A Systematic Review of Minimally Invasive Trans-thoracic Liver Resection to Examine Intervention Description, Governance, and Outcome Reporting of an Innovative Technique. Issue 5 (3rd May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pathak, Samir; Main, Barry G.; Blencowe, Natalie S.; Rees, Jonathan R. E.; Robertson, Harry F.; Abbadi, Reyad A. G.; Blazeby, Jane M.
• Is Part Of: Annals of surgery. Volume 273:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 882
• Page End: 889
• Publication Date: 2021-05-03
• Subjects: laparoscopic liver resection -- trans-thoracic liver resections; Surgery -- Periodicals; 617.005
• DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003748
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0003-4932

Abstract

Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Abstract : Introduction: The number of laparoscopic liver resections undertaken has increased. However, lesions located postero-superiorly are difficult to access. This may be overcome by the novel use of trans-thoracic port(s). Methods for the safe and transparent introduction of new and modified surgical procedures are limited and a summary of these issues, for minimally invasive trans-thoracic liver resections (MITTLR), is lacking. This study aims to understand and summarize technique description, governance procedures, and reporting of outcomes for MITTLR. Methods: A systematic literature search to identify primary studies of all designs describing MITTLR was undertaken. How patients were selected for the new technique was examined. The technical components of MITTLR were identified and summarized to understand technique development over time. Governance arrangements (eg, Institutional Review Board approval) and steps taken to mitigate harm were recorded. Finally, specific outcomes reported across studies were documented. Results: Of 2067 screened articles, 16 were included reporting data from 145 patients and 6 countries. Selection criteria for patients was explicitly stated in 2 papers. No studies fully described the technique. Five papers reported ethical approval and 3 gave details of patient consent. No study reported on steps taken to mitigate harm. Technical outcomes were commonly reported, for example, blood loss (15/16 studies), operative time (15/16), and margin status (11/16). Information on patient-reported outcomes and costs were lacking. Conclusions: Technical details and governance procedures were poorly described. Outcomes focussed on short term details alone. Transparency is needed for reporting the introduction of new surgical techniques to allow their safe dissemination.