Objective

Three mainstream techniques—laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (pRFA), and open hepatectomy (OH)—were compared in this study, in terms of their efficacies in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

A comparative study was performed within a total of 94 patients diagnosed with small HCC in our hospital from 2005 to 2010, who underwent LH (28), RFA (33), or OH (33). They had either a single tumor lesion of less than 5 cm or up to three nodules with diameters of less than 3 cm each. Outcomes were carefully evaluated throughout a 3-year follow-up interval and statistically interpreted.

Results

The pRFA group had a significantly lower disease-free survival rate compared with the two surgical groups (P=0.001) and significantly shorter overall survival (P=0.005), while the LH group and the OH group had no difference in survival results. For patients younger than 60 years old, surgical approaches offered a better long-term overall survival prognosis (P=0.008). There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in overall survival for elderly patients (P=0.104).

Conclusions

Among patients with small HCC, LH may provide better curative effects than pRFA without increasing complication rates. pRFA leads to faster recurrence than surgical resections. LH has similar therapeutic effects to OH and causes less trauma. For patients younger than 60 years old, LH may be the best curative treatment. Elderly patients may choose either surgery or pRFA.