4.7 Review

Laparoscopic vs open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis of the long-term survival outcomes

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 35-42

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.021

Keywords

Hepatobiliary; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Cirrhosis; Laparoscopic hepatectomy; Open hepatectomy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis, laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) confers short-term benefits over open hepatectomy (OH) but the long-term outcomes of this procedure are unclear. This systematic review aims to compare the long-term survival outcomes of LH and OH for patients with HCC and underlying cirrhosis. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched from date of inception to 7th October 2016. Controlled clinical studies comparing LH to OH for HCC in cirrhotic patients, which reported long-term overall and disease-free survival were included. The studies were evaluated using the MOOSE guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted and analysed using a fixed-effects model. Results: Five non-randomised, retrospective observational studies representing 888 patients were included. LH was associated with significantly lower tumour recurrence [OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.89]. LH conferred greater overall survival at 1- [HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.68], 3- [HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.87] and 5-years [HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.80]. With LH, there was higher disease-free survival at 1-year [HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.96], but not at 3-[HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.14]; and 5-years [HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.04]. Conclusions: Laparoscopic surgery is associated with comparable postoperative and survival outcomes in patients with HCC and underlying cirrhosis. With careful selection of patients, this approach is safe, feasible and advantageous.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available