Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: a safety and feasibility study of 19 cases

Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has become an important option for the treatment of various liver tumours. A major concern is the learning curve required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and summarize current literature analysing the learning curve for MIH.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in MIH to July 2019 was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. All original full-text articles published in English relating to learning curves for both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), or a combination of these, were included. To explore quantitatively the learning curve for MIH, a meta-regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Forty studies relating to learning curves in MIH were included. The median overall number of procedures required in studies utilizing cumulative summative (CUSUM) methodology for LLR was 50 (range 25-58) and for RLR was 25 (16-50). After adjustment for year of adoption of MIH, the CUSUM-derived caseload to surmount the learning curve for RLR was 47.1 (95 per cent c.i. 1.2 to 71.6) per cent; P = 0.046) less than that required for LLR. A year-on-year reduction in the number of procedures needed for MIH was observed, commencing at 48.3 cases in 1995 and decreasing to 23.8 cases in 2015.

CONCLUSION

The overall learning curve for MIH decreased steadily over time, and appeared less steep for RLR compared with LLR.

Pure laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver F4 cirrhosis without routine Pringle maneuver - A propensity analysis in a single center

BACKGROUND

/Aim: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been gaining popularity but its evidence in major hepatectomy for cirrhotic liver is lacking. We studied the long-term outcomes of the pure laparoscopic approach versus the open approach in major hepatectomy without Pringle maneuver in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis using the propensity score analysis.

METHODS

We reviewed patients diagnosed with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy as primary treatment. The outcomes of patients who received the laparoscopic approach were compared with those of propensity-case-matched patients (ratio, 4:1) who received the open approach. The matching was made on the following factors: tumor size, tumor number, age, sex, hepatitis serology, HCC staging, comorbidity, and liver function.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy for HCC with cirrhosis. Ninety-six patients who underwent open major hepatectomy were matched by propensity scores. The laparoscopic group had less median blood loss (300 ml vs 645 ml, p = 0.001), shorter median hospital stay (6 days vs 10 days, p = 0.002), and lower rates of overall complication (12.5% vs 39.6%, p = 0.012), pulmonary complication (4.2% vs 25%, p = 0.049) and pleural effusion (p = 0.026). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates in the laparoscopic group vs the open group were 95.2%, 89.6% and 89.6% vs 87.5%, 72.0% and 62.8% (p = 0.211). Correspondingly, the disease-free survival rates were 77.1%, 71.2% and 71.2% vs 75.8%, 52.7% and 45.5% (p = 0.422).

CONCLUSIONS

The two groups had similar long-term survival. The laparoscopic group had favorable short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy without routine Pringle maneuver for HCC with cirrhosis is a safe treatment option at specialized centers.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a 1:1 matched analysis

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has increased rapidly and procedure has almost extended to all the types of liver resection. Major liver resections, such as hemihepatectomies, were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase and continued cautious introduction of major laparoscopic liver resections was recommended by experts. The study aims to evaluate the safety of laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) by the comparing with open hemihepatectomy (OH).

Methods

Patients who underwent hemihepatectomy in Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital from January 2012 to December 2017 were reviewed. A 1:1 matched study was performed between LH group and OH group. Patients who fail to be matched were excluded. Perioperative outcomes, complications and cost were compared between LH group and OH group.

Results

One hundred and thirty-eight exact matches for all matching variables were found between LH patients and OH patients. The length of postoperative hospital stay of LH group was significant shorter than the OH group (P=0.031). Intraoperative blood loss (P=0.005) and transfusion rate (P=0.001) in the LH group were significantly lower than the OH group. There was no mortality in either group. Twenty-six patients in LH group and 31 patients in OH group had complications and all of them recovered uneventfully after immediate treatments. The hospital expense of LH group was significantly higher than OH group (P<0.001).

Conclusions

These results lead us to believe that LH is a safe procedure and it could be performed routinely in experienced laparoscopic centers.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Before the first laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was described in 1991, open hepatectomy (OH) was the only choice for surgical treatment of liver tumors. LH indications were initially based solely on tumor location, size, and type. Use of LH has spread rapidly worldwide because it reduces incision size. This review systematically assesses the current status of LH. As compared with OH, LH is significantly less complicated, requires shorter hospital stays, and results in less blood loss. The long-term survival rates of LH and OH are comparable. Development of new techniques and instruments will improve the conversion rate and reduce complications. Furthermore, development of surgical navigation will improve LH safety and efficacy. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for HCC remains a challenging procedure and should only be performed by experienced surgeons. In the near future, a training system for young surgeons will become mandatory for standardization of LH, and LH will likely become better standardized and have broader applications.

Advantages of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) has been widely accepted as a minimally invasive alternative to open liver surgery. We assessed the benefits and drawbacks of LLH compared with open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. Multiple parameters of efficacy and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 13 trials involving 1163 patients. Compared with OLH, LLH significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (MD, -91.01; 95% CI, -139.12 to -42.89; P = .0002), transfusion requirement (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.54; P = .0004), time to oral intake (MD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.27 to -0.33; P = .0008), and hospital stay (MD, -3.94; 95% CI, -4.85 to -3.03; P < .0001). However, operative time; complications rate; and postoperative alanine transferase, albumin, and total bilirubin levels did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical groups (P > .05). For hepatolithiasis treatment, there were no significant differences in operative time, residual stones, stone recurrence, and complications rate between the groups (P > .05), but LLH resulted in lower incisional infection rate (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.89; P = .02) than OLH. The LLH group demonstrated higher bile leakage rate (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.14-2.81; P = .01) and incurred greater hospital costs (MD, 618.56; 95% CI, 154.47-1082.64; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

LLH has multiple advantages over OLH and should thus be considered as the first choice for left hemihepatectomy.

Intrahepatic Glissonian Approach to the Ventral Aspect of the Arantius Ligament in Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy using the Glissonian approach is technically challenging secondary to a thick Glissonian pedicle and limited maneuverability of laparoscopic instruments. This procedure demands extreme caution owing to the high risk of bile leakage associated with left hemihepatectomy. We describe the technical details and surgical outcomes of the intrahepatic Glissonian approach to the ventral aspect of the Arantius ligament in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.

METHODS

After detachment of the left side of hilar plate, the meticulous dissection was performed in the liver capsule above the left Glissonian pedicle. Dissection of the ventral aspect of the Arantius ligament creates the space between the liver parenchyma and the left Glissonian pedicle. The left Glissonian pedicle was isolated and encircled using the long curved laparoscopic instrument. During the parenchymal transection, the left Glissonian pedicle was transected using lateral to the Arantius ligament.

RESULTS

Between February 2013 and July 2018, 13 consecutive patients underwent pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy. The median operation time was 230 min (range 180-300 min), and the median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (range 100-600 mL). Two patients (15%) required transfusion. The median tumor size was 40 mm (range 10-105 mm). All patients showed negative resection margins. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 days (range 6-15 days). Major postoperative complications occurred in 1 patient (7.7%). No perioperative deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

An intrahepatic Glissonian approach to the ventral aspect of the Arantius ligament is a feasible and effective technique in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.

Major hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a comparative study of laparoscopic versus open treatment

Background

Due to higher technical requirements, laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for primary hepatolithiasis have been limited to a few institutions. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the therapeutic safety, and perioperative and long-term outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatolithiasis.

Methods

From January 2012 to December 2016, 61 patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent major hepatectomy were enrolled, including 29 LMH and 32 OMH. The perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications, as well as long-term outcomes, including the stone clearance and recurrence rate, were evaluated.

Results

There was no difference of surgical procedures between the two groups. The mean operation time was (262 ± 83) min in the LMH group and (214 ± 66) min in the OMH group (p = 0.05). There is no difference of intra-operative bleeding (310 ± 233) ml versus (421 ± 359) ml (p = 0.05). In the LMH group, there were shorter time to postoperative oral intake ((1.1 ± 0.6) days versus (3.1 ± 1.8) days, p = 0.01) and shorter hospital stay [(7.2 ± 2.3) days versus (11.8 ± 5.5) days, p = 0.03] than the open group. The LMH group had comparable stone clearance rate with the OMH group during the initial surgery (82.8% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.86).

Conclusions

LMH could be an effective and safe treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OMH in the field of less intra-operative blood loss, less intra-operative transfusion, less overall complications, and faster postoperative recovery.

Fully laparoscopic left hepatectomy - a technical reference proposed for standard practice compared to the open approach: a retrospective propensity score model

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) may be an alternative to open (OLH). There are several original variations in the technical aspects of LLH, and no accepted standard. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of the technique developed at Henri Mondor Hospital since 1996.

METHODS

The technique of LLH was conceived for safety and training of two mature generations of lead surgeons. The technique includes full laparoscopy, ventral approach to the common trunk, extrahepatic pedicle dissection, CUSA^® parenchymal transection, division of the left hilar plate laterally to the Arantius ligament, and ventral transection of the left hepatic vein. The outcomes of LLH and OLH were compared. Perioperative analysis included intra- and postoperative, and histology variables. Propensity Score Matching was undertaken of background covariates including age, ASA, BMI, fibrosis, steatosis, tumour size, and specimen weight.

RESULTS

17 LLH and 51 OLH were performed from 1996 to 2014 with perioperative mortality rates of 0% and 6%, respectively. In the LLH group, two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. Propensity matching selected 10 LLH/OLH pairs. The LLH group had a higher proportion of procedures for benign disease. LLH was associated with longer operating time and less blood loss. Perioperative complications occurred in 30% (LLH) and 10% (OLH) (p = 1). Mortality and ITU stay were similar.

CONCLUSION

This technique is recommended as a possible technical reference for standard LLH.

Laparoscopic liver resection: the current status and the future

Dramatic progresses had been made in the operation in the past 26 years. Procedure was extended to major liver resection, isolated resection of caudate lobe, living donor liver resection and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). Laparoscopic liver resection became a new group of HPB surgery and the international laparoscopic liver society was established in Paris followed by the first international congress of the society held in Paris in July 2017. This biannual congress would be top convention for surgeons specialized in laparoscopic liver surgery. The advantage of laparoscopic liver resection had been recognized by patients and surgeons and is gradually replacing conventional open liver resection in some experienced institutes worldwide. Most procedures, such as laparoscopic local resection and left lateral segmentectomy, could be routinely performed, but some procedures including laparoscopic hemihepatectomy still need to be further evaluated. For now, the establishment of a training system for laparoscopic liver surgeons became the most important issue for the popularization of laparoscopic liver resection.

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.

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ≥3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity).

RESULTS

There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.

Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: A comparative study with open approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis is a prevalent disease in some regions of China. Left-sided hepatectomy is an effective treatment for left intrahepatic bile duct stones with irreversible disease, such as biliary strictures, severe parenchymal fibrosis or atrophy. However, the advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) over open approach (OLH) are still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH to those of OLH in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and October 2016, 75 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis undergoing left-sided hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Among these 75 patients, 36 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 39 underwent OLH (OLH group). The LLH group exhibited a lower intraoperative blood loss (215.8 ± 75.8 vs 298.7 ± 158.9 mL, p = 0.005), intraoperative transfusion (5.6% vs 23.1%, p = 0.032), overall complication rate (13.9% vs 35.9%, p = 0.029), and shorter recovery of bowel movement (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.0 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.004), time of off-bed activities (3.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.4 d, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (7.7 ± 2.2 vs 10.9 ± 3.3 d, p < 0.001) compared to the OLH group. Similar results were also observed in left lateral sectionectomy and hemihepatectomy subgroups. There was no significant difference in the operative time, initial stone clearance rate, final stone clearance rate, stone recurrence rate and overall cost (All p > 0.05). No perioperative mortality was observed. The conversion rate was 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

LLH is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OLH in the field of intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, overall complication and postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left-Sided Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis had been successfully performed in a series of cases, its advantages over open left hepatectomy (OLH) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH with those of OLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on LLH versus OLH for hepatolithiasis from January 1991 to May 2016. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rate were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and seven nonrandomized observational clinical studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 739 patients in this meta-analysis, including 316 LLHs and 423 OLHs. The volume of intraoperative blood loss favored LLH (P = .015). Intraoperative transfusion (P < .001), overall complication (P < .001), and hospital stay (P = .001) were significantly low in LLH. There was no obvious difference in operation time, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. The mean conversion rate was 9.5% (range, 2.2%-15.6%).

CONCLUSION

LLH seems to be more effective and safer for selected patients with hepatolithiasis than OLH. As only one RCT was included, the evidence of which is still limited. More prospective, multicenter, and RCTs are needed to further define the real role of the laparoscopic technique in hepatolithiasis.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection in Treatment of Hepatolithiasis Within the Left Lobes: A Randomized Trial Study

OBJECTIVE

The application of laparoscopic technology to liver surgery has been developing rapidly, yet very few studies have been conducted to compare the outcomes between open and laparoscopic liver resections. So little is known about their advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this prospective randomized study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open liver resection in treatment of hepatolithiasis within the left lateral lobes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2010 and May 2013, 98 patients with hepatolithiasis within the left lateral lobes diagnosed by preoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were randomized into open group and laparoscopic group. Each group had 49 patients. We compared the operation time, the amount of bleeding, the length of their stay in hospital, and complications.

RESULTS

Of the laparoscopic group, 2 patients were converted to open surgery. No fatal complication occurred in either the open group or the laparoscopic group. There was no statistically significant difference in the complications between the 2 groups (4.08% vs. 6.12%, P=0.64), but the operating time, the amount of bleeding, and the length of stay in hospital were significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection displays similar safety and feasibility for hepatolithiasis within the left lateral lobes, and they were also similar with respect to the overall complications, but the laparoscopic group has an advantage in the operating time, the amount of bleeding, and the length of their staying in hospital. It is, however, agreed between the authors of this paper that further studies with larger number of patients and longer follow-up observations are necessary to make a definitive conclusion.

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.

Minimally Invasive Hepatic Surgery

This review provides an overview of the background and progress that has been made in minimally invasive liver surgery. The essential steps of minimally invasive right and left lobectomy as well as left lateral sectionectomy are reviewed. In addition, existing data regarding the feasibility and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive hepatic resection for malignancy are discussed.

A Left-Sided, Purely Laparoscopic Approach for Anatomic Caudate Hepatectomy: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy, which is a challenging procedure, has been reported sporadically. However, there is no standardized surgical technique, and the safety and feasibility of this procedure remain controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A left-sided, purely laparoscopic approach for anatomic caudate hepatectomy was used for 11 selected patients in our institution. The procedure and technique of laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy were described. Perioperative data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The 11 cases included two subgroups: laparoscopic isolated caudate hepatectomy (n = 4) and laparoscopic combined caudate and left hemihepatectomy (n = 7). There were three major steps for anatomic caudate hepatectomy. Two conversions were required (18.2%). Two complications (Clavien Grades I and II) occurred but no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

The left-sided, purely laparoscopic approach for anatomic caudate hepatectomy is safe and feasible in selected patients. This procedure can be performed by hepatobiliary surgeons with abundant experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Liver cirrhosis grading Child-Pugh class B: a Goliath to challenge in laparoscopic liver resection?-prior experience and matched comparisons

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is highly difficult in the background of liver cirrhosis. In this case series, we aimed to summarize our prior experience of LH in liver cirrhosis grading Child-Pugh class B.

METHODS

In the LH database of Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital in Zhejiang, China, patients who were pathologically diagnosed with cirrhosis and graded as Child-Pugh class B or C were reviewed.

RESULTS

Five patients grading Child B were included. There was no Child C case in our LH database. For included cases, median blood loss (BL) was 800 (range, 240-1,000) mL, median operative time was 135 (range, 80-170) minutes, and median length of hospital stay was 9 (range, 7-15) days. Forty percent (2/5) of patients was converted to open. The postoperative complication (PC) rate was 20.0% (1/5). When these Child B cases were compared with Child A cases undergoing LH, there was no statistical significance in BL, complication rate, operative time, open rate and hospital stay (HS) (P>0.05). This finding was confirmed by two ways of matched comparisons (a 1:2 comparison based on age and gender, and a 1:1 propensity score matching).

CONCLUSIONS

Although relevant literatures had suggested feasibility of LH in cirrhotic cases grading Child A, this study was the first one to discuss the value of LH in Child B cases. Our prior experience showed that in selected patients, LH in Child B patients had the potential to be as safe as in Child A cases. The efficacy of LH in Child C patients needs further exploration.

Incidence, risk factors and consequences of bile leakage following laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage (BL) remains a common cause of major morbidity after open major liver resection but has only been poorly described in patients undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH). The present study aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of BL following LMH.

METHODS

All 223 patients undergoing LMH between 2000 and 2013 at two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively analysed. BL was defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery, and its incidence and consequences were assessed. Risk factors for BL were determined on multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

BL occurred in 30 (13.5 %) patients, and its incidence remained stable over time (p = 0.200). BL was diagnosed following the presence of bile into the abdominal drain in 14 (46.7 %) patients and after drainage of symptomatic abdominal collections in 16 (53.3 %) patients without intra-operative drain placement. Grade A, B and C BL occurred in 3 (10.0 %), 23 (76.6 %) and 4 (13.4 %) cases, respectively. Interventional procedures for BL included endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, percutaneous and surgical drainage in 10 (33.3 %), 23 (76.7 %) and 4 (13.3 %) patients, respectively. BL was associated with significantly increased rates of symptomatic pleural effusion (30.0 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.006), multiorgan failure (13.3 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.022), postoperative death (10.0 vs. 1.6 %, p = 0.008) and prolonged hospital stay (18 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BMI > 28 kg/m(2) (OR 2.439, 95 % CI 1.878-2.771, p = 0.036), history of hepatectomy (OR 1.675, 95 % CI 1.256-2.035, p = 0.044) and biliary reconstruction (OR 1.975, 95 % CI 1.452-2.371, p = 0.039) were significantly associated with increased risk of BL.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

After LMH, BL occurred in 13.5 % of the patients and was associated with significant morbidity. Patients with one or several risk factors for BL should benefit intra-operative drain placement.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration: a report of 855 cases

BACKGROUND

In 1998, the technique of laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration was developed and a special instrument, laparoscopic multifunctional operative dissector (LPMOD), was designed for this procedure. In the past 17 years, this procedure was developed gradually and had become the routine procedure for laparoscopic hepatectomy in local area. This paper is to report results of 17-year practice of this procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy from August 1998 to March 2015 were reviewed. Hepatectomies were performed using the technique of laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration. By using the LPMOD, liver parenchyma was crashed and aspirated immediately and the intrahepatic ducts and small vessels were preserved and were safely dissected for ligation. Laparoscopic selective hepatic flow occlusion was performed routinely for hemi-hepatectomies to control intraoperative blood loss.

RESULTS

A total of 855 cases underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration. No perioperative death, 105 patients were converted to open operation, and 84 of them were converted before liver transection without any emergency. Postoperative bleeding occurred in three patients (0.4 %), and bile leakage occurred in seven patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration is a safe procedure for liver resection with acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Completely laparoscopic ALPPS using round-the-liver ligation to replace parenchymal transection for a patient with multiple right liver cancers complicated with liver cirrhosis

The "ALPPS" (associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy) procedure enables the rapid growth of the future liver remnant and extended surgical indication to patients with an "insufficient" future liver remnant. In May 2014, a 64-year-old male patient was admitted. The computed tomography (CT) scan showed multiple right liver lesions, which were diagnosed to be hepatocellular carcinoma by liver biopsy. The future liver remnant volume after right hemihepatectomy was calculated to be 35.6% based on the CT reconstruction. Completely laparoscopic ALPPS using round-the-liver ligation, which replaced liver splitting, was performed on him. The two-stage operation was performed successfully. The future liver remnant volume increased 37.9% according to the CT scan on Day 10 after the first-stage operation. The second-stage operation was performed on Day 14 after the first-stage operation. The patient recovered uneventfully. No bile leakage occurred. Thus the round-the-liver ligation can be safely executed in laparoscopy. Completely laparoscopic ALPPS using round-the-liver ligation is feasible and could result in a rapid hypertrophy of the liver remnant in patients with liver cancer complicated with cirrhosis.

A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in case-controlled patient groups using the propensity score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2013, 292 patients underwent surgical resection for HCC. Of these, 202 patients who underwent surgical resection for initial treatment for a single mass were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to the method of operation: the Lap group (patients who underwent LLR) and the Open group (patients who underwent OLR). To correct different demographic and clinical factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, 102 patients were enrolled in this study, 51 patients in each group. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative results, and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed based on the prospectively recorded database.

RESULTS

Preoperative baseline variables were well balanced in both groups. There were no differences of extent of surgery and rate of anatomical resection between the two groups. With the exception of a shorter postoperative hospital stay in the Lap group than that of the Open group (8.2 days versus 12.3 days; P=.004), there were no significant differences in perioperative, pathological, and long-term outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rates were 80.1% in the Lap group and 85.7% in the Open group, respectively (P=.173). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.8% in the Lap group and 54.8% in the Open group, respectively (P=.519).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is safe, and long-term oncologic outcomes in selected patients were comparable to those who underwent OLR.

Learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is evolving as an important surgical approach in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. The present study aimed to evaluate the learning curve for LMH at a single centre.

METHODS

Data for all patients undergoing LMH between January 1998 and September 2013 were recorded in a prospective database and analysed. The learning curve for operating time (OT) was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

Of 173 patients undergoing major hepatectomy, left hepatectomy was performed in 28 (16·2 per cent), left trisectionectomy in nine (5·2 per cent), right hepatectomy in 115 (66·5 per cent), right trisectionectomy in 13 (7·5 per cent) and central hepatectomy in eight (4·6 per cent). Median duration of surgery was 270 (range 100-540) min and median blood loss was 300 (10-4500) ml. There were 20 conversions to an open procedure (11·6 per cent). Vascular clamping was independently associated with conversion on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio 5·95, 95 per cent c.i. 1·24 to 28·56; P = 0·026). The CUSUMOT learning curve was modelled as a parabola (CUSUMOT  = 0·2149 × patient number(2)  - 30·586 × patient number - 1118·3; R(2)  = 0·7356). The learning curve comprised three phases: phase 1 (45 initial patients), phase 2 (30 intermediate patients) and phase 3 (the subsequent 98 patients). Although right hepatectomy was most common in phase 1, a significant decrease was observed from phase 1 to 3 (P = 0·007) in favour of more complex procedures.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for LMH consisted of three characteristic phases identified by CUSUM analysis. The data suggest that the learning phase of LMH included 45 to 75 patients.

Risk factors for complications after laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic major hepatectomy (MH) is becoming increasingly common in several specialized centres, data regarding outcomes are limited. The aim of this study was to identify the risk factors for postoperative complications of purely laparoscopic MH at a single centre.

METHODS

All patients who underwent purely laparoscopic MH between January 1998 and March 2014 at the authors' institution were enrolled. Demographic, clinicopathological and perioperative factors were collected prospectively, and data were analysed retrospectively. The dependent variables studied were the occurrence of overall and major complications (Dindo-Clavien grade III or above).

RESULTS

A total of 183 patients were enrolled. The types of MH included left-sided hepatectomy in 40 patients (21·9 per cent), right-sided hepatectomy in 135 (73·8 per cent) and central hepatectomy in eight (4·4 per cent). Median duration of surgery was 255 (range 100-540) min, and median blood loss was 280 (10-4500) ml. Complications occurred in 100 patients (54·6 per cent), and the 90-day all-cause mortality rate was 2·7 per cent. Liver-specific and general complications occurred in 62 (33·9 per cent) and 38 (20·8 per cent) patients respectively. Multivariable analysis identified one independent risk factor for global postoperative complications: intraoperative simultaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (odds ratio (OR) 6·93, 95 per cent c.i. 1·49 to 32·14; P = 0·013). There were two independent risk factors for major complications: intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 2·50, 1·01 to 6·23; P = 0·049) and bilobar resection (OR 2·47, 1·00 to 6·06; P = 0·049).

CONCLUSION

Purely laparoscopic MH is feasible and safe. Simultaneous RFA and bilobar resection should probably be avoided.

Experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases

Backgrounds/Aims

We present our experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases.

Methods

From April 2008 to August 2012 in Chungnam National University, 68 of 253 liver resections were performed laparoscopically. During the first year, laparoscopy-assisted liver resection was mainly performed and subsequently totally laparoscopic liver resection was the main operative type. Surgery type for treatment purposes was decided preoperatively. Clinical data were collected retrospectively and analyzed.

Results

Preoperatively, 43 patients (63.2%) were diagnosed with benign disease, 19 patients (27.9%) were malignant liver tumors and 6 patients (8.8%) were indeterminate liver tumor but favorable towards malignancy. Anatomical major liver resection was performed in 58 cases (85.3%) and 10 cases (14.7%) were non-anatomical resection. Left hemihepatectomy was performed in 38 cases (55.8%) followed by left lateral sectionectomy in 18 cases (26.5%), and segment IV and IVa segmentectomy, were each in 1 case. Mean operation time was 235.0 minutes (range, 60-470) and 14 patients (18.6%) had intraoperative transfusion. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.2 days (range, 4-32). Mean operation time of laparoscopy-assisted left lobectomy was 317 minutes and totally laparoscopic left lobectomy was 281 minutes, but there was no significant statistical difference between these two operation types. There were 11 episodes of postoperative complications in 8 patients. There was no mortality after laparoscopic liver resection.

Conclusions

We concluded that laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible operation, but needs to be carefully conducted in malignant tumors.

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 liver resection and the learning curve: a 14-year, single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has not been widely used because of intraoperative bleeding. This problem should be solved with instruments and techniques that require a short learning curve.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The aim of this work was to present the technique used in our center to perform laparoscopic liver resection using the 'curettage and aspiration' technique with laparoscopic Peng's multifunctional operational dissectors and regional occlusion of inflow and outflow. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent a laparoscopic liver resection from August 1998 to August 2012, and collected the conversion rate, operating time, blood loss, hospitalization, bile leakage rate, bleeding rate, and other complications on a yearly basis and in total. We used SPSS software to analyze whether there was a significant difference, and summarized the learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection with various procedures.

RESULTS

We performed 365 cases of laparoscopic liver resection, including left hemihepatectomy, left lateral lobectomy, segmental hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, right hemihepatectomy, and caudate lobectomy. The diseases included liver cancer, hepatolithiasis, liver hemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia, liver abscess, and metastatic hepatic carcinoma. In total, 63 cases (17.20 %) were converted to open surgery because of severe adhesions, bleeding, or anatomical limitation. Mean blood loss was 370.6 ± 404.0 ml; mean operating time was 150.8 ± 73.0 min; and mean postoperation hospitalization was 9.2 ± 5.3 days. There were four cases (1.32 %) with the complication of bile leakage and two cases of hemorrhage (0.66 %). No intraoperative or postoperative deaths occurred. After finishing 15-30, 43, 35, and 28 cases of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy, left lateral hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, and segmentectomy, respectively, the average operating time, blood loss, and hospitalization were almost the same as the overall mean results.

CONCLUSION

The technique used in our center is a safe, fast, and effective approach to laparoscopic liver resection. Our 14 years of experience demonstrates that this technique can prevent postoperative bleeding and bile leakage. A surgeon can master the skill of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy, left lateral hepatectomy, non-anatomic liver resection, and segmentectomy after ∼15-30, 43, 35, and 28 case procedures, respectively.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review

Laparoscopic liver surgery was slower to develop than other fields of laparoscopic surgery because of a steep learning curve, and fear of uncontrolled bleeding or gas embolism. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with significant advantages: faster recovery, less post-operative pain, less morbidity, easier subsequent surgery and better cosmetic results. Since the inception of this technique, more than 3000 procedures have been reported. The aim of this update was to review the literature in order to define the indications (malignant tumors, benign tumors, major resections), the advantages and limits of this approach as well as the expected value of new technology, such as intra-operative guidance or robotics, in the development of this branch of surgery.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic literature review and comparison of 3 techniques

OBJECTIVE

This review assesses the current status of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND

The trend in laparoscopic liver resection has been moving from limited resections toward major hepatectomy. The surgical techniques for laparoscopic major hepatectomy include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted methods. We performed a literature search and systematic review to assess the current status of laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Medline using the keywords "laparoscopy" or "laparoscopic" combined with "liver resection" or "hepatectomy." Articles written in English containing more than 10 cases of laparoscopic major hepatectomy were selected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-nine articles were selected for this review. The laparoscopic major hepatectomies achieved similar patient and economic outcomes compared with open liver resections in selected (noncirrhotic) patients. Surgeon experience with the techniques affected the results; thus, a learning period is mandatory. Of these 3 techniques, the pure laparoscopic method is suitable for experienced surgeons to achieve better cosmetic outcomes, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic method was associated with better perioperative outcomes; the laparoscopy-assisted method is used by surgeons for unique resections such as resection of cirrhotic livers, laparoscopic resection of tumors in unfavorable locations, and living donor hepatectomies. In addition, the laparoscopic major hepatectomy-specific, long-term oncologic outcomes remain to be addressed in future publications.

Bacterial spectrum of hepatolithiasis with biliary tract infection

Hepatolithiasis is prevalent in Far East and Southeast Asian countries, and it is usually associated with cholestasis and bacterial infection and causes repeated episodes of acute cholangitis. If not properly treated, hepatolithiasis can cause serious complications and even death. In addition to removal of stones and management of cholestasis by surgery or interventional radiological treatment, timely and effective antibiotic treatment also plays a crucial role in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. This paper aims to clarify the bacterial spectrum of hepatolithiasis with biliary tract infection. By reviewing relevant papers published over the past 30 years, we discovered that both gram-negative bacteria, in which E. coli was most frequent, followed by Klebsiella sp and Pseudomonas sp, and gram-positive bacteria, mainly Enterococcus sp, were responsible for biliary tract infection. Bacteroides sp and Clostridium were most frequently found anaerobes. Sometimes, anaerobes were found together with aerobes. The purpose of this article is to elaborate the bacterial spectrum of hepatolithiasis with biliary tract infection and provide the appropriate choice of antibiotic therapy.

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for left intrahepatic duct stones

Purpose

The feasibility of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for the management of intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones was evaluated.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 consecutive patients who underwent total laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for IHD stones at Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2009 and June 2011 were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

The mean operation time was 312.1 ± 63.4 minutes and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 ± 5.0 days. There were 2 cases of postoperative bile leakage and 3 cases of intra-abdominal fluid collection, which were successfully managed conservatively. Remnant stones were detected in 2 patients. The initial success rate of stone clearance was 92.3% (24 of 26). The remnant stones were located in the common bile duct in both cases and were removed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy. Therefore, the final success rate of stone clearance was 100% (26 of 26). During a mean follow-up of 22 months (range, 7 to 36 months), there was no patient with recurrent stone.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery could be an effective treatment modality for the management of IHD stones in select patients.

A novel extra-glissonian approach for totally laparoscopic left hepatectomy

INTRODUCTION

We describe a novel extra-glissonian approach (EGA) for totally laparoscopic left hepatectomy. Published techniques for totally laparoscopic left hepatectomy generally involve the selective ligation of the vascular and biliary elements of the left pedicle. The laparoscopic dissection of these structures can be tedious, difficult, and dangerous. The EGA has proven useful in open surgery for major hepatectomies. We feel that this approach could be even more useful in the laparoscopic context.

METHODS

We describe an extra-glissonian laparoscopic technique in which the left pedicle is isolated extraparenchymally, detaching the left hilar plate, with particular attention to preserving the branch for segment I. The left portal triad is encircled with a cotton tape and transected with an endostapler. This is performed totally extraparenchymally without damaging the surrounding parenchyma.

RESULTS

This EGA technique for laparoscopic left hepatectomy follows by laparoscopy the same steps and recommendations that make the EGA safe and effective in open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The EGA for LLH can be performed as described in open surgery, therefore offering the same advantages.

Pure laparoscopic en bloc left hemihepatectomy and caudate lobe resection in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

There is an ongoing debate on whether it is safe to push the boundaries and widen the indications of laparoscopic liver surgery after careful patient selection. We report 2 cases of pure laparoscopic en bloc left hemihepatectomy and caudate lobe resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

METHODS

The first patient (a 79-year old) had an ICC affecting segments 2, 3, and 4 of the liver with dilatation of segment 1 ducts at preoperative imaging. The second patient (an 81-year old) had an ICC affecting segments 2, 3 with local invasion of segment 1. Both patients underwent pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy and caudate lobe resection.

RESULTS

The first patient's operative time was 360 minutes and blood loss was 390 mL. Postoperative hospital stay was 8 days. The definitive histology was as follows: pT1 ICC (25 mm in maximal diameter), with 20 mm free resection margin. The second patient's operative time was 310 minutes and blood loss was 300 mL. Postoperative hospital stay was 4 days. The definitive histology was as follows: T1 ICC (49 mm in maximal diameter) with 10 mm free resection margin. The first patient was disease free 12 months after surgery. The second patient died 11 months after surgery of metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Pure laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy and caudate lobectomy for ICC may be feasible and safe. This is, however, a very complex procedure requiring extensive experience in laparoscopic liver surgery and careful patient selection to optimize surgical outcome. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic description of a pure laparoscopic en bloc left hemihepatectomy and caudate lobe resection for ICC.

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.