Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: case-matched analysis

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

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

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p<0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P<0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p<0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p<0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p<0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Operative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic versus open major liver resection in patients with a high body mass index (> 25 kg/m2): a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

With the recent rapid increase in the prevalence of obesity, the number of obese patients requiring liver resection, including laparoscopy, has increased. Accordingly, evaluating the outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in obese patients is increasingly important. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic major liver resection (LMR) and open major liver resection (OMR) in patients with a high body mass index (BMI > 25.0 kg/m²).

METHODS

We reviewed 521 patients with high BMI (> 25.0 kg/m²) who underwent major liver resection for various indications between January 2009 and November 2018 at Asan Medical Center. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching of the LMR and OMR groups, with 120 patients subsequently included in each group.

RESULTS

LMR was associated with lower blood loss and shorter postoperative hospital stays (p < 0.001). Although there was no significant difference in overall complications (p = 0.080), non-liver-specific complications were observed less frequently after LMR (p = 0.025). American Society of Anesthesiologists class > II, BMI > 30 kg/m², and malignancy were independent predictors of morbidity. In a subgroup analysis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, there was no significant difference between the two groups in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.225; 95% confidence interval 0.049-1.047; p = 0.057) and recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio 0.761; 95% confidence interval 0.394-1.417; p = 0.417).

CONCLUSIONS

Obesity should not be considered a contraindication for major liver resection using a laparoscopic approach; however, when applying this approach for resecting malignancies in patients with a BMI > 30 kg/m² and comorbid diseases, special attention should be paid to the possibility of complications.

Video-assisted transthoracic liver resection in patients with marginal liver function: a retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely performed by hepatobiliary surgeons for malignancy of liver and gained wide acceptance for various liver tumors, thanks to advances in surgical techniques and devices. But, there are some challenges for right side tumor in patients of cirrhotic liver. Especially, tumor located in right upper area is difficult for wedge resection in patients with marginal liver function, because trans-abdominal approach requires normal parenchymal dissection. Radiofrequency wave ablation is also difficult for such a lesion. So, we demonstrate unique technique of video-assisted transthoracic liver resection (VTLR) for overcome right upper side tumor abutting diaphragm.

Methods

Four patients underwent VTLR. Four ports in right chest wall were created by a chest surgeon and diaphragm was open. Then traction of the diaphragm was done by suture. After exposure of liver surface, tumor localization was done by ultrasound. The mass excision was done by ultrasonic shear.

Results

Four patients were discharged without complications within 11.3 days (range, 6-15 days). On average, patients started to consume a normal diet on an average of 2.4 days (range, 1-4 days).

Conclusion

VTLR is could be performed by an experienced surgeon and chest surgeon for right upper liver malignancy abutting diaphragm in patient of marginal liver function.

Long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Long-term survival is the most important outcome measurement of a curative oncological treatment. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the long-term disease-free and overall survival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is shown to be non-inferior to the current standard of open liver resection (OLR). Some studies have reported a superior long-term oncological outcome in LLR when compared to OLR. It has been argued that improvement of visualization and instrumentation and reduced operative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion may contribute to reduced risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. On the other hand, since most of the comparative studies of the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR for HCC are non-randomized, it remained inconclusive as to whether LLR confers additional survival benefit compared to OLR. Despite the paucity of level 1 evidence, the practice of LLR for HCC has gained wide-spread acceptance due to the reproducible improvements in the perioperative outcomes and non-inferior oncological outcomes demonstrated by large-scaled, matched comparative studies. Meta-analyses of the outcomes of these studies by multiple systematic reviews have also returned noncontradictory conclusions. On the basis of a theoretical advantage of LLR over OLR in preventing tumor recurrence, the current review aims to dissect from the current meta-analyses and comparative studies any evidence of such superiority.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Enhanced by an Intervention-Guided Fluorescence Imaging Technique Using Sodium Fluorescein

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

In laparoscopic liver resections, tumor localization is a critical aspect of ensuring clear resection margins and preserving the hepatic parenchyma. In this study, we designed a fluorescence imaging technique using a new fluorophore for tumor localization.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Immediately before laparoscopic or transthoracic liver resection, microcatheter was inserted through the hepatic artery and used to engrave the segment containing the tumor in the intervention room. Under blue light, the fluorescence of the lesion was visually confirmed, and the location was determined through intraoperative sonography. After tumor localization, liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

From February 2017 to March 2020, 24 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or video-assisted transthoracic liver resection (VTLR) using intervention-guided fluorescence imaging technique (IFIT).

CONCLUSIONS

IFIT can provide some advantages in the field of LLR. In addition, in cases of VTLR for hepatocellular carcinoma in the superior posterior segment in patients with marginal liver function, IFIT is considered useful.

Survival analysis between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been widely used in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is generally believed that the long-term outcomes of LH are not inferior to open hepatectomy (OH). However, the quality of evidence is low. The purpose of this study was to reconstruct time-to-event data for meta-analysis based on Kaplan-Meier curves from propensity-score matched studies and compare survival rates following LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

All published propensity-score matched studies reported in English that compared LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma with Kaplan-Meier curves were screened. Patients' survival information was reconstructed with the aid of a computer vision program. Different models (fixed-effects model for two-stage survival analysis and Cox regression for one-stage survival analysis) were performed for sensitivity analysis. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, two specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients by types of resection, cirrhosis status.

RESULTS

Time-to-event data were extracted from 45 propensity-score matched studies (N = 8905). According to the time-to-event data and the reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative overall survival rate was 49.0% and 50.9% in the LH and OH cohorts, respectively, a log-rank test did not demonstrate statistical significance (p > 0.05). The cumulative recurrence-free survival (RFS) probability was both close to 0.0%. The median RFS time was 49.1 (95% CI 46.1 ~ 51.7) and 44.3 (95% CI 41 ~ 46.1) months. The difference in disease status was statistically significant by the Log-rank test (p < 0.05). Using the random-effects model of two-stage analysis, the minor hepatectomy subgroup (HR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], I² = 6.2%, p = 0.383) and the shared fragile model of one-stage analysis (HR = 1.44 95% CI [1.23, 1.69], p < 0.001) suggested that LH could significantly prolong RFS of patients compared with OH. This result was consistent with sensitivity analysis using different models.

CONCLUSION

This study was the first reconstructed time-to-event data based on a high-quality propensity-score matching study to compare the survival outcomes of LH and OH in the treatment of HCC. Results suggested that LH can improve RFS in patients with HCC undergoing minor hepatectomy and may also benefit long-term RFS in overall patients.

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared the effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the results have remained inconsistent. Hence, a meta-analysis and a systematic review of these treatment modalities are necessary to evaluate their efficacy and safety for HCC treatment.

Methods

From the inception of this meta-analysis and review until August 31, 2019, we searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and China Biomedical Literature Database for RCTs involving LH and RFA treatments of patients with HCC. The studies were screened and the data from these articles were extracted independently by two authors. Summary odd ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each outcome with a fixed- or random-effect model. The outcomes for effectiveness evaluations included duration of surgery, estimated bleeding volume, incidence of blood transfusion during surgery, duration of hospital stay, and the outcome for safety included the incidence of cancer recurrence.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total of 615 patients were identified, 312 and 303 of which underwent RFA and LH treatments, respectively. The duration of surgery (MD = −99.04; 95% CI: −131.26–−66.82), estimated bleeding volume (MD = −241.97; 95% CI: −386.93–−97.02), incidence of blood transfusion during surgery (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.02–0.37), and duration of hospital stay (MD = −3.4; 95% CI: −5.22–−1.57) in RFA treatment were significantly lower than those of LH treatment. However, the incidence of cancer recurrence was significantly higher for RFA treatment compared with LH treatment (OR = 2.68; 95% CI: 1.72–4.18).

Conclusions

LH treatment is preferred over RFA treatment with a better radical effect, but RFA treatment is more beneficial with smaller trauma, development of less complications, and shorter operating time when compared with HCC treatment.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Lateral Segmentectomy for Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the advancement of endoscopic technology, laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard procedure for left lateral segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open left lateral segmentectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) >5 cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 66 patients underwent left lateral segmentectomy for HCC (>5 cm) during the period spanning between 2013 and 2015. To overcome selection bias, 1:3 match using propensity score-matched analysis was performed between laparoscopic and open liver resection.

RESULTS

Relatively smaller tumor size (6.0 vs. 7.0 cm; P=0.030) and more frequent incidence of complete tumor capsule (93.3% vs. 58.8%; P=0.013) were observed in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group before matching. Although the longer operation time (195 vs. 150 min; P=0.022) was consumed in the laparoscopic procedure after matching, the laparoscopic group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 d; P=0.002) and less blood loss volume (50 vs. 100 mL; P=0.022). The Pringle maneuver for hepatic inflow occlusion was more likely to be applied in patients who underwent open surgery. The incidence of postoperative complication seemed to be lower in the laparoscopic group (6.7%) compared with that in the open group (11.8%) before matching. On the basis of propensity score-matched analysis, the complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups (7.1% vs. 6.7%, P=0.953). No difference in the 1-year and 3-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates was found between the laparoscopic and open groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy for large HCC patients showed better perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes as the open procedure, providing evidence for considering as a standard laparoscopic practice through careful selection.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The short- and long-term prognoses are unclear following laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH vs. open major hepatectomy (OMH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

All studies comparing LMH with OMH for HCC published until April 2019 were identified independently by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We analyzed data for surgical and oncological outcomes, namely, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major complications, mortality, hospital stay, margin distance, negative margin rate, long-term overall survival, and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

We included 13 studies involving 1,225 patients with HCC (LMH: 534 patients; OMH: 691 patients) in the meta-analysis. Regarding short-term outcomes, the pooled data showed that LMH was associated with longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 72.14 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.07-101.21; P<0.00001], less blood loss (WMD: -102.32 mL; 95% CI: -150.99 to -53.64; P<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -3.77 d; 95% CI: -4.95 to -2.60; P<0.00001), lower morbidity [risk difference (RD): -0.01; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06; P<0.00001], and lower major complication rates (RD: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.05; P<0.00001). However, the need for blood transfusion (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.05; P=0.78), mortality (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.01; P=0.57), margin distance (WMD: 0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.1 to 0.19; P=0.52), and negative margin rate (RD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.05; P=0.65) were significantly comparable between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there was no difference in 3-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72-1.37; P=0.95], 3-year overall survival (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.70-2.21; P=0.45), 5-year DFS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64-1.38; P=0.76), and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45-1.99; P=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

LMH can be performed as safely as OMH in select patients and provides improved short-term surgical outcomes without affecting long-term survival. However, confirming our results requires more evidence from high-quality and prospective randomized controlled trials.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Major Hepatic Resection

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

The early evaluation of ultrasound-guided iodine-125 interstitial implants for high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of ultrasound-guided iodine-125 interstitial implants for high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

From October, 2016, to August, 2018, 49 patients suffering from a total of 66 hepatocellular carcinoma lesions were treated with ultrasound-guided iodine-125 interstitial implantation. Treatment planning system was applied to make preoperative plan. The response evaluation criteria in solid tumors were used to evaluate the curative effect. The evaluated outcomes included postoperative complications and complete disease control rate, 6-month disease-free survival, and 6-month overall survival.

RESULTS

All 49 patients underwent iodine-125 seed implantation successfully. Patients were followed up for 5 to 27.5 months. No patients developed serious complications and only 2 (4.1%) patients had slight pain. The complete response was seen in 21 lesions (31.8%), partial response in 26 lesions (39.4%), stable disease in eight lesions (12.1%), and progressive disease in 11 lesions (16.7%). The overall disease control rate was reached to 83.3%. The 6-month disease-free survival rate was 46.4% with a median disease-free survival time of 5.0 months. The 6-month overall survival rate was 83.6% with a median overall survival time of 15.0 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Iodine-125 interstitial implantation is a kind of safe and feasible treatment for high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma.

Indications for laparoscopic liver resection of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (MF-ICC), including the need for lymph node dissection for improved postoperative prognosis.

METHODS

This study involved 36 patients who underwent surgery for solitary peripheral MF-ICC. Fifteen patients underwent LLR, and 21 underwent open liver resection (OLR). Surgical outcomes and prognostic factors were investigated to determine the indications for LLR.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in perioperative outcomes between patients who underwent LLR and OLR. A significantly worse disease-free survival (DFS) rate was observed in patients who preoperatively had a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. A significantly worse overall survival (OS) rate was observed in patients with a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 levels. Therefore, a tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 and CEA levels were determined to be preoperative prognostic factors. DFS and OS rates were significantly better in patients without these factors. Moreover, in six patients without these factors who underwent LLR, neither lymph node metastasis nor postoperative recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSION

A tumor diameter ≥3 cm, vascular invasion on diagnostic imaging, and elevated serum CA19-9 and CEA levels are preoperative prognostic factors for peripheral MF-ICC. LLR is indicated for patients without these factors.

Long-term perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. We retrospectively compared the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in well-matched patient groups using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of patients with HCC who underwent liver resection between July 2007 and April 2016 at our center. In total, 2335 patients were included in this study and divided into LLR (n = 264) and OLR (n = 2071) groups. For group comparisons, 1:2 PSM was used with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics and surgical liver resection procedures.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 217 and 434 patients in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively. The LLR group had shorter hospital stays (8.9 vs. 14.8 days; P < 0.001) and lower postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs. 12.0%; P = 0.022). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.1%, 87.0%, and 78.6%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 98.3%, 90.8%, and 84.3%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.570). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 62.0%, and 49.1%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 85.3%, 64.7%, and 56.2%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.563).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between LLR and OLR for selected patients. LLR was associated with multiple benefits, even for selected patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy. LLR for HCC performed by an experienced surgeon could be considered a safe and feasible alternative to OLR for selected patients.

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

The application of laparoscopic hepatectomy is gaining momentum. However, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are yet to be adequately evaluated. We aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH for HCC by comparing it with open right hepatectomy (ORH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC from May 2007 to January 2018 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors, including age, sex, preoperative therapy, tumor size, and pattern.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 109 patients (LRH, 41 patients; ORH, 68 patients). Of the 41 patients who underwent LRH, 8 patients (19.5%) required conversion to laparotomy. The overall morbidity was 19.5%, and no mortality in LRH was noted. After PSM, LRH was associated with a tendency of prolonged operative time (255.5 ± 93.4 minutes versus 225.9 ± 39.8 minutes, P = .08) and less intraoperative blood loss [300 (100-1200) versus 500 (200-2000) mL, P < .01]. LRH showed up a trend of less overall morbidity without statistical significance (18.4% versus 26.3%, P = .41). Moreover, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups during a median follow-up of 19 (3-58) months for the LRH group and 23 (3-97) months for the ORH group.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH can be performed as safe and effective as ORH for HCC in regard to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LRH holds the benefit in less intraoperative blood loss and appears to achieve less postoperative morbidity, which could serve as a promising alternative to ORH in selected individuals.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes after pure laparoscopic versus open liver surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Background

The advantages of laparoscopy are widely known. Nevertheless, its legitimacy in liver surgery is often questioned because of the uncertain value associated with minimally invasive methods. Our main goal was to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases to find eligible studies. The most recent search was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were regarded as suitable if they reported morbidity in patients undergoing LLR versus OLR. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Clinical applicability of results was evaluated using predictive intervals. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

From 2085 articles, forty-three studies (N = 5100 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LLR had lower overall morbidity than OLR (15.59% vs. 29.88%, p < 0.001). Moreover, major morbidity was reduced in the LLR group (3.78% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of mortality (1.58% vs. 2.96%, p = 0.05) and both 3- and 5-year overall survival (68.97% vs. 68.12%, p = 0.41) and disease-free survival (46.57% vs. 44.84%, p = 0.46).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis showed that LLR is beneficial in terms of overall morbidity and non-procedure-specific complications. That being said, these results are based on non-randomized trials. For these reasons, we are calling for randomization in upcoming studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084576.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-6431-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term and short-term surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: might laparoscopic approach be better in early HCC?

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study compared the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) and identified patients who might gain more benefits from LLR.

METHODS

The demographic and perioperative data, short-term surgical outcomes, and long-term oncological results of all 313 patients who received elective liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between January 2010 and June 2017 were analyzed. The patients were then divided into stage-specific subgroups according to the TNM staging system for comparison.

RESULTS

LLR was performed in 153 patients and OLR in 160 patients. LLR is associated with less blood loss (p < 0.001), shorter surgical time (p = 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (p < 0.001), and lower morbidity rate (p = 0.034). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates in the LLR group were higher than those in the OLR group (78.1 vs. 57.6%; p = 0.002). Stage-specific subgroup analysis revealed similar 5-year OS in the two groups (stage I: 82.8 vs. 82.6%, p = 0.845; stage II: 80.3 vs. 69.2%, p = 0.638; stage III: 55.6 vs. 34.8%, p = 0.681), as did the 5-year recurrence-free survival. Moreover, the short-term outcomes were better in the LLR group in terms of surgical time, blood loss, and length of hospital stay, and these benefits attenuated with advancing tumor stage.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is a safe and feasible procedure that does not compromise long-term oncological outcomes. In early tumor stages, LLR might be better in terms of short-term surgical outcomes.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in short- and long-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH) in patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

An electronic search of reports published before August 2017 was carried out to identify comparative studies evaluating LH versus OH for HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 5889 patients (2421 underwent LH; 3468 underwent OH) were included in our meta-analysis from 47 studies. Laparoscopic hepatectomies were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -147.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -217.00, -77.55), blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40, 0.65), pathologic resection margins (MD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12; P = 0.01), R0 resection rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.98, 1.84; P = 0.07), and length of hospital stay (MD, -5.13; 95% confidence interval, -6.23, -4.03). There were no differences between the groups in overall survival (OS) at 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.98), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.36), or 5 years (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.46), in disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.51), 3 years (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86, 1.33), or 5 years (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92, 1.40), or in recurrence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Compared to OH, LH is superior in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and the requirement for blood transfusion, larger pathologic resection margins, increased R0 resection rates, and shorter length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic hepatectomy and OH have similar OS, DFS, and recurrence.

Intermittent Pringle Versus Continuous Half-Pringle Maneuver for Laparoscopic Liver Resections of Tumors in Segment 7

Segment 7 is considered an unfavorable portion for laparoscopic hepatectomy because of technical difficulties in exposure and controlling bleeding. We compared intermittent Pringle with continuous half-Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic liver resections of tumors in segment 7. A retrospective analysis was conducted in a total of 36 consecutive patients with tumors in segment 7 undergoing laparoscopic liver resections between July 2011 and February 2016 (16 in the Pringle group versus 20 in the half-Pringle group). The two groups were well matched in baseline characteristics. The operative time (274.5 ± 34.3 versus 237.6 ± 41.8 min), overall declamping time (28.4 ± 8.6 versus 2.3 ± 2.5 min), and ischemic duration (69.7 ± 16.5 versus 52.7 ± 13.2 min) were significantly longer in the Pringle group (P < 0.05). The amount of intraoperative blood loss (612.5 ± 222.3 versus 417.4 ± 163.8 mL) and transfusion (335.2 ± 58.7 versus 224.8 ± 76.2 mL) was significantly greater in the Pringle group (P < 0.05). The Pringle group was associated with significantly lower postoperative albumin and higher C-reactive protein levels on postoperative days 1, 3, and 7 (P < 0.05). Laparoscopic hepatectomy for tumors in segment 7 can be performed safely and effectively with successful exposure of surgical field and proper hepatic blood flow occlusion. Continuous half-Pringle maneuver offers the advantages of less operative time and blood loss, less injury, and better recovery.

Long-term results of laparoscopic liver resection for the primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: role of the surgeon in anatomical resection

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a potentially curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LLR is a newly developed and safe technique associated with shorter hospital stay, less pain, better cosmetic outcomes, and similar complication rates as open surgery; however, data on its long-term outcomes remain scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the clinical and follow-up data of 234 patients who underwent LLR (performed by a single surgeon in all cases) for the primary treatment of HCC between July 2007 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 55.63 (range 31-76) years; 167 were men. The median follow-up duration was 38 (range 6-116) months. A total of 227 patients (97.0%) had Child-Turcotte-Pugh grade A disease. Of them, 167 (71.4%) underwent anatomical resections and 63 (28.6%) underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomies. Overall survival rates were 98.3, 91.7, and 87.1%, and recurrence-free survival rates were 82.1, 67.5, and 55.3% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, anatomical resection was a risk factor for recurrence (univariate analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.75; p = 0.001; multivariate analysis: HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is an acceptable primary treatment for patients with HCC with good hepatic function and with an appropriate anatomical structure, and is associated with improved prognosis. LLR can achieve lower recurrence rates through anatomical resection.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality case-matched studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2017 comparing LH and OH for HCC were identified. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) with case-matched design was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. Morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, margin distance, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the surgical extension (minor or major hepatectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty studies with a total of 830 patients (388 in LH and 442 in OH) were identified. For short-term surgical outcomes, LH showed less morbidity (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47~0.65; P < 0.01), less mortality (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18~1.00; P = 0.05), less blood loss (WMD = -93.21 ml, 95% CI, -157.33~-29.09 ml; P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95% CI, -3.63~-2.08; P < 0.01), and comparable operation time (WMD = 9.15 min; 95% CI: -7.61~25.90, P = 0.28). As to oncological outcomes, 5-year overall survival rate was slightly better in LH than OH (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52~0.84, P < 0.01), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between two groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74~1.06, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis has highlighted that LH can be safely performed in selective patients and improves surgical outcomes as compared to OH. Given the limitations of study design, especially the limited cases of major hepatectomy, methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

Ablation approach for primary liver tumors: Peri-operative outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ablation is a common treatment modality for malignant primary liver tumors(PLTs), outcomes following laparoscopic (LA) versus open ablation (OA) are ill-defined. This project compares peri-procedural outcomes of LA versus OA for PLTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with PLTs undergoing radiofrequency ablation were queried from ACS NSQIP Database (2005-2013) using CPT codes. Patients undergoing percutaneous ablation or hepatic resection were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined the association of ablation approach with 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 5747 with PLTs, 655 (11.4%) ablations were identified: 177 (27.0%) underwent OA, 478 (73.0%) underwent LA. Patients undergoing LA had lower mortality (1.9% vs 5.1%, P = 0.026), lower minor morbidity (2.3% vs 5.7%, P = 0.031), and lower major morbidity (4.2% vs 17.0%, P < 0.001). Adjusting for demographics, disease-specific variables (preoperative ascites, total bilirubin, platelet count, albumin, and INR), 30-day mortality (OR 3.85, 95%CI: 1.38-10.80, P = 0.010), minor morbidity (OR 2.98, 95%CI: 1.16-7.67, P = 0.024), and major morbidity (OR 4.59 95%CI: 2.41-8.76, P < 0.001) were statistically lower in LA. OA demonstrated increased length of stay(LOS) (5 vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and longer operative time (152 vs 112 min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LA offers decreased peri-procedural morbidity, mortality, and reduced LOS. LA should be the preferred method for hepatic ablation.

Health-Related Quality of Life before and after Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Study

Background and Objectives: This large-scale prospective cohort study of a Taiwan population applied generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to evaluate changing trends in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and to compare predictors of HRQoL before and after surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) performed during 2011-2014. Materials and Methods: The Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Hepatobiliary were used in a preoperative assessment and in 3- and 6-month postoperative assessments of 332 HCC patients. Results: The HRQoL was signficantly (p<0.05) improved at 3 months after surgical resection of HCC and plateaued at 6 months after surgery. Scores for both the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) were significantly higher at the third month after surgery (p<0.05) compared to the preoperative period. Both scores also exceeded the norms after hepatic resection of HCC. However, PCS scores were generally higher than MCS scores throughout the study period. After adjusting for time effects and baseline predictors, GEE approaches revealed the following explanatory variables for HRQoL: time of HRQoL assessment, gender, age, education, coresidence with family, chemotherapy, average length of hospital stay, and preoperative functional status. Conclusions: Hepatic resection significantly increased HRQoL in patients with HCC (p<0.05). However, an evaluation of HRQoL after hepatic resection should consider several factors other than outcomes of the surgery itself. Additionally, patients should be advised that their HRQoL improvement after surgery might depend not only on the success of surgery, but also on their preoperative functional status.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains uncertain in current liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant publications. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Continuous variables were calculated by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas dichotomous variables were calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible studies with 1130 patients were identified, of which 455 (40.3%) patients in the LMH group and 675 (59.7%) patients in the OMH group. LMH was associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18, p < .00001), less transfusion requirement (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.29-0.82, p = .007), decreased postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.76, p = .0001), and shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.24, p < .0001) when compared with the OMH group. But the operative time was significantly longer in LMH group (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.79-1.86, p = .01). Both the two groups achieved similar surgical margin and R0 resection rate for malignant lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LMH appeared to be feasible and safe in current liver surgery. LMH is associated with less blood loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncological outcomes compared with OMH.

Short-term outcomes of open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection: Secondary analysis of data from a multicenter prospective study (CSGO-HBP-004)

The aim of the present study was to compare short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection (LLR and OLR, respectively), and we first analyzed a preoperatively enrolled and prospectively collected database. We carried out a secondary analysis using a preoperative enrolled database that included the details of 786 patients who had been enrolled in a previously carried out randomized controlled trial to assess short-term outcomes, including morbidities. Statistical analyses included logistic regression, propensity score matching (PSM) with replacement, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. Among 780 liver resections, OLR was carried out in 543 patients and LLR was carried out in 237 patients. LLR was selected in patients with a worse liver function and was related to a smaller resected liver weight and/or partial resection. Logistic regression, PSM, and IPTW analyses revealed that LLR was associated with less blood loss and a lower incidence of morbidities, but a longer operating time. LLR was found to be a preferred factor in biliary leakage by IPTW only. LLR was a preferred factor for blood loss, morbidities and hospital stay, but was associated with a longer operating time. UMIN-CTR, UMIN000003324.

Initial Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy in an Experienced Adult Living Donor Liver Transplant Center

BACKGROUND

Only a limited number of centers have performed laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy to date. In particular, laparoscopic right hepatectomy is rarely performed because the procedure can only be performed by surgeons with significant experience in both laparoscopic liver surgery and liver transplantation with living donor liver grafts.

METHODS

Between November 2014 and February 2015, in a pure laparoscopic approach program for living right lobe donors at Asan Medical Center, 92 living donors underwent right hepatectomy for adult living donor liver transplantation. Among these, 3 pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomies were performed in 3 young female donors.

RESULTS

The intraoperative and postoperative courses for all 3 donors and recipients were uneventful without any complications. Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy has definite advantages over conventional open surgery, including decreased wound morbidity and faster recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the data of the present report, pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy in properly selected living donors (only 4% of potential donors in this cohort) appears to be a safe and feasible procedure in adult living donor liver transplantation.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Isolated port-site metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma after laparoscopic liver resection

Port-site metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is extremely rare, and only one case has been reported in the English-language literature. Contamination with malignant cells along the needle tract during percutaneous biopsy or radiofrequency ablation is a well-recognized cause of HCC recurrence. Here, we describe a case of port-site metastasis after laparoscopic liver resection of HCC. The patient, who had undergone laparoscopic partial resection of the left lateral segment of the liver 18 months earlier, was diagnosed with HCC. CT showed a nodule in the abdominal wall where the laparoscopic port had been inserted during resection. Local excision was performed, and histological examination revealed HCC consistent with recurrence after laparoscopic resection. The experience described in this report highlights the risk of port-site metastasis of HCC. Imaging for oncologic surveillance after laparoscopic resection must include all port sites.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma for various resection extent

Although the number of laparoscopic liver resections (LRRs) has increased, studies of surgical outcomes in comparison with the conventional open approach are limited. The purpose of this study was to analyze the surgical outcomes (safety and efficacy) of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).We collected data on all patients who received liver resection for HCC between April 2015 and September 2016 in our institution, and retrospectively investigated the demographic and perioperative data, and also surgical outcomes.Laparoscopic liver resection was performed in 225 patients and OLR in 291. In patients who underwent minor hepatectomy, LLR associated with a shorter duration of operation time (200 vs 220 minutes; P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 vs 225 mL; P < 0.001), lower transfusion rate (3.0% vs 12.0%; P = 0.012), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6 vs 7 days; P < 0.001) compared with OLR. Dietary recovery was relatively fast in the group of LLR, but there were no significant differences in hepatic inflow occlusion rate, complication rate, and transfusion volume. Patients who received major hepatectomy had a longer duration of operation (240 vs 230 minutes; P < 0.001), less blood loss (200 vs 400 mL; P < 0.001), lower transfusion rate (4.8% vs 16.5%; P = 0.002), lower hepatic inflow occlusion rate (68.3% vs 91.7%; P < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (6 vs 8 days; P < 0.001). Complication rate (P = 0.366) and transfusion volume (P = 0.308) did not differ between groups.Laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible and safe alternative to OLR for HCC when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques, associated with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, a rapid return to a normal diet, and shorter postoperative hospital stay with no compromise in complications. Further, long-term follow-up should be acquired for adequate evaluation for survival.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are widely accepted as safe and effective procedures for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the hands of experienced surgeons. The efficacy and extent of benefits of pure as well as hand-assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection over open liver resection (OLR) have been investigated by numerous studies during the last 10 years. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of LLR in short- and long-term outcomes compared to OLR in patients operated for HCC. A total of 5203 patients from forty-four studies were included in our meta-analysis reporting for short- and long-term results for both LLR and OLR for HCC. Among them, 1830 underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy, 282 underwent pure laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy, and 3091 were operated through open approach. LLRs were found to be significantly associated with lower blood loss, need for blood transfusion, successful achievement of R0 resection as well as wider resection margin, shorter hospital stay, lower morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Operative time, tumor recurrence, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival as well as 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival were not found different between the groups. This meta-analysis clearly demonstrates the superiority of laparoscopic resection over the open approach for patients with small HCC.

Is laparoscopic hepatectomy superior to open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma?

The low perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay associated with laparoscopic hepatectomy have made it an often-used option at many liver centers, despite the fact that many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have cirrhosis, which makes the procedure more difficult and dangerous. Type of surgical procedure proves not to be a primary risk factor for poor outcomes after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, the available evidence clearly shows that laparoscopic hepatectomy is an effective alternative to the open procedure for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, even in the presence of cirrhosis. Whether the same is true for patients with intermediate or advanced disease is less clear, since laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a technically demanding procedure.

Totally laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumors: A single center experience

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a common procedure that has been reported frequently; however, laparoscopic resection of centrally located tumors involving segments 4, 5, and 8 remains a technically difficult procedure because it requires 2 transection planes and dissection of numerous branches of the hepatic vein and glissonean capsule compared to hemi-hepatectomy. Here, we present 7 cases of totally laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (Lap-RAS) and 3 cases of totally laparoscopic central bisectionectomy (Lap-CBS).Between May 2013 and January 2015, 10 totally laparoscopic anatomical resections of centrally located tumors were performed in our institution. The median age of the patients was 54.2 (38-72) years and the median ICG-R15 was 10.4 (3.9-17.4). There were 8 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 2 with metastatic colorectal cancer. All the HCC patients has the liver function impairment on the degree of Child-Pugh score A.The mean operation time was 330 ± 92.7 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 325 ± 234.5 mL. Only 1 patient required transfusion during surgery. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.5 ± 3.4 day and postop complication was reported only 1 case that has the fluid collection at the resection margin of the liver. Mean resection margin was 8.5 ± 6.1 mm and tumor size was 2.9 ± 1.9 cm.Totally lap-RAS and lap-CBS are feasible operative procedures in patients with centrally located tumor of the liver and particularly in patients with limited liver function such as those with cirrhosis.

Can laparoscopic liver resection provide a favorable option for patients with large or multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas?

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large or multiple intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (ICCs) remains equivocal. The main concerns are potential risks of inadequate resection margin, tumor rupture, uncontrollable bleeding, tumor seeding, and inadequate lymph node sampling. In this study, we aimed to determine the safety, feasibility, and oncological efficacy of LLR for large (≥5 cm) or multiple (≥2) ICCs.

METHODS

Among 50 patients receiving liver resection for ICC between May 2004 and January 2016, 12 patients who had undergone LLR for large or multiple ICCs (Group A, n = 12) were compared with 18 patients who had undergone LLR for small solitary ICCs (Group B, n = 18), as well were compared with 20 patients who had undergone open liver resection for large or multiple ICCs (Group C, n = 20). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with Group B, Group A had fewer patients with T1 tumors (58.3 vs. 100%; P = 0.006) and a longer hospital stay (14 vs. 9 days; P = 0.039); operating time, blood loss, surgical margin, cases receiving lymph node dissection, conversion rates, and morbidity were comparable. There were no life-threatening complications and no mortality. No tumor rupture or dissemination occurred, nor did port-site recurrence follow surgery. After a median follow-up of 22 months, no difference was noted in 3-year overall survival (56.3 vs. 59.5%; P > 0.05) and recurrence-free survival (43.8 vs. 50%; P > 0.05) between the two groups. Similarly, perioperative and long-term outcomes were comparable between Group A and Group C.

CONCLUSION

LLR for large or multiple ICCs is technically safe, feasible, and oncologically effective in select patients. It provides a favorable option for patients seeking curative treatment. The minimally invasive nature will benefit these patients without compromising the oncological efficacy. Future larger-scale studies and well-designed randomized trials are warranted to evaluate this issue.

Pure laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with great vascular exposure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a common procedure that has been reported frequently [1-3]. However, laparoscopic resection of tumors located in hepatic segments 5 and/or 8 remains a technically difficult procedure as it requires two transection planes [4]. Furthermore, there are a greater number of hepatic vein and glissonian pedicle branches that require a division as compared to other hepatectomy operations. In this report, we present a pure laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Preoperative imaging showed HCC (3 cm × 4 cm) in segment 5 [5]. After selective anterior segment inflow occlusion, transection lines were demarcated. Complete Pringle maneuver was performed for 15 min intervals five times during hepatic parenchymal transection. The Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator was used for the transection of the hepatic tissue. Small hepatic vein branches along the middle and right hepatic veins and small glissonian pedicles were clipped, sealed and divided with EnSEAL (TM) (Ethicon). iDrive (TM) Ultra Powered Stapling device (Medtronic) was used for the division of tertiary glissonian pedicles. Hanging maneuver was performed for transection of remaining liver parenchyma after complete division of hepatic venous branches. The specimen was removed through the lower abdominal transverse incision using the endocatch bag. Jackson-Pratt drain was left in the operative field. All work was performed with IRB approval.

RESULTS

Pure laparoscopic RAS for HCC was performed successfully without intraoperative complications or transfusions. The operation time was 300 min, and the estimated blood loss was <200 ml. On postoperative day 5, computed tomography scan showed well-perfused hepatic parenchyma. Pathology specimen confirmed 3.2 cm × 3 cm × 2.2 cm HCC without involvement of surgical resection margins. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 7 without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic RAS is a feasible operative procedure in patients with tumors located in hepatic segments 5/8.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.

Surgical outcomes following laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases

The aim of the study was to report surgical outcomes (efficacy and safety) of laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.Although the number of laparoscopic liver resections has increased, expansion of laparoscopic major hepatic resection remains limited, mainly owing to the technical difficulties for the procedure as compared to open surgery. We describe our experiences with laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 192 patients who underwent laparoscopic major hepatectomy between October 2007 and March 2015 at Asan Medical Center, Korea.The mean age of the patients was 54 ± 11.6 years, and their mean body mass index was 23.5 kg/m. The most common preoperative diagnosis was hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 82, 42.7%), followed by intrahepatic duct stones (n = 51, 26.6%). We performed 108 left hepatectomies, 55 right hepatectomies, 18 right posterior sectionectomies, 6 right anterior sectionectomies, 2 central bisectionectomies, and 3 donor right hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 1.6% (3 cases) due to bleeding, bile leakage, and uncontrolled hypercapnea during the operation. The mean operation time was 272 ± 80.2 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 300.4 ± 252.2 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.8 days. All resection margins were tumor-free in cases of malignant tumors. The morbidity rate was 3.1% (n = 6), including for case of biliary stricture. There were no deaths.Laparoscopic major hepatectomy, including donor hepatectomy, is a safe and feasible option for various liver diseases when careful selection criteria are used by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for giant hemangioma using anterior approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a challenging procedure [1, 2]. In the case of giant tumors in the right liver, conventional approach (complete mobilization of the right liver before parenchymal transection) could be dangerous during mobilization because of large volume and weight [3, 4]. We present the case of a pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy for a giant hemangioma using an anterior approach.

METHODS

We achieved the informed consent with this patient and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Asan Medical Center. Giant hemangioma (13 × 11 × 14 cm) was located in right liver. After glissonean approach [5], Pringle maneuver was performed during the hepatic parenchymal transection. For the transection, the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator was used. Small hepatic vein branches along the middle hepatic vein and small glissonean pedicles were sealed and divided with a THUNDERBEATTM (Olympus), which is the device with integration of both bipolar and ultrasonic energies delivered simultaneously. iDriveTM Ultra Powered Stapling device (Medtronic) was used for division of right glissonean pedicle and large hepatic veins. Hemangioma was removed through the lower abdominal transverse incision using the endo-bag. This technique has the advantage of avoiding excessive bleeding caused by avulsion of the hepatic vein and caval branches, iatrogenic tumor rupture [3].

RESULTS

By means of the anterior approach, pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy was performed successfully without intraoperative complications and transfusions. The operation time was 202 min, and the estimated blood loss was less than 150 ml. On postoperative day 3, computed tomographic scan showed no pathological findings. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without complications. Laparoscopic approach has good results because of the view with magnification enabling meticulous hemostasis and the small wounds that give patients less pain [6, 7].

CONCLUSIONS

The authors recommend that the laparoscopic anterior approach is safe and feasible for right hepatectomy, even for giant tumors.

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy by the Caudal Approach Versus Conventional Approach: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is increasingly performed for the treatment of many liver diseases. However, it remains a challenging procedure and is limited to highly specialized centers. Increasing the safety and efficacy of LRH is crucial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the novel caudal approach (CDA) in LRH and in comparison with the conventional approach (CA).

METHODS

Of a total of 40 patients who underwent LRH between June 2007 and July 2015 at our center, 10 cases underwent the CDA, while 30 underwent the CA. Operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Clinical data and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Only 1 patient required a laparoscopic-assisted procedure in the CDA group, while 14 patients were converted to laparotomy (n = 10) or laparoscopic-assisted procedures (n = 4) in the CA group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .060). However, the difference in conversion to laparotomy between the two groups was significant (P = .043). In addition, when considering 23 patients with malignancies, the median surgical margin was significantly greater in the CDA group (n = 6) (20 mm versus 10 mm; P = .023) than in the CA group (n = 17). Other operative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDA achieves safety and feasibility similar to that of the CA in LRH and requires relatively less conversion to laparotomy. In selected patients, the CDA offers an alternative option to the CA for LRH in experienced hands. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to evaluate the CDA.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis in a single institution

BACKGROUND

In a statement by the second International Consensus Conference for Laparoscopic Liver Resection (LLR), minor LLR was confirmed to be a standard surgical practice, as it has become adopted by an increasing proportion of surgeons. However, it is unclear whether this applies to the more complex group of patients suffering from cirrhosis. Therefore, the aim of this retrospective study was to compare the feasibility and safety of LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between non-liver cirrhosis (NLC) patients and liver cirrhosis (LC) patients at a single high-volume laparoscopy center.

METHODS

From the beginning of 2000 to the end of 2013, open liver resection (OLR) was performed in 99 HCC patients, and LLR was in 118. The HCC patients who underwent LLR were divided into NLC-LLR (n=60) and LC-LLR (n=58) groups, and we compare the short-term outcomes between them.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of blood loss and transfusion requirements between the NLC-LLR group and the LC-LLR group, although wedge resection was mainly performed in the LC-LLR group. There was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups, and the remarkable finding was that there was a significantly lower incidence of postoperative ascites in the LC-LLR group than in the NLC-LLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our experience, it appears that LLR for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis is a feasible and promising procedure that is associated with less blood loss and fewer postoperative complications, especially the incidence of postoperative ascites. Further investigations are clearly warranted.

Intermittent Pringle maneuver versus continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach in laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite accumulated experience and advancing techniques for laparoscopic hepatectomy, bleeding remains the major concern during parenchymal transection. The vascular inflow control technique is still important to decrease intraoperative blood loss. The objective of this study was to compare intermittent Pringle with continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach in laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

Between January 2011 and January 2015, a total of 79 consecutive patients with tumors locating either in the right or in the left hemiliver were included into this retrospective study (45 in the Pringle group vs. 34 in the half-Pringle group). Preoperative clinical characteristics, intraoperative details, postoperative complications and outcomes of patients were compared.

RESULTS

The two groups were well matched according to clinical characteristics, tumor features, types of liver resection and histopathology (P > 0.05). The mean operative time (247.5 ± 61.3 vs. 221.4 ± 48.7 min, P = 0.0446), ischemic duration (62.8 ± 28.3 vs. 44.1 ± 20.5 min, P = 0.0017) and overall declamping time (21.2 ± 8.2 vs. 0.9 ± 1.9 min, P < 0.05) were significantly longer in the Pringle group than in the half-Pringle group. The mean amount of intraoperative blood loss (568.2 ± 325.1 vs. 420.7 ± 307.2 mL, P = 0.0444) and transfusion (266.1 ± 123.4 vs. 203.2 ± 144.6 mL, P = 0.0406) were significantly greater in the Pringle group. The overall operative morbidity rate was significantly higher in the Pringle group (40 vs. 17.6%, P = 0.0324). The Pringle group was associated with significantly higher alanine aminotransferase and aspartate transaminase levels on postoperative day (POD) 7 and lower albumin levels on PODs 1 and 3 (P < 0.05). The C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher in the Pringle group than in the half-Pringle group on POD 1 (37.5 ± 21.4 vs. 28.2 ± 19.0 mg/L, P = 0.0484), POD 3 (114.0 ± 53.4 vs. 90.6 ± 47.9 mg/L, P = 0.0474) and POD 7 (54.9 ± 29.8 vs. 40.1 ± 26.4 mg/L, P = 0.0245).

CONCLUSION

Continuous hemihepatic vascular inflow occlusion using extra-glissonian approach offers the advantages of less operative time and blood loss, less injury and better recovery in laparoscopic liver resection.