Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation

Is prolonged operative time associated with postoperative complications in liver surgery? An international multicentre cohort study of 5424 patients

BACKGROUND

The relation between operative time and postoperative complications in liver surgery is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of operative time on the development of postoperative complications in patients who underwent minimally invasive or open liver resections of various anatomical extent and technical difficulty levels.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients that underwent a right hemihepatectomy (RH), technically major resection (anatomically minor resection in segment 1, 4a, 7 or 8; TMR) or left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) between 2000 and 2022 were extracted from a multicenter database comprising the prospectively maintained databases of 31 centers in 13 countries. Minimally invasive procedures performed during the learning curve were omitted. Logistic regression models, performed separately for 9 different groups based on stratification by procedure type and allocated surgical approach, were used to assess the association between the fourth quartile of operative time (25% of patients with the longest operative time) and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 5424 patients were included: 1351 underwent RH (865 open, 373 laparoscopic and 113 robotic), 2821 TMR (1398 open, 1225 laparoscopic and 198 robotic), and 1252 LLS (241 open, 822 laparoscopic and 189 robotic). After adjusting for potential confounders (age, BMI, gender, ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, disease type and extent, blood loss, Pringle, intraoperative transfusions and incidents), the fourth quartile of operative time, compared to the first three quartiles, was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after open, laparoscopic and robotic TMR (aOR 1.35, p = 0.031; aOR 1.74, p = 0.001 and aOR 3.11, p = 0.014, respectively), laparoscopic and robotic RH (aOR 1.98, p = 0.018 and aOR 3.28, p = 0.055, respectively) and solely laparoscopic LLS (aOR 1.69, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

A prolonged operative time is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications, although it remains to be defined if this is a causal relationship.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for liver resection: a multicenter cohort study

The relative risk and benefits of Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative and survival outcomes for three primary malignant liver tumors related outcomes following LLR. Data from three Homogeneous-High-Volume-Expert-Centers were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for the association between LLR, and major complications defined as Clavien-Dindo Classification grade ≥ II. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to explore the impact of LLR on primary malignant liver tumor survival. Overall, 5886 patients underwent liver resection, of which 1991 underwent LLR. After adjusting for covariables, LLR had significantly lower rate of CDC grade ≥ II (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.48-0.67, P < 0.001). Interaction analysis showed that LLR had significant association with sex, drinking status, history of abdominal surgery, and platelet count (all P < 0.05). The overall survival for each primary malignant liver tumor shown potential risk but without significantly different between LLR and OLR (all P > 0.05). LLR was associated with lower rate of major complications, especially in women, non-drinkers, those without a history of abdominal surgery, and those with normal platelet. For primary malignant liver tumors, the survival outcomes did not differ significantly between LLR and OLR.

Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization.

METHODS

This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614).

CONCLUSION

The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

The differential benefit of laparoscopic over open minor liver resection for lesions situated in the anterolateral or posterosuperior segments

Background

It is well known that laparoscopic liver surgery can offer advantages over open liver surgery in selected patients. However, what type of procedures can benefit most from a laparoscopic approach has been investigated poorly thus far. The aim of this study is thus to define the extent of advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery for lesions in the anterolateral (AL) and posterosuperior (PS) segments.

Methods

In this international multicentre retrospective cohort study, laparoscopic and open minor liver resections for lesions in the AL and PS segments were compared after propensity score matching. The differential benefit of laparoscopy over open liver surgery, calculated using bootstrap sampling, was compared between AL and PS resections and expressed as a Delta of the differences.

Results

After matching, 3,040 AL and 2,336 PS resections were compared, encompassing open and laparoscopic procedures in a 1:1 ratio. AL and PS laparoscopic liver resections were more advantageous in comparison to open in terms of blood loss, transfusion rate, complications, and length of stay. However, AL resections benefitted more from laparoscopy than PS in terms of overall and severe complications (D-difference were 4.8%, P=0.046 and 3%, P=0.046) and blood loss (D-difference was 195 mL, P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the subset for high-volume centres, while in recent years no significant differences were found in the differential benefit between AL and PS segments.

Conclusions

The advantage of laparoscopic over open liver surgery is greater in the AL segments than in the PS segments.

Caudo-dorsal approach combined with the occlusion of right hepatic vein and Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic anatomical resection of segment 7

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic anatomical resection of segment 7 (LARS7) remains a technically challenging procedure due to the deep anatomical location and the potential risk of injury to the right hepatic vein (RHV). Herein, we initiated an innovative technique of caudo-dorsal approach combined with the occlusion of the RHV and Pringle maneuver for LARS7 and presented the outcomes of our initial series.

METHOD

Since January 2021, the patients who underwent LARS7 by using this novel technique were enrolled in this study. The critical aspect of this technique was the interruption of communication between the RHV and the inferior vena cava. Meanwhile, the Pringle maneuver was adopted to control the hepatic inflow.

RESULT

A total of 11 patients underwent LARS7 by using this novel technique, which included 8 hepatocellular carcinoma, 2 bile duct adenocarcinoma and one focal nodular hyperplasia. The median operative time was 199 min (range of 151-318 min) and the median blood loss was 150 ml (range of 50-200 ml). The main trunk of the RHV was fully exposed on the cutting surface in all cases and no patient received perioperative blood transfusion. No procedure was converted to open surgery. Of note, no indications of CO2 gas embolism were observed in these cases after the introduction of double occlusion. Only one patient suffered from postoperative complications and healed after treatment. The median postoperative stay was 5 days (range of 4-7 days). The 90-day mortality was nil. At a median follow-up period of 19 months, all of the patients were alive without any evidence of tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The caudo-dorsal approach combined with the occlusion of RHV and the Pringle maneuver may be a feasible and expected technique for safe exposure of RHV in LARS7. Further validation of the feasibility and efficacy of this technique is needed.

Successful treatment with laparoscopic extended posterior sectionectomy for inflammatory pseudotumor in the liver with para-aortic lymphadenitis

Inflammatory pseudotumor (IPT) is a rare disease that requires a differential diagnosis from malignancies. We describe a case of hepatic IPT with para-aortic lymphadenopathy, treated with a stepwise strategy of laparoscopic surgery. A 61-year-old woman was referred with a liver lesion. Computed tomography revealed a 13 cm well-defined lesion in segments VII-VI. The patient also had bead-like enlarged lymph nodes from the perihilar to the para-aortic regions. Although percutaneous lymph node biopsy showed no evidence of malignancy, 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography revealed accumulation in the lesion and lymph nodes. Lymph nodes were harvested laparoscopically for intraoperative pathological examination. With no evidence of malignancy, laparoscopic liver resection was continuously performed as a diagnostic treatment. The patient was given a pathological diagnosis of IPT and was discharged on the 16th day and is well 2 years after surgery. The minimally invasive laparoscopic approach to diagnostic treatment could be useful with secure advantages.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Caudodorsal approach combined with in situ split for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) was technically challenging and lack of standardization. There were some approaches for LRPS, such as caudal approach and dorsal approach. During our practice, we initiated pure LRPS using the caudodorsal approach with in situ split and present several advantages of this method.

METHODS

From April 2018 to December 2021, consecutive patients who underwent pure LRPS using the caudodorsal approach with in situ split at our institution entered into this retrospective study. The key point of the caudodorsal approach was that the right hepatic vein was exposed from peripheral branches toward the root and the parenchyma was transected from the dorsal side to ventral side. Specially, the right perihepatic ligaments were not divided to keep the right liver in situ before parenchymal dissection for each case.

RESULTS

11 patients underwent pure LRPS using the caudodorsal approach with in situ split. There were 9 hepatocellular carcinoma, 1 sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, and 1 hepatic hemangioma. Five patients had mild cirrhosis and 1 had moderate cirrhosis. All the procedures were successfully completed laparoscopically. The median operative time was 375 min (range of 290-505 min) and the median blood loss was 300 ml (range of 100-1000 ml). Five patients received perioperative blood transfusion, of which 1 patient received autologous blood transfusion and 2 patients received blood transfusion due to preoperative moderate anemia. No procedure was converted to open surgery. Two patients who suffered from postoperative complications, improved after conservative treatments. The median postoperative stay was 11 days (range of 7-25 days). No postoperative bleeding, hepatic failure, and mortality occurred.

CONCLUSION

The preliminary clinical effect of the caudodorsal approach with in situ split for LRPS was satisfactory. Our method was feasible and expected to provide ideas for the standardization of LRPS. Further researches are required due to some limitations of this study.

Outcome of major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients; does surgical approach matter? A propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

Major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients still represents a great challenge for liver surgeons. Hence, the aim in the present study is to investigate the clinical impact of major hepatectomy and to assess whether the surgical approach influences the outcome of cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study including cirrhotic patients undergoing major laparoscopic (mjLLR) and open liver resection (mjOLR) in 14 Western liver centers was performed (2009-2020). Clinical, demographic, and perioperative data were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Long-term outcome after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 352 patients were included; 108 after mjLLR and 244 after mjOLR. After PSM, 88 patients were matched in each group. In the mjLLR group, compared to mjOLR, less blood loss (P = .042), lower overall and severe complication (P < .001, .020), such as surgical site infection, acute kidney injury and liver failure were observed, parallel to a shorter length of hospital stay. Stratifying patients based on the type of resection, less severe complications was observed only after laparoscopic left hepatectomy (P = .044), while the advantages of laparoscopy tend to decrease during right hepatectomy. Subgroup analysis of long-term survivals following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma showed no difference between mjLLR and mjOLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter experience suggests potential short-term benefits of mjLLR in cirrhotic patients compared to mjOLR, without compromising long-term outcome. These findings might have interesting clinical implications for the management of patients with chronic liver disease.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs. open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) is one of the most technically challenging and potentially hazardous procedures in laparoscopic liver resection. Although some available literature works demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LRPS, these data are limited to reports from a single institution and a small sample size without support from evidence-based medicine. So, we performed a meta-analysis to assess further the safety and feasibility of LRPS by comparing it with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible studies comparing LRPS and open approaches. Random and fixed-effects models were used to calculate outcome measures.

Results

Four studies involving a total of 541 patients were identified for inclusion: 250 in the LRPS group and 291 in the ORPS group. The postoperative complication and margin were not statistically different between the two groups (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.35, P = 0.17) (MD: 0.05, 95% CI: −0.47 to 0.57, P = 0.86), respectively. LRPS had a significantly longer operative time and shorter hospital stay (MD: 140.32, 95% CI: 16.73 to 263.91, P = 0.03) (MD: −1.64, 95% CI: −2.56 to −0.72, P = 0.0005) respectively.

Conclusion

Data from currently available literature suggest that LRPS performed by an experienced surgeon is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients and is associated with a reduction in the hospital stay.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open approach (OLR) has been shown to be safe, the perioperative and oncologic safety for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) specifically, necessitating often complex hepatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy, remains ill-defined.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with ICC undergoing liver resection from 2010 to 2016. After 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests were applied to compare short-term outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox multivariable regression were performed.

RESULTS

988 patients met inclusion criteria: 140 (14.2%) MILR and 848 (85.8%) OLR resulting in 115 patients MILR and OLR after 1:1 PSM with c-index of 0.733. MILR had lower unplanned 30-day readmission [OR 0.075, P = 0.014] and positive margin rates [OR 0.361, P = 0.011] and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) [OR 0.941, P = 0.026], but worse lymph node yield [1.52 vs 2.07, P = 0.001]. No difference was found for 30/90-day mortality. Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that MILR was associated with poorer overall survival compared to OLR [HR 2.454, P = 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival differences from approach were dependent on major hepatectomy, tumor size > 4 cm, or negative margins.

CONCLUSION

MILR vs. OLR is associated with worse lymphadenectomy and survival in patients with ICC greater than 4 cm requiring major hepatectomy. Hence, MILR major hepatectomy for ICC should only be approached selectively and if surgeons are able to perform an appropriate lymphadenectomy.

Laparoscopic liver right posterior sectionectomies; surgical technique and clinical results of a single surgeon experience

Objective: Laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with increasing frequency in recent years. With increasing surgical experience and technological developments, more complex laparoscopic liver resections can now be applied. Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LSPS) requires a sophisticated and highly challenging surgical technique due to the length of the parenchyma transection line and the camera out of view in laparoscopic surgery. The aim of this study was to share tips and tricks about resection which will contribute to the operation time and technique.

Material and Methods: Evaluation was made of the laparoscopic major liver resections performed consecutively between 2015-2020 in our center. During the resections, three different inflow control techniques were used; hilar, glassonian and intraparenchymal approach.

Results: A total of 14 LSPS surgeries were performed. Mean age of the patients was 51.6 ± 10.2 years (34-68), and mean operation time was 300 ± 58 (200-440) minutes. The Pringle maneuver was applied to all patients, with a mean time of 58.4 ± 14.4 (30-75) minutes. Mean perioperative bleeding was measured as 290 ± 105 (140-550) mL. Additional surgery was performed on six patients in the same session. Complications occurred in three patients. No perioperative mortality was observed.

Conclusion: LSPS is a technically difficult process, which requires advanced skills in both liver surgery and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons should consider applying this method, which offers different advantages depending on the location and nature of the lesion, after completing the learning curve by performing laparoscopic liver surgery of the correct number and type. In our article, we stated the tips and tricks that make it easy to perform laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies, which have been thought to be difficult until recently and these difficulties have been clearly stated in many articles.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for tumors located in right posterior segment: A single institution study

OBJECT

With the gradual advancement of laparoscopic technology, surgeries can be successfully performed with the help of laparoscopy increasingly. This study initially explored the difference between laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS)of liver in our center, discussed the effectiveness, benefits and safety of LRPS and introduce some surgical techniques in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyze 96 cases of liver tumor located in the right posterior lobe of liver in our institution from January 2015 to January 2018. There were 46 cases performed the LRPS surgery and 50 cases performed the ORPS surgery. Through analysis of the perioperative outcomes of these two groups by a case control study, we compare the differences between these two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LRPS and ORPS group in demographic and baseline characteristics before surgery. Patients in the LRPS group were significantly superior to ORPS in terms of postoperative liver function recovery, postoperative inflammatory factor level, pain sensation (3.03 ± 0.79 vs 4.58 ± 1.25), abdominal incision length (6.25 ± 2.34 vs 32.15 ± 3.21), carrying abdominal drainage tube time (3.26 ± 0.77 vs 4.83 ± 0.76), recovery of bowel function time (1.6 ± 0.61 VS 3.05 ± 0.85)and postoperative hospital stay (5.73 ± 0.99 vs 7.16 ± 0.95) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional ORPS, LRPS has the advantages of minor injury, faster recovery and mild inflammatory reaction. The LRPS is safe and feasible, and it should be gradually promoted in clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is a rare and aggressive hepatic malignancy. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted aiming to compare outcomes between laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for patients with iCCA. A systematic literature search of Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed. A total of 8 studies comprising 2872 patients, who underwent LLR or OLR for iCCA, were included in our meta-analysis. LLR patients had smaller tumors [mean difference (MD): - 1.17 cm, 95% confidence intervals (CI) - 1.77 to - 0.57, p = 0.0001], underwent major resections less frequently [risk ratio (RR): 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.83, p < 0.00001] and R0 resections more frequently (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 1.01-1.09, p = 0.01), while lymphadenectomy was less common in the laparoscopic group (RR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.92, p = 0.007). The LLR group presented reduced blood loss (MD: - 270.16 ml, 95% CI - 381.53 to - 32.79, p = 0.002), need for transfusion (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.21-0.73, p = 0.003), overall morbidity (RR: 0.58, 95% CI 0.4-0.83, p = 0.003) and hospital stay (MD: - 3.48 days, 95% CI: - 6.94 to - 0.02, p = 0.05) compared to the OLR group. No differences were shown in operative time (MD: 1.6 min, 95% CI - 34.17-37.37, p = 0.93), major morbidity (RR: 0.65, 95% CI 0.38-1.11, p = 0.12), mortality (RR: 1.42, 95% CI 0.13-15.07, p = 0.77), overall (HR: 0.9, 95% CI 0.59-1.38, p = 0.63) and relapse-free survival (HR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.5-1.16, p = 0.21) between the two groups. LLR seems to benefit patients with iCCA in terms of short-term outcomes, whilst long-term outcomes are comparable among the two approaches.