Cargando…

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surge...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Duarte, Vinícius Campos, Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira, Valverde, Alain, Danoussou, Divia, Kruger, Jaime Arthur Pirola, Zuber, Kevin, Fonseca, Gilton Marques, Jeismann, Vagner Birk, Herman, Paulo, Lupinacci, Renato Micelli
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00919-0
_version_ 1783603657369976832
author Duarte, Vinícius Campos
Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira
Valverde, Alain
Danoussou, Divia
Kruger, Jaime Arthur Pirola
Zuber, Kevin
Fonseca, Gilton Marques
Jeismann, Vagner Birk
Herman, Paulo
Lupinacci, Renato Micelli
author_facet Duarte, Vinícius Campos
Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira
Valverde, Alain
Danoussou, Divia
Kruger, Jaime Arthur Pirola
Zuber, Kevin
Fonseca, Gilton Marques
Jeismann, Vagner Birk
Herman, Paulo
Lupinacci, Renato Micelli
author_sort Duarte, Vinícius Campos
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle’s maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7602349
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76023492020-11-02 Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis Duarte, Vinícius Campos Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira Valverde, Alain Danoussou, Divia Kruger, Jaime Arthur Pirola Zuber, Kevin Fonseca, Gilton Marques Jeismann, Vagner Birk Herman, Paulo Lupinacci, Renato Micelli BMC Surg Research Article BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle’s maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80). CONCLUSIONS: MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes. BioMed Central 2020-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7602349/ /pubmed/33126885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00919-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Duarte, Vinícius Campos
Coelho, Fabricio Ferreira
Valverde, Alain
Danoussou, Divia
Kruger, Jaime Arthur Pirola
Zuber, Kevin
Fonseca, Gilton Marques
Jeismann, Vagner Birk
Herman, Paulo
Lupinacci, Renato Micelli
Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title_full Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title_fullStr Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title_full_unstemmed Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title_short Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
title_sort minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7602349/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33126885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12893-020-00919-0
work_keys_str_mv AT duarteviniciuscampos minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT coelhofabricioferreira minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT valverdealain minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT danoussoudivia minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT krugerjaimearthurpirola minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT zuberkevin minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT fonsecagiltonmarques minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT jeismannvagnerbirk minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT hermanpaulo minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis
AT lupinaccirenatomicelli minimallyinvasiveversusopenrighthepatectomycomparativestudywithpropensityscorematchinganalysis