dogs in the LA group and in 16 of 26 (61.5%) dogs in the OA group (P = .007). The surgical time was 69.8 ± 21.8 minutes for the LA group and 108.6 ± 42 minutes for the OA group (P = .0003). The hospitalization time was 39.3 ± 14.9 hours for the LA group and 46.3 ± 25.1 hours for the OA group (P = .1453). The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 77% and 77%, respectively, for the LA group and 77% and 66%, respectively, for the OA group (P = .6144).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic adrenalectomy was associated with a shorter surgical time and a reduced incidence of hypotension compared with open adrenalectomy in this case-matched study. Short- and long-term outcomes were not affected by the surgical technique used to complete the adrenalectomy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Laparoscopy can be recommended for adrenalectomy in dogs; however, appropriate case selection is required.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of liver metastases from extrahepatic primary cancers 2021

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.

METHODS

Eight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two. A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher-quality evidence.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Fully laparoscopic thermo-ablation of liver malignancies with or without liver resection: tumor location is an independent local recurrence risk factor

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors of local recurrence (LR) after exclusive laparoscopic thermo-ablation (TA) with or without associated liver resection.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, among 385 patients who underwent 820 TA in our department, 65 (17%) patients (HCC = 11, LM = 54) had exclusive laparoscopic TA representing 112 lesions (HCC = 17, LM = 95). TA was associated with other procedures in 57% of cases (liver resection 81%). All TA were done without liver clamping. Median tumor size was 1.8 cm [ranges from 0.3 to 4.5], 18% of the lesions were larger than 3 cm in size and 11% close to major liver vessels. Tumors locations were 77.5% in right liver, 36% in S7&S8, and 46% in S7&S8&S4a.

RESULTS

Mortality was nil and morbidity rate 15.4% including Dindo-Clavien > II grade 3%. The median follow-up was 24 months [0.77-75]. Per lesion LR rate after TA was 18% (n = 19 patients) with a mean time of 7.6 months. Among patients with LR, 18 (95%) could have been re-treated successfully (new resection = 11, re-TA = 7). Multivariate analyses revealed that tumor location in S7 alone, S7&S8 and/or S7, S8, or S4a were independent risk factors of LR after TA.

CONCLUSIONS

Exclusive laparoscopic TA is a safe and an effective tool to treat liver malignancies with or without liver resection. Other than classical risk factors, tumor location in upper segments of the liver, are independent risk factors for LR.

Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To present surgical and oncological outcomes using a prospective and randomized trial (LapOpHuva, NCT02727179) comparing minimally invasive liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

Between February 2005 and March 2016, 204 selected patients with CRLM were randomized and 193 were included: LLR (n = 96) and OLR (n = 97). The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative morbidity. Other secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, use of the Pringle maneuver, surgical time, blood losses, transfusions, hospital stay, mortality and OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 7 years.

RESULTS

LLR presented with lower global morbidity (11.5% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.025) but with similar severe complications. Long-term survival outcomes were similar in both groups. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-, 7-year OS for LLR and OLR were 92.5%, 71.5%, 49.3%, 35.6% versus 93.6%, 69.7%, 47.4%, 35.5%, respectively (log-rank = 0.047, p = 0.82). DFS for LLR and OLR was 72.7%, 33.5%, 22.7%, and 20.8% versus 61.6%, 27.2%, 23.9%, and 17.9%, respectively (log-rank = 1.427, p = 0.23). LLR involved more use of the Pringle maneuver (15.5% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.025) and a shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding surgical time, blood losses, transfusion, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with CRLM, LLR presents similar oncological outcomes with the advantages of the short-term results associated with LLR.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: A single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

With growing popularity and experience in laparoscopic liver surgery, the options for more difficult procedures increase. Only small case series have been published regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumours in proximity to major vessels (MVs). The aim was to compare outcomes of LLR for tumours located less or more than 15 mm from MVs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive LLR (October 2011-August 2017). Proximity to MVs (PMV) was defined as lesions located within 15 mm to the caval vein, hepatic veins and portal vein (main trunk and first branches). The control group were all lesions located more than 15 mm from MVs.

RESULTS

Some 60/235 LLR were performed for lesions in proximity to major vasculature (24%). In the PMV group, median IWATE Difficulty Score was higher (8.5 (IQR: 6.0-9.0) VS 5.0 (IQR: 3.0-6.0), p < 0.001) as was the use of CUSA® (45.0% VS 8.6%, p < 0.001) and Pringle manoeuvre (8.3% VS 1.7%; p = 0.028). Operative time was longer (180min (IQR: 140-210) VS 120min (IQR: 75-150), p < 0.001) and blood loss was higher (190 ml (IQR: 100-325) VS 75 ml (IQR: 50-220), p < 0.001) in the PMV group. There was no difference in perioperative blood transfusion (3.3% VS 1.7%, p = 0.60) or postoperative morbidity (15.0% VS 14.3%, p = 0.89). There was no mortality in both groups. On mean follow-up of 21 months, no significant differences could be found in disease free (p = 0.77) and overall survival (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR of lesions in proximity to MVs is safe and feasible with acceptable short and long-term results.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients who received enterostomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is more conducive to the rapid rehabilitation of patients after surgery compared with open hepatectomy. However, there have been no reports on performing laparoscopic resection for liver metastases in enterostomy patients.

MATERIALS

From December 2016 to April 2017, the Liver Surgery Department of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital received three patients who had focal liver lesions after colorectal cancer surgery and enterostomy. We performed laparoscopic hepatectomy for these three patients and reviewed relevant literature.

RESULTS

All of these three patients' post-operative recovery was good. We found three different positions of the stomas and the corresponding abdominal adhesions in these three patients. We also summarised several possible related surgical techniques.

CONCLUSION

For patients with colorectal cancer and enterostomy after an operation, implementation of laparoscopic hepatectomy is feasible. Further research is still required for a more comprehensive assessment of this surgical approach.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the results between laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy in two French university hospitals, for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity score matching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic surgery group (LA) was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach group (OA) using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. Matching criteria included age, presence of comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and resection type (major or minor). Patients of the LA group without matches were excluded. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared in both groups. Survival was compared in both groups using the following matching criteria: number and size of lesions, alpha-fetoprotein rate, and cell differentiation.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2017, a total of 447 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, 99 hepatectomies of which were performed for the management of hepatocellular carcinomas. Forty-nine resections were performed among the open approach (OA) group (49%), and 50 resections were performed among the laparoscopic surgery (LA) group (51%). Mortality rate was 2% in the LA group and 4.1% in the OA group. After propensity score matching, there was a statistical difference favorable to the LA group regarding medical complications (54.55% versus 27.27%, p = 0.04), and operating times were shorter (p = 0.03). Resection rate R0 was similar between both groups: 90.91% (n = 30) in the LA group and 84.85% (n =) in the OA group. There was no difference regarding overall survival (p = 0.98) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for the management of HCC seems to provide the same short-term and long-term results as compared to the open approach. Laparoscopic liver resections could be considered as an alternative and become the gold standard in well-selected patients.

Highlights, limitations and future challenges of laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

The liver is the most common site for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRLM). Despite advances in oncologic treatment, resection of metastases is still the only curative option. Although laparoscopic surgery for primary colorectal cancer is well documented and widely used, laparoscopic surgery for liver metastases has developed more slowly. However, in spite of some difficulties, laparoscopic approach demonstrated strong advantages including minimal parietal damage, decreased morbidity (reduced blood loss and need for transfusion, fewer pulmonary complications), and simplification of subsequent iterative hepatectomy. Up to now, more than 9 000 laparoscopic procedures have been reported worldwide and long-term results in colorectal liver metastases seem comparable to the open approach. Only one recent randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic and the open approach. The purpose of the present update was to identify the barriers limiting widespread acceptance of laparoscopic approach, the benefits and the limits of laparoscopic hepatectomies in CRLM.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proposed as a safe and feasible treatment option for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the short-term and oncologic outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for CRLM have not been adequately assessed. Thus, we herein provide an updated systematic review comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of CRLM patients undergoing LLR versus OLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until November 2, 2016) with a limitation to the publications in English. Quality assessment was performed based on the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies enrolling 4591 patients with CRLM were included. With respect to short-term outcomes, patients in LLR group showed significantly reduced blood loss (WMD: -143.64; 95% CI: -180.56 to -106.73; I2 = 86%; P < 0.001), lower operative transfusion requirement (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.53; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.94; I2 = 82%; P < 0.001), reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42-0.66; I2 = 38%; P < 0.001) and reduced severe morbidity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; I2 = 35%; P < 0.001). Regarding oncologic outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two surgical procedures in recurrence and 1-, 3-, and 5-overall survival and disease-free survival except for slightly higher R0 resection rate in LLR group was slightly higher than that of OLR group (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03-1.97; I2 = 37%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR should be the standard approach for selected patients with CRLM, and further research should focus on determining which patients would benefit most from LLR.

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.