Objectives: To perform a literature review examining the comparative benefits of laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection and to define the benefits and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection in our own series of 314 patients.
Data sources: Cited English-language publications from PubMed. In addition, between 2001 to 2010, hepatic resections were performed in our institution in 1294 patients, of whom 314 patients (24.3%) underwent laparoscopic liver resection for benign or malignant liver lesions.
Study selection: Search phrases were "laparoscopic liver resection," "open liver resection," "versus," "compared with," and "advantages."
Data extraction: Thirty-one studies were reviewed that directly compared laparoscopic with open hepatic resection in 2473 patients.
Data synthesis: In case-cohort matched studies, and our institutional series, laparoscopic liver resection was associated with less blood loss, quicker resumption of oral diet, less pain medication requirement, and shorter length of stay, with no difference in complication rates. In those patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatic resection for malignancy, there was no difference in 3- or 5-year overall survival when compared with well-matched open hepatic resection cases. Financially, the total hospital costs of laparoscopic liver resection were either offset or improved because of a shorter length of stay.
Conclusions: Based on review of the literature and our institutional series, minimally invasive hepatic resection for benign and malignant liver lesions is safe and feasible with significant benefits for patients consisting of less blood loss, less narcotic requirements, and shorter length of hospital stay. There are no economic disadvantages to the laparoscopic approach, and case-cohort matched studies show no difference in oncologic outcomes between the laparoscopic and open groups.