Minimally invasive versus open right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy for central liver malignancies: a...

The utility of minimally-invasive liver resection (MILR) for deep centrally located tumours (CLT) remains controversial. We aimed to review our institution's experience and outcomes with minimally invasive central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for CLT in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical database revealed 23 patients who underwent MILR (6 CH, 17 RAS) and 53 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR; 24 CH, 29 RAS) for CLT. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were then compared.

There was one laparoscopic-assisted, one robot-assisted and two laparoscopic-converted-open procedures in the MILR cohort. Across the unmatched cohort, there was only one mortality (MILR) and five patients with major morbidity (all OLR). MILR was associated with a longer operating time (P < 0.001), but shorter post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.002) and decreased morbidity (P = 0.018) in the unmatched cohort. Examination of peri-operative outcomes after PSM revealed that MILR was similarly associated with a longer operating time (P = 0.001) and shortened post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.043). OLR was associated with a significantly reduced application of Pringle manoeuvre (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between MILR and OLR with regards to blood loss, blood transfusions, morbidity and margin status in the PSM analysis.

MILR for CLT is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with shorter hospital stays but at the expense of longer operation times and more frequent application of Pringle manoeuver.