Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Clicks: 406
ID: 843
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #5 of 432 articles by views in the british journal of surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 432 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.
Reference Key
van der poel2019multicentre Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors van der Poel, M J;Barkhatov, L;Fuks, D;Berardi, G;Cipriani, F;Aljaiuossi, A;Lainas, P;Dagher, I;D'Hondt, M;Rotellar, F;Besselink, M G;Aldrighetti, L;Troisi, R I;Gayet, B;Edwin, B;Abu Hilal, M;
Journal the british journal of surgery
Year 2019
DOI
10.1002/bjs.11096
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.