The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg. 2009;250:772-782. [PMID: 19801926 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bd93b2]

Laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

The current treatment of HCC is truly multidisciplinary. Notwithstanding, surgical management remains the gold standard which other therapies are compared to. Operative management is divided into transplantation and resection; the latter is further subdivided among open and laparoscopic approaches. Resection has become safer, remains superior to locoregional treatments, and can be a life-prolonging bridge to transplantation. The decision to pursue laparoscopic resection for HCC is driven by safety and a view toward the long-term management of both the malignancy and the underlying liver disease. For patients with a solitary HCC <5 cm in segments 2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6, no evidence of extrahepatic tumor burden, compensated liver disease, and the absence of significant portal hypertension, laparoscopy has an important role. Under these circumstances, resection can be performed with reduced mortality and morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes, disease-free survival, and overall survival when compared with similarly selected cirrhotic patients undergoing open resection. Blood loss and transfusion requirements are low, and laparoscopy itself does not expose the patient to complications and does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence or dissemination. Finally, because HCC recurrence remains high in the cirrhotic liver, treatment following surgical resection mandates routine surveillance and treatment by locoregional therapy, reresection, or transplantation as required-the latter two of which are facilitated by an initial laparoscopic resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection for centrally located tumors close to the hilum, major hepatic veins, or inferior vena cava

BACKGROUND

Despite the accumulation of favorable results from laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), centrally located tumors close to the hilum, major hepatic veins, or inferior vena cava (IVC) are still considered contraindications for LLR. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of LLR for centrally located tumors.

METHODS

Of the 182 patients who underwent LLR for benign or malignant tumors between September 2003 and June 2010, the clinical outcomes of 13 patients with tumors within 1 cm or less of the major vascular structures, including the hilum, major hepatic veins, and IVC, were retrospectively analyzed. The perioperative outcomes of the patients were compared with those of the 23 patients who underwent open liver resection for tumors with similar criteria in terms of location and size during the same period.

RESULTS

Anatomic liver resection, including left and right hepatectomy, central bisectionectomy, right anterior and posterior sectionectomy, and extended S4 segementectomy, was performed in 10 patients. The remaining 3 patients underwent subsegmentectomy for tumors located in the Spiegel lobe of the caudate. There was no open conversion or postoperative mortality. Compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group showed similar rates of intraoperative transfusion, postoperative complications, and operative time. However, the laparoscopic group spent less time in the hospital postoperatively and had shorter resection margins. After a median follow-up of 34.3 months, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in reference to the overall survival rates and the disease-free survival rates.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that LLR can be safely performed in selected patients with centrally located tumors close to the liver hilum, the major hepatic veins, or the IVC that were previously considered to be contraindications for LLR. Recent technical developments in the performance of laparoscopic major liver resection may have contributed to the successful application of LLR for centrally located tumors.

Systematic review of robotic liver resection

Background

Robotic liver resection has emerged as a new modality in the field of minimally invasive surgery. However, the effectiveness of this approach for liver resection is not yet known.

Methods

A literature survey was performed using specific search phrases in PubMed. Case series that focused on biliary reconstruction were excluded. Characteristics, such as patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological results for colorectal liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma were analyzed.

Results

Nineteen series that described the cases of 217 eligible patients were reviewed. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy. Right hepatectomy was performed in a few specialized centers. The conversion and complication rates were 4.6 and 20.3 %, respectively. The most common reason for conversion was unclear tumor margin. Intra-abdominal fluid collection was the most frequently occurring morbidity. Mean operation time was 200–507 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–660 mL, with a tendency toward increased blood loss observed in series that included major hepatectomies. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.5–11.7 days. The longest mean follow-up time was 36 months for colorectal liver metastasis and 25.1 months in hepatocellular carcinoma. Disease-free survival for mixed malignancies was comparable to that after laparoscopic procedures. Overall survival was not reported.

Conclusions

Robotic liver resection is safe and feasible for experienced surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills. Long-term oncologic outcomes are unclear, but short-term perioperative results seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was made comparing robotic (n = 11) and laparoscopic (n = 18) LLS performed at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center between January 2009 and July 2011. Demographic data, operative, and postoperative outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Demographic and tumor characteristics of robotic and laparoscopic LLS were similar. There were also no significant differences in operative outcomes including estimated blood loss and operating room time. Patients undergoing robotic LLS had more admissions to the ICU (46 versus 6 %), increased rate of minor complications (27 versus 0 %), and longer lengths of stay (4 versus 3 days). There were no significant differences in major complication rates or 90-day mortality. The cost of robotic and laparoscopic LLS was not significantly different when only considering direct costs ($5,130 versus $4,408, p = 0.401). However, robotic LLS costs were significantly greater when including indirect costs, which were estimated to be $1,423 per robotic case ($6,553 versus $4,408, p = 0.021).

DISCUSSION

Robotic LLS yields slightly inferior clinical outcomes and increased cost compared to the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher incident frequency in hepatolithiasis patients

PURPOSES

The primary concern regarding laparoscopic hepatectomy in hepatolithiasis patients is surgical safety, which may be high in current practice.

METHODS

Hepatolithiasis patients who underwent laparoscopic and laparotomic hepatectomies were retrospectively studies after being matched for age, location of gallstones, liver resection and underlying liver conditions at a ratio of 1:1 (n = 44 in each group). The rates of intraoperative incidents and postoperative complications were examined using validated classification and grading systems. The primary outcome measure was the procedure-related complication/mortality rate.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy was converted to open surgery in three patients (6.8 %). The length of the operation for laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly longer than that for laparotomic hepatectomy (277.5 min [range, 190-410 min] vs. 212.5 min [140-315 min], P < 0.001). The two groups had similar intraoperative blood loss (367.5 mL [150-1200 mL] vs. 392.5 mL [200-1400 mL], P > 0.05) and transfusion frequencies (13.6 vs. 18.2 %, P > 0.05). The laparoscopy group had a higher percentage of patients with at least one intraoperative incident compared with the laparotomy group (22.7 vs. 6.8 %; P < 0.05). Vascular events occurred in nine patients (20.5 %) undergoing laparoscopy and two patients (4.5 %) undergoing laparotomy (OR 5.4 [95 %CI, 1.1-26.7], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative vascular incidents in hepatolithiasis patients compared wit laparotomy.

Has laparoscopy increased surgical indications for benign tumors of the liver?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to analyze the risk of an increased surgical indication rate in patients with benign tumors of the liver since the development of laparoscopy. Previous articles have reported increased numbers of laparoscopic procedures in different surgical fields.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, and The Cochrane Library was carried out. All articles that analyzed benign liver tumors (hemangiomas, focal nodular hyperplasia, and adenoma) were divided in two groups: group I included all manuscripts with open procedures between 1971 at 1990, and group II included all manuscripts with open or laparoscopic procedures between 1991 and 2010. Group II articles were divided into two subgroups. Subgroup IIA patients were treated by open or laparoscopic procedures between 1991 and 2000, and subgroup IIB patients were treated by open or laparoscopic procedures between 2001 and 2010.

RESULTS

Specific analysis of each kind of tumor observed in the two groups showed fewer surgically treated patients for hepatic hemangioma and hepatic adenoma in group II compared with group I and a greater number of patients for focal nodular hyperplasia. Fewer patients were treated with laparoscopic procedures in subgroup IIA than in subgroup IIB. A chi-square test with Yates' correction gave a P value of <0.001.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy has increased the rate of hepatic resection for benign tumors with doubtful indications.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Current role and limitations

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for the treatment of benign and malignant liver lesions is often performed at specialized centers. Technological advances, such as laparoscopic ultrasonography and electrosurgical tools, have afforded surgeons simultaneous improvements in surgical technique. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques for liver resection has been reported to reduce operative time, decrease blood loss, and shorten length of hospital stay with equivalent postoperative mortality and morbidity rates compared to open liver resection (OLR). Non-anatomic liver resection and left lateral sectionectomy are now routinely performed laparoscopically at many institutions. Furthermore, major hepatic resections are performed by pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted technique, and the hybrid method. In addition, robotic surgery and single port surgery are revealing early promising results. The consensus recommendation for the treatment of benign liver disease and malignant lesions remains unchanged when considering a laparoscopic approach, except when comorbidities and anatomic limitations of the liver lesion preclude this technique. Disease free and survival rates after LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colon cancer correspond to OLR. Patient selection is a significant factor for these favorable outcomes. The limitations include LLR of superior and posterior liver lesions; however, adjustments in technique may now consider a laparoscopic approach as a viable option. As growing data continue to reveal the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery, this skill is increasingly being adopted by hepatobiliary surgeons. Although the full scope of laparoscopic liver surgery remains infrequently used by many general surgeons, this technique will become a standard in the treatment of liver diseases as studies continue to show favorable outcomes.

Safety of living donor liver transplantation using older donors

BACKGROUND

There is limited information concerning older donors in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). In the present study, we attempted to clarify whether it is safe to use older donors in LDLT.

METHODS

A total of 129 cases were reviewed in the present study. Donors and recipients were divided into group A (donors aged ≥ 50 y, n=21) and group B (donors aged <50 y, n=108). The pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables of the two groups were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Donors' complication rates were 38.10% and 28.70% for groups A and B, respectively (P=0.719). The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y survival rates were 90%, 80%, and 66% for group A and 86%, 83%, and 75% for group B, respectively (P=0.573). Similar Clavien III or more complication rates for recipients were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggested that LDLT using older donors had no negative influence on the outcomes of both donors and recipients.

A learning curve for living donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

The number of living donor liver transplantations performed has increased rapidly in many Eastern transplant centres. However, the impact of the transplant centres' experience and learning on the transplant outcomes are not well established. Aim of the study was to evaluate the learning curve for living donor liver transplantation in our centre.

METHODS

Data from 156 recipients and 156 donors who underwent surgery were reviewed. Intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes of both donors and recipients were retrospectively analysed. Recipients and donors were divided into three groups that consisted of 52 consecutive cases each.

RESULTS

Surgical duration and intraoperative blood loss during donor surgery were decreased significantly between the earlier and the more recent cases (423±39 vs. 400±44 min and 959±523 vs. 731±278 mL, respectively; P<0.01). Rates of postoperative complications and functional changes were not statistically different amongst the three donor groups. Immediate complication rate of the first 52 recipients was higher than those of the second and third cohorts. Long-term survival rates of the three recipient groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve greatly influenced immediate outcomes of recipients during the early transplant period. However, it had little influence on donor outcome; long-term outcome improvement of recipients did not depend on the accumulation of experience alone.

Open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery ERAS® programme (ORANGE II-trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

The use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial.

Methods

Patients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)).

The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224.

Analysis of infections in the first 3-month after living donor liver transplantation

AIM: To identify factors related to serious postoperative bacterial and fungal infections in the first 3 mo after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).

METHODS: In the present study, the data of 207 patients from 2004 to 2011 were reviewed. The pre-, intra- and post-operative factors were statistically analyzed. All transplantations were approved by the ethics committee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. Patients with definitely preoperative infections and infections within 48 h after transplantation were excluded from current study. All potential risk factors were analyzed using univariate analyses. Factors significant at a P < 0.10 in the univariate analyses were involved in the multivariate analyses. The diagnostic accuracy of the identified risk factors was evaluated using receiver operating curve.

RESULTS: The serious bacterial and fungal infection rates were 14.01% and 4.35% respectively. Enterococcus faecium was the predominant bacterial pathogen, whereas Candida albicans was the most common fungal pathogen. Lung was the most common infection site for both bacterial and fungal infections. Recipient age older than 45 years, preoperative hyponatremia, intensive care unit stay longer than 9 d, postoperative bile leak and severe hyperglycemia were independent risk factors for postoperative bacterial infection. Massive red blood cells transfusion and postoperative bacterial infection may be related to postoperative fungal infection.

CONCLUSION: Predictive risk factors for bacterial and fungal infections were indentified in current study. Pre-, intra- and post-operative factors can cause postoperative bacterial and fungal infections after LDLT.

Minimally invasive evaluation and treatment of colorectal liver metastases

Minimally invasive techniques used in the evaluation and treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) include ultrasonography (US), computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, percutaneous and operative ablation therapy, standard laparoscopic techniques, robotic techniques, and experimental techniques of natural orifice endoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic techniques range from simple staging laparoscopy with or without laparoscopic intraoperative US, through intermediate techniques including simple liver resections (LRs), to advanced techniques such as major hepatectomies. Hereins, we review minimally invasive evaluation and treatment of CRLM, focusing on a comparison of open LR (OLR) and minimally invasive LR (MILR). Although there are no randomized trials comparing OLR and MILR, nonrandomized data suggest that MILR compares favorably with OLR regarding morbidity, mortality, LOS, and cost, although significant selection bias exists. The future of MILR will likely include expanding criteria for resectability of CRLM and should include both a patient registry and a formalized process for surgeon training and credentialing.

Robotic liver resection: technique and results of 30 consecutive procedures

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery can enhance a surgeon's laparoscopic skills through a magnified three-dimensional view and instruments with seven degrees of freedom compared to conventional laparoscopy.

METHODS

This study reviewed a single surgeon's experience of robotic liver resections in 30 consecutive patients, focusing on major hepatectomy. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative and short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 52.4 years and 14 were male. There were 21 malignant tumors and 9 benign lesions. There were 6 right hepatectomies, 14 left hepatectomies, 4 left lateral sectionectomies, 2 segmentectomies, and 4 wedge resections. The average operating time for the right and left hepatectomies was 724 min (range 648-812) and 518 min (range 315-763), respectively. The average estimated blood loss in the right and left hepatectomies was 629 ml (range 100-1500) and 328 ml (range 150-900), respectively. Four patients (14.8%) received perioperative transfusion. There were two conversions to open surgery (one right hepatectomy and one left hepatectomy). The overall complication rate was 43.3% (grade I, 5; grade II, 2; grade III, 6; grade IV, 0) and 40% in 20 patients who underwent major hepatectomy. Among the six (20.0%) grade III complications, a liver resection-related complication (bile leakage) occurred in two patients. The mean length of hospital stay was 11.7 days (range 5-46). There was no recurrence in the 13 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma during the median follow-up of 11 months (range 5-29).

CONCLUSIONS

From our experience, robotic liver resection seems to be a feasible and safe procedure, even for major hepatectomy. Robotic surgery can be considered a new advanced option for minimally invasive liver surgery.

Laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery for left-lateral hepatic sectionectomy as an alternative to traditional laparoscopy: case-matched analysis from a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is considered the "gold standard" to perform left-lateral sectionectomy with results identical to those of open surgery, yielding decreased postoperative pain and disability, reduced hospital stay, and shortened patient recovery time. As the emphasis on minimizing the invasiveness of surgical techniques continues, laparoendoscopic single site (LESS) surgery is quickly evolving. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic left-lateral sectionectomy performed using the traditional approach or LESS approach with a case-matched analysis for tumor size, type of resection, and surgical indications.

METHODS

Thirteen patients who underwent LESS left-lateral sectionectomy are considered the study group (LESS group) and compared with 13 patients who underwent left-lateral sectionectomy with traditional laparoscopic approach (conventional group).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between groups for length of surgery (165 min in conventional group vs. 195 min in LESS group), blood loss (150 mL in conventional group vs. 175 mL in LESS group), conversion to open surgery, histological tumor exposure, and requirements of postoperative analgesics. One patient in the LESS group died of cardiac failure due to an unknown severe aortic valve stenosis. No differences were recorded for postoperative complications (23.1% in both groups) and median length of postoperative stay (4 days in both groups).

CONCLUSIONS

For left-lateral hepatic sectionectomy, LESS surgery is technically feasible and as safe as traditional laparoscopic surgery in terms of intraoperative and postoperative results, even though requiring both hepatobiliary and laparoscopic technique experience.

Current state of surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer

Hepatic resection is the procedure of choice for curative treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Objectives of surgical strategy are low intraoperative blood loss, short liver ischemic times and minor postoperative morbidity and mortality. Blood loss is an independent predictor of mortality and compromises, in common with postoperative complications, long-term outcome after hepatectomy for CLM. The type of liver resection has no impact on the outcome of patients with CLM; wedge resections are not inferior to anatomical resections in terms of tumor clearance, pattern of recurrence or survival. Despite the lack of proof of survival benefit, routine lymphadenectomy has been advocated, allowing the detection of microscopic lymph node metastases and with prognostic value. In experienced hands, minimally invasive liver surgery is safe with acceptable morbidity and mortality and oncological results comparable to open hepatic surgery, but with reduced blood loss and earlier recovery. The European Colorectal Metastases Treatment Group recommended treating up front with chemotherapy for patients with both resectable and unresectable CLM. However, neoadjuvant chemotherapy can induce damage to the remnant liver, dependent on the number of chemotherapy cycles. Therefore, in our opinion, preoperative chemotherapy should be reserved for patients whose CLM are marginally resectable or unresectable. A meta analysis of randomized trials dealing with perioperative chemotherapy for the treatment of resectable CLM demonstrated a benefit of systemic chemotherapy but did not answer the question of whether a neoadjuvant or adjuvant approach should be preferred. Analysis of the literature demonstrates that the results of specialized centers cannot be attained in the reality of comprehensive patient care. Reasons behind the commonly poorer results seen in cancer networks as compared with literature-based data are, on the one hand, geographical disparities in access to specialized surgical and medical care. On the other hand, a selection bias in the reports of the literature may be assumed. Studies of surgical resection for CLM derive almost exclusively from case series generally drawn from large academic centers where patient selection or surgical expertise is superior to what is found in many communities. Therefore, we may conclude that the comprehensive propagation of the standards outlined in this paper constitutes a major task in the near future to reduce the variations in survival of patients with CLM.

Simultaneous left colectomy and standard hepatectomy reformed by laparoscopy

Laparoscopic approaches have been increasingly used in patients with colorectal or liver cancer. Simultaneous colectomy and hepatectomy are considered safe techniques and present similar oncological results regardless of the location of the primary tumor when there are fewer than four liver metastases, since there is no increase in morbidity or decrease in survival. The development of laparoscopic techniques and materials has made the combined resection of the colon and liver a very attractive option. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the synchronous resection of the sigmoid tumor and single liver metastasis treated by purely laparoscopic colectomy and liver left lateral sectorectomy.

Laparoscopic liver resection

More than 3,000 laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are performed worldwide for benign disease, malignancy, and living donor hepatectomy. Minimally invasive hepatic resection approaches include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and a laparoscopic-assisted open "hybrid" approach, where the operation is started laparoscopically to mobilize the liver and begin the dissection, followed by a small laparotomy for completion of the parenchymal transection. Surgeons should have an advanced understanding of hepatic anatomy, extensive experience in open liver surgery, and technical skill to control major vascular and biliary structures laparoscopically before embarking on LLR. Although there is no absolute size criterion, smaller, peripheral lesions (<5 cm) that lie far from major vessels and anticipated transection planes are most amenable to LLR. Although the majority of reported LLR are non-anatomic resections or segmentectomies, several surgical groups are now performing laparoscopic major hepatic resections with excellent safety profiles. Patient benefits from LLR include less operative blood loss, less postoperative pain and narcotic requirement, and a shorter length of hospital stay, with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resection. Comparison studies between LLR and open resection have revealed no differences in width of resection margins for malignant lesions or overall survival after resection for hepatocellular cancer or colorectal cancer liver metastases. Advantages of LLR for HCC in particular include avoidance of collateral vessel ligation, decreased postoperative hepatic insufficiency, and fewer postoperative adhesions, all of which are features that enhance subsequent liver transplantation.

Liver resection without pedicle clamping: feasibility and need for "salvage clamping". Looking for the right clamping policy. Analysis of 512 consecutive resections

BACKGROUND

Pedicle clamping during liver resection (LR) is debated. The purpose of this study is to validate non-clamping policy across a large series of LR and to evaluate the need for salvage clamping (SC) and its outcomes.

METHODS

Five hundred twelve consecutive LR without initial pedicle clamping performed between 2004 and 2009 were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 512 LR (171 major hepatectomies), 90.2% were completed without clampage. Fifty (9.8%) required SC. Blood loss were higher in SC group (555 vs. 175 mL, p < 0.0001), while transfusion rate was not. No differences were observed in terms of mortality (0%/1.3%), morbidity (38%/38.3%), liver dysfunction (4%/3.7%), and renal dysfunction (0%/1.3%). Bile leak rate was increased in the SC group (20%/10.2%, p = 0.036). At multivariate analysis, three predictive factors of SC were identified: arterial hypertension (p = 0.007, SC rate = 13%), cirrhosis (p = 0.003, SC rate = 26%), and LR conducted along the right portal scissure (p = 0.010, SC rate = 32%). One protective factor was identified: LR confined to antero-lateral segments (Sg2-6, p = 0.001, SC rate  = 2%). Extension of LR had no impact on need for SC.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of LR can be safely performed without clamping with excellent outcomes. SC is a safe procedure and does not worsen postoperative outcomes, except for bile leak rate. Clamping policy should be tailored to the type of LR and presence of cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: a challenging, but feasible, safe and efficient procedure

BACKGROUND

Few centers are undertaking major laparoscopic liver resections, because of the well-recognized technical difficulties and lack of training opportunities.

METHODS

The authors describe their technique for laparoscopic right hepatectomy, highlighting relevant details for accomplishing a safe and efficient procedure. Patients were chronologically divided into 2 groups to evaluate the impact of increasing experience on the surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Group I included 17 patients and group II 18 patients. The conversion rate to open or hybrid techniques significantly decreased from 36% in group I to 6% in group II (P = .03). The hospital stay decreased from a median of 6 days in group I to a median of 4 days in group II (P = .05). Complications occurred in 4 patients (11%), of whom 3 were in group I. The mortality was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy is a safe and efficient procedure when performed at specialized centers with extensive experience in hepatic surgery. Long-term training is necessary to acquire adequate expertise.

Laparoscopic liver resection: an examination of our first 300 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is a procedure in evolution. In the last decade it has evolved from a novel procedure to a standard part of the hepatic surgeon's armamentarium. Few data exist on the development of a laparoscopic resection program.

STUDY DESIGN

With IRB approval, a retrospective review of 300 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections was undertaken. To determine changing results and patterns of practice, the cohort was divided into 3 consecutive groups of 100 patients. Patient demographics, indications for operation, operative factors, and in-hospital outcomes were examined. Continuous variables were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis test; continuous variables were compared with Fisher's exact test. Univariate and multivariate analyses of major complications (≥grade 3) were performed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 300 patients, 173 (61.6%) were female, with a median age of 54 years. There were 133 (44.3%) major resections. The median number of segments resected increased (3 vs 2, p = 0.015), as did the percentage of repeat hepatectomies (13.0% vs 2.0%, p = 0.001). At the same time, median operative time decreased (2.25 vs 3.0 hours, p < 0.001).and estimated blood loss was similar (150 mL vs 150 mL, p = 0.635). Morbidity was similar (11% vs 14%, p = 0.300), as was mortality (1% vs 3%, p = 0.625).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection has evolved from a novel procedure to a vital technique in liver surgery. Our group has demonstrated the ability over time to perform more difficult resections with similar morbidity and decreased operative length.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers

Laparoscopic liver resection (LHR) has shown classical advantages of minimally invasive surgery over open counterpart. In spite of introduction in early 1990's only few centres worldwide adapted LHR to routine practice. It was due to considerable technical challenges and uncertainty about oncologic outcomes. Surgical instrumentation and accumulation of surgical experience has largely enabled to solve many technical considerations. Intraoperative navigation options have also been improved. Consequently indications have been drastically expanded nearly reaching criteria equal to open liver resection in expert centres. Recent studies have verified oncologic integrity of LHR. However, mastering of LHR is still a quite demanding task limiting expansion of this patient friendly technique. This emphasizes the necessity of systematic training for laparoscopic liver surgery. This article reviews the state of the art of laparoscopic liver surgery lightening burning issues of research and clinical practice.

Lessons learned from 100 initial cases of laparoscopic liver surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely accepted and is being increasingly performed. The present study describes our experience with LLR at a single center over an eight-year period.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 100 patients between October 2002 and February 2010. Forty-six benign lesions and 54 malignant lesions were included. The LLR performed included 58 pure laparoscopy procedures, 18 hand-assisted laparoscopy procedures and 24 hybrid technique procedures.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 57 years; among these patients, 31 were over 65 years of age. The mean operation time was 220 minutes. The overall morbidity was 11% and the mortality was zero. Among the 20 patients with simple hepatic cysts, 50% unexpectedly recurred. Among the 41 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, 21 patients (51%) underwent preoperative radiofrequency ablation therapy or transarterial chemoembolization. During parenchymal-transection, 11 received blood transfusion. The width of the resection margins was under 0.5 cm in 11 cases (27%); 0.5 to 1 cm in 22 cases (54%) and over 1 cm in eight cases (12%). There was no port site seeding, but argon beam coagulation-induced tumor dissemination was observed in two cases. The overall two-year survival rate was 75%.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the applications for LLR can be gradually expanded when assuring that the safety and curability of LLR are equivalent to that of open liver resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection is an emerging technique in liver surgery. Although laparoscopy is well established for several abdominal procedures and is considered by some the preferred approach, laparoscopic hepatic resection has been introduced into clinical practice more widely since 2000. These procedures are performed only in experienced centers and only in a select group of patients. While initially performed only for benign hepatic lesions, the indications for laparoscopic resection have gradually broadened to encompass all kinds of malignant hepatic lesions, including hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis, for whom the advantages of the minimally invasive approach may be most evident.

Single-centre comparative study of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Expansion of laparoscopic major hepatectomy is still limited mainly due to the well-recognised technical difficulties compared to open surgery, and doubts regarding the oncological efficiency when major resections are required.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open right hepatectomy (ORH) were matched with patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and compared for perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included: 36 patients underwent LRH and 34 ORH. Operative time was significantly longer for LRH (median, 300 min vs. 180 min for ORH; p < 0.0001). Intensive care unit (median, 2 days for LRH vs. 4 days for ORH; p < 0.0001) and postoperative length of stay (5 days for LRH vs. 9 days for ORH; p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter for LRH. Four laparoscopic cases were converted to open surgery. No significant difference in postoperative complications and mortality was observed between LRH and ORH. Among patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastases, R0 resection was obtained in 20/21 (95%) cases after LRH, and in 20/25 (80%) after ORH (p = 0.198). Mid-term overall survival did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic and the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH can be a safe, effective, and oncologically efficient alternative to open resection in selected cases. Extensive experience in hepatic and laparoscopic surgery is required.

Is laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy feasible? A tri-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach has not been advocated for repeat hepatectomy on a large scale. This report analyzes the experience of 3 institutions pioneering laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, oncologic integrity, and outcomes of LRLR.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients undergoing LRLR were identified. Since 1997, 76 LRLRs have been attempted. Operative indications were metastasis (n = 63), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 3), and benign tumors (n = 10). All patients had 1 or more earlier liver resections (28 open, 44 laparoscopic), including 16 major resections (en bloc removal of 3 or more Couinaud segments).

RESULTS

Eight conversions (11%) to open resections (n = 7) or radiofrequency ablation (n = 1) were required due to technical difficulties or hemorrhage. LRLRs included 49 wedge or segmental resections and 19 major hepatectomies. Median blood loss and operative time were 300 mL and 180 minutes. Patients with previous open liver resection (group B) experienced more intraoperative blood loss and transfusion requirements than those with earlier laparoscopic resections (group A) (p = 0.02; p = 0.01, respectively). R0 resection was achieved in 58 of 64 (91%) patients with malignant tumor. The incidence of postoperative complications and duration of hospital stay were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Bile leakages developed in 5 (6.6%) patients, including 1 requiring reoperation. There was no perioperative death. Median tumor size was 25 mm (range 5 to 125 mm) and the median number of tumors was 2 (range 1 to 7). Median follow-up was 23.5 months (range 0 to 86 months). There was no port-site metastasis. The 3- and 5-year actuarial survivals for patients with colorectal metastases were 83% and 55%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic repeat hepatic resections can be performed safely and with good results, particularly in patients with earlier laparoscopic resections.

Training minimal invasive approaches in hepatopancreatobilliary fellowship: the current status

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing role of advanced minimally invasive procedures in hepatopancreatobilliary (HPB) surgery. However, there are no set minimum laparoscopic case requirements.

METHODS

A 14-question electronic survey was sent to 82 worldwide HPB fellowship programme directors.

RESULTS

Forty-nine per cent (n=40) of the programme directors responded. The programmes were predominantly university based (83%). Programmes had either one (55%) or two fellows (40%) each year. Programmes (35-48%) had average annual volumes of 51-100 hepatic, 51-100 pancreatic and 25-50 biliary cases. For many programmes, <10% of hepatic (48%), pancreatic (40%) and biliary (70%) cases were done laparoscopically. The average annual fellow case volumes for hepatic, pancreatic and biliary surgeries were 25-50 (62%), 25-50 (47%) and <25 (50%), respectively. The average annual number of hepatic, pancreatic and biliary cases done laparoscopically by a fellow was 9, 9 and 4, which constitutes 36%, 36% and 16%, respectively, of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Billiary Association (IHPBA) requirement.

CONCLUSION

We surmise that the low average number of surgeries performed by minimally-invasive techniques by HPB fellows is not sufficient in today's practice. Should there be an increase in the minimal number of hepatic, pancreatic and complex biliary cases to 50, 50, and 25, with at least 50% of these performed laparoscopically?

Liver resection in obese patients: results of a case-control study

OBJECTIVES

Obesity has been associated with worse postoperative outcomes. No data are available regarding short-term results after liver resection (LR). The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m(2) ) undergoing LR.

METHODS

85 consecutive obese patients undergoing LR between 1998 and 2008 were matched on a ratio of 1:2 with 170 non-obese patients. Matching criteria were diagnosis, ASA score, METAVIR fibrosis score, extent of LR, and Child-Pugh score in patients with cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Operative time, blood loss and blood transfusions were similar in the two groups. Mortality was 2.4% in both groups. Morbidity was significantly higher in the obese group (32.9% vs. 21.2%; P= 0.041). However, only grade II morbidity was increased in obese patients (14.1% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001) and this was mainly related to abdominal wall complications (8.2% vs. 2.4%; P= 0.046). No differences were encountered in terms of grade III or IV morbidity. The same results were observed in major LR and cirrhotic patients. When patients were stratified by BMI (<20, 20-25, 25-30 and >30 kg/m(2) ), progressive increases in overall and infectious morbidity were observed (5.6%, 22.4%, 23.7%, 32.9%, and 5.6%, 11.8%, 14.5%, 18.8%, respectively). Rates of grade III and IV morbidity did not change.

DISCUSSION

Obese patients have increased postoperative morbidity after LR in comparison with non-obese patients, but this is mainly related to minor abdominal wall complications. Severe morbidity rates and mortality are similar to those in non-obese patients, even in cirrhosis or after major LR.

Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary colorectal cancer and metastatic liver tumor: initial experience of single institute

BACKGROUND

Approximately 20%-25% of patients with colorectal cancer have synchronous liver metastasis at the time of diagnosis. Simultaneous resection of primary colorectal cancer and metastatic liver tumor is the treatment option in colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. The aim of this study was to report our initial experiences of simultaneous laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastasis.

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study of 10 cases of laparoscopic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastasis was carried out.

RESULTS

The patients' average age was 63.7 years (range, 48-75 years) and average body mass index was 23.5 kg/m2(range, 20-27.4 kg/m2). The primary cancer was right-sided colon cancer in 4 cases, left-sided colon cancer in 3 cases, and rectal cancer in 3 cases. Single-lesion liver metastasis was found in 6 cases and two or more lesion liver metastasis was found in 4 cases. The mean operating time was 401 minutes (range, 230-620 minutes) and blood loss was 500 mL (range, 60-1000 mL). The mean hospital stay was 10 days (range, 7-15 days). One case was converted to open surgery and anastomotic leakage was encountered in the converted case.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary colorectal cancer and liver metastasis is safe and technically feasible in selected patients.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastases

The role of laparoscopic liver resection for cancer remains controversial. This review summarizes the expanding literature on outcomes of minimally invasive hepatic resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Four recent studies (in more than 300 patients) show 5-year overall-survival rates of 46-64%, which are comparable to results in modern open hepatic resection series. The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection include smaller incisions, less pain, less narcotic requirements, and shorter length of stay.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and future development-improved outcomes with surgical resection

Currently, surgical resection is the treatment strategy offering the best long-term outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Especially for advanced HCC, surgical resection is the only strategy that is potentially curative, and the indications for surgical resection have expanded concomitantly with the technical advances in hepatectomy. A major problem is the high recurrence rate even after curative resection, especially in the remnant liver. Although repeat hepatectomy may prolong survival, the suitability may be limited due to multiple tumor recurrence or background liver cirrhosis. Multimodality approaches combining other local ablation or systemic therapy may help improve the prognosis. On the other hand, minimally invasive, or laparoscopic, hepatectomy has become popular over the last decade. Although the short-term safety and feasibility has been established, the long-term outcomes have not yet been adequately evaluated. Liver transplantation for HCC is also a possible option. Given the current situation of donor shortage, however, other local treatments should be considered as the first choice as long as liver function is maintained. Non-transplant treatment as a bridge to transplantation also helps in decreasing the risk of tumor progression or death during the waiting period. The optimal timing for transplantation after HCC recurrence remains to be investigated.

Gasless laparoscopy-assisted surgery for intraabdominal/retroperitoneal tumor of unknown origin: a bridge between total laparoscopic surgery and conventional open surgery

INTRODUCTION

Gasless laparoscopy-assisted surgery has been utilized in many abdominal diseases, and it has been proved to be effective and efficient compared with conventional open surgery. The study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of gasless laparoscopy-assisted surgery in management of intraabdominal/retroperitoneal tumor of unknown origin.

METHODS

From June 2004 to April 2009, nine patients who underwent gasless laparoscopy-assisted surgery for intraabdominal/retroperitoneal tumor of unknown origin were recruited. Intraabdominal/retroperitoneal tumor of unknown origin was defined as (1) diagnosis of enlarged retroperitoneal lymph node; (2) evaluation of peritoneal or mesenteric lesion, or tumor of nondigestive systems; and (3) staging of intraabdominal malignancy.

RESULTS

Four patients underwent gasless laparoscopy-assisted surgery for retroperitoneal enlarged lymph nodes, four for evaluation of intraabdominal lesion, and two for staging of the malignancy. Sufficient tissue was obtained from all patients, and the diagnosis was as follows: three lymphomas, three peritoneal carcinomatoses, two chronic imflammations, and one benign tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

Three purposes can be achieved: a familiar method for the surgeon compared with total laparoscopic surgery, easy accessibility for further oncological management, and intraoperative miniconversion for peritoneal examination. It is a safe and effective way to obtain tissue for pathology and feasible in case of necessary sequential tumor resection.

[Value of laparoscopic liver resection]

Whereas in other fields of surgery minimally invasive techniques have replaced the open surgery approach, liver resection is still a domain of conventional surgery. However, it is internationally emerging that laparoscopic hepatic surgery will become more important by conceptional improvements. This article describes the technical aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, in particular the procedure with respect to the individual liver segments. The advantages and disadvantages of the minimally invasive technique and also the indications for laparoscopic liver resection will be discussed.

Laparoscopic liver resection--current update

An increasing number of studies are reporting the outcomes and benefits of laparoscopic liver resection. This article reviews the literature with emphasis on a recent consensus conference on laparoscopic liver resection in 2008, the learning curve for laparoscopic liver surgery, laparoscopic major hepatectomies, oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer liver metastases, and the comparative benefits of laparoscopic versus open liver resection. Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive hepatic resection is safe and feasible with short-term benefits, no economic disadvantage, and no compromise to oncologic principles.

[Surgical oncology of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)]

Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) increases worldwide. 600 new cases may occur in Hungary yearly, but statistical data show much fewer patients seen in hepatological care units. Despite of new drug sorafenib or ablative techniques, surgical methods remain the most effective treatment of HCC. Results of orthotropic liver transplantation (OTLX) in selected HCC cases have been becoming promising lately. Hungarian transplant capacity and HCC stadium levels in the majority of diagnosed cases exclude OTLX for all patients. Surgical resection is determined by the functional liver remnant (FLR). Cirrhotic patients tolerate left lateral segmentectomy. Tumors of the right lobe after occlusion of right main portal branch - if left lobe regeneration is satisfying - might be resected even in cirrhotic liver. Intra-operative preconditioning significantly diminishes serum levels of ischemia-reperfusion markers and operative risk. At the First Department of Surgery of Semmelweis University, 2167 liver tumors were operated between 1996 and 2009, including 254 HCC cases. Radical resection was performed in 211 (82.7% resection rate). Laparoscopic liver resection is becoming popular all over the world, representing less surgical injury compared to open procedure. Indication of minimal invasive liver resection is therefore specifically important in cirrhotic patients.

Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

AIM

To explore the feasibility and therapeutic effect of total laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

From June 2006 to October 2009, 61 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis who met the inclusion criteria for LLH were treated in our institute. Of the 61 patients with hepatolithiasis, 28 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 33 underwent open left hepatectomy (OLH group). Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complication rate, postoperative hospital stay time, stone clearance and recurrence rate were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

LLH was successfully performed in 28 patients. The operation time of LLH group was longer than that of OLH group (158 +/- 43 min vs 132 +/- 39 min, P < 0.05) and the hospital stay time of LLH group was shorter than that of OLH group (6.8 +/- 2.8 d vs 10.2 +/- 3.4 d, P < 0.01). No difference was found in intraoperative blood loss (180 +/- 56 mL vs 184 +/- 50 mL), postoperative complication rate (14.2% vs 15.2%), and stone residual rate (intermediate rate 17.9% vs 12.1% and final rate 0% vs 0%) between the two groups. No perioperative death occurred in either group. Fifty-seven patients (93.4%) were followed up for 2-40 mo (mean 17 mo), including 27 in LLH group and 30 in OLH group. Stone recurrence occurred in 1 patient of each group.

CONCLUSION

LLH for hepatolithiasis is feasible and safe in selected patients with an equal therapeutic effect to that of traditional open hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

AIM: To explore the feasibility and therapeutic effect of total laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis.

METHODS: From June 2006 to October 2009, 61 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis who met the inclusion criteria for LLH were treated in our institute. Of the 61 patients with hepatolithiasis, 28 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 33 underwent open left hepatectomy (OLH group). Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complication rate, postoperative hospital stay time, stone clearance and recurrence rate were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: LLH was successfully performed in 28 patients. The operation time of LLH group was longer than that of OLH group (158 ± 43 min vs 132 ± 39 min, P < 0.05) and the hospital stay time of LLH group was shorter than that of OLH group (6.8 ± 2.8 d vs 10.2 ± 3.4 d, P < 0.01). No difference was found in intraoperative blood loss (180 ± 56 mL vs 184 ± 50 mL), postoperative complication rate (14.2% vs 15.2%), and stone residual rate (intermediate rate 17.9% vs 12.1% and final rate 0% vs 0%) between the two groups. No perioperative death occurred in either group. Fifty-seven patients (93.4%) were followed up for 2-40 mo (mean 17 mo), including 27 in LLH group and 30 in OLH group. Stone recurrence occurred in 1 patient of each group.

CONCLUSION: LLH for hepatolithiasis is feasible and safe in selected patients with an equal therapeutic effect to that of traditional open hepatectomy.

Ressecões hepáticas por videolaparoscopia

INTRODUÇÃO: As ressecções hepáticas representam umas das últimas fronteiras vencidas pela cirurgia videolaparoscópica. Apesar da complexidade do procedimento, da demanda de grande incorporação de tecnologia e necessidade de experiência em cirurgia hepática e laparoscópica, a indicação do método tem crescido de forma expressiva nos últimos anos. OBJETIVO: Realizar análise crítica do método, baseada nos trabalhos existentes na literatura, ressaltando o estado atual de suas indicações, exequibilidade, segurança, resultados e aspectos técnicos primordiais. MÉTODO: Foram identificados e analisados os trabalhos pertinentes nas bases de dados LILACS e PUBMED até dezembro de 2009, utilizando-se os descritores "liver resection", "laparoscopic" e "liver surgery". Não foram encontrados trabalhos prospectivos e randomizados sobre o tema, sendo os dados disponíveis provenientes de série de casos, estudos caso-controle e alguns estudos multicêntricos e metanálises. CONCLUSÃO: A hepatectomia por videolaparoscopia é hoje operação segura e factível, mesmo para as ressecções hepáticas maiores, com baixo índice de morbimortalidade. O método pode ser utilizado para lesões malignas sem prejuízo dos princípios oncológicos e com vantagens nos pacientes com cirrose ou disfunção hepática. A melhor indicação recai sobre as lesões benignas, em especial o adenoma hepatocelular. Em mãos experientes e casos selecionados, como as lesões benignas localizadas nos segmentos anterolaterais hepáticos, principalmente no segmento lateral esquerdo, a ressecção videolaparoscópica pode ser considerada hoje como tratamento padrão.