Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

Impact of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease on the outcomes following laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The impact of metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) on laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LLR for MAFLD-HCC and Non-MAFLD-HCC.

METHODS

Patients with HCC who received LLR between October 2017 and July 2021 were enrolled. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to generate adjusted comparisons. Both short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated accordingly.

RESULTS

A total of 887 patients were enrolled, with 140 in MAFLD group and 747 in Non-MAFLD group. After IPTW adjustment, baseline factors were well matched. The MAFLD group was associated with more blood loss (210 vs 150 ml, p = 0.022), but with similar postoperative hospital stays and complication rates. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 97.4% and 92.5% in MAFLD group, and 97.5% and 88.3% in Non-MAFLD group, respectively (p = 0.14). The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 84.8% and 62.9% in MAFLD group, and 80.2% and 58.8% in Non-MAFLD group, respectively (p = 0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for MAFLD-HCC was associated with more blood loss but with comparable postoperative recovery and long-term survival compared with Non-MAFLD-HCC patients. LLR is feasible and safe for HCC patients with MAFLD background.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Application of the Left Lateral Decubitus Position in Laparoscopic Right Posterior Lobectomy

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the value of the left lateral decubitus position in laparoscopic right posterior lobe tumor resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of patients who underwent laparoscopic right posterior lobectomy from January 2020 to March 2023 were retrospectively collected and divided into group A (left lateral decubitus position group, n=30) and group B (conventional position group, n=35) according to different body positions. Intraoperative and postoperative data were collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The operation time (210.43±57.56 vs. 281.97±65.89, t =5.887, P <0.05), hilar occlusion time (23.97±14.25 vs. 35.79±12.62, t =4.791, P <0.05), intraoperative blood loss (162.14±72.61 vs. 239.65±113.56, t =5.713, P <0.05), postoperative feeding time (1.13±0.36 vs. 1.57±0.67, t =3.681, P <0.05), postoperative visual analog scale score (5.16±0.89 vs. 7.42±1.31, t =3.721, P <0.05), postoperative abdominal drainage tube indwelling time (4.58±1.34 vs. 5.42±1.52, t =4.553, P <0.05), incidence rate of complications (43.33% vs. 82.86%, χ 2 =11.075, P <0.05) in group A were lower than those in group B ( P <0.05). Symptoms/side effects (32.42±3.42 vs. 27.44±3.31, t =4.331, P <0.05), and there were significant differences in social function (33.55±2.56 vs. 29.31±3.32, t =4.863, P <0.05).

CONCLUSION

For right posterior lobe tumors of the liver, the left lateral decubitus position has many advantages in laparoscopic right posterior lobectomy, such as a wide field of view, simple steps, a short operation time, less bleeding, and a high postoperative quality of life. It is an effective treatment for right posterior lobe tumors of the liver and is worthy of being widely popularized.

Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis of 224 patients

PURPOSE

To compare the peri-operative and long-term survival outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) (robotic or laparoscopic) with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent liver resection for HCC were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Outcomes of MILR were compared with those of OLR. A propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 was performed to minimise the potential bias in clinical pathological factors.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to December 2017, a total of 705 patients underwent liver resection for HCC. Amongst them, 112 patients received MILR and 593 patients received OLR. After propensity score matching, there were 112 patients in each of the MILR and OLR groups. Patients were matched by age, sex, hepatitis status, presence of cirrhosis, platelet count, albumin level, bilirubin level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level, alanine transferase (ALT) level, creatinine level, tumour differentiation, tumour size, tumour number, presence of tumour rupture, presence of vascular invasion, extent of liver resection (minor/major) and difficulty score. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.4%, 90.4% and 82.3% in the MILR group vs 95.4%, 80.5% and 71.8% in the open group (p = 0.240). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 63.1% and 55.8% in the MILR group vs 79.1%, 58.1% and 45.7 in the open group (p = 0.449). The MILR group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p < 0.001), less blood transfusion (p = 0.004), lower post-operative complications (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows MILR yielded superior post-operative outcomes to OLR, with comparable survival outcomes.

Pure laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Since minimally invasive surgery has been incorporated in overall surgery, pure laparoscopic technology is involved in most hepatectomies, including right hepatectomy, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its feasibility and safety in right hepatectomy are still controversial owing to the limited literature. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

The prospectively collected medical records of 327 patients with HCC who underwent right hepatectomy between January 2010 and April 2020 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the PLRH and ORH groups. The primary end point was short-term outcomes, including hospital stay, blood loss, and morbidity; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes, including overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included in each group. Patients who underwent PLRH had a shorter postoperative hospital stay than those who underwent ORH (12.2 vs 8.9 days; P < .001). The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower in the PLRH group than in the ORH group (10.2% vs 2.0%; P = .010). The operative time (P = .479) and proportion of major complications (P = .487) were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in overall survival (P = .524) and the recurrence-free survival rate (P = .576) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes, including oncological outcomes, were comparable between PLRH and ORH, showing that PLRH can be a safe and feasible option to replace ORH in patients with HCC.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LRLR) versus open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using propensity score matching (PSM). Despite the expanding indications for laparoscopic liver resection, limited data regarding the outcomes of LRLR have previously been reported.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent repeat liver resection for recurrent HCC. Patients were divided into the LRLR and ORLR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared via PSM.

RESULTS

There were 256 and 130 patients in the ORLR and LRLR groups, respectively. After PSM, 64 patients were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (56 vs 208 ml, P < .001). Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo IIIa or more were significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (3.1% vs 15.6%, P = .030). The length of hospital stay was notably shorter in LRLR than in ORLR (9 vs 12 days, P < .001). Survival rates after repeat liver resection at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, were comparable at 93.4%, 81.9%, and 63.5% for ORLR and at 94.8%, 80.7%, and 67.3% for LRLR (P = .623). Subgroup analysis of patients who underwent wedge resection in repeat liver resection revealed that the postoperative complication rate was notably lower in LRLR than in ORLR (7.2% vs 21.8%, P = .030).

CONCLUSION

LRLR for recurrent HCC is a viable option due to its better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared to ORLR.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth commonest malignancy worldwide, and the fourth-leading cause of cancer related death. Partial liver resection (LR) forms the mainstay of therapy for suitable patients with preserved liver function. In recent years, significant advances in surgical technology, refinement of operative techniques and improvements in peri-operative care have facilitated the widespread adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with encouraging outcomes. Liver cirrhosis (LC) is present in up to 80% of patients with HCC, and adds a further dimension of complexity to LR. Cirrhotic patients have a propensity for greater intraoperative blood loss as well as increased postoperative complications such as refractory ascites and posthepatectomy liver failure. Tumor localization within the fibrotic parenchyma is challenging, giving rise to concerns about resection margin status. Patients are also at higher risk of developing metachronous lesions, which affects long-term survival. Presently, the exact role of LLR in HCC patients with underlying LC is not well-defined. Current evidence suggests that LLR offers a multitude of benefits in the short-term such as reduced blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and lower morbidity, when compared to open resection. Oncologic adequacy and long-term survival do not appear to be compromised. Special consideration must be given for LLR in patients with advanced cirrhosis, or those who require extensive major hepatectomies. We present here a brief review of the literature surrounding LLR for HCC on a background of LC.

Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Left Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Propensity Score Analyses Using Retrospective Japanese and Korean Individual Patient Data

Introduction

This study aimed to compare the prognostic impact of laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) with that of open left hepatectomy (OLH) on patient survival after resection of left hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Among the 953 patients who received initial treatment for primary HCC that was resectable by either LLH or OLH from 2013 to 2017 in Japan and Korea, 146 patients underwent LLH and 807 underwent OLH. The inverse probability of treatment weighting approach based on propensity scoring was used to address the potential selection bias inherent in the recurrence and survival outcomes between the LLH and OLH groups.

Results

The occurrence rate of postoperative complications and hepatic decompensation was significantly lower in the LLH group than in the OLH group. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was better in the LLH group than in the OLH group (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.71; p = 0.029), whereas overall survival (OS) was not significantly different. Subgroup analyses of RFS and OS revealed an almost consistent trend in favor of LLH over OLH. In patients with tumor sizes of ≥4.0 cm or those with single tumors, both RFS and OS were significantly better in the LLH group than in the OLH group.

Conclusions

LLH decreases the risk of tumor recurrence and improves OS in patients with primary HCC located in the left liver.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center 10-year experience

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. However, the long-term outcomes of LLR for HCCs should be validated further. Besides, the validity of laparoscopic minor liver resection in difficult segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) (LMLR-DS) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for HCCs need to be studied.

Methods

A total of 1773 HCC patients were collected: 683 received LLR and 1090 received OLR. Propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the selection bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. In subgroup analyses, the validity of LMLR-DS or LMH for HCCs was studied.

Results

After PSM, 567 patients were in LLR or OLR group. LLR had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OLR. The postoperative complications were lower in LLR group (23.8% vs. 32.8%, P=0.001). The Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) had no significant difference between LLR and OLR groups (P=0.973, P=0.812). The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year OR rates were 87.9%, 68.9%, and 57.7% for LLR group, and 85.9%, 68.8%, 58.8% for OLR group. The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates were 73.0%, 51.5%, 40.6% for LLR group, and 70.3%, 49.0%, 42.4% for OLR group. In subgroup analyses, 178 patients were in LMLR-DS or open surgery (OMLR-DS) group after PSM. LMLR-DS had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMLR-DS. The postoperative complications were lower in LMLR-DS group. The OS and DFS had no difference between LMLR-DS and OMLR-DS groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 61.6%, 43.9% for LMLR-DS group, and 66.5%, 47.7% for OMLR-DS group. In another subgroup analyses, 115 patients were in LMH or open major hepatectomy (OMH) group. LMH had lower blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMH. The complications, OS and DFS had no significantly differences between two groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 44.3%, 29.9% for LMH group, and 44.7%, 33.2% for OMH group.

Conclusions

LLR for HCCs showed better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes with OLR, even for patients who received LMLR-DS or LMH. LLR could be reliable and recommended for HCC treatment.

Asia-Pacific multicentre randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (AP-LAPO trial)

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the sixth most common malignancy in the world. Major hepatectomy (resection of greater than or equal to three liver segments) is needed if a tumour is large or close to major blood vessels. Despite low mortality, open major hepatectomy is associated with high rates of tumour recurrence that limits survival. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy has been proposed as an alternative approach with potential oncological benefits. This study compares laparoscopic major hepatectomy with open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a randomized trial.

METHODS

The Asia-Pacific multicentre randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (AP-LAPO trial) is an open-labelled multicentre randomized trial to be conducted in five centres in the Asia-Pacific region. The study will test the hypothesis that laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with less tumour recurrence and better survival compared with open major hepatectomy; the primary outcome being 2-year recurrence-free survival. Secondary outcomes include hospital mortality, postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification, time to functional recovery, quality of life, long-term survival, and postoperative serum surgical stress-related cytokines.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The AP-LAPO trial will determine whether laparoscopic major hepatectomy offers oncological benefits to patients with hepatocellular carcinoma compared with open major hepatectomy.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04852211 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) registered on 21 April 2021.

PROTOCOL VERSION

AP-LAPO trial version 01 (1 December 2021).

Clinical Guideline on Perioperative Management of Patients with Advanced Chronic Liver Disease

(1) Background: Patients with advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD) are living longer with more comorbidities because of improved medical and surgical management. However, patients with ACLD are at increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality; (2) Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to support a narrative clinical guideline about the assessment of mortality risk and management of perioperative morbidity in patients with ACLD undergoing surgical procedures; (3) Results: Slight data exist to guide the perioperative management of patients with ACLD, and most recommendations are based on case series and expert opinion. The severity of liver dysfunction, portal hypertension, cardiopulmonary and renal comorbidities, and complexity of surgery and type (elective versus emergent) are predictors of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Expert multidisciplinary teams are necessary to evaluate and manage ACLD before, during, and after surgical procedures; (4) Conclusions: This clinical practice document updates the available data and recommendations to optimize the management of patients with advanced chronic liver disease who undergo surgical procedures.

Portal vein embolization failure: Current strategies and future perspectives to improve liver hypertrophy before major oncological liver resection

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently considered the standard of care to improve the volume of an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) and decrease the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). PHLF remains a significant limitation in performing major liver surgery and is the main cause of mortality after resection. The degree of hypertrophy obtained after PVE is variable and depends on multiple factors. Up to 20% of patients fail to undergo the planned surgery because of either an inadequate FRL growth or tumor progression after the PVE procedure (usually 6-8 wk are needed before surgery). The management of PVE failure is still debated, with a lack of consensus regarding the best clinical strategy. Different additional techniques have been proposed, such as sequential transarterial chemoembolization followed by PVE, segment 4 PVE, intra-portal administration of stem cells, dietary supplementation, and hepatic vein embolization. The aim of this review is to summarize the up-to-date strategies to overcome such difficult situations and discuss future perspectives on improving FRL hypertrophy.

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&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;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.

Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study comparing open hepatectomy

Background

To compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) based on propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate therapeutic safety, efficacy, and value for clinical application.

Methods

Forty-nine patients with rHCC who underwent surgery at Wenzhou People’s Hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and classified into LLR (n=30) and OLR (n=22) cases based on the surgical method. Thirty-eight patients were screened using PSM for data analysis to compare basic clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative recurrence in both groups.

Results

Before PSM, the tumour diameter was larger, tumor staging (BCLC staging system), intraoperative blood loss, units of blood transfused, constituent ratio of liver cirrhosis, incidence of MVI and intravascular tumour thrombus and postoperative complication were higher, and duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in the OLR group compared to those in the LLR group (p &lt; 0.05). After PSM, there were no significant differences regarding tumour diameter, MVI incidence, blood transfusion amount or postoperative complication rate in the LLR and OLR groups. The tumor staging, incidence of vascular cancer thrombus, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative duration of hospitalisation were significantly higher in the OLR group than in the LLR group (p&lt;0.05). The difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.383).

Conclusion

LLR for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma can reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complication rate, shorten the duration of hospitalisation, and is superior to OLR regarding perioperative and short-term efficacy, demonstrating good safety and feasibility.

Clinical significance of half-hepatic blood flow occlusion technology in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Most patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have a history of chronic hepatitis B and usually present with varying degrees of cirrhosis. Owing to the special nature of liver anatomy, the blood vessel wall in the liver parenchyma is thin and prone to bleeding. Heavy bleeding and blood transfusion during hepatectomy are independent risk factors for liver cancer recurrence and death. Various clinical methods have been used to reduce intraoperative bleeding, and the Pringle method is most widely used to prevent blood flow to the liver.

AIM

To investigate the effect of half-hepatic blood flow occlusion after patients with HCC and cirrhosis undergo hepatectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 88 patients with HCC and liver cirrhosis who underwent hepatectomy in our hospital from January 2017 to September 2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the following treatment methods: the research group (n = 44), treated with half-hepatic blood flow occlusion technology and the control group (n = 44), treated with total hepatic occlusion. Differences in operation procedure, blood transfusion, liver function, tumor markers, serum inflammatory response, and incidence of surgical complications were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The operation lasted longer in the research group than in the control group (273.0 ± 24.8 min vs 256.3 ± 28.5 min, P < 0.05), and the postoperative anal exhaust time was shorter in the research group than in the control group (50.0 ± 9.7 min vs 55.1 ± 10.4 min, P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in incision length, surgical bleeding, portal block time, drainage tube indwelling time, and hospital stay between the research and control groups (P > 0.05). Before surgery, there were no significant differences in serum alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), total bilirubin, and prealbumin levels between the research and control groups (P > 0.05). Conversely, 24 and 72 h after the operation the respective serum ALT (378.61 ± 77.49 U/L and 246.13 ± 54.06 U/L) and AST (355.30 ± 69.50 U/L and 223.47 ± 48.64 U/L) levels in the research group were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than those in the control group (ALT, 430.58 ± 83.67 U/L and 281.35 ± 59.61 U/L; AST, 416.49 ± 73.03 U/L and 248.62 ± 50.10 U/L). The operation complication rate did not significantly differ between the research group (15.91%) and the control group (22.73%; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Half-hepatic blood flow occlusion technology is more beneficial than total hepatic occlusion in reducing liver function injury in hepatectomy for patients with HCC and cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for resectable HCC with BCLC stage B: a propensity score-matched analysis

To date, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B. Thus, this study was performed to assess the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for these patients by comparison with open liver resection (OLR). Between April 2015 and October 2018, a total of 217 resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into the LLR group and the OLR group according to different procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for known confounders. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. LLR was performed in 75 of the 217 included patients. After PSM, 72 patients with well-balanced baseline levels were enrolled into each group. Although the operative time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 237.5 vs. 210 min, P = 0.024), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 200 vs. 350 ml, P = 0.005). Patients in the LLR group had fewer complications than those in the OLR group (P = 0.035). Furthermore, overall survival (OS, P = 0.827) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, P = 0.694) were comparable between the two groups. LLR for resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B is safe and feasible in carefully selected patients and has superior perioperative outcomes and similar survival rates compared with OLR.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is a first-line curative option for hepatocellular carcinoma, but its role is still unclear in elderly patients. The aim of our study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

The study included 665 consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma liver resection cases in patients with ≥70 years of age treated in eight European hospital centres. Patients were divided into laparoscopic and open liver resection groups. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between these groups.

RESULTS

After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 219 patients were included in each group. Clavien-Dindo grades III/IV (6 vs. 20%, p = 0.04) were lower in the laparoscopic than in the open matched group. Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic than in the open matched group (5 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between laparoscopic and open groups regarding overall survival and disease-free survival at 1-, 3- and 5- year periods.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with good short-term outcomes in patients with ≥70 years of age compared to open liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for liver cancers: A report from a nationwide surgical database in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic (repeat) liver resection (LRLR) is a well-established liver tumor treatment. However, since its outcomes and comparison with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) in recurrent liver cancer remain inadequately studied, this study then aimed to compare their short-term outcomes for liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, and metastatic liver cancer).

METHODS

Repeat liver resection cases between 2013 and 2017 from Japan's National Clinical Database were extracted. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the proportion of patients with postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher (CD2+) (primary endpoint), as well as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and intraoperative transfusion implementation rate (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 2,902 patients (ORLR, 2,476; LRLR, 426), 712 (356 per type) with comparable backgrounds remained via PSM. Before and after PSM, the postoperative CD2+ complication rate was significantly lower in the LRLR group, who had shorter operative time, smaller intraoperative bleeding volume, and lower intraoperative transfusion rate, than in the ORLR group (after matching, 7.6% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR showed better short-term outcomes than ORLR, making it a safer and more effective liver cancer treatment.

Future remnant Liver optimization: preoperative assessment, volume augmentation procedures and management of PVE failure

Surgery is the cornerstone treatment for patients with primary or metastatic hepatic tumors. Thanks to surgical and anesthetic technological advances, current indications for liver resections have been significantly expanded to include any patient in whom all disease can be resected with a negative margin (R0) while preserving an adequate future residual liver (FRL). Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is still a feared complication following major liver surgery, associated with high morbidity, mortality and cost implications. PHLF is mainly linked to both the size and quality of the FRL. Significant advances have been made in detailed preoperative assessment, to predict and mitigate this complication, even if an ideal methodology has yet to be defined. Several procedures have been described to induce hypertrophy of the FRL when needed. Each technique has its advantages and limitations, and among them portal vein embolization (PVE) is still considered the standard of care. About 20% of patients after PVE fail to undergo the scheduled hepatectomy, and newer secondary procedures, such as segment 4 embolization, ALPPS and HVE, have been proposed as salvage strategies. The aim of this review is to discuss the current modalities available and new perspectives in the optimization of FRL in patients undergoing major liver resection.

Predicting Complications following Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Newly Developed Neo-Glasgow Prognostic Score with ALBI Grade: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Cases

Background/Aim: Nutritional assessment is known to be important for predicting prognosis in patients with malignant diseases. This study examined the usefulness of a prognostic predictive nutritional assessment tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with surgical resection. Materials/Methods: HCC patients (n = 429) classified as Child−Pugh A who underwent an R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (median age 73 years, males 326 (76.0%), Child−Pugh score 5:6 = 326:103, single tumor 340 (79.2%), median tumor size 3.5 cm, open:laparoscopic = 304:125). Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the newly developed neo-GPS method, which uses albumin−bilirubin grade 1 instead of albumin, were evaluated to compare their usefulness for prognosis prediction. Results: Median survival time for patients with a GPS score of 0, 1, and 2 was 120, 51, and 20 months, respectively. As for neo-GPS, that for those with a score of 0, 1, and 2 was not applicable (NA), 53 months, and 35 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.556 and 0.611, respectively). Furthermore, median progression-free survival was 33, 22, and 9 months, and 41, 24, and 15 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.539 and 0.578, respectively). As compared to patients with a high GPS (≥1), those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed a greater rate of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) (39.2% vs. 65.1%). A comparison of patients with a high GPS (≥1) with those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed no significant difference regarding frequency of open or laparoscopic hepatectomy (17.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.670; 44.7% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.831, respectively), while the frequency of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) was lower in patients who underwent a laparoscopic hepatectomy (11.2% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the newly developed neo-GPS based on ALBI grade is an effective prognostic nutritional assessment tool and can be used for prediction of postoperative complications.

Current status of laparoscopic hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was first introduced in the 1990s and has now become widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is considered a safe and effective approach for liver disease. However, the role of laparoscopic hepatectomy in HCC with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed, and the present literature review aimed to review the surgical and oncological outcomes of Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). According to Hong and colleagues laparoscopic resection for liver cirrhosis is a very safe and feasible procedure for both ideal cases and select patients with high risk factors [29]. The presence of only 1 of these factors does not represent an absolute contraindication for LH.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We selected 23 studies involving about 1363 HCC patients treated with LH. 364 (27%) patients experienced major resections. The mean operative time was 244.9 minutes, the mean blood loss was 308.1 mL and blood transfusions were required in only 4.9% of patients. There were only 2 (0.21%) postoperative deaths and overall morbidity was 9.9%. Tumor recurrence ranged from 6 to 25 months. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year disease free Survival (DFS) rates ranged from 71.9% to 99%, 50.3% to 91.2%, and 19% to 82% respectively. Overall survival rates ranged from 88% to 100%, 73.4% to 94.5%, and 52.6% to 94.5% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our summery LH is lower risk and safer than conventional open liver surgery and is just as efficacious. Also, the LH approach decreased blood-loss, operation time, postoperative morbidity and had a lower conversion rate compared to other procedures whether open or robotic. Finally, LH may serve as a promising alternative to open procedures.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods: From September 2016 to June 2019, 282 patients were enrolled, and ERAS was implemented since March 2018. All indicators related to surgery, liver function, and postoperative outcomes were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) identified 174 patients for further comparison.

Results: After PSM, the clinicopathological baselines were well-matched. The group showed significantly less intraoperative blood loss (100.00 [100.00–200.00] vs. 200.00 [100.00–300.00] ml, P = 0.001), fewer days before abdominal drainage tube removal (4.00 [3.00–4.00] days vs. 4.00 [3.00–5.00] days, P = 0.023), shorter hospital stay after surgery (6.00 [5.00–6.00] days vs. 6.00 [6.00–7.00] days, P < 0.001), and reduced postoperative morbidity (18.39 vs. 34.48%, P = 0.026). The proportion of patients with a pain score ≥ 4 was significantly lower in the ERAS group within the first 2 days after surgery (1.15 vs. 13.79% and 8.05 vs. 26.44%, P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Pringle maneuver was performed more frequently in the ERAS group (70.11 vs. 18.39%, P < 0.001), and a significantly higher postoperative alanine aminotransferase level was also observed (183.40 [122.85–253.70] vs. 136.20 [82.93–263.40] U/l, P = 0.026). The 2-year recurrence-free survival was similar between the two groups (72 vs. 71%, P = 0.946).

Conclusions: ERAS programs are feasible and safe and do not influence mid-term recurrence in HCC patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Outcome of major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients; does surgical approach matter? A propensity score matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

Major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients still represents a great challenge for liver surgeons. Hence, the aim in the present study is to investigate the clinical impact of major hepatectomy and to assess whether the surgical approach influences the outcome of cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective study including cirrhotic patients undergoing major laparoscopic (mjLLR) and open liver resection (mjOLR) in 14 Western liver centers was performed (2009-2020). Clinical, demographic, and perioperative data were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Long-term outcome after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma was analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 352 patients were included; 108 after mjLLR and 244 after mjOLR. After PSM, 88 patients were matched in each group. In the mjLLR group, compared to mjOLR, less blood loss (P = .042), lower overall and severe complication (P < .001, .020), such as surgical site infection, acute kidney injury and liver failure were observed, parallel to a shorter length of hospital stay. Stratifying patients based on the type of resection, less severe complications was observed only after laparoscopic left hepatectomy (P = .044), while the advantages of laparoscopy tend to decrease during right hepatectomy. Subgroup analysis of long-term survivals following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma showed no difference between mjLLR and mjOLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter experience suggests potential short-term benefits of mjLLR in cirrhotic patients compared to mjOLR, without compromising long-term outcome. These findings might have interesting clinical implications for the management of patients with chronic liver disease.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The exact role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying liver cirrhosis (LC) is not well defined. In this meta-analysis, both long- and short-term outcomes following LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) were analysed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched systematically for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies reporting outcomes of LLR versus OLR of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This was analysed using one-stage (individual participant data meta-analysis) and two-stage (aggregate data meta-analysis) approaches. Secondary outcomes were operation duration, blood loss, blood transfusion, Pringle manoeuvre utilization, overall and major complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), 90-day mortality and R0 resection rates.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 1618 patients (690 LLR versus 928 OLR) were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analysis, an approximately 18.7 per cent lower hazard rate (HR) of death in the LLR group (random effects: HR 0.81, 95 per cent confidence interval [C.I.] 0.68 to 0.96; P = 0.018) was observed. Two-stage meta-analysis resulted in a pooled HR of 0.84 (95 per cent C.I. 0.74 to 0.96; P = 0.01) in the overall LLR cohort. This indicated a 16-26 per cent reduction in the HR of death for patients with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent LLR. For secondary outcomes, LLR was associated with less blood loss (mean difference [MD] -99 ml, 95 per cent C.I. -182 to -16 ml), reduced overall complications (odds ratio 0.49, 95 per cent C.I. 0.37 to 0.66) and major complications (odds ratio 0.45, 95 per cent C.I. 0.26 to 0.79), and shorter LOHS (MD -3.22 days, 95 per cent C.I. -4.38 to -2.06 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of HCC in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival and perioperative outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis of a high-volume North American center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections for malignancy are increasing worldwide, and yet data from North America are lacking. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection as a treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

Patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 were retrospectively studied. A propensity score matching was performed using patient demographics, laboratory parameters, etiology of liver disease, liver function, and tumor characteristics. Primary outcomes included overall survival and cumulative incidence of recurrence. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk cumulative incidence were used for survival analyses. Multivariable Cox regression and Fine-Gray proportional hazard regression were performed to determine hazard for death and recurrence, respectively.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-one patients were identified (laparoscopic liver resection: 110; open liver resection: 281). After propensity score matching, 149 patients remained (laparoscopic liver resection: 57; open liver resection: 92). There were no significant differences between groups with regard to extent of hepatectomy performed and tumor characteristics. The laparoscopic liver resection group experienced a lower proportion of ≥Clavien-Dindo grade III complications (14% vs 29%; P = .01). In the matched cohort, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate in the laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection group was 90.9%, 79.3%, 70.5% vs 91.3%, 88.5%, 83.1% (P = .26), and the cumulative incidence of recurrence 31.1%, 59.7%, 62.9% vs 18.9%, 40.6%, 49.2% (P = .06), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest single institutional study from North America comparing long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection as a treatment for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. The combination of reduced short-term complications and equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes favor the laparoscopic approach when feasible.

Does laparoscopic hepatectomy offer benefits for patients with COPD? A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is safe and feasible for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, we compared the perioperative outcomes of LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in this special cohort of patients.

METHODS

Between February 2014 and October 2020, 162 patients who underwent hepatectomy met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study. Perioperative data were compared between the two groups by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, 55 patients with well-balanced baseline data were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group (P < 0.001, P = 0.047, and P = 0.020 after PSM, respectively). However, major complications, early readmission, and early mortality were comparable between the two groups. According to multivariate analysis, high stage of COPD, preoperative tobacco use, and long operative time were independent risk factors for PPCs, whereas treatment with LH was a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

LH is safe and feasible for selected patients with COPD when performed by experienced surgeons, and it has superior perioperative outcomes (especially regarding PPCs) when compared to OH.

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.

Anatomical Versus Non-anatomical Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, a Propensity-matched Analysis Between Taiwanese and Japanese Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of anatomical resection (AR) versus non-anatomical resection (NAR) for Japanese and Taiwanese patients with single, resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of the AR group to those of the NAR group. Tumor size <5 cm, T1 or T2 grade, without evidence of extrahepatic metastasis, invasion of portal or hepatic veins, or direct invasion of adjacent organs, were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 385 cases (Taiwanese 105, Japanese 280) were analyzed. After PSM, a total of 152 cases remain (Taiwan and Japan both 76 cases). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data were not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

AR of HCC in Japanese patients has a similar 5-year DFS and OS as NAR of HCC in Taiwanese patients.

Adverse outcomes after surgeries in patients with liver cirrhosis among Korean population: A population-based study

Background

Patients with liver cirrhosis have an increased risk of in-hospital mortality or postoperative complication after surgery. However, large-scale studies on the prognosis of these patients after surgery are lacking. The aim of the study was to investigate the adverse outcomes of patients with liver cirrhosis after surgery over five years.

Methods and findings

We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Inpatient Samples (HIRA-NIS) between 2012 and 2016. In-hospital mortality and hospital stay were analyzed using the data. Mortality rates according to the surgical department were also analyzed. Of the 1,662,887 patients who underwent surgery, 16,174 (1.0%) patients had cirrhosis. The in-hospital mortality (8.0% vs. 1.0%) and postoperative complications such as respiratory (6.0% vs. 5.3%) or infections (2.8% vs. 2.4%) was significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis than in those without cirrhosis. In addition, the total hospitalization period and use of the intensive care unit were significantly higher in patients with liver cirrhosis. In propensity score matching analysis, liver cirrhosis increased the risk of adverse outcome significantly [adjusted OR (aOR) 1.67, 95% CI 1.56–1.79, P<0.001], especially in-hospital mortality. In liver cirrhosis group, presence of decompensation or varices showed significantly increased postoperative complication or mortality. Adverse outcomes in patients with cirrhosis was the highest in patients who underwent otorhinolaryngology surgery (aOR 1.86), followed by neurosurgery (aOR 1.72), thoracic and cardiovascular surgery (aOR 1.56), and plastic surgery (aOR 1.36).

Conclusion

The adverse outcomes of patients with cirrhosis is significantly high after surgery, despite advances in cirrhosis treatment.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies

Background

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P  <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD −69.16; 95% CI −101.72 to −36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD −2.65; 95% CI −3.41 to −1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.

Current status of radical laparoscopy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with portal hypertension

The laparoscopic technique is clinically effective in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal hypertension (PHT). However, existing studies lack systematic arrangement and induction. Here, we review the latest research advancement in laparoscopic technique for treatment of HCC with PHT, based on published literature and our single-institution experience. Our single-center experience reveals no statistical difference in both short- and long-term prognosis of HCC patients after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), regardless of whether they suffer from PHT, which is consistent with previous studies on the use of LLR for HCC with PHT. Retrieval outcomes indicate existence of short- and long-term prognostic superiority, following laparoscopic treatment, relative to non-laparoscopic treatment. Besides that, LLR offers long-term prognostic advantage compared to laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation. In addition, we review the previous literature and propose corresponding perspectives on the therapy of hypersplenism, the utilization of Pringle maneuver, and the adoption of anatomical hepatectomy during radical laparoscopic treatment. HCC with PHT is not the "forbidden zone" of radical laparoscopic treatment. However, patients’ preoperative liver function should be adequately estimated.

Advances in the surgical outcomes of 300 cases of pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy divided into three periods of 100 cases: a single-centre case series

Background

Minimally invasive surgery has been widely used for hepatobiliary operations. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy.

Methods

From November 2015 to April 2019, 300 cases of adult pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy performed at Seoul National University Hospital were divided into three subgroups of periods 1-3 of 100 cases each: 1-100, 101-200, and 201-300, respectively. We retrospectively reviewed and analysed the safety and feasibility outcomes.

Results

The operative time (period 1: 318.9±62.2 min, period 2: 256.7±71.4 min, period 3: 227.7±57.4 min) and blood loss (period 1: 419.7±196.5 mL, period 2: 198.9±197.2 mL, period 3: 166.0±130.0 mL) gradually decreased (P<0.01). Similarly, the length of hospital stay decreased (period 1: 8.1±2.0 days, period 2: 7.3±3.1 days, period 3: 6.9±2.4 days, P<0.01). There was no requirement for intraoperative transfusions or care in the intensive care unit. The overall complication rate was 20/300 (6.7%), of which 8/300 (2.7%) were Clavien-Dindo grade III and above. Complications were not different among the three periods. In terms of anatomical variations, the incidences of multiple portal veins, multiple hepatic arteries, and multiple bile ducts were 32/300 (10.7%), 11/300 (3.7%), and 161/300 (53.7%), respectively. No differences were found among the three periods.

Conclusions

Owing to the technical improvements over time, pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy is currently feasible and safe even for donors with anatomical variations.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patterns, timing, and predictors of recurrence after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: results from a high-volume HPB center

Background

Although long-term outcomes may be comparable between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there has been little discussion regarding the patterns of recurrence after LLR.

Methods

Patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between April 2015 and November 2018 were included in this study. The recurrence patterns were analyzed in detail. The recurrence outcomes following laparoscopic versus OLR for HCC were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching. Potential risk factors for recurrence were also assessed with Cox proportional risk models.

Results

Among 425 patients after LLR, 144 (33.8%) experienced recurrence at the last follow-up, with a median recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 10.0 months (range 1–58 months). The most frequent recurrence site was the liver (n = 99, 68.8%), followed by the surgical margin (n = 15, 10.4%) and distant metastases (n = 12, 8.3%). Liver recurrence with distant metastasis (n = 10, 6.9%) tended to occur early (median 8.0 months), while peritoneal recurrence (n = 8, 5.6%) occurred later (median 14.0 months). A total of 120 (83.3%) patients had recurrence within 2 years after LLR. No trocar site recurrence was observed in this study. The recurrence patterns, timing, and treatment did not show significant differences between the LLR and OLR. The independent risk factors for recurrence included ALBI grade, postoperative α-fetoprotein > 8 ng/ml, tumor size > 5 cm, surgical margin ≤ 1 cm, and multiple tumors. Patients with recurrence had 1- and 5-year overall survival rates of 81.1% and 60.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 95.8% and 92.9% for patients without recurrence (P < 0.000).

Conclusion

This study suggested that intrahepatic recurrence was still the most common recurrence pattern for HCC after LLR and that LLR did not increase the risk of trocar hole recurrence or implantation. Most cases of recurrence occurred within 2 years after LLR, suggesting that surveillance should be targeted to early recurrence.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-021-08390-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is laparoscopic liver resection safe for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of laparoscopic liver resection for curative surgery of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not well established. Herein, we perform a meta-analysis to compare the differences between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for ICC.

METHODS

Multiple electronic databases were searched and 8 relevant studies containing 552 patients treated by LLR and 2320 treated by OLR were identified. The fixed effects and a random-effects model were used to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with OLR, LLR for ICC was associated with less blood transfusion (7.14% versus 17.11%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.71; P < 0.05), higher R0 resection (85.63% versus 74.69%; OR: 1.48; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95; P < 0.05), shorter length of stay (LOS) (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI -0.80 to 0.00; P = 0.05), less overall morbidities (20% versus 32.69%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.78; P < 0.05), and less death due to tumor recurrence (22.39% versus 35.48%; OR: 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86; P <0.05); but LLR was associated with smaller ICC, fewer major hepatectomies, less lymph node (LN) dissection rate, and inferior 5-year overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05). Duration of operation, blood loss, average LN retrieved, LN metastasis, major morbidities, mortality, tumor recurrence, 3-year OS and disease free survival (DFS), and 5-year DFS were comparable (P >0.05).

CONCLUSION

LLR for ICC is in the initial phase of exploration. More evidence is necessary to validate LLR for ICC.

Laparoscopic surgery for oncologic extended resection of T1b and T2 incidental gallbladder carcinoma at a high-volume center: a single-center experience in China

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment is still the most effective treatment for gallbladder cancer. For the patients with stage T1b and above, the current guidelines recommend the extended radical operation, and oncologic extended resection can benefit the survival of the patients. The laparoscopic approach is still in the early phase, and its safety and oncological outcomes are not well known.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the technical feasibility and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery for oncologic extended resection of early-stage incidental gallbladder carcinoma.

RESULTS

This study included 18 male and 32 female patients. Twenty patients underwent laparoscopic oncologic extended resection and 30 patients underwent open oncologic extended resection. All of the patients had R0 resection. A laparoscopic approach was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (242 ± 108.5 vs 401 ± 130.3; p < 0.01) and shorter duration of postoperative hospital stay (6.2 ± 2.4 vs 8.6 ± 2.3; p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between two groups for lymph nodes yield (5.4 ± 3.5 vs 5.8 ± 2.1; p > 0.05), incidence of lymphatic metastasis (15% vs 16.67%; p > 0.05), residual disease (20% vs 23.3%; p > 0.05), and postoperative morbidity (15% vs 20%; p > 0.05). During follow-up time of median 20.95 (12-29.5) months, no significant difference was found between the two groups for early tumor recurrence (10% vs 13.33%; p > 0.05) and disease-free survival (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery may offer similar intraoperative, perioperative, and short-term oncological outcomes as an open oncologic extended resection for incidental gallbladder carcinoma.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

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.

Retroperitoneal laparoscopic hepatectomy of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Almost all liver tumours can be removed laparoscopically, but some difficult tumour locations complicate laparoscopic surgery. Recurrent liver tumours often pose great difficulties to laparoscopic surgery due to adhesions caused by previous operations. Referring to laparoscopic adrenalectomy, a retroperitoneal approach is proposed to remove liver tumours near the adrenal gland, which will provide a new method for liver surgery.

CASE PRESENTATION

Our case involves a patient with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose last operation was laparoscopic hepatectomy in our department, with a recurrence of HCC 2 years after the first surgery. In this case, based on preoperative CT and MRI, through a retroperitoneal approach, combined with intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) localization and indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence navigation, laparoscopic hepatectomy was successfully performed to precisely resect recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in segment VII. The patient was discharged on the third day after the operation. The AFP decreased to normal levels on the 28th postoperative day.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal hepatectomy has the advantages of less trauma, shorter operation times, fewer complications and faster recovery for hepatic tumours near the adrenal gland. Accurate localization of tumours is needed to ensure accurate resection; therefore, IOUS and ICG fluorescence are very important. Liver parenchyma was severed strictly according to fluorescent labelling during hepatectomy, which prevented the deviation of liver parenchyma from the plane and ensured that the margin of hepatectomy was tumour-free. In order to ensure a radical resection of the tumour, it may be necessary to enter the abdominal cavity.

Anatomic Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Scenario of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To assess the impact of the laparoscopic anatomic resections (LARs) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, analyzing the pooled short- and long-term outcomes of this technique and comparing it with the standard open approach [open anatomic resections (OAR)]. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning LAR for HCC. Results: After screening 311 articles, 10 studies with a total of 398 patients who underwent LAR for HCC were included. The pooled cohort included mostly male (76.6%), Child A (98.2%), with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related disease (60.5%). The pooled conversion rate was 7.3%. The pooled overall complication rate was 10.2 with a mortality rate of 1.0%. In the pooled analyses of only comparative studies, LAR group included 378 versus 455 in OAR. Operative time was longer in the LAR group (329 minutes versus 248; P = .001). Blood loss (179 versus 331 mL; P = .018) was lower in the LAR group. The pooled mean length of hospital stay was 8.4 days in LARs and 11.3 in OARs (P = .002). The pooled rate of postoperative complications was higher in the OAR group (25.3 versus 13.8; P = .009), while mortality rates were similar. The LAR group had a pooled 3- and 5-year overall survival of 90.1 and 81.9 versus 83.5 and 80.7 of the OARs (P > .05), respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, the LAR for HCC is safe and associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Survival rates are comparable with those of the conventional open approach.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score‑based analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Thoracoscopic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma located in the hepatic dome: Technical aspect and oncological results

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to describe the surgical techniques for a thoracoscopic approach to treat hepatocellular carcinoma in the hepatic dome. Also, safety, feasibility, and long-term outcomes were evaluated.

METHODS

Surgical procedures were selected based on liver function, the extent and location of the tumor, and each patient's general condition. Thoracoscopic hepatic resection was performed under direct vision through a diaphragmatic incision. Thoracoscopic radiofrequency ablation (TRFA) was performed either with a transdiaphragmatic puncture for deeply located tumors or under direct vision through a diaphragmatic incision for subcapsular tumors.

RESULTS

Thoracoscopic surgery was indicated for 107 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the hepatic dome. Among these patients, 5 underwent hepatectomy and 102 underwent radiofrequency ablation, which was more frequently employed in patients with impaired liver function. Of the patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation, 43 (42.2%) required a diaphragmatic incision. In the thoracoscopic hepatic resection group and TRFA group, the median operating time was 350 and 197 minutes, the median blood loss was 200 and 5 mL, and the complication rate was 12.7% and 20.0%, respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 100% and 50.0% in the thoracoscopic hepatic resection group, respectively, and 60.7% and 18.1% in the TRFA group, respectively. Local recurrence after TRFA was observed in 10 patients (9.8%).

CONCLUSION

The thoracoscopic approach is safe and feasible, with promising short- and long-term outcomes. It could serve as a treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma in the hepatic dome.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

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.

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.

Single versus multiple port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Single port laparoscopic hepatectomy has been applied in some surgeries. We aimed to describe our experience with single port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (SPLS) and to compare the safety and feasibility of this technique with those of conventional multi-port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (MPLS) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A total of 72 consecutive patients who underwent SPLS (n = 33) and MPLS (n = 39) for HCC were enrolled. The peri-operative parameters of safety and feasibility, as well as the short-term oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (4.12 vs. 4.59 days, P = 0.043). No significant difference between the two groups was found in the operation time (104.58 vs. 95.69 min in the SPLS group and MPLS group respectively, P = 0.353) or the amount of blood loss (62.73 vs. 68.46 ml, P = 0.595). The 1-year recurrence-free survival rate was 77.9% in the SPLS group and 70.7% in the MPLS group (P = 0.82). Subgroup analysis showed that for patients without cirrhosis, the LOS was shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (P = 0.033), while for patients with cirrhosis, the LOS was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.201), although it was shorter in the SPLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS was a feasible and safe surgical approach for the treatment of HCC on left lateral section.

Clinical outcome of open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for cirrhotic hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Open surgery remains the major approach to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection has been recommended as a superior treatment. However, the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for cirrhotic patients is under debate. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for eligible literature updated on November 2018. After rigorous review of quality, the data were extracted from eligible trials. All the data were pooled with the corresponding 95% confidence interval using RevMan software. Sensitivity analyses and heterogeneity were quantitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials met the inclusion criteria. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay [STD mean difference (SMD) = -0.61, 95% confidence interval -0.89 to -0.32; P < 0.0001], lower intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.56, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.12; P = 0.01), fewer complications (odds ratio = 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.52; P < 0.00001) and lower transfusion rate (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.93; P = 0.02). Nevertheless, there was no remarkable difference in operative time (SMD = 0.17, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.59; P = 0.42) between the two groups. The pooled analysis of overall survival showed that laparoscopic surgery did not achieve benefit compared with open surgery (P = 0.02). Moreover, the pooled results of three subgroups indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The current analysis indicates that laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma improved intraoperative and disease-free survival, with similar overall survival compared to the open procedure. Laparoscopic surgery may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis.