Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:856-863. [PMID: 27849661 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000002072]

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has advanced into a safe and effective alternative to conventional open liver resection (OLR), it has not been widely accepted by surgeons. This article aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term benefits of LLR versus OLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in selected patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 1085 patients with HCC who underwent liver resection at Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University from July 2010 to July 2015, and 346 patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background were selected. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), which is the best option to overcome selection bias, was conducted to compare the surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis between LLR and OLR. After PSM, a logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictive risk factors of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).

RESULTS

By using PSM, the two groups were well balanced with 86 patients in each group. In the LLR group, only the median operation time was significantly longer than the OLR group, but the hospital stay, overall morbidity, and the incidence of PHLF were significantly decreased compared to OLR. There were no significant differences in the overall survival and disease-free survival rates between the two groups. On multivariate analysis, OLR was identified to be the only independent risk factor for PHLF.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected HCC patients with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background, LLR could be a better option compared to OLR.

Laparoscopic versus open mesohepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic mesohepatectomy (LM) has been performed for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC), its short- and long-term benefits compared with traditional open surgery remain unclear. The aim of the present study was to explore the independent role of LM in the prognosis of patients with CL-HCC.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken of 348 patients who underwent mesohepatectomy for CL-HCC between January 2012 and October 2017 in our hospital. The impact of the surgical methods on long-term prognosis was evaluated by multivariable regression analysis. In addition, patients in the LM group were matched in a 1:3 ratio with open mesohepatectomy (OM) group.

RESULTS

Some 307 patients underwent OM and 41 had LM. In both adjusted and non-adjusted models, patients in LM group had similar overall survival (OS, both P > 0.05) and disease-free survival (DFS, both P > 0.05) compared to OM patients. The mean (s.d.) OS in LM and OM groups was 41.6 (7.2) and 46.4 (1.4) months, respectively. The mean (s.d.) DFS in LM and OM groups was 37.7 (5.9) and 33.4 (1.5) months, respectively. After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 96 patients remained in OM group and 32 patients in LM group. In the PSM subset, patients in LM group still had comparable OS (P = 0.120) and DFS (P = 0.757) compared to patients in the OM group. After PSM, patients receiving LM had longer vascular exclusion time (P = 0.006) and shorter hospital stay (P = 0.004). In addition, LM was associated with reduced postoperative morbidity after PSM adjustment (P = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

LM is associated with fewer complications and does not compromise survival compared with OM. LM can be recommended as a safe and reasonable surgical option in selected patients with CL-HCC.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Posterior Sectionectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a High-Volume Center: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

While minimal invasive surgery is becoming popular in liver resection, right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is still considered as a difficult procedure. We summarize the clinical data and investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing its outcomes with those of open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 191 patients who underwent RPS for HCC during January 2009 to August 2016 at Samsung Medical Center. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 53 patients in LRPS group were matched to 97 patients in ORPS group.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in preoperative data. While operation time was significantly longer in LRPS group (381.1 ± 118.7 vs. 234.4 ± 63.7 min, P < 0.001), transfusion rate (13.2 vs. 2.1%, P = 0.061) and complication rate (9.4 vs. 8.3%, P = 0.709) were not statistically different between groups. Clustered Cox proportional hazards regression analysis for matched paired data showed no difference in both disease-free survival (P = 0.607) and overall survival (P = 0.858).

CONCLUSIONS

In HCC, LRPS can be performed safely compared to ORPS, regarding the operative outcome, patient recovery, and oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopy of hepatocellular carcinoma is helpful in minimizing intra-abdominal adhesion during salvage transplantation

Purpose

This study analyzes the impact of laparoscopic liver resection on intra-abdominal adhesion.

Methods

Patients who underwent salvage liver transplantation after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma from January 2012 to October 2017 at our institution were included. Information about the severity of intra-abdominal adhesions was collected from a prospectively maintained database. Intra-abdominal adhesions were graded after the agreement of 2 surgeons who participated in the salvage liver transplantation based on predetermined criteria. Adhesion severity and demographic, operative, and postoperative data were compared between the laparoscopic group and the open group. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to consider potential factors related to severe adhesion during salvage transplantation.

Results

Sixty-two patients who underwent salvage liver transplantation after liver resection were included in this study. Among them, 52 patients underwent open surgery, and 10 patients underwent laparoscopy. Adhesion was significantly more severe in the open group than in the laparoscopy group (P = 0.029). A multivariate logistic regression model including potential factors related to severe adhesion showed that laparoscopy (odds ratio, 0.168; 95% confidence interval, 0.029–0.970; P = 0.048) was the only significant factor.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma can minimize intra-abdominal adhesion during salvage liver transplantation.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes after pure laparoscopic versus open liver surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Background

The advantages of laparoscopy are widely known. Nevertheless, its legitimacy in liver surgery is often questioned because of the uncertain value associated with minimally invasive methods. Our main goal was to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases to find eligible studies. The most recent search was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were regarded as suitable if they reported morbidity in patients undergoing LLR versus OLR. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Clinical applicability of results was evaluated using predictive intervals. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

From 2085 articles, forty-three studies (N = 5100 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LLR had lower overall morbidity than OLR (15.59% vs. 29.88%, p < 0.001). Moreover, major morbidity was reduced in the LLR group (3.78% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of mortality (1.58% vs. 2.96%, p = 0.05) and both 3- and 5-year overall survival (68.97% vs. 68.12%, p = 0.41) and disease-free survival (46.57% vs. 44.84%, p = 0.46).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis showed that LLR is beneficial in terms of overall morbidity and non-procedure-specific complications. That being said, these results are based on non-randomized trials. For these reasons, we are calling for randomization in upcoming studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084576.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-6431-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma located in unfavorable segments: a propensity score-matched analysis from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most important indications for the minimally invasive approach. Our study aims to analyze the experience of the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery with laparoscopic surgical treatment of HCC, with a focus on tumor location and how it affects morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

38 centers participated in this study; 372 cases of LLR for HCC were prospectively enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to the HCC nodule location. Group 1 favorable location and group 2 unfavorable location. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups before and after a propensity score match (PS) 1:1.

RESULTS

Before PS in group 2 surgical time was longer; conversion rate was higher; postoperative transfusion and comprehensive complication index were also higher. PS was performed with a cohort of 298 patients (from 18 centers), with 66 and 232 patients with HCC in unfavorable and favorable locations, respectively. After PS matching, 62 patients from group 1 and group 2 each were compared. Operative and postoperative course were similar in patients with HCC in favorable and unfavorable LLR locations. Surgical margins were found to be identical before and after PS.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that LLR in patients with HCC can be safely performed in all segments because of the extensive experience of all surgeons from multiple centers in performing traditional open liver surgery as well as laparoscopic surgery.

Outcomes of pure laparoscopic Glissonian pedicle approach hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies had been performed to concern the outcomes of pure laparoscopic Glissonian pedicle approach hepatectomy (LGAH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LGAH versus open Glissonian pedicle approach hepatectomy (OGAH) for HCC, especially in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent pure LGAH and OGAH between January 2015 and July 2017 in our institution were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Propensity score matching (PSM) of patients in a ratio of 1:1 was conducted to adjust the known confounders. The perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups after PSM.

RESULTS

Some 80 patients underwent pure LGAH and 134 had OGAH. After PSM, 67 patients in each group were well matched for analysis. Both the postoperative overall complication rates (13.4% vs. 29.9%, P = 0.021) and mean comprehensive complication index (2.63 vs. 7.40, P = 0.035) were significantly lower in the LGAH group than those in OGAH group. Although the operative time was longer in the LRH group (P < 0.001), the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the LRH group (P = 0.024). Furthermore, both the 3-year overall survival rate (73.3% for LGAH vs. 77.8% for OGAH, P = 0.338) and 3-year disease-free survival rate (56.4% for LGAH vs. 62.5% for OGAH, P = 0.455) were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Pure laparoscopic Glissonian approach may be a better alternative to open Glissonian approach in selected HCC patients, which provided fewer complications, shorter postoperative hospital stay and comparable oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Prognostic Significance of Preoperative Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score in Patients Undergoing Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multi-institutional Study

BACKGROUND

The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is an objective tool that is widely used to assess the nutritional status in patients, including those with cancer. The relationship between the CONUT score and prognosis in patients who have undergone hepatic resection has not been evaluated in a multi-institutional study.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected for 2461 consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had undergone hepatic resection with curative intent at 13 institutions between January 2004 and December 2015. Patients were assigned to two groups: preoperative CONUT scores ≤ 3 (low CONUT score) and ≥ 4 (high CONUT score). Clinicopathological characteristics, surgical outcomes, and long-term survival were compared using propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 2461 patients, 540 (21.9%) had high (≥ 4) and 1921 (78.1%) had low (≤ 3) preoperative CONUT scores. Overall, a high CONUT score was significantly associated with older age, female sex, low body mass index, low serum albumin, high serum total bilirubin, low lymphocyte count, low serum cholesterol, shorter prothrombin time, higher indocyanine green retention test at 15 min, Child-Pugh B (vs. A), liver cirrhosis, minor resection, shorter operation time, massive blood loss, blood transfusion, and postoperative complications. After propensity score matching, a higher CONUT score was significantly associated with poor overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) using multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective, multi-institutional analysis showed that, in patients who undergo curative hepatectomy for HCC, the preoperative CONUT score is predictive of worse OS and RFS, even after propensity score matching analysis.

Long-term and short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: might laparoscopic approach be better in early HCC?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) and identified patients who might gain more benefits from LLR.

METHODS

The demographic and perioperative data, short-term surgical outcomes, and long-term oncological results of all 313 patients who received elective liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between January 2010 and June 2017 were analyzed. The patients were then divided into stage-specific subgroups according to the TNM staging system for comparison.

RESULTS

LLR was performed in 153 patients and OLR in 160 patients. LLR is associated with less blood loss (p < 0.001), shorter surgical time (p = 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), and lower morbidity rate (p = 0.034). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates in the LLR group were higher than those in the OLR group (78.1 vs. 57.6%; p = 0.002). Stage-specific subgroup analysis revealed similar 5-year OS in the two groups (stage I: 82.8 vs. 82.6%, p = 0.845; stage II: 80.3 vs. 69.2%, p = 0.638; stage III: 55.6 vs. 34.8%, p = 0.681), as did the 5-year recurrence-free survival. Moreover, the short-term outcomes were better in the LLR group in terms of surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay, and these benefits attenuated with advancing tumor stage.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is a safe and feasible procedure that does not compromise long-term oncological outcomes. In early tumor stages, LLR might be better in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy versus laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterior segments: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:

This study was designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma located in the posterior segments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The study included patients who underwent either laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy or laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma located in segment 6 or 7 from January 2009 to December 2016 at Samsung Medical Center. After 1:1 propensity score matching, patient baseline characteristics and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Disease-free survival and overall survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test.

RESULTS:

Among 61 patients with laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy and 37 patients with laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, 30 patients from each group were analyzed after propensity score matching. After matching, baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar including tumor size (3.4 ± 1.2 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 3.7 ± 2.1 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.483); differences were significant before matching (3.1 ± 1.3 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 4.3 ± 2.7 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in operative and postoperative data except for free margin size (1.04 ± 0.71 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 2.95 ± 1.75 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P < 0.001). Disease-free survival (5-year survival: 38.0% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 47.0% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.510) and overall survival (5-year survival: 92.7% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 89.6% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.593) did not differ between the groups based on Kaplan-Meier log-rank test.

CONCLUSION:

For hepatocellular carcinoma in the posterior segments, laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy was feasible compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in short- and long-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH) in patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

An electronic search of reports published before August 2017 was carried out to identify comparative studies evaluating LH versus OH for HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 5889 patients (2421 underwent LH; 3468 underwent OH) were included in our meta-analysis from 47 studies. Laparoscopic hepatectomies were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -147.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -217.00, -77.55), blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40, 0.65), pathologic resection margins (MD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12; P = 0.01), R0 resection rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.98, 1.84; P = 0.07), and length of hospital stay (MD, -5.13; 95% confidence interval, -6.23, -4.03). There were no differences between the groups in overall survival (OS) at 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.98), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.36), or 5 years (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.46), in disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.51), 3 years (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86, 1.33), or 5 years (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92, 1.40), or in recurrence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Compared to OH, LH is superior in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and the requirement for blood transfusion, larger pathologic resection margins, increased R0 resection rates, and shorter length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic hepatectomy and OH have similar OS, DFS, and recurrence.

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.

Which approach is preferred in left hepatocellular carcinoma? Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy using propensity score matching

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its perioperative and oncological outcomes have not been evaluated in left hepatectomy patients. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of left hepatectomy through laparoscopic and open approaches in left HCC.

Methods

From December 2012 to October 2016, laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) was performed in 40 patients and open left hepatectomy (OLH) was performed in 80 patients. All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching of patients in a 1:1 ratio was conducted based on tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion.

Results

Tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion were higher in the OLH group than the LLH group (P < 0.05). However, the operative time was longer in the LLH group than in the OLH group (266 min vs. 239 min; P = 0.005). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLH group than in the OLH group before and after matching (9 days vs. 13 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of complications in the LLH and OLH groups was 10.0 and 7.5%, respectively. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the LLH group were not different from those in the OLH group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

A laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for left HCC. The oncologic outcome of LLH is comparable to that of OLH.

Pure laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy using the caudodorsal side approach (with videos)

BACKGROUND

In our process of standardizing laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (Lap-RH), we found several advantages of the laparoscopic caudate lobe first approach by using a unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and October 2017, 21 patients underwent pure Lap-RH at our hospital. The mean patient age was 62 years (range 36-75 years), and there were more male than female patients (66.7%). Of 21 patients, 11 had hepatocellular carcinoma, eight had metastatic tumor, and the other two had focal nodular hyperplasia and refractory liver abscess. All 21 patients had Child-Pugh class A liver function. The surgical technique was recorded on video.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 409 min (range 241-522 min), and the mean blood loss was 279 g (range 0-1,010 g). No procedure was converted to open surgery. With regard to postoperative complications, one patient had bile leakage from the stump of the main Glissonean branch and another patient had abscess formation in the subphrenic space. No postoperative bleeding, hepatic failure, and mortality occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our standardized procedure of Lap-RH using the unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view is not only feasible but also confers a true advantage of the laparoscopic approach.

Open Liver Resection, Laparoscopic Liver Resection, and Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Patients with Solitary Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma (≤30 mm): Review of the Literature and Proposal for a Therapeutic Strategy

BACKGROUND

Patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤3 cm and preserved liver function have the highest likelihood to be cured if treated. The most adequate treatment methods are yet a matter that is debated.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature about open anatomic resection (AR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), and percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA).

RESULTS

PTA is effective as resection for HCC < 2 cm, when they are neither subcapsular nor perivascular. PTA in HCC of 2-3 cm is under evaluation. AR with the removal of the tumor-bearing portal territory is recommended for HCC > 2 cm, except for subcapsular ones. In comparison with open surgery, LRR has better short-term outcomes and non-inferior long-term outcomes. LLR is standardized for superficial limited resections and for left-sided AR.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available evidences, the following therapeutic proposal can be advanced. Laparoscopic limited resection is the standard for any subcapsular HCC. PTA is the first-line treatment for deep-located HCC < 2 cm, except for those in contact with Glissonean pedicles. Laparoscopic AR is the standard for deep-located HCC of 2-3 cm of the left liver, while open AR is the standard for deep-located HCC of 2-3 cm in the right liver. HCC in contact with Glissonean pedicles should be scheduled for resection (open or laparoscopic) independent of their size. Liver transplantation is reserved to otherwise untreatable patients or as a salvage procedure at recurrence.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in early and advanced cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is well described in early cirrhosis. Less is known regarding outcomes with more advanced cirrhosis, and this study aimed to compare these groups.

METHODS

A retrospective review of resections at a high-volume hepatobiliary center over a 15-year period was performed. Primary end-points were 30 and 90-day mortality. Secondary end-points included complications and survival.

RESULTS

80 early (Child's A) were compared to 26 advanced (20 Child's B and 6 Child's C) patients. Baseline patient and tumor characteristics were similar except for parameters indicating degree of cirrhosis. Only early cirrhotic patients underwent anatomic hepatectomies (six cases) and median operative times were longer (151 vs 99 min, p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss, conversion, R0 resection, length-of-stay and perioperative complications were comparable. 30 and 90-day mortality were statistically similar (2.5 vs 0%, OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.08-36.19 and 2.5 vs 7.7%, OR 0.31 95% CI 0.04-2.30). There was a trend toward longer survival in the early cirrhotic group but this did not reach significance (50 vs 21 months, p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected advanced cirrhotic patients, laparoscopic liver resection may be performed with acceptable outcomes. Though this is not yet well established, further trials may be warranted.

Surgical techniques and strategies for the treatment of primary liver tumours: hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma

Background

Owing to remarkable improvements of surgical techniques and associated specialities, liver surgery has become the standard of care for hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Although applied with much greater safety, hepatic resections for primary liver tumours remain challenging and need to be integrated in a complex multidisciplinary treatment approach.

Methods

This literature review gives an update on the recent developments regarding basics of open and laparoscopic liver surgery and surgical strategies for primary liver tumours.

Results

Single-centre reports and multicentre registries mainly from Asia and Europe dominate the surgical literature on primary liver tumours, but the numbers of randomized trials are slowly increasing. Perioperative outcomes of open liver surgery for hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma have vastly improved over the last decades, accompanied by some progress in terms of oncological outcome. The laparoscopic approach is increasingly being applied in many centres, even for patients with underlying liver disease, and may result in decreased morbidity. Liver transplantation represents a cornerstone in the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma and is indispensable to achieve long-term survival. In contrast, resection remains the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma in most countries, but interventional techniques are on the rise.

Conclusion

Liver surgery for primary tumours is complex, with a need for high expertise in a multidisciplinary team to achieve acceptable outcomes. Technical developments and clinical stratification tools have optimized individual care, but further improvements in oncological survival will likely require enhanced pre- and postoperative systemic and local treatment options.

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.

Laparoscopic extended liver resection: are postoperative outcomes different?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is becoming increasingly common in specialized centers, data regarding laparoscopic extended major hepatectomies (LEMH) and their outcomes are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of LEMH to standard LMH.

METHODS

All patients who underwent purely laparoscopic anatomical right or left hepatectomy and right or left trisectionectomy between February 1998 and January 2016 are enrolled. Demographic, clinicopathological, and perioperative factors were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes in LEMH were compared to those of standard LMH.

RESULTS

Among 195 patients with LMH, 47 (24.1%) underwent LEMH, colorectal liver metastases representing 66.7% of all indications. Preoperative portal vein embolization was undertaken in 31 (15.9%) patients. Despite more frequent vascular clamping, blood loss was higher in LEMH group (400 vs. 214 ml; p = 0.006). However, there was no difference in intraoperative transfusion requirements. Thirty-one patients experienced liver failure with no differences between LMH and LEMH groups. Postoperative mortality was comparable in the two groups [3 (2.5%) LMH patients vs. 2 (5%) LEMH patients (p = 0.388)]. Overall morbidity was higher in the LEMH group [49 LMH patients (41.5%) vs. 24 LEMH patients (60%) (p = 0.052)]. Patients treated with left LEMH experienced more biliary leakage (p = 0.011) and more major pulmonary complications (p = 0.015) than left LMH.

CONCLUSION

LEMH is feasible at the price of important morbidity, with manageable and acceptable outcomes. These exigent procedures require high-volume centers with experienced surgeons.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with augmented reality-assisted indocyanine green fluorescence versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis: A propensity analysis at a single center

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is considered an acceptable treatment of choice in selected patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether indocyanine green (ICG) immunofluorescence, a new technology, may improve surgery outcomes has yet to be tested. The aim of the present study was to investigate and compare the effect of ICG fluorescence imaging on the outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy for primary HCC with background cirrhosis.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2016, 20 patients with HCC and liver cirrhosis underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence. The outcomes of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence were compared with those of open hepatectomy. To avoid selection bias, patients were propensity score matched in a ratio of 1 : 6, with 20 patients in the laparoscopic group and 120 in the open group.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had 20 patients, and the open group had 120 patients. The laparoscopic group had less blood loss (125 vs 450 mL, P < 0.001), a shorter operation time (200 vs 250 min, P = 0.003), and a shorter hospital stay (5 vs 6 days, P < 0.001). The complication rate was 0% in the laparoscopic group compared to 15.0% in the open group (P = 0.135). All patients in the laparoscopic group had negative margin involvement. Four patients (3.3%) in the open resection group had positive margin involvement. Two patients in the ICG immunofluorescence group had additional lesions identified and resected during operation.

CONCLUSION

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICG immunofluorescence for primary HCC can be carried out safely with favorable short-term outcomes even in cirrhotic patients. Better identification of the bile duct structure and better assessment of the tumor resection margin and perfusion are advantages of this new technique.

Long-term results of laparoscopic liver resection for the primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: role of the surgeon in anatomical resection

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a potentially curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LLR is a newly developed and safe technique associated with shorter hospital stay, less pain, better cosmetic outcomes, and similar complication rates as open surgery; however, data on its long-term outcomes remain scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the clinical and follow-up data of 234 patients who underwent LLR (performed by a single surgeon in all cases) for the primary treatment of HCC between July 2007 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 55.63 (range 31-76) years; 167 were men. The median follow-up duration was 38 (range 6-116) months. A total of 227 patients (97.0%) had Child-Turcotte-Pugh grade A disease. Of them, 167 (71.4%) underwent anatomical resections and 63 (28.6%) underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomies. Overall survival rates were 98.3, 91.7, and 87.1%, and recurrence-free survival rates were 82.1, 67.5, and 55.3% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, anatomical resection was a risk factor for recurrence (univariate analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.75; p = 0.001; multivariate analysis: HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is an acceptable primary treatment for patients with HCC with good hepatic function and with an appropriate anatomical structure, and is associated with improved prognosis. LLR can achieve lower recurrence rates through anatomical resection.

Prediction of major complications after hepatectomy using liver stiffness values determined by magnetic resonance elastography

BACKGROUND

Liver fibrosis is a risk factor for hepatectomy but cannot be determined accurately before hepatectomy because diagnostic procedures are too invasive. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) can determine liver stiffness (LS), a surrogate marker for assessing liver fibrosis, non-invasively. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the LS value determined by MRE is predictive of major complications after hepatectomy.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled consecutive patients who underwent hepatic resection between April 2013 and August 2016. LS values were measured by imaging shear waves by MRE in the liver before hepatectomy. The primary endpoint was major complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or above. Logistic regression analysis identified independent predictive factors, from which a logistic model to estimate the probability of major complications was constructed.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients were included in the study. Major complications were observed in 15 patients (16 per cent). Multivariable logistic analysis confirmed that higher LS value (P = 0·021) and serum albumin level (P = 0·009) were independent predictive factors for major complications after hepatectomy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the best LS cut-off value was 4·3 kPa for detecting major complications, comparable to liver fibrosis grade F4, with a sensitivity of 80 per cent and specificity of 82 per cent. A logistic model using the LS value and serum albumin level to estimate the probability of major complications was constructed; the area under the ROC curve for predicting major complications was 0·84.

CONCLUSION

The LS value determined by MRE in patients undergoing hepatectomy was an independent predictive factor for major complications.

Laparoscopic liver resection: the current status and the future

Dramatic progresses had been made in the operation in the past 26 years. Procedure was extended to major liver resection, isolated resection of caudate lobe, living donor liver resection and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). Laparoscopic liver resection became a new group of HPB surgery and the international laparoscopic liver society was established in Paris followed by the first international congress of the society held in Paris in July 2017. This biannual congress would be top convention for surgeons specialized in laparoscopic liver surgery. The advantage of laparoscopic liver resection had been recognized by patients and surgeons and is gradually replacing conventional open liver resection in some experienced institutes worldwide. Most procedures, such as laparoscopic local resection and left lateral segmentectomy, could be routinely performed, but some procedures including laparoscopic hemihepatectomy still need to be further evaluated. For now, the establishment of a training system for laparoscopic liver surgeons became the most important issue for the popularization of laparoscopic liver resection.

Initial experience with purely laparoscopic living-donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

There may be concerns about purely laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) compared with open donor right hepatectomy, especially when performed by surgeons accustomed to open surgery. This study aimed to describe technical tips and pitfalls in PLDRH.

METHODS

Data from donors who underwent PLDRH at Seoul National University Hospital between December 2015 and July 2017 were analysed retrospectively. Endpoints analysed included intraoperative events and postoperative complications. All operations were performed by a single surgeon with considerable experience in open living donor hepatectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 26 donors underwent purely laparoscopic right hepatectomy in the study interval. No donor required transfusion during surgery, whereas two underwent reoperation. In two donors, the dissection plane at the right upper deep portion of the midplane was not correct. One donor experienced portal vein injury during caudate lobe transection, and one developed remnant left hepatic duct stenosis. One donor experienced remnant portal vein angulation owing to a different approach angle, and one experienced arterial damage associated with the use of a laparoscopic energy device. One donor had postoperative bleeding due to masking of potential bleeding foci owing to intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Two donors experienced right liver surface damage caused by a xiphoid trocar.

CONCLUSION

Purely laparoscopic donor hepatectomy differs from open donor hepatectomy in terms of angle and caudal view. Therefore, surgeons experienced in open donor hepatectomy must gain adequate experience in laparoscopic liver surgery and make adjustments when performing PLDRH.

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.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality case-matched studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2017 comparing LH and OH for HCC were identified. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) with case-matched design was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. Morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, margin distance, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the surgical extension (minor or major hepatectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty studies with a total of 830 patients (388 in LH and 442 in OH) were identified. For short-term surgical outcomes, LH showed less morbidity (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47~0.65; P < 0.01), less mortality (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18~1.00; P = 0.05), less blood loss (WMD = -93.21 ml, 95% CI, -157.33~-29.09 ml; P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95% CI, -3.63~-2.08; P < 0.01), and comparable operation time (WMD = 9.15 min; 95% CI: -7.61~25.90, P = 0.28). As to oncological outcomes, 5-year overall survival rate was slightly better in LH than OH (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52~0.84, P < 0.01), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between two groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74~1.06, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis has highlighted that LH can be safely performed in selective patients and improves surgical outcomes as compared to OH. Given the limitations of study design, especially the limited cases of major hepatectomy, methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

Highlights of the Third Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy; Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017

The application of laparoscopy for liver surgery is rapidly increasing and the past few years have demonstrated a shift in paradigm with a trend towards more extended and complex resections. The development of instruments and technical refinements with the effective use of magnified caudal laparoscopic views have contributed to the ability to overcome the limitation of laparoscopic liver resection. The Endoscopic and Laparoscopic Surgeons of Asia (ELSA) Visionary Summit 2017 and the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy organized hepatobiliary pancreatic sessions in order to exchange surgical tips and tricks and discuss the current status and future perspectives of laparoscopic hepatectomy. This report summarizes the oral presentations given at the 3^rd Expert Forum of Asia-Pacific Laparoscopic Hepatectomy.

Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy

AIM

To evaluate the clinical advantages of single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (SPLH) compare to multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (MPLH).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 246 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between January 2008 and December 2015 at our hospital. We divided the surgical technique into two groups; SPLH and MPLH. We performed laparoscopic liver resection for both benign and malignant disease. Major hepatectomy such as right and left hepatectomy was also done with sufficient disease-free margin. The operative time, the volume of blood loss, transfusion rate, and the conversion rate to MPLH or open surgery was evaluated. The post-operative parameters included the meal start date after operation, the number of postoperative days spent in the hospital, and surgical complications was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 246 patients, 155 patients underwent SPLH and 91 patients underwent MPLH. Conversion rate was 22.6% in SPLH and 19.8% in MPLH (P = 0.358). We performed major hepatectomy, which was defined as resection of more than 2 sections, in 13.5% of patients in the SPLH group and in 13.3% of patients in the MPLH group (P = 0.962). Mean operative time was 136.9 ± 89.2 min in the SPLH group and 231.2 ± 149.7 min in the MPLH group (P < 0.001). The amount of blood loss was 385.1 ± 409.3 mL in the SPLH group and 559.9 ± 624.9 mL in the MPLH group (P = 0.016). The safety resection margin did not show a significant difference (0.84 ± 0.84 cm in SPLH vs 1.04 ± 1.22 cm in MPLH, P = 0.704). Enteral feeding was started earlier in the SPLH group (1.06 ± 0.27 d after operation) than in the MPLH group (1.63 ± 1.27 d) (P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay after operation was non-significantly shorter in the SPLH group than in the MPLH group (7.82 ± 2.79 d vs 7.97 ± 3.69 d, P = 0.744). The complication rate was not significantly different (P = 0.397) and there was no major perioperative complication or mortality case in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery seems to be a feasible approach for various kinds of liver diseases.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains uncertain in current liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant publications. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Continuous variables were calculated by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas dichotomous variables were calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible studies with 1130 patients were identified, of which 455 (40.3%) patients in the LMH group and 675 (59.7%) patients in the OMH group. LMH was associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18, p < .00001), less transfusion requirement (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.29-0.82, p = .007), decreased postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.76, p = .0001), and shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.24, p < .0001) when compared with the OMH group. But the operative time was significantly longer in LMH group (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.79-1.86, p = .01). Both the two groups achieved similar surgical margin and R0 resection rate for malignant lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LMH appeared to be feasible and safe in current liver surgery. LMH is associated with less blood loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncological outcomes compared with OMH.

Minimally invasive surgery as a treatment option for gastric cancer with liver metastasis: a comparison with open surgery

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive techniques advances, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative modality for advanced gastric cancer. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of MIS and conventional open surgery for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) in terms of safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

METHODS

This retrospective study used data from a prospective database at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. From January 2006 to June 2016, 53 gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis accepted radical gastrectomy combined with either or both hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases. The 53 patients enrolled in the study were divided into two groups: a conventional open surgery group (n = 42) and an MIS group (n = 11). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to overcome possible bias.

RESULTS

With PSM performed at a 1:3 ratio, 11 patients who received MIS were compared with 33 open surgery cases. Mean operation time was significantly longer for the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (301 vs. 236 min, P = 0.032), while the open surgery group had a larger estimated blood loss than the MIS group (421 vs. 196 ml, P = 0.019). Time to first flatus and postoperative complications, including Clavien-Dindo classification, were similar in the two groups. However, patients undergoing MIS had a significantly shorter time to first sips of water (P = 0.020) and soft diet (P = 0.020) compared with open surgery counterparts. Long-term outcomes were comparable between groups (P = 0.090) after adjustment by PSM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS achieved superior short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in GCLM patients. For experienced surgeons, both laparoscopic and robotic methods of MIS are reasonable approaches for the management of highly selected GCLM patients.

Comparison of acute kidney injury between open and laparoscopic liver resection: Propensity score analysis

The inflammatory response has been shown to be a major contributor to acute kidney injury. Considering that laparoscopic surgery is beneficial in reducing the inflammatory response, we compared the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury between laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection. Among 1173 patients who underwent liver resection surgery, 222 of 926 patients who underwent open liver resection were matched with 222 of 247 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection, by using propensity score analysis. The incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury assessed according to the creatinine criteria of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes definition was compared between those 1:1 matched groups. A total 77 (6.6%) cases of postoperative acute kidney injury occurred. Before matching, the incidence of acute kidney injury after laparoscopic liver resection was significantly lower than that after open liver resection [1.6% (4/247) vs. 7.9% (73/926), P < 0.001]. After 1:1 matching, the incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury was still significantly lower after laparoscopic liver resection than after open liver resection [1.8% (4/222) vs. 6.3% (14/222), P = 0.008; odds ratio 0.273, 95% confidence interval 0.088-0.842, P = 0.024]. The postoperative inflammatory marker was also lower in laparoscopic liver resection than in open liver resection in matched set data (white blood cell count 12.7 ± 4.0 × 103/μL vs. 14.9 ± 3.9 × 103/μL, P < 0.001). Our findings suggest that the laparoscopic technique, by decreasing the inflammatory response, may reduce the occurrence of postoperative acute kidney injury during liver resection surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Lesions Adjacent to Major Vessels: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for lesions adjacent to major vessels was still associated with difficulty and challenge. This study aimed to compare outcomes after LLR and open liver resection (OLR) of lesions adjacent to major vessels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with hepatic tumors close to main or second branches of Glisson's tree, to the major hepatic vein, or to the inferior vena cava within 1 cm between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed based on the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were then evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients underwent LLR and 86 patients had OLR. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 40 patients in each group were obtained. The operative time (240 versus 210 minutes, P = .012) in the LLR group was significantly longer than that in the OLR group, whereas blood loss (200 versus 400 mL, P = .003) was less in the laparoscopic group. The median hospital stay for LLR (6 versus 8 days, P = .032) was shorter than for the open procedure. No statistical differences was noted according to overall postoperative complications, but the OLR group tended to be vulnerable to more severe complications. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, the comparable oncological results in terms of 2-year overall survival (P = .898) and disease-free survival (P = .992) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for tumors adjacent to major vessels appears to be feasible and safe in selected patients. LLR is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared with OLR.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic left liver resections: how far can we go?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to analyse the outcomes of laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomies of the left liver segments.

METHODS

This is a retrospective multicentre study including all patients operated on laparoscopically divided into unisegmentectomy of 2, 3 or 4 (Group 1), left lobectomy (or left lateral sectionectomy LLS) (Group 2), left hepatectomy (Group 3) and extended left hepatectomy (Group 4) between 2000 and 2016. These four groups were compared in terms of demographics, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 190 selected patients, the groups 1, 2, 3, 4 included 25 (13.2%), 116 (61.0%), 27 (14.2%) and 22 (11.6%) patients, respectively. The cohorts were comparable except for the number of lesions (p = 0.001) and tumour diameter (p = 0.004). The operative time, blood loss and the use of vascular clamping were more frequent in the Groups 3 and 4 (p = 0.0001), as is the rate of conversion to laparotomy (p = 0.001). Total morbidity was 23.3%, and major complications were more frequent in Group 4 (p = 0.0001). The prevalence of hepatic complications (11.6%), intra-abdominal collections (7.4%) and respiratory complications (3.7%) was proportionally correlated to the hepatectomy extension (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

All laparoscopic left liver resections seem safe and feasible even though extended hepatectomy is associated with a significant morbidity.