Comparisons of financial and short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: benefits for patients and hospitals. Surg Today. 2016;46:535-542. [PMID: 26021453 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-015-1189-0]

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Probability of Postoperative Complication after Liver Resection: Stratification of Patient Factors,Operative Complexity, and Use of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to assess the performance of the 3-level complexity classification that stratified liver resection procedures into 3 complexity grades (grade I, low; grade II, intermediate; and grade III, high complexity) and to evaluate whether the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol improves postoperative outcomes for each complexity grade.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection at Lausanne University Hospital during 2010 to 2020 were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 437 patients were included. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay increased significantly, with a stepwise increase of the grades from I to III in open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection (all, p < 0.05). The same trend for Comprehensive Complication Index was found in open liver resection (p < 0.005). Age (p = 0.004), 3-level complexity classification (grade II vs I; p = 0.001; grade III vs I; p < 0.001), no use of the ERAS protocol (p = 0.016), and biliary reconstruction (p < 0.001) were significant predictors for postoperative complication, defined as Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 26.2 in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The prediction model incorporating the 4 factors had a calculated Concordance Index of 0.735 and 0.742 based on the bootstrapping method. The use of ERAS protocol was associated with lower probability of postoperative complication for each complexity grade and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ERAS protocol can decrease the probability of postoperative complication for each surgical complexity of liver resection and patient age. This finding emphasized the importance of tailoring perioperative management according to surgical complexity and patient age to improve outcomes after liver resection.

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

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

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection and open liver resection: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has gained momentum in recent years. This study of contemporary data compares economic and clinical outcomes between MILR and open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

We extracted data for patients undergoing liver resection between October 2015-September 2018 from the Premier Healthcare Database. We conducted a propensity score matched analysis to compare complications, in-hospital mortality, inpatient readmissions, discharge to institutional post-acute care, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost between MILR and OLR patients.

RESULTS

From the eligible OLR (n = 3349) and MILR (n = 1367) patients, we propensity score matched 1261 from each cohort at a 1:1 ratio. After matching, MILR was associated with lower rates of complications (bleeding: 8.2% vs. 17.4%; respiratory failure: 5.5% vs. 10.9%; intestinal obstruction: 3.6% vs. 6.0%, and pleural effusion: 1.9% vs. 4.9%), in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs. 3.0%), 90-day inpatient readmissions (10.4% vs. 14.3%), discharge to institutional post-acute care (6.9% vs. 12.3%), shorter ORT (257 vs. 308 min) and LOS (4.3 vs. 7.2 days), and lower hospital costs ($19463 vs. $29119) (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MILR was associated with lower risk of complications and reduced hospital resource utilizations as compared with OLR.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Inflammation Score System using Preoperative Inflammatory Markers to Predict Prognosis for Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Hepatectomy: A Cohort Study

Background: This study developed a novel inflammation score system to predict survival outcomes using preoperational inflammatory markers in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after surgery.

Materials and Methods: An inflammation score system was developed using five preoperative inflammatory markers based on the clinical data of 455 HCC patients (training cohort) receiving radical resection in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital. The system was validated using a cohort from a different hospital (external validation). Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test were used to compare the survival of patients with different inflammation scores. A nomogram including inflammation scores for survival prediction was created to exhibit the risk factors of overall survival (OS).

Results: The patients in the low-score group showed better OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the training and external validation cohorts than those from the high-score group. Subgroup analysis showed that compared with patients in the training cohort from the high-score group, stage I (eighth TNM stage) patients in the low-score group exhibited better prognosis results, whereas the findings for Stage II and III patients were different. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that high inflammation score is an independent risk factor of OS and RFS. The nomogram established using the inflammation score with the C-index value of 0.661 (95% confidence interval=0.624-0.698) revealed a good three- and five-year calibration curves.

Conclusions: The inflammation score system based on five preoperative inflammatory markers well predicted the survival of HCC patients after surgery, especially in those at the early stage (Stage I).

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH).

METHODS

Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Standardization of operative technique in minimally invasive right hepatectomy: improving cost-value relationship through value stream mapping in hepatobiliary surgery

BACKGROUND

With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar.

METHODS

MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016.

RESULTS

Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.

Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases

BACKGROUND

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) techniques range from a hybrid-technique to full robotic approaches. When compared with open techniques, MILR has been shown to be advantageous by reducing pain, complications, length of stay and blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization between full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic liver resections among major (≥ 3 segments) and minor (≤ 2 segments) resections.

METHODS

A single-center comparative retrospective review was completed on 214 patients undergoing full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, or robotic liver resection procedures between 2005 and 2018.

RESULTS

Among minor resections: 85 full laparoscopic, 40 hand-assisted, and 35 robotic liver resection cases were analyzed; and among major resections: 13, 33, and 8 cases were analyzed, respectively. In the adjusted subgroup analysis of minor resections, OR time was significantly longer for the minor hand-assisted group ([Formula: see text] = 181 min; p < 0.05), and the average lesion size was smaller for the minor full laparoscopic group ([Formula: see text] = 4.2 cm; p < 0.05). Overall, direct hospital charges were lowest in the group of patients who underwent a minor resection using the full laparoscopic technique ([Formula: see text] = $39,054.90; p < 0.05), compared to the robotic technique. Due to the smaller sample size (n = 54) in the major resection subgroup, only two significant observations were made - the full laparoscopic group had the least amount of blood loss ([Formula: see text] = 227 cc; p < 0.05) and incurred the least amount of room and board charges compared to the other two techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

The robotic approach appears favorable for minor resections as evidenced by shorter length of stay but more costly than full laparoscopy. Clinical outcomes appear to be more dependent upon the magnitude of the resection (i.e. major vs. minor) than the MILR technique chosen. Randomized trials may be indicated to discern the best indications and advantages of each technique.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of patients with liver damage B: A propensity score-based analysis

AIM

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is considered a safe and feasible treatment for malignant liver tumors. However, few studies have investigated the surgical outcomes of MILR in patients with impaired liver function. Liver damage is used for consideration of hepatectomy. The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of MILR for patients with impaired liver function by using propensity score matching.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients with liver damage B underwent hepatic resection were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups, the MILR group (n = 24) and the open liver resection (OLR) group (n = 75). After matching of a propensity score, we compared clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching, 36 patients (18 patients from each group) were selected and the patients' characteristics and tumor characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Blood loss (P = 0.0163) and complication rate (P = 0.0162) were significantly decreased in the MILR group. Complications were observed in eight patients, comprising one patient in the MILR group and seven patients in the OLR group. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shortened in the MILR group (P = 0.0118).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver resection might be effective for patients with impaired liver function. It reduces surgical complications and consequently shortens hospitalization time.

The prognostic significance of preoperative neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous reports have indicated that preoperative Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was correlated with the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatectomy. However, the results still remained controversial. Therefore, the present meta-analysis of 17 studies was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of preoperative NLR in HCC patients.

METHOD

Databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were retrieved. Hazard Ratio (HR) or Odds Ratio (OR) with its 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used to evaluate the association between preoperative NLR and the prognosis or clinical features of HCC patients.

RESULT

A total of 17 studies eventually were included in this meta-analysis. Elevated preoperative NLR had a close relationship with the overall survival (OS) (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.37-1.69), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR 1.64; 95% CI 1.44-1.87) and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.50; 95% CI 1.35-1.67) of hepatocellular carcinoma. Additionally, preoperative NLR was also associated with tumor vascular invasion (OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.60-2.70), HBV (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.90) and large tumor size (OR: 4.07; 95% CI 2.60-6.37).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis indicated that preoperative NLR had significant association with the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients and may be an effectively prognostic indicator.

The pretransplant neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a new prognostic predictor after liver transplantation for hepatocellular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Recently, many reports showed that the pretransplant neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may be correlated with the prognosis of patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular cancer (HCC). However, their results still remained controversial. Thus we performed a meta-analysis of 13 studies to estimate the prognostic value of pretransplant NLR.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to September 2017. Hazard ratio (HR) or odds ratio (OR) with its 95% CI was used to evaluate the association between elevated NLR and the prognosis or clinical features of liver cancer patients.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies including 1936 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Elevated pretransplant NLR had a close association with the overall survival (HR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.34-3.68), recurrence-free survival (HR: 3.77; 95% CI: 2.01-7.06) and disease-free survival (HR: 2.51; 95% CI: 1.22-5.15) of patients undergoing LT for HCC, respectively. In addition, elevated NLR was associated with the presence of vascular invasion (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.20-4.77) and Milan criteria (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.17-0.40).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis showed that elevated pretransplant NLR may be used as a new prognostic predictor after LT for HCC.

The pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio may predict prognosis of patients with liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

At present, several studies have reported that the pretreatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) may be associated with the prognosis of liver cancer. Nevertheless, their conclusions remain controversial. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis of 54 studies to evaluate the prognostic value of NLR.

METHOD

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched to July 2017.

RESULT

A total of 54 studies including 12 979 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Elevated NLR had a close relationship with the overall survival (OS) (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.39-1.67), recurrence-free survival (RFS) (HR 1.84; 95% CI 1.48-2.30), and disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.39-2.11) of liver cancer, respectively. In addition, elevated NLR was associated with the presence of tumor vascular invasion (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.93-2.86), multiple tumors (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.15-1.66), alpha-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.15-1.98), presence of HbsAg (+) (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51-0.90), and cirrhosis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI 0.44-0.80).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis indicated that elevated NLR may be an effective and noninvasive indicator for prognosis of patients with liver cancer.

Effect of local wound infiltration with ropivacaine on postoperative pain relief and stress response reduction after open hepatectomy

AIM

To prospectively evaluate the effect of local wound infiltration with ropivacaine on postoperative pain relief and stress response reduction after open hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 56 patients undergoing open hepatectomy were randomly divided into two groups: a ropivacaine group (wound infiltration with ropivacaine solution) and a control group (infiltration with isotonic saline solution). A visual analog scale (VAS) at rest and on movement was used to measure postoperative pain for the first 48 h after surgery. Mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), time to bowel recovery, length of hospitalization after surgery, cumulative sufentanil consumption, and incidence of nausea and vomiting were compared between the two groups. Surgical stress hormones (epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol) were detected using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and the results were compared.

RESULTS

VAS scores both at rest and on movement at 24 h and 48 h were similar between the two groups. Significantly lower VAS scores were detected at 0, 6, and 12 h in the ropivacaine group compared with the control group (P < 0.05 for all). MAP was significantly lower at 6, 12, and 24 h (P < 0.05 for all); HR was significantly lower at 0, 6, 12, and 24 h (P < 0.05 for all); time to bowel recovery and length of hospitalization after surgery (P < 0.05 for both) were significantly shortened; and cumulative sufentanil consumption was significantly lower at 6, 12, 24, and 36 h (P < 0.05 for all) in the ropivacaine group than in the control group, although the incidence of nausea and vomiting showed no significant difference between the two groups. The levels of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and cortisol were significantly lower in the ropivacaine group than in the control group at 24 and 48 h (P < 0.01 for all).

CONCLUSION

Local wound infiltration with ropivacaine after open hepatectomy can improve postoperative pain relief, reduce surgical stress response, and accelerate postoperative recovery.

Short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is an effective treatment, with long-term surgical outcomes for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis. However, the efficacy of a minimally invasive surgical approach for recurrent liver cancer is not yet confirmed. The purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of minimally invasive repeat liver resection (MISRLR) compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological features and short-term surgical outcomes of patients undergoing MISRLR and ORLR.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2016, 97 patients with liver cancer underwent repeat hepatectomy. Of these patients, 68 patients receiving macroscopically curative resection and only hepatectomy, without other additional operations, were selected. Twenty patients underwent MISRLR and 48 patients underwent ORLR. We compared the clinicopathological and surgical parameters in the MISRLR group with those in the ORLR group.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in patients' gender, age, viral infection status, Child-Pugh classification, tumor size, tumor number, tumor location, or the presence of liver cirrhosis in the two groups. The operative times were similar, but blood loss was significantly lower in MISRLR group (159 vs. 502 ml, P = 0.0035). The length of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MISRLR group (14.2 vs. 19.2 days, P = 0.0275). Postoperative complications were observed only in the ORLR group, with a complication rate of 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that MISRLR for primary and metastatic liver cancer reduces blood loss and postoperative complications compared with ORLR. MISRLR might be a feasible and effective procedure for the selected patients.

Perioperative management of hepatectomy in patients with interstitial pneumonia: a report of three cases and a literature review

PURPOSE

Interstitial pneumonia (IP) is a progressive and irreversible fibrosis and can be fatal if acute exacerbation (AE) occurs. While a useful risk-scoring system has been established for lung surgery, no risk evaluation exists for AE of IP related to non-pulmonary surgery. The objective of this review is to describe the management for patients with IP.

METHODS

We experienced three hepatectomy cases with IP. The first was a 72-year-old male patient diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) revealed IP with reticular shadow at the base of both lungs. After hepatectomy, his IP became acutely exacerbated and did not improve with steroid or sivelestat treatment. The second was a 74-year-old male patient diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, and the third was a 75-year-old male patient with liver metastasis. In both these cases, CT revealed a reticular shadow in the lung fields, with increased serum KL-6 levels. We administered pirfenidone for perioperative management, during which time no respiratory complications occurred.

RESULTS

Perioperative management with pirfenidone for hepatectomy accompanied by IP was successful in our cases.

CONCLUSION

We reviewed reports on the perioperative prevention, intraoperative risk factors, and treatment of postoperative AE of IP and summarized the perioperative management techniques for IP patients undergoing non-pulmonary surgery.

Is routine abdominal drainage necessary after liver resection?

PURPOSE

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is performed routinely after liver resection in many centers. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and validity of liver resection without abdominal drainage and to clarify whether routine abdominal drainage after liver resection is necessary.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis between July, 2006 and June, 2012 were divided into two groups, based on whether surgery was performed before or after, we adopted the no-drain strategy. The "former group" comprised 256 patients operated on between July, 2006 and June, 2009 and the "latter group" comprised 218 patients operated between July, 2009 and June, 2012. We compared the postoperative complications, percutaneous drainage, and postoperative hospital stay between the groups, retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative bleeding, intraabdominal infection, or bile leakage between the groups. Drain insertion after liver resection did not reduce the rate of percutaneous drainage. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the latter group.

CONCLUSION

Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis.

Preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of survival after reductive surgery plus percutaneous isolated hepatic perfusion for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

We assessed the predictive value of the preoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in patients who underwent a two-stage treatment combining reductive surgery and percutaneous isolated hepatic perfusion for multiple hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT).

METHODS

Forty-two patients underwent the two-stage treatment between January 2000 and December 2014 at Kobe University Hospital (Hyogo, Japan). The NLR was calculated from lymphocyte and neutrophil counts in the preoperative routine blood test. Clinical data and overall survival were compared statistically and multivariate analysis was done to identify prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The median survival of patients with a preoperative NLR > 2.3 was 14.9 months (n = 13), whereas that of patients with a preoperative NLR ≤ 2.3 was 26.1 months (n = 29; P = 0.022). A preoperative NLR > 2.3 was an independent prognostic factor in patients with multiple HCC with PVTT [hazard ratio (HR) 2.329; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.058-5.667; P = 0.036].

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of this study, an elevated preoperative NLR is an independent predictive risk factor for patients undergoing two-stage treatment for multiple HCC with PVTT.

The comparative costs of laparoscopic and open liver resection: a report for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The techniques of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have developed rapidly in selected centers, while global adoption of this approach has been cautious. The costs of LLR compared to open resection (OLR) are considered an important metric in evaluating this approach and may be a barrier to adoption in some centers.

METHODS

To formulate a consensus statement using the Zurich-Danish consensus model to the question of "What are the comparative outcomes of cost for LLR and OLR, minor and major?" a systematic search of the literature was conducted. Results were presented to the jury in September 2014 and updated in August 30, 2015. Adjustments for currency conversions and inflation were not performed due to limitations in available data.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were reviewed, and 11 relevant papers were selected for inclusion. No randomized control studies were found. Five studies were case-matched comparisons, while the remaining studies were retrospective reviews. The number of patients in each study ranged from 28 to 74, and the cumulative number of patients was 643 comparing 350 OLR to 293 LLR. Overall median hospital stay was lower for LLR at 4.6 versus 7.4 days. This remained valid when only the case-matched studies were analyzed, 4.6 (n = 178) versus 6.6 days (n = 266). The median overall total costs were 16.3 % lower (range 0 to -22 %) for LLR compared to OLR. This remained valid in the subgroup analysis of the case-matched studies, with a median 17.4 % lower costs for the LLR. Median OR costs were 3 % higher for LLR (range -9 to 40 %) but 32.9 % lower for hospital ward costs (range 0 to -60 %) when compared to OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the published literature indicates that overall hospital costs are less for LLR when compared to OLR (Level of evidence 3a and 3b). This evidence is strongest for minor hepatic resections. The decreased cost is based on savings in hospital ward costs and likely related to a significantly shorter hospital stay for LLR.