Lucas W Thornblade1, Xu Shi2, Alex Ruiz3, David R Flum3, James O Park3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: lucaswt@uw.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ≥3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity). RESULTS: There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ≥3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity). RESULTS: There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.
Authors: Vishal G Shelat; Federica Cipriani; Tiago Basseres; Thomas H Armstrong; Arjun S Takhar; Neil W Pearce; Mohammad AbuHilal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ibrahim Dagher; Brice Gayet; Dimitrios Tzanis; Hadrien Tranchart; David Fuks; Olivier Soubrane; Ho-Seong Han; Ki-Hun Kim; Daniel Cherqui; Nicholas O'Rourke; Roberto I Troisi; Luca Aldrighetti; Edwin Bjorn; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; William R Jarnagin; Charles Lin; Juan Pekolj; Joseph F Buell; Go Wakabayashi Journal: J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Tan To Cheung; Ronnie T P Poon; Wai Key Yuen; Kenneth S H Chok; Simon H Y Tsang; Thomas Yau; See Ching Chan; Chung Mau Lo Journal: ANZ J Surg Date: 2012-10-04 Impact factor: 1.872
Authors: Ronald M van Dam; Edgar M Wong-Lun-Hing; Gerard J P van Breukelen; Jan H M B Stoot; Joost R van der Vorst; Marc H A Bemelmans; Steven W M Olde Damink; Kristoffer Lassen; Cornelis H C Dejong Journal: Trials Date: 2012-05-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Kevin Ryan Parks; Yen-Hong Kuo; John Mihran Davis; Brittany O' Brien; Ellen J Hagopian Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.647