Cargando…

Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant and invasive cancer originating from biliary epithelial cells. The current study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Jianlei, Ma, Delin, Du, Gang, An, Baokun, Xia, Tong, Zhou, Tao, Sun, Qingmei, Liu, Fengyue, Wang, Yadong, Sui, Deling, Zhai, Xiangyu, Jin, Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618796/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36325045
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1003948
_version_ 1784821133377273856
author Wang, Jianlei
Ma, Delin
Du, Gang
An, Baokun
Xia, Tong
Zhou, Tao
Sun, Qingmei
Liu, Fengyue
Wang, Yadong
Sui, Deling
Zhai, Xiangyu
Jin, Bin
author_facet Wang, Jianlei
Ma, Delin
Du, Gang
An, Baokun
Xia, Tong
Zhou, Tao
Sun, Qingmei
Liu, Fengyue
Wang, Yadong
Sui, Deling
Zhai, Xiangyu
Jin, Bin
author_sort Wang, Jianlei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant and invasive cancer originating from biliary epithelial cells. The current study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: After screening, 95 patients who underwent anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma at our center were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the surgical approach; the baseline characteristics, pathological findings, surgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were compared. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or pathological findings between the two groups. Regarding short-term outcomes, the intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay were more favorable in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group than the open anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). The two groups differed significantly in the extent of liver resection, with a lower lymph node dissection rate and lymph node yield in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative complication rate was similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). The median postoperative follow-up times were 10.7 and 13.8 months in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy and open anatomical hepatectomy groups, respectively. Regarding the long-term follow-up results, OS and DFS were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for OS were CA-199, CEA, HGB, tumor diameter, and T stage, and those for DFS were CA-199 (P < 0.05), and T stage (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. Compared with open anatomical hepatectomy, laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy provides better short-term outcomes and a comparable long-term prognosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9618796
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96187962022-11-01 Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study Wang, Jianlei Ma, Delin Du, Gang An, Baokun Xia, Tong Zhou, Tao Sun, Qingmei Liu, Fengyue Wang, Yadong Sui, Deling Zhai, Xiangyu Jin, Bin Front Surg Surgery BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a highly malignant and invasive cancer originating from biliary epithelial cells. The current study was designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: After screening, 95 patients who underwent anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma at our center were enrolled and divided into two groups according to the surgical approach; the baseline characteristics, pathological findings, surgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were compared. Moreover, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics or pathological findings between the two groups. Regarding short-term outcomes, the intraoperative blood loss, incision length, and length of postoperative hospital stay were more favorable in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group than the open anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). The two groups differed significantly in the extent of liver resection, with a lower lymph node dissection rate and lymph node yield in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy group (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the postoperative complication rate was similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). The median postoperative follow-up times were 10.7 and 13.8 months in the laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy and open anatomical hepatectomy groups, respectively. Regarding the long-term follow-up results, OS and DFS were similar in the two groups (P > 0.05). On multivariate analysis, the independent prognostic factors for OS were CA-199, CEA, HGB, tumor diameter, and T stage, and those for DFS were CA-199 (P < 0.05), and T stage (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. Compared with open anatomical hepatectomy, laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy provides better short-term outcomes and a comparable long-term prognosis. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-10-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9618796/ /pubmed/36325045 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1003948 Text en © 2022 Wang, Ma, Du, An, Xia, Zhou, Sun, Liu, Wang, Sui, Zhai and Jin. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Wang, Jianlei
Ma, Delin
Du, Gang
An, Baokun
Xia, Tong
Zhou, Tao
Sun, Qingmei
Liu, Fengyue
Wang, Yadong
Sui, Deling
Zhai, Xiangyu
Jin, Bin
Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title_full Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title_short Laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A retrospective cohort study
title_sort laparoscopic vs. open anatomical hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618796/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36325045
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.1003948
work_keys_str_mv AT wangjianlei laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT madelin laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT dugang laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT anbaokun laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT xiatong laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhoutao laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT sunqingmei laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT liufengyue laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT wangyadong laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT suideling laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT zhaixiangyu laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT jinbin laparoscopicvsopenanatomicalhepatectomyforintrahepaticcholangiocarcinomaaretrospectivecohortstudy