M R Schön1, K Kouladouros2, K Hoffmann3, D Gärtner2, I Tournas2, C Justinger2. 1. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Moltkestraße 90, 76133, Karlsruhe, Deutschland. michael.schoen@klinikum-karlsruhe.de. 2. Klinik für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie, Städtisches Klinikum Karlsruhe, Moltkestraße 90, 76133, Karlsruhe, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection belongs to the standard repertoire in hepatobiliary surgery. The advantages and disadvantages are still the subject of controversial discussion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection in the Department of Surgery at the certified liver center of the municipal hospital Karlsruhe were analyzed. From a total of 268 hepatic resections 65 laparoscopic liver resections were identified and matched 1:1 with 65 open resections, based primarily on the extent of the resection and secondarily on diagnosis, age and gender of the patients. The demographic data, comorbidities, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographic parameters and comorbidities. Operation time, duration of intensive care stay and percentage of negative resection margins were comparable in both groups. The 30-day mortality was 0% and 90-day mortality 1.5% in both groups. The laparoscopic group showed lower intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates (p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall and tumor-free survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases was comparable (p = 0.984; p = 0.947). The same applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (p = 0.803; p = 0.935). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resections have identical long-term outcomes with lower overall morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resections offer advantages regarding transfusion rates, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection belongs to the standard repertoire in hepatobiliary surgery. The advantages and disadvantages are still the subject of controversial discussion. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection in the Department of Surgery at the certified liver center of the municipal hospital Karlsruhe were analyzed. From a total of 268 hepatic resections 65 laparoscopic liver resections were identified and matched 1:1 with 65 open resections, based primarily on the extent of the resection and secondarily on diagnosis, age and gender of the patients. The demographic data, comorbidities, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographic parameters and comorbidities. Operation time, duration of intensive care stay and percentage of negative resection margins were comparable in both groups. The 30-day mortality was 0% and 90-day mortality 1.5% in both groups. The laparoscopic group showed lower intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates (p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall and tumor-free survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases was comparable (p = 0.984; p = 0.947). The same applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (p = 0.803; p = 0.935). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resections have identical long-term outcomes with lower overall morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resections offer advantages regarding transfusion rates, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopic liver resection; Liver metastases; Long term outcomes; Matched pair analysis; Postoperative morbidity
Authors: Reza Mirnezami; Alexander H Mirnezami; Kandiah Chandrakumaran; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Neil W Pearce; John N Primrose; Robert P Sutcliffe Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 3.647
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: E M Wong-Lun-Hing; R M van Dam; G J P van Breukelen; P J Tanis; F Ratti; R van Hillegersberg; G D Slooter; J H W de Wilt; M S L Liem; M T de Boer; J M Klaase; U P Neumann; L A Aldrighetti; C H C Dejong Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 6.939
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: Emad Ali Ahmed; Roberto Montalti; Daniele Nicolini; Paolo Vincenzi; Martina Coletta; Andrea Vecchi; Federico Mocchegiani; Marco Vivarelli Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889