Laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) on recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is unclear. We compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH and ORH in patients with RHCC with a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library with Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords until 30 September 2022. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous variables; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was used for binary variables; and hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five high-quality retrospective studies with 818 patients were included; 409 patients (50%) were treated with LRH and 409 (50%) with ORH. In most surgical outcomes, LRH was superior to ORH: less estimated blood loss, shorter operation time, lower major complication rate, and shorter length of hospital stay (MD=-225.9, 95% CI=[-360.8 to -91.06], P =0.001; MD=66.2, 95% CI=[5.28-127.1], P =0.03; OR=0.18, 95% CI=[0.05-0.57], P =0.004; MD=-6.22, 95% CI=[-9.78 to -2.67], P =0.0006). There were no significant differences in the remaining surgical outcomes: blood transfusion rate and overall complication rate. In oncological outcomes, LRH and ORH were not significantly different in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with RHCC, most surgical outcomes with LRH were superior to those of ORH, but oncological outcomes with the two operations were similar. LRH may be a preferable option for the treatment of RHCC.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) on the short-term and long-term outcomes of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) through a meta-analysis of studies using propensity score-matched cohorts. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 31, 2022. Meta-analysis of surgical (major morbidity, the length of hospital stay, 90-day postoperative mortality), oncological (R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate) and survival outcomes (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival) was performed using a random effects model. Data were summarized as relative risks (RR), mean difference (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Six case-matched studies with 1054 patients were included (LH 518; OH 536). Major morbidity was significantly lower (RR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.37-0.88, P = 0.01) and the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD = -2.44, 95% CI = -4.19 to -0.69, P = 0.006) in the LH group than in the OH group, but there was no significant difference in 90-day postoperative mortality between the 2 groups. There were no significant differences in R0 resection rate, lymph node dissection rate, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival or disease-free survival between the LH and OH groups. CONCLUSIONS: LH has better surgical outcomes and comparable oncological outcomes and survival outcomes than does OH on ICC. Therefore, laparoscopy is at least not inferior to open surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Association between Anaesthetic Technique and Oncological Outcomes after Colorectal Carcinoma Liver Metastasis Resection.

Background: Recently published studies suggest that the anaesthetic technique used during oncologic surgery can improve patient outcomes. Therefore, the authors evaluated the survival of patients with resected colorectal carcinoma liver metastases (CRCLMs) who received either EGA (general anaesthesia [GA] combined with epidural anaesthesia [EA]) or GA alone. Methods: We conducted an ambispective cohort study including 225 post-surgical CRCLM patients between May 2007 and July 2012 and performed a follow-up investigation of survival in July 2017. Results: The basic characteristics in the two groups were largely similar. The median (quartiles) recurrence interval for all patients was 10 (2.5, 23) months, and the median (quartiles) survival for CRCLM patients post-surgically was 37 (30.5, 51.5) months. Perioperative EA was associated with survival (P =0.039, log-rank test), with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.737 (95% CI 0.551-0.985) in the univariate analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival for GA and EGA suggested that GA might provide better outcomes than EGA [P=0.028, hazard ratio of 0.7328 (95% CI 0.5433-0.9884)]. Significant differences in anaesthesia techniques were found (P=0.048), with an adjusted estimated hazard ratio of 0.741 (95% CI 0.550-0.998) in the multivariate analysis. Subgroup analyses of patients in different age groups (< 40, ≥ 40 but <60, and ≥ 60 years old) suggested that no significant differences existed among all three subgroups. Conclusions: Compared with EGA, GA may provide a better survival outcome for CRCLM patients. The benefits of anaesthetic techniques in oncological surgery are most likely related to certain cancer types.