Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection in patients ≥75 years old: A NSQIP analysis evaluating 2674 patients

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Previous studies report promising outcomes with minimally invasive (MIS) hepatectomy in elderly patients but remain limited by small size. This study aims to comparatively evaluate the demographics and outcomes of geriatric patients undergoing MIS and open hepatectomy. METHOD: The 2016-2021 NSQIP database was evaluated comparing patients ≥75 undergoing MIS versus open hepatectomy. Patient selection and outcomes were compared using bivariate analysis with multivariable modeling (MVR) evaluating factors associated with serious complications and mortality. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis further evaluated serious complications, mortality, length of stay (LOS), Clavien Dindo Classification (CDC), and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) for cohorts. RESULTS: We evaluated 2674 patients with 681 (25.5%) receiving MIS hepatectomy. MIS approaches were used more for partial lobectomy (85.9% vs. 61.7%; p < 0.001), and required fewer biliary reconstructions (1.6% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001). Patients were similar with regards to sex, body mass index, and other comorbidities. Unadjusted analysis demonstrated that MIS approaches had fewer serious complications (8.8% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.001). However, after controlling for cohort differences the MIS approach was not associated with reduced likelihood of serious complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.77; p = 0.219) or mortality (OR: 1.19; p = 0.623). PSM analysis further supported no difference in serious complications (p = 0.403) or mortality (p = 0.446). However, following PSM a significant reduction in LOS (-1.99 days; p < 0.001), CDC (-0.26 points; p = 0.016) and CCI (-2.79 points; p = 0.022) was demonstrated with MIS approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study comparing MIS and open hepatectomy in elderly patients. Results temper previously reported outcomes but support reduced LOS and complications with MIS approaches.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.