Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial

The future of liver transplantation

Over the last 50 years, liver transplantation has evolved into a procedure routinely performed in many countries worldwide. Those able to access this therapy frequently experience a miraculous risk-benefit ratio, particularly if they face the imminently life-threatening disease. Over the decades, the success of liver transplantation, with dramatic improvements in early posttransplant survival, has aggressively driven demand. However, despite the emergence of living donors to augment deceased donors as a source of organs, supply has lagged far behind demand. As a result, rationing has been an unfortunate focus in recent decades. Recent shifts in the epidemiology of liver disease combined with transformative innovations in liver preservation suggest that the underlying premise of organ shortage may erode in the foreseeable future. The focus will sharpen on improving equitable access while mitigating constraints related to workforce training, infrastructure for organ recovery and rehabilitation, and their associated costs. Research efforts in liver preservation will undoubtedly blossom with the aim of optimizing both the timing and conditions of transplantation. Coupled with advances in genetic engineering, regenerative biology, and cellular therapies, the portfolio of innovation, both broad and deep, offers the promise that, in the future, liver transplantation will not only be broadly available to those in need but also represent a highly durable life-saving therapy.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center.

METHODS

In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022).

RESULTS

Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs.

DISCUSSION

In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver malignancies (ROC'N'ROLL): a single-centre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded clinical trial

Background

Robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been increasingly adopted for the treatment of liver malignancies despite lacking evidence from randomised trials. We aimed to determine the effect of RH compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on quality of life in patients undergoing minimally invasive hepatectomy for liver malignancies.

Methods

This single-blinded, randomised trial was conducted at a tertiary care academic centre (DRKS00027531). Patients with resectable liver malignancies were assessed for eligibility and randomly assigned to either RH or LH with stratification by type of malignancy and difficulty of resection. Patients were blinded to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the mean quality of life within 90 days after surgery, measured with the role functioning scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included operating time, morbidity, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative recovery, and resection margin status.

Findings

Between February 21, 2022, and Sep 18, 2023, 80 patients (RH: n = 41, LH: n = 39) were included and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Role functioning scores did not differ between RH and LH (mean [SD], 74.3 [23.3] versus 79.6 [22.3]; mean difference -5.3, 95% CI -15.6 to 5.1, p = 0.547). The comprehensive complication index was not significantly different between the study groups (8.9 [23.1] versus 15.5 [23.9], p = 0.137). There were no differences in other perioperative outcomes.

Interpretation

RH yielded similar outcomes in quality of life and can be considered a safe alternative to LH.

Funding

None.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis: an umbrella review

Introduction

This study comprehensively compared laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to open liver resection (OLR) in treating colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM).

Methods

A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes.

Results

Findings indicate that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) did not significantly prolong the duration of surgery compared to open liver resection and notably demonstrated lower blood transfusion rates and reduced intraoperative blood loss. While some studies favored MIS for its lower complication rates, others did not establish a statistically significant difference. One study identified a lower post-operative mortality rate in the MIS group. Furthermore, MIS consistently correlated with shorter hospital stays, indicative of expedited post-operative recovery. Concerning oncological outcomes, while certain meta-analyses reported a lower rate of cancer recurrence in the MIS group, others found no significant disparity. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the MIS and open liver resection groups.

Conclusion

The analysis emphasizes the potential advantages of LLR in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.

Systematic review registration

[website], identifier [registration number].

Technical aspects and learning curve of complex laparoscopic hepatectomy: how we do it

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver surgery has advanced significantly, offering benefits, such as reduced intraoperative complications and quicker recovery. However, complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) is technically demanding, requiring skilled surgeons. This study aims to share technical aspects, insightful tips, and outcomes of CLH at our center, focusing on the safety and learning curve.

METHODS

We reviewed all patients undergoing liver resection at our center from July 2017 to December 2023, focusing on those who underwent CLH. Of 135 laparoscopic liver resections, 63 (46.7%) were CLH. The learning curve of CLH was also assessed through linear and piecewise regression analyses considering the operation time and intraoperative blood loss.

RESULTS

Postoperative complications occurred only in 4.8% of patients, with a 90-day mortality rate of 3.2%. The mean operation time and blood loss significantly decreased after the first 20 operations, marking the learning curve's optimal cut-off. Significant improvements in R0 resection (p = 0.024) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.035) were noted beyond the learning curve threshold.

CONCLUSION

CLH is a safe and effective approach, with a relatively short learning curve of 20 operations. Future large-scale studies should further investigate the impact of surgical experience on CLH outcomes to establish guidelines for training programs.

Challenges and Opportunities for Precision Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases

The incidence of colorectal cancer and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing globally due to an interaction of environmental and genetic factors. A minority of patients with CRLM have surgically resectable disease, but for those who have resection as part of multimodal therapy for their disease, long-term survival has been shown. Precision surgery-the idea of careful patient selection and targeting of surgical intervention, such that treatments shown to be proven to benefit on a population level are the optimal treatment for each individual patient-is the new paradigm of care. Key to this is the understanding of tumour molecular biology and clinically relevant mutations, such as KRAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability (MSI), which can predict poorer overall outcomes and a poorer response to systemic therapy. The emergence of immunotherapy and hepatic artery infusion (HAI) pumps show potential to convert previously unresectable disease to resectable disease, in addition to established systemic and locoregional therapies, but the surgeon must be wary of poor-quality livers and the spectre of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Volume modulation, a cornerstone of hepatic surgery for a generation, has been given a shot in the arm with the advent of liver venous depletion (LVD) ensuring significantly more hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). The optimal timing of liver resection for those patients with synchronous disease is yet to be truly established, but evidence would suggest that those patients requiring complex colorectal surgery and major liver resection are best served with a staged approach. In the operating room, parenchyma-preserving minimally invasive surgery (MIS) can dramatically reduce the surgical insult to the patient and lead to better perioperative outcomes, with quicker return to function.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on short-term outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score matched and coarsened exact matched study

BACKGROUND

In the last three decades, minimally invasive liver resection has been replacing conventional open approach in liver surgery. More recently, developments in neoadjuvant chemotherapy have led to increased multidisciplinary management of colorectal liver metastases with both medical and surgical treatment modalities. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections remains poorly understood.

METHODS

A multicenter, international, database of 4998 minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases was used to compare surgical outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone. To correct for baseline imbalance, propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed.

RESULTS

2546 patients met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching there were 759 patients in both groups and 383 patients in both groups after coarsened exact matching. Baseline characteristics were equal after both matching strategies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with statistically significant worse surgical outcomes of minimally invasive minor hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no statistically significant impact on short-term surgical outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

Consideration of Metastasis-Directed Therapy for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Expert Survey and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A survey of medical oncologists (MOs), radiation oncologists (ROs), and surgical oncologists (SOs) who are experts in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was conducted to identify factors used to consider metastasis-directed therapy (MDT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey to assess clinical factors when weighing MDT in patients with mCRC was developed based on systematic review of the literature and integrated with clinical vignettes. Supporting evidence from the systematic review was included to aid in answering questions.

RESULTS

Among 75 experts on mCRC invited, 47 (response rate 62.7%) chose to participate including 16 MOs, 16 ROs, and 15 SOs. Most experts would not consider MDT in patients with 3 lesions in both the liver and lung regardless of distribution or timing of metastatic disease diagnosis (6 vs. 36 months after definitive treatment). Similarly, for patients with retroperitoneal lymph node and lung and liver involvement, most experts would not offer MDT regardless of timing of metastatic disease diagnosis. In general, SOs were willing to consider MDT in patients with more advanced disease, ROs were more willing to offer treatment regardless of metastatic site location, and MOs were the least likely to consider MDT.

CONCLUSIONS

Among experts caring for patients with mCRC, significant variation was noted among MOs, ROs, and SOs in the distribution and volume of metastatic disease for which MDT would be considered. This variability highlights differing opinions on management of these patients and underscores the need for well-designed prospective randomized trials to characterize the risks and potential benefits of MDT.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemihepatectomy: The ORANGE II PLUS Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes after laparoscopic versus open major liver resection (hemihepatectomy) mainly for primary or metastatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was time to functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, quality of life (QoL), and for those with cancer, resection margin status and time to adjuvant systemic therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, patient-blinded, superiority trial on adult patients undergoing hemihepatectomy. Patients were recruited from 16 hospitals in Europe between November 2013 and December 2018.

RESULTS

Of the 352 randomly assigned patients, 332 patients (94.3%) underwent surgery (laparoscopic, n = 166 and open, n = 166) and comprised the analysis population. The median time to functional recovery was 4 days (IQR, 3-5; range, 1-30) for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy versus 5 days (IQR, 4-6; range, 1-33) for open hemihepatectomy (difference, -17.5% [96% CI, -25.6 to -8.4]; P < .001). There was no difference in major complications (laparoscopic 24/166 [14.5%] v open 28/166 [16.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; P = .58). Regarding QoL, both global health status (difference, 3.2 points; P < .001) and body image (difference, 0.9 points; P < .001) scored significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. For the 281 (84.6%) patients with cancer, R0 resection margin status was similar (laparoscopic 106 [77.9%] v open 122 patients [84.1%], OR, 0.60; P = .14) with a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy in the laparoscopic group (46.5 days v 62.8 days, hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .009).

CONCLUSION

Among patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a shorter time to functional recovery compared with open surgery. In addition, it was associated with a better QoL, and in patients with cancer, a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy with no adverse impact on cancer outcomes observed.

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

The current application and evidence for robotic approach in abdominal surgery: A narrative literature review

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Contemporary Surgical Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in the United States and the second most common cause of cancer-related death. Approximately 20-30% of patients will develop hepatic metastasis in the form of synchronous or metachronous disease. The treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has evolved into a multidisciplinary approach, with chemotherapy and a variety of locoregional treatments, such as ablation and portal vein embolization, playing a crucial role. However, resection remains a core tenet of management, serving as the gold standard for a curative-intent therapy. As such, the input of a dedicated hepatobiliary surgeon is paramount for appropriate patient selection and choice of surgical approach, as significant advances in the field have made management decisions extremely nuanced and complex. We herein aim to review the contemporary surgical management of colorectal liver metastasis with respect to both perioperative and operative considerations.

Resection Versus Transplant for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How to Offer the Best Modality

Liver resection and liver transplantation are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Patient comorbidities, tumor resectability, and perioperative morbidity and mortality risk, specifically of post-hepatectomy liver failure, are determining factors when deciding between liver resection and liver transplantation in patients who do not have an obvious contraindication to either treatment. Liver resection is preferred in patients without cirrhosis, and it may be a reasonable choice in patient with cirrhosis but preserved liver function and no portal hypertension if the size and function of the future liver remnant are appropriate, especially if organ availability is scarce.

Prognosis and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy for BCLC stage 0/A hepatocellular carcinoma with clinically significant portal hypertension: a multicenter, propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The latest Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system suggests considering surgery in patients with resectable BCLC stage 0/A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy for BCLC stage 0/A HCC patients with CSPH.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 647 HCC patients in BCLC stage 0/A who were treated at five centers between January 2010 and January 2019. Among these patients, 434 underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy, and 213 underwent open hepatectomy. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to compare the overall survival (OS) rate and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate between patients with and without CSPH before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to identify prognostic factors for BCLC stage 0/A patients, and subgroup analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

Among the 434 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy, 186 had CSPH and 248 did not. The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the OS and RFS rates were significantly worse in the CSPH group before and after PSM. Multivariate Cox regression analyses identified CSPH as a prognostic factor for poor OS and RFS after laparoscopic hepatectomy. However, CSPH patients treated laparoscopically had a better short- and long-term prognosis than those treated with open surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

CSPH has a negative impact on the prognosis of BCLC stage 0/A HCC patients after laparoscopic hepatectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is still recommended for treatment, but careful patient selection is essential.

Impact of complexity in minimally invasive liver surgery on enhanced recovery measures: prospective study

BACKGROUND

Adherence to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols is crucial for successful liver surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of minimally invasive liver surgery complexity on adherence after implementing an ERAS protocol.

METHODS

Between July 2018 and August 2021, a prospective observational study involving minimally invasive liver surgery patients was conducted. Perioperative treatment followed ERAS guidelines and was recorded in the ERAS interactive audit system. Kruskal-Wallis and ANOVA tests were used for analysis, and pairwise comparisons utilized Wilcoxon rank sum and Welch's t-tests, adjusted using Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

A total of 243 patients were enrolled and categorized into four groups based on the Iwate criteria: low (n = 17), intermediate (n = 81), advanced (n = 74) and expert difficulty (n = 71). Complexity correlated with increased overall and major morbidity rate, as well as longer length of stay (all P < 0.001; standardized mean difference = 0.036, 0.451, 0.543 respectively). Adherence to ERAS measures decreased with higher complexity (P < 0.001). Overall adherence was 65.4%. Medical staff-centred adherence was 79.9%, while patient-centred adherence was 38.9% (P < 0.001). Complexity significantly affected patient-centred adherence (P < 0.001; standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.420), but not medical staff-centred adherence (P = 0.098; SMD = 0.315). Postoperative phase adherence showed major differences among complexity groups (P < 0.001, SMD = 0.376), with mobilization measures adhered to less in higher complexity cases.

CONCLUSION

The complexity of minimally invasive liver surgery procedures impacts ERAS protocol adherence for each patient. This can be addressed using complexity-adjusted cut-offs and 'gradual adherence' based on the relative proportion of cut-off values achieved.

Minimal Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multicenter German StuDoQ|Liver Registry-Based Cohort Analysis in Germany

Objective

To compare the outcome of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) to open liver surgery (OLS) for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) on a nationwide level.

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignancy worldwide. Up to 50% of all patients with colorectal cancer develop CRLM. MILS represents an attractive alternative to OLS for treatment of CRLM.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study using the prospectively recorded German Quality management registry for liver surgery. Propensity-score matching was performed to account for variance in the extent of resection and patient demographics.

Results

In total, 1037 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM from 2019 to 2021. MILS was performed in 31%. Operative time was significantly longer in MILS (234 vs 222 minutes, P = 0.02) compared with OLS. After MILS, median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter (7 vs 10 days; P < 0.001). Despite 76% of major resections being OLS, postoperative complications and 90-day morbidity and mortality did not differ. The Pringle maneuver was more frequently used in MILS (48% vs 40%, P = 0.048). After propensity-score matching for age, body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and extent of resection, LOS remained shorter in the MILS cohort (6 vs 10 days, P < 0.001) and operative time did not differ significantly (P = 0.2).

Conclusion

MILS is not the standard for resection of CRLM in Germany. Drawbacks, such as a longer operative time remain. However, if technically possible, MILS is a reasonable alternative to OLS for resection of CRLM, with comparable postoperative complications, reduced LOS, and equal oncological radicality.

Operative and Hepatic Function Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liver resection is a pivotal treatment for various liver diseases, and the choice between laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) methods is debatable. This study aims to compare their respective complications and hepatic outcomes comprehensively, providing critical insights to guide clinical decisions and optimize patient results. We conducted a comprehensive review across PubMed, SCOPUS, WOS, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) liver resections were included. Data screening, extraction, and quality assessments utilized the Risk of Bias (ROB-2). We conducted our analysis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) software, and the data were presented as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our comprehensive research yielded 3,192 relevant records, and 9 RCTs were finally included. LR exhibited reduced operative bleeding (MD = -82.87 ml, 95% CI: -132.45 to -33.30, P=0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD = -2.32 days, 95% CI: -3.65 to -0.98, P=0.0007). The risk of complications was significantly lower in the LR group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76, P<0.0001), especially in Clavian-Dindo classification degree 1 and 2 complications (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.79, P=0.005). LR patients also had lower postoperative AST levels at one day (MD = -123.16 U/L, 95% CI: -206.08 to -40.24, P=0.004) and three days (MD = -35.95 U/L, 95% CI: -65.83 to -6.06, P=0.02). These findings underscore LR's superiority, emphasizing its potential to significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce complications, and improve recovery in liver resection procedures.

Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A National Registry-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative inflammatory markers were shown to be associated with prognosis following surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer. Yet little evidence exists about their role in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aimed to examine the association between selected preoperative inflammatory markers and outcomes of liver resection for CRLM.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian National Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NORGAST) was used to capture all liver resections performed in Norway within the study period (November 2015-April 2021). Preoperative inflammatory markers were Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR). The impact of these on postoperative outcomes, as well as on survival were studied.

RESULTS

Liver resections for CRLM were performed in 1442 patients. Preoperative GPS ≥ 1 and mGPS ≥ 1 were present in 170 (11.8%) and 147 (10.2%) patients, respectively. Both were associated with severe complications but became non-significant in the multivariable model. GPS, mGPS, CAR were significant predictors for overall survival in the univariable analysis, but only CAR remained such in the multivariable model. When stratified by the type of surgical approach, CAR was a significant predictor for survival after open but not laparoscopic liver resections.

CONCLUSIONS

GPS, mGPS and CAR have no impact on severe complications after liver resection for CRLM. CAR outperforms GPS and mGPS in predicting overall survival in these patients, especially following open resections. The prognostic significance of CAR in CRLM should be tested against other clinical and pathology parameters relevant for prognosis.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the difficulty and outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic major liver resections for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score and coarsened exact-matched controlled study

BACKGROUND

Minimal invasive liver resections are a safe alternative to open surgery. Different scoring systems considering different risks factors have been developed to predict the risks associated with these procedures, especially challenging major liver resections (MLR). However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) on the difficulty of minimally invasive MLRs remains poorly investigated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic MLRs for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) performed across 57 centers between January 2005 to December 2021 were included in this analysis. Patients who did or did not receive NAT were matched based on 1:1 coarsened exact and 1:2 propensity-score matching. Pre- and post-matching comparisons were performed.

RESULTS

In total, the data of 5189 patients were reviewed. Of these, 1411 procedures were performed for CRLM, and 1061 cases met the inclusion criteria. After excluding 27 cases with missing data on NAT, 1034 patients (NAT: n = 641; non-NAT: n = 393) were included. Before matching, baseline characteristics were vastly different. Before matching, the morbidity rate was significantly higher in the NAT-group (33.2% vs. 27.2%, p-value = 0.043). No significant differences were seen in perioperative outcomes after the coarsened exact matching. After the propensity-score matching, statistically significant higher blood loss (mean, 300 (SD 128-596) vs. 250 (SD 100-400) ml, p-value = 0.047) but shorter hospital stay (mean, 6 [4-8] vs. 6 [5-9] days, p-value = 0.043) were found in the NAT-group.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrated that NAT had minimal impact on the difficulty and outcomes of minimally-invasive MLR for CRLM.

Predictors of recurrence following laparoscopic minor hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in the UK

AIMS

Minor hepatectomy, which is increasingly carried out laparoscopically (LLR), is a cornerstone of curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The majority of relevant publications however originate from regions with endemic viral hepatitis. Although the incidence of HCC in the UK is increasing, little is known about outcomes following LLR.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing minor (involving ≤2 segments) LLR or open resection (OLR) at our institute between 2014 and 2021 were compared. Selection from a plethora of factors potentially impacting on overall (OS) and disease free survival (DFS) was optimised with Lasso regression. To enable analysis of patients having repeat resection, multivariate frailty modelling was utilised to calculate hazard ratios (HR).

RESULTS

The analysis of 111 liver resections included 55 LLR and 56 OLR. LLR was associated with a shorter hospital stay (5 ± 2 vs. 7 ± 2 days; p < 0.001) and a lower comprehensive complication index (4.43 vs. 9.96; p = 0.006). Mean OS (52.3 ± 2.3 vs. 49.9 ± 3.0 months) and DFS (33.9 ± 3.4 vs. 36.5 ± 3.6 months; p = 0.59) were comparable between LLR and OLR, respectively (median not reached). Presence of mixed cholangiocarcinoma/HCC, satellite lesions and AFP level predicted OS and DFS. In addition tumour size was predictive of DFS.

CONCLUSIONS

In the studied population minor LLR was associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer complications while offering non-inferior long-term outcomes. A number of predictors for disease free survival have been elucidated that may aid in identifying patients with a high risk of disease recurrence and need for further treatment.

Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis in the Ukrainian State Center

Background Minimally invasive liver resections for metastatic colorectal cancer have been increasingly performed all over the world with promising results. We planned the current study to review our experience on this matter and compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM). Materials and methods This is a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM who underwent laparoscopic (n=86) and open (n=96) surgical treatment for metastatic liver lesions between March 2016 and November 2022. Tumor characteristics, intra- and postoperative results, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed and compared. Results LLR was associated with significantly shorter surgery duration (180 minutes versus 295 minutes, p=0.03). There was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (100 mL versus 350 mL, p=0.061). Additionally, the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (6 days versus 9 days, p=0.004). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3) was lower in the LLR group (5.8% versus 16.6%, p=0.037). There was no mortality in the LLR group, and in the OLR group, one lethal case was induced by mesenteric thrombosis on the fifth postoperative day. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the OS rate between the two groups at one, three, and five years: 97.3%, 74.7%, and 43.4%, respectively, in the OLR group and 95.1%, 70.3%, and 49.5%, respectively, in the LLR group (p=0.53). DFS at one, three, and five years were 88.7%, 52.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the LLR group and 71.9%, 53.1%, and 19.3%, respectively, in the OLR group (p=0.66). Conclusions This study showed that laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective method of CRLM treatment in our center. LLR was associated with a decrease in major morbidity, shorter surgery duration, and reduced postoperative hospital stay. Minimally invasive liver resections showed similar oncological outcomes to the open approach in terms of overall and disease-free survival.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

Pushing the Limits of Surgical Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: How Far Can We Go?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and up to 50% of all patients diagnosed will develop metastatic disease. Management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has been constantly improving, aided by newer and more effective chemotherapy agents and the use of multidisciplinary teams. However, the only curative treatment remains surgical resection of the CRLM. Although survival for surgically resected patients has shown modest improvement, this is mostly because of the fact that what is constantly evolving is the indication for resection. Surgeons are constantly pushing the limits of what is considered resectable or not, thus enhancing and enlarging the pool of patients who can be potentially benefited and even cured with aggressive surgical procedures. There are a variety of procedures that have been developed, which range from procedures to stimulate hepatic growth, such as portal vein embolization, two-staged hepatectomy, or the association of both, to technically challenging procedures such as simultaneous approaches for synchronous metastasis, ex-vivo or in-situ perfusion with total vascular exclusion, or even liver transplant. This article reviewed the major breakthroughs in liver surgery for CRLM, showing how much has changed and what has been achieved in the field of CRLM.

Impact of shifting from laparoscopic to robotic surgery during 600 minimally invasive pancreatic and liver resections

BACKGROUND

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

METHODS

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

RESULTS

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Hepatic Resection in Patients with Colo-Rectal Liver Metastases: Surgical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Single-Center Experience

Introduction: Surgical resection has a fundamental role in increasing the chance of survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases. The guidelines have been modified and expanded in time in order to increase the number of patients that can benefit from this treatment. The aim of this study is to analyze the main prognostic factors related to overall and disease-free survival of a series of consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM between April 2018 and September 2021 was performed. Clinical data and laboratory parameters were evaluated using the log-rank test. OS and DFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A retrospective study on 75 patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM was performed. The OS and DFS at 1 and 3 years were 84.3% and 63.8% for OS, 55.6% and 30.7% for DFS, respectively. From the analysis of the data, the most significant results indicate that: patients with a lower CEA value <25 ng/mL had an OS of 93.6% and 80.1% at 1 and 3 years, with an average of 36.7 months (CI 95% 33.1–40.3); moreover, patients with a value equal to or greater than 25 ng/mL had a 1-year survival equal to 57.4%, with an average of 13.8 months (CI 95% 9.4–18.2) (p < 0.001); adjuvant chemotherapy increases by 3 years the overall survival (OS: 68.6% vs. 49.7%) (p = 0.013); localization of the primary tumor affects OS, with a better prognosis for left colon metastases (OS at 42 months: 85.4% vs. 42.2%) (p value = 0.056); patients with stage T1 or T2 cancer have a better 3 years OS (92.9–100% vs. 49.7–56.3%) (p = 0.696), while the N0 stage results in both higher 3 years OS and DFS than the N + stages (OS: 87.5% vs. 68.5% vs. 24.5%); metachronous metastases have a higher 3 years OS than synchronous ones (80% vs. 47.4%) (p = 0.066); parenchymal sparing resections have a better 3 years DFS than anatomical ones (33.7% vs. 0%) (p = 0.067); a patient with a parenchymal R1 resection has a much worse prognosis than an R0 (3 years OS: 0% vs. 68.7%) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: CEA value of less than 25 ng/mL, localization of the primary tumor in the left colon, primary tumor in stage T1/2 and N0, metachronous presentation, R0 resection, fewer than four metastases, and use of adjuvant chemotherapy are all parameters that in our analysis have shown a correlation with a better prognosis; moreover, the evaluation of the series is in line with the latest evidence in the literature in defining the non-inferiority of minimally invasive and parenchymal sparing treatment compared to the classic laparotomic approach with anatomic resection.

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM.

METHODS

Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input.

SAGES/AHPBA guidelines for the use of minimally invasive surgery for the surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM)

BACKGROUND

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) occur in roughly half of patients with colorectal cancer. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has become an increasingly acceptable and utilized technique for resection in these patients, but there is a lack of specific guidelines on the use of MIS hepatectomy in this setting. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations regarding the decision between MIS and open techniques for the resection of CRLM.

METHODS

Systematic review was conducted for two key questions (KQ) regarding the use of MIS versus open surgery for the resection of isolated liver metastases from colon and rectal cancer. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Additionally, the panel developed recommendations for future research.

RESULTS

The panel addressed two KQs, which pertained to staged or simultaneous resection of resectable colon or rectal metastases. The panel made conditional recommendations for the use of MIS hepatectomy for both staged and simultaneous resection when deemed safe, feasible, and oncologically effective by the surgeon based on the individual patient characteristics. These recommendations were based on low and very low certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

These evidence-based recommendations should provide guidance regarding surgical decision-making in the treatment of CRLM and highlight the importance of individual considerations of each case. Pursuing the identified research needs may help further refine the evidence and improve future versions of guidelines for the use of MIS techniques in the treatment of CRLM.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Long-term oncological outcomes for HALS/Hybrid vs pure laparoscopic approach in colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS)/Hybrid and pure laparoscopic (PLS) resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis have focused on short-term results, while long-term oncological outcomes remain understudied.

METHODS

We established a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study from four centers with experience in minimally invasive surgery between 2004 and 2020. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Other endpoints analyzed were intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize baseline differences.

RESULTS

A total of 219 HALS/Hybrid (57.8%) and 160 PLS (42.2%) patients were included. After PSM, 155 patients remained in each group. Operative time (182 vs. 248 min, p = 0.012), use of intraoperative ablation (12.3 vs. 4.5%, p = 0.024), positive resection margin (4.5 vs 13.2%, p = 0.012), and pringle time (21 vs. 37 min, p = 0.001) were higher in PLS group. DFS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 65.4%, 39.3%, 37.5%, and 36.3% vs. 64.9%, 38.0%, 33.1%, and 33.1%, respectively (p = 0.84). OS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 94.5%, 71.4%, 54.3%, and 46.0% vs. 96.0%, 68.5%, 51.2%, and 41.2%, respectively (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests no differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between the two techniques. We discovered that longer total operative, pringle time, higher rates of intraoperative ablation, and positive resection margins were associated with PLS. These differences in favor of HALS/Hybrid could be due to a shorter learning curve and a greater ability to control hemorrhage.

Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization

BACKGROUND

Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified.

METHODS

The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented.

RESULTS

In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries.

CONCLUSION

Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

Neuraxial anesthesia in hepato-pancreatic-bilio surgery: a first western pilot study of 46 patients

The most common anesthetic approach in hepato-pancreatic-biliary (HPB) surgery is general anesthesia (GA), but it may result in increased morbidity and mortality and peri-operative risks especially in frail patients. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of neuraxial anesthesia (NA) in HPB in a pilot clinical series. This analysis was conducted on 46 consecutive patients undergoing HPB surgery in an Italian Tertial referral center. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. continuous spinal anesthesia (CSA), combined spino-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and peridural anesthesia (PA) were used in major and minor hepatectomies and bilio-pancreatic surgery instead of GA. NA was evaluated by analyzing the surgical and anesthesiological short-term outcomes. 46 patients were considered eligible for the study between February 2018 and May 2020. The average age was 69.07 (±  9.95) years. 22 were males and 24 were females. According to the ASA score, 19 (41.30%) patients had ASA II, 22 (47.83%) had ASA III and 5 (10.87%) had ASA IV. 22 (47.83%) patients underwent CSA, 20 (43.48%) CSEA and 4 (8.69%) PA. We performed 8 major and 19 minor hepatectomies, 7 bilio-digestive derivations, 5 Whipple procedures, 4 iatrogenic biliary duct injuries, 2 splenopancreatectomies and 1 hepatic cyst fenestration. Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 was observed in 3 patients. The conversion rate to endotracheal intubation occurring in 3 of 46 (6.52%) patients. After surgery, no local or pulmonary complications and delirium were reported in our series. The present study demonstrates that NA is a safe and feasible option in selected patients, if performed in referral centers by well-trained anaesthesiologists and surgeons.

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection for large (≥ 50 mm) colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, patients with large liver tumors (≥ 50 mm) have been considered for anatomic major hepatectomy. Laparoscopic resection of large liver lesions is technically challenging and often performed by surgeons with extensive experience. The current study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic safety of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection in patients with large colorectal metastases.

METHODS

Patients who primarily underwent laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (less than 3 consecutive liver segments) for colorectal liver metastases between 1999 and 2019 at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. In some recent cases, a computer-assisted surgical planning system was used to better visualize and understand the patients' liver anatomy, as well as a tool to further improve the resection strategy. The surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with large (≥ 50 mm) and small (< 50 mm) tumors were compared. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for survival.

RESULTS

In total 587 patients met the inclusion criteria (large tumor group, n = 59; and small tumor group, n = 528). Median tumor size was 60 mm (range, 50-110) in the large tumor group and 21 mm (3-48) in the small tumor group (p < 0.001). Patient age and CEA level were higher in the large tumor group (8.4 μg/L vs. 4.6 μg/L, p < 0.001). Operation time and conversion rate were similar, while median blood loss was higher in the large tumor group (500 ml vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001). Patients in the large tumor group had shorter 5 year overall survival (34% vs 49%, p = 0.027). However, in the multivariable Cox-regression analysis tumor size did not impact survival, unlike parameters such as age, ASA score, CEA level, extrahepatic disease at liver surgery, and positive lymph nodes in the primary tumor.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resections for large colorectal liver metastases provide satisfactory short and long-term outcomes.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations 2022

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been widely applied in liver surgery since the publication of the first ERAS guidelines in 2016. The aim of the present article was to update the ERAS guidelines in liver surgery using a modified Delphi method based on a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A modified Delphi method including 15 international experts was used. Consensus was judged to be reached when >80% of the experts agreed on the recommended items. Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system.

RESULTS

A total of 7541 manuscripts were screened, and 240 articles were finally included. Twenty-five recommendation items were elaborated. All of them obtained consensus (>80% agreement) after 3 Delphi rounds. Nine items (36%) had a high level of evidence and 16 (64%) a strong recommendation grade. Compared to the first ERAS guidelines published, 3 novel items were introduced: prehabilitation in high-risk patients, preoperative biliary drainage in cholestatic liver, and preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation at least 4 weeks before hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines based on the best available evidence allow standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver surgery. Specific studies on hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients following an ERAS program are still needed.

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Indications, trends, and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive and open liver surgery in non-obese and obese patients: An international multicentre propensity score matched retrospective cohort study of 9963 patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the worldwide increase of both obesity and the use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), evidence regarding the safety and eventual benefits of MILS in obese patients is scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the outcomes of non-obese and obese patients (BMI 18.5-29.9 and BMI≥30, respectively) undergoing MILS and OLS, and to assess trends in MILS use among obese patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients operated at 20 hospitals in eight countries (2009-2019) were included and the characteristics and outcomes of non-obese and obese patients were compared. Thereafter, the outcomes of MILS and OLS were compared in both groups after propensity-score matching (PSM). Changes in the adoption of MILS during the study period were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 9963 patients were included (MILS: n = 4687; OLS: n = 5276). Compared to non-obese patients (n = 7986), obese patients(n = 1977) were more often comorbid, less often received preoperative chemotherapy or had a history of previous hepatectomy, had longer operation durations and more intraoperative blood loss (IOBL), paralleling significantly higher rates of wound- and respiratory-related complications. After PSM, MILS, compared to OLS, was associated, among both non-obese and obese patients, with less IOBL (200 ml vs 320 ml, 200 ml vs 400 ml, respectively), lower rates of transfusions (6.6% vs 12.8%, 4.7% vs 14.7%), complications (26.1% vs 35%, 24.9% vs 34%), bile leaks(4% vs 7%, 1.8% vs 4.9%), liver failure (0.7% vs 2.3%, 0.2% vs 2.1%), and a shorter length of stay(5 vs 7 and 4 vs 7 days). A cautious implementation of MILS over time in obese patients (42.1%-53%, p < .001) was paralleled by stable severe morbidity (p = .433) and mortality (p = .423) rates, despite an accompanying gradual increase in surgical complexity.

CONCLUSIONS

MILS is increasingly adopted and associated with perioperative benefits in both non-obese and obese patients.

Postoperative complications predict poor outcomes only in patients with a low modified clinical score after resection of colorectal liver metastases: a retrospective cohort study

The aim was to identify the optimal criteria of postoperative complications (POCs) for predicting oncological outcomes after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) and to investigate the variable prognostic implications of POCs according to the modified clinical score (M-CS). We identified 751 patients who underwent curative hepatic resection for CRLM between 2007 and 2018. Patients were categorized based on the M-CS. The impact of the severity [≥ Clavien-Dindo grade (C-D) III or comprehensive complication index (CCI) ≥ 26.2] or type [any infectious complications of POC (Inf-poc)] of POC on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) was assessed by univariate and multivariable analyses in different groups. Patients with a major or infectious complication were not associated with either RFS or OS in multivariable analysis of the whole cohort. However, patients with a high CCI had a worse OS (HR 1.51, P = 0.004). Among patients with low M-CS, patients with high CCI had worse OS (HR 1.49, P = 0.035) and RFS (HR 1.32, P = 0.048) than those without high CCI. In contrast, the survival disadvantage of a high CCI was not present in patients with a high M-CS. Compared to Inf-poc or major complications, a high CCI decreased long-term OS in patients treated with hepatectomy for CRLM. High CCI has a variable prognostic impact after hepatic resection for CRLM depending on the M-CS. POC is not a decisive factor to justify the use of hepatectomy for CRLM in patients with high M-CS.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

Assessment of Factors Associated with Morbidity and Textbook Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Obese Patients: A French Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Liver surgeons need to know the expected outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in obese patients.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study is to assess morbidity, mortality and textbook outcomes (TO) after LLR in obese patients.

METHODS

This is a French multicenter study of patients undergoing LLR between 1996 and 2018. Obesity was defined by a BMI at or above 30 kg/m 2 . Short-term outcomes and TO were compared between obese (ob) and nonobese (non-ob) patients. Factors associated with severe morbidity and TO were investigated.

RESULTS

Of 3,154 patients included, 616 (19.5%) were obese. Ob-group patients had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and higher incidence of metabolic syndrome and chronic liver disease and were less likely to undergo major hepatectomy. Mortality rates were similar between ob and non-ob groups (0.8 vs 1.1%; p = 0.66). Overall morbidity and hospital stay were significantly increased in the ob group compared with the non-ob group (39.4 vs 34.7%, p = 0.03; and 9.5 vs 8.6 days, p = 0.02), whereas severe 90-day morbidity (at or above Clavien-Dindo grade III) was similar between groups (8% in both groups; p = 0.90). TO rate was significantly lower for the ob group than the non-ob group (58.3 vs 63.7%; p = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, obesity did not emerge as a risk factor for severe 90-day morbidity but was associated with a lower TO rate after LLR (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR in obese patients is safe and effective with acceptable mortality and morbidity. Obesity had no impact on severe morbidity but was a factor for failing to achieve TO after LLR.

Minimally Invasive Pancreatoduodenectomy: Contemporary Practice, Evidence, and Knowledge Gaps

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy has gained popularity throughout the last decade. For laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, some high-level evidence exists, but with conflicting results. There are currently no published randomized controlled trials comparing robotic and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Comparative long-term data for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is lacking to date. Based on the existing evidence, current observed benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy over open pancreatoduodenectomy seem scarce, but retrospective data indicate the safety of these procedures in selected patients. As familiarity with the robotic platform increases, studies have shown an expansion in indications, also including patients with vascular involvement and even indicating favorable results in patients with obesity and high-risk morphometric features. Several ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to investigate potential differences in short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open pancreatoduodenectomy. Their results are much awaited.

Laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe liver resections: a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide use of laparoscopy for liver resection, laparoscopic caudate lobe resections(L-CLR) remain technically challenging, only attempted by experts in the field. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-CLR with O-CLR based on our single institution experience in a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2020, 67 consecutive patients who underwent CLR at Singapore General Hospital were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resections(O-CLR) was performed in a 1:2 ratio with no replacements using nearest neighbour matching method.

RESULTS

L-CLR was associated with a significantly decreased median blood loss (150 mL versus 500 mL, P = 0.001) and a decreased median post-operative stay (3 days versus 7.5 days, P = <0.01) in the unmatched cohorts. After 1:2 propensity score matching, these results were again demonstrated with a significantly lower blood loss (150 mL versus 400 mL, P = 0.016) and a shorter postoperative stay (3 days versus 7 days, P = <0.01) in favour of L-CLR. 30-day readmission and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) rates were all in favour of L-CLR as well but could not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

L-CLR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter perioperative stay compared to O-CLR.

Pure laparoscopic vs. hand-assisted liver surgery for segments 7 and 8: propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection of tumors located in segments 7 and 8 are considered a complex resection. The aim of this study was to compare the intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes of patients operated by pure laparoscopic (PLS) vs hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS).

METHODS

From January 2003 to January 2021, we included patients with minimally invasive surgery for lesions located in segments 7 and 8. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) between HALS and PLS cohorts, including 30 patients in each of the groups. Of the 60 patients who underwent PSM, we compared the first 30 patients with the following 30 patients.

RESULTS

A total of 79 LLRs were performed, 46 by HALS and 33 by PLS. After PSM, in the PLS cohort, cirrhosis was more frequent (33.3% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02). The surgical time, blood loss, Pringle maneuver, clamping time, and morbidity were similar between both groups, but with a lower hospital stay in the PLS group (3 days vs. 4 days, p < 0.01). In the first 30 patients who underwent LLR, the use of PLS was lower than the use of HALS, increasing due to the learning curve (16.7% in the first period vs. 83.3% in the second period; p < 0.01). The hospital stay was lower in the second period due to the more frequent use of PLS (3 vs. 4 days, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

PLS presents similar intraoperative and early postoperative results with lower hospital stay for lesions located in segments 7 and 8 compared to HALS. In centers with experience in LLRs, PLS could be performed safely in these segments.

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.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.