Minimally Invasive versus Open Liver Resection for Stage I/II Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract

Simple Summary The type of surgical approach for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is unclear. This study compared minimally invasive to open liver resections using the National Cancer Database. The results showed a similar overall survival with improved perioperative outcomes, but higher rates of positive resection margins in patients with minimally invasive liver resections. The higher rate of residual tumors requires further investigation. Abstract Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is increasingly used as a surgical treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is no large scale data to compare the effectiveness of MILR in comparison to open liver resection (OLR). We identified patients with stage I or II HCC from the National Cancer Database using propensity score matching techniques. Overall, 1931 (66%) and 995 (34%) patients underwent OLR or MILR between 2010 and 2015. After propensity matching, 5-year OS was similar in the MILR and OLR group (51.7% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.766). MILR was associated with lower 90-day mortality (5% vs. 7%, p = 0.041) and shorter length of stay (4 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), but higher rates of positive margins (6% vs. 4%, p = 0.001). An operation at an academic institution was identified as an independent preventive factor for a positive resection margin (OR 0.64: 95% CI 0.43–0.97) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41–0.91). MILR for HCC is associated with similar overall survival to OLR, with the benefit of improved short term postoperative outcomes. The increased rate of positive margins after MILR requires further investigation, as do the differences in perioperative outcomes between academic and nonacademic institutions.