Laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: feasibility, safety, and results

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection after an initial open hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat open hepatectomy (ROH) for recurrent liver tumors is the preferred approach especially after initial open hepatectomy (OH). The aim of this study is to assess feasibility and safety of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after initial OH in 2 high volume hepato-biliary hospitals.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from prospective data bases from 2012 to 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for repeat hepatectomy, ROH and RLH groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients matched the criteria, 20 in RLH and 47 in ROH. Diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in 52.3%, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in 7.7% and colorectal liver metastases in 40%. Median operative time and blood loss were lower in RLH (199 vs 260 min, and 100 vs 400 ml respectively), as well as overall postoperative complications (20% vs 49%). There were 2 conversions (10%) due to adhesions and one died of postoperative pancreatitis in RLH. Median hospital stay was lower in RLH (5 vs 9 days).

CONCLUSION

RLH is a feasible, safe technique and a realistic option to be considered in selected patients after previous OH. Early conversion should be considered when adhesions are more severe than expected.

A feasible and safe approach for repeat laparoscopic liver resection and patient selection based on standardized preoperative prediction of surgical difficulty

PURPOSE

This study was performed to propose a strategy for repeat laparoscopic liver resection (RLLR) and investigate the preoperative predictive factors for RLLR difficulty.

METHODS

Data from 43 patients who underwent RLLR using various techniques at 2 participating hospitals from April 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical outcomes, short-term outcomes, and feasibility and safety of the proposed techniques were evaluated. The relationship between potential predictive factors for difficult RLLR and perioperative outcomes was evaluated. Difficulties associated with RLLR were analyzed separately in two surgical phases: the Pringle maneuver phase and the liver parenchymal transection phase.

RESULTS

The open conversion rate was 7%. The median surgical time and intraoperative blood loss were 235 min and 200 mL, respectively. The Pringle maneuver was successfully performed in 81% of patients using the laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp (LSVC). Clavien-Dindo class ≥III postoperative complications were observed in 12% of patients without mortality. An analysis of the risk factors for predicting difficult RLLR showed that a history of open liver resection was an independent risk factor for difficulty in the Pringle maneuver phase.

CONCLUSION

We present a feasible and safe approach to address RLLR difficulty, especially difficulty with the Pringle maneuver using an LSVC, which is extremely useful in RLLR. The Pringle maneuver is more challenging in patients with a history of open liver resection.

Laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The effectiveness of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) on recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is unclear. We compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH and ORH in patients with RHCC with a meta-analysis of studies based on propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library with Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords until 30 September 2022. The quality of eligible studies was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI was used for the analysis of continuous variables; odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was used for binary variables; and hazard ratio with 95% CI was used for survival analysis. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five high-quality retrospective studies with 818 patients were included; 409 patients (50%) were treated with LRH and 409 (50%) with ORH. In most surgical outcomes, LRH was superior to ORH: less estimated blood loss, shorter operation time, lower major complication rate, and shorter length of hospital stay (MD=-225.9, 95% CI=[-360.8 to -91.06], P =0.001; MD=66.2, 95% CI=[5.28-127.1], P =0.03; OR=0.18, 95% CI=[0.05-0.57], P =0.004; MD=-6.22, 95% CI=[-9.78 to -2.67], P =0.0006). There were no significant differences in the remaining surgical outcomes: blood transfusion rate and overall complication rate. In oncological outcomes, LRH and ORH were not significantly different in 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with RHCC, most surgical outcomes with LRH were superior to those of ORH, but oncological outcomes with the two operations were similar. LRH may be a preferable option for the treatment of RHCC.

Challenging Scenarios and Debated Indications for Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) have been increasingly adopted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with safe short- and long-term outcomes reported worldwide. Despite this, lesions in the posterosuperior segments, large and recurrent tumors, portal hypertension, and advanced cirrhosis currently represent challenging scenarios in which the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach are still controversial. In this systematic review, we pooled the available evidence on the short-term outcomes of LLRs for HCC in challenging clinical scenarios. All randomized and non-randomized studies reporting LLRs for HCC in the above-mentioned settings were included. The literature search was run in the Scopus, WoS, and Pubmed databases. Case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, studies including fewer than 10 patients, non-English language studies, and studies analyzing histology other than HCC were excluded. From 566 articles, 36 studies dated between 2006 and 2022 fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 1859 patients were included, of whom 156 had advanced cirrhosis, 194 had portal hypertension, 436 had large HCCs, 477 had lesions located in the posterosuperior segments, and 596 had recurrent HCCs. Overall, the conversion rate ranged between 4.6% and 15.5%. Mortality and morbidity ranged between 0.0% and 5.1%, and 18.6% and 34.6%, respectively. Full results according to subgroups are described in the study. Advanced cirrhosis and portal hypertension, large and recurrent tumors, and lesions located in the posterosuperior segments are challenging clinical scenarios that should be carefully approached by laparoscopy. Safe short-term outcomes can be achieved provided experienced surgeons and high-volume centers.

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.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection-Selecting the Best Approach for Repeat Liver Resection

Recurrence of liver cancers after liver resection (LR), such as recurrences of hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases, is often treated with repeat LR (RLR) as the only curative treatment. However, RLR is associated with an increased risk of complications. The indications for the currently emerging laparoscopic LR and its advantages and disadvantages for repeat treatment are still under discussion. Our multi-institutional propensity-score matched analyses of laparoscopic vs. open RLRs for hepatocellular carcinoma showed the feasibility of laparoscopic RLR with comparable short- and long-term outcomes. Small blood loss and low morbidity was observed in selected patients treated using laparoscopic RLR in which total adhesiolysis can be dodged, with speculations that laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize functional deterioration of the liver. However, there are several disadvantages, such as easily occurring disorientation and difficulty in repeated wide-range dissection of Glissonian pedicles. Recently emerging small anatomical resection, indocyanine green fluorescence-guided surgery, and robot-assisted surgery are promising tools for the further development of laparoscopic RLR. This review discusses how laparoscopic RLR, as a powerful unique local therapy causing less damage to the residual liver and surrounding structures, could contribute to the outcomes of repeated treatments for cancers and its future perspectives.

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.

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.

Automated surgical workflow identification by artificial intelligence in laparoscopic hepatectomy: Experimental research

BACKGROUND

To perform accurate laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) without injury, novel intraoperative systems of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) for LH are expected. Automated surgical workflow identification is a key component for developing CAS systems. This study aimed to develop a deep-learning model for automated surgical step identification in LH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We constructed a dataset comprising 40 cases of pure LH videos; 30 and 10 cases were used for the training and testing datasets, respectively. Each video was divided into 30 frames per second as static images. LH was divided into nine surgical steps (Steps 0-8), and each frame was annotated as being within one of these steps in the training set. After extracorporeal actions (Step 0) were excluded from the video, two deep-learning models of automated surgical step identification for 8-step and 6-step models were developed using a convolutional neural network (Models 1 & 2). Each frame in the testing dataset was classified using the constructed model performed in real-time.

RESULTS

Above 8 million frames were annotated for surgical step identification from the pure LH videos. The overall accuracy of Model 1 was 0.891, which was increased to 0.947 in Model 2. Median and average accuracy for each case in Model 2 was 0.927 (range, 0.884-0.997) and 0.937 ± 0.04 (standardized difference), respectively. Real-time automated surgical step identification was performed at 21 frames per second.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a highly accurate deep-learning model for surgical step identification in pure LH. Our model could be applied to intraoperative systems of CAS.

Predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection and evaluation of alternative procedures to assist bleeding control

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver (PM) in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and to assess alternative procedures to PM.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing LLR between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and the outcomes of patients who underwent PM or alternative procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Among 106 patients who underwent LLR, PM could not be performed in 18 (17.0%) because of abdominal adhesions in 14 (77.8%) and/or collateral flow around the hepatoduodenal ligament in 5 (27.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed that Child-Pugh classification B (p = 0.034) and previous liver resection (p < 0.001) were independently associated with difficulty in performing PM in LLR. We evaluated pre-coagulation of liver tissue using microwave tissue coagulators, saline irrigation monopolar, clamping of the hepatoduodenal ligament using an intestinal clip, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as alternatives procedures to PM. There were no significant differences in blood loss (p = 0.391) or transfusion (p = 0.518) between the PM and alternative procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Child-Pugh classification B and previous liver resection were identified as predictors of a difficult PM in LLR. The alternative procedures were found to be effective.

Efficacy of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy compared with open repeat hepatectomy: a single-center, propensity score matching study

Introduction

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is considered to be a technically challenging procedure which has not been widely applied. This study aimed to assess the accessibility and security of LRH for patients with hepatic tumor recurrence.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2020, we performed 48 LRHs and 31 open repeat hepatectomies (ORHs) for recurrent liver cancer. LRHs were matched to ORHs (1:1) using propensity score matching (PSM) created by comparing preoperative factors. The perioperative data of patients were retrospectively analyzed, including baseline data, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, pathology, days of postoperative stay, complication morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates with appropriate follow-up were obtained to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Results

Compared with the ORH, LRH was related with shorter operative duration (169.9 versus 232.9 ml, p < 0.01), less intraoperative bleeding (100.0 versus 500.0 ml, p < 0.01), lower rate of blood transfusion (8.3% versus 58.1%, p < 0.01), and shorter hospitalization (5.0 versus 11.0 days, p < 0.01). The median follow-up was 31 months. The LRH 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival were 77.1%, 61.6%, and 46.2% versus 82.3%, 66.5%, and 29.5% for ORH (p = 0.77). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates of the two groups were 73.4%, 62.0%, and 44.3% versus 66.1%, 44.1%, and 14.7%, respectively (p = 0.22).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repeated hepatectomy is safe and practicable with great short-term results for selected patients.

Laparoscopic vs open liver re-resection for cirrhotic patients with post-hepatectomy hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeated liver resection is an effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have compared the outcome of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent HCC, and few of those have included cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of cirrhotic patients with LRH and ORH for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical records retrieved from a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent hepatectomy for post-hepatectomy recurrent HCC at our institute between May 2006 and June 2021. Cases of recurrent HCCs larger than 7 cm were excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, perioperative outcomes, pathologic details, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) data of LRH and ORH were compared.

RESULTS

Data from 29 patients with LRH and 22 with ORH were compared. The LRH group showed significantly better outcomes for blood loss (median 300 mL vs 750 mL, P = 0.013) and length of hospital stay (median 5 d vs 7 d, P = 0.003). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the LRH group were 100.0%, 60.0% and 30.0%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 81.8%, 36.4% and 18.2% (P = 0.336). The 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS rates in the LRH group were 68.2%, 27.3% and 4.5%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 31.3%, 6.3% and 6.3% (P = 0.055). There were no significant differences in overall and DFS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic re-resection should be considered for patients presenting with recurrent HCC less than or equal to 7 cm after previous hepatectomy.

Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had a slower diffusion compared to other surgical fields, mainly due to inherent peculiarities regarding the risks of uncontrollable bleeding, oncological inadequacy, and the need for both laparoscopic and liver major skills. Recently, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with an improved postoperative course, including reduced postoperative decompensation, intraoperative blood losses, length of hospitalization, and unaltered oncological outcomes, leading to its adoption within international guidelines. However, LLR for HCC still faces several limitations, mainly linked to the impaired function of underlying parenchyma, tumor size and numbers, and difficult tumor position. The aim of this review is to highlight the state of the art and future perspectives of LLR for HCC, focusing on key points for overcoming currents limitations and pushing the boundaries in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).

Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatectomy patients: inverse probability of treatment weighting

Repeat liver resection (RLR) is a good treatment option for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is more technically demanding than open repeat liver resection (ORLR). The purpose of our study is to compare the surgical outcomes of ORLR and LRLR and to carefully present LRLR guidelines for HCC. We performed RLR at a single institution from January 2017 to November 2019. We divided the patients into an ORLR group and an LRLR group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied in this study to compare the ORLR group and the LRLR group. There was no difference between the two groups in patient characteristics, preoperative blood tests and pathological characteristics. After stabilized IPTW, the LRLR group had a shorter hospital stay (5.52 vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.001) and superior disease-free survival (p = 0.020). LRLR yielded better short-term outcomes than ORLR. And if a regular radiologic examination is performed, most of the recurrent tumors could be detected less than 3 cm. In conclusion, LRLR might be feasible and useful for recurrent HCC located contralateral to the previous tumor at a size of less than 3 cm.

The effect of the robotic platform in hepatectomy after prior liver and non-liver abdominal operations: a comparative study of clinical outcomes

Improvements in outcomes after primary hepatectomy have increased the eligibility of patients for reoperative hepatectomies, but this can be fraught with technical difficulties, particularly via a minimally invasive approach. The robotic approach provides superior visualization, articulated instrumentation, platform stability, and increased dexterity when compared to conventional laparoscopy. We sought to investigate the effect brought by the robotic system in the outcome of these operations. We followed 234 patients who underwent robotic liver resection from 2012 to 2021 for retrospective analysis. Patients were classified as: no prior abdominal operation, prior abdominal operation(s), and prior liver resection. Cohorts were compared by one-way ANOVA and 2 × 3 contingency table analyses. For illustrative purposes, data are presented as median (mean ± SD). Significance was accepted at p < 0.05. Of the 234 patients studied, 114 underwent primary hepatectomy, 105 had a prior laparoscopic or open abdominal operation (cholecystectomy, herniorrhaphy, colectomy, and appendectomy), and 15 had a redo hepatectomy. Demographic and preoperative ASA, MELD, neoplasm size, and extent of liver resection were similar among the cohorts. There were no statistically significant differences between the three cohorts for all outcome variables including blood loss, operative duration, intensive care unit length of stay, overall length of stay, morbidity, mortality, and readmission rate. There were no differences in morbidity nor mortality between patients undergoing primary nor reoperative robotic hepatectomy. The advantages afforded by the robotic platform may have contributed to the equalization of outcomes.

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.

Multicenter Propensity Score-Based Study of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Cases with Tumors Far from Major Vessels

Simple Summary

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional study of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove it. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the complexity. A propensity score matching earned 115 each patient of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) without the proximity to major vessels, and the outcomes were compared. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss and less morbidity were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

Abstract

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional, propensity score-based study of emerging laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove this advantage. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex LRLR cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the indicator of complex cases. Among 1582 LRLR cases from 42 international high-volume liver surgery centers, 620 cases without the proximity to major vessels (more than 1 cm far from both first–second branches of Glissonian pedicles and major hepatic veins) were selected for this subgroup analysis. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed based on their patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumor characteristics and surgical procedures. One hundred and fifteen of each patient groups of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were earned, and the outcomes were compared. Backgrounds were well-balanced between LRLR and ORLR groups after matching. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss (283.3±823.0 vs. 603.5±664.9 mL, p = 0.001) and less morbidity (8.7 vs. 18.3 %, p = 0.034) were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

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.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis

Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors.

Patients and Methods: A propensity score–matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune–inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models.

Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.79 to −0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −0.79, 95% CI = −1.11 to −0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19–0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups.

Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

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.

Laparoscopic liver resection after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for liver metastases of ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma

Background

Repeat laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly common. However, reports of liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy are scarce, and we report the first successful case of a patient who underwent laparoscopic liver resection after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Case presentation

A 65-year-old man underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma. According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition) staging guidelines, the tumour was labelled as stage IIIB (fT2N2M0). Twelve months later, a computed tomography (CT) scan revealed liver masses (in segments 3 and 5) and swollen para-aortic lymph nodes. After six chemotherapy courses of gemcitabine with cisplatin, the CT scan showed the disappearance of the para-aortic lymph nodes and progression of liver metastases. Nineteen months after the initial surgery, the patient underwent laparoscopic partial liver resection of segment 5 and left lateral sectionectomy. First, we performed the operation in the left half lateral decubitus position. In this position, the portal vein was isolated safely without hindering the hepato-jejunal anastomosis, although the adhesions around the hepato-jejunal anastomosis were dense. Therefore, we were able to perform liver transection safely with vascular inflow control. The operation duration was 235 min, and the volume of blood loss was 100 g. Macroscopically, the resected margins were negative. The patient was uneventfully discharged 12 days after the second operation. Afterwards, drainage was needed because of an intra-abdominal abscess. Currently, he has been alive for 8 months postoperatively, receives chemotherapy to suppress para-aortic lymph node metastases, and has not had another recurrence.

Conclusions

Liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy can be performed safely with an innovative body position to isolate the portal vein, which is a key point of the surgery. A laparoscopic approach for liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy is a feasible option.

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.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Recurrence of liver cancers inside the liver are often treated with liver resection (LR). However, increased risks of complications and conversion during operation were reported in laparoscopic repeat LR (LRLR). The indication is still controversial. One multi-institutional propensity score matching analysis of LRLR vs open repeat LR for hepatocellular carcinoma, two propensity score matching analyses for colorectal metastases, and two meta-analyses including hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastases, and other tumors have been reported to date. LRLR was reported with better to comparable short-term and similar long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the shorter operation time and the smaller amount of intraoperative bleeding for LRLR was reported for the patients who had undergone laparoscopic rather than open LR as an earlier procedure. The speculations are presented, that complete dissection of adhesion can be dodged and laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize the liver functional deterioration in cirrhotic patients. LRLR, as a powerful local therapy, could contribute to the long-term outcomes of those with deteriorated liver function. However, the procedure is now in its developing stage worldwide and further accumulation of experiences and evaluation are needed.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic techniques have become the standard approach for most liver resections. Clinical studies providing conclusive evidence which patients benefit most from minimal-invasive surgery remain limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of all consecutive cases of laparoscopic liver resection between 2015 and 2018 at our center. We compared patients with and without prior abdominal surgeries with respect to postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score), length of operation, length of ICU stay and length of hospitalization in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Within the study period 319 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections, 44% of which had a history of abdominal surgeries. Pre-operative characteristics were similar to patients without prior surgeries. Both groups showed comparable rates of post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥3a; 12% in patients without vs. 16% with prior surgeries, p = 0,322). There were no significant differences in length of surgery or length of stay in the ICU or in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that history of prior abdominal surgery is not a risk factor for post-operative complications after laparoscopic liver resection. We conclude that prior abdominal surgery should not be considered a contra-indication for laparoscopic approach in liver resection.

Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Liver Resection, Educational Value of Simulation and Training Programmes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach is widely accepted as the procedure of choice for abdominal surgery. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has advanced slowly due to the significant learning curve (LC), and only few publications have dealt with advanced training in LLR.

METHODS

Two reviewers conducted systematic research through MEDLINE and EMBASE with combinations of the following keywords: (learning curve OR teaching OR training OR simulation OR education) AND (liver OR hepatic) AND (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy). Robotic-assisted, hand-assisted and hybrid LLRs were excluded.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were retrieved. Overall, the level of evidence was low. Thirteen articles assessed the LC during real-life LLR, and six articles focussed on simulation and training programmes in LLR. The LC in minor LLR comprised 60 cases overall, and 15 cases for standardised left lateral sectionectomy. For major LLR (MLLR), the LC was 50 cases for most studies, but was reported to be 15-20 cases in more recent studies, provided MLLR is performed progressively in selected patients. However, there was heterogeneity in the literature regarding the number of minor LLRs required before MLLR, with 60 minor LLRs reported as the minimum. Six studies showed a potential benefit of simulation and training programmes in this field. The gradual implementation of LLR combined with simulation-based training programmes could reduce the clinical impact of LC.

CONCLUSIONS

The LC in LLR is a long process, and MLLR should be gradually implemented under the supervision of experienced surgeons. Training outside the operating room may reduce the LC in real-life situations.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy is a more favorable treatment than open repeat hepatectomy for contralateral recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma cases

BACKGROUND

We compared surgical outcomes, with a focus on tumor characteristics, of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) to identify recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases where the LRH procedure would be more favorable than ORH.

METHODS

Eighty-one HCC patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy in our hospital from 2008 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Of these patients, 30 and 51 patients underwent LRH and ORH, respectively. We analyzed surgical outcomes of LRH and ORH, focusing on tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from major vessels, and contralateral or ipsilateral tumor recurrence to determine what factors could affect surgical outcomes. Subsequently, using a propensity-matched cohort, we compared the impact of those factors on LRH and ORH outcomes.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the LRH operation time was significantly shorter in contralateral recurrent HCC cases than in ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (252 vs. 398 min, P = 0.008); however, such a difference was not observed in the ORH operation time. We subsequently compared the surgical outcomes, in terms of the location of tumor recurrence, between the LRH and ORH groups in a propensity-matched cohort. In total, 23 patients were included in each of these groups. We found that the LRH procedure had significantly shorter operative time than the ORH procedure in the contralateral recurrent HCC cases (253 vs. 391 min, P = 0.018); however, we did not observe such a difference in the ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (372 vs. 333 min, P = 0.669). LRH had lower blood loss, similar postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than ORH in both contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is likely considered a more favorable approach than ORH in treating patients with contralateral recurrent HCC.

Perioperative outcomes comparing laparoscopic with open repeat liver resection for post-hepatectomy recurrent liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score-based study

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled data and even propensity-matched data, indications for, and outcomes of, laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the current indications for laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC, and to evaluate outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-two liver surgery centres around the world registered patients who underwent repeat liver resection for HCC. Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumour characteristics, surgical method, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Analyses showed that the laparoscopic procedure was generally used in patients with relatively poor performance status and liver function, but favourable tumour characteristics. Intraoperative blood loss (mean(s.d.) 254(551) versus 748(1128) ml; P < 0·001), duration of operation (248(156) versus 285(167) min; P < 0·001), morbidity (12·7 versus 18·1 per cent; P = 0·006) and duration of postoperative hospital stay (10·1(14·3) versus 11·8(11·8) days; P = 0·013) were significantly reduced for laparoscopic compared with open procedures, whereas survival time was comparable (median 10·04 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·297). Propensity score matching showed that laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (268(730) versus 497(784) ml; P = 0·001) and a longer operation time (272(187) versus 232(129); P = 0·007) than the open approach, and similar survival time (12·55 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·086).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection is feasible in selected patients with recurrent HCC.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: A comparative study from a single-centre

Background:

Technological innovations have made it possible to use laparoscopic liver resection in cases with pre-existing adhesions or cicatricial changes. However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons, especially in case of previous open liver surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) in cases of recurrent liver cancer.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 62 patients who underwent laparoscopic minor liver resection at our institution between September 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively divided into an LRLR group (n = 13) and a laparoscopic primary liver resection group (LPLR; n = 49). The two groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, surgical procedures and short-term outcomes. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs).

Results:

There was a significant intergroup difference in the hepatitis virus background, although the two groups' primary histology and pre-operative liver function were comparable. The two groups had statistically similar values for extent of resection, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, conversion to laparotomy, post-operative complications, surgical margins, time to oral intake and hospital stay. No significant differences were detected when we stratified the cases according to low and intermediate difficulty. Furthermore, there were no intergroup differences in RFS or OS in the two groups for patients with HCC and CRLM.

Conclusions:

The findings suggest that minor LRLR after OLR is safe and comparable with minor LPLR in the present study.

Repeat liver resection versus salvage liver transplant for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-adjusted and -matched comparison analysis

Backgrounds/Aims

Repeat liver resection (RLR) and salvage liver transplantation (SLT) are viable treatment options for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). With possibly superior survival outcomes than RLR, SLT is however, limited by liver graft availability and poses increased perioperative morbidity. In this study, we seek to compare the outcomes of RLR and SLT for patients with recurrent HCC.

Methods

Between 1999 and 2018, 94 and 16 consecutive patients who underwent RLR and SLT respectively were identified. Further retrospective subgroup analysis was conducted, comparing 16 RLR with 16 SLT patients via propensity-score matching.

Results

After propensity-score adjusted analyses, SLT demonstrated inferior short-term perioperative outcomes than RLR, with increased major morbidity (57.8% vs 5.4 %, p=0.0001), reoperations (39.1% vs 0, p<0.0001), renal insufficiency (30.1% vs 3%, p=0.0071), bleeding (19.8% vs 2.2%, p=0.0289), prolonged intensive care unit stay (median=4 vs 0 days, p<0.0001) and hospital stay (median=19.8 vs 7.1days, p<0.001). However, SLT showed significantly lower recurrence rate (15.4% versus 70.3%, p=0.0005) and 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrences (19.4% versus 68.4%, p=0.005). Propensity-matched subgroup analysis showed concordant findings.

Conclusions

While SLT offers potentially reduced risks of recurrence and trended towards improved long-term survival outcomes relative to RLR, it has poorer short-term perioperative outcomes. Patient selection is prudent amidst organ shortages to maximise allocated resources and optimise patient outcomes.

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.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC).

METHODS

Published studies which investigated laparoscopic versus open liver resection for RHCC were identified, and meta-analysis was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies were analyzed by meta-analysis method, and cumulative 335 cases were included in this study. Laparoscopic liver resection was performed in 145 cases, and open liver resection was performed in 190 cases. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in operative time and 90-day mortality between the laparoscopic group and the open group (p = 0.06 and p = 0.06 respectively); Nevertheless, compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group resulted in significantly lower rate of in-hospital complication (p < 0.0001), much less blood loss (p < 0.0001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for RHCC offers a benefit of lower in-hospital complication rate, less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, while similar operative time and 90-day mortality as the open liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection is feasible with satisfactory postoperative outcomes and can be a safe alternative treatment strategy to open procedure for RHCC.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC: Comparison with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC and Laparoscopic Resection for Primary HCC

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC).

METHODS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR for rHCC between 2015 and 2017. The control groups consisted of 79 open RLR (ORLR) for rHCC and 185 LLR for primary HCC. We undertook propensity score-adjusted analyses (PSA) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for the comparison of LRLR versus ORLR. Comparison of LRLR versus LLR was done using multivariable regression models with adjustment for clinically relevant covariates.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR with three open conversions (15%). Both PSA and 1:1-PSM demonstrated that LRLR was significantly associated with a shorter stay, superior disease-free survival (DFS) but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Comparison between LRLR versus LLR demonstrated that patients undergoing LRLR were significantly older, had smaller tumors, longer operation time and decreased frequency of Pringle's maneuver applied. There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that in highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR was associated with a shorter hospitalization but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Moreover, other than a longer operation time, LRLR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared to LLR for primary HCC.

Outcomes of salvage liver transplant for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparison with primary liver transplant

Backgrounds/Aims

Salvage liver transplantation (SLT) is a therapeutic strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it remains controversial with compromised survival outcomes and increased perioperative morbidity compared to primary liver transplant (PLT). In the present work, we describe our institution's experience on SLT by comparing outcomes of SLT to PLT for HCCs.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was conducted for 49 transplant patients from 2006-2017. A comparative analysis was carried out between 14 SLT patients and 35 PLT patients.

Results

SLT patients demonstrated significantly shorter time to recurrence than PLT patients (median=5.5 versus 23 months, p<0.001) with a trend towards increased perioperative major morbidity (42.9% versus 37%, p=0.711), inferior 5-year overall survival (61% versus 75%, p=0.345) and inferior 5-year recurrence-free survival (57% versus 72%, p=0.263). However, overall survival from the point of primary resection over a 10-year period showed no statistical difference between the 2 groups (SLT=60% versus PLT=61%, p=0.685).

Conclusions

SLT is a viable treatment strategy for HCCs. However, it exhibited poorer short-term perioperative and oncologic outcomes than PLT. SLT requires better patient selection with liver donor grafts for optimization of resource allocation in this era of organ shortage. Considering the worldwide shortages in liver grafts, it is hypothesized that optimization of a salvage transplant strategy may improve resource allocation and reap optimal patient outcomes.

Surgical outcomes and quality of life between laparoscopic and open approach for hepatic hemangioma: A propensity score matching analysis

The main objective of the study was to compare the surgical outcomes and quality of life (QOL) of patients with hepatic hemangioma either by laparoscopic or open surgery using a propensity score analysis.We retrospectively reviewed patients with hepatic hemangioma undergoing laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) or open liver surgery (OLS) between January 2016 and December 2017. Intraoperative and postoperative characteristics, and quality of life, according to Short Form-36 Healthy Survey (SF-36) questionnaire, were compared between groups. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) between the LLS and OLS groups.A total of 205 patients who involved in the analysis (80 LLS vs 125 OLS) were matched (1:1) by age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, previous upper abdominal surgery, comorbidities, operation method, type of resection, tumor localization, size, and number. After PSM, 73 well-matched patients in each group were obtained. LLS was associated with significantly less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay and fewer complications. The QOL scores weren't significantly different between the 2 groups, though the LLS group tended to be superior to the OLS group in terms of bodily pain (BP) and mental health (MH) at 3 months after surgery.In comparison with the conventional open approach, laparoscopic liver surgery for hepatic hemangioma appears to have improved short-term surgical outcomes and comparable QOL in selected patients.

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.

Developments and perspectives of laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was introduced in the early 1990s, initially for partial resection of the anterolateral segments, from where it has expanded in a stepwise fashion. Movement restriction makes bleeding control demanding. Managing pneumoperitoneum pressure with inflow control can inhibit venous bleeding and create a dry surgical field for easier hemostasis. Since the lack of overview leads to disorientation, simulation and navigation with imaging studies have become important. Improved direct access to the liver inside the rib cage can be obtained in LLR, reducing destruction of the associated structures and decreasing the risk of refractory ascites and liver failure, especially in patients with a cirrhotic liver. Although LLR can be performed as bridging therapy to transplantation for severe cirrhosis, its impact on expanding the indications of liver resection (LR) and the consequent survival benefits must be evaluated. For repeat LR, LLR is advantageous by producing fewer adhesions and reducing the need for adhesiolysis. The laparoscopic approach facilitates better access in a small operative field between adhesions. Further evaluations are needed for repeat anatomical resection, since alterations of the anatomy and surrounding scars and adhesions of major vessels have a larger impact.

Surgery strategy of 13 cases to control bleeding from the liver on laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction:

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is a safe and effective treatment in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) in particular patients. However, there are less reports about surgery strategy of LRLR for rHCC. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic strategy for bleeding of liver to increase the safety and feasibility of LRLR for rHCC.

Methods:

In this study, a total of 13 cases of LRLR for rHCC, including 8 males and 5 females; aged 28–72 years, mean age 54 years, who were received at least one laparotomy due to HCC. We employ to block the local blood flow, ligation of the left or right hepatic artery and/or approach of Pringle according to the assessment of the degree of adhesions in the abdominal and the first hepatic portal, the location of the tumour (edge/central).

Results:

Three cases were less adhesions, nine cases were dense adhesions but 1 case was serious adhesions. Two cases were employed to block the local blood flow, 3 cases were employed to ligation of the left or right hepatic artery and 7 cases were employed to approach of Pringle. Twelve cases were successfully completed by LRLR whereas 1 case was completed by transfer to the open resection, including massive resection in 3 cases (the diameter of resection ≥3 cm), small hepatectomy in 10 cases (the diameter of resection <3 cm), no severe perioperative complication. The average operative time was (142 ± 34) min, the average intraoperative blood loss was (251 ± 92) ml and the average post-operative hospital time was (9 ± 3) d. The mean follow-up time was 25 months. Until the last follow-up, 11 cases survived while 2 cases died because of tumour recurrence.

Conclusions:

It can improve the safety and feasibility of LRLR for rHCC, according to the degree of adhesion of the peritoneal adhesions and the first hepatic portal, then selecting the appropriate technique to control the bleeding of the hepatectomy.

Multidisciplinary management of recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: an international expert consensus

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth-most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. However, 40-70% patients eventually suffer from postoperative recurrence within 5 years. HCC recurrence after surgery severely affects prognosis of the patients. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to improve patients' prognosis if doctors and researchers can recognize the importance of a standardized perioperative management and study it in clinical and pre-clinical settings. Hence, based on our own experience and published studies from other researchers, we develop this consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of locally recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. This consensus consists of the entire course of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) management, including prediction of recurrence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of RHCC. Consensus recommendations are presented with grades of evidences (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, III and IV), and strength of recommendations (A, B, C, D and E). We also develop a decision-making path for RHCC treatment, which can intuitively demonstrate the management for RHCC. It is hoped that we may make some effort to standardize the management of RHCC and ultimately understand how to improve outcomes.

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.

Laparoscopic liver resection for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease

Liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), transarterial chemoembolization, and local ablation therapy are the treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although LR, LT and local ablation therapy (only for small tumor) provide the best hope for cure, most patients with HCC have also chronic liver disease (CLD) backgrounds, including HCV-liver cirrhosis. Therefore, they are at high risk for development of postoperative complications-sometimes fatal-and metachronous multicentric recurrent tumors occurring from the preneoplastic CLD background. Appropriate treatment is selected for HCC patients, on the combined evaluations of tumor condition and liver function. However, not small number of patients cannot undergo any treatment option due to poor liver function and/or complicated tumor condition. After repeated treatments, it can happen more often. It is thought that the features of laparoscopic LR could lead to the expansion of the LR indication to those patients, in the settings of severe CLD, repeat LR and bridging to LT. In our experience, Child-Pugh (CP) score is one of the promising candidates as a selection indicator which correlates well to our indication criteria of surface small laparoscopic LR to severe CLD patients, patient's performance status, and prognosis. Portal hypertension should be also counted in the selection criteria.

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.

Short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is an effective treatment, with long-term surgical outcomes for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis. However, the efficacy of a minimally invasive surgical approach for recurrent liver cancer is not yet confirmed. The purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of minimally invasive repeat liver resection (MISRLR) compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological features and short-term surgical outcomes of patients undergoing MISRLR and ORLR.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2016, 97 patients with liver cancer underwent repeat hepatectomy. Of these patients, 68 patients receiving macroscopically curative resection and only hepatectomy, without other additional operations, were selected. Twenty patients underwent MISRLR and 48 patients underwent ORLR. We compared the clinicopathological and surgical parameters in the MISRLR group with those in the ORLR group.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in patients' gender, age, viral infection status, Child-Pugh classification, tumor size, tumor number, tumor location, or the presence of liver cirrhosis in the two groups. The operative times were similar, but blood loss was significantly lower in MISRLR group (159 vs. 502 ml, P = 0.0035). The length of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MISRLR group (14.2 vs. 19.2 days, P = 0.0275). Postoperative complications were observed only in the ORLR group, with a complication rate of 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that MISRLR for primary and metastatic liver cancer reduces blood loss and postoperative complications compared with ORLR. MISRLR might be a feasible and effective procedure for the selected patients.

Is Laparoscopic Hepatectomy a Safe, Feasible Procedure in Patients with a Previous Upper Abdominal Surgery?

Background:

Laparoscopic liver resection has become an accepted treatment for liver tumors or intrahepatic bile duct stones, but its application in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in these patients.

Methods:

Three hundred and thirty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy at our hospital from March 2012 to June 2015 were enrolled in the retrospective study. They were divided into two groups: Those with previous upper abdominal surgery (PS group, n = 42) and a control group with no previous upper abdominal surgery (NS group, n = 294). Short-term outcomes including operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were compared among the groups.

Results:

There was no significant difference in median operative duration between the PS group and the NS group (180 min vs. 160 min, P = 0.869). Median intraoperative blood loss was same between the PS group and the control group (200 ml vs. 200 ml, P = 0.907). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the NS group than in the PS group (17.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.030). Mortality and other short-term outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions:

Our study showed no significant difference between the PS group and NS group in term of short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a feasible and safe procedure for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.