Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses (original) (raw)
Related papers
Evaluation of 300 Minimally Invasive Liver Resections at a Single Institution
Annals of Surgery, 2007
Objective: We present the largest, most comprehensive, single center experience to date of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR). Summary Background Data: Despite anecdotal reports of MILR, few large single center reports have examined these procedures by comparing them to their open counterparts. Methods: Three hundred MILR were performed between July 2001 and November 2006 at our center for both benign and malignant conditions. These included 241 pure laparoscopic, 32 hand-assisted laparoscopic, and 27 laparoscopy-assisted open (hybrid) resections. These MILR were compared with 100 contemporaneous, cohortmatched open resections. MILR included segmentectomies (110), bisegmentectomies (63), left hepatectomies (47), right hepatectomies (64), extended right hepatectomies (8), and caudate lobe (8) resections. Benign etiologies encompassed cysts (70), hemangiomata (37), focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) (23), adenomata (47), and 20 live donor right lobectomies. Malignant etiologies included primary (43) and metastatic (60) tumors. Hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis was present in 25 of 103 patients with malignant diseases (24%). Results: There was high data consistency within the 3 types of MILR. MILR compared favorably with standard open techniques: operative times (99 vs. 182 minutes), blood loss (102 vs. 325 ml), transfusion requirement (2 of 300 vs. 8 of 100), length of stay (1.9 vs. 5.4 days), overall operative complications (9.3% vs. 22%), and local malignancy recurrence (2% vs. 3%). No port-site recurrences occurred. Conversion from laparoscopic to hand-assisted laparoscopic resection occurred in 20 patients (6%), with no conversions to open. No hand-assisted procedures were converted to open, but 2 laparoscopy-assisted (7%) were converted to open. Conclusion: Our data show that MILR outcomes compare favorably with those of the open standard technique. Our experience suggests that MILR of varying magnitudes is safe and effective for both benign and malignant conditions.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2020
Background: Treating patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge, especially when the disease presents at an advanced stage. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the efficacy of liver resection in patients who fulfil or exceed University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria by assessing longterm outcome. Methods: Between 2002 and 2008, 59 patients with large HCC (>5 cm) underwent hepatectomy. Thirty-two of these patients fulfilled UCSF criteria for transplantation (group A) and 27 did not (group B). Disease-free survival and overall survival rates were compared between the two groups after resection and were critically evaluated with regard to patient eligibility for transplant. Results: In all patients major or extended hepatectomies were performed. There was no perioperative mortality. Morbidity consisted of biliary fistula, abscess, pleural effusion and pneumonia and was significantly higher in patient group B. Disease-free survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 66%, 37% and 34% in group A and 56%, 29% and 26% in group B, respectively (P < 0.01). Survival rates at 1, 3 and 5 years were 73%, 39% and 35% in group A and 64%, 35% and 29% in group B, respectively (P = 0.04). The recurrence rate was higher in group B (P = 0.002). Conclusions: Surgical resection, if feasible, is suggested in patients with large HCC and can be performed with acceptable overall and disease-free survival and morbidity rates. In patients eligible for transplantation, resection may also have a place in the management strategy when waiting list time is prolonged for reasons of organ shortage or when the candidate has low priority as a result of a low MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) score.
Surgical treatment for large hepatocellular carcinoma: does size matter?
ANZ Journal of Surgery, 2012
Despite significant progress in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), patients with large HCC (defined as >10 cm) continue to present a significant challenge. The goal of this paper is to review the existing literature regarding large HCC, with emphasis on identifying the issues and challenges involved in approaching these tumours surgically. A computerized search was made of the Medline database from January 1992 to December 2010. The MESH heading 'large' or 'huge' in combination with the keyword 'hepatocellular carcinoma' was used. After excluding further studies that identified 'large' HCC as less than 10 cm and/or sequential publications with overlapping patient populations, the search produced a study population of 22 nonduplicated papers, reporting on a total of 5223 patients with HCC tumours >10 cm. Regarding resection for large HCC, the overall 5-year survival in these studies ranged from 25% to 45%, with few outliers on both sides, whereas in most studies, the 5-year disease-free survival ranged between 15% and 35%, with the only exception being studies with patients with single lesions and no cirrhosis showing disease-free survival of 41% and 56%, respectively. Risk factors identified included vascular invasion, cirrhosis, high level of alpha-fetoprotein and the presence of multiple lesions. Finally, liver transplantation, although an attractive concept, did not appear to offer a survival benefit in any of the studies. In conclusion, identifying the risk factors that affect the outcome in patients undergoing surgery for large HCC is critical. The reason is that surgical resection can have excellent outcomes in carefully selected patients.
Seminars in interventional radiology, 2006
The surgical management of liver malignancies remains a mainstay in the treatment of such patients, and has benefited from dramatic advancements over the last two decades. Improvements in surgical technique, better understanding of hepatic anatomy, and improvement in anesthesiological supportive care has resulted in a decline in perioperative morbidity and operative mortality. Proper patient selection for surgical and nonsurgical treatment currently employs a multidisciplinary approach in our institution. This review will focus on the surgical treatment options for both primary and secondary liver cancers.
Surgical treatment for large hepatocellular carcinoma: does size matter?a ns_6079 1..8
Despite significant progress in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), patients with large HCC (defined as >10 cm) continue to present a significant challenge. The goal of this paper is to review the existing literature regarding large HCC, with emphasis on identifying the issues and challenges involved in approaching these tumours surgically. A computerized search was made of the Medline database from January 1992 to December 2010. The MESH heading 'large' or 'huge' in combination with the keyword 'hepatocellular carcinoma' was used. After excluding further studies that identified 'large' HCC as less than 10 cm and/or sequential publications with overlapping patient populations, the search produced a study population of 22 non-duplicated papers, reporting on a total of 5223 patients with HCC tumours >10 cm. Regarding resection for large HCC, the overall 5-year survival in these studies ranged from 25% to 45%, with few outliers on both sides, whereas in most studies, the 5-year disease-free survival ranged between 15% and 35%, with the only exception being studies with patients with single lesions and no cirrhosis showing disease-free survival of 41% and 56%, respectively. Risk factors identified included vascular invasion, cirrhosis, high level of alpha-fetoprotein and the presence of multiple lesions. Finally, liver transplantation, although an attractive concept, did not appear to offer a survival benefit in any of the studies. In conclusion, identifying the risk factors that affect the outcome in patients undergoing surgery for large HCC is critical. The reason is that surgical resection can have excellent outcomes in carefully selected patients.
HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association, 2017
There are two philosophical approaches to planning liver resection for malignancy: one strives towards zero postoperative mortality by stringent selection of candidates, thus inherently limiting patients selected; the other, accepts a low yet definite postoperative mortality rate, and offers surgery to all those with potential gain in survival. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse an alternative and evolving strategy, and its impact on short-term outcomes. 3118 consecutive hepatectomies performed in 2627 patients over 3 decades (1980-2011) were analysed. Patient demographics, tumour characteristics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analysed. 1528 patients (58%) were male. Colorectal liver metastases (1221 patients, 47%) and hepatocellular carcinoma (584 patients, 22%) were the most common diagnoses. Anatomical resections were performed in 2045 (66%), some form of vascular clamping was used in 2385 (72%), and blood transfusion was required in 1130 (3...
A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive liver resections
Laparoscopic Surgery, 2018
Background: As minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) gains acceptance, techniques, and outcomes must be analyzed in multi-institution series comparing both laparoscopic and robotic approaches to open liver resections (OLRs). The objective of this study was to describe the experience with MILR at three high volume centers. Methods: Retrospective tri-institutions analysis of MILR from 2000 to 2016. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes were analyzed for statistical significance compared to OLR. Results: A total of 1,323 patients were included with 746 OLR (56.4%) and 577 MILR (530 laparoscopic, 40.1%, and 47 robotic liver resections, 3.6%). MILRs increased during the study period (0.5%, year 2000, vs. 40.5%, year 2016, P<0.001). Compared to OLR, MILR had significantly decreased estimated blood loss (634.2±33.4 vs. 275.9±18.4 mL, P<0.0001), post-operative complications (35.5% vs. 16.1%, P<0.0001), hospital length of stay (8.7±0.3 vs. 4.2±0.2 days, P<0.0001), and re-admissions (10.2% vs. 4.0% P<0.0001) with no increase in bile leak (P=0.42) or re-operation P=0.20). There was no difference in 90-day patient mortality (OLR, 2.4% vs. MILR, 1.0%, P=0.09). Conclusions: The current study evaluates the steady adoption of MILR in high volume centers. This data confirms MILR, whether performed laparoscopically or robotically, confers significant patient benefits.
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques, 2013
Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is proposed as an alternative to open liver resection (OLR) for treatment of liver tumors. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR versus OLR in benign and malignant solid liver tumors. Study Design: In this case-matched study, charts of 497 patients with liver lesions who had LLR or OLR in our center were retrospectively reviewed. Among them, 54 consecutive patients with benign or malignant solid liver tumors who had LLR were matched with a similar number of patients with OLR based on the pathology and extent of liver resection. Additionally, the surgical and oncological outcomes such as operating room time, amount of blood transfusion requirement, free resection margin rate, length of hospital stay, complication rate, perioperative mortality, and survival were compared between the two groups. Results: Demographics, pathological characteristics of the tumor, and extent of liver resection were similar between the two groups. Twenty-nine (54%) patients in each group had malignant lesions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of operating room time, amount of blood transfusion requirement, free resection margin, or postoperative complication rate or survival. However, hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (5.9 versus 9 days, P = .006). Although no perioperative mortality was observed in patients with benign tumors, among the patients with malignant tumors, 2 died perioperatively in each group. Conclusions: Our results in accordance with previous studies demonstrated that although the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR were comparable, LLR patients had a shorter hospital stay.
Surgery is essential for global cancer care in all resource settings. Of the 15·2 million new cases of cancer in 2015, over 80% of cases will need surgery, some several times. By 2030, we estimate that annually 45 million surgical procedures will be needed worldwide. Yet, less than 25% of patients with cancer worldwide actually get safe, aff ordable, or timely surgery. This Commission on global cancer surgery, building on Global Surgery 2030, has examined the state of global cancer surgery through an analysis of the burden of surgical disease and breadth of cancer surgery, economics and fi nancing, factors for strengthening surgical systems for cancer with multiple-country studies, the research agenda, and the political factors that frame policy making in this area. We found wide equity and economic gaps in global cancer surgery. Many patients throughout the world do not have access to cancer surgery, and the failure to train more cancer surgeons and strengthen systems could result in as much as US$6·2 trillion in lost cumulative gross domestic product by 2030. Many of the key adjunct treatment modalities for cancer surgery-eg, pathology and imaging-are also inadequate. Our analysis identifi ed substantial issues, but also highlights solutions and innovations. Issues of access, a paucity of investment in public surgical systems, low investment in research, and training and education gaps are remarkably widespread. Solutions include better regulated public systems, international partnerships, super-centralisation of surgical services, novel surgical clinical trials, and new approaches to improve quality and scale up cancer surgical systems through education and training. Our key messages are directed at many global stakeholders, but the central message is that to deliver safe, aff ordable, and timely cancer surgery to all, surgery must be at the heart of global and national cancer control planning.