Article

Clinical and Economic Comparison of Laparoscopic to Open Liver Resections Using a 2-to-1 Matched Pair Analysis: An Institutional Experience

Division of General Surgery, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons (Impact Factor: 4.45). 12/2011; 214(2):184-95. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.10.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Surgical resection of hepatic lesions is associated with intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our center has introduced a laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) program over the past 3 years. Our objective is to describe the initial clinical experience with LLR, including a detailed cost analysis.
We evaluated all LLRs from 2006 to 2010. Each was matched to 2 open cases for number of segments removed, patient age, and background liver histology. Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and the Charlson comorbidity index were calculated retrospectively. Nonparametric statistical analysis was used to compare surgical and economic outcomes. Analyses were performed including and excluding converted cases.
Fifty-seven patients underwent attempted LLR. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Estimated blood loss was lower in the LLR vs the open liver resection (OLR) group, at 250 mL and 500 mL, respectively (p < 0.001). Median operating room times were 240 minutes and 270 minutes in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively (p = 0.14). Eight cases were converted to open (14%): 2 for bleeding, 2 for anatomic uncertainty, 1 for tumor size, 1 for margins, 1 for inability to localize the tumor, and 1 for adhesions. Median length of stay was lower for LLR at 5 days vs 6 days for OLR (p < 0.001). There was no difference in frequency of ICU admission, reoperation, 30-day emergency room visit, or 30-day readmission rates. Median overall cost for LLR was lower at $11,376 vs $12,523 for OLR (p = 0.077).
Our experience suggests that LLR confers the clinical advantages of reduced operating room time, estimated blood loss, and length of stay while decreasing overall cost. LLR, therefore, appears to be a clinically and fiscally advantageous approach in properly selected patients.

0 Followers
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionOncological implications of laparoscopic resection in primary hepatic malignancy are not well defined. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in comparison to an open liver resection (OLR) in peri-operative and long-term oncological outcomes are described from a single North American institution.Methods From 2006 to 2013, all forty-three LLR patients for HCC were evaluated. Each patient was matched to two OLR patients for age at operation, maximal tumour size and tumour number.ResultsWhen compared with OLR, LLR had a lower severity of complication (0% versus 27%, P = 0.050) and lower 30-day readmission rate (2.3% versus 18.6%, P = 0.010). The length of stay (LOS) was shorter in LLR patients (5 versus 7 days, P < 0.001) and the estimated blood loss was also lower in LLR (300 versus 700 ml, P = 0.004). Admission to intensive care unit (ICU), emergency room (ER) visits and complication rates were similar. Overall, recurrence-free and intra-hepatic recurrence-free survival were comparable between LLR and OLR.DiscussionLLR confers the widely-accepted benefits of laparoscopic surgery, namely severity of complication, 30-day readmission rate, LOS and blood loss. Further studies are required to examine intra- and extra-hepatic recurrence after LLR. LLR for HCC should be considered for appropriately selected patients in centres with requisite volume and expertise.
    HPB 11/2014; 17(4). DOI:10.1111/hpb.12342 · 2.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed. A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify all studies published up to 2013 that compared laparoscopic and open liver [laparoscopic hepatic resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR)] and pancreatic [laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) vs open pancreatic resection] resection. The last search was conducted on October 30, 2013. Four studies reported that LLR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (2972 USD vs 5291 USD). The costs related to equipment (3345 USD vs 2207 USD) and theatre (14538 vs 11406) were reported higher for LLR. The total cost was lower in patients managed by LLR (19269 USD) compared to OLR (23419 USD). Four studies reported that LPR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (6755 vs 9826 USD). The costs related to equipment (2496 USD vs 1630 USD) and theatre (5563 vs 4444) were reported higher for LPR. The total cost was lower in the LPR (8825 USD) compared to OLR (13380 USD). This systematic review support the economic advantage of laparoscopic over open approach to liver and pancreatic resection.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 12/2014; 20(46):17595-602. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v20.i46.17595 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy. Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3-200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.57). Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.
    01/2015; 19(1). DOI:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00186