Inflammatory Response After Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Data From the Oslo-CoMet Trial.
2015 (English)In: Medicine (Baltimore, Md.), ISSN 0025-7974, E-ISSN 1536-5964, Vol. 94, no 42, 1-7 p., e1786Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Laparoscopic and open liver resection have not been compared in randomized trials. The aim of the current study was to compare the inflammatory response after laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) in a randomized controlled trial.This was a predefined exploratory substudy within the Oslo CoMet-study. Forty-five patients with CLM were randomized to laparoscopic (n = 23) or open (n = 22) resection. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-plasma samples were collected preoperatively and at defined time points during and after surgery and snap frozen at -80 C. A total of 25 markers were examined using luminex and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay techniques: high-mobility box group 1(HMGB-1), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), cytokines, and terminal C5b-9 complement complex complement activation.Eight inflammatory markers increased significantly from baseline: HMGB-1, cfDNA, interleukin (IL)-6, C-reactive protein, macrophage inflammatory protein -1β, monocyte chemotactic protein -1, IL-10, and terminal C5b-9 complement complex. Peak levels were reached at the end of or shortly after surgery. Five markers, HMGB-1, cfDNA, IL-6, C-reactive protein, and macrophage inflammatory protein -1β, showed significantly higher levels in the open surgery group compared with the laparoscopic surgery group.Laparoscopic resection of CLM reduced the inflammatory response compared with open resection. The lower level of HMGB-1 is interesting because of the known association with oncogenesis.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 94, no 42, 1-7 p., e1786
Immunology in the medical area
Research subject Biomedical Sciences, Immunology
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-60956DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001786ISI: 000369641600058PubMedID: 26496309OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-60956DiVA: diva2:1077197
Erratum published in: Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Mar;95(10):e367e. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000481801.40636.7e.2017-02-262017-02-262017-03-20Bibliographically approved