Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial.

Methods

To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed.

Results

Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was comparable in blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes received, overall morbidity, severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification > = 3), bile leakage rate, wound infection rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, days until oral feeding, 1-year overall survival, 2-year overall survival and postoperative mortality with OS. Although operation time was longer (mean difference (MD) = 93.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.10 to 122.91, P < 0.00001) and hospital cost (MD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.33, P = 0.04) was higher in MIS, MIS was associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness, that was less blood loss (MD = -81.85, 95% CI = -92.09 to -71.62, P < 0.00001), less postoperative pain (MD = -1.21, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.79, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -5.65 to -2.80, P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

The safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA is acceptable in selected patients. MIS is a remarkable alternative to OS for providing comparable outcomes associated with a benefit of minimal invasiveness and its application should be considered more.

SUBMITTER: Tang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7951922 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness.

Tang Wei W Qiu Jian-Guo JG Deng Xin X Liu Shan-Shan SS Cheng Luo L Liu Jia-Rui JR Du Cheng-You CY

PloS one 20210311 3

<h4>Background</h4>Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial.<h4>Methods</h4>To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed.<h4>Results</h4>Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was ...[more]

PMID: 33705481

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadical resection remains the most effective treatment for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, due to the complex anatomy of the hilar region, the tumor is prone to invade portal vein and hepatic arteries, making the surgical treatment of HCCA particularly difficult. Successful laparoscopic radical resection of HCCA(IIIA, IIIB) requires excellent surgical skills and rich experience. Furthermore, the safety and effectiveness of this operation are still controversial.AimTo retrospectively analyze and compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic and open surgery for patients with HCCA.MethodsClinical imaging and postoperative pathological data of 89 patients diagnosed with HCCA (IIIA, IIIB) and undergoing radical resection in our center from January 2018 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 6 patients (4 were lost to follow-up and 2 were pathologically confirmed to have other diseases after surgery) were ruled out, and clinical data was collected from the remaining 83 patients for statistical analysis. These patients were divided into an open surgery group (n=62) and a laparoscopic surgery group (n=21) according to the surgical methods used, and after 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM), 32 and 16 patients respectively in the open surgery group and laparoscopic surgery group were remained. The demographic data, Bismuth type, perioperative data, intraoperative data, postoperative complications, pathological findings, and long-term survivals were compared between these two groups.ResultsAfter 1:2 PSM, 32 patients in the open surgery group and 16 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group were included for further analysis. Baseline characteristics and pathological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed in intraoperative blood loss and operative time, as it were 400-800 mL vs 200-400 mL (P=0.012) and (407.97 ± 76.06) min vs (489.69 ± 79.17) min (P=0.001) in the open surgery group and laparoscopic surgery group, respectively. The R0 resection rate of the open group was 28 cases (87.5%), and the R0 resection rate of the laparoscopic group was 15 cases (93.75%). The two groups showed no significant difference in terms of surgical approach, intraoperative blood transfusion, incidence of postoperative complications, and short- and long-term efficacy (P>0.05).ConclusionsLaparoscopic radical resection of HCCA has comparable perioperative safety compared to open surgery group, as it has less bleeding and shorter operation time. Although it is a promising procedure with the improvement of surgical skills and further accumulation of experience, further investigations are warranted before its wider application.

Project description:BackgroundRadical surgery for esophageal cancer requires macroscopic and microscopic clearance of all malignant tissue. A critical element of the procedure is achieving a negative circumferential margin (CRM) to minimize local recurrence. The utility of minimally invasive surgery poses challenges in replicating techniques developed in open surgery, particularly for hiatal dissection in esophago-gastrectomy. In this study, the technical approach and clinical and oncological outcomes for open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy are described with particular reference to CRM involvement.Materials and methodsThis cohort study included all patients undergoing either open or laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy between January 2004 to June 2022 in a single tertiary center. A standard surgical technique for hiatal dissection of the esophago-gastric junction developed in open surgery was adapted for a laparoscopic approach. Clinical parameters, length of stay (LOS), post-operative complications and mortality data were collected and analyzed by a Mann-Whitney U or Fisher's exact method.ResultsOverall 447 patients underwent an esophago-gastrectomy in the study with 219 open and 228 laparoscopic procedures. The CRM involvement was 18.8% in open surgery and 13.6% in laparoscopic surgery. The 90-day-mortality for open surgery was 4.1% compared with 2.2% for laparoscopic procedures. Median Intensive care unit (ITU), inpatient LOS and 30-day readmission rates were shorter for laparoscopic compared with open esophago-gastrectomy (ITU: 5 versus 8 days, P=0.0004; LOS: 14 versus 20 days, P=0.022; 30-day re-admission 7.46% versus 10.50%). Post-operative complication rates were comparable across both cohorts. The rates of starting adjuvant chemotherapy were 51.8% after open and 74.4% in laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy.ConclusionThis study presents a standardized surgical approach to hiatal dissection for esophageal cancer. We present equivalence between open and laparoscopic esophago-gastrectomy in clinical, oncological and survival outcomes with similar rates of CRM involvement. We also observe a significantly shorter hospital length of stay with the minimally invasive approach.

Project description:BackgroundThere is currently no preoperative risk assessment system for predicting complications after radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. This study examined the association between the cumulative damage effect of jaundice (CDEJ) and the complications of radical resection of Bismuth II or above hilar cholangiocarcinoma.MethodsPatients who underwent radical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma at the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, from April 2010 to January 2018 were retrospectively included.ResultsOf the 171 included patients, 115 (67.3%) patients experienced complications. Multivariate analysis found that CDEJ [odds ratio (OR) =1.0001, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) =1.000027-1.000239, P=0.014], cholangitis (OR =9.638, 95% CI =2.683-34.622, P=0.001), and preoperative bilirubin (OR =1.006, 95% CI =1.002-1.01, P=0.004) were independently associated with the incidence of complications. CDEJ (OR =1.0001, 95% CI =1.00001-1.00019, P=0.024), age (OR =1.083, 95% CI =1.029-1.14, P=0.002), preoperative bilirubin (OR =1.083, 95% CI =1.029-1.14, P=0.002), and future liver remnant (FLR) (OR =0.963, 95% CI =0.941-0.986, P=0.002) were independently associated with hepatic failure. To predict the incidence of complications, the following criteria were used. For the CDEJ cutoff of 2,151, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.69 (95% CI =0.615-0.759), the sensitivity was 66.09%, and the specificity was 69.64%. For the preoperative bilirubin cutoff of 111.7 µmol/L, the AUC was 0.65 (95% CI =0.573-0.721), the sensitivity was 84.35%, and the specificity was 42.86%. To predict hepatic failure, the following criteria were used. For the CDEJ cutoff of 3,931.95, the AUC was 0.605 (95% CI =0.582-0.679), the sensitivity was 51.28%, and the specificity was 70.45%. For the preoperative bilirubin cutoff of 115.9 µmol/L, the AUC was 0.638 (95% CI =0.561-0.71), the sensitivity was 92.31%, and the specificity was 32.58%. For the FLR cutoff of 50, the AUC was 0.638 (95% CI =0.515-0.667), the sensitivity was 48.72%, and the specificity was 78.79%.ConclusionsCDEJ was independently associated with complications and can moderately predict complications after surgical resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets