Long-term outcomes and safety of laparoscopic liver resection surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colorectal cancer

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

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

A learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection: an effective training system and standardization of technique

The incidence of laparoscopic liver resection (LHx) has been increased in the past decade. There have been some reports about some advantages of LHx, in both short and long-term outcomes after operation. The use of a minor LHx was regarded as a standard surgical practice, and some peri-operative complications hindered worldwide increase of LHx in the Second International Consensus Conference on LHx at Morioka. However, no suggestions were described in terms with how to provide the best teaching and training necessary to shorten the learning curve for inexperienced surgeons using a new surgical technique while continuing to maintain a low rate of morbidity from the very beginning. This study includes a literature review of published research which looked at a learning curve for LHx. As well, it proposes a new step-wise training method for inexperienced surgeons and standardization of a technique for LHx focusing especially on laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLHx).

Laparoscopic liver resection using a monopolar soft-coagulation device to provide maximum intraoperative bleeding control for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The popularity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is spreading, worldwide, because the intraoperative blood loss is less than for open hepatectomy and it is associated with a shorter hospitalization period [1-6]. During LLR, intraoperative hemostasis is difficult to achieve, unlike during laparotomy where bleeding can be stopped instantly [7-10]. Our LLR method for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes maximal control of intraoperative bleeding using a monopolar soft-coagulation device. Although we use a monopolar soft-coagulation device to control bleeding during LLR, while coagulating the thin blood vessels, we also developed a maneuver (the hepatocyte crush method: HeCM) to allow liver transection to progress while liver parenchymal cells are being crushed.

METHOD

Between January 2008 and March 2016, we performed total LLR on 150 hepatocellular carcinoma patients (144 partial liver resections and six left lateral sectionectomies) using the maneuver shown in the video.

RESULTS

The patients had Child-Pugh Scores of grade A (n = 100), B (42), or C (n = 8) and the localizations of tumor were segment (S) 1(n = 7), S2 (19), S3 (23), S4 (28), S5 (17), S6 (26), S8 (17), and S8 (29). The median blood loss was 30 (range 0-490) g during a median surgical time of 207 (range 127-468) min. One patient required conversion to a laparotomy due to the presence of severe adhesions; none of the patients required conversion due to intraoperative hemorrhage. The peak aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level was 320 (range 57-1964) IU/L. Although some patients showed high AST levels, none showed signs of hepatic failure. The median postoperative hospital stay duration was 6 (range 3-21) days. Postoperative complications occurred in seven cases (4.7%), including intraabdominal abscesses (n = 2), wound infections (2), intraabdominal hemorrhage (1), bile duct stricture (1), and umbilical hernia (1). The mortality was zero.

CONCLUSION

HeCM, combined with the use of a monopolar soft-coagulation device, is a good technique for reducing bleeding during liver resection in patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can we extend the surgical indication in cirrhotic patients?

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the value of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and severe cirrhosis is still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic HCC patients.

METHODS

The analysis included 403 LLR for HCC from seven European centres. 333 cirrhotic and 70 non-cirrhotic patients were compared. A matched comparison was performed between 100 Child-Pugh A and 25 Child-Pugh B patients.

RESULTS

There was no difference in blood loss (250 vs. 250 mL, p 0.465) and morbidity (28.6 vs. 26.4%, p 0.473) between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics, and liver-specific complications were similar (12.8 vs. 12%, p 0.924). The sub-analysis revealed similar perioperative outcomes in either Child-Pugh A or B patients. Noteworthy, ascitis (11 vs. 12%, p 0.562) and liver failure (3 vs. 4%, p 0.595) were not different. ASA score (OR 1.76, p 0.034) and conversion (OR 2.99, p 0.019) were risk factors for major morbidity. Despite lower recurrence-free survival in cirrhotics (43 vs. 55 months, p 0.034), overall survival was similar to non-cirrhotic patients (84 vs. 76.5, p 0.598).

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC appear equally safe in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, and the advantages can be witnessed in those with advanced cirrhosis. Severe comorbidities and conversion should be considered risk factors for complications-rather than the severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension-when liver resection is performed laparoscopically. Such results may be of great interest to liver surgeons and hepatologists when deciding on the management of HCC within cirrhosis.

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.

The need for organization of laparoscopic liver resection

In this article, we present the rationale for creating a new society aiming at organizing laparoscopic liver surgery. It has been named International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS). Its main mission is to facilitate the diffusion and education of laparoscopic liver resection for meaningful improvements in patient care. This will include organization of a biannual congress dedicated to laparoscopic liver resection, coordination of international registries, helping in the education of surgeons wishing to learn these techniques including travel grants, provide a website serving as a forum supporting collaboration between surgeons interested in the advancement of laparoscopic liver resection techniques (http://www.ills.global/). ILLS aims at working in collaboration with existing HPB societies.

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.

Safely extending the indications of laparoscopic liver resection: When should we start laparoscopic major hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is an innovative procedure that is still in the exploration phase. Although new surgical techniques have learning curves, safety should be maintained from the onset. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the safe introduction of LMH.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 245 consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection. Patients were divided into three groups: Phase I, the first 64 cases, all minor hepatectomies; Phase II, cases from the first LMH case to the midmost of the LMH cases (n = 69, including 22 LMHs); Phase III, the most recent 112 cases, including 22 LMHs. Patient characteristics and surgical results were evaluated, and the learning curve was analysed with the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

The first LMH was adopted after sufficient preparatory experience was gained from performing 64 minor hepatectomies. In cases of LMH, there were no significant differences in the surgical time between Phases II and III (356 vs. 309 min; P = 0.318), morbidity rate (22.7 vs. 31.8 %; P = 0.736), or major morbidity rate (18.2 vs. 9.1 %; P = 0.664); however, estimated blood loss was significantly reduced from Phase II to Phase III (236 vs. 68 mL; P = 0.018). The CUSUM for morbidity also showed similar outcomes through Phases II and III.

CONCLUSION

There is a learning curve associated with laparoscopic liver resection. To maintain a low morbidity rate, 60 laparoscopic minor hepatectomies could provide adequate experience before the adoption of LMH.

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.

Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

Minimally invasive surgery has been cautiously introduced in surgical oncology over the last two decades due to a concern of compromised oncological outcomes. Recently, it has been adopted in liver surgery for colorectal metastases. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death in the USA. In addition, liver metastasis is the most common site of distant disease and its resection improves survival. While open resection was the standard of care, laparoscopic liver surgery has become the standard of care for minor liver resections. Laparoscopic liver surgery provides equivalent oncological outcomes with better perioperative results compared to open liver surgery. Robotic liver surgery has been introduced as it is believed to overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopy. Finally, laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation and microwave coagulation can be used as adjuncts in minimally invasive surgery to complement or replace surgical resection when not possible.