Next Article in Journal
Hepatic Resection in Patients with Colo-Rectal Liver Metastases: Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Single-Center Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Examining Clinical Opinion and Experience Regarding Utilization of Plain Radiography of the Spine: Evidence from Surveying the Chiropractic Profession
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/jcm12062164
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study

by
Bao Jin
1,†,
Muyi Yang
2,†,
Yinhan Wang
1,3,†,
Gang Xu
1,4,
Yuxin Wang
1,
Yuke Zhang
1,3,
Yitong Liu
1,3,
Xinming Niu
1,3,
Xiao Liu
1,
Xueshuai Wan
1,
Huayu Yang
1,
Xin Lu
1,
Xinting Sang
1,
Yilei Mao
1,
Zhixian Hong
2,* and
Shunda Du
1,*
1
Department of Liver Surgery, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
2
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100039, China
3
Peking Union Medical College (PUMC), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, China
4
Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(6), 2164; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062164
Submission received: 14 January 2023 / Revised: 27 February 2023 / Accepted: 27 February 2023 / Published: 10 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Section General Surgery)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (LHCL) compared with traditional open hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (OHCL) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LHCL. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 262 patients who underwent hepatectomies involving resections of liver segment II, IV or VIII from January 2015 to June 2021 in two institutions. Patients in the LHCL group were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients in the OHCL group. Results: After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 61 patients remained in the LHCL group and 122 patients were in the OHCL group. What needs to be mentioned is that although not significant, patients in the OHCL group had increased lesion size (4.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.052), number (single/multiple, 84.8%/15.2% vs. 93.4%/6.6%, p = 0.097), and number of liver segments involved (one/two/three, 47.3%/42.0%/10.7% vs. 57.4%36.1%/10.7%, p = 0.393). To ensure surgical safety, fewer patients in the LHCL group underwent vascular exclusion than those in the OHCL group (p = 0.004). In addition, LHCL was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.001) and transfusion requirement (p = 0.004). In terms of short-term outcomes, the LHCL group had significantly lower levels of peak ALT (p < 0.001), peak DBIL (p = 0.042), peak PT (p = 0.012), and higher levels of bottom ALB (p = 0.049). Moreover, the LHCL group demonstrated quicker postoperative recovery, which was represented by shorter time to first flatus, time to oral intake, time to drain off, and hospital stay (all p < 0.001). Importantly, the LHCL group had a significantly reduced occurrence of postoperative complications (p < 0.001) and similar R0 resection rates (p = 0.678) when compared to the OHCL group. Conclusion: LHCL is associated with increased safety and better perioperative outcomes and thus could be recommended for patients with central space-occupying liver lesions when appropriately selecting the surgical procedure according to the total tumor burden and carefully handled by experienced surgeons. From the experience of our center, LHCL could be performed to solitary lesion involving liver segment IV/V/VIII, <5 cm, with good safety and feasibility.

1. Introduction

Since the first small wedge and subsegmental laparoscopic liver resection in the early 1990s [1], laparoscopic liver resection surgery (LLR) has seen great progress in recent years, the indications of which cover both malignancies and benign diseases for minor, major, and combined minor–major liver resections [2].Multiple studies supported LLR with comparative perioperative and improved long-term outcomes in contrast to open liver resections (OLR), indicating its safety and feasibility [2,3,4].
LLR is predominantly recommended in wedge/minor non-anatomical resections and left lateral liver resections, while in high-volume centers, major laparoscopic hepatectomies are also regarded as standard clinical practice [5,6]. LHCL is only performed in centers with abundant surgical experience, because it is technically challenging with a high risk of perioperative bleeding, postoperative bile leakage, and bile duct stenosis and dysfunction [2,7]. However, there are also studies indicating that meso-hepatectomy could replace extended hepatectomy for lower parenchymal loss with fewer postoperative complications and mortality [8,9].
Previous studies on LHCL have mainly been case reports or case series, with only one single-center retrospective analysis [10,11,12,13,14,15]. Further studies are needed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of LHCL. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the safety and perioperative outcomes of LHCL compared to OHCL using PSM and data collected from two centers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Population

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent LHCL or OHCL due to any type of central space-occupying liver lesions from January 2015 to June 2021 in two institutions (Peking Union Medical College Hospital and the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital). We used the Couinaud liver segmentation method as the selection criteria, and patients with liver lesions located in Couinaud segments 4/5/8 were included in this study. All patients underwent liver function evaluation before surgery, of whom only patients with lesions categorized as Child–Pugh class A were allowed to undergo hepatectomy. Exclusion criteria included age ≤18 and incomplete prognostic data. The applicability of a laparoscopic approach was confirmed by a minimally invasive laparoscopic team in each hospital and was dependent upon the size and location of the tumors. In general, patients in the laparoscopic surgery group had lesions smaller than 5 cm in size, and most of them were single lesions. Patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery were usually excluded from both the laparoscopic and open groups. Of the selected patients, cases of LHCL were matched in a 1:2 ratio to OHCL controls. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients. This study was approved by the ethical committee of our hospital (No. S-K1837). The study was designed and carried out as per the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. This work has been reported in line with the STROCSS criteria [16].

2.2. Surgical Procedures

LHCL usually includes anatomical and non-anatomical resections. Anatomical resection refers to the complete removal of the left medial lobe and right anterior lobe of the liver, that is, segments IV, V, and VIII (S4, S5, S8) of the liver. Anatomical LHCL is difficult as it involves the separation of the liver parenchyma on the left and right sides, treatment of important duct structures in the deep liver parenchyma, as well as ensuring that the blood flow of the left lateral lobe and right posterior lobe is not affected. Non-anatomical LHCL refers to local or irregular resection of a lesion in the central area of the liver. However, generally, there is no need for anatomical resection of the hilum or complete resection of the S4, S5, and S8 segments. Therefore, the difficulty and risk of LHCL are within a controllable range. In this study, most patients underwent non-anatomical liver resection.
In LHCL, all patients underwent general anesthesia and were placed in a supine position with their lower limbs separated. Five ports were used. The observation port was located around the belly button, and the other four operation ports were fan-shaped and distributed around the liver lesions. Generally, two ports would be located in the upper right abdomen, and the other two ports would be located in the upper left abdomen. The pressure of carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum is generally maintained around 12–14 mmHg. After pneumoperitoneum is established, laparoscopic exploration is first performed to rule out other organ diseases in the abdominal cavity. The central venous pressure is generally controlled below 5 cm H2O during surgery to reduce intraoperative venous bleeding.
For the non-anatomical LHCL procedure, the first step was to mobilize the liver appropriately. The hepatic round ligament, falciform ligament, and coronary ligament (if necessary) were then divided using a harmonic scalpel. A blocking zone was reserved at the first hepatic portal. The location of the lesion was then determined according to the preoperative imaging evaluation and the intraoperative ultrasound, following which the resection line was marked 1–2 cm from the edge of the lesion. The second step was the separation of liver parenchyma. The harmonic scalpel and cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) are most commonly used to isolate liver parenchymal tissues. Bipolar electrocoagulation and peptide clip clamping were used to treat smaller pipes on the sections, and hem-Lock clamping was used to treat larger pipes. When intraoperative bleeding was difficult to control, the first hepatic portal was blocked intermittently. After most of the liver parenchyma was transected, in some cases, the remaining part of the liver parenchyma was cut off with an Endo-GIA stapler. Finally, the liver sections were managed in order to prevent bleeding and bile leakage. We mostly used bipolar cautery and sutures, if necessary, to control bleeding. Suspected bile leakage was clipped or sutured.
Anatomical LHCL was mainly performed according to the procedures described by Machado et al. [14] and Zheng [17]. The most important step in this procedure was to dissect the Glisson pedicle of the left inner lobe and the right anterior lobe of the liver as well as to cut the liver parenchyma within the ischemic line to ensure the integrity of the blood flow of the remaining liver.

2.3. Variables

The demographic and clinicopathological characteristics investigated in this study were age, sex, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, type, number, location and size of occupying lesions as well as the pathological diagnosis. Variables assessing surgical safety and early outcomes were surgical duration, estimated blood loss, transfusion, duration of vascular exclusion, time to first ambulation, time to first oral intake, time to first flatus, time to drain removal, postoperative analgesia time and pattern, length of postoperative hospital stay, and post liver function evaluation compared to preoperative data. Perioperative morbidity was defined as any complication that occurred within 30 days of surgery or during the hospital stay. All perioperative complications were graded according to the Clavien–Dindo classification [18]. Perioperative mortality was defined as death by any causes occurring within 30 days postoperatively or during the hospital stay.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

2.4.1. Statistical Software

Data management, statistical evaluation, and analysis were performed using R software (version 3.2.5, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and SPSS software (version 24.0; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

2.4.2. Descriptive Statistics

Continuous variables were summarized as means ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range) after testing for normality using the One-Sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test, whereas categorical variables were reported as percentages. The Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test were used for comparisons of continuous variables as appropriate, whereas the χ2 test was used to compare categorical data. The data were compared before and after the matching. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

2.4.3. Propensity Score Matching

Potential biases caused by different distributions of covariables in LHCL and OHCL cases were controlled by propensity score matching (MatchIt package), which included 14 preoperative covariates: sex, age, BMI, comorbidities (yes vs. no) including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart diseases, cerebrovascular disease, lung diseases, cirrhosis, and jaundice; ASA grade; and type, number, and location (number of IV/V/VIII liver segments involved) of occupying lesions.
Each patient in the LHCL group was matched with two OHCL controls (1:2 ratio), without replacement, to minimize conditional bias. Each LHCL case was matched to its nearest score neighbor from the OHCL group. Multiple caliper widths were also measured. A caliper width of 0.2 resulted in the best trade-off between homogeneity and retained sample size. Finally, the patients were compared with respect to propensity scores.

3. Results

3.1. Patients Characteristics and PSM

A total of 262 patients were included from January 2015 to June 2021, of which 64 (24.4%) underwent LHCL and 198 (75.6%) underwent OHCL. Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the study cohort before and after matching. The LHCL and OHCL groups demonstrate significant discrepancy in lesion characteristics, with smaller lesion size (p < 0.001), smaller lesion number (p = 0.021) and lower involvement of segments IV/V/VIII (p < 0.001) in LHCL group. The other characteristics including sex, age, BMI, comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, lung diseases, cirrhosis, and jaundice), preoperative liver function (AST, ALT, ALB, TBIL, DBIL, PT, HBsAg), ASA grade, lesion size, lesion number, lesion location, lesion type (malignancy/benignancy, HCC, ICC, HCC-ICC, MLC, other malignancies/LH, FNH, LC, inflammatory nodules, and other benign lesions), tumor thrombus (PV, HV, no), vascular invasion, neural invasion, MVI, and tumor differentiation were not significantly different between the two groups (all p > 0.05). After PSM, we generated a balanced cohort of 61 patients that underwent LHCL and 112 patients that underwent OHCL. It is still worth noting that although not significant, the OHCL group had increased lesion size (4.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.052), number (single/multiple, 84.8%/15.2% vs. 93.4%/6.6%, p = 0.097), and number of liver segments involved (one/two/three, 47.3%/42.0%/10.7% vs. 57.4%36.1%/10.7%, p = 0.393), which to some extent implies that surgeons tend to choose laparocopic hepatectomy to deal with smaller solitary lesions, and the results and conclusions of our study are only applicable to those patients fully meeting the indications of different surgical procedures.

3.2. Outcomes after PSM

Table 2 lists the operation-related parameters and postoperative outcomes of both groups after matching.
In terms of surgical safety, fewer patients in the LHCL group underwent vascular exclusion than in the OHCL group (42.6% vs. 65.2%, p = 0.004), but patients in the LHCL group had a longer duration of vascular exclusion (34.5 min vs. 19.0 min, p < 0.001) as well as lower blood loss (p = 0.001) and transfusion requirement (9.8% vs. 28.6%, p = 0.004). Insignificant results included duration of operation (195.0 vs. 176.0, p = 0.075) and transfusion volume of RBC, plasma, and platelet (all p > 0.05).
In terms of perioperative outcomes, the LHCL group showed significantly lower levels of peak ALT (221.0 U/L vs. 410.0 U/L, p < 0.001), peak DBIL (9.0 μmol/L vs. 11.0 μmol/L, p = 0.042) and peak PT (13.4 s vs. 14.2 s, p = 0.012) as well as a higher level of bottom ALB (34.0 g/L vs. 33.0 g/L, p = 0.049). Moreover, time to first flatus (2.0 days vs. 3.0 days, p < 0.001), time to oral intake (P < 0.001), time to drain off (5.0 days vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001), and hospital stay (6.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the LHCL group. The time to ambulation and analgesia patterns were comparable between the two groups (both p > 0.05). Although insignificant, the LHCL group had a lower level of postoperative peak TBIL (25.7 μmol/L vs. 29.0 μmol/L, p = 0.191), shorter duration of analgesia (2.0 days vs. 3.0 days, p = 0.429), and a higher number of patients who underwent R0 resection (98.0% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.678). Other insignificant results included higher in-hospital costs (55.84 thousand yuan vs. 45.62 thousand yuan, p = 0.053) in the LHCL group.
Moreover, the LHCL group had a significantly reduced occurrence of postoperative complications compared to the OHCL group (p < 0.001), especially the lower rate of Clavien–Dindo Grade I–II (8.2% vs. 46.4%) perioperative complications. Apart from ascites (0 vs. 11.6%, p = 0.001) and liver failure (0 vs. 6.3%, p = 0.012) which were significantly lower in the LHCL group, the rate of bile leakage (3.3% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.701), hemorrhage (1.6% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.135), abdominal (1.6% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.203), and wound infection/dehiscence (0 vs. 2.7%, p = 0.104) were also all lower in the LHCL group, although insignificant. In addition, pneumonia (3.3% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.823) was not significantly increased in the LHCL group.

4. Discussion

LLR, with magnified vision and delicate, minimally invasive operation, has been shown to be associated with reduced pain, blood loss, transfusion, complications, and hospital stay when compared to OLR of the left lateral and partial right liver [2]. The major advantage of LLR is that it avoids large incisions and subsequent long-term consequences (discomfort/pain, keloids, hernias, and cosmesis) and complications [19]. Moreover, no evidence supported that LLR increased postoperative death when carefully handled [20]. LLR is mostly applied to minor liver resection, especially left lateral liver resection or wedge resection for solitary lesions located in segment 2–6 [5,6], while major hepatectomies, such as right or left hepatectomy, was recommended to be best performed by experienced surgeons due to varying levels of difficulty with the scoring systems proposed [21,22]. LHCL handling lesions in the central liver segments IV, V, and VIII has traditionally been considered contraindicated owing to the difficult exposure of critical anatomic structures, high risk of massive bleeding, and challenging laparoscopic control of inflow and outflow while preserving supply to the adjacent segments II, III, VI, and VII [12]. Although increasing evidence has emerged for the safety and feasibility of LHCL according to short-term and long-term outcomes [10,11,12,13,14,15], LHCL remains a controversial technique.
In addition, few studies have evaluated the performance of LHCL vs. OHCL in the treatment of patients with all types of central liver lesions. We systematically searched PubMed for all articles published before October 2021 and found only one case control study comparing LHCL to OHCL [13]. It included 348 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC in the central liver segment between January 2012 and October 2017. After PSM analysis, 32 patients remained in the LHCL group and 96 patients remained in the OHCL group. In both adjusted and non-adjusted models, patients in the LHCL and OHCL groups had similar overall and disease-free survival rates. After PSM, LHCL was associated with a shorter hospital stay and reduced postoperative morbidity. Although this result revealed the superiority of LHCL for both short- and long-term outcomes, the small sample size of the LHCL group after PSM analysis and data from a single institution still impede the extrapolation of its conclusion. The other seven publications [10,11,12,14,15,23,24] describing LHCL are all case reports or case series from a single institution, with a small sample size and lack of OHCL control group, as listed in Supplementary Table S1.
To our knowledge, our study is the largest multicenter case/cohort-matched LHCL-OHCL series using PSM to date, which demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LHCL in selected patients. In this study, we observed that LHCL had increased safety and better perioperative outcomes, with patients in the LHCL group displaying better postoperative liver function, quicker recovery, and shorter hospital stays after PSM.
Due to the small sample size (n = 158) of patients diagnosed with HCC in this cohort, we included all types of central liver-occupying lesions in our study, benign or malignant. PSM in this study covered all categorical covariates that could influence the prognosis of patients, including sex, age, BMI, comorbidities, ASA grade, and the type, number, and location of occupying lesions. Continuous variables such as lesion size were not included in PSM, as larger variables indicate a greater possibility of intraoperative trauma and bleeding. Preoperative liver functions of ALT, AST, ALB, TBIL, DBIL, PT, and HBsAg demonstrated a massive impact on postoperative recovery. Moreover, the pathological diagnosis of tumor thrombus, vascular invasion, neural invasion, MVI, and differentiation were not included in PSM covariates, because they are factors restricted to tumors. Nonetheless, these factors are strongly related to the malignancy of tumors and thus have a strong influence on the early outcomes of patients. Table 1 lists the covariates in PSM and other major confounding factors, as mentioned above, that are shown to be balanced after matching.
As indicated by intraoperative outcomes, LHCL exhibited distinguished safety, with lower vascular exclusion requirements as well as lower blood loss transfusion requirement. LHCL enables better protection of blood vessels, for better visualization and timely hemostasis utilizing a series of blood control techniques and advanced instruments (e.g., linear stapler and electric coagulator). The challenging laparoscopic technique and delicate operation may also explain the longer duration of operation and duration of vascular exclusion. In addition, learning curve may provide another explanation for this question. In the early years, most cases with central-located liver lesions underwent open hepatectomy, while in later years, there was a shift toward more laparoscopic liver resections, with improved surgical skills and familiarity with meso-hepatic anatomy, resulting in a significant reduction in intraoperative bleeding and transfusion rates.
Patients in the LHCL group showed better postoperative liver function and quicker recovery, especially shorter hospital stays, which is consistent with previous publications [13]. Overall, the LH group exhibited a significantly lower rate of postoperative complications and a lower Clavien–Dindo classification. As the severity of postoperative complications has been adopted as an important measure of quality in surgical studies, in addition to the frequency of complications, the results also represent the major advantages of LHCL. Regarding specific complications, LHCL was associated with a significant decrease in ascites and liver failure and an insignificant reduction in bile leakage, hemorrhage, abdominal and wound infection as well as an insignificant increase in pneumonia. Reduction in liver failure and ascites is likely related to reduced incision size, better preservation of the abdominal wall, and lower wound infection rate [25].
Compared to OLR, the chance of long-term survival after LLR remains controversial [26,27]. There was initial concern that LLR would decrease the tumor-free surgical margin because of the lack of palpation, as tumor-free surgical margins affect disease-free survival after resection of HCC [25,28]. With the development of laparoscopy-related technologies, such as the application of ultrasound and indocyanine green fluorescence navigation during laparoscopic surgery, this problem can be greatly improved [15,29,30]. In this study, the rate of R0 resection in the LHCL group was comparable to that of the OHCL group, which may be due to the widespread application of intraoperative ultrasound in laparoscopic surgery.
Although insignificant, reduced pain and higher in-hospital costs were also found in the LHCL group; the latter was explained by higher operating room costs for LLR than OR. Xu et al. suggested that it seems more reasonable to separate operating room costs from ward hospitalization costs in future studies [31]. Consistent with previous findings [13], our study proved that LHCL had comparable safety and improved perioperative outcomes compared to OHCL.
There are several limitations to the present study. First, although we have constituted the largest LHCL cohort with data from multicenter analysis by PSM, a small sample size and absence of randomization may still limit the strength and validity of the outcomes. Second, although inclusion of all kinds of central space-occupying liver lesions increases the scope of general application of this research, an imbalance in the number of different lesion types and a relatively small proportion of some diseases may weaken the reliability of the conclusion of this study when applied to these diseases. Third, due to incomplete records for the surgical procedures, no further information was able to be provided on the actual types of liver resection that were undertaken. However, the propensity score matching has included all preoperative covariates that could potentially influence the selection of liver resection types, including but not limited to comorbidities, ASA grade, and especially type, number, and location of occupying lesions, and after matching, the two cohorts stayed balanced on all the details. Therefore, we could draw the same conclusion for patients with similar lesion characteristics and undergoing appropriate choice of surgery procedures as our study shows. Fourth, the incomplete pathological reports resulted in a lack of histopathological information of underlying degree of liver fibrosis and/or cirrhosis, which may be associated with the increased postoperative ascites in the OHCL compared to the LHCL group. Last, we have to acknowledge the lack of follow-up impairs the comparison of long-term survival outcomes between LHCL and OHCL. With the accumulation of central liver HCC cases, long-term results will be included in our future research.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this multi-institutional, propensity score-matched study suggests that LHCL can be recommended as a reasonable method for patients with central space-occupying liver lesions considering its safety and superiority in perioperative outcomes. With accumulating experience of LLR and innovation in flexibility of laparoscopic techniques, we believe that LLR will have wider applications in the future.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12062164/s1, Table S1: Reported studies of laparoscopic mesohepatectomy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.J., M.Y., Y.W. (Yinhan Wang); methodology, B.J., M.Y., Y.W. (Yinhan Wang); validation, B.J., M.Y., Y.W. (Yinhan Wang); formal analysis, B.J., M.Y., Y.W. (Yinhan Wang); resources, all authors; writing—original draft preparation, B.J., M.Y., Y.W. (Yinhan Wang); writing—review and editing, all authors; supervision, Z.H. and S.D.; project administration, Z.H. and S.D.; funding acquisition, Z.H. and S.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81972698) and Chen Xiao-Ping Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology of Hubei Province (Grant No. CXPJJH11900001-2019215).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. S-K1837).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Department of Liver Surgery in Peking Union Medical College Hospital, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so they are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of the Department of Liver Surgery in Peking Union Medical College Hospital.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Reich, H.; McGlynn, F.; DeCaprio, J.; Budin, R. Laparoscopic excision of benign liver lesions. Obstet. Gynecol. 1991, 78, 956–958. [Google Scholar]
  2. Ciria, R.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; Briceno, J.; Wakabayashi, G. Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing. Ann. Surg. 2016, 263, 761–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ban, D.; Tanabe, M.; Kumamaru, H.; Nitta, H.; Otsuka, Y.; Miyata, H.; Kakeji, Y.; Kitagawa, Y.; Kaneko, H.; Wakabayashi, G.; et al. Safe Dissemination of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in 27,146 Cases Between 2011 and 2017 from the National Clinical Database of Japan. Ann. Surg. 2020, 274, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Jin, B.; Chen, M.T.; Fei, Y.T.; Du, S.D.; Mao, Y.L. Safety and efficacy for laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy: A meta-analysis. Surg. Oncol. 2018, 27, A26–A34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wakabayashi, G.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; Buell, J.F.; Kaneko, H.; Han, H.S.; Asbun, H.; OʼRourke, N.; Tanabe, M.; Koffron, A.J.; et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: A report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Buell, J.F.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; O’Rourke, N.; Iannitti, D.; Dagher, I.; Koffron, A.J.; Thomas, M.; Gayet, B.; Han, H.S.; et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann. Surg. 2009, 250, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kawaguchi, Y.; Fuks, D.; Kokudo, N.; Gayet, B. Difficulty of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Proposal for a New Classification. Ann. Surg. 2018, 267, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. De’Angelis, N.; Pascal, G.; Salloum, C.; Lahat, E.; Ichai, P.; Saliba, F.; Adam, R.; Castaing, D.; Azoulay, D. Central Hepatectomy versus Extended Hepatectomy for Malignant Tumors: A Propensity Score Analysis of Postoperative Complications. World J. Surg. 2016, 40, 2745–2757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mehrabi, A.; Mood, Z.A.; Roshanaei, N.; Fonouni, H.; Müller, S.A.; Schmied, B.M.; Hinz, U.; Weitz, J.; Büchler, M.W.; Schmidt, J. Mesohepatectomy as an option for the treatment of central liver tumors. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2008, 207, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Camerlo, A.; Delayre, T.; Fara, R. Robotic central hepatectomy for hepatocarcinoma by glissonean approach (with video). Surg. Oncol. 2021, 36, 82–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Chen, R.; Wang, Z.; Zhu, W.; Luo, W.; Lin, J.; Chen, Y.; Fang, C.; Yang, J. Laparoscopic in Situ Anatomical Mesohepatectomy for Solitary Massive HCC Using Combined Intrafascial and Extrafascial Approaches with Indocyanine Green Navigation (with Video). Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 29, 2034–2040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Conrad, C.; Ogiso, S.; Inoue, Y.; Shivathirthan, N.; Gayet, B. Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resection of lesions in the central segments: Feasible, safe, and effective. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 29, 2410–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, W.; Han, J.; Xie, G.; Xiao, Y.; Sun, K.; Yuan, K.; Wu, H. Laparoscopic versus open mesohepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 33, 2916–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Machado, M.A.; Kalil, A.N. Glissonian approach for laparoscopic mesohepatectomy. Surg. Endosc. 2011, 25, 2020–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Zhu, S.W.; Yin, X.M.; Yao, L.B.; Liu, Y.; Liao, C.H.; Wu, Y.F.; Li, Y.F.; Cai, R.Y.; Peng, C. Exploration on laparoscopic hepatectomy on central liver tumor: A report of 40 cases. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2019, 57, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Agha, R.; Abdall-Razak, A.; Crossley, E.; Dowlut, N.; Iosifidis, C.; Mathew, G. STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery. Int. J. Surg. 2019, 72, 156–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Zheng, S. Laparoscopic Anatomical Central Hepatectomy. Chin. J. Bases Clin. General Surg. 2014, 21, 929–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cai, X. Laparoscopic liver resection: The current status and the future. Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2018, 7, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Cherqui, D.; Ciria, R.; Kwon, C.H.D.; Kim, K.H.; Broering, D.; Wakabayashi, G.; Samstein, B.; Troisi, R.I.; Han, H.S.; Rotellar, F.; et al. Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA). Ann. Surg. 2021, 273, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wei Chieh, A.K.; Chan, A.; Rotellar, F.; Kim, K.H. Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 82, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Tian, F.; Leng, S.; Chen, J.; Cao, Y.; Cao, L.; Wang, X.; Li, X.; Wang, J.; Zheng, S.; Li, J. Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center 10-year experience. Front. Oncol. 2023, 13, 1112380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Berardi, G.; Wakabayashi, G.; Igarashi, K.; Ozaki, T.; Toyota, N.; Tsuchiya, A.; Nishikawa, K. Full Laparoscopic Anatomical Segment 8 Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using the Glissonian Approach with Indocyanine Green Dye Fluorescence. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 26, 2577–2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kim, W.J.; Kim, K.H.; Shin, M.H.; Yoon, Y.I.; Lee, S.G. Totally laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumors: A single center experience. Med. Baltim. 2017, 96, e5560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Yoon, Y.I.; Kim, K.H.; Kang, S.H.; Kim, W.J.; Shin, M.H.; Lee, S.K.; Jung, D.H.; Park, G.C.; Ahn, C.S.; Moon, D.B.; et al. Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. Ann. Surg. 2017, 265, 856–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Hasegawa, Y.; Kitago, M.; Abe, Y.; Kitagawa, Y. Does laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis have a long-term oncologic advantage? Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2021, 10, 246–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Akahoshi, S.; Beppu, T.; Mori, Y.; Kinoshita, K.; Sato, N.; Kikuchi, K. Does laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases provide a true survival benefit compared with open liver resection? Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2020, 9, 657–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jia, C.; Li, H.; Wen, N.; Chen, J.; Wei, Y.; Li, B. Laparoscopic liver resection: A review of current indications and surgical techniques. Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2018, 7, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lwin, T.M.; Hoffman, R.M.; Bouvet, M. Fluorescence-guided hepatobiliary surgery with long and short wavelength fluorophores. Hepatobiliary Surg. Nutr. 2020, 9, 615–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ferrero, A.; Lo Tesoriere, R.; Russolillo, N. Ultrasound Liver Map Technique for Laparoscopic Liver Resections. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 2607–2611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xu, G.; Tong, J.; Ji, J.; Wang, H.; Wu, X.; Jin, B.; Xu, H.; Lu, X.; Sang, X.; Mao, Y.; et al. Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy: A multicenter, propensity score-matched report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Surg. Endosc. 2021, 35, 1138–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of the study cohort before and after matching.
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of the study cohort before and after matching.
Whole Cohort (n = 262)Matched Cohort (n = 173)
LH (n = 64)OH (n = 198)pLH (n = 61)OH (n = 112)p
Sex (male/female)45 (70.3)/19 (29.7)137 (69.2)/61 (30.8)0.86643 (70.5)/18 (29.5)77 (68.8)/35 (31.3)0.812
Age53.9 ± 10.055.7 ± 11.50.278$54.2 ± 9.954.7 ± 10.70.760 $
BMI (Kg/m2)25.1 ± 3.224.4 ± 3.10.126$25.2 ± 3.224.6 ± 3.30.258 $
Comorbidities (Yes/No)
 Hypertension15 (23.4)/49 (76.6)61 (30.8)/137 (69.2)0.25913 (21.3)/48 (78.7)32 (28.6)/80 (71.4)0.298
 diabetes mellitus12 (18.8)/52 (81.3)36 (18.2)/162 (81.8)0.91910 (16.4)/51 (83.6)18 (16.1)/94 (83.9)0.956
 Heart diseases4 (6.3)/60 (93.8)23 (11.6)/175 (88.4)0.2204 (6.6)/57 (93.4)8 (7.1)/104 (92.9)0.884
 Cerebrovascular diseases2 (3.1)/62 (96.9)6 (3.0)/192 (97.0)0.9702 (3.3)/59 (96.7)3 (2.7)/109 (97.3)0.823
 Lung diseases1 (1.6)/63 (98.4)6 (3.0)/192 (97.0)0.5031 (1.6)/60 (98.4)2 (1.8)/110 (98.2)0.944
 Cirrhosis35 (54.7)/29 (45.3)83 (41.9)/115 (58.1)0.07433 (54.1)/28 (45.9)53 (47.3)/59 (52.7)0.394
Preoperative liver functions
 ALT (U/L)22.0 (17.0, 38.0)26.0 (17.0, 39.0)0.585 #25.0 (17.0, 29.0)26.0 (17.0, 29.0)0.735 #
 AST (U/L)27.0 (18.5, 37.0)28.0 (21.8, 43.3)0.051 #27.5 (19.0, 37.0)26.5 (21.0, 40.8)0.396 #
 ALB (g/L)41.0 (38.3, 43.8)41.0 (38.0, 44.0)0.531 #41.0 (38.5, 44.0)42.0 (39.0, 44.0)0.271 #
 TBIL (μmol/L)12.6 (10.1, 17.2)13.7 (10.2, 18.2)0.660 #12.7 (10.2, 17.4)14.2 (10.2, 19.2)0.590 #
 DBIL (μmol/L)4.6 (3.2, 5.9)4.8 (3.5, 6.1)0.290 #4.5 (3.3, 5.8)4.8 (3.5, 6.6)0.331 #
 PT (s)11.8 (11.2, 12.3)11.8 (11.2, 12.6)0.794 #11.8 (11.2, 12.3)11.8 (11.2, 12.6)0.665 #
 HbsAg (+/−)37 (58.7)/26 (41.3)96 (51.1)/92 (48.9)0.29135 (58.3)/25 (41.7)57 (53.3)/50 (46.7)0.528
ASA grade 0.296 0.642
 I34 (53.1)85 (42.9) 31 (50.8)49 (43.8)
 II26 (40.6)92 (46.5) 26 (42.6)56 (50.0)
 III4 (6.3)21 (10.6) 4 (6.6)7 (6.3)
Lesion characteristics
 Lesion size (cm)3.7 (2.3, 5.5)5.0 (3.3, 8.0)<0.001 #3.6 (2.2, 5.5)4.3 (3.0, 6.4)0.052 #
 Lesion number (single/multiple)60 (93.8)/4 (6.3)162 (81.8) /36 (18.2)0.02157 (93.4) /4 (6.6)95 (84.8) /17 (15.2)0.097
 Lesion location <0.001 0.393
  Involving one of segment IV/V/VIII38 (59.4)54 (27.3) 35 (57.4)53 (47.3)
  Involving two of segment IV/V/VIII22 (34.4)67 (33.8) 22 (36.1)47 (42.0)
  Involving three of segment IV/V/VIII4 (6.3)72 (38.9) 4 (6.6)12 (10.7)
Malignancy/benign lesions52 (81.3)/12 (18.8)167 (84.3)/31 (15.7)0.56150 (82.0)/11 (18.0)94 (83.9)/18 (16.1)0.741
 HCC41 (64.1)117 (59.1) 39 (63.9)67 (59.8)
 ICC5 (7.8)24 (12.1) 5 (8.2)12 (10.7)
 HCC-ICC1 (1.6)5 (2.5) 1 (1.6)3 (2.7)
 MLC4 (6.3)18 (9.1) 4 (6.6)11 (9.7)
 Other malignancies1 (1.6)3 (1.5) 1 (1.6)1 (0.9)
 LH4 (6.3)17 (8.6) 3 (4.9)8 (7.1)
 FNH1 (1.6)2 (1.0) 1 (1.6)2 (1.8)
 LC1 (1.6)5 (2.5) 1 (1.6)2 (1.8)
 Inflammatory nodules5 (7.8)5 (2.5) 5 (8.2)4 (3.6)
 Other benign lesions1 (1.6)2 (1.0) 1 (1.6)2 (1.8)
Tumor thrombus * 0.263 0.383
 PV1 (1.9)8 (4.8) 1 (2.0)3 (3.2)
 HV0 (0.0)3 (1.8) 0 (0.0)2 (2.1)
 No51 (98.1)155 (93.4) 49 (98.0)89 (94.7)
Vascular invasion (Yes/No) *4 (7.7)/48 (92.3)23 (13.9)/143 (86.1)0.2394 (8.0)/46 (92.0)9 (9.6)/85 (90.4)0.752
Neural invasion (Yes/No) *2 (3.8)/50 (96.2)5 (3.0)/161 (97.0)0.7702 (4.0)/48 (96.0)3 (3.2)/91 (96.8)0.803
MVI (Yes/No) *23 (44.2)/29 (55.8)54 (32.5)/112 (67.5)0.12321 (42.0)/29 (58.0)29 (30.9)/65 (69.1)0.181
Differentiation * 0.727 0.767
 Low4 (7.8)12 (7.5) 4 (8.2)9 (10.0)
 Moderately-low 7 (13.7)12 (7.5) 7 (14.3)8 (8.9)
 Intermediate 36 (70.6)118 (74.2) 34 (69.4)61 (67.8)
 Moderately-high1 (2.0)6 (3.8) 1 (2.0)4 (4.4)
 High 3 (5.9)11 (6.9) 3 (6.1)8 (8.9)
$, Student’s t-test; #, Mann–Whitney U test. ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALB, albumin; TBIL, total bilirubin; DBIL, direct bilirubin; PT, prothrombin time; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; ICC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; HCC-ICC, combined hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; MLC, metastatic liver cancer; LH, liver hemangioma; FNH, focal nodular hyperplasia; LC, liver cyst; PV, portal vein; HV, hepatic vein; MVI, microvascular invasion. * Tumor thrombus (PV/HV/no), vascular invasion, neural invasion, MVI, and differentiation are restricted to malignancies.
Table
Table 2. Intraoperative performance and perioperative outcomes of the study cohort after matching.
Table 2. Intraoperative performance and perioperative outcomes of the study cohort after matching.
Matched Cohort (n = 173)
LH (n = 61)OH (n = 112)p
Intraoperative
 Duration of operation (min)195.0 (152.5, 280.0)176.0 (150.0, 230.0)0.075
 Vascular exclusion (Yes/No)26 (42.6)/35 (57.4)73 (65.2)/39 (34.8)0.004
 Duration of vascular exclusion (min)34.5 (25.8, 50.3)19.0 (12.0, 27.0)<0.001
 Blood loss (mL)200.0 (50.0, 200.0)200.0 (100.0, 400.0)0.001
 Transfusion (Yes/No)6 (9.8)/55 (90.2)32 (28.6)/80 (71.4)0.004
 Transfusion volume
  RBC (U)n = 5, 2.0 (2.0, 4.0)n = 27, 2.0 (2.0, 4.0)0.763
  Plasma (mL)n = 4, 500 (250, 600)n = 24, 500 (400, 800)0.465
Platelet (U)n = 1, 1n = 3, 1 (1, 2)1.000
 Post-operative
 Peak ALT (U/L)221.0 (122.5, 347.5)410.0 (239.8, 669.8)<0.001
 Bottom ALB (g/L)34.0 (31.5, 37.0)33.0 (31.0, 35.0)0.049
 Peak TBIL (μmol/L)25.7 (19.7, 32.7)29.0 (21.2, 37.5)0.191
 Peak DBIL (μmol/L)9.0 (7.0, 12.3)11.0 (7.1, 16.5)0.042
 Peak PT (s)13.4 (12.9, 14.3)14.2 (13.0, 15.1)0.012
 Resection margin (R1/R0)1 (2.0)/49 (98.0)3 (3.2)/92 (96.8)0.678
 Ambulation (d)2.0 (1.0, 2.0)2.0 (1.0, 2.0)0.267
 First flatus (d)2.0 (2.0, 3.0)3.0 (2.0, 3.0)<0.001
 Oral intake (d)3.0 (2.0, 3.0)3.0 (3.0, 4.0)<0.001
 Drain off (d)5.0 (3.0, 6.0)6.0 (5.0, 8.0)<0.001
 Analgesia (d)2.0 (1.0, 3.0)3.0 (0.0, 4.0)0.429
 Analgesia pattern 0.158
  No10 (16.4)35 (31.3)
  NSAIDs18 (29.5)28 (25.0)
  Opioids 1 (1.6)4 (3.6)
  PCA0 (0.0)2 (1.8)
  PCA+NSAIDs27 (44.3)36 (32.1)
  NSAIDs + Opioids 5 (8.2)7 (6.3)
Hospital stay (d)6.0 (5.0, 8.0)9.0 (7.3, 11.8)<0.001
In-hospital costs (thousand yuan)55.84 (43.23, 65.53)45.62 (32.05, 69.61)0.053
Total complications (n)7 (11.5)53 (47.3)<0.001
 Liver failure 0 (0.0)7 (6.3)0.012
 Bile leak2 (3.3)5 (4.5)0.701
 Ascites0 (0.0)13 (11.6)0.001
 Hemorrhage 1 (1.6)7 (6.3)0.135
 Pulmonary infection2 (3.3)3 (2.7)0.823
 Abdominal infection1 (1.6)6 (5.4)0.203
 Wound infection/dehiscence0 (0.0)3 (2.7)0.104
 Others *1 (1.6)9 (8.0)0.058
Clavien–Dindo classification <0.001
 No55 (90.2)59 (52.7)
 Grade I–II5 (8.2)52 (46.4)
 Grade III–IV1 (1.6)0 (0.0)
 Grade V0 (0.0)1 (0.9)
Postoperative mortality 0(0)0(0)-
RBC, red blood cells; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PCA, patient-controlled analgesia. * Other complications include atrial fibrillation, pleural effusion, and urinary tract infection.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jin, B.; Yang, M.; Wang, Y.; Xu, G.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Niu, X.; Liu, X.; Wan, X.; et al. Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062164

AMA Style

Jin B, Yang M, Wang Y, Xu G, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Niu X, Liu X, Wan X, et al. Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(6):2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062164

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jin, Bao, Muyi Yang, Yinhan Wang, Gang Xu, Yuxin Wang, Yuke Zhang, Yitong Liu, Xinming Niu, Xiao Liu, Xueshuai Wan, and et al. 2023. "Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 6: 2164. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12062164

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop