Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score–Matched Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score–matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies. MethodsRetrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies). ResultsBoth cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle’s maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH. ConclusionComparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.