完全腹腔镜与开腹解剖性肝切除治疗左叶肝细胞癌的病例配对研究

  目的  探讨完全腹腔镜解剖性肝切除治疗左叶肝细胞癌的可行性及其疗效。  方法  自2006年6月至2009年12月间, 总结南昌大学第二附属医院肝胆外科收治21例确诊为左叶肝细胞癌且已行完全腹腔镜解剖性肝切除(laparoscopic anatomic hepateetomy, LAH)患者的围手术期的临床资料, 构成LAH研究组。在同一时间段, 以患者年龄、手术方式、肿瘤大小、肝硬化程度为配对条件, 在开腹解剖性肝切除治疗左叶肝细胞癌的病例库中进行1:1配对抽选, 共21例纳入LAH配对组。  结果  LAH研究组的手术时间为(156.67±32.15)min, 术中失血量为(157.14±40.51)mL, 两者均少于配对组(P=0.036, P < 0.001)。LAH研究组术后患者平均镇痛剂使用时间为(2.19±0.51)d, 平均首次进食时间为(2.24±0.44)d, 平均首次离床活动时间为(2.71±0.78)d, 平均住院时间为(7.86±1.24)d, 均优于配对组(P < 0.05)。两组并发症及死亡率差异没有统计学意义。术后中位随访期为21个月, LAH研究组的1、3年总体生存率分别为86%、62%, 配对组的1、3年总体生存率分别为90%、67%, Log-rank比较两组肝癌患者生存曲线差异无统计学意义。  结论  完全腹腔镜解剖性肝切除术治疗左叶肝细胞癌是安全可行, 具有一定的近期优势, 且术后总体生存率与开腹肝切除术相比无差别。      

右半结肠癌患者完整系膜切除术和D3根治术的腹腔镜与开腹手术的短期结果比较

  目的  通过与开腹手术的比较,探讨对Ⅱ/Ⅲ期右半结肠癌患者实施腹腔镜完整系膜切除术/D3根治术的安全性和可行性。  方法  对2008年1月至2011年12月中国医科大学附属盛京医院178例右半结肠癌患者分别实施完整系膜切除术/D3根治术,其中开腹组82例、腹腔镜组96例,比较两组间的并发症、生存率以及肿瘤复发情况。  结果  腹腔镜组的术中出血量要少于开腹组,切口长度也明显较开腹组短,术后首次排气时间较后者快,住院时间也较短（P < 0.001）,两组的手术时间以及检出的淋巴结数无差异（P > 0.05）。术后吻合口漏、切口感染、出血、尿潴留、肠梗阻、淋巴漏的并发症两组并无显著性差异（P > 0.05）。中位随访56个月,开腹组和腹腔镜组的总生存率分别为89.0%和91.7%（P=0.357）,无瘤生存率分别为94.6%和94.3%（P=0.823）,差异均无统计学意义。  结论  对Ⅱ/Ⅲ期右半结肠癌患者实施腹腔镜完整系膜切除术/D3根治术是安全和可行的。      

影响原发性阴道癌预后的相关因素分析

  目的  探讨影响原发性阴道癌预后的临床相关因素。  方法  回顾性分析2003年1月至2015年1月广西医科大学附属肿瘤医院80例阴道恶性肿瘤患者临床资料。80例患者分为放疗组49例,其中二维放疗（two-dimensional radiotherapy 2DRT）组29例、三维放疗（three-dimensional radiotherapy 3DRT）组20例,比较两组的疗效和并发症;手术组31例,其中腹腔镜手术组16例、开腹手术组15例,评估腹腔镜手术在治疗原发性阴道癌中的可行性。  结果  单因素生存分析结果显示FIGO分期、病理类型、肿瘤大小、阴道受侵长度与预后相关（均P＜0.05）,Cox多因素分析显示FIGO分期和病理类型为影响阴道癌预后的独立因素。2DRT组5年生存率20.90%与3DRT组的58.60%进行比较,差异具有统计学意义（P=0.022）;2DRT组泌尿系统和消化道并发症的发生率为48.27%（14/29）和51.72%（15/29）,分别与3DRT组的15.00%（3/20）和20.00%（4/20）进行比较,差异具有统计学意义（均P＜0.05）。开腹手术组平均住院（57.00±41.75）天,多于腹腔镜手术组的（29.56±7.3）天,两组比较差异具有统计学意义（P=0.024）。  结论  三维放疗及腹腔镜手术的应用,在未降低患者生存率同时可降低并发症,改善患者的生存质量。      

53例肝细胞癌患者根治性切除术后辅助肝动脉化疗栓塞的生存分析

  目的   探讨肝细胞癌根治性切除术后辅助肝动脉化疗栓塞对无瘤生存率及累积生存率的影响。   方法   收集53例肝细胞癌根治性切除术后辅助TACE治疗患者和64例单纯行肝细胞癌根治术后患者的临床资料,采用回顾性研究的方法,对其治疗的1、2、3、5无瘤生存率和累积生存率进行对比分析,从而探讨肝细胞癌根治性切除术后辅助TACE治疗对无瘤生存率及累积生存率的影响。   结果   术后+TACE组1、2、3、5年的无瘤生存率和累积生存率分别为84.9%、60.4%、39.6%、18.9%和98.1%、86.8%、69.8%、47.2%,单纯手术组1、2、3、5年的无瘤生存率和累积生存率分别为70.3%、43.8%、21.9%、12.5%和87.5%、71.9%、50.0%、31.3%,两组的无瘤生存率和累积生存率差异均有统计学意义。Cox回归结果显示术后+TACE治疗是影响患者无瘤生存率和累积生存率的独立影响因素。   结论   肝细胞癌根治性切除术后辅助TACE治疗可提高患者的无瘤生存率和累积生存率,术后辅助TACE治疗是影响患者术后无瘤生存率和累积生存率的独立影响因素。      

腹腔镜经括约肌间切除联合回肠预防性造口治疗超低位直肠癌的疗效观察

  目的  观察和评价腹腔镜经括约肌间切除（intersphincteric resection,ISR）联合回肠预防性造口治疗超低位直肠癌的临床疗效。  方法  回顾性分析2015年1月至2017年6月成都肛肠专科医院收治的74例行腹腔镜超低位直肠癌根治术患者的临床资料,分为接受腹腔镜ISR联合回肠预防性造口组43例（ISR组）,接受腹腔镜超低位前切除（low anterior resection,LAR）联合回肠预防性造口组31例（LAR组）,比较两组患者围手术期情况、肿瘤根治情况和术后肛门功能。  结果  两组患者术中出血量、术后住院时间和术后并发症发生率的比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）,但ISR组手术时间明显长于LAR组[（306.6±25.1）min vs.（239.7± 26.4）min,P=0.010];两组患者术后病理T、N分期的比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）,ISR组、LAR组T分期诊断符合率分别为93.0%和93.5%;两组环周切缘阳性率均为0,ISR组远切缘长度明显优于LAR组[（2.3±0.1）cm vs.（1.4±0.3）cm,P < 0.001],随访12~42个月,平均23.4个月,ISR组局部复发率明显低于LAR组[0 vs. 12.9%（4/31）,P=0.027],两组均无远处转移;两组术后肛管直肠测压结果比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）,造口还纳后ISR组和LAR组分别有83.7%和87.1%患者排粪控制良好,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。  结论  腹腔镜ISR联合回肠预防性造口治疗超低位直肠癌安全可行,肛门功能及短期疗效满意。      

腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术对老年胃癌患者的临床疗效分析

  目的  比较老年胃癌患者和非老年患者接受腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术后短期疗效、并发症发生情况及长期生存的差异。  方法  回顾性分析2009年4月至2013年10月就诊于北京大学肿瘤医院并接受腹腔镜辅助胃癌根治术219例患者的临床资料,比较老年组（≥65岁）与非老年组（ < 65岁）的手术情况、术后早期恢复情况及并发症发生率等,分析无病生存期和总生存期的差异。  结果  老年组术前ASA评分和合并症数目显著高于非老年组（P < 0.05）,两组患者在手术时间、术中出血量、中转开腹率等方面差异无统计学意义（均P > 0.05）。老年组患者手术后平均首次下地活动时间为（2.2±2.3）d,非老年组为（1.4±1.3）d,差异具有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。两组患者之间术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义（34.8% vs. 28.5%,P > 0.05）。3年无病生存期和总生存期两组比较差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）,但存在术后并发症的患者中,老年患者总生存率显著低于非老年患者（44.5% vs. 70.5%,P < 0.05）。  结论  腹腔镜胃癌根治术对老年患者安全可行,并且能够获得较好的长期生存,但仍需加强围手术期处理促进术后早期恢复、减少并发症发生。      

预防性使用奥曲肽对腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术后并发症的影响分析

  目的  探究腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术（laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy,LPD）后预防性使用奥曲肽是否可以减低术后胰瘘（postoperative pancreatic fistula,POPF）及其他术后并发症的发生。  方法  分析2018年9月至2020年5月徐州医科大学附属医院接受腹腔镜胰十二指肠切除术96例患者的围手术期资料,根据患者术后是否预防性使用奥曲肽分为奥曲肽组（47例）和对照组（49例）。比较两组患者术后胰瘘（生化瘘、B、C级）及其他并发症的发生率、术后首次通气时间、术后住院天数、术后营养等数据。  结果  奥曲肽组生化瘘10例,B级瘘为6例,未发生C级瘘,对照组生化瘘9例,B级瘘有5例,C级瘘1例,两组胰瘘发生率分别为生化瘘:（21.3% vs. 18.4%）、B级瘘:（12.8% vs. 10.2%）、C级瘘（0 vs. 2.0%）,两组之间比较差异均无统计学（P>0.05）;奥曲肽组术后首次通气时间较对照组短[（3.9±1.4）d vs.（4.5±1.0）d],两组之间呈显著性差异（P=0.013）;术后第7天总蛋白、白蛋白、前白蛋白营养指标比较,奥曲肽组好于对照组,[（65.71±4.03）g/L vs.（63.53±5.53）g/L;（41.42±3.41）g/L vs.（39.75±3.92）g/L;（0.16±0.05）g/L vs.（0.14±0.04）g/L],两组之间呈显著性差异（P=0.030、0.029、0.033）;奥曲肽组术后住院时间较对照组短[（12.7±3.9）d vs.（14.7± 5.4）d],差异具有统计学意义（P=0.042）。  结论  预防性使用奥曲肽不能降低术后胰瘘的发生率,但奥曲肽组患者较对照组患者首次排气时间缩短,可加速术后恢复,缩短术后住院时间。      

胸腹腔镜与开放手术食管癌切除术二野淋巴结清扫治疗中期食管癌的对比研究

  目的  探讨胸、腹腔镜中期（Ⅱ、Ⅲ期）食管癌切除术二野淋巴结清扫的安全性、根治性及临床价值。  方法  回顾性对比分析2009年1月至2013年7月胸、腹腔镜手术和开放手术行二野淋巴结清扫的Ⅱ、Ⅲ期食管癌410例资料（开放组193例、全腔镜组217例）。2组性别、年龄、术前合并症、肿瘤侵犯深度、肿瘤位置等无显著性差异（P > 0.05）。比较两组手术情况、术后并发症等,分析两种手术方式的临床效果。  结果  与开放组比较,腔镜组术中出血量少[（206±138）mL vs.（240±111）mL,t=2.726,P=0.007],清扫淋巴结多[（26.6±8.6）枚vs.（21.7±9.2）枚,t=-5.626,P < 0.001],胸腔手术时间短[（157±36）min vs.（166±31）min,t=-2.696,P= 0.007],总体并发症发生率低[25.8%（56/217）vs. 35.2%（68/193）,χ2=4.303,P=0.038]。全腔镜组肺部感染、心律失常的发生率明显低于开放组（P < 0.05）,而吻合口狭窄、声音嘶哑发生率高于开放组（P < 0.05）。  结论  胸、腹腔镜联合食管癌切除二野淋巴结清扫术安全、可行,淋巴结清扫更彻底,值得在Ⅱ、Ⅲ期食管癌中推广应用。      

高迁移率族蛋白1(HMGB1)作为肝癌根治性切除术后预后预测因子的研究

  目的  探讨肝细胞肝癌组织中高迁移率族蛋白1(high mobility group box 1, HMGB1)蛋白表达情况及其对肿瘤预后的影响。  方法  收集本院2004年1月至2004年12月期间首次诊断, 并行肝癌根治性切除术、术后病理确诊为肝细胞癌、随访资料完整的肝癌患者98例, 并收集2009年1月~2010年12月在长院行肝血管瘤切除的肝组织30例作为正常肝脏组织对照, 免疫组化法检测肝癌及癌旁组织、正常肝组织中HMGB1蛋白表达情况; 并分析HMGB1的表达水平与各临床病理参数的相关性, 及其对总体生存率和无瘤生存率的影响。  结果  HMGB1主要表达在细胞质中, 肿瘤组织表达率为91.84%, 癌旁组织表达率为21.43%, 正常肝组织无表达。相关性分析显示HMGB1的表达高低与肿瘤包膜的情况存在相关, 与其他各临床病理参数均无相关性。全组1、3、5年总体生存率为: 83.5%、58.2%、49.4%;无瘤生存率为: 60.7%、40.6%、36.8%。Cox多因素分析显示HMGB1表达水平是影响总体生存率、无瘤生存率的独立预后因素; HMGB1高表达组(57例), 无或低表达组(41例)1、3、5年生存率分别为75.4%、42.7%、37.7%及89.3%、69.3%、57.5%(P=0.028): 相应的无瘤生存率分别为50.1%、31.6%、26.1%及68.4%、47.1%、45.1%(P=0.047)。  结论  HMGB1在肝细胞肝癌组织中呈高表达, 其表达水平与肿瘤包膜的完整性呈负相关, HMGB1的高表达是肝癌根治性切除术后的总体生存率和无瘤生存率的独立预后因素, 可以作为肝癌根治性切除术后的预后预测因子之一。      

腹腔镜与传统开腹直肠全系膜切除术治疗直肠癌的疗效对比研究

目的:探讨腹腔镜下直肠癌根治术的安全性、可行性及中长期生存率。方法:回顾性分析2010年1月至2013年12月新疆医科大学附属肿瘤医院收治的472例直肠癌患者,按手术方式分为腹腔镜组(243例)及开腹组(229例);比较两组患者临床资料及术后随访结果。结果:腔镜组手术时间与开腹组比较差异无统计学意义［(237±42.5) min vs (232±40.4) min,P＞ 0.05］;腔镜组术中出血量［(48±19.3) ml vs (109±29.3) ml］、术后恢复排气中位时间［3(1～9) d vs 4(2～12) d］优于开腹组（均P＜ 0.05）。两组在切除标本长度、远切缘距肿瘤下缘距离、肿瘤大小、清扫淋巴结数目及预防性造瘘率方面差异均无统计学意义(均P＞ 0.05)。中位随访40(1～83)个月,腹腔镜组、开腹组中位随访时间分别为41(1～80)个月、40(1～83)个月,随访期内两组局部复发率、远处转移率差异无统计学意义;两组总生存率、总无瘤生存率及Ⅰ期、Ⅱ期、Ⅲ期患者总生存率、无瘤生存率差异无统计学意义(均P＞ 0.05)。结论:腹腔镜直肠癌根治术是安全、可行的术式,具有满意的近期疗效,可达到与开腹手术相同的中长期生存率。     

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma presents less respiratory complications compared with open procedure: A propensity score analysis in the elderly

BackgroundResection is still the most efficacious treatment to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), among which laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have controversial effects against conventional open procedure (OLR). With a predictable aging tendency of population worldwide, conventional surgical procedures need to be modified to better accommodate elderly patients. Here, we designed a retrospective study based on propensity score analysis, aiming to compare the efficacy of OLR and LLR in patients over 65 years.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with an age over 65 who underwent liver resection between January 2015 and September 2018. Patients were divided into the LLR group and OLR group. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching.ResultsAmong 240 enrolled patients, 142 were matched with comparable baseline (71 each group). In the matched cohort, LLR group presented with shorter postoperative hospital stay (median 7 vs 6 days, p = 0.003) and fewer respiratory complications (19.7% vs. 7.0%, p = 0.049), especially pleural effusion (15.5% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.020). Meanwhile, LLR had comparable overall hospital cost (6142 vs. 6243 USD, p = 0.977) compared with OLR. The overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) did not differ in the two groups.ConclusionsOur study showed that laparoscopic liver resection for HCC in the older age groups is associated with shorter postoperative hospital stay and comparable hospital cost compared with open procedure, which could be attributable to less respiratory complications. We recommend that laparoscopy be taken as a priority option for elderly patients with resectable HCC.     

Minor laparoscopic liver resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma is safer than minor open resection,especially for less compensated cirrhotic patients: Propensity score analysis

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained significant popularity over the last 10 years. First experiences of LLR compared to open liver resection (OLR) reported a similar survival and a better safety profile for LLR.

Improved outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BackgroundMinor laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is currently becoming standard treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) while major LLR is still challenging. Recent advancement of surgical techniques has enabled surgeons to perform major LLR. This study compared the outcomes of major LLR for HCC before and after the adaptation of technological improvements.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 141 patients who underwent major LLR for HCC from January 2004 to July 2018.32 open conversion cases were excluded. We divided the patients into two groups according to the date of operation: Group 1 (n = 38) and Group 2 (n = 71) who underwent major LLR before and after 2012, when advanced techniques including the use of intercostal trocars, Pringle maneuver, and semi-lateral position of patient were introduced. We also compared these patients including open conversion cases (n = 141) with those who underwent major open liver resection (OLR; n = 131) during the same period.ResultsMean operative time (413.0 min vs 331.0 min; P = 0.009), transfusion rate (31.6% vs 11.3%, P = 0.009) and hospital stay (9.8 days vs 8.5 days; P = 0.001) were significantly less in Group 2. Intraoperative blood loss (1269.7 ml vs 844.5 ml; P = 0.341) and postoperative complication (15.8% vs 23.9%; P = 0.320) were not significantly different between the groups. Although tumor size in OLR group and type of resection was different, transfusion rate (36.6% vs 24.1%; P = 0.026), postoperative complication (41.2% vs 25.5%; P = 0.007), and hospital stay (17.2 days vs 10.0 days; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in LLR group.ConclusionDevelopment of surgical techniques have gradually improved the surgical outcomes of the laparoscopic major liver resection.     

Outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

To compare the surgical outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: 3-year outcomes of a cohort study with propensity score matching

IntroductionLaparoscopic liver resection(LLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is debatable due to technical challenges associated with major hepatectomy and lymph node dissection. This study aims to analyze the long-term outcomes with propensity score matching.MethodsPatients who underwent liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from August 2004 to October 2015 were enrolled. Those who had combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and palliative surgery were excluded. Medical records were reviewed for postoperative outcome, recurrence, and survival. The 3-year disease-free survival(DFS) and 3-year overall survival(OS) were set as the primary endpoint, and 3-year disease-specific survival, 1-year OS, 1-year DFS, operative outcome, and postoperative complications were secondary endpoints.ResultsA total of 91 patients were enrolled with 61 in the open group and 30 in the laparoscopic group. Propensity score matching included 24 patients in both groups. In total, the 3-year OS was 81.2% in the open group and 76.7% in the laparoscopic group(p = 0.621). For 3-year DFS, open was 42.5% and laparoscopic was 65.6%(p = 0.122). Mean operation time for the open group was 343.2 ± 106.0 min and laparoscopic group was 375.2 ± 204.0 min(p = 0.426). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group(9.8 ± 5.1 days) than the open group(18.3 ± 14.7, p=<0.001). There was no difference in complication rate and 30-day readmission rate. Tumor size, nodularity, and presence of perineural invasion showed an independent association with the 3-year DFS in multivariate analysis.ConclusionLaparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is technically feasible and safe, providing short-term benefits without increasing complications or affecting long-term survival.     

Pure laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver F4 cirrhosis without routine Pringle maneuver – A propensity analysis in a single center

Background/Aim: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been gaining popularity but its evidence in major hepatectomy for cirrhotic liver is lacking. We studied the long-term outcomes of the pure laparoscopic approach versus the open approach in major hepatectomy without Pringle maneuver in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis using the propensity score analysis.MethodsWe reviewed patients diagnosed with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy as primary treatment. The outcomes of patients who received the laparoscopic approach were compared with those of propensity-case-matched patients (ratio, 4:1) who received the open approach. The matching was made on the following factors: tumor size, tumor number, age, sex, hepatitis serology, HCC staging, comorbidity, and liver function.ResultsTwenty-four patients underwent pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy for HCC with cirrhosis. Ninety-six patients who underwent open major hepatectomy were matched by propensity scores. The laparoscopic group had less median blood loss (300 ml vs 645 ml, p = 0.001), shorter median hospital stay (6 days vs 10 days, p = 0.002), and lower rates of overall complication (12.5% vs 39.6%, p = 0.012), pulmonary complication (4.2% vs 25%, p = 0.049) and pleural effusion (p = 0.026). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates in the laparoscopic group vs the open group were 95.2%, 89.6% and 89.6% vs 87.5%, 72.0% and 62.8% (p = 0.211). Correspondingly, the disease-free survival rates were 77.1%, 71.2% and 71.2% vs 75.8%, 52.7% and 45.5% (p = 0.422).ConclusionsThe two groups had similar long-term survival. The laparoscopic group had favorable short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy without routine Pringle maneuver for HCC with cirrhosis is a safe treatment option at specialized centers.     

Laparoscopic liver resection: Current role and limitations

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for the treatment of benign and malignant liver lesions is often performed at specialized centers. Technological advances, such as laparoscopic ultrasonography and electrosurgical tools, have afforded surgeons simultaneous improvements in surgical technique. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques for liver resection has been reported to reduce operative time, decrease blood loss, and shorten length of hospital stay with equivalent postoperative mortality and morbidity rates compared to open liver resection (OLR). Non-anatomic liver resection and left lateral sectionectomy are now routinely performed laparoscopically at many institutions. Furthermore, major hepatic resections are performed by pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted technique, and the hybrid method. In addition, robotic surgery and single port surgery are revealing early promising results. The consensus recommendation for the treatment of benign liver disease and malignant lesions remains unchanged when considering a laparoscopic approach, except when comorbidities and anatomic limitations of the liver lesion preclude this technique. Disease free and survival rates after LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colon cancer correspond to OLR. Patient selection is a significant factor for these favorable outcomes. The limitations include LLR of superior and posterior liver lesions; however, adjustments in technique may now consider a laparoscopic approach as a viable option. As growing data continue to reveal the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery, this skill is increasingly being adopted by hepatobiliary surgeons. Although the full scope of laparoscopic liver surgery remains infrequently used by many general surgeons, this technique will become a standard in the treatment of liver diseases as studies continue to show favorable outcomes.     

Is laparoscopic liver resection safe for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A meta-analysis

BackgroundThe use of laparoscopic liver resection for curative surgery of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not well established. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to compare the differences between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for ICC.MethodsMultiple electronic databases were searched and 8 relevant studies containing 552 patients treated by LLR and 2320 treated by OLR were identified. The fixed effects and a random-effects model were used to perform a meta-analysis.ResultsCompared with OLR, LLR for ICC was associated with less blood transfusion (7.14% versus 17.11%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; P < 0.05), higher R0 resection (85.63% versus 74.69%; OR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95; P < 0.05), shorter length of stay (LOS) (SMD: −0.40; 95% CI -0.80 to 0.00; P = 0.05), less overall morbidities (20% versus 32.69%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; P < 0.05), and less death due to tumor recurrence (22.39% versus 35.48%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; P <0.05); but LLR was associated with smaller ICC, fewer major hepatectomies, less lymph node (LN) dissection rate, and inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05). Duration of operation, blood loss, average LN retrieved, LN metastasis, major morbidities, mortality, tumor recurrence, 3-year OS and disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year DFS were comparable (P >0.05).ConclusionLLR for ICC is in the initial phase of exploration. More evidence is necessary to validate LLR for ICC.     

TACE combined with liver resection versus liver resection alone in the treatment of resectable HCC: a meta-analysis

Objective:The ef icacy of preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatectomy on hepatocel-luar carcinoma (HCC) is stil controversial. This study aims to evaluate the ef icacy of preoperative TACE on resectable HCC. Methods:Pubmed, SCI, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Datebase, CNKI were searched. The articles that focused on pre-operative TACE for resectable HCC, published from 1990 to 2012, were col ected by computerized search of literatures and manual search of bibliographies. The relevant clinical trials’ data were reviewed by meta-analysis using the random ef ects model or fixed ef ect model by heterogeneity. The outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95%confidence intervals (CIs). Results:A total of 1347 patients were included in these 7 studies, the cases were divided into the preoperative TACE group and the non-preoperative TACE group, and there was no dif erence between the two groups in the 3-year disease-free survival rate, with an odds ratio of 1.14 (95%CI=0.90-1.45, P=0.27);the 5-year disease-free survival rate in the preopera-tive TACE group was better than that in the non-TACE group with an odds ratio of 1.35 (95%CI=1.07-1.74, P=0.02);the 5-year overal survival rate in the preoperative TACE group was higher than that in the non-TACE group with an odds ratio of 0.59 (95%CI=0.46-0.77, P<0.0001). Conclusion:The present data suggests that preoperative TACE has no dif erent in improving the 3-year disease-free survival rate with non-TACE group for resectable HCC, while it can improve the 5-year disease-free survival rate and the 5-year overal survival rate. More randomized control ed trials using large sample size are needed to provide suf icient evidence to confirm current conclusion.     

Therapeutic efficacy of microwave coagulation versus liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria: A propensity score matching analysis

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacy of resection (RES) and microwave ablation (MWA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria.Materials and Methods: Between 2011 and 2019, 426 HCC patients within the Milan criteria were treated at our institution (RES: n = 291; MWA: n = 135). We compared overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), complications, and hospital stay in these patients using propensity score matching (PSM) and determined the prognostic factors using multivariate Cox analysis.Results: Following 1:1 matching using PSM, 121 patients were matched in each group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates were 98.3%, 84.7%, and 69.6% for the MWA group and 96.5%, 81.8%, and 78.1% for the RES group (p = 0.667). The corresponding DFS rates for the MWA and RES groups were 81.8%, 54.4%, and 42.3% and 85.4%, 67.8%, and 57.9%, respectively (p = 0.174). The MWA group had less blood loss and shorter hospital stays (both p < 0.001) than the RES group.Conclusion: MWA resulted in survival outcomes that were similar to those of RES for HCC within the Milan criteria. However, it had more favorable hospital stay and blood loss outcomes than RES.