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

BJS Open ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 145749692110424
Author(s):  
Sivesh K. Kamarajah ◽  
Rohan R. Gujjuri ◽  
Moh’d A. Hilal ◽  
Derek M. Manas ◽  
Steven A. White
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Liver Surgery ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery ◽  
Disease Specific

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.

scholarly journals P74 Long-term Survival After Minimally Invasive Resection versus Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Pancreatic Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BJS Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan R Gujjuri ◽  
Sivesh K Kamarajah ◽  
James R Bundred ◽  
Long R Jiao ◽  
Mohammed Abu Hilal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy ◽  
Egger Test

Abstract Introduction It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5- year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only. Results The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50–1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I2 = 12, c2 = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32–1.50, p = 0.3). Conclusion Long-term survival after MIPD is similar to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.

665 PROPHYLACTIC THORACIC DUCT OBSTRUCTION DURING ESOPHAGECTOMY: THE IMPACT ON PERIOPERATIVE RISKS AND LONG-TERM SURVIVAL. A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Clara Santos ◽  
Laura Santos ◽  
Leticia Datrino ◽  
Guilherme Tavares ◽  
Luca Tristão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Thoracic Duct ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Thoracic Duct Ligation ◽  
Duct Ligation

Abstract   During esophagectomy for cancer, there is no consensus if prophylactic thoracic duct ligation (TDL), with or without thoracic duct resection (TDR), could influence the perioperative outcomes and long-term survival. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared patients who went through esophagectomy associated or not to ligation or resection of the thoracic duct. Methods A systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library Central and Lilacs (BVS). The inclusion criteria were: (1) studies that compare thoracic duct ligation, with or without resection, and non-thoracic duct ligation; (2) involve adult patients with esophageal cancer; (3) articles that analyses the outcomes—perioperative complications, perioperative mortality, chylothorax development and overall survival; (4) only clinical trials and cohort were accepted. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was used, and random-effects model was performed. Results Fifteen articles were selected, comprising 6,249 patients. TDL did not reduce the risk for chylothorax (Risk difference [RD]: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). Also, TDL did not influence the risk for complications (RD: -0.02; 95%CI: −0.11, 0.07); mortality (RD: 0.00; 95%CI: −0.00, 0.00); and reoperation rate (RD: -0.01; 95%CI: −0.02, 0.00). TDR was associated with higher risk for postoperative complications (RD: 0.1; 95%CI 0.00, 0.19); chylothorax (RD: 0.02; 95%CI 0.00, 0.03). Both TDL and TDR did not influence the overall survival rate (TDL: HR: 1.17; 95%CI: 0.86, 1.48; and TDR: HR: 1.16; 95%CI: 0.8, 1.51). Conclusion Thoracic duct obliteration with or without its resection during esophagectomy does not change long term survival. Nonetheless, TDR increased the risk for postoperative complications and chylothorax.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document