The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in segment 8: a propensity score-matched two-center study

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have been reported worldwide. However, those of LLR for tumors located in Couinaud's segment 8 are not sufficiently investigated.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 108 patients who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in segment 8 at Kobe University Hospital and Hyogo Cancer Center between January 2010 and December 2021. The patients were categorized in LLR and open liver resection (OLR) groups, and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to compare surgical outcomes between the groups.

RESULTS

Forty-seven and 61 patients underwent LLR and OLR, respectively. After PSM, each group contained 34 patients. There was no significant difference in operation time between the groups (331 min vs. 330 min, P = 0.844). Patients in the LLR group had significantly less blood loss (30 mL vs. 468 mL, P < 0.001) and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (10 days vs. 12 days, P = 0.015) than those in the OLR group. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of postoperative complications between the groups (12% vs. 9%, P = 0.690). Further, the 1-year cumulative incidence of recurrence was not significantly different between the groups (16% vs. 19%, P = 0.734).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical outcomes and short-term prognosis of LLR were similar or better than those of OLR. LLR could be an effective and safe procedure, even for lesions located in segment 8, which is considered a difficult anatomical location for LLR.

Advantages of the Laparoscopic Approach for the Initial Operation in Patients who Underwent Repeat Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Less intra-abdominal adhesions are expected following laparoscopic surgery. Although an initial laparoscopic approach for primary liver tumors may have advantages in patients who require repeat hepatectomies for recurrent liver tumors, this has not been sufficiently investigated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies for recurrent liver tumors at our hospital between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Of 127 patients, 76 underwent laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH), of whom 34 patients initially underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (L-LRH) and 42, open hepatectomy (O-LRH). Fifty-one patients underwent open hepatectomy as both the initial and second operation (O-ORH). We analyzed surgical outcomes between L-LRH and O-LRH groups and between L-LRH and O-ORH groups using propensity-matching analysis for each pattern.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients each were included in L-LRH and O-LRH propensity-matched cohorts. The L-LRH group had a lower rate of postoperative complications than the O-LRH group (0 vs 19%, P = 0.036). When we compared surgical outcomes between L-LRH and O-ORH groups in another matched cohort with 18 patients in each group, in addition to the lower rate of postoperative complications, the L-LRH group had additional favorable surgical outcomes including shorter operation time and lower blood loss volume than the O-ORH group (291 vs 368 min, P = 0.037 and 10 vs 485 mL, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

An initial laparoscopic approach would be favorable for patients undergoing repeat hepatectomies, as it leads to lower risk of postoperative complications. Compared with O-ORH, the advantage of the laparoscopic approach may be enhanced when it is repeatedly adopted.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in treating recurrent liver tumors vs. conventional open surgery.

Methods

Database searching was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were applied in statistical analyses.

Results

A total of fourteen studies were finally included with 1,284 patients receiving LRH and 2,254 with ORH. LRH was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage, a higher R0 resection rate, a lower incidence of Pringle Maneuver, a lower incidence of postoperative morbidities, a better overall survival and an enhanced postoperative recovery vs. ORH. Patients receiving LRH shared similar operative time, tumor number and disease-free survival as those with ORH. However, tumor size was relatively larger in patients receiving ORH and major hepatectomy, anatomic hepatectomy were rarely performed in patients with LRH. Additional analyses between LRH and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy revealed less intraoperative blood loss in patients with LRH.

Conclusion

LRH is safe and feasible with more favorable peri-operative outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, it is only applicable for some highly-selected cases not requiring complex surgical procedures. Future larger well-designed studies are expected for further validation.

Previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery did not increase the difficulty in laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case–control study in 100 consecutive patients

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is still technically challenging for patients with previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery (AS). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the difficulty of performing LH for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a history of nonhepatectomy AS during the initial developing period of LH.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed with HCC receiving LH from January 2013 to June 2021. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were prospectively collected.

Results

One hundred patients were reviewed consecutively, comprising 23 in the AS group and 77 in the non-AS group. No significant differences were observed in median IWATE score (5 vs. 5, P = 0.194), operative time (219 vs. 200 min, P = 0.609), blood loss (100.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P = 0.734), transfusion rate (4.3% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.374), duration of parenchyma transection (90.0 vs. 72.4 min, P = 0.673), and mean nonparenchymal transection time (191.0 vs. 125.0 min, P = 0.228), without increasing the conversion rate (0.0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.336), postoperative complications (30.3% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.488), and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = 0.060) in AS group and non-AS groups.

Conclusion

History of previous nonhepatectomy AS can lead to longer nonparenchymal transection time instead of conversion and did not increase the difficulty. Prolonged nonparenchymal transection time did not increase the surgical complications, prolong the postoperative hospital stay, and compromise the survival outcomes.

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.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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.

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

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

Indications of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the indications of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma from the viewpoint of its difficulty.

METHODS

One hundred and one patients who underwent LRLR and 59 patients who underwent open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were included. The difficulty was classified according to the preoperative predictive factors for difficult LRLR, including an open approach during previous liver resection, history of two or more previous liver resections, history of previous major liver resection, tumor near the resected site of the previous liver resection, and intermediate or high difficulty with the difficulty scoring system. We compared the surgical outcomes between the LRLR and ORLR groups based on the difficulty class (low- or intermediate difficiulty class, 0 to 3 predictive factors; high difficiulty class, 4 or 5 factors).

RESULTS

In the low- or intermediate difficiulty class, intraoperative blood loss and the proportion of patients with postoperative complications were significantly lower in LRLR than in ORLR, and the duration of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in LRLR than in ORLR. In the high difficiulty class, total operative time and operative time before starting hepatic parenchymal resection were significantly longer in LRLR than in ORLR, and there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LRLR is recommended for patients in the low or intermediate difficulty class. However, LRLR does not have an advantage with longer operative time for patients in the high difficulty class compared with ORLR.

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.

Minimally invasive versus open living donors right hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive technology has been widely used in hepatectomy, it remains controversial with regards to liver transplantation, especially in donors right hepatectomy. Herein, we compared the short-term safety and efficacy of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH) with open donors right hepatectomy (ODRH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library database in order to identify comparison studies of MIDRH and ODRH. Next, we obtained the relevant data, and carried out the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 12 studies, which included 1755 cases that underwent donors right hepatectomy. Compared to ODRH, patients that underwent MIDRH had less bleeding (SWD = -0.52, p<0.001), shorter hospital stays (SWD = -0.58, p < 0.001) and lower overall postoperative complications of donors (RR = 0.74, p = 0.008). However, MIDRH was found to be associated with prolonged operative times (SWD = 0.74, p < 0.001), as well as a higher rate of biliary complications in donors (RR = 2.26, p = 0.007) and recipients (RR = 1.69, p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between MIDRH and ODRH in postoperative liver function, rate of major complications and vascular complications of both donors and recipients and overall postoperative complications.

DISCUSSION

MIDRH is superior to ODRH with regards to intraoperative bleeding, postoperative hospital stay and overall donor complications. Although biliary-related complications are higher, it is feasible to develop MIDRH in experienced liver transplant centers. However, higher-quality research is still needed for corroboration.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection and re-operation for liver tumor

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been reported as a safe, minimally invasive, and effective surgery for the management of liver tumor. However, the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent liver tumor are unclear. Here, we analyzed the surgical results of LRLR. From June 2010 to May 2019, we performed 575 LLR surgeries in our department, and 454 of them underwent pure LLR for the single tumor. We classified the patients who received pure LLR for the single tumor into three groups: LRLR (n = 80), laparoscopic re-operation after previous abdominal surgery (LReOp; n = 136), and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR; n = 238). We compared patient characteristics and surgical results between patients undergoing LRLR, LReOp and LPLR. We found no significant differences between LRLR and LPLR in the conversion rate to laparotomy (p = 0.8033), intraoperative bleeding (63.0 vs. 152.4 ml; p = 0.0911), or postoperative bile leakage rate (2.50 vs. 3.78%; p = 0.7367). We also found no significant difference in the surgical results between LReOp and LPLR. However, the number of patients undergoing the Pringle maneuver was lower in the LRLR group than the LPLR group (61.3 vs. 81.5%; p = 0.0004). This finding was more pronounced after open liver resection than laparoscopic liver resection (38.9 vs. 67.7%; p = 0.0270). The operative time was significantly longer in patients with proximity to previous cut surface than patients with no proximity to previous cut surface (307.4 vs. 235.7 min; p = 0.0201). LRLR can safely be performed with useful surgical results compared to LPLR.

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatectomy for Secondary Liver Neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a widely accepted alternative to an open approach. The use of this technique in repeat liver resection is limited due to technical difficulties caused by postsurgical adhesions. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (HALRH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the medical files of patients who had undergone HALRH between 2010 and 2017 in 2 university-affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with repeat hepatectomy were included with a median age of 67.5 years. The first liver resection was a traditional laparotomy for 9 patients and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for 7 patients. The conversion rate to open surgery was 6%. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 166 minutes, 400 mL, and 7 days, respectively. R0 resections were achieved in 88% of patients. The median number of tumors and tumor size were 1 and of 25 mm, respectively. There were no mortalities or major complications postoperatively. For patients with colorectal liver metastases, the median follow-up and overall survival were 21 and 43 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest HALRH to be safe and feasible. Future ERAS guidelines should evaluate this approach for liver surgery.

Newly-revised Pringle maneuver using laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp for repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy

It has been known that repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after open hepatectomy is technically challenging because of adhesions around the hilum. It is quite often that conventional tourniquet technique for the Pringle maneuver is difficult in RLH, and we introduced Laparoscopic Satinsky Vascular Clamp (LSVC) for inflow control in RLH. The Spiegel lobe is the anatomical landmark in LSVC technique. If a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament and the Spiegel lobe was obtained, LSVC was applied laterally from the left side of the hepatoduodenal ligament, whereas LSVC was vertically applied for those with obstruction of a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament. We performed 14 cases of RLH for those with histories of open hepatectomies by lateral (n = 6) and vertical (n = 8) LSVC technique with successful inflow control, confirmed by intraoperative Doppler ultrasound. Five patients underwent 2 or more previous histories of hepatectomies. The RLH included segmentectomy (n = 1), subsegmentectomy (n = 2) and partial hepatectomy (n = 11). The median time for the Pringle maneuver, operative time, and blood loss was 47 min, 237.5 min, and 160 mL. All the patients completed pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. In conclusion, LSVC technique is a safe and reliable technique for the Pringle maneuver in RLH.

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

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

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

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

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

Feasible laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy using double intercostal ports and laparoscopic vascular clamp (with video)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy is a technically challenging procedure owing to adhesions around the liver, causing difficulties in performing hepatic inflow control by conventional tourniquet method [1], and failure in hepatic mobilization [2].

METHOD

Thus, we introduce our technique using double intercostal ports to manipulate the fixed liver under the rib cage and using the laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp to perform hepatic inflow control to overcome the aforementioned concerns in ipsilateral laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after previous open hepatectomy.

VIDEO

The patient, with histories of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and open Segment 7 subsegmentectomy, had recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in the dorsal region of Segment 8. After establishing pneumoperitoneum with five abdominal ports, adhesiolysis around the liver was then performed, followed by identification of the caudal part of Spiegel's lobe as the landmark for the space between the left-side of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the vena cava. Although the space between the right side of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the vena cava was obstructed, the laparoscopic blunt-tip Satinsky vascular clamp successfully was applied on the stiff hepatoduodenal ligament due to previous hepatectomy and made inflow control. Because the liver could not be mobilized at all, double intercostal ports with balloons were introduced [3] for parenchymal resection for exposing the parenchymal resection plane and also to apply the vessel sealing device. A 12-Fr chest tube (Aspiration Kit. Argyle™, Tokyo, Japan) was introduced in the right thoracic cavity as our routine.

RESULTS

The operative time was 243 minutes and the blood loss was 50g. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the day 8.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of intercostal ports and laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp could be significant aids for performing safe ipsilateral laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy, even after previous open hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for treating recurrent liver cancer

Background

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is a technically challenging procedure, so LRH for recurrent liver cancer has not been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to identify and evaluate available data of LRH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) and metastases tumour of liver, especially of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), focusing on the safety and feasibility.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed for all studies published in English evaluating LRH for rHCC and recurrent metastases tumour of liver from 1^st January, 2005 to 1^st June, 2019.

Results

A total of 15 studies which comprised 444 patients and reported outcomes for the efficacy and safety of LRH in the treatment of rHCC or CRLM were included in the present review. Moreover, nine studies compared the perioperative outcomes of LRH versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH). LRH was superior to ORH with reduced blood loss, shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates.

Conclusions

LRH can safely performed in rHCC or CRLM patients with cirrhosis, previous open hepatectomy, multiple recurrent lesions and tumours located in difficult posterosuperior segments.

Analysis of perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic repeat liver resection compared to laparoscopic primary liver resection based on a single surgeon's experience: A 1:2 propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

We report a single surgeon experience with laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR), and analyse short-term outcomes relative to laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR).

METHODS

Two-hundred and twenty-two laparoscopic liver resections were performed from 2012 to 2019 of which 33 were LRLR. 1:2 propensity-score matching was done to compare 32 LRLR with 64 LPLR cohort. We further analyzed the first 16 LRLR cases compared to the subsequent 17 cases.

RESULTS

32 LRLR cases were matched to 64 LPLR cases. Apart from a higher frequency of Pringle maneuver in the LPLR cohort (p = 0.006), there were no differences in other perioperative outcomes. There were more posterosuperior located tumours (75.0% vs 17.6%, p = 0.003) and higher median difficulty score (8.50 vs 5.00, p = 0.025) in the initial 16 LRLR cases compared to the next 17. The earlier group had higher median blood loss (250.00 ml vs 50.00 ml, p = 0.012), but other outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSION

LRLR may be safely performed in selected patients with no difference in key perioperative outcomes compared to LPLR.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma

BACKGROUND

Optimal treatment for patients with hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (HEHE) remains unclear. Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LR) is a minimally invasive and potentially effective surgical option for multiple HEHEs.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 42-year-old woman with no relevant history was admitted for multiple liver tumors. Six tumors were observed on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including one in S2, two in S3, two in S7, and one in S8. Pathological evaluation of percutaneous tumor biopsy tissue suggested a diagnosis of HEHE and laparoscopic LR was planned. The procedure began with partial resection of S7 and partial resection of S8 and left lateral sectionectomy were performed. Another tumor was found intraoperatively on the surface of S6, necessitating removal by partial resection. Pathological evaluation of the resected tumor tissue from all seven tumors concurred with that of the preoperative biopsy. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 6 without any complications. A follow-up MRI 15 months after the primary surgery revealed one tumor each in S4, S6, and S8. Laparoscopic repeat LR was performed. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without any complications. All three recurrent tumors were pathologically confirmed as HEHEs.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully treated primary and recurrent HEHEs with laparoscopic LR, which is a reasonable minimally invasive procedure considering the possibility of multiple courses of liver surgery in patients with HEHE.

Feasibility and efficacy of repeat laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is an acceptable treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, repeat laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has not been widely adopted due to its technical difficulty. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of repeat LLR compared with repeat open liver resection (OLR) for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We performed 42 repeat OLR and 30 repeat LLR for cases of recurrent HCC between January 2007 and March 2018. This study retrospectively compared the patients' clinicopathological characteristics and operative and short-term outcomes including surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups except in terms of Child-Pugh grade. The repeat LLR group had lower median intraoperative blood loss (100 mL vs. 435 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter median postoperative hospital stay (10 days vs. 14.5 days; P = 0.002). The other results including postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. Further, comparison of two subpopulations of the repeat LLR group stratified by previous hepatectomy type (open or laparoscopic) or tumor location (segments 7 and 8 or other) revealed no significant differences in the postoperative clinical characteristics between them, although the morbidity rate tended to be higher in patients who underwent open hepatectomy for primary HCC than in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LLR for recurrent HCC is feasible and useful with good short-term outcomes although an appropriate patient selection seems to be necessary.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy for remnant pancreatic recurrence after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and hepatectomy for greater omentum leiomyosarcoma

Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery is one of the most difficult procedures, and the adoption of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy has been limited. The application of laparoscopic surgery has extended to advance cancer, but there have been no reports of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy after laparoscopic liver resection and distal pancreatectomy. In the present case, a 67-year-old woman was diagnosed with remnant pancreatic recurrence of metastatic greater omentum leiomyosarcoma. She had previously undergone laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy and left lateral liver sectionectomy in 2016. We performed laparoscopic subtotal stomach-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy in June 2017. The operation time was 274 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 50 mL. There were no postoperative complications. In summary, laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy is a safe and feasible procedure for a patient who had previously undergone pancreas and liver surgery.

Novel patient risk factors and validation of a difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

The indications for laparoscopic liver resection have expanded; however, the safety and benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) remain unclear. We retrospectively reviewed data from 137 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy without thoracotomy. We compared patients’ clinical factors using a difficulty scoring system for LRH. We defined factors associated with blood loss volumes in the 75th percentile or above as risk factors for bleeding in open repeat hepatectomy, and determined whether these factors were useful for LRH risk assessment. Open repeat hepatectomy and LRH was performed in 96 and 41 patients, respectively. Four of 41 (9.8%) patients undergoing LRH were converted to laparotomy. Blood loss volume was significantly greater in the intermediate-risk group than in the low-risk group (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of tumours located adjacent and caudal or dorsal to the primary tumour site was an independent risk factor for bleeding in LRH (odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16–8.88, P = 0.024). Our study validated the usefulness of a difficulty scoring system, identified patient factors that predicted the difficulty of LRH, and presented a novel difficulty scoring system for LRH based on an existing difficulty scoring system.

Outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements of surgical instruments and surgeons' experience, laparoscopic liver resection has been applied for recurrent tumors. However, the value of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is still controversial nowadays, which compelled us to conduct this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evidence about the efficacy of LRLR for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed to identify all eligible trials published up to April 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the perioperative data and oncological outcomes of LRLR by compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR). A fixed or random-effect modal was established to collect the data.

RESULTS

A total of 1232 patients were included in this meta-analysis (LRLR: n = 364; ORLR: n = 396; LPLR: n = 472). LRLR did not increase the operative time compared to ORLR (WMD = 15.92 min; 95%CI: -33.53 to 65.37; P = .53). Conversely, LRLR for patients with recurrent tumors was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -187.33 mL; 95%CI: -249.62 to -125.02; P < .00001), lower transfusion requirement (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-1.03; P = .05), fewer major complications (OR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.23-0.76; P = .004), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -2.31; 95%CI: -3.55 to -1.07; P = .0003). In addition, the oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. However, as for the safety of LRLR compared with LPLR, although the operative time in LRLR group was longer than LPLR group (WMD = 58.63 min; 95%CI: 2.99-114.27; P = .04), the blood loss, transfusion rates, R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications, and mortality were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR for recurrent liver cancer could be safe and feasible in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and feasibility of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection: a matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Perioperative outcomes of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCRR) have not been extensively reported.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LCRR from 2010 to 2018 in an expert center were retrieved from a prospectively collected database and compared to 2:1 matched sample. Matching was based on demographics, surgical indication [colorectal cancer (CRC) or benign condition], and type of resection (right-sided resection or left-sided resection or proctectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients underwent repeat LCRR with a median time of 36 months between the primary and the repeat LCRR. They were 12 (52%) men with a mean age of 64.9 years (31-87) and a median BMI of 21.4 kg/m² (17.7-34). Indication for repeat LCRR was CRC, dysplasia, anastomotic stricture, and inflammatory bowel disease in 11 (48%), 5 (22%), 4 (17%), and 3 (13%) patients, respectively. A right-sided resection, a left-sided resection, and proctectomy were reported in 11 (48%), 8 (35%), and 4 (17%) patients, respectively. Median blood loss reached 211 mL (range 0-2000 mL). Thirteen (57%) patients required conversion to laparotomy including 12 for intense adhesions. The median length of hospital stay was 7.5 days (5-20). Two (9%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) were reported: 1 (4%) anastomotic fistula and 1 (4%) postoperative hemorrhage, without mortality. Among patients who underwent repeat LCRR for CRC, histopathological examination showed R0 resection in all patients, with at least 12 lymph nodes harvested in ten (91%) patients. After matched case-control analysis that compared to primary LCRR, conversion rate (p = 0.03), operative time (p = 0.03), and intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.0016) were significantly increased in repeat LCRR, without impact on postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LCRR seems to be feasible and safe in expert hands without compromising the oncologic outcomes. Intense postoperative adhesions and misidentification of blood supply might lead to conversion to laparotomy. Real benefits of laparoscopic approach for repeat LCRR should be assessed in further studies.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is technical challenge for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UAS), especially for those with previous liver resection. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous UAS, in comparison with primary laparoscopic liver resection which means patients without previous upper abdominal surgery (non-UAS).

METHODS

All case-matched articles published from date of inception to 15th April 2018 were identified independently by two reviewers. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were extracted and calculated by random- or fixed-effect models. In addition, subgroup analysis according to patients with history of liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 non-randomized observational articles were included, with 1625 patients (430 patients in UAS group and 1195 in non-UAS group). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients with a history of liver resection, however, LH for patients with previous liver resection had longer operative time comparing with patients without previous liver resection (WMD = 33.03, 95% CI 3.16 to 62.90, P = 0.030); other perioperative outcomes were similar between UAS and non-UAS groups.

CONCLUSION

LH is feasible and safe for selected patients with previous UAS comparing with that of primary resection, although LH has longer operative time for patients with previous liver resection.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy plays a key role in recurrent hepatic tumors. However, it is still unknown whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is suitable for recurrent liver cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH).

METHODS

Several databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Ovid, were retrieved from date of inception to 31st March 2018. All articles comparing LRH and ORH were identified. Tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes including resection type, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications and hospital stay were evaluated. Data were extracted and calculated using random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

A total of seven non-randomized observational clinical articles including 443 patients were analyzed. LRH was associated with significantly lower blood loss (WMD = -389.09, 95% CI -628.34 to -149.84, P = 0.001), transfusion (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.74, P = 0.019) as well as limited hospital stay (WMD = -4.00, 95% CI -6.58 to -1.42, P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in the field of tumor characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis of case-match studies, LRH was associated with significant limited hospital stay, but with significant longer operation time. There were 8 (1.8%, range 0-13.3%) cases of conversion in LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of these limited data, LRH is as feasible and efficient as ORH by expert surgeons in selected patients, whose cancer is resectable at the time of surgery and who have Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection (LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR (LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open (reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.