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: 4.5). 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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract 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.
    Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques 09/2013; · 1.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has emerged as an alternative procedure to open liver resection in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to describe our initial experience of 100 patients undergoing LLR. Methods. We analysed a prospectively maintained hepatobiliary database of 100 patients who underwent LLR between August 2007 and August 2012. Clinicopathological data were reviewed to evaluate surgical outcomes following LLR. Results. The median age was 64 and median BMI 27. Patients had a liver resection for either malignant lesions (n = 74) or benign lesions (n = 26). Commonly performed procedures were segmentectomy/metastectomy (n = 55), left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) (n = 26), or major hepatectomy (n = 19). Complete LLR was performed in 84 patients, 9 were converted to open and 7 hand-assisted. The most common indications were CRLM (n = 62), followed by hepatic adenoma (n = 9) or hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 7). The median operating time was 240 minutes and median blood loss was 250 mL. Major postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days. One patient died within 30 days of liver resection. Conclusions. LLR is a safe and oncologically feasible procedure with comparable short-term perioperative outcomes to the open approach. However, further studies are necessary to determine long-term oncological outcomes.
    HPB Surgery 01/2014; 2014:930953.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Six years have passed since the first International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection was held. This comparatively new surgical technique has evolved since then and is rapidly being adopted worldwide. We compared the theoretical differences between open and laparoscopic liver resection, using right hepatectomy as an example. We also searched the Cochrane Library using the keyword "laparoscopic liver resection." The papers retrieved through the search were reviewed, categorized, and applied to the clinical questions that will be discussed at the 2nd Consensus Conference. The laparoscopic hepatectomy procedure is more difficult to master than the open hepatectomy procedure because of the movement restrictions imposed upon us when we operate from outside the body cavity. However, good visibility of the operative field around the liver, which is located beneath the costal arch, and the magnifying provide for neat transection of the hepatic parenchyma. Another theoretical advantage is that pneumoperitoneum pressure reduces hemorrhage from the hepatic vein. The literature search turned up 67 papers, 23 of which we excluded, leaving only 44. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are underway, but their results are yet to be published. Most of the studies (n = 15) concerned short-term results, with some addressing long-term results (n = 7), cost (n = 6), energy devices (n = 4), and so on. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically superior to open hepatectomy in terms of good visibility of the operative field due to the magnifying effect and reduced hemorrhage from the hepatic vein due to pneumoperitoneum pressure. However, there is as yet no evidence from previous studies to back this up in terms of short-term and long-term results. The 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection will arrive at a consensus on the basis of the best available evidence, with video presentations focusing on surgical techniques and the publication of guidelines for the standardization of procedures based on the experience of experts.
    Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences 08/2014;