Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy.

ABSTRACT: The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique.We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ?3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity).There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004).In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.

SUBMITTER: Thornblade LW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5443109 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy.

Thornblade Lucas W LW Shi Xu X Ruiz Alex A Flum David R DR Park James O JO

Journal of the American College of Surgeons 20170203 5

<h4>Background</h4>The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique.<h4>Study design</h4>We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 201 ...[more]

PMID: 28163089

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to the lumbar spine for posterior fusion are increasingly being utilized, the comparative outcomes of MIS and open posterior lumbar fusion remain unclear.Questions/purposesIn this systematic review, we compared MIS and open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), specifically with respect to (1) surgical end points (including blood loss, surgical time, and fluoroscopy time), (2) clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and VAS pain scores), and (3) adverse events.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE(®), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Reference lists were manually searched. We included studies with 10 or more patients undergoing MIS compared to open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar disorders and reporting on surgical end points, clinical outcomes, or adverse events. Twenty-six studies of low- or very low-quality (GRADE protocol) met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences in patient demographics were identified between the cohorts (MIS: n = 856; open: n = 806).ResultsEquivalent operative times were observed between the cohorts, although patients undergoing MIS fusion tended to lose less blood, be exposed to more fluoroscopy, and leave the hospital sooner than their open counterparts. Patient-reported outcomes, including VAS pain scores and ODI values, were clinically equivalent between the MIS and open cohorts at 12 to 36 months postoperatively. Trends toward lower rates of surgical and medical adverse events were also identified in patients undergoing MIS procedures. However, in the absence of randomization, selection bias may have influenced these results in favor of MIS fusion.ConclusionsCurrent evidence examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF is of low to very low quality and therefore highly biased. Results of this systematic review suggest equipoise in surgical and clinical outcomes with equivalent rates of intraoperative surgical complications and perhaps a slight decrease in perioperative medical complications. However, the quality of the current literature precludes firm conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion from being drawn and further higher-quality studies are critically required.

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy.

Publications

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets