A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies.

Abstract

The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections. All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series). The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss -150 and -350, respectively; differential benefit: 200mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity -11.3% and -18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS -1day and -3days, respectively; differential benefit: 2days, p < 0.05). While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.