Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: a challenging, but feasible, safe and efficient procedure

EASL-ILCA Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) develops inside the liver, between bile ductules and the second-order bile ducts. It is the second most frequent primary liver cancer after hepatocellular carcinoma, and its global incidence is increasing. It is associated with an alarming mortality rate owing to its silent presentation (often leading to late diagnosis), highly aggressive nature and resistance to treatment. Early diagnosis, molecular characterisation, accurate staging and personalised multidisciplinary treatments represent current challenges for researchers and physicians. Unfortunately, these challenges are beset by the high heterogeneity of iCCA at the clinical, genomic, epigenetic and molecular levels, very often precluding successful management. Nonetheless, in the last few years, progress has been made in molecular characterisation, surgical management, and targeted therapy. Recent advances together with the awareness that iCCA represents a distinct entity amongst the CCA family, led the ILCA and EASL governing boards to commission international experts to draft dedicated evidence-based guidelines for physicians involved in the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic management of iCCA.

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH.

METHODS

All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure.

CONCLUSION

L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is an aggressive primary hepatic malignancy. Unfortunately, despite advancements in diagnosis, staging and management, mortality is high. Surgery remains the only curative treatment, but many patients present with advanced, unresectable disease. For patients able to undergo surgical resection, overall survival is improved, but remains low, with high rates of disease recurrence. Minimally invasive surgery (MIS), including laparoscopic and robotic approaches, are increasingly used in surgical resection for ICC. These approaches variably demonstrate faster recovery times, less blood loss, decreased postoperative pain and fewer postoperative complications, with adequate oncologic resections. This review examines patient selection and special considerations for MIS for ICC. Patient selection is critical and includes evaluation of a patient’s anatomic and oncologic resectability, as well as comorbidities.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as the new field of implementation of laparoscopic liver resection programs. A comparative propensity score-based analysis of open and laparoscopic liver resections

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Systematic review of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally-invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Most surgeons have traditionally been reluctant toward minimally-invasive surgery for bile duct tumors. This study aimed to perform a systematic literature review on perioperative and oncologic results of pure laparoscopic and robotic curative-intent surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. According to the PRISMA statement, a systematic review was conducted into Pubmed, EMBASE and Cochrane. A critical appraisal of study was performed according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Nineteen studies (12 on pure laparoscopy and 7 on robotics) were included: 7 case reports, 9 case series, 3 case-control (193 patients). The pooled conversion, morbidity, biliary leak and mortality rates were 5.5%, 43%, 16.4% and 4%. The weighted mean of operative time, blood loss and postoperative stay were 388 min, 446 mL and 14 days. For pure laparoscopy, the pooled R0 rate was 86%; overall survival and disease-free survival rates ranged from 85 to 100% and from 80 to 100% (median observation time 6-18 months). For robotic surgeries, the pooled R0 rate was 69% and overall survival rates ranged from 90 to 100% (median observation time 5-15 months). Case reports were overall of high quality, case series of moderate / high-quality, case-control studies ranged from low to high quality. In selected patients, minimally-invasive surgery for Klatskin tumors appears feasible, safe, satisfactory for perioperative outcomes and adequate for oncologic results. However, the results are based on few studies, limited in patient numbers and with allocation criteria more restrictive than open, reporting short follow-up and mainly with non-comparative design: evidence of higher quality is recommended.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy: A risk score for conversion for the paradigm of difficult laparoscopic liver resections. A single centre case series

BACKGROUND

Converted laparoscopic hepatectomies are known to lose some advantages of the minimally-invasiveness, and factors are identified to predict patients at risk. Specific evidence for laparoscopic right hepatectomy is expected of usefulness in clinical practice, given its technical peculiarities. The purpose of the study was the identification of risk factors and the development of a risk score for conversion of laparoscopic right hepatectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy performed at a single hepatobiliary surgical center were analyzed. The cohort was split in half to obtain a derivation and a validation set. Risk factors for conversion were identified by uni- and multivariable analysis. A "conversion risk score" was built assigning each factor 1 point and comparing the score with the conversion status for each patient. The accuracy was assessed by the area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve.

RESULTS

Among 130 operations, 22 were converted (16.9%). Reasons were: 45.5% oncologic inadequacy, 31.8% bleeding, 9.1% adhesions, 9.1% biliostasis, 4.5% anaesthesiological problems. Independent risk factors for conversion were: previous laparoscopic liver surgery (Hazard Ratio 4.9, p 0.011), preoperative chemotherapy ( Hazard Ratio 6.2, p 0.031), malignant diagnosis (Hazard Ratio 3.3, p 0.037), closeness to hepatocaval confluence or inferior vena cava (Hazard Ratio 4.1, p 0.029), tumor volume (Hazard Ratio 2.9, p 0.024). Conversion rates correlated positively with the score, raising from 0 to 100% when the score increased from 0 to 5 (Spearman: p 0.032 in the derivation set, p 0.020 in the validation set). The risk of conversion showed a sharp increase passing from class 3 to 4, reaching a probability estimated between 60 and 71.4%. The score showed good accuracy (area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve 0.82).

CONCLUSION

Specific risk factors for conversion are identified for laparoscopic right hepatectomy. This score may help in standardizing the choice of a pure laparoscopic or open approach for such challenging resections.

Solo single-incision laparoscopic liver resection: a cohort series

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILLR) is still challenging due to the unstable surgical view, the crowding instruments and its crossover. In this study, we present a new option of solo SILLR for various liver tumours in order to overcome those difficulties.

METHODS

Solo SILLR is indicated for liver tumours located in the left liver or in the superficial right liver. Data for 54 consecutive patients, who underwent solo SILLR between October 2015 and October 2018, were collected and analysed prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (55.5%) underwent non-anatomical resection. Left hemi-hepatectomy was performed in 11 patients (20.4%) and left lateral was performed in 13 patients (24.1%). The median operative time was 114 (range 30-335) min with median blood loss of 400 (50-750) mL with no need of blood transfusion and no intraoperative complications. The median length of hospital stay was 3 (range 1-19) days. There was one case of post-operative intra-abdominal fluid collection and one case of incisional hernia during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Solo SILLR is more feasible and safer for liver tumours located in the superficial right liver or in the left one. Therefore, solo surgery can be an option in SILLR.

Transumbilical versus periumbilical incision for laparoscopic surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether a transumbilical or periumbilical incision is beneficial for the initial peritoneal access in laparoscopic abdominal surgery has been debated. Our aim is to determine whether a transumbilical or periumbilical incision is a better route for the initial umbilical trocar.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published before March 2020. The meta-analysis calculated the pooled effect size by using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Five trials involving 783 patients were reviewed. The transumbilical group significantly reduced operation time (mean difference: -7.73; 95% confidence interval: -13.10 to -2.35) when compared to the periumbilical group. The length of hospital stay, mean pain scores on operation day and postoperation day 1 did not differ significantly between the two groups. Moreover, the incidence of surgical site infection, cosmetic satisfaction, and complication rate did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

A transumbilical incision is better than a periumbilical incision for laparoscopic surgery as it saves operation time. Hence, we suggest transumbilical incisions for the initial peritoneal access in laparoscopic abdominal surgery.

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.

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for liver tumors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is one of the most challenging procedures. Right liver resections have been always performed in open procedure and open right hepatectomy (ORH) was initially considered as routine way. Moreover, it is unclear how beneficial the minimally invasive technique is to patients; thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to acquire a more reliable conclusion about the feasibility and safety of LRH compared with ORH.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the key words. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager, with results expressed as odds ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. The fixed-effect model was selected initially if high heterogeneity was not present between the studies; otherwise, the randomized-effect model was used. Subgroup analysis was performed based on different surgical methods of pure laparoscopic operation or hand-assisted operation.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 467 patients were included. In the overall analysis, less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -155.17; 95% CI, -238.89, -71.45; P = .0003) and a shorter length of stay (MD = -4.45; 95% CI, -5.84, -3.07; P < .00001) were observed in the LRH group compared to the ORH group. There were fewer overall complications (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.90; P = 0.03) and severe complications (OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.58; P = .002;) in the LRH group than in the ORH group. The disadvantage of LRH was the longer operative time (MD = 49.39; 95% CI, 5.33, 93.45; P = .03). No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in portal occlusion, rate of R0 resection, transfusion rate, mild complications, and postoperative mortality. In the subgroup analysis, intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the pure LRH group and hand-assist LRH group compared with ORH group. Length of stay was shorter by use of pure LRH and hand-assisted LRH manners than ORH. The incidence rate of complications was lower in the pure LRH group than in the ORH group. In contrast, there was no significant difference between hand-assisted LRH group and ORH group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to ORH, LRH has short-term surgical advantages and leads to a shorter recovery time in selected patients. We speculate that the operative time of LRH is closer with ORH. Overall, LRH can be considered a feasible choice in routine clinical practice with experienced surgeons, although more evidence is needed to make a definitive conclusion.

A novel exposure maneuver in laparoscopic right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic access to the posterosuperior and lateral parts of the right liver is difficult for blocked and deep surgical situations. We invented a novel water bag device (WBD) to improve the exposure of the right liver.

METHODS

Eighteen consecutive patients with lesions isolated to the posterosuperior or lateral right liver were included in our research. They underwent laparoscopic right hepatectomy with the help of the device and were compared with previous similar laparoscopic cases of our operating surgeon.

RESULTS

The device was successfully employed without related complications and provided enhanced and stable surgical exposure. All patients were operated on without the need for blood transfusions or laparotomy conversion. The median operation time and estimated blood loss were 227 minutes (range, 114-568) and 88 mL (range, 25-250), respectively. In all cases, tumor-free surgical margins were confirmed and no major complications were observed. The results were better than those in previous similar laparoscopic cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The WBD is safe and effective for laparoscopic exposure when lesions are located in the posterosuperior and lateral parts of the right liver. With the help of the device, laparoscopic right liver resection is easier to perform instead of undergoing open hepatectomy.

Evaluating the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study between standard and learning curve CUSUM

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) requires training in both hepatobiliary surgery and advanced laparoscopy. Available data on LLR learning curves are derived from pioneer surgeons. The aims of this study were to evaluate the LLR learning curve for second generation surgeons, and to compare different CUSUM methodology with and without risk adjustment.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 111 consecutive patients who underwent LLR by two surgeons at a single centre between 2011 and 2016. The LLR learning curve for minor hepatectomy (MH) was evaluated for each surgeon using standard CUSUM before and after risk-adjusting for operative difficulty using the Iwate index, and compared with Learning Curve (LC) CUSUM. The end points were operative time and conversion rate.

RESULTS

Standard CUSUM analysis identified a learning curve of 50-60 MH procedures. The corresponding learning curve reduced to 25-30 after risk-adjusting for operative difficulty, whilst LC-CUSUM identified a learning curve of 17-25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for laparoscopic minor liver resection by second generation surgeons is shorter than that for pioneer surgeons. Laparoscopic HPB fellowship programmes may further shorten the learning curve, facilitating safe expansion of LLR. The LC-CUSUM method is an alternative technique that warrants further study.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

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.

Laparoscopic liver resection for large HCC: short- and long-term outcomes in relation to tumor size

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aim to assess the impact of tumor size on clinical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

BACKGROUND

LLR has been shown to be feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient. However, it has been slow to develop in patients with HCC who often suffer from chronic liver disease which represents an additional challenge for the surgeon. The experience with large HCCs is even more limited.

METHODS

Between 2003 and 2016, 172 patients from two high-volume liver surgery centers underwent LLR for HCC. Prospectively collected data were analyzed after stratification in 3 groups according to tumor major diameter (group 1: < 3 cm; group 2: between 3 and 5 cm; group 3: ≥ 5 cm). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the three groups and sub-analyses were carried out on the extent and location of the resections.

RESULTS

Groups 1, 2, and 3 consisted of 82, 52, and 38 patients, respectively. Minor and major resections were performed in 98.8% and 1.2% in group 1, in 90.4% and 9.6% in group 2, and in 68.4% and 31.6% in group 3, respectively. Postero-superior "technically major" resections were performed in 15.8% patients in group 1, in 19.2% in group 2, and in 15.8% in group 3, respectively. Group 3 had higher conversion rates (p < 0.001), more frequent (p = 0.056) and more prolonged (p = 0,075) pedicle clamping and longer operative time (p < 0.001), higher blood losses (p = 0.025), and longer total hospital and intensive care unit stays. These differences ceased after removing the major resections from the study population, except for the postoperative length of stay. There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, completeness of resection rates, and long-term outcomes between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC appears to be safe and oncologically efficient when performed in high-volume HPB and laparoscopic centers. Tumor size does not appear to impact negatively on the outcomes except for postoperative hospital stay.

Fully laparoscopic left hepatectomy - a technical reference proposed for standard practice compared to the open approach: a retrospective propensity score model

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) may be an alternative to open (OLH). There are several original variations in the technical aspects of LLH, and no accepted standard. The aim of this study is to assess the safety and effectiveness of the technique developed at Henri Mondor Hospital since 1996.

METHODS

The technique of LLH was conceived for safety and training of two mature generations of lead surgeons. The technique includes full laparoscopy, ventral approach to the common trunk, extrahepatic pedicle dissection, CUSA^® parenchymal transection, division of the left hilar plate laterally to the Arantius ligament, and ventral transection of the left hepatic vein. The outcomes of LLH and OLH were compared. Perioperative analysis included intra- and postoperative, and histology variables. Propensity Score Matching was undertaken of background covariates including age, ASA, BMI, fibrosis, steatosis, tumour size, and specimen weight.

RESULTS

17 LLH and 51 OLH were performed from 1996 to 2014 with perioperative mortality rates of 0% and 6%, respectively. In the LLH group, two patients underwent conversion to open surgery. Propensity matching selected 10 LLH/OLH pairs. The LLH group had a higher proportion of procedures for benign disease. LLH was associated with longer operating time and less blood loss. Perioperative complications occurred in 30% (LLH) and 10% (OLH) (p = 1). Mortality and ITU stay were similar.

CONCLUSION

This technique is recommended as a possible technical reference for standard LLH.

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.

Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is increasingly performed in specialized centers. While there is a trend towards a parenchyma-sparing strategy in multimodal treatment for CLM, its role is yet unclear. In this study we present short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (LPSLR) at a single center.

Patients and methods

LLR were performed in 951 procedures between August 1998 and March 2017 at Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Patients who primarily underwent LPSLR for CLM were included in the study. LPSLR was defined as non-anatomic hence the patients who underwent hemihepatectomy and sectionectomy were excluded. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. The Accordion classification was used to grade postoperative complications. The median follow-up was 40 months.

Results

296 patients underwent primary LPSLR for CLM. A single specimen was resected in 204 cases, multiple resections were performed in 92 cases. 5 laparoscopic operations were converted to open. The median operative time was 134 minutes, blood loss was 200 ml and hospital stay was 3 days. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. The postoperative complication rate was 14.5%. 189 patients developed disease recurrence. Recurrence in the liver occurred in 146 patients (49%), of whom 85 patients underwent repeated surgical treatment (liver resection [n = 69], ablation [n = 14] and liver transplantation [n = 2]). Five-year overall survival was 48%, median overall survival was 56 months.

Conclusions

LPSLR of CLM can be performed safely with the good surgical and oncological results. The technique facilitates repeated surgical treatment, which may improve survival for patients with CLM.

Laparoscopic parenchymal sparing resections in segment 8: techniques for a demanding and infrequent procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections for lesions in the postero-superior segments are technically demanding due their deep location and relation with the vena cava. However, previous reports have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of these resections in centres with advanced experience in laparoscopic liver surgery. In this case series, we present our results and experience of laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections of lesions in segment 8.

METHODS

All patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resections of segment 8 lesions, alone or combined with other liver resections, between August 2003 and July 2016 were included. Analysis of baseline characteristics and perioperative results was performed for the whole cohort. A separate subgroup analysis was performed for isolated segment 8 resections. Long-term results were analyzed in patients with colorectal liver metastases. A video is attached for thorough explanation of surgical technique.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included. Among them, 13 patients had isolated segment 8 resections. Operative time for the whole cohort and isolated segment 8 resections were 210 min (range 180-247 min) and 200 min (range 90-300 min), respectively. The conversion rate was 3.4% for the entire cohort and 0 for isolated segment 8 resections. Major morbidity was 7 and 0%, respectively. R0 rates were 96% for the entire cohort and 92% for isolated segment 8 resections. Recurrence free survival in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup was 82, 71 and 54% at 1, 3 and 5 years. Overall survival was 94, 82 and 65% at 1, 3 and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of lesions in segment 8 is feasible and offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with parenchyma sparing resections. However, advanced experience in LLR is essential to ensure safety and oncological results.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Comparative Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Conventional Approaches for Major or Challenging Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The benefits of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for low-risk or minor liver resection are well established. There is growing interest in MIS for major hepatectomy (MH) and other challenging resections, but there remain unanswered questions of safety that prevent broad adoption of this technique.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hepatectomy at 65 hospitals participating in the NSQIP Hepatopancreatobiliary Collaborative in 2014. We assessed serious morbidity or mortality (SMM; including organ/space infection and organ failure). Secondary outcomes included transfusion, bile leak, liver failure, reoperation or intervention, and 30-day readmission. We also measured factors considered to make resection more challenging (ie large tumors, cirrhosis, ≥3 concurrent resections, previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and morbid obesity).

RESULTS

There were 2,819 patients who underwent hepatectomy (aged 58 ± 14 years; 53% female; 25% had MIS). After adjusting for clinical and operative factors, the odds of SMM (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and reoperation or intervention (OR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; p = 0.03) were significantly lower for patients undergoing MIS compared with open. In the MH group (n = 1,015 [13% MIS]), there was no difference in the odds of SMM after MIS (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.11; p = 0.08); however, minimally invasive MH met criteria for noninferiority. There were no differences in liver-specific complications or readmission between the groups. Odds of SMM were significantly lower after MIS among patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.70; p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large study of minimally invasive MH, we found safety outcomes that are equivalent or superior to conventional open surgery. Although the decision to offer MIS might be influenced by factors not included in this evaluation (eg surgeon experience and other patient factors), these findings support its current use in MH.

Comparison of laparoscopic hepatectomy, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and open hepatectomy in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Three mainstream techniques--laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (pRFA), and open hepatectomy (OH)--were compared in this study, in terms of their efficacies in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A comparative study was performed within a total of 94 patients diagnosed with small HCC in our hospital from 2005 to 2010, who underwent LH (28), RFA (33), or OH (33). They had either a single tumor lesion of less than or up to three nodules with diameters of less than each. Outcomes were carefully evaluated throughout a 3-year follow-up interval and statistically interpreted.

RESULTS

The pRFA group had a significantly lower disease-free survival rate compared with the two surgical groups (P=0.001) and significantly shorter overall survival (P=0.005), while the LH group and the OH group had no difference in survival results. For patients younger than 60 years old, surgical approaches offered a better long-term overall survival prognosis (P=0.008). There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups in overall survival for elderly patients (P=0.104).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with small HCC, LH may provide better curative effects than pRFA without increasing complication rates. pRFA leads to faster recurrence than surgical resections. LH has similar therapeutic effects to OH and causes less trauma. For patients younger than 60 years old, LH may be the best curative treatment. Elderly patients may choose either surgery or pRFA.

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.

Propensity score-based analysis of outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

There is a need for high-level evidence regarding the added value of laparoscopic (LLR) compared with open (OLR) liver resection. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) undergoing LLR and OLR using propensity score matching to minimize bias.

METHODS

This was a single-centre retrospective study using a prospective database of patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM between August 2004 and April 2015. Co-variates selected for matching included: number and size of lesions, tumour location, extent and number of resections, phase of surgical experience, location and lymph node status of primary tumour, perioperative chemotherapy, unilobar or bilobar disease, synchronous or metachronous disease. Prematching and postmatching analyses were compared. Surgical and oncological outcomes were analysed.

RESULTS

Some 176 patients undergoing LLR and 191 having OLR were enrolled. After matching, 133 patients from each group were compared. At prematching analysis, patients in the LLR group showed a longer overall survival (OS) and higher R0 rate than those in the OLR group (P = 0·047 and P = 0·030 respectively). Postmatching analyses failed to confirm these results, showing similar OS and R0 rate between the LLR and OLR group (median OS: 55·2 versus 65·3 months respectively, hazard ratio 0·70 (95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 1·05; P = 0·082); R0 rate: 92·5 versus 86·5 per cent, P = 0·186). The 5-year OS rate was 62·5 (95 per cent c.i. 45·5 to 71·5) per cent) for OLR and 64·3 (48·2 to 69·5) per cent for LLR. Longer duration of surgery, lower blood loss and morbidity, and shorter postoperative stay were found for LLR on postmatching analysis.

CONCLUSION

Propensity score matching showed that LLR for CRLM may provide R0 resection rates and long-term OS comparable to those for OLR, with lower blood loss and morbidity, and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection after the Louisville statement 2008: Will it be more effective and smooth?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proven to be feasible and safe. However, it is a difficult and complex procedure with a steep learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of LLR at our institutions since 2008.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-six consecutive LLRs were included from May 2008 to December 2014. Patient characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were collected prospectively and analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor size was 25 mm (range 5-90 mm), and 96 % of the resected tumors were malignant. 41.3 % (52/126) of patients had pathologically proven liver cirrhosis. The median operation time was 216 min (range 40-602 min) with a median blood loss of 100 ml (range 20-2300 ml). The median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-10 days). Six major postoperative complications occurred in this series, and there was no 90-day postoperative mortality. Regarding the incidence of major operative events including operation time longer than 300 min, perioperative blood loss above 500 ml, and major postoperative complications, the learning curve [as evaluated by the cumulative sum (CUSUM) technique] showed its first reverse after 22 cases. The indication of laparoscopic resection in this series extended after 60 cases to include tumors located in difficult locations (segments 4a, 7, 8) and major hepatectomy. CUSUM showed that the incidence of major operative events proceeded to increase again, and the second reverse was noted after an additional 40 cases of experience. Location of the tumor in a difficult area emerged as a significant predictor of major operative events.

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected patients, CUSUM analysis showed 22 cases were needed to overcome the learning curve for minor LLR.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Nonperipheral Liver Lesions, the Diamond Technique: Technical Aspects, Clinical Outcomes, and Oncologic Efficiency

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of liver lesions has moved toward "parenchymal-sparing" strategies. Although open parenchymal-sparing liver resections are supported by encouraging results, the applicability of the laparoscopic approach for nonperipheral tumors is still questionable. Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resection for nonperipheral lesions with a description of the technique adopted in this setting.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospectively collected single-center database of 517 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed. Laparoscopic nonperipheral parenchymal-sparing liver resections (LapPSLRs), that is, entirely intraparenchymal limited resections performed on nonperipheral lesions, were selected. Intra- and perioperative outcomes were analyzed along with 3-year actuarial survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases.

RESULTS

The group comprised 49 LapPSLRs. Colorectal liver metastases were the most frequent diagnosis (n = 24 patients). Lesions were located in segments 8, 7, 4a, and 3 in 51%, 8.2%, 36.7%, and 4.1% of cases, respectively. Conversion occurred in 4 patients (8%). Intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes were calculated for the 24 isolated LapPSLR (not associated with any concurrent liver resection). Median operative time and blood loss were 215 minutes and 225 mL, respectively. Pringle maneuver was used in 75% of cases. Postoperative 90-day mortality was nil and morbidity rate was 12.5%. Median postoperative stay was 3 days. Median tumor-free margin was 4 mm and 100% R0 rate was achieved for all LapPSLRs with curative intent. Three-year overall, recurrence-free, and disease-free survival rates were 100%, 65.2%, and 69.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resections for nonperipheral liver lesions are feasible and can be performed safely without compromising perioperative and oncological outcomes.

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic surgery of liver metastases: a single-centre experience

In the era of multimodal management of liver metastases, surgical resection remains the only curative option, with open approach still being referred to as the standard of care. Currently, the feasibility and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for liver resection have been largely demonstrated. However, its oncologic adequacy remains to be confirmed. The aim of this study is to report the oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic disease in a single-centre experience. A single-centre database of 413 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed and procedures for liver metastases were selected. The assessment of oncologic outcomes included analysis of minimal tumour-free margin, R1 resection rate and 3-year survival. The feasibility and safety of the procedures were also evaluated through analysis of perioperative outcomes. The study comprised 209 patients (294 procedures). Colorectal liver metastases were the commonest indication (67.9%). Fourteen patients had conversion (6.7%) and oncological concern was the commonest reason for conversion (42.8%). Median tumour-free margin was 10 mm and complete radical resections were achieved in 211 of 218 curative-intent procedures (96.7%). For patients affected by colorectal liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 85.9 and 66.7%. For patients affected by neuroendocrine liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 93 and 77.8%. Among the patients with metastases from other primaries, 1- and 3-year OS were 83.3 and 70.5%. The laparoscopic approach is a safe and valid option in the treatment of patients with metastatic liver disease undergoing curative resection. It does offer significant perioperative benefits without compromise of oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification

BACKGROUND

According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision.

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic "posterosuperior" major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

Pure laparoscopic liver resection for large malignant tumors: does size matter?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large malignant tumors can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce, and many question its feasibility, safety, and oncologic efficiency. This study aimed to assess outcomes of LLR for large (≥ 5 cm) and giant (≥ 10 cm) malignant liver tumors.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of 422 LLRs was reviewed from August 2003 to August 2013. The data for 52 patients undergoing LLR for large malignant tumors were analyzed. A subgroup analysis of giant tumors also is reported.

RESULTS

During the period studied, 52 LLRs were performed (males, 53.8 %; mean age, 64.6 years) for large malignant tumors. Colorectal liver metastasis was the most common indication (42.3 %). The 52 LLRs included 32 major (61.5 %) and 20 minor (38.5 %) LLRs for tumors with a mean diameter of 83 mm. The median operative time was 240 min [interquartile range (IQR), 150-330 min], and the blood loss was 500 ml (IQR, 200-1,373 ml). Eight conversions (15.4 %) were performed. Six patients experienced complications (11.5 %). Among the 44 patients with successful LLRs, two patients (4.5 %) had an R1 resection. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 1-21 days), and no mortality occurred during a 90-day period. A subgroup analysis of patients with giant tumors showed greater blood loss (p = 0.002) and a longer operative time (p = 0.052) but no difference in terms of conversions (p = 0.64) or complications (p = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that LLR is feasible and safe for large malignant tumors and can be performed with acceptable morbidity and oncologic efficiency. When used for giant malignant tumors, LLR is associated with greater blood loss and a longer operative time but no increase in complications.

Laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature: feasibility, safety and oncological efficiency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature can be challenging, and many would consider it a contraindication. Recently, however, laparoscopic liver surgeons have been pushing boundaries and approached some of these lesions laparoscopically. We assessed feasibility, safety and oncological efficiency of this laparoscopic approach for these lesions.

METHODS

This is a monocenter study (2003-2013) describing technique and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature: <2 cm from the portal vein (main trunk and first division), hepatic arteries or inferior vena cava.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for a lesion adjacent to major vasculature. Twenty-four (65%) resections were for malignant disease and 92% R0 resections. Conversion occurred in three patients (8%). Mean operative time was 313 min (standard deviation (SD) ± 101) and intraoperative blood loss 400 ml (IQR 213-700). Clavien-Dindo complications > II occurred in two cases (5%), with no mortality. Lesions at <1 cm were larger (7.2 cm (2.7-14) vs. 3 cm (2.5-5), p = 0.03) and operation time was longer (344 ± 94 vs. 262 ± 92 min, p = 0.01) than lesions at 1-2 cm from major vasculature.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions <2 cm from major hepatic vasculature do not represent an absolute contraindication for LLR when performed by experienced laparoscopic liver surgeons in selected patients.

The impact of laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery on subsequent laparoscopic resection of liver metastases: A multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

METHODS

This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach.

An update on laparoscopic liver resection: The French Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery Association statement

Laparoscopic liver resection has been recognized as a safe and efficient approach since the Louisville Conference in 2008, but its use still remains confined to experienced teams in specialized centers, and may lack some standardization. The 2013 Session of French Association for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery (ACHBT) specifically focused on laparoscopic liver surgery and the particular aspects and issues arising since the 2008 conference. Our objective is to provide an update and summarize the current French position on laparoscopic liver surgery. An overview of the current practice of laparoscopic liver resections in France since 2008 is presented. The issues surrounding standardization for left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy, hybrid and hand-assisted techniques are raised and discussed. Finally, future technologies and technical perspectives are outlined.

Outcomes of repeat laparoscopic liver resection compared to the primary resection

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection (R-LLR) can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce and many investigators would question its feasibility and outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, oncological efficiency and outcomes of R-LLR.

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected database of 403 patients undergoing 422 laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) from August 2003 to August 2013. Data of 19 patients undergoing R-LLR were analyzed and compared to the primary resection (P-LLR) in these patients. Demographic and clinical data were studied. A subgroup analysis was done for minor resections.

RESULTS

Twenty R-LLRs were performed in 19 patients (female 58 %; mean age: 57.5 years; age range: 23-79 years). Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) were the commonest indication for R-LLR (60 %), followed by neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NETLM) (20 %) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (10 %). The majority (90 %) of resections were for malignant disease (18/20). There were three conversions (15 %), and two patients developed complications (10 %). The operative time (p = 0.005) and blood loss (p = 0.03) were both significantly greater in R-LLR compared to P-LLR, whereas length of stay (median 4 days; p = 0.30) and complications (p = 0.58) did not differ between the groups. R0 resection rates for P-LLR and R-LLR were 95 and 90 %, respectively (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LLR is safe, feasible, and can be performed with minimal morbidity. It appears to be technically more challenging than P-LLR, but without any increase in complications or length of hospital stay.

[Laparoscopic liver surgery]

Liver resection remains the method of choice for curative treatment for liver tumors. Development in diagnostic and surgical techniques has improved operative results as well as long-term outcomes. In the last decade minimally invasive laparoscopic (LAP) surgery has been increasingly adopted by liver units. The trend in LAP liver resection has been moving from limited resections towards major hepatectomy. This process, however, is relatively slow, which can be due to technical difficulties of the procedure and fear of haemorrhage. Despite having a hard time at the start, major resections become more common. Up to now approximately 6000 LAP liver resections were performed worldwide, number of major hepatectomies is estimated between 700-800. LAP liver resections are feasible with significant benefits for patients consisting of less blood loss, less narcotic requirements, and shorter hospital stay with comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open liver resections. It is an accepted management of both benign and malignant liver lesions. There is no difference between LAP and open surgery in late survival after resection for colorectal liver metastases. Overall survival of LAP resected hepatocellular carcinoma cases seems to be superior compared with open surgery.

Single incision laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review

Single incision laparoscopic surgery is a rather innovative surgical technique. A systematic literature review was performed with the intention to evaluate the till now clinical evidence regarding the application of single incision technique on liver resections as a method of management in hepatic lesions. Twelve relative studies were found in the field including 30 patients with a age range from 29 to 90 years and a body mass index from 20.1 to 36.5 kg/m². Primary hepatic carcinoma (40%), metastatic nodules (26.7%), hepatic cysts (16.7%), hepatic haemangiomas (13.3%) and hepatic adenoma (3.3%) were the most common indications of the lesions resected. The types of hepatectomy performed included partial hepatectomy (43.3%), segmentectomy (30%) and lobectomy (26.7%). In the majority of the patients, left lateral segments (II-III-IV) (76.7%) were resected. The median operative time was 110 min (range: 55-235) while the median quantity of blood loss was 50 ml (range: 0-100). No conversion to open surgery and no transfusion were needed. The duration of hospital stay ranged between 2 and 11 days. No complications, no cases of disease recurrence or death of patients were reported. None of the studies included described data on the cosmesis of the application of single incision laparoscopic technique on hepatic resections. Moreover, the surgical technique, as well as the different type of ports used is also presented in this review. Single site port laparoscopic surgery is a promising minimally invasive procedure for liver resections.

Long-term outcome of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-controlled study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is usually applied to superficial and left-side small lesions. Therefore, well designed comparative studies about the results of LR versus open liver resection (OR) for HCC are difficult and still uncommon. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of LR versus OR for HCC between well-matched patient groups.

METHODS

Between January 2000 and March 2012, 205 patients (43 with intent-to-treat with LR, 162 OR) underwent primary liver resection of less than three segments for HCC in our center. To select a comparison group, propensity score matching (PSM) was used at 1:1 ratio with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics. Outcomes were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were well balanced by PSM and 29 patients were matched respectively. In LR, there was more non-anatomical resection (65.5 vs. 34.5 %; p = 0.012), less postoperative ascites (0.0 vs. 17.2 %; p = 0.025), and shorter hospital stay (7.69 ± 2.94 vs. 13.38 ± 7.37 days; p < 0.001). With the exception of these, there were no significant differences in perioperative and long-term outcomes. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survivals were 100, 100 and 92.2 % in LR, and 96.5, 92.2 and 87.7 % in OR (p = 0.267), respectively. The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survivals were 81.7, 61.7 and 54.0 % in LR, and 78.6, 60.9 and 40.1 % in OR, respectively (p = 0.929).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of LR for HCC was technically feasible and safe in selected patients, and LR showed similar perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes when compared with OR matched with PSM.

A comparison of right posterior sectorectomy with formal right hepatectomy: a dual-institution study

OBJECTIVES

Right posterior sectorectomy (RPS) preserves liver volume but typically requires a longer parenchymal transection distance than does right hepatectomy (RH). This study was conducted to define the advantages of one approach over the other.

METHODS

Databases at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed for all patients submitted to RPS or RH between January 2000 and August 2012. Primary outcomes were perioperative complications and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing RPS (n = 100) and RH (n = 480), respectively, were similar in demographics, comorbidities, operative indications and Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) mean scores (7.8 in the RPS group and 7.7 in the RH group; P = 0.49). A comparison of the RPS group with the RH group showed no significant differences in mean estimated blood loss (697 ml versus 713 ml; P = 0.900), rate of transfusions (19.2% versus 17.1%; P = 0.720), margin-positive resection (9.2% versus 11.6%; P = 0.70), complications (41.8% versus 42.0%; P = 1.000), bile leak (3.0% versus 4.0%; P = 1.000), or length of stay (7.5 days versus 8.3 days; P = 0.360). Postoperative hepatic insufficiency (defined as a postoperative bilirubin level of >7 mg/dl or significant ascites), occurred less frequently after RPS (1.0% versus 8.5%; P = 0.005). Operation type remained an independent determinant of postoperative hepatic insufficiency after controlling for preoperative risk factors (RH: hazard ratio = 9.628, 95% confidence interval 1.295-71.573; P = 0.027). A total of 28 (4.8%) patients died within 90 days; these included 25 (5.2%) patients in the RH group and three (3.0%) in the RPS group (P = 0.449).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar blood loss and overall morbidity, RPS is associated with less hepatic insufficiency than RH. Right posterior sectorectomy is parenchyma-sparing and should be strongly considered when it is technically feasible and oncologically sound.

European experience of laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic hepatectomies have seen a worldwide proliferation. Major anatomic resections, which were initially considered unsuitable for laparoscopy, are currently confined to a few centers of expertise. The aim of this study was to discuss the current trends and techniques in laparoscopic major hepatectomy in Europe.

METHODS

The prospective databases of ten European centers were combined to provide answers to a questionnaire that had been addressed to all European teams known to perform laparoscopic liver surgery.

RESULTS

Between 1996 and 2011 a total of 2245 laparoscopic liver resections have been carried out, of which 495 (22 %) were major resections. The proportion of laparoscopic right and left hepatectomies varied between 4 and 40 % of all major hepatectomies of the same type. Benign, primary malignant and metastatic lesions were, respectively, 22.4, 19.6 and 58 % of all indications. The different techniques and approaches, as regards hand assistance, hepatic inflow and outflow control, liver mobilization and concomitant colectomies, are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, an important level of experience of laparoscopic liver resection has been accumulated in Europe, and experience of major hepatectomies is constantly increasing. However, they remain technically very demanding procedures which should be confined to expert surgeons who have already acquired considerable experience with simpler laparoscopic liver resections.