Perioperative analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1198-1203. [PMID: 19263133 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0372-z]

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Technical feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection: an IgoMILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) registry-based study

Background

Although isolated caudate lobe (CL) liver resection is not a contraindication for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), feasibility and safety of the procedure are still poorly investigated. To address this gap, we evaluate data on the Italian prospective maintained database on laparoscopic liver surgery (IgoMILS) and compare outcomes between MILS and open group.

Methods

Perioperative data of patients with malignancies, as colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), non-colorectal liver metastases (NCRLM) and benign liver disease, were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the potential selection bias for MILS and open group.

Results

A total of 224 patients were included in the study, 47 and 177 patients underwent MILS and open isolated CL resection, respectively. The overall complication rate was comparable between the two groups; however, severe complication rate (Dindo–Clavien grade ≥ 3) was lower in the MILS group (0% versus 6.8%, P = ns). In-hospital mortality was 0% in both groups and mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MILS group (P = 0.01). After selection of 42 MILS and 43 open CL resections by PSM analysis, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes remained similar except for the hospital stay which was not significantly shorter in MILS group.

Conclusions

This multi-institutional cohort study shows that MILS CL resection is feasible and safe. The surgical procedure can be technically demanding compared to open resection, whereas good perioperative outcomes can be achieved in highly selected patients.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Single-Port Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Liver Tumor: Operative Steps (With Video)

BACKGROUND

The single-port laparoscopic technique has been widely applied in abdominal surgery. We introduce a single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver tumor in a single center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included 37 patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumor in the segments II, III, IV, and V between October 2017 and November 2018. Their perioperative course and operative techniques were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

All patients underwent single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver tumor. None of the cases was converted to open surgery. The median procedure duration was 100 minutes (39 to 240 min), and the median blood loss volume was 50 mL (30 to 300 mL). No postoperative complications >3 grades were observed during the perioperative period. The median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (3 to 7 d).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe, feasible, and minimal incision, especially for tumors in the left lobe.

Short-term Results of Laparoscopic versus Open Liver Resection for Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study

Laparoscopic liver resection is currently performed in an increasing number of institutions as a minimally invasive treatment. However, no randomized controlled trials have compared laparoscopic and open liver resections. Twenty-three laparoscopic and 24 open liver resections for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) were performed, and these data for both were retrospectively compared in the short-term results. The estimated blood loss was 99 ± 207 mL in the laparoscopic group and 397 ± 381 mL in the open group ( P = 0.0018); blood loss was significantly higher in the open group. There were no differences in the surgical procedure, blood loss, transfusion rate, pathological margins, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, duration of intravenous drip, or hospital stay. On postoperative courses, the values of total bilirubin, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The data of the present series suggest the lesser invasiveness and safety of laparoscopic liver resection even for patients with CRCLM, and they showed that postoperative laboratory tests were better after laparoscopy than after the traditional open approach with better short-term results. Tumor diameter less than 5 cm appears to be the appropriate indication for laparoscopic liver resection for CRCLM.

Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy: a multicenter, propensity score-matched report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes

BACKGROUND

Caudate lobectomy via laparoscopic surgery has rarely been described. This multicenter, propensity score-matched study was performed to assess the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic caudate lobectomy (LCL).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent LCL and open caudate lobectomy (OCL) in four institutions from January 2013 to December 2018. In total, 131 patients were included in this study and divided into LCL (n = 19) and OCL (n = 112) groups. LCLs were matched to OCLs (1:2) using a propensity score matching (PSM) based on nine preoperative variables, including patient demographics and tumor characteristics. The pathological results, perioperative and postoperative parameters, and short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 18 and 36 patients in the LCL and OCL groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LCL was associated with less blood (100 vs. 300 ml, respectively; P < 0.001) and a shorter postoperative stay (6.0 vs 8.0 days, respectively; P = 0.003). Most patients' resection margins were > 10 mm in the LCL group (P = 0.021), and all patients with malignancy in both groups achieved R0 resection. In terms of early postoperative outcomes, the overall morbidity rate was identical in each group (11.1% vs. 11.1%, respectively; P = 1.000). No mortality occurred in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy is a feasible choice for resection of tumors located in the caudate lobe with acceptable perioperative results.

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is associated with decreased morbidity and resource utilization in the elderly

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether elderly patients undergoing elective hepatectomy experience increased morbidity/mortality and whether these outcomes could be mitigated by minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH).

METHODS

15,612 patients from 2014 to 2017 were identified in the Hepatectomy Targeted Procedure Participant Use File of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine the effect of elderly status (age ≥ 75 years, N = 1769) on outcomes with a subgroup analysis of elderly only patients by open (OH) versus MIH (robotic, laparoscopic, and hybrid, N = 4044). Propensity score matching was conducted comparing the effect of MIH to OH in elderly patients to ensure that results are not the artifact of imbalance in baseline characteristics.

RESULTS

Overall, elderly patients had increased risk for 30-day mortality, major morbidity, prolonged length of hospital stay, and discharge to destination other than home. In the elderly subgroup, MIH was associated with decreased major morbidity (OR 0.71, P = 0.031), invasive intervention (OR 0.61, P = 0.032), liver failure (OR 0.15, P = 0.011), bleeding (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), and prolonged length of stay (OR 0.46, P < 0.001). Propensity score-matched analyses successfully matched 4021 pairs of patients treated by MIH vs. OH, and logistic regression analyses on this matched sample found that MIH was associated with decreased major complications (OR 0.69, P = 0.023), liver failure (OR 0.14, P = 0.010), bile leak (OR 0.46, P = 0.009), bleeding requiring transfusion (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), prolonged length of stay (OR 0.46, P < 0.001), and discharge to destination other than home (OR 0.691, P = 0.035) compared to OH.

CONCLUSION

MIH is associated with decreased risk of major morbidity, liver failure, bile leak, bleeding, prolonged length of stay, and discharge to destination other than home among elderly patients in this retrospective study. However, MIH in elderly patients does not protect against postoperative mortality.

Minimally invasive management of the entire treatment sequence in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a propensity-score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may offer optimal oncologic outcome with low morbidity. However, the relative benefit of MIS compared to open surgery in patients requiring multistage resections has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent totally minimally invasive (TMI) or totally open (TO) resections of CRC primary and liver metastases (CLM) in 2009-2016 were analyzed. Inverse probability of weighted adjustment by propensity score was performed before analyzing risk factors for complications and survival.

RESULTS

The study included 43 TMI and 121 TO patients. Before and after adjustment, TMI patients had significantly less cumulated postoperative complications (41% vs. 59%, p = 0.001), blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 4.5 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified TO approach vs. MIS (OR = 2.4, p < 0.001), major liver resection (OR = 4.4, p < 0.001), and multiple CLM (OR = 2.3, p = 0.001) as independent risk factors for complications. 5-year overall survival was comparable (81% vs 68%, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRC undergoing multistage surgical treatment, MIS resection contributes to optimal perioperative outcomes without compromise in oncologic outcomes.

Robotic-assisted right posterior segmentectomies for liver lesions: single-center experience of an evolutional method in left semi-lateral position

Despite the popularity of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hepatectomy, limitations in the approach of the right posterior section of the liver remain. Although skills and approach techniques have been developed for hepatectomy of lesions in the posterior segments of the liver, most are performed laparoscopically and are limited to few experienced hands using rigid laparoscopic instruments. In this study, we tried a different approach area via the aid of a flexible robotic system. Since 2012, we have successfully completed more than 200 robotic hepatectomy procedures in our institution. Two different patient settings have been applied for right posterior segment lesions, including supine position as general setting in early cases and left semi-lateral decubitus setting in our later cases. The demographic data and perioperative outcomes between the two groups were analyzed in regard to different positioning. A total of 25 patients with right posterior segment lesions underwent robotic-assisted resection, 13 were placed in supine position and 12 in left semi-lateral position. The left semi-lateral group had significantly shorter operation time (306.0 versus 416.8 min, p = 0.023), less blood loss (203.9 versus 1092.3 mL, p = 0.030), and lower transfusion rates (0 versus 46.2%, p = 0.015). We described an evolutionary technique for robotic right posterior segmentectomies with the patient placed in left semi-lateral position. This method can be applied for most patients easily and is demonstrated as a safe and feasible approach in selected patients owing to its ability to overcome the difficulty of MIS hepatectomy for right posterior lesions.

Short- and Long-Term Results of Laparoscopic Parenchyma-Sparing Hepatectomy for Small-Sized Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of invasiveness and the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (LPSH) for a maximum hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) size ≤5 cm. Sixty-one LPSHs and 175 open parenchyma-sparing hepatectomies (OPSHs) for small-sized HCC were analyzed using a propensity score matching analysis. The median operative time was significantly shorter in the LPSH group (194 min) than in the OPSH group (275 minutes) ( P < 0.0001). The estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LPSH group (100 mL) than in the OPSH group (380 mL) ( P < 0.0001). The incidences of superficial incisional surgical site infections and respiratory complications were significantly lower in the LPSH group than in the OPSH group ( P = 0.0161 and 0.0285, respectively). During the postoperative course, the white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels were significantly lower in the LPSH group. There were no differences in overall survival and disease-free survival ( P = 0.1293 and 0.4039, respectively), and no significant differences in terms of type of recurrence and site of intrahepatic recurrence ( P = 0.1410). The data from the present series suggest the lesser invasiveness and safety of LPSH even for small-sized HCC patients.

Advances and challenges in laparoscopic surgery in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. From the wide variety of treatment options, surgical resection and liver transplantation are the only therapeutic ones. However, due to shortage of liver grafts, surgical resection is the most common therapeutic modality implemented. Owing to rapid technological development, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated in liver surgery. Liver laparoscopic resection has been evaluated in comparison to the open technique and has been shown to be superior because of the reported decrease in surgical incision length and trauma, blood loss, operating theatre time, postsurgical pain and complications, R0 resection, length of stay, time to recovery and oral intake. It has been reported that laparoscopic excision is a safe and feasible approach with near zero mortality and oncologic outcomes similar to open resection. Nevertheless, current indications include solid tumors in the periphery < 5 cm, especially in segments II through VI, while according to the consensus laparoscopic major hepatectomy should only be performed by surgeons with high expertise in laparoscopic and hepatobiliary surgery in tertiary centers. It is necessary for a surgeon to surpass the 60-cases learning curve observed in order to accomplish the desirable outcomes and preserve patient safety. In this review, our aim is to thoroughly describe the general principles and current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as future prospects.

Minor laparoscopic liver resection: toward 1-day surgery?

BACKGROUND

Technical advances in laparoscopy and enhanced recovery after surgery programs have progressively decreased the need for hospitalization. The present study aimed to explore the feasibility and safety of an early discharge protocol after minor laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

The study sample consisted of patients with both benign and malignant hepatic lesions involving no more than two hepatic segments who underwent minor LLR and were discharged within 24 h. Patients were selected based on their fitness for surgery, proximity to the hospital, and availability of a responsible adult to care for them once discharged. Patients and their accompanying caregiver were instructed about the procedure, its potential complications, and the conditions required for an early discharge. They were also provided with a 24-h dedicated phone number for assistance.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients [mean age 48.9 year (SD 14.75); 12 women] with no more than one comorbidity were included. The majority (87.5%) was classified as ASA I or II. Thirteen patients (46%) were operated on for malignant lesions. The median operative time was 90 min, the median pneumoperitoneum time was 60 min, and the estimated blood loss was 50 mL. Mortality was zero. No transfusion, conversion, or pedicule clamping was necessary. No anesthesia-related complications occurred. All patients were discharged at 24 h. Only one patient (4.2%) was readmitted at postoperative day 3 for intolerable abdominal pain due to a wound abscess that was treated by antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

By applying a standardized protocol for admission, preoperative workup, and anesthesia, early discharge after minor LLR can be successfully carried out in highly selected patients with minimal impact on primary healthcare services.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The safety and efficacy of approaches to liver resection: a meta-analysis

Background:

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.

Database:

Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3–200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.57).

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.

The comparative costs of laparoscopic and open liver resection: a report for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The techniques of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have developed rapidly in selected centers, while global adoption of this approach has been cautious. The costs of LLR compared to open resection (OLR) are considered an important metric in evaluating this approach and may be a barrier to adoption in some centers.

METHODS

To formulate a consensus statement using the Zurich-Danish consensus model to the question of "What are the comparative outcomes of cost for LLR and OLR, minor and major?" a systematic search of the literature was conducted. Results were presented to the jury in September 2014 and updated in August 30, 2015. Adjustments for currency conversions and inflation were not performed due to limitations in available data.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were reviewed, and 11 relevant papers were selected for inclusion. No randomized control studies were found. Five studies were case-matched comparisons, while the remaining studies were retrospective reviews. The number of patients in each study ranged from 28 to 74, and the cumulative number of patients was 643 comparing 350 OLR to 293 LLR. Overall median hospital stay was lower for LLR at 4.6 versus 7.4 days. This remained valid when only the case-matched studies were analyzed, 4.6 (n = 178) versus 6.6 days (n = 266). The median overall total costs were 16.3 % lower (range 0 to -22 %) for LLR compared to OLR. This remained valid in the subgroup analysis of the case-matched studies, with a median 17.4 % lower costs for the LLR. Median OR costs were 3 % higher for LLR (range -9 to 40 %) but 32.9 % lower for hospital ward costs (range 0 to -60 %) when compared to OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the published literature indicates that overall hospital costs are less for LLR when compared to OLR (Level of evidence 3a and 3b). This evidence is strongest for minor hepatic resections. The decreased cost is based on savings in hospital ward costs and likely related to a significantly shorter hospital stay for LLR.

Early and Long-term Oncological Outcomes After Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Propensity Score-based Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare early and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) by either a laparoscopic (LA) or an open (OA) approach.

BACKGROUND

The LA is still a matter of debate regarding the surgical management of CLM.

METHODS

Data of all patients from 32 French surgical centers who underwent liver resection for CLM from January 2006 to December 2013 were collected. Aiming to obtain 2 well-balanced cohorts for available variables influencing early outcome and survival, the LA group was matched 1:1 with the OA group by using a propensity score (PS)-based method.

RESULTS

The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 2620 patients (LA: 176, OA: 2444). In the matched cohort for operative risk factors (LA: 153, OA: 153), the LA group had shorter hospitalization stays [11.1 (±9) days vs 13.9 (±10) days; P = 0.01] and was associated with lower rates of grade III to V complications [odds ratio (OR): 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.51; P = 0.0002] and inhospital transfusions (OR: 0.33 95% CI 0.18-0.59; P < 0.0001). On a prognostic factors well-balanced population (LA: 73, OA: 73), the LA group and the OA group experienced similar overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival rates [OS rates of 88% and 78% vs 84% and 75% at 3 and 5 years, respectively (P = 0.72) and DFS rates of 40% and 32% vs 52% and 36% at 3 and 5 years, respectively (P = 0.60)].

CONCLUSIONS

In the patients who are suitable for LA, laparoscopy yields better operative outcomes without impairing long-term survival.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Primary Liver Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: A Single-Center, Case-Matched Study

Pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLLR) has been reported to be as safe and effective as open liver resection (OLR) for liver lesions, and it is associated with less intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication rate. However, studies comparing PLLR with OLR in elderly patients were limited. The aim of this study was to analyze the short-term outcome of PLLR versus OLR for primary liver carcinoma (PLC) in elderly patients.Between January 2008 and October 2014, 30 consecutive elderly patients (≥70 years) who underwent PLLR for PLC were included into analysis. Sixty patients who received OLR for PLC during the same study period were also included as a case-matched control group. Patients were well matched in terms of age, sex, comorbid illness, Child Pugh class, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, tumor size, tumor location, and extent of hepatectomy.No significant differences were observed with regard to patient preoperative baseline status, median tumor size (Group PLLR 4.0 cm vs Group OLR 5.0 cm, P = 0.125), tumor location, extent of hepatectomy, and operation time (Group PLLR 133 minutes vs Group OLR 170 minutes, P = 0.073). Compared with OLR, the PLLR group displayed a significantly less frequent Pringle maneuver application (10.0% vs 70.0%, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 vs 300 mL; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (5 vs 10 days; P < 0.001), and lower total hospitalization cost ($9147.50 vs $10,867.10, P = 0.008). The postoperative complication rates were similar between groups (Group PLLR 10.0% vs Group OLR 16.7%; P = 0.532). There was no hospital mortality in both groups.PLLR for PLC is as safe and feasible as OLR, but with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and lower hospitalization cost for selected elderly patients.

Colorectal cancer liver metastases: laparoscopic and open radiofrequency-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

The liver is the most common site of colorectal metastases (colorectal liver metastases - CLM). Surgical treatment in combination with oncological therapy is the only potentially curative method. Unfortunately, only 10-25% of patients are suitable for surgery. Traditionally, open liver resection (OLR) is usually performed. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become popular worldwide in the last two decades.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of radiofrequency minor LLR of CLM in comparison with OLR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The indication for surgery was CLM and the possibility to perform minor laparoscopic or OLR not exceeding two hepatic segments according to Couinaud's classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six minor liver resections for CLM were performed. Twenty-five (37.9%) patients underwent a laparoscopic approach and 41 (62.1%) patients underwent OLR. The mean operative time was 166.4 min for LLR and 166.8 min for OLR. Average blood loss was 132.3 ±218.0 ml during LLR and 149.5 ±277.5 ml during OLR. Length of hospital stay was 8.4 ±2.0 days for LLR and 10.5 ±5.8 days for OLR. All resections were R0. There was no case of mortality. Postoperative complications were recognized in 9 (13.6%) patients: 8 in the group of OLR patients and 1 in the LLR group. The median survival time for LLR was 70.5 months and for OLR 61.9 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher for LLR vs. OLR - 82.1% vs. 69.8%. The average length of disease-free interval after LLR was greater (52.2 months) in comparison with OLR (49.4%). The 5-year disease-free interval was 63.2% for LLR and 58% for OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and oncological radicality of minor laparoscopic liver resections of CLM are comparable to outcomes of OLR.

Costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resection: A systematic review

AIM: To study costs of laparoscopic and open liver and pancreatic resections, all the compiled data from available observational studies were systematically reviewed.

METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Medline, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify all studies published up to 2013 that compared laparoscopic and open liver [laparoscopic hepatic resection (LLR) vs open liver resection (OLR)] and pancreatic [laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) vs open pancreatic resection] resection. The last search was conducted on October 30, 2013.

RESULTS: Four studies reported that LLR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (2972 USD vs 5291 USD). The costs related to equipment (3345 USD vs 2207 USD) and theatre (14538 vs 11406) were reported higher for LLR. The total cost was lower in patients managed by LLR (19269 USD) compared to OLR (23419 USD). Four studies reported that LPR was associated with lower ward stay cost than OLR (6755 vs 9826 USD). The costs related to equipment (2496 USD vs 1630 USD) and theatre (5563 vs 4444) were reported higher for LPR. The total cost was lower in the LPR (8825 USD) compared to OLR (13380 USD).

CONCLUSION: This systematic review support the economic advantage of laparoscopic over open approach to liver and pancreatic resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically better than open hepatectomy: preparing for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Six years have passed since the first International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection was held. This comparatively new surgical technique has evolved since then and is rapidly being adopted worldwide. We compared the theoretical differences between open and laparoscopic liver resection, using right hepatectomy as an example. We also searched the Cochrane Library using the keyword "laparoscopic liver resection." The papers retrieved through the search were reviewed, categorized, and applied to the clinical questions that will be discussed at the 2nd Consensus Conference. The laparoscopic hepatectomy procedure is more difficult to master than the open hepatectomy procedure because of the movement restrictions imposed upon us when we operate from outside the body cavity. However, good visibility of the operative field around the liver, which is located beneath the costal arch, and the magnifying provide for neat transection of the hepatic parenchyma. Another theoretical advantage is that pneumoperitoneum pressure reduces hemorrhage from the hepatic vein. The literature search turned up 67 papers, 23 of which we excluded, leaving only 44. Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are underway, but their results are yet to be published. Most of the studies (n = 15) concerned short-term results, with some addressing long-term results (n = 7), cost (n = 6), energy devices (n = 4), and so on. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically superior to open hepatectomy in terms of good visibility of the operative field due to the magnifying effect and reduced hemorrhage from the hepatic vein due to pneumoperitoneum pressure. However, there is as yet no evidence from previous studies to back this up in terms of short-term and long-term results. The 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection will arrive at a consensus on the basis of the best available evidence, with video presentations focusing on surgical techniques and the publication of guidelines for the standardization of procedures based on the experience of experts.

Laparoscopic limited liver resection decreases morbidity irrespective of the hepatic segment resected

OBJECTIVES

The laparoscopic approach is widely used in abdominal surgery. However, the benefits of laparoscopy in liver surgery have hitherto been insufficiently established. This study sought to investigate these benefits and, in particular, to establish whether or not the laparoscopic approach is beneficial in patients with lesions involving the posterosuperior segments of the liver.

METHODS

Outcomes in a cohort of patients undergoing mostly minor hepatectomy (50 laparoscopic and 52 open surgery procedures) between January 2000 and December 2010 at the University Clinic of Navarra were analysed. The two groups displayed similar clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

Patients submitted to laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) had a lower risk for complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.74; P = 0.013] and shorter hospital stay (OR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.02-0.27; P < 0.001) independently of the presence of classical risk factors for complications. In the cohort of patients with lesions involving posterosuperior liver segments (20 laparoscopic, 21 open procedures), LLR was associated with significantly fewer complications (OR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.71) and a lower risk for a long hospital stay (OR = 0.1, 95% CI 0.02-0.43).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms that the laparoscopic approach to hepatic resection decreases the risk for post-surgical complications and lengthy hospitalization in patients undergoing minor liver resections. This beneficial effect is observed even in patients with lesions located in segments that require technically difficult resections.

Pure laparoscopic liver resection reduces surgical site infections and hospital stay. Results of a case-matched control study in 50 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection is an emerging tool in surgical oncology, but its role in liver tumors is far from being universally accepted.

METHODS

We designed a case-matched control study, comparing laparoscopic (LAP) vs. open hepatectomies (OP) performed in the same center during the same period of time. Fifty LAP were performed (34 liver metastases, 7 hepatocellular carcinomas, 2 hydatid cysts, and 5 benign tumors). Cases were compared with 100 OP matched according to: diagnosis, number of lesions, type of resection, age, ASA score, and ECOG performance status. We evaluated intraoperative and postoperative parameters, focusing on morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Preoperative data were comparable in both groups. Operative features were similar in terms of overall morbidity 18 (36 %) vs. 36 (36 %), p = 1; intraoperative bleeding, 401 (18-2192) vs. 475 (20-2000) mL, p = 0.89; pedicle clamping, 37 (74 %) vs. 88 (88 %), p = 0.55; margin, 0.6 (0-5) vs. 0.65 (0-5) cm, p = 0.94, and mortality p = 0.65 for the LAP and OP groups, respectively. There was a significant decrease in surgical site infections 1 (2 %) vs. 18 (18 %) p = 0.007 in the LAP group. Operative time was longer: 295 (120-600) vs. 200 (70-450) min (p = 0.0001), and hospital stay significantly shorter: 4 (1-60) vs. 7 (3-44) days, p = 0.0001 with less readmissions (0 vs. 7 %) in the LAP.

DISCUSSION

In adequately selected patients, laparoscopic hepatectomy is feasible, safe, shortens hospital stay, and decreases surgical site infections.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single centre

In the past two decades there has been an enormous increase in laparoscopic liver surgery. There is a trend from limited to laparoscopic major resections and more centres are adopting laparoscopic liver surgery as a standard of care. Although no randomized clinical trials are published, different reports on minor and major hepatectomies and meta-analyses suggest (at least) equal outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to open procedures.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for benign and malignant hepatic lesions in adults

BACKGROUND

Liver (hepatic) resection refers to removal of the whole liver, or one or more of its vascular segments. Elective liver resection is mainly performed for benign and malignant liver tumours. The operation can be performed as an open procedure or with a laparoscopic approach. With the advancement of laparoscopic skills and equipment, liver resection is selectively being carried out with this approach. A laparoscopic procedure is intended to be less severe, allowing for quicker healing, fewer complications, and a shorter hospital stay as the insult to the body is minimised. However, evidence about the efficacy of this approach when compared to an open procedure is still scattered. Current practice at different hepato-pancreato-biliary centres is based on the clinical judgement of experts in their field, which is highly insufficient in terms of evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for benign or malignant lesions on the liver in adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013. We also conducted searches of reference lists of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials of participants undergoing liver resection for benign or malignant lesions which reported on benefits and harms. We searched for quasi-randomised or observational studies for reports of harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

No data from randomised clinical trials could be collected.

MAIN RESULTS

Two authors performed study selection independently. We were not able to identify any randomised clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria of our review protocol. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials performed in Europe with data yet to be published. We retrieved a few observational studies (prospective and retrospective) with the searches for randomised clinical trials. They included a limited number of participants in whom laparoscopic and open liver resection was compared. Since these studies were non-randomised observational studies, the results for any adverse events are not included in the review as the risk of bias in such studies is high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No conclusions can be made at this time as no randomised clinical trials are available. In addition to the two ongoing randomised clinical trials for which results are expected to be published in the near future, well-designed, prospective, randomised clinical trials are needed in order to evaluate the benefits and harms of the laparoscopic procedure versus open liver resection.

Financial comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection using deviation-based cost modeling

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of evidence suggesting the equivalence and in some cases superiority of laparoscopic liver resection versus open resection. Fewer data exist regarding the financial impact of laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 98 consecutive patients at a single institution from 2007 through 2011 undergoing first time hepatic resection was performed. Laparoscopic and open cases were compared primarily on OR and hospital charges. Deviation-based cost modeling and weighted average mean cost for the two procedures were used to determine both financial and clinical efficacy on the basis of differences in length of stay, complications, and charges.

RESULTS

There were 57 laparoscopic and 41 open cases included in the study. Right hepatectomy was the most common procedure performed in both the laparoscopic (n=23, 40.4%) and open (n=22, 53.7%) groups. Patients in the laparoscopic group were significantly more likely to have an "on course" postoperative hospitalization (73.7 vs. 26.8%; p<0.001), which translated into a WAMC of $58,401 for the laparoscopic cases and $69,728 for the open cases. In the subset of patients undergoing right hepatectomy, patients in the laparoscopic group remained more likely to have an on course hospitalization (61.2 vs. 31.8%; p=0.025). WAMC for the laparoscopic right hepatectomy group, however, was higher than the open group ($69,544 vs. $68,266).

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy appears to vary with the complexity of the procedure. Overall, laparoscopy offers a cost advantage; however, with more complex procedures such as right hepatectomy, higher up-front operating room charges offset the financial benefits of less complicated hospitalization.

Laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy for cancer--an innovative approach to the no-man's land

BACKGROUND

Caudate hepatectomy remains a surgical challenge in spite of recent advances in laparoscopic technique. Hepatic tumor in the caudate lobe is usually deeply located in the center of the liver and close to the vena cava and hepatic hilum. Thus, lesion in this region was considered as a contraindication of laparoscopic hepatectomy. Only sporadic reports could be found in the literature. The aim of this study is to review the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic hepatectomy for lesions in the caudate lobe.

METHODS

Nine consecutive patients with caudate hepatic tumor received laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy in our institute from February 2006 to July 2010. One patient with hepatic adenoma was excluded from the analysis. Demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes of the remaining eight patients were assessed.

RESULTS

All procedure for these eight patients with caudate hepatic tumors (size 0.9-4.5 cm) were completed with totally laparoscopic technique except one in which additional left hepatectomy was also done. The average operative time was 254 min (range 210-345 min) and estimated blood loss was 202 ml (range 10-1,000 ml), and average length of postoperative hospital stay was 6.9 days (range 4-11 days). There was no perioperative complications and patient mortality in this series.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrated that laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure for caudate hepatic tumors in selected patients.

Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is progressively gaining popularity. However, it is still unclear whether the laparoscopic approach offers cost advantages compared with the open approach, especially when major hepatectomies are required. Data providing useful insights into the costs of the laparoscopic approach for clinicians and hospitals are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the financial implications of the laparoscopic approach for two standardized minor and major hepatectomies: left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy.

METHODS

A cost comparison analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) versus the open counterparts was performed. Data considered for the comparison analysis were operative costs (theatre cost, consumables and surgeon/anaesthetic labour cost), postoperative costs (hospital stay, complication management and readmissions) and overall costs.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were included: 38 patients underwent LRH and 46 open right hepatectomy (ORH); 46 patients underwent LLLS and 19 open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). For LRH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £10,181, £4,037 and £14,218; for ORH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £6,483 (p < 0.0001), £10,304 (p < 0.0001) and £16,787 (p = 0.886). Regarding LLLS, the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,460, £2,599 and £8,059; for OLLS the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,841 (p = 0.874), £5,796 (p < 0.0001) and £11,637 (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Our data support the cost advantage of the laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy and the cost neutrality for right hepatectomy.

The introduction of a laparoscopic liver surgery programme: a cost analysis of initial experience in a university hospital

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the era of expanding costs of healthcare, this study was conducted to perform a cost analysis of introducing a laparoscopic liver surgery programme for left sided liver lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients treated by laparoscopic liver resections of left lateral segments were included. Controls were a group of 14 patients undergoing open resection for similar pathology. Primary outcomes were costs. Secondary outcomes were complications, conversions, blood loss, length of operation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic approach for hepatic left lateral resection (bisegmentectomy 2 and 3) was performed in fourteen patients (group I, median age 54 [range 26-82] years). In the open group, fourteen patients from a prospectively collected database with the same type of resection were selected (group II, median age 64 [range 29-76] years). Costs of theatre usage in the laparoscopic group were significantly lower (p=0.031). No significant differences in costs of disposable instruments, ward stay and total costs were observed between the two groups. There were three complications in the laparoscopic group compared with two complications in the open group. In the laparoscopic group there were 2 conversions (14%). Median blood loss was significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (50 mls [range 0-750], (p=0.001) versus the open group (500 mls [range 150-750]). Furthermore, operation time was also significantly lower in the laparoscopic group (116 [range 85-261] minutes) versus the open group (165 [range 96-217] minutes, p=0.016). Median length of stay was 6 [range 4-11] days in group I versus 6 [range 5-13] days in group II (p=0.508).

CONCLUSION

Costs of laparoscopic liver resections proved to be equivalent to open surgery. Furthermore, implementation of a laparoscopic liver resection programme seems feasible and safe with reduced blood loss and operation time and comparable morbidity and length of stay.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection in Korea

Since laparoscopic liver resection was first introduced in 2001, Korean surgeons have chosen a laparoscopic procedure as one of the treatment options for benign or malignant liver disease. We distributed and analyzed a nationwide questionnaire to members of the Korean Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group (KLLSG) in order to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic liver resection in Korea. Questionnaires were sent to 24 centers of KLLSG. The questionnaire consisted of operative procedure, histological diagnosis of liver lesions, indications for resection, causes of conversion to open surgery, and postoperative outcomes. A laparoscopic liver resection was performed in 416 patients from 2001 to 2008. Of 416 patients, 59.6% had malignant tumors, and 40.4% had benign diseases. A total laparoscopic approach was performed in 88.7%. Anatomical laparoscopic liver resection was more commonly performed than non-anatomical resection (59.9% vs 40.1%). The anatomical laparoscopic liver resection procedures consisted of a left lateral sectionectomy (29.3%), left hemihepatectomy (19.2%), right hemihepatectomy (6%), right posterior sectionectomy (4.3%), central bisectionectomy (0.5%), and caudate lobectomy (0.5%). Laparoscopy-related serious complications occurred in 12 (2.8%) patients. The present study findings provide data in terms of indication, type and method of liver resection, and current status of laparoscopic liver resection in Korea.

Laparoscopic or open liver resection? Let systematic review decide it

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being used for the excision of benign and malignant hepatic lesions. The aim of this study was to perform meta-analysis on the compiled data from available observational studies.

METHODS

All the studies comparing laparoscopic versus open liver resections were searched on the available databases. Data were analyzed using Review Manager software version 5.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Software Update, Oxford, UK).

RESULTS

There was a total of 2,466 patients: 1,161 (47.1%) in the laparoscopic group and 1,305 (52.9%) in the open group. The laparoscopic group was associated with a reduced overall complication rate (odds ratio = .35; 95% confidence interval [CI], .28-.45; P < .001; heterogeneity (HG): P = .51), fewer positive resection margins for malignant tumor resections (odds ratio = .38; CI, .20-.76; P = .006; HG: P = .52) and a decrease in the number of patients requiring blood transfusion (odds ratio = .36; CI, .23-.74; P < .001; HG: P = .30).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection showed a reduced overall morbidity rate and favorable and comparable outcomes when compared with the open group. However, there is still a need for randomized controlled trials to compare laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection in benign and malignant lesions.

Laparoscopic liver resection

More than 3,000 laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are performed worldwide for benign disease, malignancy, and living donor hepatectomy. Minimally invasive hepatic resection approaches include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and a laparoscopic-assisted open "hybrid" approach, where the operation is started laparoscopically to mobilize the liver and begin the dissection, followed by a small laparotomy for completion of the parenchymal transection. Surgeons should have an advanced understanding of hepatic anatomy, extensive experience in open liver surgery, and technical skill to control major vascular and biliary structures laparoscopically before embarking on LLR. Although there is no absolute size criterion, smaller, peripheral lesions (<5 cm) that lie far from major vessels and anticipated transection planes are most amenable to LLR. Although the majority of reported LLR are non-anatomic resections or segmentectomies, several surgical groups are now performing laparoscopic major hepatic resections with excellent safety profiles. Patient benefits from LLR include less operative blood loss, less postoperative pain and narcotic requirement, and a shorter length of hospital stay, with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resection. Comparison studies between LLR and open resection have revealed no differences in width of resection margins for malignant lesions or overall survival after resection for hepatocellular cancer or colorectal cancer liver metastases. Advantages of LLR for HCC in particular include avoidance of collateral vessel ligation, decreased postoperative hepatic insufficiency, and fewer postoperative adhesions, all of which are features that enhance subsequent liver transplantation.

Perioperative management of liver resection surgery

Advances in liver resection surgery have lead to reductions in both mortality and morbidity. However morbidity remains high so effective multidisciplinary teamwork is essential to optimise the perioperative care of this patient group. In this article we review the current literature on the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver resection surgery.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers

Laparoscopic liver resection (LHR) has shown classical advantages of minimally invasive surgery over open counterpart. In spite of introduction in early 1990's only few centres worldwide adapted LHR to routine practice. It was due to considerable technical challenges and uncertainty about oncologic outcomes. Surgical instrumentation and accumulation of surgical experience has largely enabled to solve many technical considerations. Intraoperative navigation options have also been improved. Consequently indications have been drastically expanded nearly reaching criteria equal to open liver resection in expert centres. Recent studies have verified oncologic integrity of LHR. However, mastering of LHR is still a quite demanding task limiting expansion of this patient friendly technique. This emphasizes the necessity of systematic training for laparoscopic liver surgery. This article reviews the state of the art of laparoscopic liver surgery lightening burning issues of research and clinical practice.

Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a feasible alternative to open liver resection (OLR) in selected patients. Nevertheless studies comparing LLR and OLR are few and concerns remain about long-term oncological equivalence. The present study compares outcomes with LLR vs. OLR using meta-analytical methods.

METHODS

Electronic literature searches were conducted to identify studies comparing LLR and OLR. Short-term outcomes evaluated included operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative morbidity and resection margin status. Longer-term outcomes included local and distant recurrence, and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and Cohen's d method, with results expressed as odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria with a population of 1678 patients. LLR resulted in longer operating time, but reduced blood loss, portal clamp time, overall and liver-specific complications, ileus and length of stay. No difference was found between LLR and OLR for oncological outcomes.

DISCUSSION

LLR has short-term advantages and seemingly equivalent long-term outcomes and can be considered a feasible alternative to open surgery in experienced hands.

Laparoscopic liver resection--current update

An increasing number of studies are reporting the outcomes and benefits of laparoscopic liver resection. This article reviews the literature with emphasis on a recent consensus conference on laparoscopic liver resection in 2008, the learning curve for laparoscopic liver surgery, laparoscopic major hepatectomies, oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer liver metastases, and the comparative benefits of laparoscopic versus open liver resection. Current evidence suggests that minimally invasive hepatic resection is safe and feasible with short-term benefits, no economic disadvantage, and no compromise to oncologic principles.