European experience of laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Risk factors and outcomes of conversions in robotic and laparoscopic liver resections: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions.

METHODS

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection.

Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve.

BACKGROUND

RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss.

RESULTS

Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

Indications for open hepatectomy in the era of laparoscopic liver resection: a high volume single institutional study

Background/Aim

Since the introduction of laparoscopy for liver resection in the 1990s, the performance of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been steadily increasing. However, there is currently no data on the extent to which laparoscopy is used for liver resection. Herein, we investigated the extent to which laparoscopy is performed in liver resection and sought to determine whether surgeons prefer laparoscopy or laparotomy in the posterosuperior (PS) segment.

Methods

For this retrospective observational study, we enrolled patients who had undergone liver resection at the Samsung Medical Center between January 2020 and December 2021. The proportion of LLR in liver resection was calculated, and the incidence and causes of open conversion were investigated.

Results

A total of 1,095 patients were included in this study. LLR accounted for 79% of the total liver resections. The percentage of previous hepatectomy (16.2% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001) and maximum tumor size (median 4.8 vs. 2.8, P<0.001) were higher in the open liver resection (OLR) group. Subgroup analysis revealed that tumor size (median 6.3 vs. 2.9, P<0.001) and surgical extent (P<0.001) in the OLR group were larger than those in the LLR group. The most common cause of open conversion (OC) was adhesion (57%), and all OC patients had tumors in the PS.

Conclusions

We investigated the recent preference of practical surgeons in liver resection, and found that surgeons preferred OLR to LLR when treating a large tumor located in the PS.

Short-term outcomes of robotic liver resection: An initial single-institution experience

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery has traditionally been characterized by the complexity of its procedures and potentially high rates of morbidity and mortality in inexperienced hands. The robotic approach has gradually been introduced in liver surgery and has increased notably in recent years. However, few centers currently perform robotic liver surgery and experiences in robot-assisted surgical procedures continue to be limited compared to the laparoscopic approach.

AIM

To analyze the outcomes and feasibility of an initial robotic liver program implemented in an experienced laparoscopic hepatobiliary center.

METHODS

A total of forty consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection (da Vinci Xi, intuitive.com, United States) between June 2019 and January 2021. Patients were prospectively followed and retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 59.55 years, of which 18 (45%) were female. The mean body mass index was 29.41 kg/m². Nine patients (22.5%) were cirrhotic. Patients were divided by type of resection as follows: Ten segmentectomies, three wedge resections, ten left lateral sectionectomies, six bisegmentectomies (two V-VI bisegmentectomies and four IVb-V bisegmentectomies), two right anterior sectionectomies, five left hepatectomies and two right hepatectomies. Malignant lesions occurred in twenty-nine (72.5%) of the patients. The mean operative time was 258.11 min and two patients were transfused intraoperatively (5%). Inflow occlusion was used in thirty cases (75%) and the mean total clamping time was 32.62 min. There was a single conversion due to uncontrollable hemorrhage. Major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo > IIIb) occurred in three patients (7.5%) and mortality in one (2.5%). No patient required readmission to the hospital. The mean hospital stay was 5.6 d.

CONCLUSION

Although robotic hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure with favorable short-term outcomes, it involves a demanding learning curve that requires a high level of training, skill and dexterity.

The risk factors of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy is a challenge during laparoscopic hepatectomy; however, the risk factors of conversion have been poorly elucidated.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each risk factor and evaluated heterogeneity using a L'Abbe plot, Galbraith radial plot, Cochran's Q test, and I². An extended funnel plot was used to evaluate the robustness of the results of meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to determine sources of heterogeneity. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 25 eligible studies were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Higher body mass index (OR 1.346, 95% CI 1.055-1.717), hypertension (OR 1.387, 95% CI 1.100-1.749), male sex (OR 1.278, 95% CI 1.072-1.523), cirrhosis (OR 1.378, 95% CI 1.062-1.788), major resection (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.748-2.382), posterosuperior tumor location (OR 2.420, 95% CI 1.923-3.044), and larger tumor diameter (OR 1.618, 95% CI 1.270-2.061) were found to be significantly related to intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Malignant tumor (OR 1.253, 95% CI 0.970-1.619), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists stage (OR 1.186, 95% CI 0.863-1.631), multiple tumors (OR 1.273, 95% CI 0.866-1.871), and abdominal surgery history (OR 1.236, 95% CI 0.589-2.597) were not associated with conversion. A history of abdominal surgery showed significant heterogeneity with an I² of 80.8% (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that heterogeneity was caused by the different number of patients among enrolled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified a number of factors associated with intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Our findings can help patient risk evaluation to reduce the laparotomy conversion rate in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinomas Smaller Than 3 cm: Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching

Objective

To compare the therapeutic outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for single subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and Methods

We screened 244 consecutive patients who had received either LHR or LRFA between January 2014 and December 2016. The feasibility of LRFA in patients who underwent LHR was retrospectively assessed by two interventional radiologists. Finally, 60 LRFA-feasible patients who had received LHR and 29 patients who had received LRFA as the first treatment for a solitary subcapsular HCC between 1 cm and 3 cm were finally included. We compared the therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was also used to evaluate the difference in OS and RFS between the two groups for all 89 patients.

Results

PS matching yielded 23 patients in each group. The cumulative LTP and OS rates were not significantly different between the LHR and LRFA groups after PS matching (p = 0.900 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year LTP rates were 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively, and OS rates were 100% and 90.7%, respectively. The RFS rate was higher in LHR group without statistical significance (p = 0.070), with 5-year rates of 78.3% and 45.3%, respectively. OS was not significantly different between the LHR (reference) and LRFA groups in multivariable analyses, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–1.54) (p = 0.818). RFS was higher in LHR (reference) than in LRFA without statistical significance in multivariable analysis, with an HR of 2.01 (0.87–4.66) (p = 0.102).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between LHR and LRFA for single subcapsular HCCs measuring 1–3 cm. The difference in RFS should be further evaluated in a larger study.

Laparoscopic surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of single hepatocellular carcinoma ≤3 cm in the elderly: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) represented potential treatments for patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) smaller than 3 cm. As the aging population soared, our study aimed to examine the advantage/drawback balance for these treatments, which should be reassessed in elderly patients.

METHODS

A multicentric retrospective study compared 184 elderly patients (aged >70 years) (86 patients underwent LLR and 98 had RFA) with single ≤3 cm HCC, observed from January 2009 to January 2019.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching (PSM), the estimated 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.5 and 87.9% for the LLR group, and 94.6 and 68.1% for the RFA group (p = 0.001) respectively. The estimated 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.5 and 67.4% for the LLR group, and 68.5 and 36.9% for the RFA group (p = 0.001). Patients with HCC of anterolateral segments were more often treated with laparoscopic resection (47 vs. 36, p = 0.04). The median operative time in the resection group was 205 min and 25 min in the RFA group (p = 0.01). Length of hospital stay was 5 days in the resection group and 3 days in the RFA group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer length of hospital stay and operative time, LLR guarantees a comparable postoperative course and a better overall and disease-free survival in elderly patients with single HCC (≤3 cm), located in anterolateral segments.

Surgical technique and clinical results of one- or two-stage laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after portal vein embolization in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A case series

BACKGROUND

The use of the laparoscopic approach in one-stage or second-step of two-stage right hemihepatectomy (RHH) after portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) is technically demanding. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. This paper reports our experience, results, techniques and variety of tips and tricks (highlighted in the attached video), to facilitate this resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of laparoscopic liver surgery within our unit at a tertiary referral centre between August 2003 and March 2019 was reviewed. Patients with initially unresectable CRLMs who underwent laparoscopic RHH or extended RHH after PVE in the context of a one or two-stage procedure were included.

RESULTS

Between August 2003 and March 2019, 19 patients with initially unresectable CRLMs underwent laparoscopic RHH after PVE. Twelve patients (63.2%) had RHH in the context of a two-stage hepatectomy and 7 as a one-stage procedure. Median time interval between PVE and surgery was 42.5 days (IQR, 34.5-60.0 days). Mean operating time was 351.8 ± 80.5 minutes. Median blood loss was 850 mL (IQR, 475-1350 mL). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2 of 19 cases (10.5%). Severe postoperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients. The mortality rate was 5.3%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR, 4-7 days). Radical resection was obtained in eighteen patients (94.7%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RHH after PVE in the context of a one- or two-stage resection in patients with initially unresectable CRLMs is a safe and feasible procedure with favourable oncological outcomes.

Fully laparoscopic thermo-ablation of liver malignancies with or without liver resection: tumor location is an independent local recurrence risk factor

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to analyze risk factors of local recurrence (LR) after exclusive laparoscopic thermo-ablation (TA) with or without associated liver resection.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, among 385 patients who underwent 820 TA in our department, 65 (17%) patients (HCC = 11, LM = 54) had exclusive laparoscopic TA representing 112 lesions (HCC = 17, LM = 95). TA was associated with other procedures in 57% of cases (liver resection 81%). All TA were done without liver clamping. Median tumor size was 1.8 cm [ranges from 0.3 to 4.5], 18% of the lesions were larger than 3 cm in size and 11% close to major liver vessels. Tumors locations were 77.5% in right liver, 36% in S7&S8, and 46% in S7&S8&S4a.

RESULTS

Mortality was nil and morbidity rate 15.4% including Dindo-Clavien > II grade 3%. The median follow-up was 24 months [0.77-75]. Per lesion LR rate after TA was 18% (n = 19 patients) with a mean time of 7.6 months. Among patients with LR, 18 (95%) could have been re-treated successfully (new resection = 11, re-TA = 7). Multivariate analyses revealed that tumor location in S7 alone, S7&S8 and/or S7, S8, or S4a were independent risk factors of LR after TA.

CONCLUSIONS

Exclusive laparoscopic TA is a safe and an effective tool to treat liver malignancies with or without liver resection. Other than classical risk factors, tumor location in upper segments of the liver, are independent risk factors for LR.

The Extrahepatic Glissonian Versus Hilar Dissection Approach for Laparoscopic Formal Right and Left Hepatectomies in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Few studies have been performed to evaluate the value of the Glissonian approach (GA) for laparoscopic formal hemihepatectomy. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of extrahepatic GA with those of the conventional hilar dissection approach for laparoscopic formal right and left hepatectomies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Between January 2015 and October 2017, a total of 95 HCC patients who underwent pure laparoscopic formal hemihepatectomies, of whom 49 underwent the GA, were included in this study. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 42 laparoscopic GA hepatectomies were compared to 42 conventional approach (CA) hepatectomies. We have analyzed perioperative and oncologic outcomes of the two different operative approaches for HCC treatments.

RESULTS

The GA did not increase the postoperative overall complication rates (P = 0.415) or the mean comprehensive complication index (P = 0.414) when compared with the CA. However, the operative time was significantly shorter (P = 0.006), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (P < 0.001) in the GA group than in the CA group. There were no significant differences between the GA and CA groups regarding 3-year overall survival rate (P = 0.765) or 3-year disease-free survival rate (P = 0.622).

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic extrahepatic GA hemihepatectomy is safe and feasible, and it was associated with similar complication rates and equivalent 3-year survival outcomes compared to the conventional approach in selected patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Experience of 436 Cases in One Center

BACKGROUND

To report experience of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in one center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 436 consecutive LLRs in 411 patients between December 2010 and December 2016. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, we divided the 436 cases into two groups: Simple Group (n = 203) and Difficult Group (n = 233).

RESULTS

The indications were HCC (n = 194), colorectal cancer liver metastasis (n = 156), benign tumors (n = 62), hepatolithiasis (n = 2), and other malignant lesions (n = 22). The median tumor size was 24 mm (range 3 to 130). Procedures of LLR included wedge resection (n = 230), one segmentectomy (n = 8), two segmentectomies (n = 12), left lateral sectionectomy (n = 75), right hepatectomy (n = 52), left hepatectomy (n = 31), extended right hepatectomy (n = 2), extended left hepatectomy (n = 5), central bisectionectomy (n = 3), right posterior sectionectomy (n = 12), and right anterior sectionectomy (n = 6). The median operative time was 228 min (range 9-843) and median blood loss was 150 ml (range 2-3500). Twenty-five cases required blood transfusion (5.7%). Conversion to open surgery was required in six cases (1.4%). The mean length of stay was 6.4 ± 2.9 days. Overall complication rate was 9.4% and major complication rate was 5%. One patient died of liver failure on the thirtieth postoperative day after a right hepatectomy. We had higher median blood loss (200 vs. 100 ml; p < 0.001), higher transfusion rate (8.2 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.020), longer median operative time (297 vs. 164 min; p < 0.001), higher conversion rate (2.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.021), higher complication rate (14.2 vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), and longer mean postoperative hospital stay (6.8 ± 2.9 vs. 5.9 ± 3.0 days; p < 0.001) in the Difficult Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe for selected patients in the Difficult Group. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, selection criteria of LLR are helpful to predict the difficulty of the operation and the postoperative outcomes of LLR.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted/Hybrid Major Hepatectomy at Two Western Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is expanding, but little data exist comparing surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLAP) has advantages over hand-assisted (HALS) or hybrid (HYB) resection for major hemi-hepatectomy at two western centers.

METHODS

Using propensity score matching, 65 cases of HALS + HYB (18 hand-assisted and 47 hybrid) were matched to 65 cases of PLAP. Baseline characteristics were well matched for gender, age, ASA score, Childs A cirrhosis, right/left hepatectomy, malignancy, tumor size, and type between the groups.

RESULTS

The HALS + HYB group had 27 right and 38 left major hepatectomies (n = 65) versus 29 right and 36 left (n = 65) in the PLAP group (p = NS). The median number of lesions resected was 1 in each group, with median size 5.6 cm (HALS + HYB) versus 6.0 cm (PLAP), (p = NS). The HALS + HYB group had shorter OR time (240 versus 330 min, p < 0.01), and less blood loss (EBL 150 ml vs. 300 ml, p < 0.01) versus the PLAP group, respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days with HALS + HYB versus 5 days in the PLAP group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in use of the Pringle maneuver, transfusion rate, ICU stay, post-op morbidity, liver-specific complications, or R0 resection. Pain regimen/usage in each group is provided. There were no 30/90-day deaths in either group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported series of propensity score matching of HALS + HYB versus PLAP for major hepatectomy. The HALS + HYB group had non-inferior OR time, blood loss, and LOS versus the PLAP group, while the other perioperative parameters were comparable. We conclude that minimally invasive liver resection with either PLAP or HALS + HYB technique yields excellent results.

Outcomes of liver resection in patients with colorectal liver metastases by laparoscopic or open surgery

Backgrounds/Aims

Colorectal cancer is found with liver metastases about 20-25% due to characteristics of cancer itself. Approximately 20% of liver metastases are found to be resectable. The objective of this study was to evaluate short-term outcomes of patients who received liver resection with colorectal cancer operation in our center by laparoscopic surgery or open surgery.

Methods

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery of liver resection (LSLR) group who underwent liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) at a single institute from 2013 to 2016 were compared to those of open surgery of liver resection (OSLR) group.

Results

A total of 123 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM, including 101 (82.1%) patients in the OSLR group and 22 (17.9%) patients in the LSLR group. There were significant differences in tumor characteristics between the two groups, including synchronous and metachronous (p=0.004), tumor number (p<0.001), and tumor margin (p=0.002). For postoperative outcomes, only the length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly different between the two groups (8.5 days in LSLR vs. 11 days in OSLR, p<0.001). There was no significant difference in overall rate of postoperative complications between the two groups (9.1% in LSLR vs. 23.8% in OSLR, p=0.158).

Conclusions

There are no significant differences in postoperative outcomes between LSLR and OSLR except LOS, liver metastasis number, and resection margin. LSLR may be favorable for highly selected patients with CRLM.

Low conversion rate during minimally invasive major hepatectomy: Ten-year experience at a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches for major hepatectomy have been marred by significant rates of conversion and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine risk factors for conversion as well as postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing minimally invasive right-sided hepatectomy (MIRH).

METHODS

Data for patients undergoing MIRH between 2008 and 2017 at Emory University were reviewed. Risk factors for conversion were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Outcomes of conversion patients were compared with those who underwent successful MIRH or elective open surgery.

RESULTS

Unplanned conversion occurred in 7 (6.25%) of 112 patients undergoing MIRH. Primary reason for conversion was difficult dissection secondary to inflammation and severe adhesions. No preoperative clinical factor was identified that predicted conversions. Converted cases had higher EBL and pRBC transfusion compared to non-converted cases however morbidity was similar to those undergoing primary open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Difficult dissection and adhesions remained the only clinically applicable parameter leading to unplanned conversions. While these did offset benefits of a successful minimally invasive approach, it did not increase risk of postoperative complications compared with planned open surgery.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

The clinical and biological impacts of the implementation of fast-track perioperative programs in complex liver resections: A propensity score-based analysis between the open and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the fast-track approach in patients undergoing complex liver procedures and to analyse factors that influence morbidity and functional recovery.

METHODS

Hepatic resections (2014-2016) were stratified according to difficulty score, obtaining a group of 215 complex resections (102 laparoscopic, 163 open). The laparoscopic group was matched by propensity score with open patients to obtain the minimally invasive liver surgery group (n = 102) and the open group (n = 102).

RESULTS

Groups were similar in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The postoperative morbidity was 31.4% in the minimally invasive liver surgery and 38.2% in the open group (P = .05), and functional recovery was shorter in the minimally invasive liver surgery (respectively 4 versus 6 days, P = .041). The adherence to fast-track was high in both groups, with several items with higher penetrance in the minimally invasive liver surgery group. Among factors associated with morbidity and functional recovery, a laparoscopic approach and strict adherence to a fast-track protocol resulted in protective factors.

CONCLUSION

The combination of minimally invasive approaches and fast-track protocols allows a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity and satisfactory functional recovery even in the setting of complex liver resections. When the laparoscopic approach is not feasible, strict adherence to a fast-track program is associated with the achievement of adequate results and should be implemented.

Are the current difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver surgery telling the whole story? An international survey and recommendations for the future

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections are related to both patient and tumour factors, however the available difficulty scoring systems only incorporate tumour factors. The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of laparoscopic liver surgeons regarding the factors that affect the perceived difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections.

METHOD

Using a Visual Analogue Scale an international survey of laparoscopic liver surgeons was undertaken to assess the perceived difficulty of 26 factors previously demonstrated to affect the difficulty of a laparoscopic liver resection.

RESULTS

80 surgeons with a combined experience of over 7000 laparoscopic liver resections responded to the survey. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery was suggested to be increased by a BMI > 35 by 89% of respondents; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 79%; repeated liver resection by 99% and concurrent procedures by 59% however these factors have not been included in the previous difficulty scoring systems.

CONCLUSION

The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.

Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy

AIM

To evaluate the clinical advantages of single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (SPLH) compare to multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (MPLH).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 246 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between January 2008 and December 2015 at our hospital. We divided the surgical technique into two groups; SPLH and MPLH. We performed laparoscopic liver resection for both benign and malignant disease. Major hepatectomy such as right and left hepatectomy was also done with sufficient disease-free margin. The operative time, the volume of blood loss, transfusion rate, and the conversion rate to MPLH or open surgery was evaluated. The post-operative parameters included the meal start date after operation, the number of postoperative days spent in the hospital, and surgical complications was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 246 patients, 155 patients underwent SPLH and 91 patients underwent MPLH. Conversion rate was 22.6% in SPLH and 19.8% in MPLH (P = 0.358). We performed major hepatectomy, which was defined as resection of more than 2 sections, in 13.5% of patients in the SPLH group and in 13.3% of patients in the MPLH group (P = 0.962). Mean operative time was 136.9 ± 89.2 min in the SPLH group and 231.2 ± 149.7 min in the MPLH group (P < 0.001). The amount of blood loss was 385.1 ± 409.3 mL in the SPLH group and 559.9 ± 624.9 mL in the MPLH group (P = 0.016). The safety resection margin did not show a significant difference (0.84 ± 0.84 cm in SPLH vs 1.04 ± 1.22 cm in MPLH, P = 0.704). Enteral feeding was started earlier in the SPLH group (1.06 ± 0.27 d after operation) than in the MPLH group (1.63 ± 1.27 d) (P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay after operation was non-significantly shorter in the SPLH group than in the MPLH group (7.82 ± 2.79 d vs 7.97 ± 3.69 d, P = 0.744). The complication rate was not significantly different (P = 0.397) and there was no major perioperative complication or mortality case in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery seems to be a feasible approach for various kinds of liver diseases.

Comparison of Single-Port Versus Standard Multiport Left Lateral Liver Sectionectomy

It remains unclear if single incision laparoscopic liver surgery is superior to standard multiport resections and in what regard patients might benefit from this approach. We retrospectively analyzed the course of all patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy at our center between 2009 and 2017. In total, 11 single incision and 31 multiport left lateral sectionectomies were performed at our center between July 2009 and May 2017. Six patients were excluded due to multivisceral resections. Indications included adenoma (n = 7 vs n = 2), focal nodular hyperplasia (n = 4 vs n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4 vs n = 4), colorectal liver metastasis (n = 4 vs n = 0), noncolorectal metastasis (n = 2 vs n = 1), hemangioma (n = 3 vs n = 0), abscess (n = 1 vs n = 0), and cysts (n = 1 vs n = 0). Length of operation was significantly shorter in the single incision group (206 vs 137 minutes, P = .003). One complication was observed in the single incision group (grade IIIb, n = 1) while 3 patients in the multiport group suffered from postoperative complications (grade II, n = 1; grade IIIa, n = 2), resulting in a morbidity rate of 12.5% and 11.5%, respectively. No mortality was observed in both groups. Length of hospital stay did not significantly differ in both groups (median 7 vs 7 days, P = .513). The single incision approach is safe and has become the standard approach for the left lateral sectionectomy at our center. Shorter operation times technique might well be due to the easy retrieval of the liver specimen via the umbilical incision with no need for a Pfannenstiel incision.

Dissemination of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Primary Malignancy: Reevaluating Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Experiences at specialized hepatobiliary centers have demonstrated efficacy of minimally invasive liver resection, but concerns exist regarding whether these procedures would remain effective once disseminated to a broad range of clinical practices. We sought to present the first comparison of MILR and open liver resection (OLR) for primary liver malignancy from a nationally representative cancer registry.

METHODS

Cases of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer were identified from the National Cancer Data Base Participant Use File. Mixed effects logistic regression and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression were used for analysis. A propensity score matched cohort was used as an alternative form of analysis to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

A total of 3236 cases were analyzed from 2010 to 2011 with 2581 OLR (80%) and 655 MILR (20%). Of the variation in patient selection for MILR 28.5% was related to treatment at a specific treatment center; however, the proportion of MILR was similar among low-, medium-, and high-volume centers. Overall 90-day mortality was lower at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.85) compared with low-volume centers. MILR was similar to OLR in both 90-day mortality and overall survival (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.62-1.10) and hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 (95% CI 0.72-1.07), regardless of treatment center volume.

CONCLUSIONS

MILR for primary liver malignancy is used across a variety of practice settings, with similar outcomes to OLR. While volume is associated with short-term outcomes of liver resection as a whole, this relationship is not explained by adoption of MILR at low-volume centers.

Early experience with totally laparoscopic major hepatectomies: single institution experience with 31 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

Totally laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is a technically challenging procedure with limited studies mainly from high-volume expert centers reported. In this study, we report our initial experience with totally LMH.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospective database of 340 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection at a single institution was conducted. Thirty-one consecutive patients who underwent attempted totally LMH between March 2011 to December 2016 were identified. Major hepatectomies were defined as resection of ≥3 contiguous segments which included only right/left hepatectomies, extended hepatectomies or central hepatectomies.

RESULTS

The procedures included 11 right hepatectomies, one extended right hepatectomy, nine left hepatectomies (two including middle hepatic vein), two extended left hepatectomies, two left hepatectomies with caudate lobe and six central hepatectomies. The median tumor size was 40 (range, 12-100) mm and the median operation time was 435 (range, 245-585) min. Median blood loss was 500 (range, 100-1900) mls and 10 (32.3%) patients required blood transfusion. There were three (9.7%) open conversions of which two occurred during the first five cases. There was one (3.2%) major (>grade 2) morbidity and there were no 30-day/in-hospital mortalities or reoperations. The median postoperative stay was 5 (range, 3-14) days.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience confirms the feasibility and safety of LMH. There was an increase in the number and proportion of LMH performed at our institution over time.

The Role of the Single Incision Laparoscopic Approach in Liver and Pancreatic Resectional Surgery

Introduction. Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) has gained increasing support over the last few years. The aim of this narrative review is to analyse the published evidence on the use and potential benefits of SILS in hepatic and pancreatic resectional surgery for benign and malignant pathology. Methods. Pubmed and Embase databases were searched using the search terms “single incision laparoscopic”, “single port laparoscopic”, “liver surgery”, and “pancreas surgery”. Results. Twenty relevant manuscripts for liver and 9 for pancreatic SILS resections were identified. With regard to liver surgery, despite the lack of comparative studies with other minimal invasive techniques, outcomes have been acceptable when certain limitations are taken into account. For pancreatic resections, when compared to the conventional laparoscopic approach, SILS produced comparable results with regard to intra- and postoperative parameters, including length of hospitalisation and complications. Similarly, the results were comparable to robotic pancreatectomies, with the exception of the longer operative time reported with the robotic approach. Discussion. Despite the limitations, the published evidence supports that SILS is safe and feasible for liver and pancreatic resections when performed by experienced teams in the tertiary setting. However, no substantial benefit has been identified yet, especially compared to other minimal invasive techniques.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic left hepatectomy: how I do it

Laparoscopic liver resection has been adopted slowly due to concerns for bleeding and oncologic outcomes. Currently, over 9,500 laparoscopic liver resections have been performed and reported worldwide. Numerous studies have shown the safety and oncologic equivalence of laparoscopic liver resection when compared to open resection. Pure laparoscopic and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection are the two most commonly used techniques for minimally invasive liver resection surgery. Advantages of the hand-port include tactile feedback, facilitation of liver mobilization, and ease of ability to control bleeding. We present a case report with video of a hand-assisted laparoscopic left liver resection for a hepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic patient.

Comparison of laparoscopic major hepatectomy with propensity score matched open cases from the National Clinical Database in Japan

BACKGROUND

The National Clinical Database (NCD) in Japan is a nationwide registry that collects the data of more than 1,200,000 surgical cases annually from over 3,500 hospitals. Based on the NCD data, this study compared the perioperative outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of major open liver resection (OLR) using the propensity score matching method.

METHODS

We collected data on 15,191 major hepatectomy cases (929 major LLR cases and 14,262 major OLR cases), and investigated the short-term outcomes in well-matched groups.

RESULTS

In the LLR group, 30-day mortality, in-hospital mortality, and operative mortality were 0.9%, 1.7%, and 1.7% respectively. The mean blood loss in the LLR group (865.4 ± 1,148.2 ml) was significantly less than in the OLR group (1,053.8 ± 1,176.6 ml), and the median postoperative hospital stay for the LLR patients (21.37 ± 19.71 days) was significantly shorter than for the OLR patients (26.25 ± 24.53 days). The complication rate in the LLR group (16.4%) was significantly lower than that in the OLR group (23.5%).

CONCLUSION

LLR in selected patients is currently safely performed as well as OLR even in patients requiring major hepatectomy, associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and fewer complications.

Surgical outcomes following laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases

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

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy: Toward Protocolization and Simplification

BACKGROUND

Major hurdles for laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LapRH) include difficulties in (1) mobilization and (2) applying hanging maneuver and (3) lack of experienced assistants. We discuss the protocolization of lapRH, introducing our simplified technique.

METHODS

The procedure was disassembled into six steps: (1) curtailed mobilization of the right liver so as to align the resection plane with the laparoscopic camera view, (2) inflow vascular control, (3) setting up the parenchymal resection applying the rubber band retraction method, (4) parenchymal resection approaching the caudate lobe, (5) a lifting-up maneuver using a laparoscopic grasper or retractor instead of the hanging maneuver, and (6) completion of resection dividing the caudate lobe, right hepatic vein, and remaining ligament.

RESULTS

Between March 2014 and August 2015, 13 LapRH surgeries were attempted. The patients consisted of eight males and five females with a mean age of 58.5 ± 11.6 years. Final pathological diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in seven patients, intrahepatic duct stone in 4, and colorectal liver metastasis in 2. The mean total operative time was 381 ± 66 minutes, and the mean intraoperative estimated blood loss was 633 ± 619 ml. One patient was converted to open surgery. There was no clinically significant complication, and the mean length of stay after surgery was 9.1 ± 2.3 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Protocolization and simplification of the procedure may allow professionals to better understand the respective process and determine appropriate port placements, resulting in safe and successful minimally invasive hepatectomy procedures.

Technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma following sequential TACE-PVE: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

Major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ideally involves preoperative portal venous embolization (PVE) coupled with preoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to improve postoperative course and oncological results. Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (RH) following sequential TACE-PVE for HCC, although challenging, may help improve both immediate and long-term patient outcomes. This study is the first to describe and compare laparoscopic to open RH following sequential TACE-PVE for HCC in terms of feasibility, safety, and patient outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent laparoscopic RH following successful TACE-PVE sequence (video provided) were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective database maintained at our center. Preoperative characteristics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared with those of patients who underwent open RH after TACE-PVE sequence during the same period.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic and open RH groups each included 16 patients. F3 or F4 fibrosis was present in 81 % of patients. The conversion rate was 25 %. The 90-day postoperative complication rate was 25 % in the laparoscopic group versus 50 % in the open group (p = 0.27). The incidence of postoperative liver failure grade B was higher in the open group than in the laparoscopic group (5 vs. 0 patients, p = 0.043). Severe complications, Clavien grade ≥ IIIb, only occurred in the open group and included one postoperative death. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (7 vs. 12 days, p = 0.001). R0 resection was accomplished in 93.8 % of laparoscopic patients.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach seems technically feasible and safe. This modern approach may optimize the surgical strategy in the future of HCC management.

Can retrohepatic tunnel be quickly and easily established for laparoscopic liver hanging maneuver by Goldfinger dissector in laparoscopic right hepatectomy?

OBJECTIVE

The liver hanging maneuver (LHM) is rarely applied in laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) because of the difficulty encountered in retrohepatic tunnel (RT) dissection and tape positioning. Thus far no report has detailed how to quickly and easily establish RT for laparoscopic LHM in LRH, nor has employment of the Goldfinger dissector to create a total RT been reported. This study's aim was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of establishing RT for laparoscopic LHM using the Goldfinger dissector in LRH.

METHODS

Between March 2015 and July 2015, five consecutive patients underwent LRH via the caudal approach with laparoscopic LHM. A five-step strategy using the Goldfinger dissector to establish RT for laparoscopic LHM was adopted. Perioperative data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 58 (range, 51-65) years. Surgery was performed for one intrahepatic lithiasis and four hepatocellular carcinomas with a median size of 90 (40-150) mm. The median operative time was 320 (282-358) min with a median blood loss of 200 (200-600) ml. Laparoscopic LHM was achieved in a median of 31 (21-62) min, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 14 (9-16) d. No transfusion or conversion was required, and no severe liver-related morbidity or death was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The Goldfinger dissector is a useful instrument for the establishment of RT. A five-step strategy using the Goldfinger dissector can quickly and easily facilitate an RT for a laparoscopic LHM in LRH.

An Improved Surgical Technique for Pure Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy: Ten Years Experience in a Tertiary Center

Background: This study details our experience with an improved surgical technique involving the hepatic pedicle during laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH).

Methods: We describe an improved laparoscopic technique to extraparenchymally divide the left hepatic pedicle. A retrospective analysis of all of the patients who underwent laparoscopic liver procedures between 2002 and 2012 was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups, an early LLH group (ELLH group) and a recent LLH group (RLLH group), based on the surgical approach used for the left hepatic pedicle.

Results: A total of 72 cases of LLH (26 ELLH and 46 RLLH) were identified. The RLLH group exhibited a shorter median operative time, median length of hospital stay, and lower median blood loss compared to the ELLH group (182, 162.5–223.7 versus 232.5, 200–357.5 minutes, P < .01; 5, 4.2–7 versus 7, 6–8.7 days, P < .05; 150, 100–257.5 versus 300, 200–337.5 mL, P < .05, respectively). No perioperative mortality was observed.

Conclusions: This study confirms that our improved surgical technique for LLH is practical, safe, and effective. The main advantage of this method compared to other techniques is the possibility of attaining rapid and precise control of vascular inflow, thus facilitating LLH.

A comparison of perioperative outcomes in elderly patients with malignant liver tumors undergoing laparoscopic liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is the treatment option with the best chance for cure in patients with malignant liver tumors. However, there are concerns regarding postoperative recovery in elderly patients, which may lead to a preference of non-resectional therapies over hepatectomy in this patient population. Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with a faster recovery compared to open hepatectomy, there are scant data on how elderly patients tolerate LLR. The aim of this study was to analyze the perioperative outcomes of LLR in elderly patients with hepatic malignancies, with a comparison to laparoscopic RFA (LRFA).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospective database for liver tumors identified a total of 82 patients older than 65 years who underwent laparoscopic treatment of their liver tumors in a single tertiary care center between 2000 and 2014. These patients were equally distributed into LLR and LRFA treatment arms.

RESULTS

Mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and tumor type (predominantly metastatic colorectal cancer) were similar in both groups. Patients in the LRFA group had more tumors (2.1 ± 1.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.6, p < 0.01), whereas tumors were larger in the LLR group (3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 2.8 ± 1.1 cm, p < 0.01). Although the operative time (116 vs. 214 min, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (2.1 vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.010) were shorter for the LRFA versus LLR group, respectively, morbidity (4.8 vs. 7.3 %) and mortality (0 vs. 0 %) were similar. Local recurrence was significantly higher in the LRFA versus LLR group (29 vs. 2.4 %, respectively, p = 0.002). However, there was no statistical difference in disease-free and overall survival between two groups (28 vs. 30 and 51 vs. 54 months, p = 0.443 and 0.768, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that LLR was tolerated as well as LRFA in elderly patients with similar comorbidities. We suggest LLR to be considered as an option in selected elderly patients who are deemed poor candidates for open hepatectomy.

Liver mobilization and liver hanging for totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy: an easy way to do it

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe a technical modification that facilitates right liver mobilization in laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH).

METHODS

In the supine position, an inflatable device is placed under the patient's right chest. For right hemiliver mobilization, the table is placed in 30° anti-Trendelenburg and full-left tilt. Balloon inflation offers an additional 30° left inclination that places the patient in an almost left lateral position. Foot and lateral supports are placed to prevent patient slippage during changes in the patient positioning.

RESULTS

From December 2013 to October 2015, this technique has been used in 10 consecutive LRH. The indications for these procedures were as follows: four donor hepatectomies for living donor liver transplant, three hepatocellular carcinomas and one peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhotic patients, one hepatocellular carcinoma in a non-cirrhotic patient, and one case of colorectal cancer metastases. In this period, it has also been used to facilitate mobilization and resection in the posterior segments of the liver in seven patients. In every case, right hemiliver mobilization was easily performed in a maximum time of 15 min and placement of a tape or plastic tube for liver hanging was prepared. We have not observed any complication directly attributable to the technique herein described (i.e. right brachialgia; arms, back or left flank pain) in the early or late postoperative follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The additional left inclination obtained with the inflation of a balloon under the right chest facilitates right hemiliver mobilization. Its use may help in the performance and adoption of LRH.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Clinical Utility of the Difficulty Scoring System for Predicting Surgical Time of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has several problems, such as technical complexity and patient and tumor factors. A difficulty scoring system to preoperatively evaluate the difficulty of LLR was established at the second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection. The aim of this study was to explore the clinical usefulness of the difficulty scoring system for LLR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to June 2015, the records of 78 patients who had undergone LLR were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' data were used to assign a difficulty score, and the correlations between scores and surgical outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

The mean surgical time was 256 minutes, and the mean blood loss was 168 mL. The difficulty score significantly correlated with surgical time and blood loss, but not with morbidity and postoperative hospital stay. Multivariate analysis showed that the difficulty score was an independent predictor of prolonged surgical time.

CONCLUSIONS

The difficulty score was found to be an effective predictor of surgical time for LLR.

Single port laparoscopic liver surgery: A minireview

Nowadays, the trend is to perform surgeries with "scarless" incisions. In light of this, the single-port laparoscopic surgery (SPLS) technique is rapidly becoming widespread due to its lack of invasiveness and its cosmetic advantages, as the only entry point is usually hidden in the umbilicus. The interest in "scarless" liver resections did not grow as rapidly as the interest in other scarless surgeries. Hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons are reluctant to operate a malignant lesion through a narrow incision with limited exposure. There are concerns over adverse oncological outcomes for single-port laparoscopic liver resections (SPL-LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic colorectal cancer. In addition, getting familiar with using the operating instruments through a narrow incision with limited exposure is very challenging. In this article, we reviewed the published literature to describe history, indications, contraindications, ideal patients for new beginners, technical difficulty, advantages, disadvantages, oncological concern and the future of SPL-LR.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is becoming widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and minor laparoscopic liver resection are now considered standard approaches, especially for tumors located in the anterolateral segments of the liver. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in adult donors is also gaining acceptance for child liver transplantation in many centers. Major LLRs, including left hepatectomy and right hepatectomy, have been recently attempted. Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is becoming more popular owing to increasing demand from young living donors who appreciate its minimal invasiveness and excellent cosmetic outcomes. Several centers have performed total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Many meta-analyses have shown that LLR is better than open liver resection in terms of short-term outcomes, principally cosmetic outcomes. Although no randomized control trials have compared LLR with open liver resection, the long-term oncologic outcomes were similar for both procedures in recent case-matched studies.

Safely extending the indications of laparoscopic liver resection: When should we start laparoscopic major hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is an innovative procedure that is still in the exploration phase. Although new surgical techniques have learning curves, safety should be maintained from the onset. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the safe introduction of LMH.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 245 consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection. Patients were divided into three groups: Phase I, the first 64 cases, all minor hepatectomies; Phase II, cases from the first LMH case to the midmost of the LMH cases (n = 69, including 22 LMHs); Phase III, the most recent 112 cases, including 22 LMHs. Patient characteristics and surgical results were evaluated, and the learning curve was analysed with the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

The first LMH was adopted after sufficient preparatory experience was gained from performing 64 minor hepatectomies. In cases of LMH, there were no significant differences in the surgical time between Phases II and III (356 vs. 309 min; P = 0.318), morbidity rate (22.7 vs. 31.8 %; P = 0.736), or major morbidity rate (18.2 vs. 9.1 %; P = 0.664); however, estimated blood loss was significantly reduced from Phase II to Phase III (236 vs. 68 mL; P = 0.018). The CUSUM for morbidity also showed similar outcomes through Phases II and III.

CONCLUSION

There is a learning curve associated with laparoscopic liver resection. To maintain a low morbidity rate, 60 laparoscopic minor hepatectomies could provide adequate experience before the adoption of LMH.

Harness Traction Technique (HARNESS): Novel Method for Controlling the Transection Plane During Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

We present our experience using a novel method for controlling the transection plane, which we termed as the Harness Traction Technique (HARNESS) and evaluate its usefulness. From May 2009 to March 2012, laparoscopic hepatectomies using HARNESS were performed on 35 patients. After the superficial hepatic parenchyma on the line was transected at 1 to 2 cm depth, 5 mm tape was placed along the groove of the line and tied to prevent it from slipping off. Tape was tied and pulled using a forceps toward the best direction for minimizing the bleeding, moving the transection point to the appropriate position and creating good tension for parenchymal transection at the transection point. There were no conversions to laparotomy or intraoperative complications. HARNESS is useful for controlling the dissection line during laparoscopic hepatectomy, leading to precise and safe laparoscopic liver parenchymal dissection.

Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Elderly Patients: A Comparative Study From a Single Center

The life expectancy continues to gradually increase worldwide. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was recently reported to be a relatively safe procedure for treatment of liver disease because of the development of new techniques and instruments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical outcomes of elderly patients who underwent LLR. Of these 61 patients who underwent LLR in our institute from January 2010 through April 2014, 21 were aged 75 years and above (group E), and 40 were aged below 75 years (group NE). Patient characteristics were retrospectively analyzed between the 2 groups. The results showed that patient characteristics were similar between the 2 groups, although the incidence of hypertension was significantly greater among patients in group E. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay between the 2 groups. In conclusion, LLR for elderly patients was a feasible procedure compared with nonelderly patients.

What is the Learning Curve for Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is rapidly expanding with more than 9500 cases performed worldwide. While initial series reported non-anatomic resection of benign peripheral hepatic lesions, approximately 50-65 % of laparoscopic liver resections are now being done for malignant tumors, primarily hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal cancer liver metastases (mCRC).

METHODS

We performed a literature review of published studies evaluating outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection, defined as three or more Couinaud segments.

RESULTS

Initial fears of adverse oncologic outcomes or tumor seeding have not been demonstrated, and dozens of studies have reported comparable 5-year disease-free and overall survival between laparoscopic and open resection of HCC or mCRC in case-cohort and propensity score-matched analyses. Increased experience has led to laparoscopic anatomic liver resections including laparoscopic major hepatectomy. A steep learning curve of 45-60 cases is evident for laparoscopic hepatic resection.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is safe and effective in the treatment of benign and malignant liver tumors when performed in specialized centers with dedicated teams. Comparable to other complex laparoscopic surgeries, laparoscopic major hepatectomy has a learning curve of 45-60 cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short-term efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis

AIM: To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) vs open hepate-ctomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 56 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis who were treated from September 2011 to December 2014 at our hospital. They were randomly divided into either an LH group (24 cases) or an OH group (32 cases) based on the mode of surgery. Intraoperative variables, postoperative recovery and short-term postoperative recurrence were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: There were comparable demographic data (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Operative time was 355.42 min ± 22.36 min for the LH group and 200.87 min ± 18.59 min for the OH group. Blood loss volume was 117.26 mL ± 57.17 mL for the LH group and 353.52 mL ± 80.63 mL for the OH group. The incidence rates of postoperative infection, bile leakage and ascites were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group. Levels of liver function (ALT, AST) within three days after operation, hospitalization, and short-term tumor recurrence rate were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group.

CONCLUSION: In the treatment of cirrhosis with liver cancer, LH is better than OH in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery and short-term recurrence.

A Conceptual Technique for Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy Based on Facts and Oncologic Principles: The Caudal Approach

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a new conceptual technique of laparoscopic right hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND

Despite significant improvements in surgical care in the last decades, morbidity is still high after major hepatectomy. Blood loss and transfusions are known to significantly increase the risk of postoperative complications and cancer recurrence after liver resection. A laparoscopic approach may improve perioperative outcomes in these cases, but data in literature are limited and the surgical technique is not yet standardized.

METHODS

A new conceptual technique of right hepatectomy was designed using evidence-based facts and oncologic rules: laparoscopy with pneumoperitoneum, low central venous pressure, intermittent pedicle clamping, anterior approach without mobilization, and parenchymal section with ultrasonic dissector. Thirty patients were prospectively enrolled between October 2011 and September 2013. Primary endpoint was intraoperative blood loss.

RESULTS

Eighty percent of patients underwent surgery for malignant disease and cirrhosis was present in 11 patients. Benign lesions accounted for 13% of indications, whereas living liver donation was performed in 2 cases. Median blood loss was 100 mL (50-700) and transfusion rate was 7%. Five patients (16.6%) required conversion to laparotomy, including 2 using hybrid technique. The median operative time was 360 minutes (210-510). R0 resection rate was 87% (21/24). Postoperative morbidity rate was 23% (7/30) with 8 complications including 6 Clavien III-IV. No respiratory complication occurred. The median hospital stay was 8 days. No patient died.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that several evidence-based facts could be combined to define a new conceptual technique of laparoscopic right hepatectomy allowing for low blood loss and morbidity.

Evidence supporting laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasing in frequency with over 9,000 cases done worldwide. Benefits of laparoscopic resection include less blood loss, smaller incisions, decreased postoperative morbidity, and shorter length of stay compared to open liver resection. With increased experience, several centers have reported series of laparoscopic major hepatectomy, although this represents only about 25% of total LLR performed. Evidence is accumulating to support laparoscopic major hepatectomy with the understanding that there is a steep learning curve, and surgeons should begin with minor LLR before moving on to laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Controversy still remains concerning indications, techniques, learning curve, risks, and long-term cancer outcomes with laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

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

Single-Port Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Largest Turkish Experience

Single-port laparoscopic surgery has the advantage of a hidden scar and reduced abdominal wall trauma. Although single-port laparoscopic surgery is widely performed for other organs, its application is very limited for liver resection. Here, we report our experience with nine patients who underwent single-port laparoscopic liver resection. Nine patients underwent single-port laparoscopic liver resection for the indications of hydatid cyst, hepatocellular carcinoma, and colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Nine patients were successfully treated with single-port laparoscopic surgery. The operative time was between 60 and 240 min. The only operative complication was bleeding up to 650 mL in a patient with cirrhosis. No postoperative complications occurred. All patients were discharged earlier than usual. Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery is a challenging surgery. Surgeon with the experience of laparoscopic liver surgery should perform the single-port laparoscopic liver surgery. It is technically feasible with a good outcome in well-selected patients. Initial cases must be benign lesions to avoid jeopardizing oncological safety.

Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy-Technique and Outcomes

BACKGROUND

With technological innovations especially newer parenchymal transection devices, improved understanding of hepatic anatomy facilitated by better imaging, and reconstructions along with experiences gained from advanced minimal invasive procedures, laparoscopic liver surgery is gaining momentum with more than 5300 reported cases worldwide. Most of the published literature comprises nonanatomical and segmental resections with only few case series having major hepatic resections performed by minimally invasive approach. Aim of this article is to share our technique and experience of total laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

It is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database of 56 patients, who underwent laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various indications during 2001 to 2013.

RESULTS

Of 56 patients operated, 37 had malignant disease and 19 had benign lesions with mean size of 6.0 ± 2.8 cm. Thirty-four patients underwent right hepatectomy and 22 left with mean age of 54.8 ± 15.3 years. Mean operating time was 227.4 ± 51.8 min with mean blood loss 265.5 ± 143.4 ml and transfusion needed in 10.7 %. Pringle's maneuver was used in 19.6 % with mean occlusion time of 34.0 ± 11.4 min. Liver-specific complications were observed in 12.5 % and overall complications in 19.6 %. Mean resection margin length in malignant lesions was 2.1 ± 0.9 cm, with <1 cm margin noted in 5.4 %. Median hospital stay was 8 days (6-29) with readmission rate of 8.9 %, re-intervention rate of 5.3 % and 90 days mortality of 1.7 %.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major liver resection is a formidable task. It requires considerable expertise in both, advanced laparoscopy, and liver surgery. It can be feasible, safe, and oncologically adequate in well-selected cases in experience hands.