Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Systematic review and meta-analysis of open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy

The value of minimally invasive approaches for living donor hepatectomy remains unclear. Our aim was to compare the donor outcomes after open versus laparoscopy-assisted versus pure laparoscopic versus robotic living donor hepatectomy (OLDH vs. LALDH vs. PLLDH vs. RLDH). A systematic literature review of the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement (up to December 8, 2021). Random-effects meta-analyses were performed separately for minor and major living donor hepatectomy. The risk of bias in nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A total of 31 studies were included. There was no difference in donor outcomes after OLDH versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. However, PLLDH was associated with decreased estimated blood loss, length of stay (LOS), and overall complications versus OLDH for minor and major hepatectomy, but also with increased operative time for major hepatectomy. PLLDH was associated with decreased LOS versus LALDH for major hepatectomy. RLDH was associated with decreased LOS but with increased operative time versus OLDH for major hepatectomy. The scarcity of studies comparing RLDH versus LALDH/PLLDH did not allow us to meta-analyze donor outcomes for that comparison. There seems to be a marginal benefit in estimated blood loss and/or LOS in favor of PLLDH and RLDH. The complexity of these procedures limits them to transplant centers with high volume and experience. Future studies should investigate self-reported donor experience and the associated economic costs of these approaches.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Living donor hepatectomy in medium volume liver transplant centre has comparable outcomes to high volume centres: validation of donabedian quality assurance framework

BACKGROUND

Given the complexity of living donor hepatectomy, it is expected that high hospital volume will better outcomes. This study aims to evaluate post-operative outcomes for living donor hepatectomy in a medium volume liver transplant centre and compare to outcomes in high volume centres. Also, it serves as a validation tool for framework of structure-process-outcome model for safe living donor hepatectomy program.

METHODS

204 donors who underwent donor hepatectomy between June 1996 to September 2019 were reviewed retrospectively and compared to outcomes in high volume centres.

RESULTS

At 6 months, overall donor morbidity rate was 20/204 (9.8%). Wound complications were most common at 5/204 (2.5%). Majority of complications were either Clavien grade 1 or 2 and only 3 donors had Clavien grade 3 complications. There was zero donor mortality.

DISCUSSION

Our centre's donor morbidity rate of 9.8% is the one of the lowest reported in the published literature. With increased experience, stringent donor selection and enhanced perioperative care by a multi-disciplinary team, outcomes in a medium volume centre can match the outcomes reported in high volume centres. The framework for quality in terms of structure, process and outcomes is presented which can be adopted for developing programs.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

The impact of mini-invasive right hepatectomy in the setting of living donation: a meta-analysis

Adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT) represents a challenging procedure, mainly when the right hepatic lobe is donated. Therefore, especially in Western countries, the medical community still considers it a “risky procedure”. The present meta-analysis investigated the postoperative results reported in donors undergoing right hepatectomy for A2ALDLT through a minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open liver resection (OLR) approach, with the intent to clarify the hypothesis that the MILR approach should minimize the risks for the donor. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE electronic databases. The primary outcome investigated was the complication rate after transplant. Fifteen studies were included (n = 2094; MILR = 553 vs. OLR = 1541). The MILR group only merged the statistical relevance in terms of advantage in terms of a lower number of complications (OR = 0.771, 95% CI 0.578–1.028; P value = 0.077). Investigating the complications ≥ IIIa according to the Dindo-Clavien classification, the estimated blood loss, and the length of hospital stay, no statistical difference was reported between the two groups. MILR represents a novel and promising approach for improving the results in A2ALDLT. However, no benefits have been reported regarding blood loss, length of stay, and postoperative complications. More extensive experiences are needed to re-evaluate the impact of MILR in right lobe live donation.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.

Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA)

OBJECTIVE

The Expert Consensus Guidelines initiative on MIDH for LDLT was organized with the goal of safe implementation and development of these complex techniques with donor safety as the main priority.

BACKGROUND

Following the development of minimally invasive liver surgery, techniques of MIDH were developed with the aim of reducing the short- and long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors. These techniques, although increasingly performed, lack clinical guidelines.

METHODS

A group of 12 international MIDH experts, 1 research coordinator, and 8 junior faculty was assembled. Comprehensive literature search was made and studies classified using the SIGN method. Based on literature review and experts opinions, tentative recommendations were made by experts subgroups and submitted to the whole experts group using on-line Delphi Rounds with the goal of obtaining >90% Consensus. Pre-conference meeting formulated final recommendations that were presented during the plenary conference held in Seoul on September 7, 2019 in front of a Validation Committee composed of LDLT experts not practicing MIDH and an international audience.

RESULTS

Eighteen Clinical Questions were addressed resulting in 44 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 90% consensus among experts and were afterward endorsed by the validation committee.

CONCLUSIONS

The Expert Consensus on MIDH has produced a set of clinical guidelines based on available evidence and clinical expertise. These guidelines are presented for a safe implementation and development of MIDH in LDLT Centers with the goal of optimizing donor safety, donor care, and recipient outcomes.

Total laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Background:

There have been an increasing number of articles that demonstrate the potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from retrospective observational studies susceptible to bias, especially selection bias. In addition, in many series, several modalities of minimally invasive surgery are included in the same comparison group.

Aim:

To compare the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of patients submitted to total laparoscopic liver resection with those submitted to open liver resection, matched by propensity score matching (PSM).

Method:

Consecutive adult patients submitted to liver resection were included. PSM model was constructed using the following variables: age, gender, diagnosis (benign vs. malignant), type of hepatectomy (minor vs. major), and presence of cirrhosis. After matching, the groups were redefined on a 1:1 ratio, by the nearest method.

Results:

After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. Those undergoing total laparoscopic surgery had shorter operative time (286.8±133.4 vs. 352.4±141.5 minutes, p<0.001), shorter ICU stay (1.9±1.2 vs. 2.5±2.2days, p=0.031), shorter hospital stay (5.8±3.9 vs. 9.9±9.3 days, p<0.001) and a 45% reduction in perioperative complications (19.2 vs. 35%, p=0.008).

Conclusion:

Total laparoscopic liver resections are safe, feasible and associated with shorter operative time, shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lower rate of perioperative complications.

Learning Curve Under Proctorship of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an expert liver transplantation surgeon approaching fully laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) under proctorship.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections necessitate a long learning curve trough a stepwise fulfillment of difficulties. L-LLS requires expertise in both living donor liver transplantation and advanced laparoscopic liver surgery. There is currently no data about the learning curve of L-LLS.

METHODS

A total of 72 pure L-LLS were included in this study. A Broken line model was used to identify the periods of the learning curve. A CUSUM analysis of the operative time was performed to evaluate improvements of outcomes with time. To evaluate the relationship between operative time and progressive number of procedures, a linear regression model was applied. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

Operative time decreased with the progressive increase of procedures. Two cutoffs and 3 different periods were identified: cases 1 to 22, cases 23 to 55, and cases 56 to 72. A significant decrease in blood loss and operative time was noted. The CUSUM analysis showed an increase in operative time in the first period, a stable duration in the second period, and a decrease in the last. Blood loss was significantly associated with an increase in operative time (P = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the learning curve was completed after 25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

L-LLS is a safe procedure that can be standardized and successfully taught to surgeons with large experience in donor hepatectomy through a proctored learning curve.

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.

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.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy, are we ready for prime time?

Minimally invasive surgery potentially reduces operative morbidities. However, pure laparoscopic approaches to donor hepatectomy have been limited by technical complexity and concerns over donor safety. Reduced-wound donor hepatectomy, either in the form of a laparoscopic-assisted technique or by utilizing a mini-laparotomy wound, i.e., hybrid approach, has been developed to bridge the transition to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, offering some advantages of minimally invasive surgery. To date, pure laparoscopic donor left lateral sectionectomy has been validated for its safety and advantages and has become the standard in experienced centres. Pure laparoscopic approaches to major left and right liver donation have been reported for their technical feasibility in expert hands. Robotic-assisted donor hepatectomy also appears to be a valuable alternative to pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, providing additional ergonomic advantages to the surgeon. Existing reports derive from centres with tremendous experience in both laparoscopic hepatectomy and donor hepatectomy. The complexity of these procedures means an arduous transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. Donor safety is paramount in living donor liver transplantation. Careful donor selection and adopting standardized techniques allow experienced transplant surgeons to safely accumulate experience and acquire proficiency. An international prospective registry will advance the understanding for the role and safety of pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Impact of abdominal shape on living liver donor outcomes in mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy: Comparison among 3 techniques

Although minimally invasive techniques for living donor hepatectomy have been developed, the surgical feasibility and limitations remain to be elucidated. The risks and outcomes involved need to be better understood prior to their widespread application. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility of minimally invasive donor hepatectomy by reviewing our experience. A total of 99 living donor liver transplantations performed between 2000 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All 99 living liver donors underwent right hepatectomy. The breakdown of the techniques is as follows: the standard technique in 33 patients; the laparoscopic-assisted minilaparotomy technique (hybrid technique group) in 19 patients; and the upper midline incision technique without laparoscopic assistance (minilaparotomy group) in 47 patients. An association between donor operative outcomes and body habitus, such as body mass index (BMI), abdominal truncal depth (approximated by celiac axis [CA] depth ratio), and umbilical circumference (UC) were assessed. Perioperative factors were compared between the standard technique and the minimally invasive technique. The minilaparotomy group had significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.046) and hospital stay (P = 0.005) than the standard technique group. Postoperative complication rates were similar between the 3 groups (P = 0.16). In the minilaparotomy group, greater BMI (P = 0.02), CA depth ratio (P = 0.04), and UC (P = 0.004) were found to be risk factors for postoperative complications. In the minilaparotomy group, CA depth ratio > 0.41, UC > 90 cm, and BMI > 30 kg/m² were significantly associated with longer operative time and hospital stay. In the standard technique group, none of the body size factors were associated with postoperative outcomes. In conclusion, the minilaparotomy technique is safe and feasible, though technical difficulties may be encountered when performed on donors with larger body habitus. Ongoing efforts are required to ensure living donor safety. Liver Transplantation 24 516-527 2018 AASLD.

Living donor liver transplantation: eliminating the wait for death in end-stage liver disease?

Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (A2ALDLT), outside of Asia, remains an important yet underutilized gift of life. For patients with end-stage liver disease, A2ALDLT is a proven transplantation option, with lower waiting list mortality and suffering, and equivalent or better allograft and patient survival than deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT). The risks to living donors and the benefit to their recipients have been carefully defined with long-term level 1 and 2 evidence-based study. An overview of the development and practice of living donor liver transplant (LDLT), including donor and recipient surgical allograft innovation, is provided. The issues of recipient selection, outcomes and morbidity, including disease-variable study and challenges past and present are presented in comparison with DDLT cohorts, and future insights are described. Central to practice is the careful and concise review of donor evaluation and selection and donor outcome, morbidity, quality of life and present and future strategies for donor advocacy and growth of the technique.

Laparoscopy-Assisted versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donor: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of laparoscopy-assisted living donor hepatectomy (LADH) in comparison with open living donor hepatectomy (ODH) for liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND

LADH is becoming increasingly common for living donor liver transplant around the world. We aim to determine the efficacy of LADH and compare it with ODH.

METHODS

A systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted in May 2017.

RESULTS

Nine studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 979 patients. LADH seemed to be associated with increased operation time (WMD = 24.85 min; 95% CI: -3.01~52.78, P = 0.08), less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -59.92 ml; 95% CI: -94.58~-25.27, P = 0.0007), similar hospital stays (WMD = -0.47 d; 95% CI: -1.78~0.83, P = 0.47), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51~0.94, P = 0.02), less analgesic use (SMD = -0.22; 95% CI: -0.44~-0.11, P = 0.04), similar transfusion rates (RR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.24~3.12, P = 0.82), and similar graft weights (WMD = 7.31 g; 95% CI: -23.45~38.07, P = 0.64).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LADH is a safe and effective technique and, when compared to ODH.

Robotic liver donor right hepatectomy: A pure, minimally invasive approach

Right hepatectomy for a living liver donor via a pure minimally invasive approach is a challenging procedure and only a few cases have been reported. Between May 2013 and August 2015, 13 patients underwent robotic living donor right hepatectomy in our institute, and 54 patients received open surgery. In this series, no conversion was conducted for robotic donor right hepatectomy. The 2 groups shared similar blood loss (169 versus 146 mL), complication rates (7.7% versus 9.3%), and recovery of donor liver function (peak alanine aminotransferase, 269 versus 252 IU/mL). The robotic group needed longer operation time (596 versus 383 minutes) but less postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (0.58 versus 0.84 ng/kg) and a shorter period before returning to work/school (52.9 versus 100.0 days) and sex (100.0 versus 156.0 days). For recipient outcomes regarding the donor procedure, the robotic group shared similar experiences in early allograft dysfunction, complications, and 1-year recipient liver function with the open group. With respect to documented benefits of minimally invasive left-sided liver donor procedure, the development of right donor hepatectomy is slow. In conclusion, with substantial improvements in patient recovery after the minimally invasive approach, the robotic platform would be a big step toward completing pure minimally invasive liver donor surgery. Liver Transplantation 22 1509-1518 2016 AASLD.

Living donor liver transplantation in Europe

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) sparked significant interest in Europe when the first reports of its success from USA and Asia were made public. Many transplant programs initiated LDLT and some of them especially in Germany and Belgium became a point of reference for many patients and important contributors to the advancement of the field. After the initial enthusiasm, most of the European programs stopped performing LDLT and today the overall European activity is concentrated in a few centers and the number of living donor liver transplants is only a single digit fraction of the overall number of liver transplants performed. In this paper we analyse the present European activities and highlight the European contribution to the advancement of the field of LDLT.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.