Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage

A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections.

METHODS

All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series).

RESULTS

The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss - 150 and - 350, respectively; differential benefit: 200 mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity - 11.3% and - 18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS - 1 day and - 3 days, respectively; differential benefit: 2 days, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.

Risk Factors and Long-Term Implications of Unplanned Conversion During Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become a widely used standardized operation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the field of hepatic surgery. However, the risk factors and long-term implications associated with unplanned conversion to an open procedure during the LLR have not been adequately studied. Methods: The study incorporated 96 patients with HCC. Risk factors of conversion and their prognosis were analyzed by comparing patients who successfully underwent LLR with those who required unplanned conversion. Results: In this study, the unplanned conversion rate for laparoscopic hepatectomy was 42.7%. Patients who underwent conversion had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days, P < .001), longer operation time (297.73 versus 194.03 minutes, P = .000), a higher transfusion rate (29.3% versus 5.5%, P < .001), and more postoperative complications compared with patients who successfully underwent LLR. The two surgical maneuvers did not show substantial disparities in terms of total survival and disease-free survival rates. Risk factors of unplanned conversion contained tumor location (odds ratio [OR], 3.129; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.214-8.066; P = 0.018) and tumor size (OR, 2.652; 95% CI: 1.039-6.767; P = 0.041). Conclusions: The unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC was linked to unfavorable short-term prognosis, yet it did not influence long-term oncologic outcomes. Moreover, preoperative evaluation of tumor size and location may effectively reduce the probability of unplanned conversion during LLR.

Robotic Approach for Lymphadenectomy in Biliary Tumors: The Missing Ring Between the Benefits of Laparoscopic and Reproducibility of Open Approach?

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND

The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHODS

Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group).

RESULTS

Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.

Efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma located in the posterosuperior segments: A multi-institutional study using propensity score matching by the Kyushu Study Group of Liver Surgery

AIM

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in the posterosuperior segments (PS) have generally been considered more difficult than those for HCC in anterolateral segments (AL), but may be safe and feasible for selected patients with accumulated experience. In the present study, we investigated the effectiveness of LLR for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm located in PS.

METHODS

In total, 473 patients who underwent partial liver resection for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm at the 18 institutions belonging to the Kyusyu Study Group of Liver Surgery from January 2010 to December 2018 were enrolled. The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic partial liver resection and open liver resection (OLR) for HCCs ≤3 cm, with subgroup analysis of PS and AL, were compared using propensity score-matching analysis. Furthermore, results were also compared between LLR-PS and LLR-AL.

RESULTS

The original cohort of patients with HCC ≤3 cm included 328 patients with LLR and 145 with OLR. After matching, 140 patients with LLR and 140 with OLR were analyzed. Significant differences were found between groups in terms of volume of blood loss (median, 55 vs. 287 ml, p < 0.001), postoperative complications (0.71 vs. 8.57%, p = 0.003), and postoperative hospital stay (median, 9 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001). The results of subgroup analysis of PS were similar. Short-term outcomes did not differ significantly between LLR-PS and LLR-AL after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic partial resection could be the preferred option for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm located in PS.

Delimiting Low Level of Difficulty Scoring System Based on the Extent of Resection Difficulty Scoring System for Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Background: The difficulty scoring system based on the extent of resection (DSS-ER) is a common tool for assessing the difficulty and risk of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), but DSS-ER fails to comprehensively and accurately assess low level for beginners. Methods: The 93 cases of LLRs for primary liver cancer in the general surgery department of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from 2017 to 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The low level of DSS-ER difficulty scoring system was reclassified into three grades. The intraoperative and postoperative complications were compared among different groups. Results: There were significant differences in the operative time, blood loss, intraoperative allogeneic blood transfusion, conversion to laparotomy, and allogeneic blood transfusion among the different groups. Meanwhile, the postoperative complications were mainly pleural effusion and pneumonia, and the incidence of grade III was higher compared with other two grades. No significant difference existed in the postoperative biliary leakage and liver failure among three grades. Conclusions: This reclassified low level of DSS-ER difficulty scoring system has certain clinical value for LLR beginners to complete the corresponding learning curve.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes.

METHODS

To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.

Conversion of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for HCC in Advanced Cirrhosis: Clinical Impact and Role of Difficulty Scoring Systems

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) in cirrhosis are at risk of conversion since cirrhosis and complexity, which can be estimated by scoring systems, are both independent factors for. We aimed to investigate the consequence of conversion of MILR for hepatocellular carcinoma in advanced cirrhosis.

METHODS

After retrospective review, MILRs for HCC were divided into preserved liver function (Cohort-A) and advanced cirrhosis cohorts (Cohort-B). Completed and converted MILRs were compared (Compl-A vs. Conv-A and Compl-B vs. Conv-B); then, converted patients were compared (Conv-A vs. Conv-B) as whole cohorts and after stratification for MILR difficulty using Iwate criteria.

RESULTS

637 MILRs were studied (474 Cohort-A, 163 Cohort-B). Conv-A MILRs had worse outcomes than Compl-A: more blood loss; higher incidence of transfusions, morbidity, grade 2 complications, ascites, liver failure and longer hospitalization. Conv-B MILRs exhibited the same worse perioperative outcomes than Compl-B and also higher incidence of grade 1 complications. Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes of low difficulty MILRs resulted in similar perioperative outcomes, whereas the comparison of more difficult converted MILRs (intermediate/advanced/expert) resulted in several worse perioperative outcomes for patients with advanced cirrhosis. However, Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes were not significantly different in the whole cohort where "advanced/expert" MILRs were 33.1% and 5.5% in Cohort A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion in the setting of advanced cirrhosis can be associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to compensated cirrhosis, provided careful patient selection is applied (patients elected to low difficulty MILRs). Difficulty scoring systems may help in identifying the most appropriate candidates.

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

BACKGROUND

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

STUDY DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

External validation of different difficulty scoring systems of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several difficulty scoring systems (DSSs) have been proposed for evaluating difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and no study has validated their performance in a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-only cohort at the same time.

METHODS

All cases with HCC that underwent LLR from January 2015 to December 2020 in our center were retrospectively collected. Performance of the IWATE-DSS, Halls-DSS, Hasegawa-DSS, and Kawaguchi-DSS in predicting perioperative outcomes was evaluated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare perioperative outcomes between surgeons on the learning curve and surgeons that have gone through the learning curve.

RESULTS

For all four DSSs, there were significant distributions of applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay among different groups of each DSS (P all < 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy or not was significantly distributed in different groups of the IWATE-DSS (P = 0.006) and Halls-DSS (P = 0.022), while it was not in the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.056) and Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.183). Trend tests showed that the conversion rates increased with higher DSS points in the IWATE-DSS (P < 0.001) and the Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.021), while not in the Halls-DSS (P = 0.064) and the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.068). In the medium and advanced/expert difficulty-level subgroups defined by the IWATE-DSS, there were larger estimated blood loss (P in medium-difficulty group = 0.009; P in the advanced/expert difficulty group = 0.004) and longer postoperative hospital stay (P in the medium-difficulty group = 0.012; P in the advanced/expert group = 0.035) in the learner-performed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

All DSSs performed well in predicting applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay, while only the IWATE-DSS was able to predict whether conversion to laparotomy or not for HCC patients underwent LLR. The IWATE-DSS was also able to help surgeons on the LLR learning curve choose cases and guide clinical practices.

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.