Z Gastroenterol 2018; 56(08): e337-e338
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1669020
Kurzvorträge
Gastroenterologische Onkologie
Metastasierung Gastrointestinaler Tumore – Freitag, 14. September 2018, 09:35 – 11:11, 22b
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Minimally invasive versus open hepatic resection for NEN liver metastasis: Case matched study with propensity score matching

A Pascher
1   Universitätsklinikum Münster, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Münster, Deutschland
,
H Morgül
1   Universitätsklinikum Münster, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Münster, Deutschland
,
B Strücker
1   Universitätsklinikum Münster, Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Münster, Deutschland
,
G Atanasov
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Chirurgie, Berlin, Deutschland
,
J Pratschke
2   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Chirurgie, Berlin, Deutschland
,
M Pavel
3   Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Med Klinik 1, Erlangen, Deutschland
,
UF Pape
4   Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Klinik für Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie, Berlin, Deutschland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 August 2018 (online)

 

Introduction:

Minimally invasive surgery has been widely considered as feasible and safe option in liver resection. However, little is known about the impact in the surgical therapy of NEN liver metastasis.

Aim:

To compare perioperative and short-term outcome after liver resection for neuroendocrine liver metastasis.

Methods:

215 patients underwent hepatic resection for NEN liver metastases between 1998 and 2018, 40 of them laparoscopically. To overcome selection bias, a 1: 1 match by propensity score matching (PSM) between open (OLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) was performed using parameters relevant to outcome, tumor stage and biology, operative and perioperative quality assessment as well as extent of surgery. Follow-up was 1 year. Statistical analysis was performed using chisquare and Mc Nemar's test for categorial, Wilcoxon signed rank test for continuous variables.

Results:

Following PSM, both groups comprised 40 patients each. Rate of major vs. minor resections was equally distributed and amounted to 47.5% (major) to 52.5% (minor). Conversion rate was 0% in LLS. Operation time was significantly longer in the LLS group (P < 0.05), a pringle's manouvre was used twice more frequently in the OLS group (p < 0.05). 1 yr survival rate was 95% in LLS, 93% in OLS (n.s.). 30 day mortality was 2.5% (n = 1) in OLS, 0% in the LLS group. The LLS group had shorter hospital stays (7.6 d LLS vs. 10.1 d OLS; P < 0.003), ICU stays (0.8 d LLS vs. 1.9 d OLS; P < 0.05) and a significantly lower overall perioperative morbidity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (LLS: 13.2% vs. OLS: 24.4%; p = 0, 041). There was no difference with regard to R0-resection rates (LLS: 85% vs. OLS: 86%), however, resection margins were greater in the LLS group (LLS: 1.3 ± 0.7 cm vs. OLS: 0.8+ 0.5 cm; p > 0.05). The LLS-group showed less pain (p < 0.05), earlier ambulation (LLS: POD 1.2 vs. OLS: POD 2.4; p < 0.05) and earlier onset of oral feeding (LLS: POD 1.5 vs. OLS: POD 2.8; p < 0.05). The reduction of hospital stay and ICU stay significantly outweighed greater intraoperative costs.

Conclusion:

LLS demonstrated comparable short-term outcome as OLS, however, improved safety, faster recovery, less hospital stay, less complications and tendentially reduced perioperative mortality.