Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with propensity score-based analysis

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Objective

To compare nationwide outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

Background

Minimally invasive liver resection is increasingly performed using the robotic approach as this could help overcome inherent technical limitations of laparoscopy. It is unknown if this translates to improved patient outcomes.

Methods

Data from the mandatory Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit were used to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR and LLR in 20 centers in the Netherlands (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of the learning curve (≥50 procedures for LLR and ≥25 procedures for RLR), concurrent noncholecystectomy operations, high-volume centers, and conversion on outcomes.

Results

Overall, 792 RLR and 2738 LLR were included. After PSM (781 RLR vs 781 LLR), RLR was associated with less blood loss (median: 100 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 50-300] vs 200 mL [IQR: 50-500], P = 0.002), less major blood loss (≥500 mL,18.6% vs 25.2%, P = 0.011), less conversions (4.9% vs 12.8%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median: 3 days [IQR: 2-5] vs 4 days [IQR: 2-6], P < 0.001), compared with LLR. There were no significant differences in overall and severe morbidity, readmissions, mortality, and R0 resection rate. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. When excluding conversions, RLR was only associated with a reduction in reoperations (1.1% vs 2.7%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

In this nationwide analysis, RLR was associated with a reduction in conversion, blood loss and length of hospital stay without compromising patient safety, also when excluding a learning curve effect. The benefits of RLR seem to be mostly related to a reduction in conversions.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

Minimal Invasive Versus Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multicenter German StuDoQ|Liver Registry-Based Cohort Analysis in Germany

Objective

To compare the outcome of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) to open liver surgery (OLS) for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) on a nationwide level.

Background

Colorectal cancer is the third most common malignancy worldwide. Up to 50% of all patients with colorectal cancer develop CRLM. MILS represents an attractive alternative to OLS for treatment of CRLM.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study using the prospectively recorded German Quality management registry for liver surgery. Propensity-score matching was performed to account for variance in the extent of resection and patient demographics.

Results

In total, 1037 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM from 2019 to 2021. MILS was performed in 31%. Operative time was significantly longer in MILS (234 vs 222 minutes, P = 0.02) compared with OLS. After MILS, median length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter (7 vs 10 days; P < 0.001). Despite 76% of major resections being OLS, postoperative complications and 90-day morbidity and mortality did not differ. The Pringle maneuver was more frequently used in MILS (48% vs 40%, P = 0.048). After propensity-score matching for age, body mass index, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, and extent of resection, LOS remained shorter in the MILS cohort (6 vs 10 days, P < 0.001) and operative time did not differ significantly (P = 0.2).

Conclusion

MILS is not the standard for resection of CRLM in Germany. Drawbacks, such as a longer operative time remain. However, if technically possible, MILS is a reasonable alternative to OLS for resection of CRLM, with comparable postoperative complications, reduced LOS, and equal oncological radicality.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting

PURPOSE

In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study.

METHODS

We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs.

RESULTS

RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs.

CONCLUSIONS

From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

The Impact of Modified Two-Surgeon Technique for Laparoscopic Liver Resection on the Training of Surgeons-in-Training

Introduction Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade, it is associated with a much steeper learning curve than other laparoscopic procedures. We currently perform a modified two-surgeon technique for LLR. We assessed the effect of our LLR technique on the surgical outcome and the learning curve of surgeons-in-training when pure non-anatomical LLR was performed. Methods Between 2017 and 2021, 118 LLRs were conducted at our institution, 42 of which were pure non-anatomical LLRs performed by five surgeons-in-training (with a career of 6-13 years). The perioperative outcomes of these cases were compared to those performed by the board-certified attending surgeon. Regarding the learning curve of surgeons-in-training, the duration of operation was used as an index of the proficiency level, and the number of surgical cases in which the surgeons reached the median duration of operation was examined. Results Mortality was zero, and neither postoperative bleeding nor bile leak was experienced in the whole cohort. There were no differences between surgeons-in-training and the board-certified surgeon in the duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, rate of postoperative complications, or length of postoperative stay (LOS). Among the operations performed by five surgeons-in-training, the rate of LLR with a difficulty score of 4 or higher was 52% (30%-75%). Concerning the learning curve, all five surgeons-in-training gradually shortened the duration of operation for each additional case and reached the median duration (218 minutes) by experiencing a median of five cases (3-8 cases). Conclusion A modified two-surgeon technique during LLR is feasible, with a relatively low number of cases (five cases) required to shorten the duration of operation in non-anatomical LLR. This technique is safe and beneficial to the education of surgeons-in-training.

Practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION

In 2017, the Southampton guideline stated that minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) should considered standard practice for minor liver resections. This study aimed to assess recent implementation rates of minor MILR, factors associated with performing MILR, hospital variation, and outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

This population-based study included all patients who underwent minor liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2021. Factors associated with MILR and nationwide hospital variation were assessed using multilevel multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between minor MILR and minor open liver resections. Overall survival (OS) was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis on patients operated until 2018.

RESULTS

Of 4,488 patients included, 1,695 (37.8%) underwent MILR. PSM resulted in 1,338 patients in each group. Implementation of MILR increased to 51.2% in 2021. Factors associated with not performing MILR included treatment with preoperative chemotherapy (aOR 0.61 CI:0.50-0.75, p < 0.001), treatment in a tertiary referral hospital (aOR 0.57 CI:0.50-0.67, p < 0.001), and larger diameter and number of CRLM. Significant hospital variation was observed in use of MILR (7.5% to 93.0%). After case-mix correction, six hospitals performed fewer, and six hospitals performed more MILRs than expected. In the PSM cohort, MILR was associated with a decrease in blood loss (aOR 0.99 CI:0.99-0.99, p < 0.01), cardiac complications (aOR 0.29, CI:0.10-0.70, p = 0.009), IC admissions (aOR 0.66, CI:0.50-0.89, p = 0.005), and shorter hospital stay (aOR CI:0.94-0.99, p < 0.01). Five-year OS rates for MILR and OLR were 53.7% versus 48.6%, p = 0.21.

CONCLUSION

Although uptake of MILR is increasing in the Netherlands, significant hospital variation remains. MILR benefits short-term outcomes, while overall survival is comparable to open liver surgery.

Adaptative damping assistance in bimanual laparoscopic surgery

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic surgery has demonstrated various advantages for the patients' care, but also presents some difficulties for the surgeons, such as kinematic restrictions. Robotic comanipulation, in which control of instruments is shared between the robot and the surgeon, can provide adaptative damping assistance which allows stabilisation of movements. The objective of the present study was to determine the contribution of this assistance on a bimanual laparoscopic task.

METHODS

Adaptative damping was studied on Peg Transfer task, performed by eighteen surgery-naive subjects. This exercise was repeated seven times without (Classic repetitions) and seven times with comanipulated robots (Robot repetitions), in a randomised order. We measured task performance, using Peg Transfer score; gesture performance, using hand oscillations and travelled distance; eye-tracking movements as an indicator of emergence of expertise. Participants' perceived workload was assessed by NASA TLX questionnaire, and difference in impression between the two conditions by UEQ questionnaire.

RESULTS

Adaptative damping improved gesture performance (oscillations F(1,17) = 23.473, p < 0.001, η² = 0.580), with a statistically significant simple effect on the tool oscillation for both non-dominant (p < 0.001) and dominant hands (p = 0.005), without influencing task performance (mean Peg Transfer score t(17) = 0.920, p = 0.382, d = 0.29), but deteriorating eye-tracking movements associated with emergence of expertise (mean fixation rate per second F(1,17) = 6.318, p = 0.022, η² = 0.271), at the cost of a high perceived workload (NASA TLX score 59.78/100).

CONCLUSION

Assistance by adaptative damping applied by comanipulated robots improved gesture performance during a laparoscopic bimanual task, without impacting task's performance without allowing the emergence of comportments associated with an expertise, and at the cost of a high perceived workload. Further research should investigate this assistance on more precise and clinical tasks performed by professionals.

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

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

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Robotic Liver Surgery: Technical Advantages Over Laparoscopic Technique Based on Parameters of Surgical Complexity and Perioperative Outcomes

Introduction: In view of the limited availability, our study addresses the issue of optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery over standard laparoscopy offering an in-detail analysis of intra- and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical and technical data of all consecutive cases of robotic liver surgery of a single high-volume center from 2018 to 2020 were collected prospectively. Second, we performed a retrospective analysis of all laparoscopic liver resections from 2015 to 2020. Parameters of surgical complexity were extracted and descriptive analysis and statistical hypothesis testing were performed to assess parameters of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 121 robotic resections were compared with 435 laparoscopic resections. Shorter robotic operating times were shown for segmentectomies of the right liver lobe compared with laparoscopic procedures (P = .003) with an according trend for extended resections. A shorter duration of applied Pringle's maneuver was observed for robotic procedures. This advantage was further enhanced in cases with close proximity of the tumor to major vessels. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. Conclusion: Our study offers the first in-detail analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery depending on established parameters of surgical complexity. The results indicate potential technical advantages of robotic technology in liver surgery based on parameters that can be studied before the operation. When evaluating robotic technology, future studies should focus not only at overall postoperative outcomes, but rather at potential technical intraoperative advantages to allow optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00017229.

A Comparison between Open and Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastasis

The liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer metastasis. Liver surgery is a cornerstone in treatment, with progressive expansion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of open surgery and MIS for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma liver metastasis during the first three years of increasing caseload and implementation of MIS use in liver surgery. All patients treated between November 2018 and August 2021 at Careggi Teaching Hospital in Florence, Italy, were prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-one patients were resected (41 open, 10 MIS). Considering that patients with a significantly higher number of lesions underwent open surgery and operative results were similar, postoperative morbidity rate and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the open group. No differences were found in the pathological specimen. The postoperative mortality rate was 2%. Mean overall survival and disease-free survival were 46 months (95% CI 42-50) and 22 months (95% CI 15.6-29), respectively. The use of minimally invasive techniques in liver surgery is safe and feasible if surgeons have adequate expertise. MIS and parenchymal sparing resections should be preferred whenever technically feasible.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Novel Hemostatic Technique During Laparoscopic Liver Parenchymal Transection: Saline-Linked Electrocautery Combined With Wet Oxidized Cellulose (SLiC-WOC) Method

Introduction: Although laparoscopic hepatectomy has the potential advantage of reducing intraoperative blood loss, it is more difficult to control bleeding laparoscopically compared to an open approach. We introduced a novel hemostatic technique, the saline-linked electrocautery combined with wet oxidized cellulose (SLiC-WOC) method, during laparoscopic hepatectomy where a combination of saline-linked electrocautery (SLiC) and wet oxidized cellulose (WOC) is used. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of employing the SLiC-WOC method for laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods: Thirteen patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection with the SLiC-WOC method between 2019 and 2020 were included in this study. The number of bleeding episodes in which the SLiC-WOC method was applied was counted, and the time required to achieve complete hemostasis was measured.

Results: Among the bleeding events that were difficult to achieve hemostasis by SLiC alone, 94% were safely and efficiently controlled. Additionally, 69% of hemostasis was achieved within 60 seconds and 91% within 120 seconds. Postoperatively, most patients experienced no complications and no operative mortality was observed.

Conclusions: The SLiC-WOC method can provide safe and time-efficient hemostasis during laparoscopic hepatectomy. This is especially crucial for bleeding, which is difficult to control using electrocautery alone.

[Colorectal cancer liver metastases: current state of the problem, priority treatment approaches]

The review is devoted to the world trends in epidemiology of colorectal cancer and treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastases. The authors analyze the effectiveness of traditional (resection) and modern minimally invasive methods of local destruction (radiofrequency thermoablation, microwave ablation, cryoablation), stereotactic radiotherapy, radiosurgery, targeted therapy and endovascular techniques (chemoinfusion, chemoembolization, radioembolization). It was emphasized that searching for new chemotherapeutic and targeted drugs is one of the reserve ways to improve treatment outcomes in patients with potentially resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. The possibilities and prospects of liver transplantation as a priority treatment strategy for patients with unresectable bilobar colorectal cancer liver metastases are highlighted.

Role of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging in Minimally Invasive Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is an easy and reproducible method to detect hepatic lesions, both primary and metastatic. This review reports the potential benefits of this technique as a tactile mimicking visual tool and a navigator guide in minimally invasive liver resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies reporting the use of intravenous injection of ICG before minimally invasive surgery for CLRM. The search was performed for publications reported from the first study in 2014 to April 2021. The final review included 13 articles: 6 prospective cohort studies, 1 retrospective cohort study, 3 case series, 1 case report, 1 case-matched study, and 1 clinical trial registry. The administered dose ranged between 0.3 and 0.5 mg/kg, while timing ranged between 1 and 14 days before surgery. CRLM detection rate ranged between 30.3% and 100% with preoperative imaging (abdominal computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging), between 93.3 and 100% with laparoscopic ultrasound, between 57.6% and 100% with ICG fluorescence, and was 100% with combined modalities (ICG and laparoscopic ultrasound) with weighted averages of 77.42%, 95.97%, 79.03%, and 100%, respectively. ICG fusion imaging also allowed to detect occult small-sized lesions, not diagnosed preoperatively. In addition, ICG is effective in real-time assessment of surgical margins by evaluating the integrity of the fluorescent rim around the CRLM.

Minimally invasive liver surgery: the Charité experience

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) was established as last abdominal surgical specialty through the 1990s. With a shift from mainly benign to malignant indications, MILS was shown to be equal to open liver surgery in terms of oncological outcomes, with benefits in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay and quality of life. With colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma as the most common indications, most liver resection can be performed minimally invasive nowadays, including patients with liver cirrhosis. Initially perceived limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery were weakened by gaining experience, technical progress and pioneering of new resection approaches. Lately robotic liver surgery was adopted to the field of MILS to further push the limits. To simplify first resections, technical variations of the minimally invasive approach can be utilized, and difficulty scores help to select resections suitable to the level of experience. We hereby give an overview of the establishing of a minimally invasive liver surgery program at our center.

[Minimally invasive liver surgery]

Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and can be performed with results practically equal to those in open surgery. There are different techniques of parenchyma dissection and hemostasis available for the safe performance of minor and major resections, both laparoscopically and robotics based. Due to its technical options robotics-based surgery is a further development of laparoscopy. Expertise in minimally invasive and in liver surgery are essential prerequisites.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Postoperative Complications Associated With Intra- Versus Extracorporeal Anastomosis for Laparoscopic Right Colectomy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postoperative complications of intracorporeal anastomosis (ICA) and extracorporeal anastomosis (ECA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic right colectomy (LRC).

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared postoperative complications of ICA and ECA after LRC, most were retrospective studies.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive electronic search of the literature to identify studies that compared postoperative complications between ICA and ECA in patients who underwent LRC. We performed meta-analysis using random-effects models to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of experiencing complications, and we analyzed heterogeneity using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies consist of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and propensity score matching studies involving a total of 3219 patients who underwent LRC were included. Among 1377 patients who received ICA, 255 (18.5%) had postoperative complications, whereas among 1652 patients who received ECA, 373 (22.6%) had such complications. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that ICA was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative complications (RR, .73; 95% CI: .57-.95; P = .02; I² = 57%) compared with ECA. Although there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in risk of anastomotic leakage (RR, .67; 95% CI: .39-1.17; P = .16; I² = 8%), there was a significant difference between them in risk of surgical site infection (RR, .50; 95% CI: .34-.71; P = .0002; I² = 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Intracorporeal anastomosis is associated with a reduced risk of postoperative complications compared with ECA in patients undergoing LRC.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups.

RESULTS

During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)).

CONCLUSION

Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

Minimal-Invasive Versus Open Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Bicentric Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Minimal-invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly performed for benign and malignant liver lesions with most promising short-term results. However, the oncological role of MIH in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) needs further investigation. Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Inselspital Bern were assessed. Postoperative outcomes und long-term survivals of patients following MIH were compared with those after conventional open hepatectomy (OH) after 1:1 propensity score matching. During the study period, 229 and 91 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM at the Charité Berlin and the Inselspital Bern, respectively. Patients who underwent MIH in one of the two centers (n = 69) were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent OH. MIH was associated with lower complication rates (23% vs. 44%, p = 0.011), shorter length of intensive care unit stay (ICU, 1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.043), shorter length of hospital stay (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001), and a reduced need for intraoperative transfusions (12% vs. 25%, p = 0.047) compared to OH. R0 status was achieved in 93% and 75% of patients after MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.005). After a median follow-up of 31 months, MIH resulted in similar five-year overall survival (OS) rate (56% vs. 48%, p = 0.116) in comparison to OH. MIH for CRLM is associated with lower postoperative morbidity, shorter length of ICU and hospital stay, reduced need for transfusions, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to the established OH. Our findings suggest that MIH should be considered as the preferred method for the treatment of curatively resectable CRLM.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Does the difficulty grade of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases correlate with long-term outcomes?

INTRODUCTION

Prognosis of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is strongly correlated with the oncological outcome after liver resection. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) difficulty score (IMM difficulty score) on the oncological results in patients treated for CRLM.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LLRs for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 in our department, were retrospectively reviewed. Data regarding difficulty classification, -according to the Institute Mutualiste Montsouris score (IMM)-, recurrence rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and data regarding margin status were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 520 patients were included. Patients were allocated into 3 groups based on IMM difficulty score of the LLR they underwent: there were 227 (43,6%), 84 (16,2%) and 209 (40,2%) patients in groups I, II and III, respectively. The R₁ resection rate in group I, II and III were 8,8% (20/227), 11,9% (10/84) and 12,4% (26/209) respectively (p = 0.841). Three- and 5-year RFS rates were 77% and 73% in group I, 58% and 51% in group II, 61% and 53% in group III, respectively (p = 0.038). Three and 5-year OS rates were 87% and 80% for group I, 77% and 66% for group II, 80% and 69% for group III respectively (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

The higher LLR difficulty score correlates with significant morbidity and worse RFS and OS, although the more technically demanding and difficult cases are not associated with increased rates of positive resection margins and recurrence.

Total laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Background:

There have been an increasing number of articles that demonstrate the potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from retrospective observational studies susceptible to bias, especially selection bias. In addition, in many series, several modalities of minimally invasive surgery are included in the same comparison group.

Aim:

To compare the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of patients submitted to total laparoscopic liver resection with those submitted to open liver resection, matched by propensity score matching (PSM).

Method:

Consecutive adult patients submitted to liver resection were included. PSM model was constructed using the following variables: age, gender, diagnosis (benign vs. malignant), type of hepatectomy (minor vs. major), and presence of cirrhosis. After matching, the groups were redefined on a 1:1 ratio, by the nearest method.

Results:

After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. Those undergoing total laparoscopic surgery had shorter operative time (286.8±133.4 vs. 352.4±141.5 minutes, p<0.001), shorter ICU stay (1.9±1.2 vs. 2.5±2.2days, p=0.031), shorter hospital stay (5.8±3.9 vs. 9.9±9.3 days, p<0.001) and a 45% reduction in perioperative complications (19.2 vs. 35%, p=0.008).

Conclusion:

Total laparoscopic liver resections are safe, feasible and associated with shorter operative time, shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lower rate of perioperative complications.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Perioperative outcomes comparing laparoscopic with open repeat liver resection for post-hepatectomy recurrent liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Impact of resection margins for colorectal liver metastases in laparoscopic and open liver resection: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus over the optimal width of resection margin for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), with evolving definitions alongside the advances on the management of the disease. In addition, data on the impact of resection margin after laparoscopic liver resection are still scarce.

METHODS

Prospectively maintained databases of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic CRLM resection in 7 European tertiary hepatobiliary referral centres were reviewed. After propensity score matching (PSM), the influence of 1 mm and wider margins on OS and DFS were evaluated in open and laparoscopic cohorts.

RESULTS

After PSM, 648 patients were comparable in each group. The incidence of positive margins (< 1 mm) was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (17% vs 13%, p = 0,142). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter RFS in open (12 vs 26 months, p = 0.042) and in laparoscopic group (13 vs 23, p = 0,002). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter OS in open (36 vs 57 months, p = 0.027), but not in laparoscopic group (49 vs 60, p = 0,177). Subgroups with margins ≥ 1 mm (1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) presented similar RFS in open (p = 0,251) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.117), as well as similar OS in open (p = 0.295) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.908). In the presence of liver recurrence, repeat liver resection was performed in 70 (30%) patients in the open group and 88 (48%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that a positive resection margin (less than 1 mm) width does not impact OS after laparoscopic resection of CRLMs as it does in open liver resection. However, a positive margin continues to affect RFS in open and laparoscopic resection. Wider margins than 1 mm do not seem to improve oncological results in open or laparoscopic surgery.

The association between preoperative physical functioning and short-term postoperative outcomes: a cohort study of patients undergoing elective hepatic resection

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the association between practical performance-based indices of preoperative physical functioning and short-term postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing hepatic resection.

METHOD

Preoperative characteristics and results of practical performance-based tests of physical functioning were analyzed concerning the effect on postoperative outcomes (recovery of physical functioning, non-surgical complications, and length of hospital stay) using univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Perioperative data of 96 patients showed that besides the conventional risk-factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III and BMI), lower absolute steep ramp test performance (in watts; OR 0.992), and lower perceived level of functional capacity to perform activities of daily living (ADL) on Duke activity status index (in metabolic equivalent of task (MET); OR 0.806) and lower score on the veterans-specific activity questionnaire (in MET, OR 0.875) were associated with delayed recovery of physical functioning. Furthermore, more comorbidities, worse functional mobility, and lower levels of perceived functional capacity to perform ADL were associated with non-surgical complications and length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Adequate preoperative performance and perceived level of functional capacity to perform ADL appear to be of importance to identify individual patients that are at risk of a complicated postoperative course.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is technical challenge for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UAS), especially for those with previous liver resection. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous UAS, in comparison with primary laparoscopic liver resection which means patients without previous upper abdominal surgery (non-UAS).

METHODS

All case-matched articles published from date of inception to 15th April 2018 were identified independently by two reviewers. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were extracted and calculated by random- or fixed-effect models. In addition, subgroup analysis according to patients with history of liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 non-randomized observational articles were included, with 1625 patients (430 patients in UAS group and 1195 in non-UAS group). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients with a history of liver resection, however, LH for patients with previous liver resection had longer operative time comparing with patients without previous liver resection (WMD = 33.03, 95% CI 3.16 to 62.90, P = 0.030); other perioperative outcomes were similar between UAS and non-UAS groups.

CONCLUSION

LH is feasible and safe for selected patients with previous UAS comparing with that of primary resection, although LH has longer operative time for patients with previous liver resection.

Outcomes of robotic liver resections for colorectal liver metastases. A multi-institutional analysis of minimally invasive ultrasound-guided robotic surgery

BACKGROUND

Current evidence supporting robotics to perform minimally invasive liver resection is based on single center case series reporting surgical outcomes in heterogeneous groups of patients. On the contrary, relatively scarce data specifically focusing on secondary hepatic malignancies is available. The objective of this study is to assess short- and long-term outcomes following liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis on a multi-institutional series of patients.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis at three different tertiary hospitals over a 10-year time frame were included in this analysis. All patients received ultrasound-guided liver resection according to tumor location following the principle of parenchymal sparing surgery. Perioperative, clinicopathologic and oncological outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients underwent liver resection. There were 7 cases of conversion to open surgery. The postoperative complication rate was 27%, 5% being the rate of major morbidity. Overall, the mean postoperative hospital stay was 6 days and no mortality occurred. R0 resection was achieved for 92% of lesions. At a mean follow-up of 19 months, the 1-year and 3-year DFS was 83.5% and 41.9%, while the 1-year and 3-year OS was 90.4% and 66.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver surgery does not impair surgical outcome and oncological results in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Colorectal liver metastases: An update on multidisciplinary approach

Liver metastasis is the commonest form of distant metastasis in colorectal cancer. Selection criteria for surgery and liver-directed therapies have recently been extended. However, resectability remains poorly defined. Tumour biology is increasingly recognized as an important prognostic factor; hence molecular profiling has a growing role in risk stratification and management planning. Surgical resection is the only treatment modality for curative intent. The most appropriate surgical approach is yet to be established. The primary cancer and the hepatic metastasis can be removed simultaneously or in a two-step approach; these two strategies have comparable long-term outcomes. For patients with a limited future liver remnant, portal vein embolization, combined ablation and resection, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy have been advocated, and each has their pros and cons. The role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy is still debated. Targeted biological agents and loco-regional therapies (thermal ablation, intra-arterial chemo- or radio-embolization, and stereotactic radiotherapy) further improve the already favourable results. The recent debate about offering liver transplantation to highly selected patients needs validation from large clinical trials. Evidence-based protocols are missing, and therefore optimal management of hepatic metastasis should be personalized and determined by a multi-disciplinary team.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy plays a key role in recurrent hepatic tumors. However, it is still unknown whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is suitable for recurrent liver cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH).

METHODS

Several databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Ovid, were retrieved from date of inception to 31st March 2018. All articles comparing LRH and ORH were identified. Tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes including resection type, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications and hospital stay were evaluated. Data were extracted and calculated using random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

A total of seven non-randomized observational clinical articles including 443 patients were analyzed. LRH was associated with significantly lower blood loss (WMD = -389.09, 95% CI -628.34 to -149.84, P = 0.001), transfusion (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.74, P = 0.019) as well as limited hospital stay (WMD = -4.00, 95% CI -6.58 to -1.42, P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in the field of tumor characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis of case-match studies, LRH was associated with significant limited hospital stay, but with significant longer operation time. There were 8 (1.8%, range 0-13.3%) cases of conversion in LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of these limited data, LRH is as feasible and efficient as ORH by expert surgeons in selected patients, whose cancer is resectable at the time of surgery and who have Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

Recurrence patterns after laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The major issue after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is the high incidence of recurrence. Unlike open liver resection (OLR), recurrence following laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is not well documented. The aim of this study was to analyze recurrence patterns and treatment following LLR for CRLM.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent LLR for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed. Patients who presented with recurrence were compared to those who did not. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and risk of recurrence and survival prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 273 patients were included, of which 157 (57.5%) were treated for one liver metastasis (LM). Median follow-up was 41 (12-187) months and associated extrahepatic disease was present in 27% of patients (mainly pulmonary, 65%). After a median of 16 (3-151) months, 197 (72%) patients presented with recurrence. Recurrences were early (< 6 months) in 22.8% of cases, occured in a single site in 66% and were intrahepatic, extrahepatic, or both in 44, 30, and 26%, respectively. Recurrences were treated with surgery or chemotherapy only in 45 and 47%, respectively. 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS was 82, 71, and 43%, respectively. Independent risk factors for recurrence were node-positive primary tumor, extrahepatic disease before hepatectomy, and R1 resection.

CONCLUSION

LLR for CRLM does not seem to be associated with distinctive recurrence patterns. LLR for CRLM yielded satisfying RFS and OS and should therefore be considered whenever possible.

Sites of metastasis and overall survival in esophageal cancer: a population-based study

Background

There are few population-based studies of the sites of distant metastasis (DM) and survival from esophageal cancer (EC). The aim of this study was to assess the patterns and survival outcomes for site-specific DM from EC using a population-based approach.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with de novo stage IV EC between 2010 and 2014 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program database. Overall survival (OS) was compared according to the site of DM.

Results

We included 3218 patients in this study; the most common site of DM was the liver, followed by distant lymph nodes, lung, bone and brain. Median OS for patients with liver, distant lymph node, lung, bone, and brain metastases was 5, 10, 6, 4, and 6 months, respectively (p<0.001). Site and number of distant metastases were independent prognostic factors for OS. In patients with a single site of DM, using liver metastases as reference, OS was lower for bone metastases (p=0.026) and higher for distant lymph node metastases (p=0.008), while brain (p=0.653) or lung (p=0.081) metastases had similar OS compared with liver metastases. Similar site-specific survival differences were observed in the subgroup with esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, distant lymph node metastases was associated with better survival (p=0.002) compared to liver, bone, or lung metastases in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Conclusion

Site of metastasis affects survival in metastatic EC; OS was worst for bone metastases and greatest for distant lymph node metastases.