Ken Min Chin1, Yun-Le Linn1, Chin Kai Cheong1,2, Ye-Xin Koh1,3,4, Jin-Yao Teo1,3, Alexander Y F Chung1,3,4, Chung Yip Chan1,3,4, Brian K P Goh5,6,7. 1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Level 5, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. 2. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 10 Medical Drive, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Medical School Singapore, 8 College Road, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Singhealth Duke-NUS Transplant Center, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Level 5, 20 College Road, Academia, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com. 6. Duke-National University of Singapore (NUS) Medical School Singapore, 8 College Road, Singapore, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com. 7. Singhealth Duke-NUS Transplant Center, Singapore, Singapore. bsgkp@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies. METHODS: Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies). RESULTS: Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH. CONCLUSION: Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.
BACKGROUND: The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies. METHODS: Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies). RESULTS: Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH. CONCLUSION: Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.
Authors: Go Wakabayashi; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Joseph F Buell; Hironori Kaneko; Ho Seong Han; Horacio Asbun; Nicholas OʼRourke; Minoru Tanabe; Alan J Koffron; Allan Tsung; Olivier Soubrane; Marcel Autran Machado; Brice Gayet; Roberto I Troisi; Patrick Pessaux; Ronald M Van Dam; Olivier Scatton; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Giulio Belli; Choon Hyuck David Kwon; Bjørn Edwin; Gi Hong Choi; Luca Antonio Aldrighetti; Xiujun Cai; Sean Cleary; Kuo-Hsin Chen; Michael R Schön; Atsushi Sugioka; Chung-Ngai Tang; Paulo Herman; Juan Pekolj; Xiao-Ping Chen; Ibrahim Dagher; William Jarnagin; Masakazu Yamamoto; Russell Strong; Palepu Jagannath; Chung-Mau Lo; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Norihiro Kokudo; Jeffrey Barkun; Steven M Strasberg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Åsmund Avdem Fretland; Vegar Johansen Dagenborg; Gudrun Maria Waaler Bjørnelv; Airazat M Kazaryan; Ronny Kristiansen; Morten Wang Fagerland; John Hausken; Tor Inge Tønnessen; Andreas Abildgaard; Leonid Barkhatov; Sheraz Yaqub; Bård I Røsok; Bjørn Atle Bjørnbeth; Marit Helen Andersen; Kjersti Flatmark; Eline Aas; Bjørn Edwin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-02 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: Brian K P Goh; Ser-Yee Lee; Jin-Yao Teo; Juinn-Huar Kam; Prema-Raj Jeyaraj; Peng-Chung Cheow; Pierce K H Chow; London L P J Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung-Yip Chan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Nicholas L Syn; Tousif Kabir; Ye Xin Koh; Hwee Leong Tan; Louis Z Wang; Brian Zhaojie Chin; Ian Wee; Jin Yao Teo; Bee Choo Tai; Brian K P Goh Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 12.969