Comparison of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation versus open resection in the treatment of symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas: a prospective study
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been demonstrated to be a promising therapy for symptomatic large hepatic hemangioma. However, there is a lack of studies to demonstrate the benefits and disadvantages of RFA as compared with surgical resection for managing hepatic hemangioma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RFA compared with conventional open resection (ORES) for the treatment of symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas. A total of 66 patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas (4 cm ≤ diameter < 10 cm) who required surgical treatment were divided into two groups: 32 patients underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and the other 34 patients underwent ORES. We compared the two groups in terms of radiologic response, clinical response, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and hospital cost. The radiologic and clinical responses were comparable between groups. LRFA had significantly shorter operative time (138 vs. 201 min, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than ORES. Patients after LRFA experienced significantly less pain and required less analgesia use. Moreover, patients underwent LRFA had significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and lower hospital cost (P = 0.017). No severe morbidities or mortality was observed, and the overall morbidity rate was similar between groups. As a new minimal invasive treatment option, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation is as safe and effective a procedure as open resection for patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas smaller than 10 cm.