4.3 Article

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score study

Journal

SURGERY TODAY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 322-331

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-022-02576-7

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Laparoscopic; Propensity score matching; Inverse probability treatment weighting; Overall survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There were no significant differences in perioperative complications or long-term prognosis between laparoscopic and open liver resection for large HCC.
Purpose Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, especially for tumors larger than 5 cm. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC. Methods Patients with large HCC after curative hepatectomy were enrolled. To compare the short-term outcomes, propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to reduce the effect of confounding factors, respectively. Subsequently, Cox-regression analyses were conducted to identify the independent risk factors associated with decreased recurrence-free survival (RFS) and poor overall survival (OS). Result There were 265 patients enrolled in the final analysis: 146 who underwent OLR and 119 who underwent LLR. There was no significant difference between the OLR and LLR groups according to PSM and IPTW analysis (all P > 0.05). Multivariable analysis revealed that LLR was not independently associated with poorer OS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.67, P = 0.448) or RFS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88-1.70, P = 0.238). Conclusion There were no significant differences in perioperative complications or long-term prognosis between LLR and OLR for large HCC, which provides evidence for standard laparoscopic surgical practice with adequate surgeon experience and careful patient selection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available