Laparoscopic Liver Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with a Tumor Size Larger Than 5 cm: Review of 45 Cases in a Tertiary Institution

A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The indication of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. In this study, we compared the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched eligible articles about LLR versus OLR for large HCC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE and performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving 1,338 patients were included. Among them, 495 underwent LLR and 843 underwent OLR. The operation time was longer in the LLR group (MD: 22.23, 95% CI: 4.14-40.33, p = 0.02). but the postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter (MD : -4.88, CI: -5.55 to -4.23, p < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and major complications were significantly fewer (OR: 0.49, 95% CI:0.37-0.66, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.36 - 0.82, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic group had no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion rate, resection margin size, R0 resection rate, three-year overall survival (OS) and three-year disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

LLR for large HCC is safe and feasible. This surgical strategy will not affect the long-term outcomes of patients.

Sub-classification of laparoscopic left hepatectomy based on hierarchic interaction of tumor location and size with perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentric study was to investigate the impact of tumor location and size on the difficulty of Laparoscopic-Left Hepatectomy (L-LH).

METHODS

Patients who underwent L-LH performed across 46 centers from 2004 to 2020 were analyzed. Of 1236 L-LH, 770 patients met the study criteria. Baseline clinical and surgical characteristics with a potential impact on LLR were included in a multi-label conditional interference tree. Tumor size cut-off was algorithmically determined.

RESULTS

Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on tumor location and dimension: 457 in antero-lateral location (Group 1), 144 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size ≤40 mm (Group 2), and 169 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size >40 mm (Group 3). Patients in the Group 3 had higher conversion rate (7.0% vs. 7.6% vs. 13.0%, p-value .048), longer operating time (median, 240 min vs. 285 min vs. 286 min, p-value <.001), greater blood loss (median, 150 mL vs. 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p-value <.001) and higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (5.7% vs. 5.6% vs. 11.3%, p-value .039). Pringle's maneuver was also utilized more frequently in Group 3 (66.7%), compared to Group 1 (53.2%) and Group 2 (51.8%) (p = .006). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

L-LH for tumors that are >40 mm in diameter and located in PS Segment 4a are associated with the highest degree of technical difficulty. However, post-operative outcomes were not different from L-LH of smaller tumors located in PS segments, or tumors located in the antero-lateral segments.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score study

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial, especially for tumors larger than 5 cm. We compared the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

METHODS

Patients with large HCC after curative hepatectomy were enrolled. To compare the short-term outcomes, propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were performed to reduce the effect of confounding factors, respectively. Subsequently, Cox-regression analyses were conducted to identify the independent risk factors associated with decreased recurrence-free survival (RFS) and poor overall survival (OS).

RESULT

There were 265 patients enrolled in the final analysis: 146 who underwent OLR and 119 who underwent LLR. There was no significant difference between the OLR and LLR groups according to PSM and IPTW analysis (all P > 0.05). Multivariable analysis revealed that LLR was not independently associated with poorer OS (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.67, P = 0.448) or RFS (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.88-1.70, P = 0.238).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in perioperative complications or long-term prognosis between LLR and OLR for large HCC, which provides evidence for standard laparoscopic surgical practice with adequate surgeon experience and careful patient selection.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center propensity-score-matching comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Although the benefits of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in most circumstances are evident, the benefits for large HCC are contentious. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival after LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in large HCC patients.

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively maintained database included 215 hepatectomies for large HCC (diameter ≥ 5 cm). The operative and survival outcomes were compared between the LH group (n = 109) and the OH group (n = 106). Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 included 70 patients in each group. The entire cohort multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with surgical complications and suboptimal recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

After PSM, baseline characteristics and the extent of liver resection were similar in both groups. The LH group had a shorter hospital stay than the OH group (7 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.001). The R0 resection rate, complication rate, overall survival, and RFS were similar between the groups. The multivariate analyses revealed two independent factors predicting surgical complication (major resection; p < 0.001 and large volume blood loss; p = 0.042), and 3 independent factors predicting suboptimal RFS including R1 resection (p = 0.011), multifocal HCC (p = 0.005), and microvascular invasion (p = 0.001). LH was not associated with surgical complication and suboptimal RFS.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the benefits of LH by improving the perioperative outcomes, without long-term survival inferiority in selected large HCC patients compared with conventional OH. LH can be an attractive option for large HCC treatment.

Impact of tumor size on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection

INTRODUCTION

We performed this study in order to investigate the impact of tumour size on the difficulty of MILR, as well as to elucidate the optimal tumour size cut-off/s to distinguish between 'easy' and 'difficult' MILRs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is retrospective review of 603 consecutive patients who underwent MILR between 2006 and 2019 of which 461 met the study inclusion criteria. We first conducted an exploratory analysis to visualize the associations between tumor size and various surrogates of laparoscopic difficulty in order to determine to optimal tumor size cutoff for stratification. Visual inspection of flexible spline-based models as well as quantitative evidence determined that perioperative outcomes differed between patients with tumor size of 30-69 mm and tumours ≥70 mm. These cutoffs were used for further downstream analyses.

RESULTS

The cohort of 461 patients was divided into 3 groups based on tumour diameter size. Patients with larger tumours experienced longer operating times ((P_{Group 2 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 2}<0.001), higher blood loss (P_{Group 2 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 2}<0.001), as well as significantly longer hospital stay (P_{Group 2 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 1}<0.001, P_{Group 3 vs 2}<0.001). There was a monotonic trend towards increasing blood transfusion rates (P = 0.006), overall morbidity (P = 0.029) and 90-day mortality rates (P = 0.047) with increasing tumour size.

CONCLUSION

Although tumour size of 30 mm serves as an optimal cut-off for predicting difficult resections as per the Iwate criteria, a trichotomy (<30 mm, 30-69 mm, ≥70 mm) may provide additional granularity. Further large-scale prospective studies are needed to corroborate these findings.

Laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma: A coarsened exact-matched single-surgeon study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly being utilised worldwide for the management of both benign and malignant liver tumours. However, there is limited data to date regarding the safety and feasibility of this approach for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). We present here our early experience performing LLR for huge HCCs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 280 consecutive patients who underwent LLR by a single surgeon from 2012 to August 2020.15 patients had a preoperative radiological diagnosis of huge (≥10 cm) HCC. Coarsened exact-matched (CEM) weighting was used to compare them to 101 patients who underwent LLR for non-huge HCC.

RESULTS

After CEM-weighting, both groups were well-balanced for baseline variables. There was no difference in the rates of open conversion. The huge HCC patients had a higher mean Iwate difficulty score than the non-huge HCC patients (9.13 vs 6.53, p = 0.007). As such, the median operating time for the huge HCC group was longer (360 min vs 240min, p = 0.049). However, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, utilization of Pringle maneuver or median Pringle duration. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences in median LOS, overall and major morbidity rates, and 90-day mortality rates between both groups. Median resection margins were also similar for both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

LLR may be performed successfully for selected patients with huge HCC, with encouraging perioperative outcomes and no compromise in oncologic efficacy.

Safety assessment of laparoscopic liver resection: A project study of the Endoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group of Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been expanded rapidly and has been accepted worldwide; however, the safety assessment of LLR has not been fully conducted with a large-scale cohort. The aim of this study was to assess safety and identify clinical factors associated with postoperative major complications in LLR.

METHODS

This project study retrospectively collected the data of LLRs performed before October 2015 in Japan. Patient characteristics, details of LLRs, and surgical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 4122 patients from 66 institutions were enrolled. The main indications were hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases. The majority of the procedures were performed for solitary tumor-located liver segment 2, 3, 5, and 6 and the partial resection and left-lateral sectionectomy occupied 77.3%. The rate of conversion, accidental events were 7.1% and 2.1%, respectively. Postoperative major complication occurred in 205 cases (5.0%), and 14 in-hospital deaths were found among HCC patients with chronically diseased liver. Occurrence of postoperative major complication was associated with operation time (≥360 minutes), intraoperative blood loss (≥250 mL), red blood cell transfusion (yes), and the difficulty score (≥6). The 30- and 90-day mortality was 0.14% and 0.41%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection was performed with an acceptable rate of conversion, accidental events, morbidity, and mortality. The indications for LLR should be cautiously judged considering tumor location, planned operative procedure, and liver function.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Setting of Portal Vein Hypertension: Results of an International Multi-institutional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein hypertension assessed with platelet count (PVH-PLT; platelet count < 100,000/mL) are often denied surgery even when the disease is technically resectable. Short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open resection for HCC and PVH-PLT were compared.

METHODS

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the clinicopathological differences between MIS and non-MIS patents. Univariate comparison and standard survival analyses were utilized.

RESULTS

Among 1974 patients who underwent surgery for HCC, 13% had a PVH-PLT and 33% underwent MIS. After 1:1 PSM, 407 MIS and 407 non-MIS patients were analyzed. Incidence of complications and length-of-stay (LoS) were higher among non-MIS versus MIS patients (both p ≤ 0.002). After PSM, among 178 PVH-PLT patients (89 MIS and 89 non-MIS), patients who underwent a non-MIS approach had longer LoS (> 7 days; non-MIS: 55% vs. MIS: 29%), as well as higher morbidity (non-MIS: 42% vs. MIS: 29%) [p <0.001]. In contrast, long-term oncological outcomes were comparable, including 3-year overall survival (non-MIS: 66.2% vs. MIS: 72.9%) and disease-free survival (non-MIS: 47.3% vs. MIS: 50.2%) [both p ≥ 0.08].

CONCLUSION

An MIS approach was associated with improved short-term outcomes, but similar long-term outcomes, compared with open liver resection for patients with HCC and PVH-PLT. An MIS approach for liver resection should be considered for patients with HCC, even those individuals with PVH-PLT.

Learning curve of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy

Background

The feasibility and learning curve of laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy was assessed.

Methods

Donors who underwent right hepatectomy performed by a single surgeon were reviewed. Comparisons between open and laparoscopy regarding operative outcomes, including number of bile duct openings in the graft, were performed using propensity score matching.

Results

From 2014 to 2018, 103 and 96 donors underwent laparoscopic and open living donor right hepatectomy respectively, of whom 64 donors from each group were matched. Mean(s.d.) duration of operation (252·2(41·9) versus 304·4(66·5) min; P &lt; 0·001) and median duration of hospital stay (8 versus 10 days; P = 0·002) were shorter in the laparoscopy group. There was no difference in complication rates of donors (P = 0·298) or recipients (P = 0·394) between the two groups. Total time for laparoscopy decreased linearly (R2 = 0·407, β = –0·914, P = 0·001), with the decrease starting after approximately 50 procedures when cases were divided into four quartiles (2nd versus 3rd quartile, P = 0·001; 3rd versus 4th quartile, P = 0·023). Although grafts with bile duct openings were more abundant in the laparoscopy group (P = 0·022), no difference was found in the last two quartiles (P = 0·207).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy is feasible and an experience of approximately 50 cases may surpass the learning curve.

Intraoperative Ultrasonography as a Guidance for Dividing Bile Duct During Laparoscopic Living Donor Hepatectomy

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using intraoperative ultrasonography as a guidance in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic donor hepatectomy.

Material/Methods

Cases of living liver donors who underwent laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy from May 2013 to December 2017 were reviewed. Operative and postoperative data were compared between donors with intraoperative ultrasonography and donors with intraoperative cholangiography. For analyzing whether bile duct division was performed successfully, anatomical type and number of bile duct openings were reviewed. When the number of bile ducts were achieved as expected, it was considered “successful”.

Results

Intraoperative cholangiography was used in 67 donors (62.6%) while intraoperative ultrasonography was used in 36 donors (33.6%). Mean operation time was 405.0±76.2 minutes versus 275.1±37.5 minutes, P<0.001, respectively, and was longer in donors who had a cholangiography. There was no difference in the success rate of bile duct division between donors who had a cholangiography (92.5%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (88.9%, P=0.716). The mean hospital stay after operation was longer in donors who had a cholangiography (11.6±4.3 days versus 9.0±2.7 days, P<0.001). There was no difference in biliary complication rate between donors who had a cholangiography (11.9%) and donors who had an ultrasonography (8.3%, P=0.743).

Conclusions

Intraoperative ultrasonography can be used safely in dividing bile duct during laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy with similar outcomes to intraoperative cholangiography.

Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma located in unfavorable segments: a propensity score-matched analysis from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most important indications for the minimally invasive approach. Our study aims to analyze the experience of the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery with laparoscopic surgical treatment of HCC, with a focus on tumor location and how it affects morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

38 centers participated in this study; 372 cases of LLR for HCC were prospectively enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups according to the HCC nodule location. Group 1 favorable location and group 2 unfavorable location. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the two groups before and after a propensity score match (PS) 1:1.

RESULTS

Before PS in group 2 surgical time was longer; conversion rate was higher; postoperative transfusion and comprehensive complication index were also higher. PS was performed with a cohort of 298 patients (from 18 centers), with 66 and 232 patients with HCC in unfavorable and favorable locations, respectively. After PS matching, 62 patients from group 1 and group 2 each were compared. Operative and postoperative course were similar in patients with HCC in favorable and unfavorable LLR locations. Surgical margins were found to be identical before and after PS.

CONCLUSIONS

These results show that LLR in patients with HCC can be safely performed in all segments because of the extensive experience of all surgeons from multiple centers in performing traditional open liver surgery as well as laparoscopic surgery.

Which approach is preferred in left hepatocellular carcinoma? Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy using propensity score matching

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its perioperative and oncological outcomes have not been evaluated in left hepatectomy patients. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of left hepatectomy through laparoscopic and open approaches in left HCC.

Methods

From December 2012 to October 2016, laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) was performed in 40 patients and open left hepatectomy (OLH) was performed in 80 patients. All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching of patients in a 1:1 ratio was conducted based on tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion.

Results

Tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion were higher in the OLH group than the LLH group (P < 0.05). However, the operative time was longer in the LLH group than in the OLH group (266 min vs. 239 min; P = 0.005). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLH group than in the OLH group before and after matching (9 days vs. 13 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of complications in the LLH and OLH groups was 10.0 and 7.5%, respectively. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the LLH group were not different from those in the OLH group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

A laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for left HCC. The oncologic outcome of LLH is comparable to that of OLH.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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