Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy: a multicenter, propensity score-matched report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes

Caudate lobe and posterosuperior segment hepatectomy using the robotic approach. Outcome analysis of liver resection in difficult locations

BACKGROUND

Caudate and posterosuperior hepatectomy are technically challenging resections, especially in a minimally invasive approach. We aimed to analyze the outcomes of isolated caudate resection (ICR), en-bloc caudate resection with right/left hepatic lobectomy (ECR), and posterosuperior segment resection (PSR) using our institutional database.

METHODS

Following IRB approval, we prospectively followed 500 consecutive patients between 2013 and 2023 who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Posterosuperior segments include segment 4 ​A, 7, and 8. The data are presented as median (mean ​± ​standard deviation).

RESULTS

Of the 500 patients included in this study, 19 (4 ​%) underwent ICR, 65 (13 ​%) underwent ECR, and 131 (26 ​%) patients underwent PSR. ECR was associated with significantly longer operative time, increased EBL, and longer LOS when compared with those of ICR and PSR. The patients who underwent ICR had the shortest operation duration, lowest EBL, and shortest LOS compared to ECR and PSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection of liver tumors located in difficult segments is safe and feasible with excellent clinical and oncological outcomes. With appropriate expertise, a minimally invasive approach to those operations should not be avoided.

Laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation for caudate lobe solitary hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of the hepatic caudate lobe.

METHODS

Patients with hepatic caudate lobe HCC who underwent LLR or RFA at three hospitals in China between February 2015 and February 2021 were included. In total, 112 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 52 underwent RFA and 60 underwent LLR. The outcomes of the two groups were compared and analyzed using propensity score matching (PSM) method.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of sex, HBV/HCV positivity, AFP positivity (>100 ng/mL), tumor position, Child-Pugh score, or preoperative liver function tests (ALT, AST, TBIL, ALB, and PT) (p > 0.05). Compared to the LLR group, the RFA group had a shorter operation time, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in overall postoperative complications between the two groups (p > 0.05). Despite the larger tumor size, the LLR group had better postoperative recurrence-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.00027) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0023) than the RFA group. After one-to-one PSM, 31 LLR patients and 31 RFA patients were selected for further analyses. The advantages of LLR over RFA were observed in terms of RFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.00029).

CONCLUSION

LLR should probably be recommended as the preferred method for solitary caudate lobe HCC.

The value of total caudate lobe resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) is widely considered to have a poor prognosis. In particular, combined caudate lobe resection (CLR) as a strategy for radical resection in HCCA is important for improving the R0 resection rate. However, the criteria for R0 resection, necessity of CLR, optimal extent of hepatic resection, and surgical approach are still controversial. This review aimed to summarize the findings and discuss the controversies surrounding CLR. Numerous clinical studies have shown that combined CLR treatment for HCCA improves the R0 resection rate and postoperative survival time. Whether surgery for Bismuth type I or II is combined with CLR depends on the pathological type. Considering the anatomical factors, total rather than partial CLR is recommended to achieve a higher R0 resection rate. In the resection of HCCA, a proximal ductal margin greater than or equal to 10 mm should be achieved to obtain a survival benefit. Although there is no obvious boundary between the right side (especially the paracaval portion) and the right posterior lobe of the liver, Peng's resection line can serve as a reference marker for right-sided resection. Laparoscopic resection of the caudate lobe may be safer, more convenient, accurate, and minimally invasive than open surgery, but it needs to be completed by experienced laparoscopic doctors.

Is laparoscopic surgery a preferred option for benign conditions in the caudate lobe of the liver?

BACKGROUND/AIM

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has become a common management strategy for liver tumors owing to its less invasive nature and enhanced visual perspective. Yet, its use in the caudate lobe poses challenges. This study evaluates the experiences of patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic tumors in the caudate lobe and aims to propose strategies for performing such procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of twelve patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobe resection at the Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University.

RESULTS

All twelve laparoscopic procedures were successful, with none requiring conversion to open surgery. The surgical methods varied: five cases involved simple resection of the Spiegel lobe, one case involved total caudate lobe resection, three cases involved paravena cava lobe resection, and three cases involved resection of the caudate process. The operation time ranged from 49 to 319 min (mean, 219 min). Intraoperative blood loss ranged from 20 to 500 ml, averaging 194 ml. No patients needed blood transfusions during or after the operation, and there were no instances of postoperative bleeding, bile leakage, or abdominal infection.

CONCLUSION

Given adequate control of hepatic inflow, sufficient exposure to the surgical field, and an appropriate approach, laparoscopic hepatectomy in the caudate lobe could potentially become a standard surgical technique.

Safety and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Hepatectomy of Central-Located Liver Lesions: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Matched, Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (LHCL) compared with traditional open hepatectomy of central-located liver lesions (OHCL) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of LHCL. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 262 patients who underwent hepatectomies involving resections of liver segment II, IV or VIII from January 2015 to June 2021 in two institutions. Patients in the LHCL group were matched in a 1:2 ratio to patients in the OHCL group. Results: After propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, 61 patients remained in the LHCL group and 122 patients were in the OHCL group. What needs to be mentioned is that although not significant, patients in the OHCL group had increased lesion size (4.3 vs. 3.6 cm, p = 0.052), number (single/multiple, 84.8%/15.2% vs. 93.4%/6.6%, p = 0.097), and number of liver segments involved (one/two/three, 47.3%/42.0%/10.7% vs. 57.4%36.1%/10.7%, p = 0.393). To ensure surgical safety, fewer patients in the LHCL group underwent vascular exclusion than those in the OHCL group (p = 0.004). In addition, LHCL was associated with lower blood loss (p = 0.001) and transfusion requirement (p = 0.004). In terms of short-term outcomes, the LHCL group had significantly lower levels of peak ALT (p < 0.001), peak DBIL (p = 0.042), peak PT (p = 0.012), and higher levels of bottom ALB (p = 0.049). Moreover, the LHCL group demonstrated quicker postoperative recovery, which was represented by shorter time to first flatus, time to oral intake, time to drain off, and hospital stay (all p < 0.001). Importantly, the LHCL group had a significantly reduced occurrence of postoperative complications (p < 0.001) and similar R0 resection rates (p = 0.678) when compared to the OHCL group. Conclusion: LHCL is associated with increased safety and better perioperative outcomes and thus could be recommended for patients with central space-occupying liver lesions when appropriately selecting the surgical procedure according to the total tumor burden and carefully handled by experienced surgeons. From the experience of our center, LHCL could be performed to solitary lesion involving liver segment IV/V/VIII, <5 cm, with good safety and feasibility.

Procedural outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobe resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review was conducted in compliance with PRISMA statement standards to identify all studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic resection of benign or malignant lesions located in caudate lobe of liver. Pooled outcome data were calculated using random-effects models. A total of 196 patients from 12 studies were included. Mean operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 225 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 181-269 minutes), 134 mL (95% CI, 85-184 mL), and 7 days (95% CI, 5-9 days), respectively. The pooled risk of need for intraoperative transfusion was 2% (95% CI, 0%-5%). It was 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) for conversion to open surgery, 6% (95% CI, 0%-19%) for need for intra-abdominal drain, 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%) for postoperative mortality, 2% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for biliary leakage, 2% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for intra-abdominal abscess, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for biliary stenosis, 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%) for postoperative bleeding, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for pancreatic fistula, 2% (95% CI, 1%-5%) for pulmonary complications, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for paralytic ileus, and 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for need for reoperation. Although the available evidence is limited, the findings of the current study might be utilized for hypothesis synthesis in future studies. They can be used to inform surgeons and patients about estimated risks of perioperative complications until a higher level of evidence is available.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hepatic caudate lobectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy (LHCL) for treating liver tumor by comparing with the open hepatic caudate lobectomy (OHCL).

METHODS

In the LHCL group, we included 24 patients with liver tumor received LHCL in Qilu Hospital of the Shandong University from January 2014 to January 2019. Meanwhile, 24 matched liver tumor patients underwent OHCL in our hospital served as control. Then we compared the patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes between LHCL group and OHCL group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, age, degree of cirrhosis, tumor size, preoperative liver function, Child-Pugh grading, proportion of liver cirrhosis, and tumor size between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). No death was reported in both groups. The length of incision in LHCL group was significantly lower than that in OHCL group (4.22 ± 1.14 cm vs. 22.46 ± 4.40 cm, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in LHCL group was significantly lower than that of OHCL group (116.82 ± 71.61 ml vs. 371.74 ± 579.35 ml, P = 0.047). The total operation time, Pringle maneuver occlusion time, and blocking rate in LHCL group showed no statistical difference compared with those of the OHCL group (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 24 and 48 h showed no statistical differences between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). Compared with the OHCL group, significant decrease was noticed in the proportion of patients with severe pain 48 h after surgery (0 vs. 4.25 ± 0.46, P < 0.001) and dezocine consumption (90.45 ± 45.77 mg vs. 131.6 ± 81.30 mg, P = 0.0448) in the LHCL group.

CONCLUSION

LHCL is effective and feasible for treating liver tumor, which is featured by reducing intraoperative blood loss and serious pain.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches."

RESULTS

This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.

Left Intercostal Approach for Laparoscopic Isolated Total Caudate Lobectomy (with Video)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic total caudate lobectomy remains a challenging procedure because of its deep location (Xu et al., Surg Endosc. 35:1138-47, 2021). Placement of intercostal ports can overcome the barriers of the ribcage for laparoscopic access (Hayashi et al., PLoS One.15:e0234919, 2020). We herein present a novel technique in which a left intercostal port was used as the main working port during laparoscopic caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

An 84-year-old man with a 1-cm intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma located in segment 1 (S1) was referred to our hospital. We planned laparoscopic isolated caudate lobectomy using a left intercostal port as the main working port. The patient was placed in the supine position. A 12-mm left intercostal port with a balloon was introduced in the seventh intercostal space as the main working port. After Arantius' ligament was divided, the left Glissonean pedicle of S1 (G1) was divided using an endo-stapling device. The surgeon moved to the right side of the patient and divided the right G1, followed by transection to the inferior right hepatic vein. Again, the surgeon moved to the left side, and the left intercostal port was used for mobilization of the Spiegel lobe and parenchymal resection using a cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator, exposing the root of the left and middle main hepatic veins for completion of total caudate lobectomy.

RESULTS

The operative time was 264 min and blood loss was 400 mL. The patient was discharged on a postoperative day 9 without complications.

CONCLUSIONS

A laparoscopic approach to the caudate lobe using a left intercostal port is a new and ideal technique providing effective manipulation.

Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Caudate Lobectomy: A Systematic Review

Resection of the caudate lobe of the liver is considered a highly challenging type of liver resection due to the region’s intimacy with critical vascular structures and deep anatomic location inside the abdominal cavity. Laparoscopic resection of the caudate lobe is considered one of the most challenging laparoscopic liver procedures. The objective of our systematic review was to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility and main outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobectomy LCL. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken for studies published until September 2021. A total of 20 studies comprising 221 patients were included. Of these subjects, 36% were women, whereas the vast majority of resections (66%) were performed for malignant tumors. Tumor size varied significantly between 2 and 160 mm in the largest diameter. The mean operative time was 210 min (range 60–740 min), and estimated blood loss was 173.6 mL (range 50–3600 mL). The median hospital length of stay LOS was 6.5 days (range 2–15 days). Seven cases of conversion to open were reported. The vast majority of patients (93.7%) underwent complete resection (R0) of their tumors. Thirty-six out of 221 patients developed postoperative complications, with 5.8% of all patients developing a major complication (Clavien–Dindo classification ≥ III).No perioperative deaths were reported by the included studies. LCL seems to be a safe and feasible alternative to open caudate lobectomy OCL in selected patients when undertaken in high-volume centers by experienced surgeons.

Technical feasibility and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection: an IgoMILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) registry-based study

Background

Although isolated caudate lobe (CL) liver resection is not a contraindication for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), feasibility and safety of the procedure are still poorly investigated. To address this gap, we evaluate data on the Italian prospective maintained database on laparoscopic liver surgery (IgoMILS) and compare outcomes between MILS and open group.

Methods

Perioperative data of patients with malignancies, as colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), non-colorectal liver metastases (NCRLM) and benign liver disease, were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to balance the potential selection bias for MILS and open group.

Results

A total of 224 patients were included in the study, 47 and 177 patients underwent MILS and open isolated CL resection, respectively. The overall complication rate was comparable between the two groups; however, severe complication rate (Dindo–Clavien grade ≥ 3) was lower in the MILS group (0% versus 6.8%, P = ns). In-hospital mortality was 0% in both groups and mean hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MILS group (P = 0.01). After selection of 42 MILS and 43 open CL resections by PSM analysis, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes remained similar except for the hospital stay which was not significantly shorter in MILS group.

Conclusions

This multi-institutional cohort study shows that MILS CL resection is feasible and safe. The surgical procedure can be technically demanding compared to open resection, whereas good perioperative outcomes can be achieved in highly selected patients.

Laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection

Previously, isolated caudate lobectomy was rarely performed and the caudate lobe was usually resected along with other segments. Isolated caudate lobe resection is a challenging procedure even for an experienced surgeon. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and outcomes of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobectomy and to compare these with the open technique. We retrospectively analyzed 21 patients who underwent isolated caudate lobectomy between January 2005 and December 2018 at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Patients who underwent either anatomical or non-anatomical resection of the caudate lobe were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they underwent laparoscopic or open surgery. Intra-operative and postoperative outcomes were compared with a median follow-up of 43 months (4–149). A total of 21 patients were included in the study. Of these, 12 (57.14%) underwent laparoscopic and nine (42.85%) underwent open caudate lobectomy. Median operation time (204.5 vs. 200 minutes, p = 0.397), estimated blood loss (250 vs. 400 ml, p = 0.214) and hospital stay (4 vs. 7 days, p = 0.298) were comparable between laparoscopy and open group. The overall post operative complication rate was similar in both groups (p = 0.375). The 5-year disease free survival rate (42.9% vs 60.0%, p = 0.700) and the 5-year overall survival rate (76.2% vs 64.8%, p = 0.145) was similar between laparoscopy and open group. Our findings demonstrate that with increasing surgical expertise and technological advances, laparoscopic isolated caudate lobectomy can become a feasible and safe in selected patients.

Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, multicenter, large-scale, population-based laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) versus open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) has rarely been reported. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LCLR compared with OCLR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Med databases up to July 30th, 2020. Multiple parameters of feasibility and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 237 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with OCLR, the LCLR group had a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 180.84; 95% CI - 225.61 to - 136.07; P < 0.0001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 4.38; 95% CI - 7.07 to - 1.7; P = 0.001), shorter operative time (MD - 50.24; 95% CI - 78.57 to - 21.92; P = 0.0005), and lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 0.12; P = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LCLR and OCLR regarding hospital expenses (MD 0.92; P = 0.12), pedicle clamping (OR 1.57; P = 0.32), postoperative complications (OR 0.58; P = 0.15), bile leak (P = 0.88), ascites (P = 0.34), and incisional infection (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

LCLR has multiple advantages over OCLR, especially intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays. LCLR is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with caudate lobe lesions.

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely in liver disease due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) has been reported rarely. We aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of LCLR by comparing it with open liver surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent LCLR and open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) between January 2015 and August 2019. Twenty-two patients were involved in this study and divided into LCLR (n = 10) and OCLR (n = 12) groups based on preoperative imaging, tumor characteristics, and blood and liver function test. Patient demographic data and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant inter-group differences between gender, age, preoperative liver function, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities (P > 0.05). The LCLR showed significantly less blood loss (50 vs. 300 ml, respectively; P = 0.004), shorter length of hospital stay (15 vs. 16 days, respectively; P = 0.034), and shorter operative time (216.50 vs. 372.78 min, respectively; P = 0.012) than OCLR, but hospital expenses (5.02 vs. 6.50 WanRMB, respectively; P = 0.208) showed no statistical difference between groups. There was no statistical difference in postoperative bile leakage (P = 0.54) and wound infection (P = 0.54) between LCLR and OCLR. Neither LCLR nor OCLR resulted in bleeding or liver failure after operation. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSION

LCLR is a very useful technology, and it is a feasible choice in selected patients with benign and malignant tumors in the caudate lobe.