Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a European experience

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Minimally Invasive Robotic Techniques for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection: How I Do It

The adoption of minimally invasive techniques for hepatocellular resection has progressively increased in North America. Cumulative evidence has demonstrated improved surgical outcomes in patients who undergo minimally invasive hepatectomy. In this review, the authors' approach and methodology to minimally invasive robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is discussed.

Pure abdominal laparoscopic approach versus thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic approach: What is the best technique for liver resection in segment 7 and segment 8? An answer from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris experience with short- and long-term outcome evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lesions in segments 7 and 8 are a challenge during standard laparoscopic liver resection. The addition of transthoracic trocars could be useful in the standard abdominal approach for laparoscopic liver resection. We report our experience with a thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach for liver resection with the aim of comparing short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 1,003 laparoscopic liver resections in a prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We compared patient outcomes intraoperatively and postoperatively. We analyzed the long-term outcomes of the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. Propensity score matching 1:1 was performed based on the following variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, multiple or single liver resection, lesion >50 mm or <50 mm, presence of solitary or multiple lesions, T stage, and N stage.

RESULTS

The standard abdominal approach was used in 110 laparoscopic liver resections, and the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was used in 62 laparoscopic liver resections. The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was associated with better intraoperative results (less blood loss and no need for conversion to open surgery). The R1s rate for segmentectomy 7 and 8 was lower in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in the entire group and in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. In the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup, the 3- and 5-year overall survival was 90% and 80% in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach group and 76% and 52% in the standard abdominal approach group, respectively (P = .02). In univariate and multivariate analysis, the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was a significant factor that positively affected disease-free survival and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in laparoscopic liver resection in segments 7 and 8 is safe and feasible, and it has demonstrated better oncologic outcomes than the pure abdominal approach, especially in segmentectomy.

Influence of Child-Pugh B7 and B8/9 cirrhosis on laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been shown to be beneficial. However, less is known regarding the outcomes of such treatment in patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC in patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, focusing on surgical risks, recurrence, and survival.

METHODS

357 patients with HCC who underwent laparoscopic liver resection from 2007 to 2021 were identified from our single-institute database. The patients were divided into three groups by their Child-Pugh score: the Child-Pugh A (n = 280), Child-Pugh B7 (n = 42), and Child-Pugh B8/9 groups (n = 35). Multivariable Cox regression models for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were constructed with adjustment for preoperative and postoperative clinicopathological factors.

RESULTS

The Child-Pugh B8/9 group had a significantly higher complication rate, but the complication rates were comparable between the Child-Pugh B7 and Child-Pugh A groups (Child-Pugh A vs. B7 vs. B8/9: 8.2% vs. 9.6% vs. 26%, respectively; P = 0.010). Compared with the Child-Pugh A group, the risk-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) in the Child-Pugh B7 and B8/9 groups for RFS were 1.39 (0.77-2.50) and 3.15 (1.87-5.31), respectively, and those for OS were 0.60 (0.21-1.73) and 1.80 (0.86-3.74), respectively. There were no significant differences in major morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade > II) (P = 0.117) or the proportion of retreatment after HCC recurrence (P = 0.367) among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HCC, those with Child-Pugh A and B7 cirrhosis can be good candidates for laparoscopic liver resection in terms of complications and recurrence. Despite poor postoperative outcomes in patients with Child-Pugh B8/9 cirrhosis, laparoscopic liver resection is less likely to interfere with retreatment and can be performed as part of multidisciplinary treatment.

Current status of laparoscopic hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was first introduced in the 1990s and has now become widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is considered a safe and effective approach for liver disease. However, the role of laparoscopic hepatectomy in HCC with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed, and the present literature review aimed to review the surgical and oncological outcomes of Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). According to Hong and colleagues laparoscopic resection for liver cirrhosis is a very safe and feasible procedure for both ideal cases and select patients with high risk factors [29]. The presence of only 1 of these factors does not represent an absolute contraindication for LH.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We selected 23 studies involving about 1363 HCC patients treated with LH. 364 (27%) patients experienced major resections. The mean operative time was 244.9 minutes, the mean blood loss was 308.1 mL and blood transfusions were required in only 4.9% of patients. There were only 2 (0.21%) postoperative deaths and overall morbidity was 9.9%. Tumor recurrence ranged from 6 to 25 months. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year disease free Survival (DFS) rates ranged from 71.9% to 99%, 50.3% to 91.2%, and 19% to 82% respectively. Overall survival rates ranged from 88% to 100%, 73.4% to 94.5%, and 52.6% to 94.5% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our summery LH is lower risk and safer than conventional open liver surgery and is just as efficacious. Also, the LH approach decreased blood-loss, operation time, postoperative morbidity and had a lower conversion rate compared to other procedures whether open or robotic. Finally, LH may serve as a promising alternative to open procedures.

Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a comprehensive meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been the second leading cause of cancer-related death in China. Radiofrequency ablation is a relatively novel treatment that may improve the treatment of HCC.

AIM

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in the treatment of HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched for relevant published studies in English (PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE) and in Chinese (CBM, CNKI and Wanfang) from their inception until September 23, 2019. The quality of included studies was evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 19 retrospective studies including 2038 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that LLR was superior to RFA in terms of 3-year overall survival rate (OR = 0.62), 1 to 3-year disease-free survival rates (OR = 0.57; OR = 0.41, respectively) and local recurrence rates (OR = 2.71).

CONCLUSIONS

The meta-analysis demonstrates that laparoscopic liver resection should be preferred in tumors of size 3-5 cm, while for < 3 cm the long term results are equal.

Clinical Experience of Mini-Open Hepatectomy to Aid a Laparoscopic Approach: A Case Series

Introduction

Laparoscopic surgery is recently becoming widespread in the area of liver treatment. However, mobilization of the liver is difficult using laparoscopy alone because of its volume and weight. Ensuring a wider visual field and controlling blood loss are also difficult. We used a hybrid approach involving direct vision and laparoscopy for performing hepatectomy through a small incision to overcome these problems.

Case Presentation

Mini-open hepatectomy was performed on 64 patients between January 2010 and December 2013. Mobilization of the liver was performed using the smallest possible laparotomy incision. Detachment of right or left triangular ligaments was done using laparoscopy because direct vision of the operation field was impossible. Hepatectomy was performed through a small laparotomy incision. Most operations (47%) involved partial resections. Of these, segmentectomies were performed on 20 patients, whereas lobectomy was performed on 7 patients. The median intraoperative bleeding was 565 mL, and the operative time was 247 minutes. The median postoperative hospital stay was 14 days. There was no postoperative mortality.

Conclusion

We present the clinical use of mini-open hepatectomy to aid the laparoscopic approach with satisfactory short-term results.

Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

Background

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) are still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Method

Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

Results

Intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.007) was significantly lower in the LMH group. In addition, the LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P = 0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P = 0.215) and operative cost (P = 0.860). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard to long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.172).

Conclusion

LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.

Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been demonstrated as beneficial. However, the role of laparoscopy in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis is undetermined. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare open and laparoscopic resection for HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.

METHODS

Data on liver resections were gathered from 17 centres. A 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed according to 17 predefined variables.

RESULTS

Of 382 available liver resections, 100 laparoscopic and 100 open resections were matched and analysed. The 90-day postoperative mortality rate was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (4.0 versus 2.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.687). Laparoscopy was associated with lower blood loss (median 110 ml versus 400 ml in the open group; P = 0.004), less morbidity (38.0 versus 51.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.041) and fewer major complications (7.0 versus 21.0 per cent; P = 0.010), and ascites was lower on postoperative days 1, 3 and 5. For laparoscopic resections, patients with portal hypertension developed more complications than those without (26 versus 12 per cent respectively; P = 0.002), and patients with a Child-Pugh B9 score had higher morbidity rates than those with B8 and B7 (7 of 8, 10 of 16 and 21 of 76 respectively; P < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 7.5 (range 2-243) days for laparoscopic liver resection and 18 (3-104) days for the open approach (P = 0.058). The 5-year overall survival rate was 47 per cent for open and 65 per cent for laparoscopic resection (P = 0.142). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 32 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.742).

CONCLUSION

Patients without preoperative portal hypertension and Child-Pugh B7 cirrhosis may benefit most from laparoscopic liver surgery.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity case-matched analysis of the long-term survival

Backgrounds/Aims

Despite the widespread popularity of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains in evolution. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤7 cm.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with HCC treated by hepatectomy from October 2000 to May 2019 were included. Excluding tumors larger than 7 cm, 1:2 propensity score matching was performed between laparoscopic and open hepatectomies. The perioperative outcomes, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the two groups were compared.

Results

Forty-five patients who underwent LLR were matched to 90 open hepatectomy (OH) during the same period. LLR group had shorter median hospital stay (5 days vs. 9 days, p=0.00) but required longer operative time (326.0 minutes vs. 272.5 minutes, p=0.018) than the OH group. The 5-year overall survival was better in the LLR group (84.9% vs. 61.1%; p=0.036), though there was no significant difference in the 5-year disease free survival (20.0% vs. 22.2%, p=0.613). The rate of R0 resection was comparable between the 2 groups with a slightly better margin distance in the LLR (5 mm vs. 3 mm, p=0.043).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible for cirrhotic patients with HCC size up to 7 cm. It has better short-term outcomes and comparable perioperative blood loss and complication rates. The resection margin is not jeopardized and the 5-year overall and disease-free survivals are comparable with the open group.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection versus Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Small Single Nodular Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparison of Treatment Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Treatment outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (p-RFA) for small single hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) have not yet been fully compared. The aim of this study was to compare LLR and p-RFA as first-line treatment options in patients with single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm.

METHODS

From January 2014 to December 2016, a total of 566 patients with single nodular HCC ≤3 cm treated by either LLR (n = 251) or p-RFA (n = 315) were included. The recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of local tumor progression (LTP) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using the log-rank test. Treatment outcome of 2 treatment modalities was compared in the subgroup of patients according to the tumor location.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in overall survival between LLR and p-RFA (p = 0.160); however, 3-year RFS was demonstrated to be significantly higher after LLR (74.4%) than after p-RFA (66.0%) (p = 0.013), owing to its significantly lower cumulative incidence of LTP (2.1% at 3 years after LLR vs. 10.0% after p-RFA, p < 0.001). The complication rate of p-RFA was significantly lower than that of LLR (5.1 vs. 10.0%, p = 0.026). LLR also provided significantly better local tumor control than p-RFA for subscapular tumors (3-year LTP rates: 1.9 vs. 8.8%, p = 0.012), perivascular tumors (3-year LTP rates: 0.0 vs. 17.2%, p = 0.007), and tumors located in anteroinfero-lateral liver portions (3-year LTP rates: 0.0 vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in LTP rates between LLR and p-RFA for non-subcapsular and non-perivascular tumors (p = 0.482) and for tumors in postero-superior liver portions (p = 0.380).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR can provide significantly better local tumor control than p-RFA for small single HCCs in subcapsular, perivascular, and anteroinferolateral liver portions and thus may be the preferred treatment option for these tumors.

The Long-Term Efficacy of Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in East Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Context: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common malignant cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths around the world. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) have been adopted for the treatment of HCC. The aim of the meta-analysis was to explore the long-term efficacy of RFA compared with LH for small HCC (sHCC) patients in the East Asian population. Evidence Acquisition: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by the literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Biological Medical Literature (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang from their inception until October 10, 2019, for comparing the long-term efficacy outcomes of RFA with LH. Results: Fourteen retrospective studies with 1,390 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the LH-treated group, RFA could raise the local recurrence rate under median follow-up duration and reduce disease-free survival (DFS) rates at 1 - 3 years. However, it failed to affect 5-year overall survival (OS) and DFS rates. In the subgroup analyses, different RFA approaches had significantly higher local recurrence rates than the LH group. A similar effect on OS and DFS rates within five years for single early (≤ 3 cm) HCCs and on the 1- and 5-year DFS rates for nodules ≤ 5 cm were observed between the two groups, but RFA approaches could reduce the 3-y OS and DFS rates for single nodules ≤ 5 cm. The percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) group had significantly lower 3- and 5-year OS and the 1- and 3-year DFS rates than the LH group, while no significant difference in OS and DFS rates in the laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) approach. The RFA approach improved the 3-year OS compared with the LH group in Japan, but reduced the 3-year OS and DFS rates within 3 years in China. Conclusions: Our results support that LH treating sHCC had a better long-term efficacy and a lower local recurrence rate than RFA in the East Asian population. Further high-quality prospective studies are required to confirm the long-term efficacy.

When should we choose a laparoscopic approach? A high-volume center recommendation score

Laparoscopic liver resection is a demanding procedure that is undergoing continuous development. The surgeon's skill is constantly improving, new surgical instruments are being introduced, and the indications for this procedure are expanding. However, there is still great concern about patient safety during the procedure and it is not commonly performed in many centers, although numerous studies have confirmed the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver techniques. Our center tries to use laparoscopy routinely for most cases and we do not consider conversion to open surgery to be a complication. We present our current opinion on patient selection for laparoscopic liver resection in the hope of encouraging more centers to adopt and develop this technique. Although laparoscopic liver resection is not an official standard of care, it should be considered according to the surgeon's experience and available resources.

Laparoscopic versus open unisegmentectomy in two specialized centers. Feasibility and short-term results

BACKGROUND

Anatomical segmentectomy is defined as the complete removal of the Couinaud's segment. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic (LS) versus open (OS) unisegmentectomy in two high volume centers.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all consecutive unisegmentectomies from 2007 to 2017 was performed at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and at the Hepatobiliary Center of Paul Brousse Hospital.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients underwent unisegmentectomy: 58 LS vs 52 OS in the anterolateral segments, 33 LS vs 34 OS in the posterosuperior segments. HCC were more frequent in the OS group, whereas colorectal liver metastases were more frequently treated with LS. Blood loss (200 vs. 400 ml, p = 0.006), operative time (238 vs. 267 min, p = 0.048) and median length of stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036) were significantly lower in the LS group. The resection margins (4 mm vs. 2 mm, p = 0.763) and the overall morbidity did not differ between the two groups. In the posterosuperior segment, OS group had more pulmonary complications (9 vs. 29%, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic anatomical unisegmentectomies for selected patients, even with postero-superior based tumors, in specialized centers seems to be safe and feasible.

Laparoscopic liver resection in cirrhotics: feasibility and short-term outcomes compared to non-cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly common worldwide but its suitability in patients with cirrhosis is not clearly defined. There are minimal data in the western literature on this topic and previous work has compared LLR to open hepatectomy rather than to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients. This study compared short-term outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic patients to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of minor LLR at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from January 2006 to January 2018 was conducted. Patients were stratified by whether they had cirrhosis - defined as per radiological appearances and liver function tests. Variables of interest included baseline clinicopathological information with short-term outcomes (length of stay and complications) regarded as the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Out of 1207 liver resections in the study period, there were 120 LLR with 30 patients having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be male and have higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (3 versus 2; P < 0.01). The most common operation was left lateral sectionectomy (n = 67). There was no difference in duration of surgery (cirrhosis 88 min versus no cirrhosis 99 min; P = 0.64) and patients in the cirrhosis arm had no conversions to open (0% versus 12%; P = 0.06). There was no difference in complications (12% versus 13%; P = 0.75) or median length of stay (4 versus 4 days; P = 0.14) and no difference in survival between both groups.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, LLR is feasible in patients with cirrhosis and provides comparable outcomes to non-cirrhotic patients undergoing LLR.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the results between laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy in two French university hospitals, for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity score matching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic surgery group (LA) was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach group (OA) using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. Matching criteria included age, presence of comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and resection type (major or minor). Patients of the LA group without matches were excluded. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared in both groups. Survival was compared in both groups using the following matching criteria: number and size of lesions, alpha-fetoprotein rate, and cell differentiation.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2017, a total of 447 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, 99 hepatectomies of which were performed for the management of hepatocellular carcinomas. Forty-nine resections were performed among the open approach (OA) group (49%), and 50 resections were performed among the laparoscopic surgery (LA) group (51%). Mortality rate was 2% in the LA group and 4.1% in the OA group. After propensity score matching, there was a statistical difference favorable to the LA group regarding medical complications (54.55% versus 27.27%, p = 0.04), and operating times were shorter (p = 0.03). Resection rate R0 was similar between both groups: 90.91% (n = 30) in the LA group and 84.85% (n =) in the OA group. There was no difference regarding overall survival (p = 0.98) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for the management of HCC seems to provide the same short-term and long-term results as compared to the open approach. Laparoscopic liver resections could be considered as an alternative and become the gold standard in well-selected patients.

The current role of laparoscopic resection for HCC: a systematic review of past ten years

The use of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has progressively spread in the last 10 years. Several studies have shown the superiority of LLR to open liver resection (OLR) in term of perioperative outcomes. With this review, we aim to systematically assess short-term and long-term major outcomes in patients who underwent LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in order to illustrate the advantages of minimally invasive liver surgery. Through an advanced PubMed research, we selected all retrospective, prospective, and comparative clinical trials reporting short-term and long-term outcomes of any series of patients with diagnosis of HCC who underwent laparoscopic or robotic resection. Reviews, meta-analyses, or case reports were excluded. None of the patients included in this review has received a previous locoregional treatment for the same tumor nor has undergone a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. We considered morbidity and mortality for evaluation of major short-term outcomes, and overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for evaluation of long-term outcomes. A total of 1,501 patients from 17 retrospective studies were included, 15 studies compare LLR with OLR. Propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis was used in 11 studies (975 patients). The majority of the studies included patients with good liver function and a single HCC. Cirrhosis at pathology ranged from 33% to 100%. Overall mortality and morbidity ranges were 0-2.4% and 4.9-44% respectively, with most of the complications being Clavien-Dindo grade I or II (range: 3.9-23.3% vs. 0-9.52% for Clavien I-II and ≥ III respectively). The median blood loss ranged from 150 to 389 mL; the range of the median duration of surgery was 134-343 minutes. The maximum rate of conversion was 18.2%. The median duration of hospitalization ranged from 4 to 13 days. The ranges of overall survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 72.8-100%, 60.7-93.5% and 38-89.7% respectively. The ranges of disease free survival rates at 1-, 3- and 5-year were 45.5-91.5%, 20-72.2% and 19-67.8% respectively. The benefits of LLR in term of complication rate, blood loss, and duration of hospital stay make this procedure an advantageous alternative to OLR, especially for cirrhotic patients in whom the use of LLR reduces the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. The limits of LLR can be overcome by robotic surgery, which could therefore be preferred. Further benefits of minimally invasive surgery derive from its ability to reduce the formation of adhesions in view of a salvage liver transplant. In conclusion, the results of this review seem to confirm the safety and feasibility of LLR for HCC as well as its superiority to OLR according to perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in early and advanced cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is well described in early cirrhosis. Less is known regarding outcomes with more advanced cirrhosis, and this study aimed to compare these groups.

METHODS

A retrospective review of resections at a high-volume hepatobiliary center over a 15-year period was performed. Primary end-points were 30 and 90-day mortality. Secondary end-points included complications and survival.

RESULTS

80 early (Child's A) were compared to 26 advanced (20 Child's B and 6 Child's C) patients. Baseline patient and tumor characteristics were similar except for parameters indicating degree of cirrhosis. Only early cirrhotic patients underwent anatomic hepatectomies (six cases) and median operative times were longer (151 vs 99 min, p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss, conversion, R0 resection, length-of-stay and perioperative complications were comparable. 30 and 90-day mortality were statistically similar (2.5 vs 0%, OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.08-36.19 and 2.5 vs 7.7%, OR 0.31 95% CI 0.04-2.30). There was a trend toward longer survival in the early cirrhotic group but this did not reach significance (50 vs 21 months, p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected advanced cirrhotic patients, laparoscopic liver resection may be performed with acceptable outcomes. Though this is not yet well established, further trials may be warranted.

The Asia Pacific Consensus Statement on Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Report from the 7th Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Meeting Held in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been gaining momentum, and it has become an accepted practice after the two international consensus conferences where experts worked up guidelines to standardize this approach and improve its safety. However, most laparoscopic hepatectomies were performed in patients with liver metastases. The concurrent presence of liver cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a great challenge to clinicians trying to establish a routine use of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC.

SUMMARY

The first Asia Pacific consensus meeting on laparoscopic liver resection for HCC was held in July 2016 in Hong Kong. A group of expert liver surgeons with experience in both open and laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC convened to formulate recommendations on the role and perspective of laparoscopic liver resection for primary liver cancer. The recommendations consolidate the most recent evidence pertaining to laparoscopic hepatectomy together with the latest thinking of practicing clinicians involved in laparoscopic hepatectomy, and give detailed guidance on how to deploy the treatment effectively for patients in need.

KEY MESSAGE

The panel of experts gathered evidence and produced recommendations providing guidance on the safe practice of laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients with HCC and cirrhosis. The inherent advantage of the laparoscopic approach may result in less blood loss if the procedure is performed in experienced centers. The laparoscopic approach to minor hepatectomy, particularly left lateral sectionectomy, is a preferred practice for HCC at experienced centers. Laparoscopic major liver resection for HCC remains a technically challenging operation, and it should be carried out in centers of excellence. There is emerging evidence that laparoscopic liver resection produces a better oncological outcome for HCC when compared with radiofrequency ablation, particularly when the lesions are peripherally located. Augmented features in laparoscopic liver resection, including indocyanine green fluorescence, 3D laparoscopy, and robot, will become important tools of surgical treatment in the near future. A combination of all of these features will enhance the experience of the surgeons, which may translate into better surgical outcomes. This is the first consensus workforce on laparoscopic liver resection for HCC, which is a unique condition that occurs in the Asia Pacific region.

Benefits of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal hypertension: a case-matched study

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopy over open liver resection in patients with cirrhosis have been widely demonstrated. On the other hand, information on the role of minimally invasive liver surgery in the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of laparoscopic liver resection in selected cirrhotic patients with CSPH.

METHODS

A retrospective case-control study of cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with laparoscopic liver resection was conducted from December 2005 to April 2016. A total of 45 patients were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of clinically significant portal hypertension. Fifteen cirrhotic patients with CSPH were matched with 30 patients without CSPH.

RESULTS

Overall, there were no differences in intraoperative results. No conversion to open surgery occurred in the CSPH group, and 3 patients were converted in the Non-CSPH group (0 vs. 10% p = 0.57). Only 2 (7%) patients in the Non-CSPH group and 1 (7%) in the CSPH group had relevant complications (modified Clavien-Dindo classification III). Two patients in the Non-CSPH group and one in the CSPH group developed transient ascites (7 vs. 7%). Postoperative hospital stay was similar in both groups, with a median of 4 days in the CSPH group and 3 days in the Non-CSPH group (p = 0.37). The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 38 months (range 7-100). Overall survival rates at 1 and 3 years were 100 and 87%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of survival (p = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

This initial study showed that laparoscopic resection in patients with CSPH can be performed safely in well-selected patients and expand the current surgical indications in patients with CSPH. Prospective trials with a larger sample size are necessary to confirm these results.

Outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To compare the surgical outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 177 patients who underwent major liver resection for HCC between January 2004 and June 2015. We divided the 177 patients into two groups according to the type of procedure: major LLR (LLR group; n = 67) and major OLR (OLR group; n = 110).

RESULTS

Procedures in the LLR group were right hepatectomy (30 patients), right posterior sectionectomy (28), left hepatectomy (11), right anterior sectionectomy (6), extended right hepatectomy (6), and central bisectionectomy (2). Tumor size was greater in the OLR group than in the LLR group (6.3 ± 3.8 vs 4.1 ± 2.4 cm; P = 0.016). The mean indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (P = 0.698) and serum α-fetoprotein (P = 0.186) were similar in both groups. The mean operation time was longer in the LLR group (416.6 ± 166.9 vs 332.5 ± 105.4 min; P = 0.002). Blood loss (P = 0.319), transfusion rate (P = 0.260), and R0 rate (P = 0.255) were similar in both groups. Hospital stay was shorter (11.3 ± 8.3 vs. 18 ± 21.4 days; P = 0.007) and the complication rate was lower (20.5% vs. 38.7%; P = 0.005) in the LLR group. The 5-year overall survival (77.3% vs 60.2%; P = 0.087) and disease-free survival (50.8% vs 40.1%; P = 0.139) rates were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Major LLR of HCC is feasible and oncologically safe when performed by experienced surgeons. Further refinements of the surgical technique are needed to reduce operation time.

Predictors and implications of unplanned conversion during minimally invasive hepatectomy: an analysis of the ACS-NSQIP database

BACKGROUND

Minimally-invasive hepatectomy (MIH) is increasingly utilized; however, predictors and outcomes for patients requiring conversion to an open procedure have not been adequately studied.

METHODS

The 2014-15 ACS-NSQIP database was analyzed. Unplanned conversion was compared to successful MIH and elective open hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Among 6918 hepatectomies, 1062 (15.4%) underwent attempted MIH: 989 laparoscopic, 73 robotic. Conversion occurred in 203 (19.1%). Compared to successful MIH, patients requiring unplanned conversion experienced higher rates of complications (34.5% vs 14.6%, p<0.001), including bile leaks (7.4% vs 2.8%, p=0.002), organ space infection (6.4% vs 2.9%, p=0.016), UTI (4.9% vs 1.2%, p=0.002), perioperative bleeding (21.2% vs 6.1%, p<0.001), DVT (3.0% vs 0.8%, p=0.024), and sepsis (5.9% vs 1.9%, p=0.001). Conversion led to greater LOS (5 days vs 3 days, p<0.001) and 30-day mortality (3.0% vs 0.5%, p=0.005). Compared to elective open hepatectomy, conversion was associated with greater perioperative bleeding (21.2% vs 15.3%, p = 0.037). On multivariate analysis, major hepatectomy (OR 2.21, p<0.001), concurrent ablation (OR 1.79, p=0.020), and laparoscopic approach (vs. robotic) (OR 3.22, p=0.014) were associated with conversion.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of this national database revealed unplanned conversion during MIH is associated with greater morbidity and mortality. MIH should be approached cautiously in patients requiring major hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Based Analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients.

METHOD

Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups.

RESULTS

A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: Risk Factors and Treatment Strategies

PURPOSE

To investigate the risk factors for recurrence and treatment strategies after patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergo total laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH).

METHODS

The study included 109 patients who underwent LH (laparoscopy resection [LR] group, n = 50) or open hepatectomy [OH] (open resection [OR] group, n = 59) for HCC in our hospital between March 2011 and June 2016. Perioperative outcomes, disease recurrence, survival, and risk factors for recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics did not significantly differ between groups. The 1- and 3-year survival rates were 90.7% and 78.1%, respectively, for the LR group and 83.1% and 74.4%, respectively, for the OR group (P = .71). The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 89.6% and 51.4%, respectively, for the LR group and 84.7% and 59.6%, respectively, for the OR group (P = .935). Tumor size, differentiation, vascular invasion, surgical bleeding, and surgical resection margin were risk factors for tumor recurrence after LH.

CONCLUSION

LH for HCC did not increase the risk of recurrence compared with OH. Tumor size, differentiation, vascular invasion, surgical bleeding, and surgical resection margin were risk factors for tumor recurrence. Reducing bleeding during surgery and ensuring sufficient surgical margins were the most important measures to reduce postoperative recurrence of HCC.

Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

One of the perceived major drawbacks of minimally invasive techniques has always been its cost. This is especially true for the robotic approach and is one of the main reasons that has prevented its wider acceptance among hospitals and surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of robotic and open liver surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

Sixty-eight robotic and 55 open hepatectomies were performed at our institution between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. An independent company performed the financial analysis. The economic parameters comprised direct variable costs, direct fixed costs, and indirect costs.

RESULTS

Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (438 versus 727.8 mL; P = .038). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22% versus 40%; P = .047). Clavien III/IV complications were also lower, with 4.4% in the robotic versus 16.3% in the open group (P = .043). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1 versus 3.3 days; P = .004). The average total cost, including readmissions, was $37,518 for robotic surgery and $41,948 for open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resections had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. These procedures are financially comparable to open resections and do not represent a financial burden to the hospital.

Usefulness of a CT-guided hookwire marking in laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma invisible on ultrasonography

INTRODUCTION

The intra-operative detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by ultrasonography is indispensable for laparoscopic partial hepatectomy. However, it is occasionally difficult to localize an HCC on an ultrasound in chronic liver disease. Two cases of partial hepatectomy using hookwire marking under CT guidance are presented.

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The location of the HCC was identified by CT scan, and the puncture site was determined. A hookwire system, made of a stainless steel hook, was used to localize the HCC. The hookwire was placed percutaneously close to the HCC, and then the patient was taken to the operating room as soon as possible. After identification of the hookwire marker, the cutting line was determined on the liver surface to ensure a sufficient surgical margin in laparoscopic partial hepatectomy.

DISCUSSION

Two cases underwent these procedures with easy intra-operative marking of the resection area. This technique facilitates safe laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for an HCC that is invisible on ultrasound.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.

Liver Exposure Using Sterile Glove Pouch During Laparoscopic Right Liver Surgery in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy is widely accepted for liver resection, lesions in the posterior and superior segments and deep region in the right lobe are difficult for visualization during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). In this study, we aim examine the effects of using sterile gloves (SG) pouch padding during LLR.

METHODS

Forty-two hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients were included in our study. We performed LLR using SG (n = 24, SG group) and without SG during LLR (n = 18, NSG). We also compared the time of various procedures, blood loss, and liver function between the two groups.

RESULTS

We did not observe any major complications or death in all patients. The time of liver parenchyma transection and portal triad clamping in SG group is significantly shorter than those in NSG group (30.29 ± 5.55 vs. 39.00 ± 3.68 min p < .001 for liver parenchyma transection, 23.00 ± 5.60 vs. 31.60 ± 5.03 min p < .001 for portal triad clamping). Blood loss in SG group (162.91 ± 90.91 ml) was significantly lower than in NSG group (236.66 ± 101.67 ml p = .024). The levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were increased one day after LLR, and decreased to normal level on day 7 after LLR in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that a sterile glove pouch could enhance exposure in surgical field, which results in decrease in blood loss and procedure time. More studies with large sample size, large tumor size, and longer follow-up are needed.

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

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

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

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

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

Short and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic compared to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is now established as standard of care for a variety of gastrointestinal procedures for benign and malignant indications. However, due to concerns regarding superiority to open liver resection (OLR), the uptake of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow. Data on long-term outcomes of LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and long-term outcomes of LLR compared to OLR for CRLM.

METHODS

Five electronic databases were systematically searched for studies comparing LLR and OLR for CRLM and reporting on survival outcomes. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were operative time, estimated blood loss, post-operative major morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and resection margins.

RESULTS

Eight non-randomized studies (NRS) were included (n=2,017 total patients). Six were matched cohort studies. LLR reduced estimated blood loss [mean difference: -108.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), -214.0 to -3.7) and major morbidity [relative risk (RR): 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56-0.83], but not mortality. No difference was observed in operative time, LOS, resection margins, R0 resections, and recurrence. Survival data could not be pooled. No studies reported inferior survival with LLR. OS varied from 36% to 60% for LLR and 37% to 65% for OLR. RFS ranged from 14% to 30% for LLR and 22% to 38% for OLR. According to the grade classification, the strength of evidence was low to very low for all outcomes. The use of parenchymal sparing resections with LLR and OLR could not be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited retrospective evidence, LLR offers reduced morbidity and blood loss compared to OLR for CRLM. Comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. Although LLR cannot be considered as standard of care for CRLM, it is beneficial for well-selected patients and lesions. Therefore, LLR should be part of the liver surgeon's armamentarium.

Robotic liver surgery: technical aspects and review of the literature

Minimally invasive surgery for liver resections has a defined role and represents an accepted alternative to open techniques for selected cases. Robotic technology can overcome some of the disadvantages of the laparoscopic technique, mainly in the most complex cases. Precise dissection and microsuturing is possible, even in narrow operative fields, allowing for a better dissection of the hepatic hilum, fine lymphadenectomy, and biliary reconstruction even with small bile ducts and easier bleeding control. This technique has the potential to allow for a greater number of major resections and difficult segmentectomies to be performed in a minimally invasive fashion. The implementation of near-infrared fluorescence with indocyanine green (ICG) also allows for a more accurate recognition of vascular and biliary anatomy. The perspectives of this kind of virtually implemented imaging are very promising and may be reflected in better outcomes. The overall data present in current literature suggests that robotic liver resections are at least comparable to both open and laparoscopic surgery in terms of perioperative and postoperative outcomes. This article provides technical details of robotic liver resections and a review of the current literature.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy has been proven to be a safe and effective treatment for liver lesions. However, most of the literatures only reported this treatment method on benign lesion or colorectal metastases. The data on long-term outcome of laparoscopic left lateral section resection in patients with HCC and cirrhosis are still limited. The aim of this study is to analyze the survival outcome of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy when compared to open approach in patients with HCCs.

METHOD

Between January 2004 and September 2014, 967 patients had primary HCC with hepatectomy performed. Twenty-four patients had undergone pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Twenty-nine patients with case-matched tumor characteristics and liver functions but received open left lateral sectionectomy for HCC were included for comparison.

RESULTS

Comparing laparoscopic group to open resection group, the median operation time was 190.5 versus 195 min (P = 0.734); the median blood loss was 100 versus 300 ml (P < 0.001). Hospital stay was 5 days in laparoscopic group versus 6 days in the open group (P = 0.057). There was no difference between the two groups in terms of complications (P = 0.495). The median survival in laparoscopic group was >115 months versus >125 months in the open group (P = 0.853).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for HCC is a safe and simple procedure associated with less blood loss. The survival outcome is comparable with conventional open approach. It is becoming a more favorable treatment option even for patients with HCC and cirrhosis.

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.

Single port laparoscopic liver surgery: A minireview

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

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

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

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Cirrhotic Patients: Takasaki's Hilar Control and Caudal Approach

BACKGROUND

Cirrhotic patients bearing hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) derive benefits from laparoscopic hepatectomy1 ^- 6 such as reduced bleeding, less overall and liver-specific complications, and fewer adhesions in the case of future reoperation or transplantation.7 ^- 10 Bleeding is concerning in the setting of cirrhosis,11 ^- 15 and adequate inflow control reduces blood loss. The caudal approach is the laparoscopic counterpart of the anterior approach to open surgery. It implies in parenchymal transection initiated from the visceral surface of the liver after limited hepatic mobilization, reducing the risk of increased circulating tumoral cells.16 ^- 18 Venous outflow transection and completion of ligament mobilization are left as last steps.

METHODS

A 46 years-old-male with hepatitis C virus and alcoholic cirrhosis was diagnosed with a 4-cm HCC (right hepatic lobe). Expected future liver remnant was 45 % of his total liver volume. A totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy was performed using six ports, and the specimen was removed through a Pfannenstiel auxiliary incision. A 10-mm 30° scope was used. The pneumoperitoneum pressure was set to 12 mmHg. The right hepatic pedicle, the caudate lobe, and the major hepatic veins were managed with laparoscopic vascular staplers.

RESULTS

Surgery was performed with limited liver mobilization and en bloc extrafascial right pedicle control (Takasaki's technique),19 followed by caudal parenchymal transection along the paracaval plane. The operative time was 450 min, and the estimated blood loss was 800 ml (no transfusion was required).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic Takasaki technique and caudal approach are feasible procedures in the setting of cirrhosis, resulting in an oncologic adequate intervention with less morbidity.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy in cirrhotics: safe if you adjust technique

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery is a growing field, and a small number of recent reports have suggested that laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is feasible even in patients with cirrhosis. However, parenchymal transection of the cirrhotic liver is challenging due to fibrosis and portal hypertension. There is a paucity of data regarding the technical modifications necessary to safely transect the diseased parenchyma.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR by a single surgeon between 2008 and 2015 were reviewed. Patients with cirrhosis were compared to those without cirrhosis to examine differences in surgical technique, intraoperative characteristics, and outcomes (including liver-related morbidity and general postoperative complication rates).

RESULTS

A total of 167 patients underwent LLR during the study period. Forty-eight (29 %) had cirrhosis, of which 43 (90 %) had hepatitis C. Most had Child-Pugh class A disease (85 %). Compared to noncirrhotics, patients with cirrhosis were older, had more comorbidities, and were more likely to have hepatocellular carcinoma. Precoagulation before parenchymal transection was used more frequently in cirrhotics (65 vs. 15 %, P < 0.001), and mean portal triad clamping time was longer (32 vs. 22 min, P = 0.002). There were few conversions to open surgery, though hand-assisted laparoscopy was used as an alternative to converting to open in three patients with cirrhosis. Blood loss was relatively low for both groups. Although there were more postoperative complications among cirrhotics (38 vs. 13 %, P = 0.001), this was almost entirely due to a higher rate of minor (Clavien-Dindo I or II) complications. Liver-related morbidity, major complications, and mortality rates were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is safe for selected patients with cirrhosis. The added complexity associated with the division of diseased liver parenchyma may be overcome with some form of technique modification, including more liberal use of precoagulation, portal triad clamping, or a hand-assist port.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

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

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatitis B and C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child B or C cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with hepatitis B and C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with Child B or C cirrhosis.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and December 2013, LLR was performed in 232 patients with HCC. Of these, 141 patients also had pathologically proven cirrhosis. Sixteen patients with hepatitis B and C virus-related HCC with Child B or C cirrhosis were included in the study. Thirteen (81.3%) patients had Child B disease and three (18.8%) patients had Child C disease.

RESULTS

The median operation time was 215 min, the median estimated blood loss was 350 mL, and the median hospital stay was eight days. Three patients (18.8%) experienced complications after surgery. There was no postoperative mortality or reoperation. The mean follow-up period was 51.6 months. HCC recurred in eight (50%) patients: seven intrahepatic recurrences and one extrahepatic recurrence. The treatments for recurrence were laparoscopic reoperation in one (6.3%) patient, trans-catheter arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) in one (6.3%) patient, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in one (6.3%) patient, and combined TACE and RFA in four (25%) patients. The five-year postoperative overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 84.4% and 41.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that LLR can be safely used in patients with hepatitis B and C virus-related HCC and Child B or C cirrhosis, with acceptable survival outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver

Operations on the liver have been undertaken for centuries for numerous indications including trauma, infections, and even for malignancy, but it was not until the past few decades that rates dramatically increased. This expanse in liver operations is due to a multitude of factors, including broader indications as well as improved safety. Our understanding of metastatic disease to the liver, especially colorectal cancer metastases, has vastly amplified the number of patients who would be candidates for hepatic resections and liver-directed therapies. We will focus our discussion here on planned minimally invasive operations for benign and malignant tumors as the majority of the literature relates to this setting.