Outcomes of repeat laparoscopic liver resection compared to the primary resection

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Value and prognostic factors of repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

More than 50% of patients with colorectal cancer develop liver metastases. Hepatectomy is the preferred treatment for resectable liver metastases. This review provides a perspective on the utility and relevant prognostic factors of repeat hepatectomy in recurrent colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM).

DATA SOURCES

The keywords "recurrent colorectal liver metastases", "recurrent hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer", "liver metastases of colorectal cancer", "repeat hepatectomy", "repeat hepatic resection", "second hepatic resection", and "prognostic factors" were used to retrieve articles published in the PubMed database up to August 2020. Additional articles were identified by a manual search of references from key articles.

RESULTS

Despite improvements in surgical methods and perioperative chemotherapy, recurrence remains common in 37%-68% of patients. Standards or guidelines for the treatment of recurrent liver metastases are lacking. Repeat hepatectomy appears to be the best option for patients with resectable metastases. The commonly reported prognostic factors after repeat hepatectomy were R0 resection, carcinoembryonic antigen level, the presence of extrahepatic disease, a short disease-free interval between initial and repeat hepatectomy, the number (> 1) and size (≥ 5 cm) of hepatic lesions, requiring blood transfusion, and no adjuvant chemotherapy after initial hepatectomy. The median overall survival after repeat hepatectomy ranged from 19.3 to 62 months, and the 5-year overall survival ranged from 21% to 73%. Chemotherapy can act as a test for the biological behavior of tumors with the goal of avoiding unnecessary surgery, and a multimodal approach involving aggressive chemotherapy and repeat hepatectomy might be the treatment of choice for patients with early recurrent CRLM.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat hepatectomy is a relatively safe and effective treatment for resectable recurrent CRLM. The presence or absence of prognostic factors might facilitate patient selection to improve short- and long-term outcomes.

Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection: A Review of Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, and both liver resection and liver transplantation are considered potentially curative options. However, high recurrence rates affect the prognosis depending both on the primary HCC pathology characteristics or on the type and time of the relapse. While great attention has been usually posted on treatment algorithms for the first HCC, treatment algorithms for recurrent HCC (rHCC) are lacking. In these cases, surgery still represents a curative option with both redo hepatectomy and/or salvage liver transplantation, which are considered valid treatments in selected patients. In the current era of personalised medicine with promises of new systemic-targeted immuno-chemotherapies, we wished to perform a narrative review of the literature on the role of surgical strategies for rHCC.

Previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery did not increase the difficulty in laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case–control study in 100 consecutive patients

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is still technically challenging for patients with previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery (AS). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the difficulty of performing LH for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a history of nonhepatectomy AS during the initial developing period of LH.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed with HCC receiving LH from January 2013 to June 2021. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were prospectively collected.

Results

One hundred patients were reviewed consecutively, comprising 23 in the AS group and 77 in the non-AS group. No significant differences were observed in median IWATE score (5 vs. 5, P = 0.194), operative time (219 vs. 200 min, P = 0.609), blood loss (100.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P = 0.734), transfusion rate (4.3% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.374), duration of parenchyma transection (90.0 vs. 72.4 min, P = 0.673), and mean nonparenchymal transection time (191.0 vs. 125.0 min, P = 0.228), without increasing the conversion rate (0.0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.336), postoperative complications (30.3% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.488), and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = 0.060) in AS group and non-AS groups.

Conclusion

History of previous nonhepatectomy AS can lead to longer nonparenchymal transection time instead of conversion and did not increase the difficulty. Prolonged nonparenchymal transection time did not increase the surgical complications, prolong the postoperative hospital stay, and compromise the survival outcomes.

Effects of iNOS in Hepatic Warm Ischaemia and Reperfusion Models in Mice and Rats: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Warm ischaemia is usually induced by the Pringle manoeuver (PM) during hepatectomy. Currently, there is no widely accepted standard protocol to minimise ischaemia-related injury, so reducing ischaemia-reperfusion damage is an active area of research. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as an early inflammatory response to hepatic ischaemia reperfusion injury (HIRI) in mouse- and rat-liver models. A systematic search of studies was performed within three databases. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. We performed a meta-analysis of studies grouped by different HIRI models and ischaemia times. Additionally, we investigated a possible correlation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and nitric oxide (NO) regulation with iNOS expression. Of 124 included studies, 49 were eligible for the meta-analysis, revealing that iNOS was upregulated in almost all HIRIs. We were able to show an increase of iNOS regardless of ischemia or reperfusion time. Additionally, we found no direct associations of eNOS or NO with iNOS. A sex gap of primarily male experimental animals used was observed, leading to a higher risk of outcomes not being translatable to humans of all sexes.

Short-term Outcomes and Difficulty of Repeat Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of repeat laparoscopic liver resection (Rep-LLR), including repeat anatomical resection (Rep-AR), as compared to initial-LLR (Ini-LLR).

Background

The indications of LLR have expanded to treatment of recurrent liver tumors. However, the feasibility of Rep-LLR, including Rep-AR, has not yet been adequately assessed.

Methods

Data of 297 patients who had undergone LLR were reviewed. Among the 297 patients, 235 (AR: 168) had undergone Ini-LLR and 62 (AR: 27) had undergone Rep-LLR, and the surgical outcomes were compared between the groups. In addition, multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of the difficulty of Rep-LLR based on the operation time and volume of blood loss.

Results

Of the 62 patients who had undergone Rep-LLR, 44, 14, and 4 had undergone second, third, and fourth repeat LRs, respectively. No significant intergroup differences were observed in regard to the operation time, blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery, postoperative morbidity, or postoperative hospital stay. However, the proportion of patients in whom the Pringle maneuver was used was significantly lower in the Rep-LLR group than in the Ini-LLR group. Multivariate analysis identified surgical procedure ≥sectionectomy at the initial/previous LR and an IWATE difficulty score of ≥6 as being independent predictors of the difficulty of Rep-LLR. Use of adhesion barriers at the initial/previous LR was associated with a decreased risk of failure to perform the Pringle maneuver during Rep-LLR.

Conclusions

Rep-LLR can offer outcomes comparable to those of Ini-LLR over the short term.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for liver cancers: A report from a nationwide surgical database in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic (repeat) liver resection (LRLR) is a well-established liver tumor treatment. However, since its outcomes and comparison with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) in recurrent liver cancer remain inadequately studied, this study then aimed to compare their short-term outcomes for liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, and metastatic liver cancer).

METHODS

Repeat liver resection cases between 2013 and 2017 from Japan's National Clinical Database were extracted. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the proportion of patients with postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher (CD2+) (primary endpoint), as well as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and intraoperative transfusion implementation rate (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 2,902 patients (ORLR, 2,476; LRLR, 426), 712 (356 per type) with comparable backgrounds remained via PSM. Before and after PSM, the postoperative CD2+ complication rate was significantly lower in the LRLR group, who had shorter operative time, smaller intraoperative bleeding volume, and lower intraoperative transfusion rate, than in the ORLR group (after matching, 7.6% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR showed better short-term outcomes than ORLR, making it a safer and more effective liver cancer treatment.

Predicting Complications following Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Newly Developed Neo-Glasgow Prognostic Score with ALBI Grade: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Cases

Background/Aim: Nutritional assessment is known to be important for predicting prognosis in patients with malignant diseases. This study examined the usefulness of a prognostic predictive nutritional assessment tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with surgical resection. Materials/Methods: HCC patients (n = 429) classified as Child−Pugh A who underwent an R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (median age 73 years, males 326 (76.0%), Child−Pugh score 5:6 = 326:103, single tumor 340 (79.2%), median tumor size 3.5 cm, open:laparoscopic = 304:125). Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the newly developed neo-GPS method, which uses albumin−bilirubin grade 1 instead of albumin, were evaluated to compare their usefulness for prognosis prediction. Results: Median survival time for patients with a GPS score of 0, 1, and 2 was 120, 51, and 20 months, respectively. As for neo-GPS, that for those with a score of 0, 1, and 2 was not applicable (NA), 53 months, and 35 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.556 and 0.611, respectively). Furthermore, median progression-free survival was 33, 22, and 9 months, and 41, 24, and 15 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.539 and 0.578, respectively). As compared to patients with a high GPS (≥1), those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed a greater rate of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) (39.2% vs. 65.1%). A comparison of patients with a high GPS (≥1) with those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed no significant difference regarding frequency of open or laparoscopic hepatectomy (17.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.670; 44.7% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.831, respectively), while the frequency of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) was lower in patients who underwent a laparoscopic hepatectomy (11.2% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the newly developed neo-GPS based on ALBI grade is an effective prognostic nutritional assessment tool and can be used for prediction of postoperative complications.

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised.

DISCUSSION

The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917 . Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion.

PROTOCOL VERSION

version 12, May 9, 2017.

Application of da Vinci robot and laparoscopy on repeat hepatocellular carcinoma

Background:

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection has been used safely and effectively on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have been performed on repeat HCC surgery by a da Vinci robot. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robot or laparoscopic system at a single centre.

Methods:

All of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic system between April 2017 and April 2020 were included in this retrospective study.

Results:

There were 24 patients with a mean age of 56 years who underwent da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic surgery for treatment of repeat HCC who were included in this study. The operations lasted 152 ± 25 min and 142 ± 34 min. The average intraoperative blood loss was 284 ± 89 ml and 251 ± 92 ml. The average hospitalisation stay lasted 9 ± 2 days and 9 ± 3 days. The rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery were 9% and 23%. No serious perioperative or post-operative complications were encountered.

Conclusion:

Da Vinci robots can provide a precise dissection of the tissue under a perfect view. It is a technically feasible procedure for less rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery on repeat HCC.

Is minimally invasive liver surgery a reasonable option in recurrent HCC? A snapshot from the I Go MILS registry

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a safe procedure. Repeat surgery is more often required, and the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not yet clearly defined. The present study analyzes data compiled by the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) on LLR. To compare repeated LLR with the first LLR for HCC is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the outcome of repeat LLR in the case of primary open versus primary MILS surgery. The data cohort is divided into two groups. Group 1: first liver resection and Group 2: Repeat LLR. To compare the two groups a 3:1 Propensity Score Matching is performed to analyze open versus MILS primary resection. Fifty-two centers were involved in the present study, and 1054 patients were enrolled. 80 patients underwent to a repeat LLR. The type of resection was different, with more major resections in the group 1 before matching the two groups. After propensity score matching 3:1, each group consisted of 222 and 74 patients. No difference between the two groups was observed. In the subgroup analysis, in 44 patients the first resection was performed by an open approach. The other 36 patients were resected with a MILS approach. We found no difference between these two subgroups of patients. The present study in repeat MILS for HCC using the IGoMILS Registry has observed the feasibility and safety of the MILS procedure.

Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing redo liver resections for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a European multi-center study

Background

Laparoscopic redo resections for colorectal metastases are poorly investigated. This study aims to explore long-term results after second, third, and fourth resections.

Material and methods

Prospectively updated databases of primary and redo laparoscopic liver resections in six European HPB centers were analyzed. Procedure-related overall survival after first, second, third, and fourth resections were evaluated. Furthermore, patients without liver recurrence after first liver resection were compared to those with one redo, two or three redo, and patients with palliative treatment for liver recurrence after first laparoscopic liver surgery. Survival was calculated both from the date of the first liver resection and from the date of the actual liver resection. In total, 837 laparoscopic primary and redo liver resections performed in 762 patients were included (630 primary, 172 first redo, 29 second redo, and 6 third redo). Patients were bunched into four groups: Group 1—without hepatic recurrence after primary liver resection (n = 441); Group 2—with liver recurrence who underwent only one laparoscopic redo resection (n = 154); Group 3—with liver recurrence who underwent two laparoscopic redo resections (n = 29); Group 4—with liver recurrence who have not been found suitable for redo resections (n = 138).

Results

No significant difference has been found between the groups in terms of baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes. Rate of positive resection margin was higher in the group with palliative recurrence (group 4). Five-year survival calculated from the first liver resection was 67%, 62%, 84%, and 7% for group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Procedure-specific 5-year overall survival was 50% after primary laparoscopic liver resection, 52% after the 1st reoperation, 52% after the 2nd, and 40% after the 3rd reoperation made laparoscopic.

Conclusions

Multiple redo recurrences can be performed laparoscopically with good long-term results. Liver recurrence does not aggravate prognosis as long as the patient is suitable for reoperation.

3D Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with primary repair by absorbable barbed suture is safe and feasible

Background and aim

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), is the most common treatment approach for common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, recent studies show that single-stage laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is safe and feasible. Three-dimensional (3D) laparoscopy enhances depth perception and facilitates intracorporeal suturing. The application of 3D technology for LCBDE is emerging, and we report our case series of 3D LCBDE.

Methods

We audited the 27 consecutive 3D LCBDE performed from July 2017 to January 2020. We have a liberal policy for magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients with deranged liver function tests (LFT). All CBD explorations were done through choledochotomy with a 5 mm flexible choledochoscope and primarily repaired with an absorbable barbed suture without a stent or T-tube.

Results

The mean age of patients was 68 (range 44-91) years, and 12 (44%) were male. The indications for surgery were choledocholithiasis 67% (n=18), cholangitis 22% (n=6), and gallstone pancreatitis 11% (n=3). About 67% (n=18) had pre-operative ERCP. About 37% (n=10) had pre-operative biliary stent. Pre-operative MRCP was done in 74% (n=20), and the mean diameter of CBD was 14.5 mm (range 7-30). The median operative time was 160 (range 80-265) min. The operative drain was inserted in 18 patients. One patient each (4%) had a bile leak and a retained stone. There was no open conversion, readmission, or mortality.

Conclusion

3D LCBDE with primary repair by an absorbable barbed suture is safe and feasible.

Relevance for patients

This paper emphasized that one stage LCBDE should be a treatment option which is comparable with two stage ERCP followed by LC to treat CBD stones. In addition, 3D technology and barbed sutures use in LCBDE are safe and useful.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection and re-operation for liver tumor

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been reported as a safe, minimally invasive, and effective surgery for the management of liver tumor. However, the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent liver tumor are unclear. Here, we analyzed the surgical results of LRLR. From June 2010 to May 2019, we performed 575 LLR surgeries in our department, and 454 of them underwent pure LLR for the single tumor. We classified the patients who received pure LLR for the single tumor into three groups: LRLR (n = 80), laparoscopic re-operation after previous abdominal surgery (LReOp; n = 136), and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR; n = 238). We compared patient characteristics and surgical results between patients undergoing LRLR, LReOp and LPLR. We found no significant differences between LRLR and LPLR in the conversion rate to laparotomy (p = 0.8033), intraoperative bleeding (63.0 vs. 152.4 ml; p = 0.0911), or postoperative bile leakage rate (2.50 vs. 3.78%; p = 0.7367). We also found no significant difference in the surgical results between LReOp and LPLR. However, the number of patients undergoing the Pringle maneuver was lower in the LRLR group than the LPLR group (61.3 vs. 81.5%; p = 0.0004). This finding was more pronounced after open liver resection than laparoscopic liver resection (38.9 vs. 67.7%; p = 0.0270). The operative time was significantly longer in patients with proximity to previous cut surface than patients with no proximity to previous cut surface (307.4 vs. 235.7 min; p = 0.0201). LRLR can safely be performed with useful surgical results compared to LPLR.

Newly-revised Pringle maneuver using laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp for repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy

It has been known that repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after open hepatectomy is technically challenging because of adhesions around the hilum. It is quite often that conventional tourniquet technique for the Pringle maneuver is difficult in RLH, and we introduced Laparoscopic Satinsky Vascular Clamp (LSVC) for inflow control in RLH. The Spiegel lobe is the anatomical landmark in LSVC technique. If a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament and the Spiegel lobe was obtained, LSVC was applied laterally from the left side of the hepatoduodenal ligament, whereas LSVC was vertically applied for those with obstruction of a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament. We performed 14 cases of RLH for those with histories of open hepatectomies by lateral (n = 6) and vertical (n = 8) LSVC technique with successful inflow control, confirmed by intraoperative Doppler ultrasound. Five patients underwent 2 or more previous histories of hepatectomies. The RLH included segmentectomy (n = 1), subsegmentectomy (n = 2) and partial hepatectomy (n = 11). The median time for the Pringle maneuver, operative time, and blood loss was 47 min, 237.5 min, and 160 mL. All the patients completed pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. In conclusion, LSVC technique is a safe and reliable technique for the Pringle maneuver in RLH.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for treating recurrent liver cancer

Background

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is a technically challenging procedure, so LRH for recurrent liver cancer has not been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to identify and evaluate available data of LRH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) and metastases tumour of liver, especially of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), focusing on the safety and feasibility.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed for all studies published in English evaluating LRH for rHCC and recurrent metastases tumour of liver from 1^st January, 2005 to 1^st June, 2019.

Results

A total of 15 studies which comprised 444 patients and reported outcomes for the efficacy and safety of LRH in the treatment of rHCC or CRLM were included in the present review. Moreover, nine studies compared the perioperative outcomes of LRH versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH). LRH was superior to ORH with reduced blood loss, shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates.

Conclusions

LRH can safely performed in rHCC or CRLM patients with cirrhosis, previous open hepatectomy, multiple recurrent lesions and tumours located in difficult posterosuperior segments.

Fouling-resistant zwitterionic polymers for complete prevention of postoperative adhesion

Postoperative adhesions are most common issues for almost any types of abdominal and pelvic surgery, leading to adverse consequences. Pharmacological treatments and physical barrier devices are two main approaches to address postoperative adhesions but can only alleviate or reduce adhesions to some extent. There is an urgent need for a reliable approach to completely prevent postoperative adhesions and to significantly improve the clinical outcomes, which, however, is unmet with current technologies. Here we report that by applying a viscous, cream-like yet injectable zwitterionic polymer solution to the traumatized surface, postoperative adhesion was completely and reliably prevented in three clinically relevant but increasingly challenging models in rats. The success rate of full prevention is over 93% among 42 animals tested, which is a major leap in antiadhesion performance. Clinically used Interceed film can hardly prevent the adhesion in any of these models. Unlike current antiadhesion materials serving solely as physical barriers, the "nonfouling" zwitterionic polymer functioned as a protective layer for antiadhesion applications with the inherent benefit of resisting protein/cell adhesions. The nonfouling nature of the polymer prevented the absorption of fibronectins and fibroblasts, which contribute to the initial and late-stage development of the adhesion, respectively. This is the key working mechanism that differentiated our "complete prevention" approach from current underperforming antiadhesion materials. This work implies a safe, effective, and convenient way to fully prevent postoperative adhesions suffered by current surgical patients.

Analysis of perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic repeat liver resection compared to laparoscopic primary liver resection based on a single surgeon's experience: A 1:2 propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

We report a single surgeon experience with laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR), and analyse short-term outcomes relative to laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR).

METHODS

Two-hundred and twenty-two laparoscopic liver resections were performed from 2012 to 2019 of which 33 were LRLR. 1:2 propensity-score matching was done to compare 32 LRLR with 64 LPLR cohort. We further analyzed the first 16 LRLR cases compared to the subsequent 17 cases.

RESULTS

32 LRLR cases were matched to 64 LPLR cases. Apart from a higher frequency of Pringle maneuver in the LPLR cohort (p = 0.006), there were no differences in other perioperative outcomes. There were more posterosuperior located tumours (75.0% vs 17.6%, p = 0.003) and higher median difficulty score (8.50 vs 5.00, p = 0.025) in the initial 16 LRLR cases compared to the next 17. The earlier group had higher median blood loss (250.00 ml vs 50.00 ml, p = 0.012), but other outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSION

LRLR may be safely performed in selected patients with no difference in key perioperative outcomes compared to LPLR.

Feasibility and efficacy of repeat laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is an acceptable treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, repeat laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has not been widely adopted due to its technical difficulty. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of repeat LLR compared with repeat open liver resection (OLR) for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We performed 42 repeat OLR and 30 repeat LLR for cases of recurrent HCC between January 2007 and March 2018. This study retrospectively compared the patients' clinicopathological characteristics and operative and short-term outcomes including surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups except in terms of Child-Pugh grade. The repeat LLR group had lower median intraoperative blood loss (100 mL vs. 435 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter median postoperative hospital stay (10 days vs. 14.5 days; P = 0.002). The other results including postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. Further, comparison of two subpopulations of the repeat LLR group stratified by previous hepatectomy type (open or laparoscopic) or tumor location (segments 7 and 8 or other) revealed no significant differences in the postoperative clinical characteristics between them, although the morbidity rate tended to be higher in patients who underwent open hepatectomy for primary HCC than in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LLR for recurrent HCC is feasible and useful with good short-term outcomes although an appropriate patient selection seems to be necessary.

Novel patient risk factors and validation of a difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

The indications for laparoscopic liver resection have expanded; however, the safety and benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) remain unclear. We retrospectively reviewed data from 137 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy without thoracotomy. We compared patients’ clinical factors using a difficulty scoring system for LRH. We defined factors associated with blood loss volumes in the 75th percentile or above as risk factors for bleeding in open repeat hepatectomy, and determined whether these factors were useful for LRH risk assessment. Open repeat hepatectomy and LRH was performed in 96 and 41 patients, respectively. Four of 41 (9.8%) patients undergoing LRH were converted to laparotomy. Blood loss volume was significantly greater in the intermediate-risk group than in the low-risk group (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of tumours located adjacent and caudal or dorsal to the primary tumour site was an independent risk factor for bleeding in LRH (odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16–8.88, P = 0.024). Our study validated the usefulness of a difficulty scoring system, identified patient factors that predicted the difficulty of LRH, and presented a novel difficulty scoring system for LRH based on an existing difficulty scoring system.

Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatic Resection for the Management of Liver Tumors

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatic resection has been developed as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic repeat minor hepatic resection (LRH) carries a higher risk of damage to other organs because of postoperative changes to and losses of anatomical landmarks. The current standard approach at many facilities has been to perform open repeat minor hepatic resection (ORH). This paper describes the surgical outcomes, procedure safety, and utility of ORH versus LRH, as well as the laparoscopic techniques used in LRH.

METHODS

Between February 2010 and May 2018, the data of 142 patients who underwent LRH or ORH at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical outcomes, procedure safety, and procedure utility data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent LHR and 97 patients underwent ORH. The conversion rate from LHR to OHR was 13.3%. After propensity score matching (PSM), the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LRH group than in the ORH group (50 mL vs. 350 mL; P < 0.001). The LRH group had an 8.1% complication rate, while the ORH group had a complication rate of 24.3% (P = 0.044). The postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter in the LHR group than in the OHR group (9 days vs. 11 days) (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

LRH can be performed safely using various surgical devices. More favorable results are achieved with LRH than with ORH in terms of surgical outcomes including intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, and postoperative lengths of stay.

Outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements of surgical instruments and surgeons' experience, laparoscopic liver resection has been applied for recurrent tumors. However, the value of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is still controversial nowadays, which compelled us to conduct this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evidence about the efficacy of LRLR for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed to identify all eligible trials published up to April 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the perioperative data and oncological outcomes of LRLR by compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR). A fixed or random-effect modal was established to collect the data.

RESULTS

A total of 1232 patients were included in this meta-analysis (LRLR: n = 364; ORLR: n = 396; LPLR: n = 472). LRLR did not increase the operative time compared to ORLR (WMD = 15.92 min; 95%CI: -33.53 to 65.37; P = .53). Conversely, LRLR for patients with recurrent tumors was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -187.33 mL; 95%CI: -249.62 to -125.02; P < .00001), lower transfusion requirement (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-1.03; P = .05), fewer major complications (OR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.23-0.76; P = .004), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -2.31; 95%CI: -3.55 to -1.07; P = .0003). In addition, the oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. However, as for the safety of LRLR compared with LPLR, although the operative time in LRLR group was longer than LPLR group (WMD = 58.63 min; 95%CI: 2.99-114.27; P = .04), the blood loss, transfusion rates, R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications, and mortality were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR for recurrent liver cancer could be safe and feasible in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons.

Our experience of repeat laparoscopic liver resection in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is an effective treatment approach for patients with recurrent hepatocellular cell carcinoma (HCC). However, the surgical feasibility and oncological significance of repeat laparoscopic liver resection (r-LLR) remain unproven. This study evaluates and compares the clinical outcomes of non-anatomic r-LLR applied towards recurrent HCC, with those of primary LLR (p-LLR) for primary HCC.

METHODS

This retrospective study reports 104 patients with HCC, treated with LLR between 2014 and 2018. Twenty eight of these patients underwent r-LLR for recurrent HCC. The clinical and surgical variables were reviewed for all cases.

RESULTS

The analysis was limited to non-anatomic resection across both groups (r-LLR: 89% (25/28) vs. p-LLR: 80% (61/76)). There were no statistically significant differences about patient background between the two groups, with the exception of Child-Pugh classification. r-LLR surgical techniques included single-site laparoscopic adhesiolysis (32%, 8/25), Pringle maneuver (8%, 2/25), and crush-clamp method using BiClamp for hepatic parenchymal transection (72%, 18/25). No severe postoperative complications were observed in the r-LLR group. Postoperative hospital stays and procedure-related postoperative survival were similar for both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-anatomical r-LLR renders comparable surgical and oncological outcomes. Our data suggest that non-anatomical r-LLR is a safe and feasible therapeutic approach to recurrent HCC.

Optimal introduction of laparoscopic liver resection for Child-Pugh B

INTRODUCTION

Surgery for Child-Pugh B liver function is considered risky because of its high morbidity rate and the acceptable indication criteria for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Child-Pugh B patients have not been identified. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to determine the optimal introduction of LLR for Child-Pugh B patients based on our single-institute experience.

METHODS

A total of 17 Child-Pugh B patients underwent LLR between 2005 and 2017. Their clinical outcomes were compared to those of LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (103 cases), conventional open liver resection for Child-Pugh B patients (19 cases), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for Child-Pugh B patients (20 cases) during the same period.

RESULTS

LLR for Child-Pugh B patients had a significantly higher conversion rate than LLR for Child-Pugh A patients (Child-Pugh A vs B: 3.9% vs 35.3%, P < 0.01). However, patients who successfully underwent laparoscopic resection (11 cases) had fewer postoperative ascites and shorter postoperative hospital stays compared to patients who underwent conventional open liver resection. In comparison to the RFA group, the LLR group more frequently had lesions in the left lateral segment (LLR vs RFA: 50.0% vs 10.0%, P = 0.02) and exophytic tumor (21.4% vs 0%, P = 0.02) than did the RFA group. Also, compared to the RFA group, the LLR group had a lower local recurrence rate (0% vs 15%, P = 0.25) and a longer recurrence-free survival (P = 0.049), but the overall survival was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of Child-Pugh B liver malignancy, the minimal invasiveness of LLR was revealed. Our results suggest that lesions in the left lateral segment and exophytic tumors are good indications for LLR for Child-Pugh B.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is technical challenge for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UAS), especially for those with previous liver resection. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous UAS, in comparison with primary laparoscopic liver resection which means patients without previous upper abdominal surgery (non-UAS).

METHODS

All case-matched articles published from date of inception to 15th April 2018 were identified independently by two reviewers. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were extracted and calculated by random- or fixed-effect models. In addition, subgroup analysis according to patients with history of liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 non-randomized observational articles were included, with 1625 patients (430 patients in UAS group and 1195 in non-UAS group). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients with a history of liver resection, however, LH for patients with previous liver resection had longer operative time comparing with patients without previous liver resection (WMD = 33.03, 95% CI 3.16 to 62.90, P = 0.030); other perioperative outcomes were similar between UAS and non-UAS groups.

CONCLUSION

LH is feasible and safe for selected patients with previous UAS comparing with that of primary resection, although LH has longer operative time for patients with previous liver resection.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons especially in case with previous open liver surgery. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current literature to investigate the feasibility of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) for liver diseases.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the short-term outcomes in comparative studies between LRLR with previous laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and OLR.

RESULTS

From the initial 55 manuscripts, 8 studies including 3 comparative studies between LRLR after OLR and LLR were investigated. There was a total of 108 patients. Considering initial surgery, the extent of initial liver resection was major liver resection in 20% of patients in whom it was reported. In all the patients, the most frequent primary histology was hepatocellular carcinoma, followed by colorectal liver metastasis. A half of reported patients had severe adhesions at the time of LRLR. The median operative time for LRLR was ranged from 120 to 413 min and the median blood loss ranged from 100 to 400 mL. There were 11% of the patients conversions to open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, or tumor ablation. The overall postoperative morbidity was 15% of all the patients, and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was ranged from 3.5 to 10 days. The meta-analysis shows that LRLR after OLR is associated with a longer operative time and a more important blood loss compared to LRLR after LLR. However, no difference between LRLR after OLR and LLR was shown as far as hospital stay and morbidity rate are concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR after OLR has been described in eight articles with favorable short-term outcomes in highly selected patients.

Minimally Invasive Management of Secondary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic liver surgery for secondary liver cancer is increasing. The most common indications are colorectal cancer liver metastases followed by adenocarcinoma metastases from other solid organs, such as breast, pancreatic neuroendocrine, and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. This article provides a comprehensive review of crucial concepts when managing secondary liver cancer minimally invasively, a summary of the up-to-date literature, and a discussion of the development of the application of this technique over time.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

Mechanical strength of biliary defect closure after topical sealing: Comparison of four sealants in a porcine model

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Biliary leakage is a potential complication of liver resection and is still a concern. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of four routinely used sealants in preventing bile leakage under pressure from an induced perforation of the gallbladder in a porcine model.

METHODS

Forty Landrace pigs were randomly assigned to one of five groups. These included a control group (n = 8) and one group each for the sealants TachoSil®, TissuCol Duo®, Coseal®, and FloSeal® (n = 8 per group). In the control group, the perforation was left unsealed. To evaluate the biliostatic potential of the sealants, we measured the pressure that was needed to induce leakage (mmHg) and the gallbladder volume (cc) at the time of leakage in each group.

RESULTS

A significantly higher mean pressure was required to induce leakage in the sealant groups compared with the control group. However, the biliostatic effects were heterogeneous among the sealant groups. Sealants with the highest to lowest effectiveness were TachoSil, Coseal, TissuCol, and FloSeal. The mean gallbladder volume at the time of leakage also varied between sealant groups.

CONCLUSION

Biliostatic properties are markedly improved by the use of modern sealants compared with using no sealant. However, the advantages and disadvantages of using sealants should be carefully considered in each clinical situation. The effectiveness of the sealants should be evaluated in chronic and clinical studies.

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection (LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR (LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open (reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.

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.

Predicting morbidity of liver resection

PURPOSE

Multiple models have attempted to predict morbidity of liver resection (LR). This study aims to determine the efficacy of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) surgical risk calculator and the Physiological and Operative Severity Score in the enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity (POSSUM) in predicting post-operative morbidity in patients who underwent LR.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent elective LR. Morbidity risk was calculated with the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator and POSSUM equation. Two models were then constructed for both ACS-NSQIP and POSSUM-(1) the original risk probabilities from each scoring system and (2) a model derived from logistic regression of variables. Discrimination, calibration, and overall performance for ACS-NSQIP and POSSUM were compared. Sub-group analysis was performed for both primary and secondary liver malignancies.

RESULTS

Two hundred forty-five patients underwent LR. Two hundred twenty-three (91%) had malignant liver pathologies. The post-operative morbidity, 90-day mortality, and 30-day mortality rate were 38.3%, 3.7%, and 2.4% respectively. ACS-NSQIP showed superior discriminative ability, calibration, and performance to POSSUM (p = 0.03). Hosmer-Lemeshow plot demonstrated better fit of the ACS-NSQIP model than POSSUM in predicting morbidity.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing LR, the ACS-NSQIP surgical risk calculator was superior to POSSUM in predicting morbidity risk.

Are the current difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver surgery telling the whole story? An international survey and recommendations for the future

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections are related to both patient and tumour factors, however the available difficulty scoring systems only incorporate tumour factors. The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of laparoscopic liver surgeons regarding the factors that affect the perceived difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections.

METHOD

Using a Visual Analogue Scale an international survey of laparoscopic liver surgeons was undertaken to assess the perceived difficulty of 26 factors previously demonstrated to affect the difficulty of a laparoscopic liver resection.

RESULTS

80 surgeons with a combined experience of over 7000 laparoscopic liver resections responded to the survey. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery was suggested to be increased by a BMI > 35 by 89% of respondents; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 79%; repeated liver resection by 99% and concurrent procedures by 59% however these factors have not been included in the previous difficulty scoring systems.

CONCLUSION

The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.

Laparoscopic splenectomy for splenic rupture secondary to metastatic choriocarcinoma

Gestational choriocarcinoma is a rare and aggressive type of gestational trophoblastic neoplasia, which is characterized by early vascular invasion and widespread metastases. Choriocarcinoma metastasizes hematogenously, and bleeding from metastases is common. Splenic rupture from a metastatic tumour is exceedingly rare, with only a few reports. We report a case of a 41-year-old female presenting with acute abdomen and haemorrhagic shock secondary to splenic rupture from metastatic choriocarcinoma, which was managed with emergency laparoscopic splenectomy.

The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).

METHODS

We introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver neoplasms: A meta-analysis of retrospective studies

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, Web of science, and China Biology Medicine disc up to July 2016 for studies that provided comparisons between the surgical outcomes of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. WMD, OR and 95% CI were calculated and data combined using the random-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 487 patients were in the RAH group and 902 patients were in the LLR group. The meta-analysis results indicated: compared to LLR, RAH was associated with more estimated blood loss, longer operative time, and longer time to first nutritional intake (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay, conversion rate during operation, R0 resection rate, complications and mortality (p > 0.05). Three studies reported the total cost, and the result showed a higher cost in the RAH group when compared with the LLR group (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that RAH and LLR display similar effectiveness and safety in hepatectomy. Considering the lack of high quality original studies, prospective clinical trials should be conducted to provide strong evidence for clinical guidelines formation, and the insurance coverage policies should be established to promote the application of robotic surgery in the future.

Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis: a review of imaging findings and clinical management

Recurrent pyogenic cholangitis (RPC) is an infective process involving the biliary tree typified by pigmented intraductal calculi with dilatation of the intra- and extrahepatic biliary tree. Previously endemic to South-east Asia, RPC can now be seen in Western countries with the increasing access to international travel and immigration. Affected patients are often plagued by recurrent bouts of cholangitis, and commonly suffer from complications such as abscess formation and biliary strictures. In severe cases, cirrhosis with portal hypertension may develop. The disease is also a known risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma, and can be seen in up to 5% of affected patients. Its exact etiology is unknown, but parasitic infections such as Clonorchis sinensis and Ascaris lumbricoides, ascending bacterial infection with gut flora (Escherichia coli) and low socioeconomic status have been associated strongly with it. This paper reviews the imaging features of the disease, as well as the roles of interventional radiology and surgery with respect to management of the condition.

Review of 103 Cases of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) has been shown in small retrospective studies to be a safe and effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) in selected patients. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to determine the safety, feasibility, and oncologic integrity of LRLR for rHCC.

METHODS

A computerized search of the PubMed database was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR for HCC from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Ten studies reporting on 103 patients were included in this review. 30/51 (58.5%) patients had liver cirrhosis. In 66/95 (69.5%) patients, the index surgery was an open resection and this was a major hepatectomy in 8/49 (16.3%) patients. In 17/72 (23.6%) patients, LRLR was performed for tumors in the posterosuperior segments and in 21/60 (35%) for ipsilateral HCC recurrence. The median tumor size of rHCC ranged from 17-40 mm and 8/69 (11.6%) LRLR were for multifocal rHCC. In 100/103 (97%) patients LRLR was attempted via pure laparoscopy and 2 (1.9%) required open conversion. Median operation time of LRLR ranged from 73-343 minutes and the median blood loss ranged from 50 to 297 mL. The reported postoperative morbidity was 24/97 (24.7%) and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative length of stay ranged from 3.5 to 11 days. Three studies compared the outcomes of LRLR versus open resection for rHCC and all three demonstrated a significant decrease in blood loss in favor of LRLR.

CONCLUSION

In highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR can be performed for patients with previous open LR, previous major hepatectomy, two previous LR, multiple tumors, liver cirrhosis, ipsilateral HCC recurrence, and cancers located in the difficult posterosuperior segments. Comparative studies have demonstrated that LRLR is superior to open repeat liver resection in terms of perioperative outcomes such as decreased blood loss and length of stay.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is effective for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC). This study aimed to determine the outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for rHCC.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent LRLR for rHCC were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Six patients had previous open and two had laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). There was one (12.5%) open conversion for bleeding and one (12.5%) post-operative morbidity. The median tumour size was 24 mm (range: 8-50 mm). LRLR was performed for rHCC in the ipsilateral lobe as compared to the index surgery in 4/8 (50%) patients. Five of eight (62.5%) patients had rHCC in the difficult posterosuperior segments. Six patients had previous open LR, and two had previous LLR. One patient (patient 4) had two prior open LR for rHCC, and LRLR was performed for the second recurrence. The median duration from the first surgery to LRLR was 29 months (range: 6-109 months). The median post-operative stay was 3.5 days. All eight patients had R0 resections, and at a median follow-up of 7.5 months, all patients were disease-free.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. This can be performed even for patients with previous open liver resections, cirrhosis, lesions in the posterosuperior segments and prior LR of the ipsilateral lobe. LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe in highly selected patients.

Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in 313 Western patients: tumor biology and underlying liver rather than tumor size drive prognosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Treatment decisions for hepatocellular carcinoma are mostly guided by tumor size. The aim of this study was to analyze resection outcomes according to tumor size and characterize prognostic factors.

METHODS

Patients resected at a Western center between 1989 and 2010 were grouped by largest tumor size: <50mm, 50-100mm, and >100mm. The primary end points were overall- and recurrence-free survival. Univariate associations with primary endpoints were entered into a Cox proportional hazard regression model.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirteen patients underwent resection: 111 (36%) had tumors <50mm, 113 (36%) had tumors between 50 and 100mm, and 89 (28%) had tumors >100mm. Five-year overall and disease-free survival rates for the three groups were 67%, 46%, and 34%, and 32%, 27%, and 27%, respectively. Thirty-five patients, mostly from <50mm group, underwent transplantation which was associated with a 91% 5 year survival rate. Tumor size was not an independent predictor of overall or recurrence-free survival on multivariate analyses. Independent predictors of decreased overall survival were: intraoperative transfusion (HR=2.60), cirrhosis (HR=2.42), poorly differentiated tumor (HR=2.04), satellite lesions (HR=1.69), alpha-fetoprotein >200 (HR=1.53), and microvascular invasion (HR=1.48). The use of salvage transplantation was an independent predictor of improved survival (HR=0.21). Recurrence-free survival was predicted by intraoperative transfusion (HR=2.15), poorly differentiated tumor (HR=1.87), microvascular invasion (HR=1.71) and cirrhosis (HR=1.69).

CONCLUSION

By studying a large group of patients across a distribution of tumor sizes and background liver diseases, it is demonstrated that size alone is a limited prognostic factor. Tumor biology and condition of the underlying liver are better prognosticators and should be given closer attention. Although hampered by recurrence rates, resection is safe and offers good overall survival. In addition, it may allow for better selection for salvage transplantation after consideration of histopathological risk factors.