International experience for laparoscopic major liver resection

Management of potential portal vein thrombus during laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy following portal vein embolization

BACKGROUND

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is often performed prior to right hemihepatectomy (RH) to increase the future liver remnants. However, intraoperative removal of portal vein thrombus (PVT) is occasionally required. An algorithm for treating the right branch of the PV using laparoscopic RH (LRH) after PVE is lacking and requires further investigation.

METHODS

In our department, after the confirmation of a lack of extension of PVT to the main portal trunk or left branch on preoperative examination (ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography), a final evaluation was performed using intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS). Here we present the cases of eight patients who underwent LRH after PVE and examine the safety of our treatment strategies.

RESULTS

IOUS revealed PVT extension into the main portal trunk in two cases. For the other six patients without PVT extension, we continued the laparoscopic procedure. In contrast, in the two cases with PVT extension, we converted to laparotomy after hepatic transection and removed the PVT. The median operation time for hepatectomy was 562 min (421-659 min), the median blood loss was 293 mL (85-1010 mL), no liver-related postoperative complications were observed, and the median length of stay was 10 days (6-34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

PVT evaluation and removal are important in cases of LRH after PVE. Our strategy is safe and IOUS is particularly useful for laparoscopically evaluating PVT extension.

Laparoscopic liver resections: What have we learned after more than 20 years of experience?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the last 8 years of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for benign and malignant tumors, to evaluate indications and results, and to compare the results with our previous experience and with other reference centers worldwide.

METHODS

Based on a prospective database of the Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, patients who underwent LLR between September 2014 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed (period B) and where compared to our own experience from 2000 to 2014 previously published (period A).

RESULTS

Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery (26.4%). Major hepatectomies accounted for 15.7% of resections and the most frequently performed procedure was typical and atypical hepatectomies (58.4%) followed by left lateral hepatectomy (20.3%). The total postoperative major complications rate was 10.1% and the 90-day postoperative mortality was 1%. The median postoperative stay was four (IQR: 3-6) days. The overall survival rate estimated at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 84% and 70%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 22.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LLRs in the hands of trained surgeons continue to grow safely, and we have seen an increase in the indication of LLR for malignant pathologies and major resections, a trend that follows the rest of the major centers in the world and has become the method of choice for surgical treatment of most liver tumors.

Learning curves in robot-assisted minimally invasive liver surgery at a high-volume center in Denmark: Report of the first 100 patients and review of literature

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide, and robot-assisted liver surgery (RLS) can deliver obvious benefits for patients. However, so far no large case series have documented the learning curve for RLS.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study for robotic liver surgery (RLS) from June 2019 to June 2022 where 100 patients underwent RLS by the same surgical team. Patients' variables, short-term follow-up, and the learning curve were analyzed. A review of the literature describing the learning curve in RLS was also conducted.

RESULTS

Mean patient age was 63.1 years. The median operating time was 246 min and median estimated blood loss was 100 mL. Thirty-two patients underwent subsegmentectomy, 18 monosegmentectomies, 25 bisegmentectomies, and 25 major hepatectomies. One patient (1.0%) required conversion to open surgery. Five patients (5%) experienced postoperative major complications, and no mortalities occurred. Median length of hospital stay was 3 days. R0 resection was achieved in 93.4% of the malignant cases. The learning curve consisted of three stages; there were no significant differences in operative time, transfusion rate, or complication rate among the three groups. Postoperative complications were similar in each group despite an increase in surgical difficulty scores. The learning effect was highlighted by significantly shorter hospital stays in cohorts I, II, and III, respectively. The included systematic review suggested that the learning curve for RLS is similar to, or shorter, than that of laparoscopic liver surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RLS has achieved good clinical results, albeit in the short term. Standardization of training leads to increasing proficiency in RLS with reduced blood loss and low complication rates even in more advanced liver resections. Our study suggests that a minimum of 30 low-to-moderate difficulty robotic procedures should be performed before proceeding to more difficult resections.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

INTRODUCTION

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

METHODS

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Long-term oncological outcomes for HALS/Hybrid vs pure laparoscopic approach in colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS)/Hybrid and pure laparoscopic (PLS) resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis have focused on short-term results, while long-term oncological outcomes remain understudied.

METHODS

We established a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study from four centers with experience in minimally invasive surgery between 2004 and 2020. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Other endpoints analyzed were intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize baseline differences.

RESULTS

A total of 219 HALS/Hybrid (57.8%) and 160 PLS (42.2%) patients were included. After PSM, 155 patients remained in each group. Operative time (182 vs. 248 min, p = 0.012), use of intraoperative ablation (12.3 vs. 4.5%, p = 0.024), positive resection margin (4.5 vs 13.2%, p = 0.012), and pringle time (21 vs. 37 min, p = 0.001) were higher in PLS group. DFS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 65.4%, 39.3%, 37.5%, and 36.3% vs. 64.9%, 38.0%, 33.1%, and 33.1%, respectively (p = 0.84). OS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 94.5%, 71.4%, 54.3%, and 46.0% vs. 96.0%, 68.5%, 51.2%, and 41.2%, respectively (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests no differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between the two techniques. We discovered that longer total operative, pringle time, higher rates of intraoperative ablation, and positive resection margins were associated with PLS. These differences in favor of HALS/Hybrid could be due to a shorter learning curve and a greater ability to control hemorrhage.

OPEN TO ROBOTIC RIGHT DONOR HEPATECTOMY: A TECTONIC SHIFT IN SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Robotic right live donor hepatectomy(r-LDRH) has been reported with reduced morbidity compared to open donor right hepatectomy(o-LDRH) in few recent series. Nevertheless, its routine use is debated. We present a large series comparing pure r-LDRH with o-LDRH. Consecutive r-LDRH performed from June 2018 to June 2020 (n = 102) were compared with consecutive donors undergoing o-LDRH (n = 152) from February 2016 to February 2018, a period when r-LDRH was not available at this centre. Propensity score matched (PSM) analysis of 89 case-control pairs was additionally performed. Primary endpoints were length of high dependency unit (HDU) & hospital stay and Clavien-Dindo graded complications among donors. Although r-LDRH took longer to perform (540 versus 462 mins, P<0.001), the post-operative peak transaminases levels(P<0.001), the length of HDU (3 versus 4 days, P<0.001) and hospital stay (8 versus 9 days, P<0.001) were lower in in donors undergoing r-LDRH. Clavien-Dindo graded complications were similar (16.67% in r-LDRH and 13.16% in o-LDRH). The rates of early allograft dysfunction (1.6% versus 3.3%), bile leak (14.7% versus 10.7%), and 1-year mortality (13.7% versus 11.8%) were comparable between r-LDRH and o-LDRH recipients. PSM analysis yielded similar results between the groups. These data support the safety and feasibility of r-LDRH in select donors. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and macrovascular invasion (MVI) have dismal prognosis and are referred to systemic treatment or palliation. To investigate the outcomes of patients with HCC and MVI undergoing the associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) procedure. Demographics and operative data were retrospectively reviewed. All types of hepatectomies and all types of ALPPS modifications were included. MVI was categorized according to the Japanese Liver Cancer Study Group classification. 28 patients were included. Viral aetiology was the most common cause of chronic liver disease (89.3%). 85.7% of patients were cirrhotic, with a median MELD score of 9 (7-10). MVI of the hepatic veins or inferior vena cava was diagnosed in 46.4% of patients while portal vein involvement was present in 64.2% of cases. Four patients (14.2%) were diagnosed with bile duct involvement. No patients died after Step 1 while complications occurred in 21.4% of cases. Following step 2, 3 patients (11.5%) died and 20 (69.2%) developed complications. Grade B and C post-hepatectomy liver failure occurred in 57.6% and 11.5% of patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 18 months (7-35), median survival was 22 months (3-40). Eleven patients (39.3%) recurred. Median disease-free survival was 15 months (5-26). The ALPPS procedure is an extreme rescue approach in otherwise inoperable advanced HCC with MVI. The procedure is associated with high morbidity and mortality and patients' selection is pivotal. Oncological outcomes are safe and should be further investigated.

Association between achieving textbook outcomes and better survival after laparoscopic liver resection in the anterolateral segments in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The quality of surgical procedures are assessed by textbook outcomes (TO). LLR is considered a standard treatment for HCC in the anterolateral segments of the liver. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting achievement of TO for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and its impact on survival.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent LLR for lesions located in the anterolateral segments (n=309). Patients were divided into TO and non-TO group.

RESULTS

A TO was achieved in 55.0% of patients (n=170). In multivariable analysis, Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10 (odds ratio[OR] 3.076; 95% confidence interval[CI] 1.134-8.342), absence of diabetes mellitus (OR 2.325; 95% CI 1.227-4.407) and thrombocytopenia (OR 2.115; 95% CI 1.134-8.342) were independently associated with not achieving TO. The 5-year overall (82.9% vs. 72.8%, P=0.017) and recurrence-free (48.8% vs. 35.4%; P=0.036) survival rates were significantly greater in the TO group than in the non-TO group.

CONCLUSION

The MELD score, thrombocytopenia, and hypoalbuminemia were independent risk factors influencing the achievement of TO. TO influences the short- and long-term outcomes after LLR for HCC.

Limited upper midline incision for major hepatectomy in adults: safety and feasibility

Objective: Optimal incision for major hepatectomy remains controversial. In this study, we described our experience with a limited upper midline incision (UMI) for major hepatectomy. The objective was to analyze the feasibility and safety of UMI in major hepatectomy.

Material and Methods: Fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomies performed via an UMI were compared to a control group of 36 patients who underwent major hepatectomies with a conventional incision (CI).

Results: In 85% of the patients, the indication was malignancy, with a median tumor size of 6 cm. Fifty-three percent of the patients had underlying chronic liver disease, and liver fibrosis was found in 61% of the patients. Ninteen percent of the patients had previous upper abdominal surgery. Twenty- six patients underwent left hepatectomy, 20 patients had right hepatectomy and 11 patients trisegmentectomy. Additional combined surgical proce- dures were performed in 42% of the patients. Median operative time was 323 minutes, estimated blood loss was 500 ml, and median post-operative hospital stay was seven days. Surgical complications occurred in 22 patients (39%). 5-year overall survival was 67%. When compared with the control group with CI, patients with UMI had no statistical difference on operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and overall survival.

Conclusion: Major hepatectomies can be safely performed through UMI. This approach should be considered as a reasonable option in addition to conventional and laparoscopic approaches for major hepatectomies.

The Applications of 3D Imaging and Indocyanine Green Dye Fluorescence in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Laparoscopic liver resections have gained widespread popularity among hepatobiliary surgeons and is nowadays performed for both standard and more complex hepatectomies. Given the increased technical challenges, preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance is pivotal in laparoscopic surgery to safely carry out complex and oncologically safe hepatectomies. Modern tools can help both preoperatively and intraoperatively and allow surgeons to perform more precise hepatectomies. Preoperative 3D reconstructions and printing as well as augmented reality can increase the knowledge of the specific anatomy of the case and therefore plan the surgery accordingly and tailor the procedure on the patient. Furthermore, the indocyanine green retention dye is an increasingly used tool that can nowadays improve the precision during laparoscopic hepatectomies, especially when considering anatomical resection. The use of preoperative modern imaging and intraoperative indocyanine green dye are key to successfully perform complex hepatectomies such as laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections. In this narrative review, we discuss the aspects of preoperative and intraoperative tools that are nowadays increasingly used in experienced hepatobiliary centers.

Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses

Background

The application and feasibility of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) for huge liver tumours (≥10 cm) has not been well documented.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data on 6,617 patients who had MILR for liver tumours were gathered from 21 international centers between 2009-2019. Huge tumors and large tumors were defined as tumors with a size ≥10.0 cm and 3.0-9.9 cm based on histology, respectively. 1:1 coarsened exact-matching (CEM) and 1:2 Mahalanobis distance-matching (MDM) was performed according to clinically-selected variables. Regression discontinuity analyses were performed as an additional line of sensitivity analysis to estimate local treatment effects at the 10-cm tumor size cutoff.

Results

Of 2,890 patients with tumours ≥3 cm, there were 205 huge tumors. After 1:1 CEM, 174 huge tumors were matched to 174 large tumors; and after 1:2 MDM, 190 huge tumours were matched to 380 large tumours. There was significantly and consistently increased intraoperative blood loss, frequency in the application of Pringle maneuver, major morbidity and postoperative stay in the huge tumour group compared to the large tumour group after both 1:1 CEM and 1:2 MDM. These findings were reinforced in RD analyses. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate and open conversion rate were significantly higher in the huge tumor group after only 1:2 MDM but not 1:1 CEM.

Conclusions

MILR for huge tumours can be safely performed in expert centers It is an operation with substantial complexity and high technical requirement, with worse perioperative outcomes compared to MILR for large tumors, therefore judicious patient selection is pivotal.

State-of-the-art surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most commonly diagnosed primary liver tumor with an increasing incidence worldwide. Management of patients with HCC is largely dictated by the presence of cirrhosis, disease stage, underlying liver function, and patient performance status.

PURPOSE

We provide an update on key aspects of surgical treatment options for patients with HCC. RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and transplantation remain cornerstone treatment options for patients with early-stage disease and constitute the only potentially curative options for HCC. Selection of patients for surgical treatment should include a thorough evaluation of tumor characteristics and biology, as well as evidence-based use of various available treatment options to achieve optimal long-term outcomes for patients with HCC.

Parenchymal Sparing Anatomical Liver Resections With Full Laparoscopic Approach: Description of Technique and Short-term Results

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and report the short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Anatomical resections (ARs) have better oncological outcomes compared to partial resections in patients with HCC, and some suggest should be performed also for CRLM as micrometastasis occurs through the intrahepatic structures. Furthermore, remnant liver ischemia after partial resections has been associated with worse oncological outcomes. Few experiences on laparoscopic anatomical resections have been reported and no data on limited AR exist.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 86 patients undergoing full laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing resections with preoperative surgical simulation and standardized procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients had HCC, whereas 31 had CRLM with a median of 1 lesion and a size of 30 mm. During preoperative three-dimensional (3D) simulation, a median resection volume of 120 mL was planned. Sixteen anatomical subsegmentectomies, 56 segmentectomies, and 14 sectionectomies were performed. Concordance between preoperative 3D simulation and intraoperative resection was 98.7%. Two patients were converted, and 7 patients experienced complications. Subsegmentectomies had comparable blood loss (166 mL, P = 0.59), but longer operative time (426 min, P = 0.01) than segmentectomies (blood loss 222 mL; operative time 355 min) and sectionectomies (blood loss 120 mL; operative time 295 min). R0 resection and margin width remained comparable among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A precise preoperative planning and a standardized surgical technique allow to pursue the oncological quality of AR enhancing the safety of the parenchyma sparing principle, reducing surgical stress through a laparoscopic approach.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as the new field of implementation of laparoscopic liver resection programs. A comparative propensity score-based analysis of open and laparoscopic liver resections

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Systematic review of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Most surgeons have traditionally been reluctant toward minimally-invasive surgery for bile duct tumors. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature review on perioperative and oncologic results of pure laparoscopic and robotic curative-intent surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. According to the PRISMA statement, a systematic review was conducted into Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane. A critical appraisal of study was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Nineteen studies (12 on pure laparoscopy and 7 on robotics) were included: 7 case reports, 9 case series, 3 case-control (193 patients). The pooled conversion, morbidity, biliary leak and mortality rates were 5.5%, 43%, 16.4% and 4%. The weighted mean of operative time, blood loss and postoperative stay were 388 min, 446 mL and 14 days. For pure laparoscopy, the pooled R0 rate was 86%; overall survival and disease-free survival rates ranged from 85 to 100% and from 80 to 100% (median observation time 6-18 months). For robotic surgeries, the pooled R0 rate was 69% and overall survival rates ranged from 90 to 100% (median observation time 5-15 months). Case reports were overall of high quality, case series of moderate / high-quality, case-control studies ranged from low to high quality. In selected patients, minimally-invasive surgery for Klatskin tumors appears feasible, safe, satisfactory for perioperative outcomes and adequate for oncologic results. However, the results are based on few studies, limited in patient numbers and with allocation criteria more restrictive than open, reporting short follow-up and mainly with non-comparative design: evidence of higher quality is recommended.

Rationality and necessity of vascular stapler application during liver resection (Review)

Liver resection (LR) is the primary treatment method for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Improving surgical safety and reducing surgical morbidity and mortality is important for patients receiving LR. Various devices have been developed to facilitate vascular transection to reduce intraoperative blood loss, which is considered to be a predictor of poor surgical outcomes in patients undergoing LR. Vascular staplers have been widely applied for the division of major vascular and biliary structures in the process of LR; however, when and how to use these tools remains controversial. This review aims to report the rationality and necessity of using vascular staplers in vessel transection during liver surgery. Due to the risk of intraoperative and postoperative hemorrhage and biliary fistula, the process of transection of the portal pedicle and hepatic vein is a crucial step during LR. Stapling represents a vascular dissection technique that is widely used in laparoscopic LR and has then been popularized in open LR. Advocates argue that stapler transection methods provide several advantages, including diminished blood loss, fewer transfusion requirements and shorter operative times. However, other studies have failed to demonstrate those benefits when using these tools compared with the simple clamp-crushing technique. Using the stapler vascular transection method resulted in smaller surgical margins and similar surgical outcomes compared with those of the clamp-crushing vascular transection method. However, the intraoperative use of vascular staplers may significantly increase the financial burden of liver resection for patients with HCC, while not improving short- and long-term outcomes. Therefore, it has been suggested that vascular staplers should not be routinely used in LR. The current review discussed the above points and recommended that the stapling transection of the portal pedicle and hepatic vein should be applied during laparoscopic LR in a rational manner. However, the suturing ligation method should be routinely used in open LR.

Liver Parenchyma Transection-First Approach for Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major liver resection, such as laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH), is still perceived as a complicated procedure due to technical difficulties and slow learning curve. The study introduced an optimized procedure using the liver parenchyma transection-first approach and investigated its advantages on surgical outcomes by comparison with the conventional hilar dissection approach for LLH.

METHODS

Between January 2015 and May 2019, 96 patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were enrolled in the study. Among these, 41 patients underwent the liver parenchyma transection-first approach (LP-first group) and the other 55 underwent the conventional hilar dissection approach (conventional group). A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of the two groups.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 37 patients in each group were selected for further analysis. The LP-first group was associated with shorter median operative time (210 vs 235 min, P = 0.035) and less blood loss (200 vs 300 mL, P = 0.410). In addition, no statistical differences were found in overall complications between the two groups (8.1% vs 24.3%, P = 0.058). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of 1-year and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS, P = 0.608) and overall survival (OS, P = 0.414).

CONCLUSION

The prior liver parenchyma approach for LLH is safe and reproducible in selected patients, which showed improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncological outcomes compared with the conventional approach.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

Correlation Between Type of Retrieval Incision and Postoperative Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: A Critical Assessment

Background: At the end of a laparoscopic major hepatectomy, an incision wide enough for specimen retrieval is required. Classically, Pfannenstiel (PF) incision is the type of access favored as service incision in laparoscopy. However, in specific settings the use of a midline (ML) incision can be favorable, with doubtful impaction on the outcomes of a purely laparoscopic operation. The aim of this study was to investigate on clinical outcomes after laparoscopic hemihepatectomies using PF/ML incisions in comparison with open. Methods: The institutional clinical database of the Hepatobiliary Division at San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) was retrospectively reviewed identifying cases of laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies. Three analyses were performed: whole laparoscopic versus open; ML versus open; PF versus ML. Clinical outcomes such as intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative morbidity, motility resumption, perceived pain, and length of stay (LOS) were used for comparisons. Results: Laparoscopy was confirmed to be superior to open approach also in the present series in terms of lower blood loss (300 versus 400 mL, P = .041), fewer complications (14.2% versus 25.9%, P = .024), shorter hospitalization (5 versus 7 days, P = .033), and enhanced recovery in terms of better pain control (P = .035) and mobility resumption (P = .047). Similar outcomes were observed comparing ML alone with open (estimated blood loss 300 mL versus 400 mL, P = .039; complications 13.1% versus 25.9%, P = .037; LOS 5 days versus 7 days, P = .04; lower pain perception, P = .048 and faster mobility resumption, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in postoperative outcomes of PF versus ML. Conclusions: Suprapubic and ML incisions at the end of a pure laparoscopic case lead to comparable outcomes between each other. The adoption of ML incision for specimen retrieval does not affect outcomes of minimal invasiveness.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Major Hepatic Resection

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic liver resection in cirrhotics: feasibility and short-term outcomes compared to non-cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly common worldwide but its suitability in patients with cirrhosis is not clearly defined. There are minimal data in the western literature on this topic and previous work has compared LLR to open hepatectomy rather than to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients. This study compared short-term outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic patients to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of minor LLR at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from January 2006 to January 2018 was conducted. Patients were stratified by whether they had cirrhosis - defined as per radiological appearances and liver function tests. Variables of interest included baseline clinicopathological information with short-term outcomes (length of stay and complications) regarded as the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Out of 1207 liver resections in the study period, there were 120 LLR with 30 patients having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be male and have higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (3 versus 2; P < 0.01). The most common operation was left lateral sectionectomy (n = 67). There was no difference in duration of surgery (cirrhosis 88 min versus no cirrhosis 99 min; P = 0.64) and patients in the cirrhosis arm had no conversions to open (0% versus 12%; P = 0.06). There was no difference in complications (12% versus 13%; P = 0.75) or median length of stay (4 versus 4 days; P = 0.14) and no difference in survival between both groups.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, LLR is feasible in patients with cirrhosis and provides comparable outcomes to non-cirrhotic patients undergoing LLR.

Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage

BACKGROUND

Benefits over the open technique are demonstrated for laparoscopic liver resections. Whether the degree of advantage is different for anterolateral and posterosuperior resections is investigated in this retrospective study.

METHODS

Laparoscopic anterolateral and posterosuperior resections (Lap-AL/Lap-PS) were compared with open (Open-AL/Open-PS) after propensity score matching. Mean/median differences of relevant parameters were calculated after bootstrap sampling. The degree of advantage was compared between anterolateral and posterosuperior resections and expressed as delta of differences (Δ-difference).

RESULTS

239 Lap-AL were compared with 239 matched Open-AL, and 176 Lap-PS with 176 matched Open-PS. Lap-AL showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization and total stay; Lap-PS showed reduced blood loss, transfusions, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization, functional recovery and total stay. The degree of advantage of Lap-PS resulted significantly greater than Lap-AL blood loss (Δ-difference: 101 mL, p 0.017), transfusions (Δ-difference: 6.3%, p 0.008), morbidity (Δ-difference: 7.6%, p 0.034), time to orally-controlled pain (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.020) and functional recovery (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

While both resulting in benefit, the advantage of laparoscopy is greater for posterosuperior than anterolateral resections. Despite their technical difficulty, these should be considered among the most worthwhile laparoscopic liver resections.

The Extrahepatic Glissonian Versus Hilar Dissection Approach for Laparoscopic Formal Right and Left Hepatectomies in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been performed to evaluate the value of the Glissonian approach (GA) for laparoscopic formal hemihepatectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of extrahepatic GA with those of the conventional hilar dissection approach for laparoscopic formal right and left hepatectomies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Between January 2015 and October 2017, a total of 95 HCC patients who underwent pure laparoscopic formal hemihepatectomies, of whom 49 underwent the GA, were included in this study. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 42 laparoscopic GA hepatectomies were compared to 42 conventional approach (CA) hepatectomies. We have analyzed perioperative and oncologic outcomes of the two different operative approaches for HCC treatments.

RESULTS

The GA did not increase the postoperative overall complication rates (P = 0.415) or the mean comprehensive complication index (P = 0.414) when compared with the CA. However, the operative time was significantly shorter (P = 0.006), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in the GA group than in the CA group. There were no significant differences between the GA and CA groups regarding 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.765) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic extrahepatic GA hemihepatectomy is safe and feasible, and it was associated with similar complication rates and equivalent 3-year survival outcomes compared to the conventional approach in selected patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH).

METHODS

Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in the posterosuperior segments: a sub-group analysis from the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments is technically challenging. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal liver metastases located in the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

This was a subgroup analysis of the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial, where 280 patients were randomly assigned to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resections of colorectal metastases. Patients with tumors in the posterosuperior segments were identified, and perioperative outcomes and health related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 136 patients, 62 in the laparoscopic and 74 in the open group. The postoperative complication rate was 26% in the laparoscopic and 31% in the open group. The blood loss was less in the open group (500 vs. 250 ml, P = 0.006), but the perioperative transfusion rate was similar. The operative time was similar, while postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (2 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). HRQoL was significantly better after laparoscopy at 1 month.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing laparoscopic or open liver resection of colorectal liver metastases in the posterosuperior segments, laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay and comparable perioperative outcomes.

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

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

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Experience of 436 Cases in One Center

BACKGROUND

To report experience of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in one center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 436 consecutive LLRs in 411 patients between December 2010 and December 2016. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, we divided the 436 cases into two groups: Simple Group (n = 203) and Difficult Group (n = 233).

RESULTS

The indications were HCC (n = 194), colorectal cancer liver metastasis (n = 156), benign tumors (n = 62), hepatolithiasis (n = 2), and other malignant lesions (n = 22). The median tumor size was 24 mm (range 3 to 130). Procedures of LLR included wedge resection (n = 230), one segmentectomy (n = 8), two segmentectomies (n = 12), left lateral sectionectomy (n = 75), right hepatectomy (n = 52), left hepatectomy (n = 31), extended right hepatectomy (n = 2), extended left hepatectomy (n = 5), central bisectionectomy (n = 3), right posterior sectionectomy (n = 12), and right anterior sectionectomy (n = 6). The median operative time was 228 min (range 9-843) and median blood loss was 150 ml (range 2-3500). Twenty-five cases required blood transfusion (5.7%). Conversion to open surgery was required in six cases (1.4%). The mean length of stay was 6.4 ± 2.9 days. Overall complication rate was 9.4% and major complication rate was 5%. One patient died of liver failure on the thirtieth postoperative day after a right hepatectomy. We had higher median blood loss (200 vs. 100 ml; p < 0.001), higher transfusion rate (8.2 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.020), longer median operative time (297 vs. 164 min; p < 0.001), higher conversion rate (2.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.021), higher complication rate (14.2 vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), and longer mean postoperative hospital stay (6.8 ± 2.9 vs. 5.9 ± 3.0 days; p < 0.001) in the Difficult Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe for selected patients in the Difficult Group. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, selection criteria of LLR are helpful to predict the difficulty of the operation and the postoperative outcomes of LLR.

Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers

INTRODUCTION

A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies.

METHODS

Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses).

RESULTS

Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted/Hybrid Major Hepatectomy at Two Western Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is expanding, but little data exist comparing surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLAP) has advantages over hand-assisted (HALS) or hybrid (HYB) resection for major hemi-hepatectomy at two western centers.

METHODS

Using propensity score matching, 65 cases of HALS + HYB (18 hand-assisted and 47 hybrid) were matched to 65 cases of PLAP. Baseline characteristics were well matched for gender, age, ASA score, Childs A cirrhosis, right/left hepatectomy, malignancy, tumor size, and type between the groups.

RESULTS

The HALS + HYB group had 27 right and 38 left major hepatectomies (n = 65) versus 29 right and 36 left (n = 65) in the PLAP group (p = NS). The median number of lesions resected was 1 in each group, with median size 5.6 cm (HALS + HYB) versus 6.0 cm (PLAP), (p = NS). The HALS + HYB group had shorter OR time (240 versus 330 min, p < 0.01), and less blood loss (EBL 150 ml vs. 300 ml, p < 0.01) versus the PLAP group, respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days with HALS + HYB versus 5 days in the PLAP group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in use of the Pringle maneuver, transfusion rate, ICU stay, post-op morbidity, liver-specific complications, or R0 resection. Pain regimen/usage in each group is provided. There were no 30/90-day deaths in either group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported series of propensity score matching of HALS + HYB versus PLAP for major hepatectomy. The HALS + HYB group had non-inferior OR time, blood loss, and LOS versus the PLAP group, while the other perioperative parameters were comparable. We conclude that minimally invasive liver resection with either PLAP or HALS + HYB technique yields excellent results.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Before the first laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was described in 1991, open hepatectomy (OH) was the only choice for surgical treatment of liver tumors. LH indications were initially based solely on tumor location, size, and type. Use of LH has spread rapidly worldwide because it reduces incision size. This review systematically assesses the current status of LH. As compared with OH, LH is significantly less complicated, requires shorter hospital stays, and results in less blood loss. The long-term survival rates of LH and OH are comparable. Development of new techniques and instruments will improve the conversion rate and reduce complications. Furthermore, development of surgical navigation will improve LH safety and efficacy. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for HCC remains a challenging procedure and should only be performed by experienced surgeons. In the near future, a training system for young surgeons will become mandatory for standardization of LH, and LH will likely become better standardized and have broader applications.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study

OBJECTIVE(S)

The technical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) poses unique challenges distinct from open surgery. An objective scoring system was developed that preoperatively quantifies the difficulty of LRR to help guide surgeon decision-making regarding the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this multiinstitutional study was to externally validate this scoring system.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at two institutions were reviewed. LLR difficulty score (LDS) was calculated based on patient, tumor, and anatomic characteristics by two independent, blinded hepatobiliary surgeons. Surrogates of case complexity (e.g., conversion rate, operative time) were used for validation of this index.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2016, 444 LLR were scored as low (n = 94), intermediate (n = 98), and high difficulty (n = 152) with respective conversion rates of 5.3%, 15.7%, and 25%. Cases of higher LDS correlated with larger mean blood loss (203 ml vs. 331 ml vs. 635 ml). Mean operative and Pringle maneuver used were associated with increasing LDS (155 min vs. 202 min vs. 315 min and 14.4% vs. 29.7% vs. 45.1% respectively). These operative surrogates of difficulty correlated significantly with the LDS (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive external validation of the LDS is robust and applicable in diverse patient populations. This LDS serves as a useful objective predictor of technical difficulty for LLR to help surgeons in selecting patients according to their individual operative experience and is valuable for preoperative risk estimation and stratification in randomized trials.

Liver resection for extra-pancreatic biliary cancer: what is the role of laparoscopic approach?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved over time, yet its role in extra-pancreatic biliary cancer has been limited due to several factors. We aimed to evaluate the short-term outcome of LLR in extra-pancreatic biliary tract cancer.

METHODS

From January 2002 to 2016, all patients who underwent LLR for extra-pancreatic biliary tract cancer including gallbladder cancer (GBC), intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and peri-hilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) with curative intent (R0 or R1) at Institute Mutualiste Montsouris were identified from prospectively collected databases. Patient characteristics, and perioperative outcomes, were analyzed in all three groups.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients were included: 10 with GBC, 14 with ICC, and 11 with PHC. There were 19 (54%) women and median age was 71 years. Median operative time was 240 min, and estimated blood loss was 200 ml. Conversion to an open procedure was more common in patients with PHC (45% vs. 7% for ICC and 0% for GBC, p = 0.010). R0 resection was achieved in 10 (100%), 12 (86%), and 8 (73%) patients in GBC, ICC, and PHC groups, respectively (p = 0.204). Postoperative morbidity was reported in 19 (54%) patients of whom 12 (34%) had minor complications. Postoperative mortality was reported in 4 (11%) patients; one (7%) in GBC group, one (7%) in ICC group, and two (18%) in PHC, p = 0.681. Median hospital stay was 11 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The present series suggests that LLR is feasible in GBC, challenging but achievable in ICC but unsuitable for the moment in PHC.

Impact of technical innovation on surgical outcome of laparoscopic major liver resection: 10 years' experience at a large-volume center

Purpose

Laparoscopic major liver resection (major LLR) remains a challenging procedure because of the technical difficulty. Several significant technical innovations have been applied in our center since 2012. They include routine application of bipolar electrocautery, initiation of temporary increase of intra-abdominal pressure during bleeding events from veins to balance the central venous pressure, and use of temporary inflow control of the Glissonean pedicle. This study evaluated the impact of these technique modifications in patients with major LLR.

Methods

Between January 2004 and February 2015, a total of 606 patients underwent LLR at Samsung Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. Major LLR was employed in 233 cases. All major LLR procedures were anatomical resections performed with a totally laparoscopic approach. We compared surgical parameters of right hepatectomy (RH), left hepatectomy (LH), and right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) before and after 2012.

Results

Open conversion rates of RH and LH and estimated blood loss in RPS significantly decreased after 2012. The postoperative complication rate of major LLR was 12.7% and was similar before and after 2012. Bile leakage was the most common complication (3.2%).

Conclusion

The modifications of surgical techniques resulted in good outcomes for laparoscopic major LLR. We recommend routine application of these techniques to improve outcomes, especially in patients requiring major liver resection.

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy Via an Anterior Approach for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background and Objectives

In the past, right hepatectomy via the anterior approach has been regarded as one of the many standard approaches for hepatectomy. However, total laparoscopic right hepatectomy from the anterior approach has been regarded as technically challenging. We report our experience in using the anterior approach in total laparoscopic right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

From June 2013 through December 2015, five consecutive patients underwent total laparoscopic right hepatectomy using the anterior approach, but without the hanging maneuver.

Results

The mean operative time was 360 (range, 300-480) minutes, and the mean blood loss was 340 (110-600) mL. No patient needed any blood transfusion. There was no conversion to open surgery. Ascites, pleural effusion, and bile leakage occurred in 2, 1, and 1 patients, respectively. No patients expired as a result of the surgery or liver failure. The mean hospital stay was 7 (4-15) days. All patients had R0 resection. After a mean follow-up of 22 (8-33) months, no patients experienced recurrence of disease.

Conclusion

Total laparoscopic right hepatectomy using the anterior approach is feasible and safe.

The current role of laparoscopic resection for HCC: a systematic review of past ten years

The use of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has progressively spread in the last 10 years. Several studies have shown the superiority of LLR to open liver resection (OLR) in term of perioperative outcomes. With this review, we aim to systematically assess short-term and long-term major outcomes in patients who underwent LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in order to illustrate the advantages of minimally invasive liver surgery. Through an advanced PubMed research, we selected all retrospective, prospective, and comparative clinical trials reporting short-term and long-term outcomes of any series of patients with diagnosis of HCC who underwent laparoscopic or robotic resection. Reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports were excluded. None of the patients included in this review has received a previous locoregional treatment for the same tumor nor has undergone a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. We considered morbidity and mortality for evaluation of major short-term outcomes, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for evaluation of long-term outcomes. A total of 1,501 patients from 17 retrospective studies were included, 15 studies compare LLR with OLR. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was used in 11 studies (975 patients). The majority of the studies included patients with good liver function and a single HCC. Cirrhosis at pathology ranged from 33% to 100%. Overall mortality and morbidity ranges were 0-2.4% and 4.9-44% respectively, with most of the complications being Clavien-Dindo grade I or II (range: 3.9-23.3% vs. 0-9.52% for Clavien I-II and ≥ III respectively). The median blood loss ranged from 150 to 389 mL; the range of the median duration of surgery was 134-343 minutes. The maximum rate of conversion was 18.2%. The median duration of hospitalization ranged from 4 to 13 days. The ranges of overall survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 72.8-100%, 60.7-93.5% and 38-89.7% respectively. The ranges of disease free survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 45.5-91.5%, 20-72.2% and 19-67.8% respectively. The benefits of LLR in term of complication rate, blood loss, and duration of hospital stay make this procedure an advantageous alternative to OLR, especially for cirrhotic patients in whom the use of LLR reduces the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. The limits of LLR can be overcome by robotic surgery, which could therefore be preferred. Further benefits of minimally invasive surgery derive from its ability to reduce the formation of adhesions in view of a salvage liver transplant. In conclusion, the results of this review seem to confirm the safety and feasibility of LLR for HCC as well as its superiority to OLR according to perioperative outcomes.

Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy in Pediatric Transplantation: A Propensity Score Analysis on 220 Consecutive Patients

Left lateral sectionectomy for donor hepatectomy is a well-established alternative to deceased donor pediatric liver transplantation. However, very little is available on the laparoscopic approach (laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy [L-LLS]). With the aim to assess safety, reproducibility under proctorship, and outcomes following living donor liver transplantation in children, a comparative single-center series using propensity score matching (PSM) to evaluate open left lateral sectionectomy (O-LLS) versus L-LLS was carried out in a relatively short time period in a high-volume pediatric transplant center. A retrospective, observational, single-center, PSM study was conducted on 220 consecutive living donor hepatectomies from January 2011 to April 2017. The variables considered for PSM were as follows: year of operation, recipient age, indication for transplant, recipient weight, donor sex, donor age, and donor body mass index. After matching, 72 O-LLSs were fit to be compared with 72 L-LLSs. Operative time and warm ischemia time were significantly longer in L-LLSs, whereas blood loss and overall donor complication rates were significantly lower. Postoperative day 1 and 4 pain scores were significantly less in the L-LLS group (P = 0.015 and 0.003, respectively). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in L-LLS (4.6 versus 4.1 days; P = 0.014). Overall donor biliary complications were 9 (12.5%) and 1 (1.4%) for O-LLS and L-LLS (P = 0.022), respectively. Vascular complications occurred in 3 (4.2%) children without graft loss in the laparoscopic group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall patient survival rates were 98.5%, 90.9%, and 90.9% in the O-LLS group and in the L-LLS group 94.3%, 92.7%, and 86.8% (P = 0.28). In conclusion, L-LLS for donor hepatectomy is a safe and reproducible technique yielding better donor perioperative outcomes with respect to the conventional approach with similar recipient outcomes.

Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive hepatectomy: a contemporary single-institution experience with 400 consecutive resections

BACKGROUND

Several studies published mainly from pioneers and early adopters have documented the evolution of minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH). However, questions remain if these reported experiences are applicable and reproducible today. This study examines the changing trends, safety, and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIH based on a contemporary single-institution experience.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of 400 consecutive patients who underwent MIH between 2006 and 2017 of which 360 cases (90%) were performed since 2012. To determine the evolution of MIH, the study population was stratified into four equal groups of 100 patients. Analyses were also performed of predictive factors and outcomes of open conversion.

RESULTS

Four hundred patients underwent MIH of which 379 (94.8%) were totally laparoscopic/robotic. Eighty-eight (22.0%) patients underwent major hepatectomy and 160 (40.0%) had resection of tumors located in the posterosuperior segments. There were 38 (9.5%) open conversions. Comparison across the four groups demonstrated that patients were older, had higher ASA score, and had increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery and repeat liver resections. There was also an increase in the proportion of patients who underwent totally laparoscopic/robotic surgery, major liver resection, resection of ≥ 3 segments, and multiple resections. Comparison of outcomes demonstrated that there was a significant decrease in open conversion rate, longer operation time, and increased use of Pringles maneuver. The presence of cirrhosis and institution experience (1st 100 cases) were independent predictors of open conversion. Patients who required open conversion had significantly increased operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, morbidity, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

The case volume of MIH performed increased rapidly at our institution over time. Although the indications of MIH expanded to include higher risk patients and more complex hepatectomies, there was a decrease in open conversion rate and no change in other perioperative 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.

[Robot-assisted liver resection]

Robotic liver resection can overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery; therefore, it is a promising tool to increase the proportion of minimally invasive liver resections. The present article gives an overview of the current literature. Furthermore, the results of a nationwide survey on robotic liver surgery among hospitals in Germany with a DaVinci system used in general visceral surgery and the perioperative results of two German robotic centers are presented.