Cargando…
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (O...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8523385/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33140153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08109-y |
_version_ | 1784585289324298240 |
---|---|
author | van der Heijde, Nicky Ratti, Francesca Aldrighetti, Luca Benedetti Cacciaguerra, Andrea Can, Mehmet F. D’Hondt, Mathieu Di Benedetto, Fabrizio Ivanecz, Arpad Magistri, Paolo Menon, Krishna Papoulas, Michail Vivarelli, Marco Besselink, Marc G. Abu Hilal, Mohammed |
author_facet | van der Heijde, Nicky Ratti, Francesca Aldrighetti, Luca Benedetti Cacciaguerra, Andrea Can, Mehmet F. D’Hondt, Mathieu Di Benedetto, Fabrizio Ivanecz, Arpad Magistri, Paolo Menon, Krishna Papoulas, Michail Vivarelli, Marco Besselink, Marc G. Abu Hilal, Mohammed |
author_sort | van der Heijde, Nicky |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007—December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. RESULTS: Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195–285) vs. 247 min (195–315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188–400) vs. 400 mL (280–550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4–7) vs. 8 days (6–10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08109-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8523385 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85233852021-10-22 Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation van der Heijde, Nicky Ratti, Francesca Aldrighetti, Luca Benedetti Cacciaguerra, Andrea Can, Mehmet F. D’Hondt, Mathieu Di Benedetto, Fabrizio Ivanecz, Arpad Magistri, Paolo Menon, Krishna Papoulas, Michail Vivarelli, Marco Besselink, Marc G. Abu Hilal, Mohammed Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007—December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. RESULTS: Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195–285) vs. 247 min (195–315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188–400) vs. 400 mL (280–550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4–7) vs. 8 days (6–10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-020-08109-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-11-02 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8523385/ /pubmed/33140153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08109-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article van der Heijde, Nicky Ratti, Francesca Aldrighetti, Luca Benedetti Cacciaguerra, Andrea Can, Mehmet F. D’Hondt, Mathieu Di Benedetto, Fabrizio Ivanecz, Arpad Magistri, Paolo Menon, Krishna Papoulas, Michail Vivarelli, Marco Besselink, Marc G. Abu Hilal, Mohammed Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title | Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title_full | Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title_fullStr | Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title_short | Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
title_sort | laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8523385/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33140153 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08109-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanderheijdenicky laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT rattifrancesca laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT aldrighettiluca laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT benedetticacciaguerraandrea laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT canmehmetf laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT dhondtmathieu laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT dibenedettofabrizio laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT ivaneczarpad laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT magistripaolo laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT menonkrishna laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT papoulasmichail laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT vivarellimarco laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT besselinkmarcg laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation AT abuhilalmohammed laparoscopicversusopenrightposteriorsectionectomyaninternationalmulticenterpropensityscorematchedevaluation |