Search

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2023 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)