Members Members Residents Job Board
Join Today Renew Your Membership Make A Donation
2009 Program and Abstracts: Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection: a Matched-Pair Case Control Study
Back to Program | 2009 Program and Abstracts Overview | 2009 Posters
Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection: a Matched-Pair Case Control Study
Kaori Ito*, Hiromichi Ito, William R. Jarnagin, Yuman Fong, Ronald P. Dematteo, Michael D'Angelica
Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is an increasingly performed operation, however, data comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) are still limited. The aim of this study was to analyze our experience with LLR and conduct a comparative outcome study with matched-pair OLRs.Methods: In general, LLR was restricted to patients in whom tumors were free of major vessels, in accessible segments and amenable to R0 resection with a resection of ≤ 2 segments. 66 patients underwent attempted LLR (1998-2008); 52 of which were completed laparoscopically (conversion rate: 21.2%). Patients who underwent OLR prior to the laparoscopic era (1995 - 1998) were matched to LLR for age, gender, comorbidities, body mass index, pathological diagnosis, size and number of tumors, histopathology of background liver, location of tumors and type of procedures (wedge vs segmental resection, number of resections). Peri- and postoperative outcomes were compared between the LLR group and the matched-pair OLR group. Oncological outcomes were assessed for 28 (53.8%) patients with malignancy. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable in both groups. LLR was associated with significant reductions in estimated blood loss (EBL), transfusion, pringle manuever, mobidity, time to regular diet/oral analgesia, length of hospital stay and incidence of incisional hernia (Table 1). There were no patients with a positive surgical margin or local recurrence. The pattern of recurrence was similar between the two groups (intrahepatic: 21.4% vs 35.7%, p=0.24. extrahepatic: 21.4% vs 17.9%, p=0.74, respectively). Conclusion: For well selected patients, LLR is a feasible procedure without compromising peri- and post operative outcomes including early oncological outcomes for malignancy.
Table 1

LLR (n=52) Matched OLR (n=52) P value
Median Range Median Range
OR time (minutes) 170 50-478 140 67-378 0.123
EBL (ml) 100 0-500 200 0-2500 0.002
N % N %
Pringle performed 21 40.4 46 88.5 <0.0001
Transfusion performed 1 1.9 13 25.0 0.001
Median Range Median Range
Time to regular diet (days) 2 1-6 4 3-8 <0.0001
Time to oral analgesia (days) 2 1-7 4 1-7 <0.0001
Length of hospital stay (days) 4 1-14 6 4-15 <0.0001
N % N %
Morbidity 6 11.5 14 26.9 0.047
(Incisional hernia) 0 0.0 6 11.5 0.012
Mortality 0 0.0 0 0.0 NA
N % N %
Readmission 1 1.9 3 5.8 0.308
Reoperation 0 0.0 0 0.0 NA


Back to Program | 2009 Program and Abstracts | 2009 Posters


Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Email SSAT Email SSAT
500 Cummings Center, Suite 4400, Beverly, MA 01915 500 Cummings Center
Suite 4400
Beverly, MA 01915
+1 978-927-8330 +1 978-927-8330
+1 978-524-0498 +1 978-524-0498
Links
About
Membership
Publications
Newsletters
Annual Meeting
Join SSAT
Job Board
Make a Pledge
Event Calendar
Awards