Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Complications Between Laparoscopic Partial and Open Partial Hepatectomy for Liver Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma resection

BACKGROUND

The impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery of patients who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain given the lack of sufficient evidence.

AIM

To investigate the impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on postoperative recovery of patients who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who were pathologically diagnosed with HCC and underwent elective partial hepatectomy in Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital between January 2022 and April 2023 were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into two groups based on their history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rehabilitation parameters, including postoperative liver function, incidence of complications, and hospitalization expenses, were compared between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to reduce confounding bias.

RESULTS

We included 172 patients (58 with and 114 without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection) who underwent liver resection for HCC. No significant differences in the rehabilitation parameters were observed between the two groups. After PSM, 58 patients were selected from each group to form the new comparative groups. Similar results were obtained within the population after PSM.

CONCLUSION

Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection does not appear to affect postoperative rehabilitation, including liver function, postoperative complications, or hospitalization expenses among patients with HCC after elective partial hepatectomy.

Effect of minimally invasive versus open surgery in hepatectomy on postoperative wound complications in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

In a meta-analysis, we assessed the impact of different surgical approaches on the outcome of hepatectomy with hepatocellular carcinoma. Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science, have been critically reviewed through the full literature through June 2023. Eleven related trials were examined once they had met the trial's classification and exclusion criteria, as well as the assessment of the quality. A random effects approach was applied to analysis of operative organ infections, and a fixed-effect model was applied to determine the 95% CI and OR. Analysis of the data was done with RevMan 5.3. Our findings indicated that patients undergoing minimally invasive liver cancer surgery had significantly lower risks of surgical organ infection (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.77; p = 0.009) and wound infection (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.28; p < 0.001) compared to those undergoing open surgery. There was no heterogeneity observed between the two groups (I2  = 0) in wound infection. Nevertheless, because of the limited number of randomised controlled trials in this meta-analysis, care should be taken and carefully considered in the treatment of these values. Further high-quality studies involving a large number of samples are needed to validate and reinforce the results.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.

Major Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Based on Surgeons' Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Surgical complications for surgeons still in the learning phase of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have been frequently observed. We aimed to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery based on the surgeons' learning curve for LLR after propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients with a histologic diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2013 and December 2018. A PSM analysis was used to compare the groups of patients who underwent LLR and open major liver resection (OLR) before and after the learning curve was maximized.

RESULTS

Among 405 patients, 106 underwent LLR and 299 underwent OLR. The learning curve was maximized after 42 cases. Compared with OLR, LLR had more liver-related injury and grade III or higher complications during the learning phase. The LLR group had less blood loss, fewer transfusion requirements, and fewer liver-related complications during the 'experienced' phase. Hospital stay was significantly shorter during and after maximization of the learning curve in LLR compared with OLR. Operative time was comparable in the two phases. Overall, LLR was associated with less blood loss, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery. There was no significant difference in long-term survival outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR had a higher incidence of liver-related complications during the surgeon's learning phase compared with OLR. This association was significantly diminished with surgeon experience. Overall perioperative outcomes such as estimated blood loss, surgical complications, and hospital stay remained better for LLR compared with OLR.