Julie Hallet1, Kaitlyn Beyfuss2, Riccardo Memeo3, Paul J Karanicolas4, Jacques Marescaux5, Patrick Pessaux3. 1. Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;; Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2. Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ; 3. Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;; General Digestive and Endocrine Surgery Service, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France. 4. Division of General Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre-Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;; Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 5. Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire (IHU) de Strasbourg, Institute for Minimally Hybrid Invasive Image-Guided Surgery, Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France;; Institut de Recherche sur les Cancers de l'Appareil Digestif (IRCAD), Strasbourg, France;
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal; laparoscopy; liver; metastases; surgery
Authors: Alfredo D Guerron; Shamil Aliyev; Orhan Agcaoglu; Erol Aksoy; Halit Eren Taskin; Federico Aucejo; Charles Miller; John Fung; Eren Berber Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-10-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
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: Julie Hallet; Antonio Sa Cunha; Daniel Cherqui; Brice Gayet; Diane Goéré; Philippe Bachellier; Alexis Laurent; David Fuks; Francis Navarro; Patrick Pessaux Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Ahmad Ozair; Amelia Collings; Alexandra M Adams; Rebecca Dirks; Bradley S Kushner; Iswanto Sucandy; David Morrell; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Timothy Vreeland; Jake Whiteside; Jordan M Cloyd; Mohammed T Ansari; Sean P Cleary; Eugene Ceppa; William Richardson; Adnan Alseidi; Ziad Awad; Subhashini Ayloo; Joseph F Buell; Georgios Orthopoulos; Samer Sbayi; Go Wakabayashi; Bethany J Slater; Aurora Pryor; D Rohan Jeyarajah Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-09-22 Impact factor: 3.453