Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Oncological safety of ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases: a case–control study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laparoscopic liver surgery has gained widespread acceptance and nowadays it is suggested even for malignant disease. Although the benefits on short-term outcomes have been proven, data on oncological safety are still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess oncologic results after ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal metastases. 37 consecutive patients undergoing LLR between 01/2004 and 03/2014 were matched at a ratio of 1:1 with 37 OLR. Matching criteria were male sex, number and diameter of liver metastases, segment location, synchronous presentation, site and stage of primary tumor, positive lymph nodes of the primary, and concomitant extrahepatic disease. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups. Parenchymal transection time was longer in the LLR group (68 ± 38.2 SD vs 40 ± 33.7 SD, p = 0.01). Mortality was nil in LLR and OLR. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in LLR (13.5 vs 37.8 %, p = 0.02), although severe complications were similar among the two groups. Patients undergoing LLR were discharged earlier (5 ± 2.3 SD vs 8 ± 6.6 SD days, p < 0.001). The median margin width was 5 (0–40) mm in LLR vs 8 (0–25) mm in OLR, p = 0.897. R1 resection was recorded in four LLR and three OLR (p = 1). Overall recurrences were similar among groups. Eight patients with hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence among LLR underwent surgery vs four of OLR (p = 0.03). After a median follow-up of 35.7 months in LLR and 47.9 months in OLR, 3-year overall survival was 91.8 % LLR and 74.8 % OLR (p = 0.14). 3-year disease-free survival was 69.1 % LLR and 65.9 % OLR (p = 0.53). Multivariate analysis showed that postoperative complications [HR 3.42 (95 % CI 1.32–8.89)] and multiple metastases [HR 3.84 (95 % CI 1.34–10.83)] were independent predictors of worse survival (p = 0.01). Ultrasound-LLR for colorectal hepatic metastases is safe, ensuring oncologic outcomes comparable to OLR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2015) Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg 261:619–629

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CN et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for liver tumors: a case control study. Hong Kong Med J 13:442–462

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lersutel M, Chrqui D, Laurent A et al (2003) Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic lobectomy: a case control study. J Am Coll Surg 196:236–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Polignano FM, Quyn AJ, de Figueiredo RS et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open liver segmentectomy: prospective, case-matched, intention-to-treat analysis of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Surg Endosc 22:2564–2570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dagher I, Di Giuro G, Dubrez J et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: a comparative study. Am J Surg 198:173–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Simillis C, Constantidinides VA, Tekkis PP et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasm—a meta-analysis. Surgery 141:203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mirnezami R, Mirnezami AH, Chandrakumaran K et al (2011) Short- and long term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB 13:295–308

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L et al (2009) Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 250:849–855

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Zuccaro M et al (2010) Short- and medium-term results of totally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Brit J Surg 97:927–933

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Welsh FKS, Tekkis PP, John TG et al (2010) Open liver resection for colorectal metastases: better short and long-term outcomes in patients potentially suitable for laparoscopic liver resection. HPB 12:188–194

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Viganò L, Ferrero A, Amisano M et al (2013) Comparison of laparoscopic and open intraoperative ultrasonography for staging liver tumours. Br J Surg 100:535–542

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrero A, Lo Tesoriere R, Russolillo N et al (2015) Ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resections. Surg Endosc 29:1002–1005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Viganò L, Langella S, Ferrero A et al (2013) Colorectal cancer with synchronous resectable liver metastases: monocentric management in a hepatobiliary referral center improves survival outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 20:938–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Buell HF, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(825):830

    Google Scholar 

  15. Viganò L, Jaffary SA, Ferrero A et al (2011) Liver resection without pedicle clamping: feasibility and need for “salvage clamping”. Looking for the right clamping policy. Analysis of 512 consecutive resections. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1820–1828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. The Brisbane 2000 Terminology of Liver Anatomy and Resection, Terminology Committee of The International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (2000) HPB 2:333–339

  17. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Capussotti L, Ferrero A, Viganò L et al (2006) Bile leakage and liver resection: where is the risk? Arch Surg 141:690–694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ferrero A, Viganò L, Polastri R et al (2007) Postoperative liver dysfunction and future remnant liver: where is the limit? Results of a prospective study. World J Surg 31:1643–1651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Aldrighetti L, Pulitano C, Catena M et al (2008) A prospective evaluation of laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:457–462

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee KF, Wong J, Cheung YS et al (2010) Resection margin in laparoscopic hepatectomy: a comparative study between wedge resection and anatomic left lateral sectionectomy. HPB 12:649–653

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Postriganova N, Kakaryan AM, Rosok BI et al (2014) Margin status after laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases: does a narrow resection margin have an influence on survival and local recurrence? HPB 16:822–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Montalti R, Tomassini F, Laurent S et al (2014) Impact of surgical margins on overall and recurrence-free survival in parenchymal-sparing laparoscopic liver resections of colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3999-3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Azagra JS et al (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malignant liver tumors. Preliminary results of a multicentric European study. Ann Surg 1:90–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Santambrogio R, Opocher A, Ceretti P et al (2007) Impact of intraoperative ultrasonography in laparoscopic surgery. Surg End 21:181–188

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bodingbauer M, Tamandl D, Schmid K et al (2007) Size of surgical margin does not influence recurrence rates after curative liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Br J Surg 94:1133–1138

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G et al (2010) Resection margin and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 17:1324–1329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ah J, Muirhead W, Zaitoun AM et al (2012) Comparison of liver parenchymal ablation and tissue necrosis in a cadaveric bovine model using the Harmonic Scalpel, the Liga-Sure, the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator and the Aquamantys devices. HPB 14:828–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. O’Rourke N, Shaw I, Nathanson L et al (2004) Laparoscopic resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. HPB 6:230–235

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Oncological Surgery, “Umberto I” Mauriziano Hospital, Largo Turati, 62, 10128, Turin, Italy

    Serena Langella, Nadia Russolillo, Marco D’Eletto, Fabio Forchino, Roberto Lo Tesoriere & Alessandro Ferrero

Authors
  1. Serena Langella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nadia Russolillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco D’Eletto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fabio Forchino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Lo Tesoriere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessandro Ferrero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Ferrero.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they don’t have any conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

All procedures in our paper were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Mauriziano Hosptital ethical committee as well as national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain studies with human participant or animal performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study consent form is not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Langella, S., Russolillo, N., D’Eletto, M. et al. Oncological safety of ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases: a case–control study. Updates Surg 67, 147–155 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0325-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0325-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation