Highlights, limitations and future challenges of laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

Long-term oncological outcomes for HALS/Hybrid vs pure laparoscopic approach in colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS)/Hybrid and pure laparoscopic (PLS) resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis have focused on short-term results, while long-term oncological outcomes remain understudied.

METHODS

We established a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study from four centers with experience in minimally invasive surgery between 2004 and 2020. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Other endpoints analyzed were intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize baseline differences.

RESULTS

A total of 219 HALS/Hybrid (57.8%) and 160 PLS (42.2%) patients were included. After PSM, 155 patients remained in each group. Operative time (182 vs. 248 min, p = 0.012), use of intraoperative ablation (12.3 vs. 4.5%, p = 0.024), positive resection margin (4.5 vs 13.2%, p = 0.012), and pringle time (21 vs. 37 min, p = 0.001) were higher in PLS group. DFS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 65.4%, 39.3%, 37.5%, and 36.3% vs. 64.9%, 38.0%, 33.1%, and 33.1%, respectively (p = 0.84). OS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 94.5%, 71.4%, 54.3%, and 46.0% vs. 96.0%, 68.5%, 51.2%, and 41.2%, respectively (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests no differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between the two techniques. We discovered that longer total operative, pringle time, higher rates of intraoperative ablation, and positive resection margins were associated with PLS. These differences in favor of HALS/Hybrid could be due to a shorter learning curve and a greater ability to control hemorrhage.

Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Liver Resections in Low and High-Volume Centers: A Multicentric Case-Matched Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is the gold standard for liver resections. Despite its feasibility and safety in high-volume centers (HVC), its performance is controversial in low-volume centers (LVCs). We aimed to evaluate the results of LLR performed in LVC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR between 2013 and 2019 in three LVCs were compared after case-matching with those in an HVC using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris LLR Difficulty Score (IMMLDS).

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients treated in three LVCs were matched to 152 in HVCs for age, body mass index, and resection type. The incidence of LLR significantly increased in LVCs over time (2013-2016 vs. 2017-2019) (21.2% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.002 and) while abdominal drainage rate decreased (77.4% vs. 51.1%; p = 0.003). In IMMLDS group I (60 vs. 120 patients), higher Pringle maneuver (43.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), median blood loss (175 ml vs. 50 ml; p < 0.0001), abdominal drainage (58.3% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001), and conversion rate (8.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.04) were observed in LVCs. The overall postoperative morbidity was comparable (Clavien I-II: p = 0.54; Clavien > II: p = 0.71). In IMMLDS groups II-III, Pringle maneuver (56.5% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.0001), blood loss (350 ml vs. 175 ml; p = 0.02), and abdominal drainage (75% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.004) were different; however, postoperative morbidity was not. The surgical difficulty notwithstanding, length of stay (group I: p = 0.13; group II-III: p = 0.93) and R0 surgical margin (group I: p = 0.3; group II-III p = 0.39) were not different between LVCs and HVCs.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR performed at an LVC can be feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity.