Long term survival and surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver surgery for primary and metastatic liver tumors. A 15-year experience

Introduction: Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery. Method: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type. Result: The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70–1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80–1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59–0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50–0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses. Conclusions: Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Download Full-text

P75 Long-Term Survival After Minimally Invasive Resection versus Open Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

BJS Open ◽

10.1093/bjsopen/zrab032.074 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Rohan R Gujjuri ◽

Sivesh K Kamarajah ◽

Moh’d Abu Hilal ◽

Derek M Manas ◽

Steven A White ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Liver Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Disease Specific

Abstract Introduction Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery (OLS). However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta- analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following MILS. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MILS and OLS until January 2020. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (ASA grade, gender, age, BMI, cirrhosis, tumor size and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual centre volume, resection type. Results The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for HCC of which 4,071 (25.8%) underwent MILS. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.80 - 1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after MILS compared with OLS. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.59 - 0.96, p = 0.022) and all cause 5-year mortality (OR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.50 - 0.81, p = 0.002). Meta- regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses. Conclusions Improvement in MILS techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with MILS compared to OLS. Therefore, MILS can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for HCC.

Download Full-text

Vascular surgery in liver resection

Langenbeck s Archives of Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00423-021-02310-w ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Olga Radulova-Mauersberger ◽

Jürgen Weitz ◽

Carina Riediger

Keyword(s):

Liver Transplantation ◽

Liver Resection ◽

Vascular Surgery ◽

Liver Surgery ◽

Liver Tumors ◽

Vascular Reconstruction ◽

Vascular Involvement ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival

AbstractVascular surgery in liver resection is a standard part of liver transplantation, but is also used in oncological liver surgery. Malignant liver tumors with vascular involvement have a poor prognosis without resection. Surgery is currently the only treatment to provide long-term survival in advanced hepatic malignancy. Even though extended liver resections are increasingly performed, vascular involvement with need of vascular reconstruction is still considered a contraindication for surgery in many institutions. However, vascular resection and reconstruction in liver surgery—despite being complex procedures—are safely performed in specialized centers. The improvements of the postoperative results with reduced postoperative morbidity and mortality are a result of rising surgical and anesthesiological experience and advancements in multimodal treatment concepts with preconditioning measures regarding liver function and systemic treatment options. This review focuses on vascular surgery in oncological liver resections. Even though many surgical techniques were developed and are also used during liver transplantation, this special procedure is not particularly covered within this review article. We provide a summary of vascular reconstruction techniques in oncological liver surgery according to the literature and present also our own experience. We aim to outline the current advances and standards in extended surgical procedures for liver tumors with vascular involvement established in specialized centers, since curative resection improves long-term survival and shifts palliative concepts to curative therapy.

Download Full-text

Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases: an experience from a German Academic Center

World Journal of Surgical Oncology ◽

10.1186/s12957-020-02113-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mirhasan Rahimli ◽

Aristotelis Perrakis ◽

Vera Schellerer ◽

Andrew Gumbs ◽

Eric Lorenz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Abdominal Surgery ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Liver Surgery ◽

Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Long Term Outcomes ◽

Short Term ◽

Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery ◽

Previous Abdominal Surgery

Abstract Background Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing in incidence. The aim of this work was to present our experience by reporting short-term and long-term outcomes after MILS for CRLM with comparative analysis of laparoscopic (LLS) and robotic liver surgery (RLS). Methods Twenty-five patients with CRLM, who underwent MILS between May 2012 and March 2020, were selected from our retrospective registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Thirteen of these patients underwent LLS and 12 RLS. Short-term and long-term outcomes of both groups were analyzed. Results Operating time was significantly longer in the RLS vs. the LLS group (342.0 vs. 200.0 min; p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic vs. the robotic group regarding length of postoperative stay (8.8 days), measured blood loss (430.4 ml), intraoperative blood transfusion, overall morbidity (20.0%), and liver surgery related morbidity (4%). The mean BMI was 27.3 (range from 19.2 to 44.8) kg/m2. The 30-day mortality was 0%. R0 resection was achieved in all patients (100.0%) in RLS vs. 10 patients (76.9%) in LLS. Major resections were carried out in 32.0% of the cases, and 84.0% of the patients showed intra-abdominal adhesions due to previous abdominal surgery. In 24.0% of cases, the tumor was bilobar, the maximum number of tumors removed was 9, and the largest tumor was 8.5 cm in diameter. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 84, 56.9, and 48.7%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall recurrence-free survival rates were 49.6 and 36.2%, respectively, without significant differences between RLS vs. LLS. Conclusion Minimally invasive liver surgery for CRLM is safe and feasible. Minimally invasive resection of multiple lesions and large tumors is also possible. RLS may help to achieve higher rates of R0 resections. High BMI, previous abdominal surgery, and bilobar tumors are not a barrier for MILS. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections for CRLM provide similar long-term results which are comparable to open techniques.

Download Full-text

Long Term Survival and Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Surgery for Early Gastric Cancer.

The Japanese Journal of Gastroenterological Surgery ◽

10.5833/jjgs.31.1015 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 31 (4) ◽

pp. 1015-1019

Author(s):

Tetsuro Kubota ◽

Yoichiro Ishikawa ◽

Soichiro Isshiki ◽

Takeyoshi Yokoyama ◽

Koji Fujita ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Gastric Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive Surgery ◽

Early Gastric Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Invasive Surgery ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival

Download Full-text

Long-term survival in esophageal cancer after minimally invasive esophagectomy compared to open esophagectomy

Annals of Surgery ◽

10.1097/sla.0000000000004645 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Author(s):

Eivind Gottlieb-Vedi ◽

Joonas H. Kauppila ◽

Fredrik Mattsson ◽

Mats Lindblad ◽

Magnus Nilsson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Open Esophagectomy

Download Full-text

623 MINIMALLY INVASIVE VERSUS OPEN MCKEOWN FOR PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Diseases of the Esophagus ◽

10.1093/dote/doab052.623 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Yan Zheng ◽

Wenqun Xing ◽

Xianben Liu ◽

Haibo Sun

Keyword(s):

Esophageal Cancer ◽

Minimally Invasive ◽

Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Group 14 ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Invasive Esophagectomy ◽

Open Esophagectomy ◽

Surgery Department

Abstract McKeown Minimally invasive esophagectomy(McKeown-MIE) offers advantages in short-term outcomes compared with McKeown open esophagectomy(McKeown-OE). However, debate as to whether MIE is equivalent or better than OE regarding survival outcomes is ongoing. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival between McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE in a large cohort of esophageal cancer(EC) patients. Methods We used a prospective database of the Thoracic Surgery Department at our Cancer Hospital and included patients who underwent McKeown-MIE and McKeown-OE for EC during January 1, 2015, to January 6, 2018. The perioperative data and overall survival(OS) rate in the two groups were retrospectively compared. Results We included 502 patients who underwent McKeown-MIE (n = 306) or McKeown-OE (n = 196) for EC. The median age was 63 years. All baseline characteristics were well-balanced between two groups. There was a significantly shorter mean operative time (269.76 min vs. 321.14 min, P < 0.001) in OE group. The 30-day and in hospital mortality were 0 and no difference for 90-day mortality (P = 0.116). The postoperative stay was shorter in MIE group, 14 days and 18 days in the MIE and OE groups(P < 0.001). The OS at 32 months was 76.82% and 64.31% in the MIE and OE groups (P = 0.001); hazard ratio(HR) (95% CI): 2.333 (1.384–3.913). Conclusion These results showed the McKeown-MIE group was associated with a better long-term survival, compared with open-MIE for patients with resectable EC.

Download Full-text