Skip to main content
Log in

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection of hepatic neoplasms: comparative analysis of short-term results

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Concerns have been raised regarding outcome after laparoscopic resection of hepatic neoplasms. This prospective study compared morbidity and adequacy of surgical margins in laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR).

Methods

Outcome in 359 consecutive patients [male/female ratio 187/172; median age 60 years (range 18–84 years)] who underwent partial hepatectomy was analysed. Cirrhosis was present in 32 patients and preoperative chemotherapy was administered in 141 patients. Comparative analyses were performed using propensity scores for all and for matched patients (n = 76 per group).

Results

Complications occurred in 68/250 (27.2%) patients after OLR and in 6/109 (5.5%) after LLR [odds ratio (OR) 0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.37; p < 0.0001]. Median intraoperative blood loss was 500 ml (range 10–7,000 ml) in OLR and 100 ml (range 5–4,000 ml) in LLR (p < 0.0001). Postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range 0–155 days) after OLR and 6 days (range 0–41 days) after LLR (p < 0.0001). In patients treated for liver malignancy, the surgical resection margin was positive on histopathological examination in 5/237 after OLR and in 1/77 after LLR. The magnitude of the resection margin was 7.5 mm (range 0–45 mm) in OLR and 10.0 mm (range 0–30 mm) in LLR (p = 0.087).

Conclusions

LLR for hepatic neoplasms seems to be noninferior to OLR regarding adequacy of surgical margins, and superior to OLR regarding short-term postoperative outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buell JF, Thomas MJ, Doty TC, Gersin KS, Merchen TD, Gupta M, Rudich SM, Woodle ES (2004) An initial experience and evolution of laparoscopic resectional surgery. Surgery 136:804–811

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cherqui D, Laurent A, Tayar C, Chang S, Van Nhieu JT, Loriau J, Karoui M, Duvoux C, Dhumeaux D, Fagniez PL (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: midterm results and perspectives. Ann Surg 243:499–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Santiago Azagra J, Goergen M, Ceuterick M, Morino M, Etienne J, Marescaux J, Mutter D, van Krunckelsven L, Descottes B, Valleix D, Lachachi F, Bertrand C, Mansvelt B, Hubens G, Saey JP, Schockmel R; Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic Section of the Royal Belgian Society of Surgery and the Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malignant liver tumors. Preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 236:90–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hompes D, Aerts R, Penninckx F, Topal B (2007) Laparoscopic liver resection using radiofrequency coagulation. Surg Endosc 21:175–180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R, Abecassis M (2007) Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution. Less is more. Ann Surg 246:385–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H, Denet C, Shahri NK, Gayet B (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 93:67–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chang S, Laurent A, Tayar C, Karoui M, Cherqui D (2007) Laparoscopy as a routine approach for left lateral sectionectomy. Br J Surg 94:58–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Strasberg SM (2005) Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliairy Pancreat Surg 12:351–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:214–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Agostino (1998) Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 17:2265–2281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Parsons LS (2001) Reducing bias in a propensity score matched-pair sample using greedy matching techniques. SAS SUGI Proc 26:214–226

    Google Scholar 

  12. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Darzi A, Lovegrove R, Jiao L, Antoniou A (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms – a meta-analysis. Surgery 141:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shapiro S (1994) Meta-analysis/Shmeta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 140:771–778

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Koffron A, Geller D, Gamblin C, Abecassis M (2006) Laparoscopic liver surgery: shifting the management of liver tumors. Hepatology 44:1694–1700

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karoui M, Penna C, Amin-Hashem M, Mitry E, Benoist S, Franc B, Rougier P, Nordlinger B (2006) Influence of preoperative chemotherapy on the risk of major hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 243:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to B. Topal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Topal, B., Fieuws, S., Aerts, R. et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection of hepatic neoplasms: comparative analysis of short-term results. Surg Endosc 22, 2208–2213 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0023-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-0023-9

Keywords

Navigation