Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience.
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.
- SourceAvailable from: onlinelibrary.wiley.com[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Watch a video presentation of this article Answer questions and earn CMEClinical Liver Disease. 12/2012; 1(6).
- [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;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision.World Journal of Surgery 08/2014; · 2.23 Impact Factor