Liver mobilization and liver hanging for totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy: an easy way to do it

Global dissemination of minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy: What are the barriers?

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy (MIDH) is a relatively novel procedure that can potentially increase donor safety and contribute to faster rehabilitation of donors. After an initial period in which donor safety was not effectively validated, MIDH currently seems to provide improved results, provided that it is conducted by experienced surgeons. Appropriate selection criteria are crucial to achieve better outcomes in terms of complications, blood loss, operative time, and hospital stay. Beyond a pure laparoscopic technique, various approaches have been recommended such as hand-assisted, laparoscopic-assisted, and robotic donation. The latter has shown equal outcomes compared to open and laparoscopic approaches. A steep learning curve seems to exist in MIDH, mainly due to the fragility of the liver parenchyma and the experience needed for adequate control of bleeding. This review investigated the challenges and the opportunities of MIDH and the barriers to its global dissemination. Surgeons need expertise in liver transplantation, hepatobiliary surgery, and minimally invasive techniques to perform MIDH. Barriers can be categorized into surgeon-related, institutional-related, and accessibility. More robust data and the creation of international registries are needed for further evaluation of the technique and the acceptance from more centers worldwide.

The difficulty grade of laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma correlates with long-term outcomes

The tremendous development of laparoscopic hepatectomy helps to relieve the difficulties encountered during open hepatectomy. Therefore, a difficulty scoring system was produced to assess the difficulty grade of laparoscopic hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to explore whether the IWATE-DSS is comparable to the long-term outcomes of LH for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma at the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of the operations was graded using the IWATE-DSS. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level. A total of 300 patients underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC during the study period. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were significantly different between the groups according to the IWATE-DSS. There were significant differences in both the intraoperative (bleeding control p = 0.000; surgical time p = 0.000; estimated blood loss p = 0.033) and postoperative variables (postoperative hospital stay p = 0.005) among these four groups. The 5-year disease-free survival decreased significantly along with the LH difficulty score (p = 0.000). The 5-year overall survival also decreased significantly along with the LH difficulty score (p = 0.000). IWATE-DSS was significantly correlated with short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC.

Pure laparoscopic major liver resection after yttrium90 radioembolization: a case-matched series analysis of feasibility and outcomes

Background

Liver surgery after radioembolization (RE) entails highly demanding and challenging procedures due to the frequent combination of large tumors, severe RE-related adhesions, and the necessity of conducting major hepatectomies. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and its associated advantages could provide benefits, as yet unreported, to these patients. The current study evaluated feasibility, morbidity, mortality, and survival outcomes for major laparoscopic liver resection after radioembolization.

Material and methods

In this retrospective, single-center study patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or metastases from colorectal cancer undergoing major laparoscopic hepatectomy after RE were identified from institutional databases. They were matched (1:2) on several pre-operative characteristics to a group of patients that underwent major LLR for the same malignancies during the same period but without previous RE.

Results

From March 2011 to November 2020, 9 patients underwent a major LLR after RE. No differences were observed in intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 150 ml; p = 0.621), operative time (478 vs. 407 min; p = 0.135) or pedicle clamping time (90.5 vs 74 min; p = 0.133) between the post-RE LLR and the matched group. Similarly, no differences were observed on hospital stay (median 3 vs. 4 days; p = 0.300), Clavien–Dindo ≥ III complications (2 vs. 1 cases; p = 0.250), specific liver morbidity (1 vs. 1 case p = 1.000), or 90 day mortality (0 vs. 0; p = 1.000).

Conclusion

The laparoscopic approach for post radioembolization patients may be a feasible and safe procedure with excellent surgical and oncological outcomes and meets the current standards for laparoscopic liver resections. Further studies with larger series are needed to confirm the results herein presented.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00423-022-02474-z.

Correlation between anthropometric data and preparatory maneuvers difficulties during laparoscopic right liver resections: a single center prospective study

PURPOSE

The difficulty of laparoscopic right liver resections (LRLR) is mainly associated with their poor accessibility. Anthropometric data rather than BMI was reported to predict transection time and blood loss. Aim of the study was to evaluate the correlation between anthropometric data and preparatory manoeuvres difficulties during LRLR.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LRLR requiring full right liver mobilization from November 2019 to March 2021 were prospectively included in the study. Data on surgeons' difficulty perceptions on liver mobilization (LM), isolation of right hepatic vein (RHVI), liver manageability and visibility were rated with a 5-point scale. Data on cranio-caudal liver diameters (CCliv), CHALLENGE Index (CCliv/latero-lateral abdomen diameter), times needed to LM and RHVI were collected.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients (29 wedge and 36 anatomical resections) with a median BMI of 25.5 were analysed. One patient required open conversion due to oncological reason. No correlations between BMI and CCliv or CHALLENGE Index were found. Larger CCliv diameter correlated with longer time for both RHVI (r = 0.589, p = 0.002) and LM (r = 0.222, p = 0.049). Higher CHALLENGE index correlated with longer time for RHVI (r = 0.589, p = 0.002). The CHALLENGE index showed a linear correlation with difficulty to the isolation of RHV (r = 0.327, p = 0.045), whilst the liver manipulation difficulty increased with latero-lateral liver diameter (r = 0.244, p = 0.033). BMI had no correlation with the duration of preparatory maneuvers neither with surgeons' difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Anthropometric data can help to anticipate the difficulty of preparatory maneuvers during laparoscopic right liver resections.

Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status

The laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedure has been developing rapidly. Although its use has increased worldwide, it is still only performed by experienced surgeons at a limited number of institutions. However, technical innovations have improved the feasibility of more widespread use of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy. The advantages of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy should not be overemphasized, and the fundamental principle of "living-donor safety first" cannot be neglected. This review aims to summarize the current status of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy and to emphasize that, while this procedure may soon be used as a reliable, donor-friendly substitute for traditional open donor hepatectomy, its safety and efficacy require further substantiation first.

Impact of anthropometric data on technical difficulty of laparoscopic liver of resections of segments 7 and 8: the CHALLENGE index

BACKGROUND

The high technical difficulty of using a laparoscopic approach to reach the posterosuperior liver segments is mainly associated with their poor accessibility. This study was performed to analyze correlations between anthropometric data and intraoperative outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent segmentectomy or wedge laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of segments seven and/or eight from June 2012 to November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The exclusion criteria were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, associated resection, multiple concomitant LLR, redo resection, and lack of preoperative imaging. Anthropometric data were correlated with intraoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (wedge resection, n = 32; segmentectomy, n = 9) were analyzed. A strong correlation was found between the craniocaudal liver diameter (CCliv) and liver volume (r = 0.655, p < 0.001). The anteroposterior liver diameter was moderately correlated with both the laterolateral abdominal diameter (LLabd) (r = 0.372, p = 0.008) and anteroposterior abdominal diameter (r = 0.371, p = 0.008). The body mass index (BMI) was not correlated with liver diameters. Women had a longer CCliv (p = 0.002) and shorter LLabd (p < 0.001) than men. The liver and abdominal measurements were combined to reduce this sex-related disparity. The CCliv/LLabd ratio (CHALLENGE index) was significantly correlated with the time of transection (r = 0.382, p = 0.037) and blood loss (r = 0.352, p = 0.029). The association between the CHALLENGE index and intraoperative blood loss was even stronger when considering only anatomical resection (r = 0.577, p = 0.048). A CHALLENGE index of > 0.4 (area under the curve, 0.757; p = 0.046) indicated a higher bleeding risk. The BMI predicted no intraoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Anthropometric data rather than the BMI can help anticipate the difficulty of LLR of segments seven and eight.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Pure laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy using the caudodorsal side approach (with videos)

BACKGROUND

In our process of standardizing laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (Lap-RH), we found several advantages of the laparoscopic caudate lobe first approach by using a unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and October 2017, 21 patients underwent pure Lap-RH at our hospital. The mean patient age was 62 years (range 36-75 years), and there were more male than female patients (66.7%). Of 21 patients, 11 had hepatocellular carcinoma, eight had metastatic tumor, and the other two had focal nodular hyperplasia and refractory liver abscess. All 21 patients had Child-Pugh class A liver function. The surgical technique was recorded on video.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 409 min (range 241-522 min), and the mean blood loss was 279 g (range 0-1,010 g). No procedure was converted to open surgery. With regard to postoperative complications, one patient had bile leakage from the stump of the main Glissonean branch and another patient had abscess formation in the subphrenic space. No postoperative bleeding, hepatic failure, and mortality occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our standardized procedure of Lap-RH using the unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view is not only feasible but also confers a true advantage of the laparoscopic approach.

Standardized hybrid living donor hemihepatectomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation

The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of the most updated version and largest group of our standardized hybrid (laparoscopic mobilization and hepatectomy through midline incision) living donor (LD) hemihepatectomy compared with those from a conventional laparotomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Of 237 adult-to-adult LDLTs from August 1997 to March 2017, 110 LDs underwent the hybrid procedure. Preoperative and operative factors were analyzed and compared with conventional laparotomy (n = 126). The median duration of laparoscopic usage was 26 minutes in the hybrid group. Although there was improvement in applying this procedure over time from the beginning of the series of cases studied, blood loss and operative duration were still smaller and shorter in the hybrid group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of postoperative complications greater than or equal to Clavien-Dindo class III. There was no difference in recipient outcome between the groups. Our standardized procedure of hybrid LD hepatectomy is applicable and safe for all types of LD hepatectomies, and it enables the benefit of both the laparoscopic and the open approach in a transplant center without a laparoscopic expert. Liver Transplantation 24 363-368 2018 AASLD.