Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 30;20(1):260.
doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00919-0.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Vinícius Campos Duarte  1 , Fabricio Ferreira Coelho  2 , Alain Valverde  3 , Divia Danoussou  3 , Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger  2 , Kevin Zuber  4 , Gilton Marques Fonseca  2 , Vagner Birk Jeismann  2 , Paulo Herman  2 , Renato Micelli Lupinacci  3   5   6
Affiliations

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Vinícius Campos Duarte et al. BMC Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

Conclusions: MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

Keywords: Comparative study; Hepatectomy; Hepatic neoplasms/surgery; Laparoscopy; Minimally invasive surgery; Propensity score.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Density histograms for open (control) and laparoscopic (treated) groups before and after propensity score matching using the model with the variables: ASA score, number of nodules, previous abdominal surgery and diagnosis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Kaplan–Meier overall survival curves after propensity score matching (PSM) for patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORH) and minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRH)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Overall survival curves for subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors and liver metastasis after propensity score matching (PSM). ORH open right hepatectomy, MIRH minimally invasive right hepatectomy
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Coelho FF, Kruger JAP, Fonseca GM, Araujo RLC, Jeismann VB, Perini MV, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection: experience based guidelines. World J Gastrointestinal Surg. 2016;8(1):5–26. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i1.5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G. Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263(4):761–777. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001413. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Macacari RL, Coelho FF, Bernardo WM, Kruger JAP, Jeismann VB, Fonseca GM, et al. Laparoscopic vs open left lateral sectionectomy: an update meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019;61:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.021. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tee MC, Chen L, Peightal D, Franko J, Kim PT, Brahmbhatt RD, et al. Minimally invasive hepatectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and resource utilization in the elderly. Surg Endosc. 2019 doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07298-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Guan R, Chen Y, Yang K, Ma D, Gong X, Shen B, et al. Clinical efficacy of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta analysis. Asian J Surg. 2019;42(1):19–31. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2018.05.008. - DOI - PubMed