Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma comorbid with cirrhosis

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

Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors.

Patients and Methods: A propensity score–matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune–inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models.

Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.79 to −0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −0.79, 95% CI = −1.11 to −0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19–0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups.

Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.