BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still a relatively uncommon indication for laparoscopic surgery because of technical challenges related to the frequent need for major hepatectomies and the necessity to perform formal regional lymphadenectomy. The aim of the present case-matched study was to compare laparoscopic and open resections for ICC. METHODS: In a case-matched retrospective analysis, 20 consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic resection for ICC (LPS group) were compared with 60 of 83 patients who had undergone open surgery (open group) in the same institution. The groups were matched in a ratio of 1:3 using propensity scores based on covariates representing relevant patient characteristics and severity of disease. The main endpoints were short- and long-term outcomes and impact and adequacy of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The groups were well matched in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The laparoscopic approach resulted in less blood loss (200 vs. 350 mL, p = 0.040) despite less extensive use of the Pringle maneuver. There was no difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality rates; however, the laparoscopic approach was associated with faster functional recovery (median 3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.050). After a mean follow-up of 39 months, disease-free and overall survivals were 33 and 51 months, respectively, for the LPS and 36 and 63, respectively, for the open group (p ns). The number of harvested nodes was comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic resection of ICC is feasible and safe, providing short-term benefits without negatively affecting oncologic adequacy in terms of rate of R0 resections, depth of margins, and long-term overall and disease-free survivals. Laparoscopic regional lymphadenectomy is technically possible but should be the object of future focused studies.
BACKGROUND:Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is still a relatively uncommon indication for laparoscopic surgery because of technical challenges related to the frequent need for major hepatectomies and the necessity to perform formal regional lymphadenectomy. The aim of the present case-matched study was to compare laparoscopic and open resections for ICC. METHODS: In a case-matched retrospective analysis, 20 consecutive patients who had undergone laparoscopic resection for ICC (LPS group) were compared with 60 of 83 patients who had undergone open surgery (open group) in the same institution. The groups were matched in a ratio of 1:3 using propensity scores based on covariates representing relevant patient characteristics and severity of disease. The main endpoints were short- and long-term outcomes and impact and adequacy of laparoscopic lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: The groups were well matched in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The laparoscopic approach resulted in less blood loss (200 vs. 350 mL, p = 0.040) despite less extensive use of the Pringle maneuver. There was no difference in perioperative morbidity and mortality rates; however, the laparoscopic approach was associated with faster functional recovery (median 3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.050). After a mean follow-up of 39 months, disease-free and overall survivals were 33 and 51 months, respectively, for the LPS and 36 and 63, respectively, for the open group (p ns). The number of harvested nodes was comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic resection of ICC is feasible and safe, providing short-term benefits without negatively affecting oncologic adequacy in terms of rate of R0 resections, depth of margins, and long-term overall and disease-free survivals. Laparoscopic regional lymphadenectomy is technically possible but should be the object of future focused studies.
Authors: Gaya Spolverato; Aslam Ejaz; Yuhree Kim; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; Andreas Pau; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo Marques; Carlo Pulitano; Eduardo Barroso; Bryan M Clary; Luca Aldrighetti; Todd W Bauer; Dustin M Walters; Ryan Groeschl; T Clark Gamblin; Wallis Marsh; Kevin T Nguyen; Ryan Turley; Irinel Popescu; Catherine Hubert; Stephanie Meyer; Jean-Francois Gigot; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: A Nakeeb; H A Pitt; T A Sohn; J Coleman; R A Abrams; S Piantadosi; R H Hruban; K D Lillemoe; C J Yeo; J L Cameron Journal: Ann Surg Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Joseph F Buell; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Nicholas O'Rourke; David Iannitti; Ibrahim Dagher; Alan J Koffron; Mark Thomas; Brice Gayet; Ho Seong Han; Go Wakabayashi; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; Chen-Guo Ker; Olivier Scatton; Alexis Laurent; Eddie K Abdalla; Prosanto Chaudhury; Erik Dutson; Clark Gamblin; Michael D'Angelica; David Nagorney; Giuliano Testa; Daniel Labow; Derrik Manas; Ronnie T Poon; Heidi Nelson; Robert Martin; Bryan Clary; Wright C Pinson; John Martinie; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Robert Goldstein; Sasan Roayaie; David Barlet; Joseph Espat; Michael Abecassis; Myrddin Rees; Yuman Fong; Kelly M McMasters; Christoph Broelsch; Ron Busuttil; Jacques Belghiti; Steven Strasberg; Ravi S Chari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sean P Martin; Justin Drake; Michael M Wach; Samantha Ruff; Laurence P Diggs; Jim Y Wan; Zachary J Brown; Reed I Ayabe; Evan S Glazer; Paxton V Dickson; Jeremy L Davis; Jeremiah L Deneve; Jonathan M Hernandez Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2019-03-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sidrah Khan; Rachel E Beard; Peter T Kingham; Yuman Fong; Thomas Boerner; John B Martinie; Dioneses Vrochides; Joseph F Buell; Eren Berber; Bora Kahramangil; Roberto I Troisi; Aude Vanlander; Michele Molinari; Allan Tsung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Lu Wu; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Anghela Z Paredes; Rittal Mehta; J Madison Hyer; Katiuscha Merath; Kota Sahara; Fabio Bagante; Eliza W Beal; Feng Shen; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: World J Surg Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 3.352