Toru Beppu1, Go Wakabayashi2, Kiyoshi Hasegawa3, Naoto Gotohda4, Toru Mizuguchi5, Yutaka Takahashi6, Fumitoshi Hirokawa7, Nobuhiko Taniai8, Manabu Watanabe9, Masato Katou10, Hiroaki Nagano11, Goro Honda12, Hideo Baba1, Norihiro Kokudo3, Masaru Konishi4, Koichi Hirata5, Masakazu Yamamoto6, Kazuhisa Uchiyama7, Eiji Uchida8, Shinya Kusachi9, Keiichi Kubota10, Masaki Mori11, Keiichi Takahashi12, Ken Kikuchi13, Hiroaki Miyata14, Takeshi Takahara2, Masafumi Nakamura15, Hironori Kaneko16, Hiroki Yamaue17, Masaru Miyazaki18, Tadahiro Takada19. 1. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan. 2. Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine, Iwate, Japan. 3. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan. 5. Department of Surgery, Surgical Oncology and Science, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan. 6. Department of Surgery, Institute of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of General and Gastroenterological Surgery, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan. 8. Department of Gastrointestinal Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan. 9. Department of Surgery, Toho University Ohashi Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan. 10. Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University, Tochigi, Japan. 11. Department of Surgery, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan. 12. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Center Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 13. Medical Quality Management Center, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan. 14. Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 15. Department of Surgery and Oncology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 16. Deparment of Surgery, Toho University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 17. Second Department of Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, School of Medicine, Wakayama, Japan. 18. Department of General Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan. 19. Japanese Society of Hepato-biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Authors: Jin He; Neda Amini; Gaya Spolverato; Kenzo Hirose; Martin Makary; Christopher L Wolfgang; Matthew J Weiss; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-08-02 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: S Wabitsch; A Kästner; P K Haber; L Feldbrügge; T Winklmann; S Werner; J Pratschke; Moritz Schmelzle Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2019-05-07 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Nicolai A Schultz; Peter N Larsen; B Klarskov; L M Plum; Hans-Jørgen Frederiksen; Henrik Kehlet; Jens G Hillingsø Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 3.352