Minimally invasive versus open hepatic resection for NEN liver metastasis: Case matched study with propensity score matching

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (08) ◽  
pp. e337-e338
Author(s):  
A Pascher ◽  
H Morgül ◽  
B Strücker ◽  
G Atanasov ◽  
J Pratschke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Hepatic Resection ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Matched Study

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case-matched study with propensity score matching

2015 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 643-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ho-Seong Han ◽  
Ahmed Shehta ◽  
Soyeon Ahn ◽  
Yoo-Seok Yoon ◽  
Jai Young Cho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Open Liver Resection ◽  
Matched Study

scholarly journals Long-Term Outcomes of Hepatic Resection versus Living Donor Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matching Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshimi Kaido ◽  
Satoshi Morita ◽  
Sachiko Tanaka ◽  
Kohei Ogawa ◽  
Akira Mori ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Liver Transplantation ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Hepatic Resection ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Living Donor ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Recurrence Rates

Hepatic resection (HR) and liver transplantation (LT) are surgical treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is clinically impossible to perform a randomized, controlled study to determine the usefulness of these treatments. The present study compared survival rates and recurrence rates of HR versus living donor LT (LDLT) for HCC by using the propensity score method. Between January 1999 and August 2012, 936 patients (732 HR, 204 LDLT) underwent surgical therapy for HCC in our center. Using the propensity score matching, 80 well-balanced patients were defined. The 1- and 5-year overall survival rates were 90% and 53% in the HR group and 82% and 63% in the LT group, respectively. They were not significantly different between the two groups. The odds ratio estimated using the propensity score matching analysis was 0.842 (P=0.613). The 1- and 5-year recurrence rates were significantly lower in the LT group (9% and 21%) than in the HR group (43% and 74%) (P<0.001), and the odds ratio was 0.214 (P=0.001). In conclusion, HR should be considered a valid alternative to LDLT taking into consideration the risk for the living donor based on the results of this propensity score-matching study.

scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): a pan-European propensity score matched study

HPB ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. S714
Author(s):  
J. van Hilst ◽  
T. de Rooij ◽  
S. Klompmaker ◽  
M. Rawashdeh ◽  
F. Aleotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Ductal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Open Distal Pancreatectomy ◽  
Matched Study

scholarly journals Minimally invasive versus standard extracorporeal circulation system in minimally invasive aortic valve surgery: a propensity score-matched study

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Berretta ◽  
Mariano Cefarelli ◽  
Luca Montecchiani ◽  
Jacopo Alfonsi ◽  
Walter Vessella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Extracorporeal Circulation ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Blood Transfusions ◽  
Track Management ◽  
To Receive

Abstract OBJECTIVES The impact of minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) has still to be defined. This study compared in-hospital and 1 year outcomes of MI-AVR interventions using MiECC systems versus conventional extracorporeal circulation (c-ECC). METHODS Data from 288 consecutive patients undergoing primary isolated MI-AVR using MiECC (n = 102) or c-ECC (n = 186) were prospectively collected. Treatment selection bias was addressed by the use of propensity score matching (MiECC vs c-ECC). After propensity score matching, 2 groups of 93 patients each were created. RESULTS Compared with c-ECC, MiECC was associated with a higher rate of autologous priming (82.4% vs 0%; P < 0.001) and a greater nadir haemoglobin (9.3 vs 8.7 g/dl; P = 0.021) level and haematocrit (27.9% vs 26.4%; P = 0.023). Patients who had MiECC were more likely to receive ultra-fast-track management (60.8% vs 26.9%; P < 0.001) and less likely to receive blood transfusions (32.7% vs 44%; P = 0.04). The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.1% in the MiECC group and 0% in the c-ECC group (P = 0.5). Those in the MiECC group had reduced rates of bleeding requiring revision (0% vs 5.3%; P = 0.031) and postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) (30.1% vs 44.1%; P = 0.034). The 1-year survival rate was 96.8% and 97.5% for MiECC and c-ECC patients, respectively (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS MiECC systems were a safe and effective tool in patients who had MI-AVR. Compared with c-ECC, MiECC promotes ultra-fast-track management and provides better clinical outcomes as regards bleeding, blood transfusions and postoperative AF. Thus, by reducing surgical injury and promoting faster recovery, MiECC may further validate MI-AVR interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document