The impact of tumor location on oncologic outcomes in laparoscopic parenchymal sparing resection of colorectal liver metastases.

Aim. To compare survival after open liver resections and laparoscopic liver resection based on the experience of two large Russian surgical centers using the propensity score matching. Material and methods. The primary point of the study was the assessment of long-term overall and disease-free survival after laparoscopic and open liver resection. The secondary point were immediate outcomes. Propensity score matching was used for balancing covariates and reducing the drawbacks of observational study. Results. The study included data from 185 patients after 93 laparoscopic liver resection and 92 open liver resection. The immediate outcomes of 176 patients (95%) were analyzed. Long-term results were evaluated in 157 patients (85%) with propensity score based analysis. Forty-three pairs were matched. The blood loss and the hospital stay were less in the group of laparoscopic liver resection before matching. After matching, the blood loss was equal in both groups. The length of hospital stay remained significantly shorter in laparoscopic liver resection group after matching. No differences in severe morbidity was observed between groups. No death was registered after open and laparoscopic liver resection. The overall 5-year survival rate in the laparoscopic and open liver resection groups did not differ before and after matching (56%/68% and 72%/76%, respectively). Disease-free 5- and 4-year survival did not differ either, but revealed the trend to be longer after laparoscopic liver resection before and after matching (52%/10% and 58%/28%, respectively). Conclusion. Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases reduced the hospital stay. The overall survival of patients did not depend on the type of approach. Disease-free survival discovered the trend to improve after laparoscopic liver resection.

This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly. Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients. Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups. A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age. In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal metastases: different indications?

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with propensity score-based analysis

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The aim of the present study was to clarify the surgical outcome and long-term prognosis of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared with conventional open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). A one-to-two propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied. Covariates (P < 0.2) used for PSM estimation included preoperative levels of CEA and CA19-9; primary tumor differentiation; primary pathological lymph node metastasis; number, size, location, and distribution of CRLM; existence of extrahepatic metastasis; extent of hepatic resection; total bilirubin and prothrombin activity levels; and preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and long-term survival were compared. From 2005 to 2010, 1,331 patients with hepatic resection for CRLM were enrolled. By PSM, 171 LLR and 342 OLR patients showed similar preoperative clinical characteristics. Median estimated blood loss (163 g vs 415 g, P < 0.001) and median postoperative hospital stay (12 days vs 14 days; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the LLR group. Morbidity and mortality were similar. Five-year rates of recurrence-free, overall, and disease-specific survival did not differ significantly. The R0 resection rate was similar. In selected CRLM patients, LLR is strongly associated with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay and has equivalent long-term survival comparable with OLR.

The aim of the study was to compare the long-term oncologic results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) using a propensity score analysis. This propensity score matching (PSM) study was based on a prospective database of a single tertiary-care center. Patients with primarily resectable CRLM were selected for a 1:1 PSM between LLR and OLR. Covariates for PSM estimation were age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, primary tumor location, CRLM presentation, location, size, and number. Moreover, the year of surgery was included in the PSM model. Operative, postoperative, and survival rates were compared between groups. From 2000 to 2013, in total, 339 liver resections for CRLM met the selection criteria. Among these, 52 LLR patients were matched with 52 OLR patients. The two surgical approaches showed similar postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. LLR was associated with significantly less blood loss, less frequent need for and shorter duration of pedicle clamping, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay. Moreover, the overall 3- and 5-year survival rates were, respectively, 83% and 76% for LLR and 87% and 62% for OLR (P=.51). The 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were, respectively, 28% and 21% for LLR and 31% and 21% for OLR (P=.71). The LLR achieves similar oncological results to those of the standard open surgery for CRLM, with the additional benefit of significantly faster recovery.

Laparoscopic versus open minor liver resections of colorectal cancer liver metastases in a state at war: A prospective cohort study.

BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remain to be established. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for CLM with respect to surgical and oncologic outcomes.MethodsAn electronic search was performed to retrieve all relevant articles published in the English language by the end of March 2013. Data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.0.ResultsA total of 8 nonrandomized controlled studies with 695 subjects were analyzsed. Intra-operative blood loss, the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, morbidity and the length of hospital stay were all significantly reduced after LLR. Postoperative recurrence, 5-year overall and disease-free survivals were comparable between two groups.ConclusionsLLR for CLM is safe and efficacious. It improves surgical outcomes and uncompromises oncologic outcomes as compared with OLR.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal metastases: A case–control study of 130 patients

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.

Synchronous resection of colorectal cancer liver metastasis : propensity score matching of open versus minimally invasive surgery

Most treatments for cancer cause a decline in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limiting this decline is a universal goal for healthcare providers. Using minimally invasive instead of open surgical techniques might be one way to achieve this. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative HRQoL after open and laparoscopic liver resection. This was a predefined substudy of an RCT comparing open with laparoscopic liver resection. Patients with colorectal liver metastases were assigned randomly to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection. HRQoL was assessed with the Short Form 36 questionnaire at baseline, and 1 and 4 months after surgery. A total of 280 patients were randomized, of whom 273 underwent surgery (129 laparoscopic, 144 open); 682 questionnaires (83.3 per cent) were available for analysis. One month after surgery, patients in the laparoscopic surgery group reported reduced scores in two HRQoL domains (physical functioning and role physical), whereas those in the open surgery group reported reduced scores in five domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning). Four months after surgery, HRQoL scores in the laparoscopic group had returned to preoperative levels, whereas patients in the open group reported reduced scores for two domains (role physical and general health). The between-group difference was statistically significant in favour of laparoscopy for four domains after 1 month (role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning) and for one domain after 4 months (role physical). Patients assigned to laparoscopic liver surgery reported better postoperative HRQoL than those assigned to open liver surgery. For role limitations caused by physical health problems, patients in the laparoscopic group reported better scores up to 4 months after surgery. Registration number: NCT01516710 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

411P Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases: Five-year actual survival of the previously reported randomized controlled trial – The OSLO-COMET Trial

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now established as standard of care for a variety of gastrointestinal procedures for benign and malignant indications. However, due to concerns regarding superiority to open liver resection (OLR), the uptake of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow. Data on long-term outcomes of LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long-term outcomes of LLR compared to OLR for CRLM. Five electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing LLR and OLR for CRLM and reporting on survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and resection margins. Eight non-randomized studies (NRS) were included (n=2,017 total patients). Six were matched cohort studies. LLR reduced estimated blood loss [mean difference: -108.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), -214.0 to -3.7) and major morbidity [relative risk (RR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83], but not mortality. No difference was observed in operative time, LOS, resection margins, R0 resections, and recurrence. Survival data could not be pooled. No studies reported inferior survival with LLR. OS varied from 36% to 60% for LLR and 37% to 65% for OLR. RFS ranged from 14% to 30% for LLR and 22% to 38% for OLR. According to the grade classification, the strength of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. The use of parenchymal sparing resections with LLR and OLR could not be assessed. Based on limited retrospective evidence, LLR offers reduced morbidity and blood loss compared to OLR for CRLM. Comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. Although LLR cannot be considered as standard of care for CRLM, it is beneficial for well-selected patients and lesions. Therefore, LLR should be part of the liver surgeon's armamentarium.