Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Based Analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of liver metastases from extrahepatic primary cancers 2021

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.

METHODS

Eight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two. A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher-quality evidence.

Minimal-Invasive Versus Open Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Bicentric Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Minimal-invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly performed for benign and malignant liver lesions with most promising short-term results. However, the oncological role of MIH in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) needs further investigation. Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Inselspital Bern were assessed. Postoperative outcomes und long-term survivals of patients following MIH were compared with those after conventional open hepatectomy (OH) after 1:1 propensity score matching. During the study period, 229 and 91 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM at the Charité Berlin and the Inselspital Bern, respectively. Patients who underwent MIH in one of the two centers (n = 69) were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent OH. MIH was associated with lower complication rates (23% vs. 44%, p = 0.011), shorter length of intensive care unit stay (ICU, 1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.043), shorter length of hospital stay (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001), and a reduced need for intraoperative transfusions (12% vs. 25%, p = 0.047) compared to OH. R0 status was achieved in 93% and 75% of patients after MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.005). After a median follow-up of 31 months, MIH resulted in similar five-year overall survival (OS) rate (56% vs. 48%, p = 0.116) in comparison to OH. MIH for CRLM is associated with lower postoperative morbidity, shorter length of ICU and hospital stay, reduced need for transfusions, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to the established OH. Our findings suggest that MIH should be considered as the preferred method for the treatment of curatively resectable CRLM.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

The actual management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancers in the world and between 50% and 60% of patients will develop colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the disease. There have been great improvements in the management of CRLM during the last decades. The combination of modern chemotherapeutic and biological systemic treatments with aggressive surgical resection strategies is currently the base for the treatment of patients considered unresectable until few years ago. Furthermore, several new treatments for the local control of CRLM have been developed and are now part of the arsenal of multidisciplinary teams for the treatment of these complex patients. The aim of this review was to summarize and update the management of CRLM, its controversies and relevant evidence.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy: a review

Outcomes of liver resection have improved with advances in surgical techniques, improvements in critical care and expansion of resectability criteria. However, morbidity and mortality following liver resection continue to plague surgeons. Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) due to inadequate future liver remnant (FLR) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality following liver resection. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) is a novel two-staged procedure described in 2012, which aims to induce rapid hypertrophy of the FLR unlike conventional two-stage hepatectomy, which require a longer time for FLR hypertrophy. Careful patient selection and modifications in surgical technique has improved morbidity and mortality rates in ALPPS. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) confers the best outcomes post-ALPPS. Patients <60 years old and low-grade fibrosis with underlying hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are also eligible for ALPPS. Evidence for other types of cancers is less promising. Current studies, though limited, demonstrate that ALPPS has comparable oncological outcomes with conventional two-stage hepatectomy. Modifications such as partial-ALPPS and mini-ALPPS have shown improved morbidity and mortality compared to classic ALPPS. ALPPS may be superior to conventional two-stage hepatectomy in carefully selected groups of patients and has a promising outlook in liver surgery.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Does the difficulty grade of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases correlate with long-term outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

Prognosis of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is strongly correlated with the oncological outcome after liver resection. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) difficulty score (IMM difficulty score) on the oncological results in patients treated for CRLM.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LLRs for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. Data regarding difficulty classification, -according to the Institute Mutualiste Montsouris score (IMM)-, recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and data regarding margin status were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 520 patients were included. Patients were allocated into 3 groups based on IMM difficulty score of the LLR they underwent: there were 227 (43,6%), 84 (16,2%) and 209 (40,2%) patients in groups I, II and III, respectively. The R₁ resection rate in group I, II and III were 8,8% (20/227), 11,9% (10/84) and 12,4% (26/209) respectively (p = 0.841). Three- and 5-year RFS rates were 77% and 73% in group I, 58% and 51% in group II, 61% and 53% in group III, respectively (p = 0.038). Three and 5-year OS rates were 87% and 80% for group I, 77% and 66% for group II, 80% and 69% for group III respectively (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

The higher LLR difficulty score correlates with significant morbidity and worse RFS and OS, although the more technically demanding and difficult cases are not associated with increased rates of positive resection margins and recurrence.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Major Hepatic Resection

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

Surgical and regional treatments for colorectal cancer metastases in older patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The present study explored the existing literature to describe the outcomes of surgical and regional treatments for colorectal cancer metastases (mCRC) in older patients.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published since 2000 that investigated the short- and long-term outcomes of regional treatments (surgical or non-surgical) for mCRC in patients aged ≥65 years. Pooled data analyses were conducted by calculating the risk ratio (RR), mean differences (MD) and hazard ratio (HR) between older and younger patients or between two different approaches in older patients.

Results

After screening 266 articles, 29 were included in this review. These studies reported the outcomes of surgery (n = 19) and non-surgical local ablation treatments (n = 3) for CRC metastases in older vs. younger patients or compared the outcomes of different interventions in older patients (n = 7). When comparing older vs. younger patients undergoing liver surgery for mCRC, pooled data analysis showed higher postoperative mortality [RR = 2.53 (95%CI: 2.00–3.21)] and shorter overall survival [HR = 1.17 (95%CI: 1.07–1.18)] in older patients, whereas no differences in operative outcomes, postoperative complications and disease-free survival were found. When comparing laparoscopy vs. open surgery for liver resection in older mCRC patients, laparoscopy was associated with fewer postoperative complications [RR = 0.27 (95%CI: 0.10–0.73)].

Conclusion

Liver resection for mCRC should not be disregarded a priori in older patients, who show similar operative and postoperative outcomes as younger patients. However, clinicians should consider that they are at increased risk of postoperative mortality and have a worse overall survival, which may reflect comorbidities and frailty.

Surgical technique and clinical results of one- or two-stage laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after portal vein embolization in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A case series

BACKGROUND

The use of the laparoscopic approach in one-stage or second-step of two-stage right hemihepatectomy (RHH) after portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) is technically demanding. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. This paper reports our experience, results, techniques and variety of tips and tricks (highlighted in the attached video), to facilitate this resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of laparoscopic liver surgery within our unit at a tertiary referral centre between August 2003 and March 2019 was reviewed. Patients with initially unresectable CRLMs who underwent laparoscopic RHH or extended RHH after PVE in the context of a one or two-stage procedure were included.

RESULTS

Between August 2003 and March 2019, 19 patients with initially unresectable CRLMs underwent laparoscopic RHH after PVE. Twelve patients (63.2%) had RHH in the context of a two-stage hepatectomy and 7 as a one-stage procedure. Median time interval between PVE and surgery was 42.5 days (IQR, 34.5-60.0 days). Mean operating time was 351.8 ± 80.5 minutes. Median blood loss was 850 mL (IQR, 475-1350 mL). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2 of 19 cases (10.5%). Severe postoperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients. The mortality rate was 5.3%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR, 4-7 days). Radical resection was obtained in eighteen patients (94.7%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RHH after PVE in the context of a one- or two-stage resection in patients with initially unresectable CRLMs is a safe and feasible procedure with favourable oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and resource utilization in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether elderly patients undergoing elective hepatectomy experience increased morbidity/mortality and whether these outcomes could be mitigated by minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH).

METHODS

15,612 patients from 2014 to 2017 were identified in the Hepatectomy Targeted Procedure Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine the effect of elderly status (age ≥ 75 years, N = 1769) on outcomes with a subgroup analysis of elderly only patients by open (OH) versus MIH (robotic, laparoscopic, and hybrid, N = 4044). Propensity score matching was conducted comparing the effect of MIH to OH in elderly patients to ensure that results are not the artifact of imbalance in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, elderly patients had increased risk for 30-day mortality, major morbidity, prolonged length of hospital stay, and discharge to destination other than home. In the elderly subgroup, MIH was associated with decreased major morbidity (OR 0.71, P = 0.031), invasive intervention (OR 0.61, P = 0.032), liver failure (OR 0.15, P = 0.011), bleeding (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (OR 0.46, P < 0.001). Propensity score-matched analyses successfully matched 4021 pairs of patients treated by MIH vs. OH, and logistic regression analyses on this matched sample found that MIH was associated with decreased major complications (OR 0.69, P = 0.023), liver failure (OR 0.14, P = 0.010), bile leak (OR 0.46, P = 0.009), bleeding requiring transfusion (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), prolonged length of stay (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), and discharge to destination other than home (OR 0.691, P = 0.035) compared to OH.

CONCLUSION

MIH is associated with decreased risk of major morbidity, liver failure, bile leak, bleeding, prolonged length of stay, and discharge to destination other than home among elderly patients in this retrospective study. However, MIH in elderly patients does not protect against postoperative mortality.

Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To present surgical and oncological outcomes using a prospective and randomized trial (LapOpHuva, NCT02727179) comparing minimally invasive liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

Between February 2005 and March 2016, 204 selected patients with CRLM were randomized and 193 were included: LLR (n = 96) and OLR (n = 97). The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative morbidity. Other secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, use of the Pringle maneuver, surgical time, blood losses, transfusions, hospital stay, mortality and OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 7 years.

RESULTS

LLR presented with lower global morbidity (11.5% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.025) but with similar severe complications. Long-term survival outcomes were similar in both groups. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-, 7-year OS for LLR and OLR were 92.5%, 71.5%, 49.3%, 35.6% versus 93.6%, 69.7%, 47.4%, 35.5%, respectively (log-rank = 0.047, p = 0.82). DFS for LLR and OLR was 72.7%, 33.5%, 22.7%, and 20.8% versus 61.6%, 27.2%, 23.9%, and 17.9%, respectively (log-rank = 1.427, p = 0.23). LLR involved more use of the Pringle maneuver (15.5% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.025) and a shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding surgical time, blood losses, transfusion, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with CRLM, LLR presents similar oncological outcomes with the advantages of the short-term results associated with LLR.

Anesthetic management of geriatric patients

The number of elderly patients who frequently access health care services is increasing worldwide. While anesthesiologists are developing the expertise to care for these elderly patients, areas of concern remain. We conducted a comprehensive search of major international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) and a Korean database (KoreaMed) to review preoperative considerations, intraoperative management, and postoperative problems when anesthetizing elderly patients. Preoperative preparation of elderly patients included functional assessment to identify preexisting cognitive impairment or cardiopulmonary reserve, depression, frailty, nutrition, polypharmacy, and anticoagulation issues. Intraoperative management included anesthetic mode and pharmacology, monitoring, intravenous fluid or transfusion management, lung-protective ventilation, and prevention of hypothermia. Postoperative checklists included perioperative analgesia, postoperative delirium and cognitive dysfunction, and other complications. A higher level of perioperative care was required for older surgical patients, as multiple chronic diseases often makes them prone to developing postoperative complications, including functional decline and loss of independence. Although the guiding evidence remains poor so far, elderly patients have to be provided optimal perioperative care through close interdisciplinary, interprofessional, and cross-sectional collaboration to minimize unwanted postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, along with adequate anesthetic care, well-planned postoperative care should begin immediately after surgery and extend until discharge.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection.

RESULTS

Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692).

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

Impact of open and minimally invasive resection of symptomatic solid benign liver tumours on symptoms and quality of life: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The value of open and minimally invasive liver resection for symptomatic solid benign liver tumours (BLT) such as hepatocellular adenoma, focal nodular hyperplasia and haemangioma is being debated. A systematic review on symptom relief, quality of life (QoL) and surgical outcome after both open and minimally invasive surgery for solid BLT is currently lacking.

METHODS

A systematic search in PubMed and EMBASE was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines (January 1985-April 2018). Articles reporting pre-and postoperative symptoms or QoL in patients undergoing open or minimally surgery for BLT were evaluated. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS tool.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies were included with 4061 patients undergoing surgery for BLT, 3536 (87%) open and 525 (13%) laparoscopic resections. Randomized and propensity-matched studies were lacking. Symptoms were the indication for resection in 56% of the patients. After a weighted mean of 28.5 months follow-up after surgery, symptoms were relieved in 82% of symptomatic patients. Validated QoL tools were used in eight studies, of which two found significant better QoL scores following laparoscopic compared to open surgery.

DISCUSSION

Resection of symptomatic BLT seems safe and relieves symptoms in the vast majority of selected patients. Comparative studies are needed before more firm conclusions can be drawn.

Laparoscopic liver resection in elderly patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is becoming standard practice, replacing the open approach in terms of safety and feasibility. However, few data are available for the elderly. The objective of this study is to assess the feasibility of LLR in elderly patients, by making a comparison with open liver resection (OLR) and with non-elderly patients. Relevant studies found in the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were used in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine fully extracted comparative studies were included and two groups were identified: Group 1 with a comparison between OLR and LLR in the elderly and Group 2 with a focus on differences after LLR between elderly and non-elderly patients. A total number of 497 elderly patients who underwent LLR were analyzed. A random effect model was used for the meta-analysis. In Group 1, 1025 elderly patients were included: 640 underwent OLR and 385 underwent LLR. LLR was associated with minor blood loss (MD - 240 mL, 95% CI - 416.61, - 63.55; p 0.008; I2 = 96%), less transfusion (8% vs. 13.1%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41, 0.91; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), fewer postoperative Clavien-Dindo III/IV complications (RR 0.48 in favor of LLR; 95% CI 0.29, 0.77; p = 0.003; I2 = 0%). On the other hand, no significant difference was observed in terms of bile leakage, ascites, mortality, liver failure, or R0 resection. Group 2 included 112 elderly and 276 non-elderly patients who underwent LLR. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of blood loss, transfusions, liver failure, Clavien-Dindo III/IV complications, postoperative mortality, ascites, bile leak, hospital stay, R0 resection, and operative time. Laparoscopic liver resection is a safe and feasible procedure for elderly patients. However, further randomized studies are required to confirm this.

A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures

The objective of this study is to define the learning curve in a series of procedures grouped according to their complexity calculated by difficulty index to define a standard for technical improvement. 1032 laparoscopic liver resections performed in a single tertiary referral center were stratified by difficulty scores: low difficulty (LD, n = 362); intermediate difficulty (ID, n = 332), and high difficulty (HD, n = 338). The learning curve effect was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method taking into consideration the expected risk of conversion. The ratio of laparoscopic/total liver resections increased from 5.8% (2005) to 71.1% (2018). The CUSUM analysis per group showed that the average value of the conversion rate was reached at the 60th case in the LD Group and at the 15th in the ID and HD groups. The evolution from LD to ID and HD procedures occurred only when learning curve in LD resections was concluded. Reflecting different degree of complexity, procedures showed significantly different blood loss, morbidity, and conversions among groups. A standard educational model-stepwise and progressive-is mandatory to allow surgeons to define the technical and technological backgrounds to deal with a specific degree of difficulty, providing a help in the definition of indications to laparoscopic approach in each phase of training.

Highlights, limitations and future challenges of laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

The liver is the most common site for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRLM). Despite advances in oncologic treatment, resection of metastases is still the only curative option. Although laparoscopic surgery for primary colorectal cancer is well documented and widely used, laparoscopic surgery for liver metastases has developed more slowly. However, in spite of some difficulties, laparoscopic approach demonstrated strong advantages including minimal parietal damage, decreased morbidity (reduced blood loss and need for transfusion, fewer pulmonary complications), and simplification of subsequent iterative hepatectomy. Up to now, more than 9 000 laparoscopic procedures have been reported worldwide and long-term results in colorectal liver metastases seem comparable to the open approach. Only one recent randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic and the open approach. The purpose of the present update was to identify the barriers limiting widespread acceptance of laparoscopic approach, the benefits and the limits of laparoscopic hepatectomies in CRLM.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

RESULTS

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

Safety and effective of laparoscopic microwave ablation for giant hepatic hemangioma: A retrospective cohort study

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic microwave ablation (LMWA) as compared with conventional open resection (ORES) for the treatment of giant hepatic hemangioma.

Methods

and analysis: A retrospective chart review was conduct on patients with hepatic hemangioma underwent LMWA or ORES between 2014 and 2016.

Results

Of 131 patients, 37 patients underwent ORES and 94 patients underwent LMWA. Blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, hospital cost (RMB) were significantly different between two groups. Patients after LMWA experienced significantly less pain than those patients undergoing ORES. At a mean follow-up period of 12.8 ± 3.6 months in ORES group and 13.5 ± 2.5 months in LMWA group, no long-term complication was observed.

Conclusion

Compared with ORES, LMWA is a safe and effective minimally invasive for treating giant hepatic hemangioma.

•

Retrospectively analysed the clinical data of patients with hepatic haemangioma and investigated the efficacy of operation.

•

Technical aspects of laparoscopic microwave ablation for giant hepatic haemangioma were listed base on operation experience.

A Comparison of the Learning Curves of Laparoscopic Liver Surgeons in Differing Stages of the IDEAL Paradigm of Surgical Innovation: Standing on the Shoulders of Pioneers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the learning curves of the self-taught "pioneers" of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) with those of the trained "early adopters" in terms of short- and medium-term patient outcomes to establish if the learning curve can be reduced with specific training.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in the next few years. Current guidelines stress the need for an incremental, stepwise progression through the learning curve in order to minimize harm to patients. Previous studies have examined the learning curve in Stage 2 of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation; however, LLS is now in stage 3 with specific training being provided to surgeons.

METHODS

Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis, the learning curves and short- and medium-term outcomes of 4 "pioneering" surgeons from stage 2 were compared with 4 "early adapting" surgeons from stage 3 who had received specific training for LLS.

RESULTS

After 46 procedures, the short- and medium-term outcomes of the "early adopters" were comparable to those achieved by the "pioneers" following 150 procedures in similar cases.

CONCLUSIONS

With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the learning curve for minor and major liver resections faster than the "pioneers" who were self-taught in LLS. The findings of this study are applicable to all surgical specialties and highlight the importance of specific training in the safe expansion of novel surgical practice.

The impact of advancing age on incidence of hepatectomy and post-operative outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcomes for elderly patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases are poorly characterised. This study aimed to investigate the impact of advancing age on the incidence of liver resection and post-operative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients in the National Bowel Cancer Audit undergoing major CRC resection from 2010 to 2016 in England were included. Liver resection was identified from linked Hospital Episode Statistics data. A Cox-proportional hazards model was used to compare 3-year mortality.

RESULTS

Of 117,005 patients, 6081 underwent liver resection. For patients <65 years there was 1 liver resection per 12 cases, 65-74, 1 per 17, and ≥75, 1 per 40. 90-day mortality after liver resection increased with advancing age (<65 0.9% (26/2829), 65-74 2.8% (57/2070), ≥75 4.0% (47/1182); P < 0.001). Age was an independent risk factor for 3-year mortality. Patients 65-74 did not have adjusted mortality higher than those <65, yet age ≥75 was associated with increased overall mortality (Hazard ratio (HR) 1.47 (95% CI 1.30-1.68)) and cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.30 (95% CI 1.13-1.49)).

CONCLUSION

Although advancing age was associated with higher rates of 90-day mortality following liver resection, 3-year mortality for patients 65-74 years was comparable to younger patients. These results will aid clinicians and patients in pre-operative decision-making.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The OSLO-COMET Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking.

METHODS

Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins.

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67-21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection for large HCC: short- and long-term outcomes in relation to tumor size

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aim to assess the impact of tumor size on clinical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

BACKGROUND

LLR has been shown to be feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient. However, it has been slow to develop in patients with HCC who often suffer from chronic liver disease which represents an additional challenge for the surgeon. The experience with large HCCs is even more limited.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2016, 172 patients from two high-volume liver surgery centers underwent LLR for HCC. Prospectively collected data were analyzed after stratification in 3 groups according to tumor major diameter (group 1: < 3 cm; group 2: between 3 and 5 cm; group 3: ≥ 5 cm). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the three groups and sub-analyses were carried out on the extent and location of the resections.

RESULTS

Groups 1, 2, and 3 consisted of 82, 52, and 38 patients, respectively. Minor and major resections were performed in 98.8% and 1.2% in group 1, in 90.4% and 9.6% in group 2, and in 68.4% and 31.6% in group 3, respectively. Postero-superior "technically major" resections were performed in 15.8% patients in group 1, in 19.2% in group 2, and in 15.8% in group 3, respectively. Group 3 had higher conversion rates (p < 0.001), more frequent (p = 0.056) and more prolonged (p = 0,075) pedicle clamping and longer operative time (p < 0.001), higher blood losses (p = 0.025), and longer total hospital and intensive care unit stays. These differences ceased after removing the major resections from the study population, except for the postoperative length of stay. There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, completeness of resection rates, and long-term outcomes between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC appears to be safe and oncologically efficient when performed in high-volume HPB and laparoscopic centers. Tumor size does not appear to impact negatively on the outcomes except for postoperative hospital stay.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Minor Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Elderly

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH) in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A total of 40 consecutive elderly (≥ 70 years) patients were compared with 94 young patients (< 70 years). The 40 patients were also compared with 85 consecutive elderly patients who underwent open minor hepatectomies (OMH). After 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM), 32 LMHs were compared with 32 OMHs in elderly patients.

RESULTS

Comparison between the baseline characteristics of elderly and young HCC patients showed that elderly patients were significantly more likely to have comorbidities, ASA score > 2, non-hepatitis B, previous liver resection and larger tumor size. Comparison between perioperative outcomes demonstrated that elderly patients were significantly more likely to have a longer operation time, increased blood loss, increased need for blood transfusion, longer Pringles duration and longer postoperative stay. Comparison between LMH and OMH in elderly patients demonstrated no significant difference in baseline characteristics except the LMH cohort were significantly more likely to have > 1 comorbidity, higher platelet count and lower median AFP level. Comparison between outcomes before and after PSM demonstrated that LMH was associated with longer operation time, increased blood loss, longer Pringles duration but decreased postoperative pulmonary complications and shorter postoperative stay compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC. However, LMH in elderly patients is associated with poorer perioperative outcomes compared to LMH in young patients. Comparison between LMH and OMH in elderly patients demonstrated advantages in terms of decreased pulmonary complications and shorter length of stay at the expense of increased operation time and blood loss.

A novel scoring system for conversion and complication in laparoscopic liver resection

Background

Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly popular worldwide, there is lack of predictive model to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LLR. The aim of this study was to establish a scoring system for predicting the possibility of conversion and complication, which could facilitate the patient selection for clinicians and communication with patients and their relatives during the informed consent process.

Methods

Consecutively 696 patients between August 1998 and December 2016 underwent LLR were recruited. The entire cohort was divided randomly into development and validation cohorts. The scoring system for conversion and complication were established according to risk factors identified from multiple logistic analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the clinical application. And the C-index and decision curve analysis (DCA) were conducted to evaluate the discrimination in comparison with other predictive models.

Results

Six hundred and ninety-six patients were enrolled eventually. The rate of conversion in the development and validation cohorts was 8.3% and 10.3%, respectively. Compared with 12.6% complication rate in the development cohort, 12.9% was concluded in the validation cohort. Upon on the identified risk factors, the risk stratification model was established and validated. Subsequent subgroup analysis indicated low risk patients presented superior surgical outcomes compared with high risk patients. Besides, the C-index and DCA implied our models had better capacities of predicting conversion and complication in comparison with previous scoring systems.

Conclusions

This novel scoring system presents the remarkable capacities of predicting conversion, complication in LLR. And thereby, it could be a useful instrument to facilitate the patient selection for clinicians and communication with patients and their relatives during the informed consent process.

Current status of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases

Liver metastasis (LM) is one of the major causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 60% of CRC patients develop LM during the course of their illness. About 85% of these patients have unresectable disease at the time of presentation. Surgical resection is currently the only curative treatment for patients with colorectal LM (CRLM). In recent years, with the help of modern multimodality therapy including systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the outcomes of CRLM treatment have significantly improved. This article summarizes the current status of surgical treatment of CRLM including evaluation of resectability, treatment for resectable LM, conversion therapy and liver transplantation for unresectable cases, liver resection for recurrent CRLM and elderly patients, and surgery for concomitant hepatic and extra-hepatic metastatic disease (EHMD). We believe that with the help of modern multimodality therapy, an aggressive oncosurgical approach should be implemented as it has the possibility of achieving a cure, even when EHMD is present in patients with CRLM.

Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that patient, surgical, tumour and operative variables affect the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections. However, current difficulty scoring systems address only tumour factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resections.

METHODS

The prospectively maintained databases of seven European tertiary referral liver centres were compiled. Data from two-thirds of the patients were used for development and one-third for validation of the model. Intraoperative complications were based on a modified Satava classification. Using the methodology of the Framingham Heart Study, developed to identify risk factors that contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, factors found to predict intraoperative complications independently were assigned points, and grouped into low-, moderate-, high- and extremely high-risk groups based on the likelihood of intraoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 2856 patients were included. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lesion type and size, classification of resection and previous open liver resection were found to be independent predictors of intraoperative complications. Patients with intraoperative complications had a longer duration of hospital stay (5 versus 4 days; P < 0·001), higher complication rates (32·5 versus 15·5 per cent; P < 0·001), and higher 30-day (3·0 versus 0·3 per cent; P < 0·001) and 90-day (3·8 versus 0·8 per cent; P < 0·001) mortality rates than those who did not. The model was able to predict intraoperative complications (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) 0·677, 95 per cent c.i. 0·647 to 0·706) as well as postoperative 90-day mortality (AUC 0·769, 0·681 to 0·858).

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive scoring system, based on patient, surgical and tumour factors, and developed and validated using a large multicentre European database, helped estimate the risk of intraoperative complications.

Laparoscopic combined resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer: a multicenter, case-matched study using propensity scores

Background

Combined laparoscopic resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer (LLCR) may hold benefits for selected patients but could increase complication rates. Previous studies have compared LLCR with liver resection alone. Propensity score-matched studies comparing LLCR with laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (LCR) alone have not been performed.

Methods

A multicenter, case-matched study was performed comparing LLCR (2009–2016, 4 centers) with LCR alone (2009–2016, 2 centers). Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated with the following preoperative variables: age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, type of colorectal resection and T and N stage of the primary tumor. Outcomes were compared using paired tests.

Results

Out of 1020 LCR and 64 LLCR procedures, 122 (2 × 61) patients could be matched. All 61 laparoscopic liver resections were minor hepatectomies, mostly because of a solitary liver metastasis (n = 44, 69%) of small size (≤ 3 cm) (n = 50, 78%). LLCR was associated with a modest increase in operative time [206 (166–308) vs. 197 (148–231) min, p = 0.057] and blood loss [200 (100–700) vs. 75 (5–200) ml, p = 0.011]. The rate of Clavien–Dindo grade 3 or higher complications [9 (15%) vs. 13 (21%), p = 0.418], anastomotic leakage [5 (8%) vs. 4 (7%), p = 1.0], conversion rate [3 (5%) vs. 5 (8%), p = 0.687] and 30-day mortality [0 vs. 1 (2%), p = 1.0] did not differ between LLCR and LCR.

Conclusion

In selected patients requiring minor hepatectomy, LLCR can be safely performed without increasing the risk of postoperative morbidity compared to LCR alone.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for elderly patients: Major findings based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As the general population continues to age, there is an increase need for surgical management of elderly patients. Compared to open hepatectomy (OH), laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) offers earlier mobilization, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. However, whether these advantages of LH over OH are retained in elderly patients remains to be clarified. Therefore, in this study, we sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LH for elderly patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared LH and OH. Studies comparing LH in elderly and LH in nonelderly patients were also identified. Outcomes of interest included conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate and type of morbidity, mortality rate, margin status (R0), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of these, 5 compared LH and OH in elderly patients, 3 compared LH in elderly and nonelderly patients, and 1 included both outcomes. Compared to those with OH, elderly patients who underwent LH had similar operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.15 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI): -28.28-30.59, P = .94], less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -0.71 mL; 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.16, P = .01), a lower rate of transfusion [risk ratio (RR) = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.94, P = .02], comparable R0 rates (RR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07, P = .70), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, P < .01), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.22 days; 95% CI: -4.21 to -2.23, P < .01). The limited long-term outcomes indicated that survival status was comparable between LH and OH for elderly patients. The pooled outcomes for elderly versus nonelderly patients indicated that the safety and effectiveness of LH over OH in elderly patients was not inferior to those in nonelderly patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LH is a feasible and safe alternative to OH in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Does an extreme age (≥80 years) affect outcomes in patients after liver cancer surgery? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing global life expectancy has resulted in a greater demand for cancer surgery in aged patients. However, whether extreme age causes poorer clinical outcomes remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of extreme age (≥80 years) on outcomes in patients after liver cancer surgery.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to enrol relevant studies. Data were analysed using fixed-effects or random-effects models. Eight retrospective studies involving 253 participants older than 80 years were included.

RESULTS

Compared with younger patients, patients of extreme age (≥80 years) who had undergone curative liver cancer surgery experienced less operating time and blood loss (both P < 0.0001); a larger size (weighted mean difference = 0.48 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.87 cm; P = 0.02) and more advanced stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (risk ratio (RR) = 1.20, 95% CI 1.04-1.39; P = 0.01); a higher overall morbidity (RR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.05-1.47; P = 0.01); and more post-operative ileus (POI) (RR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.03-11.56; P = 0.04), delirium (RR = 3.04, 95% CI 1.36-6.78; P = 0.007) and cardiovascular events (RR = 6.17, 95% CI 2.79-13.60; P < 0.00001). No significant difference was noted in overall (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.53; P = 0.32) or disease-free (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.75-1.24; P = 0.77) survival.

CONCLUSION

Although an extreme age may not be a contraindication for undertaking liver cancer surgery, it may cause more morbidity. Perioperative intervention should be considered for prevention and early treatment of POI, delirium and cardiovascular events.

Long term outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Because of the advancements in the surgical techniques of liver resection and improvements in anesthesia and postoperative critical care, the simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis either by the laparoscopic procedure or by the open resection method has been considered as a safe and acceptable option. However, there is limited information on the comparison of postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. This study investigated the clinical results and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis in comparison with those of open surgery.

METHODS

Patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastasis who underwent simultaneous resection at Shuang Ho Hospital from 2009 to 2017 were identified. The patient demographics, perioperative morbidity, and survival rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. Laparoscopic procedure was performed for 16 patients, and the remaining 22 patients underwent open surgery. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics between the two groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 56% and 35% in the laparoscopic group and 70% and 15% in the open surgery group, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 100% and 84% in the laparoscopic group and 73% and 48% in the open surgery group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic surgery for simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis seems to be safe and had a similar outcome to that of open surgery.

Recurrence patterns after laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The major issue after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is the high incidence of recurrence. Unlike open liver resection (OLR), recurrence following laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is not well documented. The aim of this study was to analyze recurrence patterns and treatment following LLR for CRLM.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent LLR for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed. Patients who presented with recurrence were compared to those who did not. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and risk of recurrence and survival prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 273 patients were included, of which 157 (57.5%) were treated for one liver metastasis (LM). Median follow-up was 41 (12-187) months and associated extrahepatic disease was present in 27% of patients (mainly pulmonary, 65%). After a median of 16 (3-151) months, 197 (72%) patients presented with recurrence. Recurrences were early (< 6 months) in 22.8% of cases, occured in a single site in 66% and were intrahepatic, extrahepatic, or both in 44, 30, and 26%, respectively. Recurrences were treated with surgery or chemotherapy only in 45 and 47%, respectively. 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS was 82, 71, and 43%, respectively. Independent risk factors for recurrence were node-positive primary tumor, extrahepatic disease before hepatectomy, and R1 resection.

CONCLUSION

LLR for CRLM does not seem to be associated with distinctive recurrence patterns. LLR for CRLM yielded satisfying RFS and OS and should therefore be considered whenever possible.

Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies.

METHODS

All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined.

Are the current difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver surgery telling the whole story? An international survey and recommendations for the future

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections are related to both patient and tumour factors, however the available difficulty scoring systems only incorporate tumour factors. The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of laparoscopic liver surgeons regarding the factors that affect the perceived difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections.

METHOD

Using a Visual Analogue Scale an international survey of laparoscopic liver surgeons was undertaken to assess the perceived difficulty of 26 factors previously demonstrated to affect the difficulty of a laparoscopic liver resection.

RESULTS

80 surgeons with a combined experience of over 7000 laparoscopic liver resections responded to the survey. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery was suggested to be increased by a BMI > 35 by 89% of respondents; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 79%; repeated liver resection by 99% and concurrent procedures by 59% however these factors have not been included in the previous difficulty scoring systems.

CONCLUSION

The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.