腹腔镜与开腹肝实质切除术治疗高肿瘤负荷结直肠肝转移:倾向评分匹配分析

Nadia Russolillo, Cristina Ciulli, Caterina Costanza Zingaretti, Andrea Pierluigi Fontana, Serena Langella, Alessandro Ferrero
{"title":"腹腔镜与开腹肝实质切除术治疗高肿瘤负荷结直肠肝转移:倾向评分匹配分析","authors":"Nadia Russolillo, Cristina Ciulli, Caterina Costanza Zingaretti, Andrea Pierluigi Fontana, Serena Langella, Alessandro Ferrero","doi":"10.1007/s00464-024-10797-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Background</h3><p>Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has proved effective in the treatment of oligometastatic disease (1 or 2 colorectal liver metastases CRLM) with similar long-term outcomes and improved short-term results compared to open liver resection (OLR). Feasibility of parenchymal sparing LLR for high tumour burden diseases is largely unknown. Aim of the study was to compare short and long-term results of LLR and OLR in patients with ≥ 3 CRLM.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>Patients who underwent first LR of at least two different segments for ≥ 3 CRLM between 01/2012 and 12/2021 were analysed. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1:1 matching was based on relevant prognostic factors.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>277 out of 673 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (47 LLR and 230 OLR). After match two balanced groups of 47 patients with a similar mean number of CRLM (5 in LLR vs 6.5 in OLR, <i>p</i> = 0.170) were analysed. The rate of major hepatectomy was similar between the two group (10.6% OLR vs. 12.8% LLR). Mortality (2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR) and overall morbidity rates (34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR) were comparable. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the LLR group (5 vs 9 days, <i>p</i> = 0.001). No differences were observed in median overall (41.1 months OLR vs median not reached LLR) and disease-free survival (18.3 OLR vs 27.9 months LLR).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Laparoscopic approach should be considered in selected patients scheduled to parenchymal sparing LR for high tumour burden disease as associated to shorter LOS and similar postoperative and long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":501625,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal sparing liver resections for high tumour burden colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis\",\"authors\":\"Nadia Russolillo, Cristina Ciulli, Caterina Costanza Zingaretti, Andrea Pierluigi Fontana, Serena Langella, Alessandro Ferrero\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00464-024-10797-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Background</h3><p>Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has proved effective in the treatment of oligometastatic disease (1 or 2 colorectal liver metastases CRLM) with similar long-term outcomes and improved short-term results compared to open liver resection (OLR). Feasibility of parenchymal sparing LLR for high tumour burden diseases is largely unknown. Aim of the study was to compare short and long-term results of LLR and OLR in patients with ≥ 3 CRLM.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>Patients who underwent first LR of at least two different segments for ≥ 3 CRLM between 01/2012 and 12/2021 were analysed. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1:1 matching was based on relevant prognostic factors.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>277 out of 673 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (47 LLR and 230 OLR). After match two balanced groups of 47 patients with a similar mean number of CRLM (5 in LLR vs 6.5 in OLR, <i>p</i> = 0.170) were analysed. The rate of major hepatectomy was similar between the two group (10.6% OLR vs. 12.8% LLR). Mortality (2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR) and overall morbidity rates (34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR) were comparable. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the LLR group (5 vs 9 days, <i>p</i> = 0.001). No differences were observed in median overall (41.1 months OLR vs median not reached LLR) and disease-free survival (18.3 OLR vs 27.9 months LLR).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>Laparoscopic approach should be considered in selected patients scheduled to parenchymal sparing LR for high tumour burden disease as associated to shorter LOS and similar postoperative and long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10797-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-024-10797-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)已被证明能有效治疗少转移性疾病(1 或 2 个结直肠肝转移灶 CRLM),与开腹肝切除术(OLR)相比,长期疗效相似,短期疗效更好。对于高肿瘤负荷疾病,肝实质切除术(LLR)的可行性尚不清楚。该研究的目的是比较 LLR 和 OLR 对≥ 3 CRLM 患者的短期和长期疗效。方法对 2012 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 12 日期间因≥ 3 CRLM 首次接受至少两个不同节段 LLR 的患者进行分析。结果673例患者中有277例符合纳入标准(47例LLR和230例OLR)。经过匹配后,对平均 CRLM 数量相似的两组 47 名患者进行了分析(LLR 为 5 例,OLR 为 6.5 例,P = 0.170)。两组患者的大肝切除率相似(OLR 为 10.6%,LLR 为 12.8%)。死亡率(2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR)和总发病率(34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR)相当。LLR 组的住院时间(LOS)更短(5 天 vs 9 天,P = 0.001)。中位总生存期(41.1 个月,OLR vs 中位未达到的 LLR)和无病生存期(18.3 个月,OLR vs 27.9 个月,LLR)无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal sparing liver resections for high tumour burden colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal sparing liver resections for high tumour burden colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has proved effective in the treatment of oligometastatic disease (1 or 2 colorectal liver metastases CRLM) with similar long-term outcomes and improved short-term results compared to open liver resection (OLR). Feasibility of parenchymal sparing LLR for high tumour burden diseases is largely unknown. Aim of the study was to compare short and long-term results of LLR and OLR in patients with ≥ 3 CRLM.

Methods

Patients who underwent first LR of at least two different segments for ≥ 3 CRLM between 01/2012 and 12/2021 were analysed. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1:1 matching was based on relevant prognostic factors.

Results

277 out of 673 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (47 LLR and 230 OLR). After match two balanced groups of 47 patients with a similar mean number of CRLM (5 in LLR vs 6.5 in OLR, p = 0.170) were analysed. The rate of major hepatectomy was similar between the two group (10.6% OLR vs. 12.8% LLR). Mortality (2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR) and overall morbidity rates (34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR) were comparable. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the LLR group (5 vs 9 days, p = 0.001). No differences were observed in median overall (41.1 months OLR vs median not reached LLR) and disease-free survival (18.3 OLR vs 27.9 months LLR).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic approach should be considered in selected patients scheduled to parenchymal sparing LR for high tumour burden disease as associated to shorter LOS and similar postoperative and long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信