Approaches to laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of the role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the hybrid technique

Indications for and limitations of laparoscopic anatomical liver resection: assessment of postoperative complications stratified by complexity of liver resection

BACKGROUND

Although complex anatomical liver resections are more often being performed laparoscopically, the short-term outcomes following laparoscopic anatomical liver resection (LALR), its optimal indications, and limitations remain unclear. This study aimed to clarify the indications for and limitations of LALR by assessing the short-term outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 233 patients who underwent LALR. The complexity of LALR was categorized into three levels: Grade I (low), grade II (moderate), and grade III (high). Short-term outcomes were compared among these groups, and the risk factors for severe morbidity were identified.

RESULTS

The patients' backgrounds were similar across the three groups. Intraoperative blood loss, Pringle maneuver time, and postoperative hospital stay were comparable between grade I (n = 59) and grade II (n = 65) LALR but were greater for grade III (n = 109). The transfusion and conversion rates were similar among the three groups. The operative time increased with the rise in difficulty grade. The rate of severe morbidity was 3.4% in grade I, 6.2% in grade II, and 16.5% in grade III LALR (P = 0.012). Multivariable analysis identified three perioperative risk factors for severe morbidity: Operative time of ≥ 540 min (odds ratio [OR] = 4.762, P = 0.009), intraoperative blood loss of ≥ 350 mL (OR = 3.982, P = 0.024), and preoperative serum albumin of ≤ 3.8 g/dL (OR = 3.518, P = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Grade II LALR can be performed with the same level of safety as grade I LALR. However, grade III LALR has a higher complication rate than grades I and II LALR, and the risk increases further due to longer operative time and greater blood loss.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR.

METHODS

This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR.

RESULTS

5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate).

CONCLUSION

LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

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.

Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Hepatic Surgery: An Historical Review

Hepatic surgery is a rapidly expanding component of abdominal surgery and is performed for a wide range of indications. The introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in 1987 was a major change in abdominal surgery. Laparoscopic surgery was widely and rapidly adopted throughout the world for cholecystectomy initially and then applied to a variety of other procedures. Laparoscopic surgery became regularly applied to hepatic surgery, including segmental and major resections as well as organ donation. Many operations progressed from open surgery to laparoscopy to robot-assisted surgery, including colon resection, pancreatectomy, splenectomy thyroidectomy, adrenalectomy, prostatectomy, gastrectomy, and others. It is difficult to prove a data-based benefit using robot-assisted surgery, although laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery of the liver are not inferior regarding major outcomes. When laparoscopic surgery initially became popular, many had concerns about its use to treat malignancies. Robot-assisted surgery is being used to treat a variety of benign and malignant conditions, and studies have shown no deterioration in outcomes. Robot-assisted surgery for the treatment of malignancies has become accepted and is now being used at more centers. The outcomes after robot-assisted surgery depend on its use at specialized centers, the surgeon's personal experience backed up by extensive training and maintenance of international registries. Robot-assisted hepatic surgery has been shown to be associated with slightly less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital lengths of stay compared to open surgery. Oncologic outcomes have been maintained, and some studies show higher rates of R0 resections. Patients who need surgery for liver lesions should identify a surgeon they trust and should not be concerned with the specific operative approach used. The growth of robot-assisted surgery of the liver has occurred in a stepwise approach which is very different from the frenzy that was seen with the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This approach allowed the identification of areas for improvement, many of which are at the nexus of engineering and medicine. Further improvements in robot-assisted surgery depend on the combined efforts of engineers and surgeons.

Pure laparoscopic vs. hand-assisted liver surgery for segments 7 and 8: propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection of tumors located in segments 7 and 8 are considered a complex resection. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of patients operated by pure laparoscopic (PLS) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

From January 2003 to January 2021, we included patients with minimally invasive surgery for lesions located in segments 7 and 8. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) between HALS and PLS cohorts, including 30 patients in each of the groups. Of the 60 patients who underwent PSM, we compared the first 30 patients with the following 30 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 79 LLRs were performed, 46 by HALS and 33 by PLS. After PSM, in the PLS cohort, cirrhosis was more frequent (33.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02). The surgical time, blood loss, Pringle maneuver, clamping time, and morbidity were similar between both groups, but with a lower hospital stay in the PLS group (3 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.01). In the first 30 patients who underwent LLR, the use of PLS was lower than the use of HALS, increasing due to the learning curve (16.7% in the first period vs. 83.3% in the second period; p < 0.01). The hospital stay was lower in the second period due to the more frequent use of PLS (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

PLS presents similar intraoperative and early postoperative results with lower hospital stay for lesions located in segments 7 and 8 compared to HALS. In centers with experience in LLRs, PLS could be performed safely in these segments.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Is Superior to Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Posterosuperior Segments

Introduction: Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of colorectal metastasis located in posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7 and 8) are challenging and highly demanding. The aim of our study is to determine the safety and feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the resections of the posterosuperior lesions and to compare the peri-operative, short-term and long-term outcomes with the open liver resection (OLR) approach.

Methods and Results: A retrospective study of patients who underwent either HALS or OLR for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver between 2008 and 2018 in two university affiliated medical centers.

Results: A total of 187 patients were identified, of whom 78 underwent HALS and 109 underwent OLR. There was no difference between the HALS and OLR with regard to preoperative factors (age, primary CRC tumor location, number and anatomical distribution of liver metastasis, pre-operative neo-adjuvant treatment, operative time, blood transfusion rate, and resection margins positivity). On the other hand, HALS compared to OLR had a significantly shorter mean hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days; P = 0.003), and a lower total complications rate (25 vs. 47% P = 0.006). Both groups had no 30-day mortality. Also, patients who underwent HALS vs. OLR had similar liver metastases recurrence (55 vs. 51%. P = 0.65) and 5-year survival (47 vs. 45%. P = 0.72).

Conclusions: HALS for mCRC located in posterosuperior liver segments is safe and feasible and it is a preferable approach due to its lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay while not compromising survival and disease recurrence.

Learning process of laparoscopic liver resection and postoperative outcomes: chronological analysis of single-center 15-years' experience

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have reported the actual learning process of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). This study aimed to chronologically evaluate our 15 years' experience of LLR.

METHODS

All consecutive LLRs between 2006 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The time period was divided into three groups; first (2006-2010), second (2011-2015), and third (2016-2020) period. The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of overall (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II) or major (grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications within 30 days. Using the IWATE criteria (four difficulty levels based on six indices), LLR was categorized as basic (< 7 points) and advanced (≥ 7 points) one. All analyses were performed based on the intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 382 LLRs were gradually performed (first period, n = 54; second period, n = 114, and third period, n = 214). Low incidences of overall and major complications were maintained (9.3, 10.5, and 7.0%, p = 0.514, and 1.9, 2.6, and 2.3%, p = 1.000). Meanwhile, pure LLRs (i.e., LLRs without hand-assisted or hybrid approach) and advanced LLRs were increasingly performed in 25 (46.3%), 71 (62.3%), and 205 (95.8%) patients (p < 0.001) and 3 (5.6%), 18 (15.8%), and 58 (27.1%) patients (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that stepwise approach from basic to advanced procedures and use of hand-assisted or hybrid approach during the early phases for starting LLR practice may allow for maintaining low morbidity in specialized center.

Effects of Sevoflurane versus Propofol on Endogenous Nitric Oxide Metabolism during Laparoscopic Surgery

For laparoscopic surgery, it is very difficult to assess the effect of different medicines used in the surgical procedure on the surgical results. In the past, doctors could use sevoflurane to numb and calm patients. For decades, this type of treatment has been fairly reliable and effective, but for laparoscopic surgery, the use of sevoflurane can lead to a wide range of blood glucose changes, so in recent years, sevoflurane compared to propofol in laparoscopic surgery on endogenous and nitrogen oxide metabolism has been studied more and more. In this paper, a variety of research methods were used to study the phenomenon of shock and excessive anesthesia encountered by patients in the treatment process. Through observation and drug experiment of patients in different treatment courses and treatment stages, patients were asked to use sevoflurane and propofol to conduct double-blind experiments on their own drug effects. At the same time, through the long-term observation of patients with different diseases and patients who need laparoscopic surgery, the nitrogen oxide metabolism in patients with sevoflurane compared with propofol endogenous was studied and analyzed. Through three groups of different conditions, the experimental group, the blind test group, and the control group were studied. To conclude, in laparoscopic surgery, the use of sevoflurane compared with propofol can have a good impact on the endogenous drug and nitrogen oxide metabolism. It can achieve a good effect on the anesthesia effect of surgery, the maintenance of patient's physical signs and heart rate, which is very beneficial to the operation. Conclusion. Sevoflurane compared with propofol has a good effect on endogenous nitrogen oxide metabolism in laparoscopic surgery.

When should we choose a laparoscopic approach? A high-volume center recommendation score

Laparoscopic liver resection is a demanding procedure that is undergoing continuous development. The surgeon's skill is constantly improving, new surgical instruments are being introduced, and the indications for this procedure are expanding. However, there is still great concern about patient safety during the procedure and it is not commonly performed in many centers, although numerous studies have confirmed the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver techniques. Our center tries to use laparoscopy routinely for most cases and we do not consider conversion to open surgery to be a complication. We present our current opinion on patient selection for laparoscopic liver resection in the hope of encouraging more centers to adopt and develop this technique. Although laparoscopic liver resection is not an official standard of care, it should be considered according to the surgeon's experience and available resources.

A propensity-matched study of full laparoscopic versus hand-assisted minimal-invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The implications of multi-incision (MILS) and hand-assisted (HALS) laparoscopic techniques for minimally invasive liver surgery with regard to perioperative outcomes are not well defined. The purpose of this study was to compare MILS and HALS using propensity score matching.

METHODS

309 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) between January 2013 and June 2018. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after a 1:1 propensity score match. Subgroup analyses of matched groups, i.e., radical lymphadenectomy (LAD) as well as resections of posterosuperior segments (VII and/or VIII), were performed.

RESULTS

MILS was used in 187 (65.2%) and HALS in 100 (34.8%) cases, with a significant decrease of HALS resections over time (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, previous abdominal surgery and cirrhosis between both groups. Patients scheduled for HALS were characterized by a significantly higher rate of malignant tumors (p < 0.001) and major resections (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching (PMS), 70 cases remained in each group and all preoperative variables as well as resection extend were well balanced. A significantly higher rate of radical LAD (p = 0.039) and posterosuperior resections was found in the HALS group (p = 0.021). No significant differences between the matched groups were observed regarding operation time, conversion rate, frequency of major complications, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, overall hospital stay and R1 rate.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests MILS and HALS to be equivalent regarding postoperative outcomes. HALS might be particularly helpful to accomplish complex surgical procedures during earlier stages of the learning curve.

A Report of 21 Cases of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Children

Objective: To summarize and analyze the technique and experience of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in children. Methods: From Dec 2015 to Dec 2018, surgical outcomes were evaluated in 30 pediatric patients with liver tumors. LLR was performed in 21 patients, including 15 males and 6 females with a mean age of 7.6 ± 3.8 years (range, 2-13 years) and a mean liver tumor diameter of 7.2 ± 2.0 cm (range, 4-10 cm). During the same period, 9 cases of traditional open liver resection were selected as controls, including 6 males and 3 females with a mean age of 7.0 ± 3.7 years (range, 2-13 years) and a mean liver tumor diameter of 7.5 ± 2.2 cm (range, 4.4-10.0 cm). Results: The mean operation time and mean hepatic inflow occlusion time were longer in the laparoscopic group, with values of 182.3 ± 66.1 minutes and 83.2 ± 38.2 minutes, respectively, than in the open group, with values of 120.0 ± 54.3 minutes and 49.6 ± 26.5 minutes, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss (164.4 ± 107.4 mL versus 133.8 ± 87.1 mL), blood transfusion volume (102.2 ± 100.2 mL versus 69.2 ± 81.8 mL), and alanine aminotransferase levels 24 hours after surgery (212.0 ± 101.4 IU/L versus 173.3 ± 97.2 IU/L) and 72 hours after surgery (74.0 ± 32.5 IU/L versus 81.7 ± 57.3 IU/L). The average hospital stay in the laparoscopic group (6.2 ± 1.6 days) was significantly shorter than that in the open group (8.2 ± 2.0 days). The children in both groups recovered well after surgery without serious complications. Conclusion: LLR contributes to improved recovery of patients after surgery without increasing the incidence of complication, therefore, LLR is a safe option for liver tumors in children.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection of Segments 7 and 8: from the Initial Restrictions to the Current Indications

Since the beginning of laparoscopic liver surgery, resection of the posterosuperior segments has been considered one of the most challenging procedure due to its difficult access. The main drawbacks of the laparoscopic approach to dome lesions are poor visualization, the difficulty of instrumentation and the greater complexity in the control of bleeding. In the evolution of minimally invasive techniques from hybrid techniques to the current purely laparoscopic approaches, the different authors have established gradually the currents indications and surgical techniques to operate these segments with a similar feasibility and safety than open approach. The standardization in the patient position, the use of intercostal trocars, the learning curve in laparoscopic liver surgery, the management of the hepatic blood flow and the refinement of the technique in the extrahepatic and intrahepatic Glissonean pedicle approaches, has allowed to leave behind the initial contraindications about the laparoscopic approach in these segments. In the present review of the literature, the accumulated experience of the different groups in minimally invasive liver surgery together with the technological advances in the different laparoscopic devices have facilitated the resection of tumors in segments 7 and 8 with similar and even better results than open surgery.

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.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open or laparoscopic reconstruction during the learning curve: a multicenter propensity score matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with open reconstruction (LPD-OR) has been suggested to lower the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula reported after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy with laparoscopic reconstruction (LPD). Propensity score matched studies are, lacking.

METHODS

This is a multicenter prospective cohort study including patients from 7 Dutch centers between 2014-2018. Patients undergoing LPD-OR were matched LPD patients in a 1:1 ratio based on propensity scores. Main outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPF) grade B/C and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients were included, involving the first procedure for all centers. All 56 patients after LPD-OR could be matched to a patient undergoing LPD. With LPD-OR, the unplanned conversion rate was 21% vs. 9% with LPD (P < 0.001). Median blood loss (300 vs. 400 mL, P = 0.85), operative time (401 vs. 378 min, P = 0.62) and hospital stay (10 vs. 12 days, P = 0.31) were comparable for LPD-OR vs. LPD, as were Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (38% vs. 52%, P = 0.13), POPF grade B/C (23% vs. 21%, P = 0.82), and 90-day mortality (4% vs. 4%, P > 0.99).

CONCLUSION

In this propensity matched cohort performed early in the learning curve, no benefit was found for LPD-OR, as compared to LPD.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open and pure laparoscopic approach for liver resection and living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted (hybrid) liver surgery is considered a minimally invasive technique, however there are doubts regarding loss of the benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative results of hybrid vs. open and hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic approach to liver resection for focal lesions and living donation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and LILACS databases. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

21 studies were included. Hybrid vs. open: operative time was lower in open group (mean difference [MD] = 34 min; 95%CI: 22-47; P < 0.001; N = 669). Hybrid technique was associated with a reduction in operative blood loss [MD = -43 ml; 95%CI: -74-(-13); P = 0.005, N = 1738]; shorter hospital stay [MD = -1.9 days; 95%CI: -3.2-(-0.5); P = 0.008; N = 833] and lower morbidity [risk difference (RD) = -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10-(-0.01); P = 0.010; N = 1359]. Hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic: There was no difference regarding blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay and morbimortality.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid technique had perioperative outcomes that were more in keeping with pure laparoscopic outcomes than open surgery. Hybrid liver surgery should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

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.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Liver Surgery from Innovation to Implementation to Mastery: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of 2,238 Patients from 4 European Specialized Centers

BACKGROUND

First seen as an innovation for select patients, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved since its introduction, resulting in worldwide use. Despite this, it is still limited mainly to referral centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large cohort undergoing LLR from 2000 to 2015, focusing on the technical approaches, perioperative and oncologic outcomes, and evolution of practice over time.

STUDY DESIGN

The demographics and indications, intraoperative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes of 2,238 patients were evaluated. Trends in practice and outcomes over time were assessed.

RESULTS

The percentage of LLR performed yearly has increased from 5% in 2000 to 43% in 2015. Pure laparoscopy was used in 98.3% of cases. Wedge resections were the most common operation; they were predominant at the beginning of LLR and then decreased and remained steady at approximately 53%. Major hepatectomies were initially uncommon, then increased and reached a stable level at approximately 16%. Overall, 410 patients underwent resection in the posterosuperior segments; these were more frequent with time, and the highest percentage was in 2015 (26%). Blood loss, operative time, and conversion rate improved significantly with time. The 5-year overall survival rates were 73% and 54% for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), respectively. The 5-year, recurrence-free survival rates were 50% and 37% for HCC and CRLM, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Since laparoscopy was introduced, a long implementation process has been necessary to allow for standardization and improvement in surgical care, mastery of the technique, and the ability to obtain good perioperative results with safe oncologic outcomes.

Hand-assisted Approach as a Model to Teach Complex Laparoscopic Hepatectomies: Preliminary Results

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are limited and scarce models to teach complex liver resections by laparoscopy. The aim of this study is to present a hand-assisted technique to teach complex laparoscopic hepatectomies for fellows in liver surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic hand-assisted approach for resections of liver lesions located in posterosuperior segments (7, 6/7, 7/8, 8) was performed by the trainees with guidance and intermittent intervention of a senior surgeon. Data as: (1) percentage of time that the senior surgeon takes the surgery as main surgeon, (2) need for the senior surgeon to finish the procedure, (3) necessity of conversion, (4) bleeding with hemodynamic instability, (5) need for transfusion, (6) oncological surgical margins, were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 12 cases of complex laparoscopic liver resections were performed by the trainee. All cases included deep lesions situated on liver segments 7 or 8. The senior surgeon intervention occurred in a mean of 20% of the total surgical time (range, 0% to 50%). A senior intervention >20% was necessary in 2 cases. There was no need for conversion or reoperation. Neither major bleeding nor complications resulted from the teaching program. All surgical margins were clear.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary report shows that hand-assistance is a safe way to teach complex liver resections without compromising patient safety or oncological results. More cases are still necessary to draw definitive conclusions about this teaching method.

Are Hybrid Liver Resections Truly Minimally Invasive? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid liver resection is considered a modality of minimally invasive surgery; however, there are doubts regarding loss of benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. We compared perioperative results of patients undergoing hybrid × open and hybrid × pure laparoscopic resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection between June 2008 and January 2016 were studied. Study groups were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Six hundred forty-four resections were included in the comparative analysis: 470 open, 120 pure laparoscopic, and 54 hybrids. After PSM, 54 patients were included in each group. Hybrid × open: hybrid technique had shorter operative time (319.5 ± 108.6 × 376.2 ± 155.8 minutes, P = .033), shorter hospital stay (6.0 ± 2.7 × 8.1 ± 5.6 days, P = .001), and lower morbidity (18.5% × 40.7%, P = .003). Hybrid × pure laparoscopic: hybrid group had lower conversion rate (0% × 13%, P = .013). There was no difference regarding estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid resection has better perioperative results than the open approach and is similar to pure laparoscopy. The hybrid technique should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Prospective registry for laparoscopic liver resection

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been widely performed throughout the world. Although prospective registry studies to clarify the safety of LLR have been feasible, no prior multicenter prospective study has addressed this issue. We have conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study to reveal the current status of LLR in Japan.

METHODS

From April 2015 to March 2016, candidates for LLR were preoperatively enrolled at 12 institutions. The primary end-point was surgical safety, which was evaluated based on surgical factors and on short-term and midterm outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were enrolled. Planned laparoscopic procedures included 96 pure laparoscopies, 1 hand-assisted laparoscopy, and 5 hybrid techniques. Non-anatomical partial resection or left lateral sectionectomy were performed in almost all cases. The median duration of surgery was 221 min. The median blood loss was 80.5 mL. Conversion was required for four patients (3.9%). The 90-day postoperative morbidities with grades more severe than II in the Clavien-Dindo classification were observed in six patients (5.9%). The median postoperative hospital stay was 9.5 days. No cases involved reoperation or mortality.

CONCLUSION

Minor resection of LLR has been performed safely. To ensure the safe dissemination of LLR, including for major resection, a larger multicenter prospective study is required.

Evolution and revolution of laparoscopic liver resection in Japan

Due to important technological developments and improved endoscopic techniques, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered the approach of choice and is increasingly performed worldwide. Recent systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of observational data reported that LLR was associated with less bleeding, fewer complications, and no oncological disadvantage; however, no prospective randomized trials have been conducted. LLR will continue to evolve as a surgical approach that improves patient's quality of life. LLR will not totally supplant open liver surgery, and major LLR remains to be technically challenging procedure. The success of LLR depends on individual learning curves and adherence to surgical indications. A recent study proposed a scoring system for stepwise application of LLR, which was based on experience at high‐volume Japanese centers. A cluster of deaths after major LLR was sensationally reported by the Japanese media in 2014. In response, the Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery conducted emergency data collection on operative mortality. The results demonstrated that mortality was not higher than that for open procedures except for hemi‐hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. An online prospective registry system for LLR was established in 2015 to be transparent for patients who might potentially undergo treatment with this newly developed, technically demanding surgical procedure.

Evolution of a laparoscopic liver resection program: an analysis of 203 cases

BACKGROUND

Techniques for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have been developed over the past two decades. The aim of this study is to analyze the outcomes and trends of LLR.

METHODS

203 patients underwent LLR between 2006 and 2015. Trends in techniques and outcomes were assessed dividing the experience into 2 periods (before and after 2011).

RESULTS

Tumor type was malignant in 62%, and R0 resection was achieved in 87.7%. Procedures included segmentectomy/wedge resection in 64.5%. Techniques included a purely laparoscopic approach in 59.1% and robotic 12.3%. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 6.4% cases. Mean hospital stay was 3.7 ± 0.2 days. 90-day mortality was 0% and morbidity 20.2%. Pre-coagulation and the robot were used less often, while the performance of resections for posteriorly located tumors increased in the second versus the first period.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the safety and efficacy of LLR, while describing the evolution of a program regarding patient and technical selection. With building experience, the number of resections performed for posteriorly located tumors have increased, with less reliance on pre-coagulation and the robot.

Standardizing terminology for minimally invasive pancreatic resection

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of literature pertaining to minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR). Heterogeneity in MIPR terminology, leads to confusion and inconsistency. The Organizing Committee of the State of the Art Conference on MIPR collaborated to standardize MIPR terminology.

METHODS

After formal literature review for "minimally invasive pancreatic surgery" term, key terminology elements were identified. A questionnaire was created assessing the type of resection, the approach, completion, and conversion. Delphi process was used to identify the level of agreement among the experts.

RESULTS

A systematic terminology template was developed based on combining the approach and resection taking into account the completion. For a solitary approach the term should combine "approach + resection" (e.g. "laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy); for combined approaches the term must combine "first approach + resection" with "second approach + reconstruction" (e.g. "laparoscopic central pancreatectomy" with "open pancreaticojejunostomy") and where conversion has resulted the recommended term is "first approach" + "converted to" + "second approach" + "resection" (e.g. "robot-assisted" "converted to open" "pancreatoduodenectomy") CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines presented are geared towards standardizing terminology for MIPR, establishing a basis for comparative analyses and registries and allow incorporating future surgical and technological advances in MIPR.

A survey of current practices and barriers to expanding laparoscopic HPB surgery in Canada

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this survey was to determine the extent to which laparoscopy is used in hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) resections in Canada, and to assess HPB surgeons' attitudes and their perceived barriers to its further adoption.

METHODS

Using an electronic questionnaire, 68 Canadian Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (CHPBA) surgical members were surveyed. The questionnaire consisted of 12 questions regarding: surgeon demographics, the use and limitations of laparoscopy in their practice, and interest in increasing the use of laparoscopic techniques.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 75%. Of the 51 respondents, 86% reported performing minor laparoscopic resections such as hepatic wedge resections. Only 23% of surgeons reported performing laparoscopic liver lobectomies. Eighty-two percent of respondents indicated a wish to increase the use of laparoscopy in their practice. Barriers identified included operating time constraints (61%), a lack of equipment (41%) and lack of adequate training (43%).

DISCUSSION

This survey demonstrates that currently, most Canadian HPB surgeons use laparoscopy for minor HPB resections; however, there is a strong desire to expand the use of minimally invasive techniques amongst Canadian HPB surgeons. Training centered on addressing the limitations and barriers to the uptake of minimally invasive techniques in HPB surgery are needed.

Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection at Singapore General Hospital: a nine-year experience of 195 consecutive resections

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to analyse the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) at a single centre.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent LLR from 2006 to 2014 at our institution was performed. To explore the evolution of LLR, the study was divided into three equal consecutive time periods (Period 1: 2006-2008, Period 2: 2009-2011, and Period 3: 2012-2014).

RESULTS

Among 195 patients who underwent LLR, 24 (12.3%) required open conversions, 68 (34.9%) had resection of tumours in the difficult posterosuperior segments and 12 (6.2%) underwent major (≥ 3 segments) hepatectomies. Median operation time was 210 (range 40-620) minutes and median postoperative stay was 4 (range 1-26) days. Major postoperative morbidity (> Grade II) occurred in 11 (5.6%) patients and 90-day/in-hospital mortality was 1 (0.5%). During the study, the number of LLRs performed showed an increasing trend (Period 1: n = 22; Period 2: n = 19; Period 3: n = 154). Other statistically significant trends were: (a) increase in malignant neoplasms resected; (b) increase in resections of difficult posterosuperior segments; (c) longer median operation time; and (d) decrease in open conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

Over the study period, the number of LLRs increased rapidly. LLR was increasingly performed for malignant neoplasms and lesions located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, resulting in longer operation times. However, open conversion rates decreased, and there was no change in postoperative morbidity and other perioperative outcomes.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic left hepatectomy: how I do it

Laparoscopic liver resection has been adopted slowly due to concerns for bleeding and oncologic outcomes. Currently, over 9,500 laparoscopic liver resections have been performed and reported worldwide. Numerous studies have shown the safety and oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic liver resection when compared to open resection. Pure laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection are the two most commonly used techniques for minimally invasive liver resection surgery. Advantages of the hand-port include tactile feedback, facilitation of liver mobilization, and ease of ability to control bleeding. We present a case report with video of a hand-assisted laparoscopic left liver resection for a hepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic patient.

Comprehensive guide to laparoscope-assisted graft harvesting in live donors for living-donor liver transplantation: perspective of laparoscopic vision

Background

A living donor (LD) for liver transplantation (LT) is the best target for minimally invasive surgery. Laparoscope-assisted surgery (LAS) for LDs has gradually evolved. A donor safety rate of 100% should be guaranteed.

Methods

We began performing LAS for LDs in June 2012. The aim of this report is to describe the surgical procedures of LAS in detail, discuss various tips and pitfalls, and address the potential for a smooth transition to more advanced LAS.

Results

Preoperative planning based on three-dimensional image analysis is a powerful tool for successful surgery. The combination of liver retraction/countertraction and the pressure produced by pneumoperitoneum widens the dissectible/cuttable layer, increasing the safety of LAS. A flexible laparoscope provides excellent magnified vision in both the horizontal view along the inferior vena cava, under adequate liver retraction, and in the lateral view, to harvest left-sided grafts in critical procedures. Intentional omission of painful incisions is beneficial for LDs. Hepatectomy using a smaller midline incision is safe if a hanging maneuver is used. Safe transition from LAS to a hybrid technique involving a combination of pure laparoscopic surgery and subsequent open surgery seems possible.

Conclusion

LDLT surgeons have a very broad intellectual and technical frontier.

What has changed after the Morioka consensus conference 2014 on laparoscopic liver resection?

The 2(nd) International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection (ICCLLR) was held 4(th)-6(th) October, 2014, in Morioka, Japan. The level of evidence appears to be low in the field of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to create strong recommendations. Therefore, an independent jury-based consensus model was applied to better define the current role of LLR and to develop internationally accepted recommendations. The three-day conference was very intense with full of insightful discussions on assessment of LLR and its future directions. The jury drew the statements based on the presentations and documents prepared by the expert. LLR is theoretically superior to open liver resection (OLR) because the laparoscope allows better exposure with a magnified view, and the pneumoperitoneum pressure reduces hepatic vein bleeding from the cut surface. During the ICCLLR, we shared these theoretical advantages in LLR and the conceptual change of liver resection. After the ICCLLR, a couple of important studies have been published to prove this theoretical superiority of LLR over OLR in short-term outcomes without deteriorating long-term outcomes. Another new concept was proposed at the ICCLLR: parenchyma sparing (limited) anatomical resection. Review of the literature supports anatomical resection with parenchyma sparing strategy for LLR irrespective of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Just after the ICCLLR, sensational news of clustered mortality after LLR was reported in the Japanese media and they impacted on daily practice of LLR in Japan. The most important message from the ICCLLR is to protect patients from this new surgical procedure. The ICCLLR recommended three actions for the protection of patients: (I) prospective reporting registry for transparency; (II) a difficulty scoring system to select patients; (III) creation of a formal structure of education. The online prospective registry system including items to calculate the difficulty score has been created in Japan after the ICCLLR for the safe development of LLR.

What is the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is rapidly expanding with more than 9500 cases performed worldwide. While initial series reported non-anatomic resection of benign peripheral hepatic lesions, approximately 50-65 % of laparoscopic liver resections are now being done for malignant tumors, primarily hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal cancer liver metastases (mCRC).

METHODS

We performed a literature review of published studies evaluating outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection, defined as three or more Couinaud segments.

RESULTS

Initial fears of adverse oncologic outcomes or tumor seeding have not been demonstrated, and dozens of studies have reported comparable 5-year disease-free and overall survival between laparoscopic and open resection of HCC or mCRC in case-cohort and propensity score-matched analyses. Increased experience has led to laparoscopic anatomic liver resections including laparoscopic major hepatectomy. A steep learning curve of 45-60 cases is evident for laparoscopic hepatic resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of benign and malignant liver tumors when performed in specialized centers with dedicated teams. Comparable to other complex laparoscopic surgeries, laparoscopic major hepatectomy has a learning curve of 45-60 cases.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions

Laparoscopic surgery is applied today worldwide to most digestive procedures. In some of them, such as cholecystectomy, Nissen's fundoplication or obesity surgery, laparoscopy has become the standard in practice. In others, such as colon or gastric resection, the laparoscopic approach is frequently used and its usefulness is unquestionable. More complex procedures, such as esophageal, liver or pancreatic resections are, however, more infrequently performed, due to the high grade of skill necessary. As a result, there is less clinical evidence to support its implementation. In the recent years, robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has been increasingly applied, again with little evidence for comparison with the conventional laparoscopic approach. This review will focus on the complex digestive procedures as well as those whose use in standard practice could be more controversial. Also novel robot-assisted procedures will be updated.

Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to clarify the surgical outcome and long-term prognosis of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared with conventional open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

A one-to-two propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied. Covariates (P < 0.2) used for PSM estimation included preoperative levels of CEA and CA19-9; primary tumor differentiation; primary pathological lymph node metastasis; number, size, location, and distribution of CRLM; existence of extrahepatic metastasis; extent of hepatic resection; total bilirubin and prothrombin activity levels; and preoperative chemotherapy. Perioperative data and long-term survival were compared.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2010, 1,331 patients with hepatic resection for CRLM were enrolled. By PSM, 171 LLR and 342 OLR patients showed similar preoperative clinical characteristics. Median estimated blood loss (163 g vs 415 g, P < 0.001) and median postoperative hospital stay (12 days vs 14 days; P < 0.001) were significantly reduced in the LLR group. Morbidity and mortality were similar. Five-year rates of recurrence-free, overall, and disease-specific survival did not differ significantly. The R0 resection rate was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected CRLM patients, LLR is strongly associated with lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay and has equivalent long-term survival comparable with OLR.