Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) on recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is unclear. We compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH and ORH in patients with RHCC with a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library with Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords until 30 September 2022. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous variables; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was used for binary variables; and hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five high-quality retrospective studies with 818 patients were included; 409 patients (50%) were treated with LRH and 409 (50%) with ORH. In most surgical outcomes, LRH was superior to ORH: less estimated blood loss, shorter operation time, lower major complication rate, and shorter length of hospital stay (MD=-225.9, 95% CI=[-360.8 to -91.06], P =0.001; MD=66.2, 95% CI=[5.28-127.1], P =0.03; OR=0.18, 95% CI=[0.05-0.57], P =0.004; MD=-6.22, 95% CI=[-9.78 to -2.67], P =0.0006). There were no significant differences in the remaining surgical outcomes: blood transfusion rate and overall complication rate. In oncological outcomes, LRH and ORH were not significantly different in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with RHCC, most surgical outcomes with LRH were superior to those of ORH, but oncological outcomes with the two operations were similar. LRH may be a preferable option for the treatment of RHCC.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in treating recurrent liver tumors vs. conventional open surgery.

Methods

Database searching was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were applied in statistical analyses.

Results

A total of fourteen studies were finally included with 1,284 patients receiving LRH and 2,254 with ORH. LRH was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage, a higher R0 resection rate, a lower incidence of Pringle Maneuver, a lower incidence of postoperative morbidities, a better overall survival and an enhanced postoperative recovery vs. ORH. Patients receiving LRH shared similar operative time, tumor number and disease-free survival as those with ORH. However, tumor size was relatively larger in patients receiving ORH and major hepatectomy, anatomic hepatectomy were rarely performed in patients with LRH. Additional analyses between LRH and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy revealed less intraoperative blood loss in patients with LRH.

Conclusion

LRH is safe and feasible with more favorable peri-operative outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, it is only applicable for some highly-selected cases not requiring complex surgical procedures. Future larger well-designed studies are expected for further validation.

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting in 5-Year Quality-of-Life Comparison among Three Surgical Procedures for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

This prospective longitudinal cohort study analyzed long-term changes in individual subscales of quality-of-life (QOL) measures and explored whether these changes were related to effective QOL predictors after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surgery. All 520 HCC patients in this study had completed QOL surveys before surgery and at 6 months, 2 years, and 5 years after surgery. Generalized estimating equation models were used to compare the 5-year QOL among the three HCC surgical procedures. The QOL was significantly (p < 0.05) improved at 6 months after HCC surgery but plateaued at 2−5 years after surgery. In postoperative surveys, the effect size was largest in the nausea and vomiting subscales in patients who had received robotic surgery, and the effect size was smallest in the dyspnea subscale in patients who had received open surgery. It revealed the following explanatory variables for postoperative QOL: surgical procedure type, gender, age, hepatitis C, smoking, tumor stage, postoperative recurrence, and preoperative QOL. The comparisons revealed that, when evaluating QOL after HCC surgery, several factors other than the surgery itself should be considered. The analysis results also implied that postoperative quality of life might depend not only on the success of the surgical procedure, but also on preoperative quality of life.

A novel difficulty scoring system of laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumor

Objectives

To develop a novel difficulty scoring system (NDSS) to predict the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Patients and methods

A total of 138 patients with liver tumors performed liver resection (LLR) between March 2017 to June 2022 were selected from Affiliated Hospital of Jiangnan University and Wujin Hospital Affiliated with Jiangsu University.

Patient demographics, laboratory tests, intraoperative variables, pathological characteristics were assessed. We also assessed the Child Pugh score and the DSS-B score.

Results

Patients were divided into training and testing cohort according to their hospital. Patients in training cohort were divided into high and low difficult groups based on operation time, blood loss and conversion. Higher percentage of patients with malignant liver tumor (87.0% vs. 58.1%; P = 0.003) or history of hepatobiliary surgery (24.1% vs. 7.0%; P = 0.043) in high difficult group than in low difficult group. To improve the difficulty scoring system, we incorporated the history of hepatobiliary surgery and nature of the tumor. A novel difficulty scoring system was established. The results showed that the operation time (P < 0.001), blood loss (P < 0.001), ALT (P < 0.001) and AST (P = 0.001) were associated with the novel difficulty score significantly. Compared with DSS-B, the NDSS has a higher area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) (0.838 vs. 0.814). The nomogram was established according to the NDSS. The AUROCs of the nomogram in training and testing cohort were 0.833 and 0.767. The calibration curves for the probability of adverse event showed optimal agreement between the probability as predicted by the nomogram and the actual probability.

Conclusions

We developed a nomogram with the NDSS that can predict the difficulty of LLR. This system could more accurately reflect the difficulty of surgery and help liver surgeons to make the surgical plan and ensure the safety of the operation.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.

The Safety Profile of Hepatectomy Following Preoperative Systemic Therapy with Lenvatinib Plus Anti-PD-1 Antibodies Versus Hepatectomy Alone in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective

To determine the safety of hepatectomy after combined lenvatinib and anti-PD-1 preoperative systemic therapy (PST) in patients with marginally resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Background

PST followed by hepatectomy (PSTH) is an emerging treatment for HCC. However, the impact of PST with lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibodies on surgical safety is unknown.

Methods

Medical records from consecutive patients with marginally resectable advanced HCC who underwent hepatectomy after PST with lenvatinib and anti-PD-1 antibodies between January 2018 and August 2021 were retrieved from a prospectively designed database. Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed with a further 2318 HCC patients who underwent upfront hepatectomy (UH) without initial antitumor treatment during the same period.

Results

In total, 49 and 98 matched patients were included in the PSTH and UH groups, respectively. Compared to the UH group, individuals in the PSTH group experienced more intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusions, and longer postoperative hospital stays. Moreover, posthepatectomy liver failure was more common in the PSTH group, who also had worse albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) scores on postoperative days 1-7. A significantly greater amount of drainage was also required in the PSTH group. However, the 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality were similar among the two groups. Additionally, the duration of surgery, use of hepatic inflow occlusion during surgery, and the levels of postoperative inflammation-based markers were not statistically different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Despite more intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, PSTH had comparable 30-day morbidity and 90-day mortality as UH. Thus, PSTH appears to be a viable treatment option for marginally resectable HCC patients with careful preoperative evaluation.