Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case-matched study with propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Laparoscopic liver resection has gained wide acceptance and is established as a safe alternative to open liver resection. Until now, there is no prospective randomized comparative study between laparoscopic and open liver resection. Previous comparative studies reported minor resections for peripheral tumors, and enrolled small numbers of patients. Moreover, few reported the long term outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare perioperative and long term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma between two matched groups.

METHODS: 389 patients underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma during the period between 2004 and 2013. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 match using propensity score matching between laparoscopic and open liver resection.

RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 88 patients were included in each group. Laparoscopic group had shorter hospital stay (8 vs. 10 days, p⩽0.001), and lower postoperative morbidity (12.5% vs. 20.4%, p=0.042). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survivals were 91.6%, 87.5%, and 76.4%, for laparoscopic group, and were 93.1%, 87.8%, and 73.2%, for open group (p=0.944). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease free survivals were 69.7%, 52%, and 44.2%, for laparoscopic group, and 74.7%, 49.5%, 41.2%, for open group (p=0.944).

CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed comparative perioperative and long term outcomes between both groups, providing evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.