Laparoscopic versus open limited liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis: a propensity score matching study with the Hiroshima Surgical study group of Clinical Oncology (HiSCO)

Application effect of standardized nursing process of abdominal drainage tube in cholelithiasis: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

and aims: Although abdominal drainage tubes have been widely used to treat cholelithiasis, complications still affect patients' prognoses. There is no Standardized Nursing Process (SNP) for abdominal drainage tubes after Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). This study aims to observe the clinical efficacy and explore the feasibility of SNP intervention for abdominal drainage tubes in cholelithiasis patients after LC.

METHODS

This retrospective study included the patients with cholelithiasis admitted to Xishan People's Hospital of Wuxi City between Jan 2023 and Aug 2024. Patients were separated into Standardized Nursing Process (SNP) group and non-Standardized Nursing Process (non-SNP) group. The outcomes were compared between the two groups, and Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to analyze the factors associated with SNP. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among a total of 264 patients with cholelithiasis who were included in the study, 147 patients were treated with SNP, and the other 117 patients were treated without SNP. Compared with non-SNP, multivariate analysis suggested that SNP was an independent factor linked to alleviation of postoperative pain (OR = 0.22, 95%CI: 0.13-0.36) (P < 0.001), strongly associated with the activity rate of getting out of bed within 24 h (OR = 2.28, 95%CI:1.33-3.91), effectively associated with a lower incidence of drainage tube outlet leakage and post-extubation leakage. Importantly, SNP management correlated with higher patient satisfaction (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SNP implementation correlated with improved activity rate of getting out of bed within 24 h after LC, fewer occurrence of post-extubation leakage, reduced postoperative pain and higher satisfaction rates.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib-transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation sequential therapy followed by surgical resection for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Up-to-7 criteria: a study protocol for a multicentre, single-arm, prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The feasibility and efficacy of surgical resection following systemic therapy for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the Up-to-7 criteria is unclear. The combination of lenvatinib (LEN) and transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE), termed LEN-TACE sequential therapy, has shown a high response rate and survival benefit in patients with intermediate-stage HCC. This trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LEN-TACE sequential therapy and the feasibility of surgical resection for intermediate-stage HCC beyond the Up-to-7 criteria.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, single-arm, prospective clinical trial. Thirty patients with intermediate-stage HCC beyond the Up-to-7 criteria will be enrolled. Patients eligible for this study will undergo LEN-TACE sequential therapy in which LEN is administered for 4 weeks, followed by TACE, and then further LEN for another 4 weeks. Patients will be assessed for efficacy of LEN-TACE sequential therapy and resectability, and surgical resection will be performed if the HCC is considered radically resectable. The primary outcome of this study is the resection rate after LEN-TACE sequential therapy. The secondary outcomes are the objective response rate of LEN-TACE sequential therapy, safety, curative resection rate, overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hiroshima University, Japan (approval no. CRB210003), and has been registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs061220007). The results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with the scientific community at international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs061220007 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/latest-detail/jRCTs061220007).

Impact of liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension on minimally invasive limited liver resection for primary liver malignancies in the posterosuperior segments: An international multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

To assess the impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PHT) on technical difficulty and outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) in the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of patients with primary malignancy who underwent laparoscopic and robotic wedge resection and segmentectomy in the posterosuperior segments between 2004 and 2019 in 60 centers. Surrogates of difficulty (i.e, open conversion rate, operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion, and use of the Pringle maneuver) and outcomes were compared before and after propensity-score matching (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM).

RESULTS

Of the 1954 patients studied, 1290 (66%) had cirrhosis. Among the cirrhotic patients, 310 (24%) had PHT. After PSM, patients with cirrhosis had higher intraoperative blood transfusion (14% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.027) and overall morbidity rates (20% vs. 14.5%; p = 0.023) than those without cirrhosis. After coarsened exact matching (CEM), patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (12.1% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.059) and have higher overall morbidity rate (22.8% vs. 12.5%; p = 0.007) than those without cirrhosis. After PSM, Pringle maneuver was more frequently applied in cirrhotic patients with PHT (62.2% vs. 52.4%; p = 0.045) than those without PHT.

CONCLUSION

MILR in the posterosuperior segments in cirrhotic patients is associated with higher intraoperative blood transfusion and postoperative morbidity. This parameter should be utilized in the difficulty assessment of MILR.

Optimization of a laparoscopic procedure for advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on the concept of "waiting time": a preliminary report

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians increasingly perform laparoscopic surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, this surgery can be difficult in patients with advanced-stage ICC because of the complicated procedures and difficulty in achieving high-quality results. We compared the effects of a three-step optimized procedure with a traditional procedure for patients with advanced-stage ICC.

METHODS

Forty-two patients with advanced-stage ICC who received optimized laparoscopic hemihepatectomy with lymph node dissection (LND, optimized group) and 84 propensity score-matched patients who received traditional laparoscopic hemihepatectomy plus LND (traditional group) were analyzed. Surgical quality, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared.

RESULTS

The optimized group had a lower surgical bleeding score (P = 0.038) and a higher surgeon satisfaction score (P = 0.001). Blood loss during hepatectomy was less in the optimized group (190 vs. 295 mL, P < 0.001). The optimized group had more harvested LNs (12.0 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001) and more positive LNs (8.0 vs. 5.0, P < 0.001), and a similar rate of adequate LND (88.1% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.149). The optimized group had longer median DFS (9.0 vs. 7.0 months, P = 0.018) and median OS (15.0 vs. 13.0 months, P = 0.046). In addition, the optimized group also had a shorter total operation time (P = 0.001), shorter liver resection time (P = 0.001), shorter LND time (P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001), and lower incidence of total morbidities (14.3% vs. 36.9%, P = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Our optimization of a three-step laparoscopic procedure for advanced ICC was feasible, improved the quality of liver resection and LND, prolonged survival, and led to better intraoperative and postoperative outcomes.

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study comparing open hepatectomy

Background

To compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) based on propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate therapeutic safety, efficacy, and value for clinical application.

Methods

Forty-nine patients with rHCC who underwent surgery at Wenzhou People’s Hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and classified into LLR (n=30) and OLR (n=22) cases based on the surgical method. Thirty-eight patients were screened using PSM for data analysis to compare basic clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative recurrence in both groups.

Results

Before PSM, the tumour diameter was larger, tumor staging (BCLC staging system), intraoperative blood loss, units of blood transfused, constituent ratio of liver cirrhosis, incidence of MVI and intravascular tumour thrombus and postoperative complication were higher, and duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in the OLR group compared to those in the LLR group (p &lt; 0.05). After PSM, there were no significant differences regarding tumour diameter, MVI incidence, blood transfusion amount or postoperative complication rate in the LLR and OLR groups. The tumor staging, incidence of vascular cancer thrombus, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative duration of hospitalisation were significantly higher in the OLR group than in the LLR group (p&lt;0.05). The difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.383).

Conclusion

LLR for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma can reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complication rate, shorten the duration of hospitalisation, and is superior to OLR regarding perioperative and short-term efficacy, demonstrating good safety and feasibility.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Report of an international multicenter cohort study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. In patients where surgical resection is possible, outcome is influenced by perioperative morbidity and lymph node status. Laparoscopic liver resection is associated with improved clinical and oncological outcomes in primary and metastatic liver cancer compared with open liver resection, but evidence on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is still insufficient. The primary aim of this study was to compare overall survival for a large series of patients treated for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by open or laparoscopic approach. Secondary objectives were to compare disease-free survival, predictors of death, and recurrence.

METHODS

Patients treated with laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from 2000 to 2018 from 3 large international databases were analyzed retrospectively. Each patient in the laparoscopic resection group (case) was matched with 1 open resection control (1:1 ratio), through a propensity score calculated on clinically relevant preoperative covariates. Overall and disease-free survival were compared between the matched groups. Predictors of mortality and recurrence were analyzed with Cox regression, and the Textbook Outcomes were described.

RESULTS

During the study period, 855 patients met the inclusion criteria (open liver resection = 709, 82.9%; laparoscopic liver resection = 146, 17.1%). Two groups of 89 patients each were analyzed after propensity score matching, with no significant difference regarding pre- and postoperative variables. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 92%, 75%, and 63% in the laparoscopic liver resection group versus 92%, 58%, and 49% in the open liver resection group (P = .0043). Adjusted Cox regression revealed severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 10.5, 95% confidence interval [1.01-109] P = .049) and steatosis (hazard ratio: 13.8, 95% confidence interval [1.23-154] P = .033) as predictors of death, and transfusion (hazard ratio: 19.2, 95% confidence interval [4.04-91.4] P < .001) and severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 4.07, 95% confidence interval [1.15-14.4] P = .030) as predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The survival advantage of laparoscopic liver resection over open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is equivocal, given historical bias and missing data.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The exact role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying liver cirrhosis (LC) is not well defined. In this meta-analysis, both long- and short-term outcomes following LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) were analysed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched systematically for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies reporting outcomes of LLR versus OLR of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This was analysed using one-stage (individual participant data meta-analysis) and two-stage (aggregate data meta-analysis) approaches. Secondary outcomes were operation duration, blood loss, blood transfusion, Pringle manoeuvre utilization, overall and major complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), 90-day mortality and R0 resection rates.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 1618 patients (690 LLR versus 928 OLR) were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analysis, an approximately 18.7 per cent lower hazard rate (HR) of death in the LLR group (random effects: HR 0.81, 95 per cent confidence interval [C.I.] 0.68 to 0.96; P = 0.018) was observed. Two-stage meta-analysis resulted in a pooled HR of 0.84 (95 per cent C.I. 0.74 to 0.96; P = 0.01) in the overall LLR cohort. This indicated a 16-26 per cent reduction in the HR of death for patients with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent LLR. For secondary outcomes, LLR was associated with less blood loss (mean difference [MD] -99 ml, 95 per cent C.I. -182 to -16 ml), reduced overall complications (odds ratio 0.49, 95 per cent C.I. 0.37 to 0.66) and major complications (odds ratio 0.45, 95 per cent C.I. 0.26 to 0.79), and shorter LOHS (MD -3.22 days, 95 per cent C.I. -4.38 to -2.06 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of HCC in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival and perioperative outcomes.

Long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Long-term survival is the most important outcome measurement of a curative oncological treatment. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the long-term disease-free and overall survival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is shown to be non-inferior to the current standard of open liver resection (OLR). Some studies have reported a superior long-term oncological outcome in LLR when compared to OLR. It has been argued that improvement of visualization and instrumentation and reduced operative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion may contribute to reduced risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. On the other hand, since most of the comparative studies of the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR for HCC are non-randomized, it remained inconclusive as to whether LLR confers additional survival benefit compared to OLR. Despite the paucity of level 1 evidence, the practice of LLR for HCC has gained wide-spread acceptance due to the reproducible improvements in the perioperative outcomes and non-inferior oncological outcomes demonstrated by large-scaled, matched comparative studies. Meta-analyses of the outcomes of these studies by multiple systematic reviews have also returned noncontradictory conclusions. On the basis of a theoretical advantage of LLR over OLR in preventing tumor recurrence, the current review aims to dissect from the current meta-analyses and comparative studies any evidence of such superiority.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimally-invasive liver resections: a 1:1 coarsened exact-matched controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimal invasive liver resection (MILR) remains controversial and current difficulty scoring systems do not take in to account the presence of cirrhosis as a significant factor in determining the difficulty of MILR. We hypothesized that the difficulty of MILR is affected by the presence of cirrhosis. Hence, we performed a 1:1 matched-controlled study comparing the outcomes between patients undergoing MILR with and without cirrhosis including the Iwate system and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) system in the matching process.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2019, 598 consecutive patients underwent MILR of which 536 met the study inclusion criteria. There were 148 patients with cirrhosis and 388 non-cirrhotics. One-to-one coarsened exact matching identified approximately exact matches between 100 cirrhotic patients and 100 non-cirrhotic patients.

RESULTS

Comparison between MILR patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis in the entire cohort demonstrated that patients with cirrhosis were associated with a significantly increased open conversion rate, transfusion rate, need for Pringles maneuver, postoperative, stay, postoperative morbidity and postoperative 90-day mortality. After 1:1 coarsened exact matching, MILR with cirrhosis were significantly associated with an increased open conversion rate (15% vs 6%, p = 0.03), operation time (261 vs 238 min, p  < 0.001), blood loss (607 vs 314 mls, p  = 0.002), transfusion rate (22% vs 9%, p  = 0.001), need for application of Pringles maneuver (51% vs 34%, p  = 0.010), postoperative stay (6 vs 4.5 days, p  = 0.004) and postoperative morbidity (26% vs 13%, p  = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

The presence of liver cirrhosis affected both the intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes of MILR and hence should be considered an important parameter to be included in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Survival analysis between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been widely used in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is generally believed that the long-term outcomes of LH are not inferior to open hepatectomy (OH). However, the quality of evidence is low. The purpose of this study was to reconstruct time-to-event data for meta-analysis based on Kaplan-Meier curves from propensity-score matched studies and compare survival rates following LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

All published propensity-score matched studies reported in English that compared LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma with Kaplan-Meier curves were screened. Patients' survival information was reconstructed with the aid of a computer vision program. Different models (fixed-effects model for two-stage survival analysis and Cox regression for one-stage survival analysis) were performed for sensitivity analysis. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, two specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients by types of resection, cirrhosis status.

RESULTS

Time-to-event data were extracted from 45 propensity-score matched studies (N = 8905). According to the time-to-event data and the reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative overall survival rate was 49.0% and 50.9% in the LH and OH cohorts, respectively, a log-rank test did not demonstrate statistical significance (p > 0.05). The cumulative recurrence-free survival (RFS) probability was both close to 0.0%. The median RFS time was 49.1 (95% CI 46.1 ~ 51.7) and 44.3 (95% CI 41 ~ 46.1) months. The difference in disease status was statistically significant by the Log-rank test (p < 0.05). Using the random-effects model of two-stage analysis, the minor hepatectomy subgroup (HR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], I² = 6.2%, p = 0.383) and the shared fragile model of one-stage analysis (HR = 1.44 95% CI [1.23, 1.69], p < 0.001) suggested that LH could significantly prolong RFS of patients compared with OH. This result was consistent with sensitivity analysis using different models.

CONCLUSION

This study was the first reconstructed time-to-event data based on a high-quality propensity-score matching study to compare the survival outcomes of LH and OH in the treatment of HCC. Results suggested that LH can improve RFS in patients with HCC undergoing minor hepatectomy and may also benefit long-term RFS in overall patients.

Significance of liver resection for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma according to subclassification

Background

Patients diagnosed with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) encompass a broad clinical population. Kinki criteria subclassifications have been proposed to better predict prognoses and determine appropriate treatment strategies for these patients. This study validated the prognostic significance within the Kinki criteria substages and analyzed the role of liver resection in patients with intermediate stage HCC.

Methods

Patients with intermediate stage HCC (n = 378) were retrospectively subclassified according to the Kinki criteria (B1, n = 123; B2, n = 225; and B3, n = 30). We analyzed the overall survival (OS) and treatment methods.

Results

The OS was significantly different between adjacent substages. Patients in substage B1 who underwent liver resection had a significantly better prognosis than those who did not, even after propensity score matching (PSM). Patients in substage B2 who underwent liver resection had a significantly better prognosis than those who did not; however, there was no difference after PSM. There was no difference in prognosis based on treatments among patients in substage B3.

Conclusions

The Kinki criteria clearly stratify patients with intermediate stage HCC by prognosis. For substage B1 HCC patients, liver resection provides a better prognosis than other treatment modalities. In patients with substage B2 and B3, an alternative approach is required.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08421-3.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies

Background

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P  <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD −69.16; 95% CI −101.72 to −36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD −2.65; 95% CI −3.41 to −1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis

Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors.

Patients and Methods: A propensity score–matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune–inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models.

Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.79 to −0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −0.79, 95% CI = −1.11 to −0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19–0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups.

Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open liver resection with associated lymphadenectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open liver resection (LLR vs. OLR) associated lymphadenectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) are still controversial. The aim of the present study was to compare short and long-term outcomes. We reviewed data on 43 consecutive patients who underwent curative liver resection with associated lymphadenectomy for ICC. The short-term outcomes including postoperative morbidity and mortality, and the long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared. The median survival, 1- and 3-year OS in LLR and OLR groups were 22.5 months, 76.9% and 47.1%, and 12.1 months, 43.1% and 20.0%, respectively. The median survival, 1- and 3-year RFS in LLR and OLR groups were 10.3 months, 27.8% and 0%, and 8.1 months, 24.0% and 4.0%, respectively. The results showed that LLR obviously reduced intraoperative blood loss (median, 375 vs. 500ml, p = 0.016) and postoperative hospital stay (median, 6 vs. 9 days, p = 0.016). Moreover, there was no significant difference in short-term outcomes including postoperative morbidity (including wound infection, bile leakage, liver failure and pneumonia) and mortality within 30 days, and long-term outcomes including OS and RFS between LLR and OLR. (all p > 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that CA19-9 level, TNM stage, and tumor differentiation were independent risk factors for OS and RFS. LLR for ICC is safety and feasibility compared with OLR. The advantage of LLR was to reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospital stay.