Effect of Previous Abdominal Surgery on Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Analysis of Feasibility and Risk Factors for Conversion

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration after prior gastrectomy

The increased incidence of gallstones can be linked to previous gastrectomy (PG). However, the success rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-creatography after gastrectomy has significantly reduced. In such cases, laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE) may be an alternative. In this study, LTCBDE was evaluated for its safety and feasibility in patients with PG. We retrospectively evaluated 300 patients who underwent LTCBDE between January 2015 and June 2023. The subjects were divided into 2 groups according to their PG status: PG group and No-PG group. The perioperative data from the 2 groups were compared. The operation time in the PG group was longer than that in the No-PG group (184.69 ± 20.28 minutes vs 152.19 ± 26.37 minutes, P < .01). There was no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss (61.19 ± 41.65 mL vs 50.83 ± 30.47 mL, P = .087), postoperative hospital stay (6.36 ± 1.94 days vs 5.94 ± 1.36 days, P = .125), total complication rate (18.6 % vs 14.1 %, P = .382), stone clearance rate (93.2 % vs 96.3 %, P = .303), stone recurrence rate (3.4 % vs 1.7 %, P = .395), and conversion rate (6.8 % vs 7.0 %, P = .941) between the 2 groups. No deaths occurred in either groups. A history of gastrectomy may not affect the feasibility and safety of LTCBDE, because its perioperative results are comparable to those of patients with a history of No-gastrectomy.

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Evaluation of the effect of previous endometriosis surgery on clinical and surgical outcomes of subsequent endometriosis surgery

PURPOSE

Patients often undergo repeat surgery for endometriosis, due to recurrent or residual disease. Previous surgery is often considered a risk factor for worse surgical outcome. However, data are scarce concerning the influence of subsequent endometriosis surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study in a centre of expertise for endometriosis was conducted. All endometriosis subtypes and intra-operative steps were included. Detailed information regarding surgical history of patients was collected. Surgical time, intra-operative steps and major post-operative complications were obtained as outcome measures.

RESULTS

595 patients were included, of which 45.9% had previous endometriosis surgery. 7.9% had major post-operative complications and 4.4% intra-operative complications. The patient journey showed a median of 3 years between previous endometriosis surgeries. Each previous therapeutic laparotomic surgery resulted on average in 13 additional minutes (p = 0.013) of surgical time. Additionally, it resulted in more frequent performance of adhesiolysis (OR 2.96, p < 0.001) and in a higher risk for intra-operative complications (OR 1.81, p = 0.045), however no higher risk for major post-operative complications (OR 1.29, p = 0.418). Previous therapeutic laparoscopic endometriosis surgery, laparotomic and laparoscopic non-endometriosis surgery showed no association with surgical outcomes. Regardless of previous surgery, disc and segmental bowel resection showed a higher risk for major post-operative complications (OR 3.64, p = 0.017 respectively OR 3.50, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Previous therapeutic laparotomic endometriosis surgery shows an association with longer surgical time, the need to perform adhesiolysis, and more intra-operative complications in the subsequent surgery for endometriosis. However, in a centre of expertise with experienced surgeons, no increased risk of major post-operative complications was observed.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration following prior gastrectomy: surgical safety and feasibility

PURPOSE

Previous gastrectomy (PG) can lead to an increased incidence of biliary stones. However, the success rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography after gastrectomy remains low. In such cases, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) may be an alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LCBDE for patients who underwent PG.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with a history of LCBDE was conducted. Patients were divided into two groups according to their PG status, and their perioperative data were compared.

RESULTS

The outcomes of 27 patients with a history of gastrectomy were compared with those of 155 without a history of gastrectomy who underwent LCBDE. PG patients experienced longer hospitalization times (P = 0.006), more postoperative bleeding (p = 0.021), a lower incidence of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (P < 0.001), and a higher incidence of T-tube application (p = 0.002) than those without gastrectomy. However, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss volume, operation time, bile leakage status, pancreatitis status, stone clearance rate, readmission rate, or recurrence rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LCBDE following gastrectomy may require laborious perioperative management, a history of gastrectomy might not influence the feasibility or safety of LCBDE, as its perioperative outcomes are comparable to those in patients without a history of gastrectomy.

The Outcome of Conversion to Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is known as a useful option. However, the outcome and predictor of conversion to HALS in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who planned pure LLR between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and compared pure LLR, HALS, and converted open liver resection (OLR).

RESULTS

Among the 169 LLRs, conversion to HALS was performed in 19 (11.2%) and conversion to OLR in 16 (9.5%). The most frequent reasons for conversion to HALS were failure to progress (11 cases). Subsequently, bleeding (3 cases), severe adhesion (2 cases), and oncological factors (2 cases) were the reasons. In the multivariable analysis, the tumor located in segments 7 or 8 (p = 0.002) was evaluated as a predictor of conversion to HALS. Pure LLR and HALS were associated with less blood loss than conversion to OLR (p = 0.005 and p = 0.014, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictor of conversion to HALS was a tumor located in segments 7 or 8. The outcome of conversion to HALS was not inferior to pure LLR in terms of bleeding, operation time, hospital stay, or severe complication.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization

BACKGROUND

Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified.

METHODS

The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented.

RESULTS

In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries.

CONCLUSION

Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

Previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery did not increase the difficulty in laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case–control study in 100 consecutive patients

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is still technically challenging for patients with previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery (AS). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the difficulty of performing LH for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a history of nonhepatectomy AS during the initial developing period of LH.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed with HCC receiving LH from January 2013 to June 2021. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were prospectively collected.

Results

One hundred patients were reviewed consecutively, comprising 23 in the AS group and 77 in the non-AS group. No significant differences were observed in median IWATE score (5 vs. 5, P = 0.194), operative time (219 vs. 200 min, P = 0.609), blood loss (100.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P = 0.734), transfusion rate (4.3% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.374), duration of parenchyma transection (90.0 vs. 72.4 min, P = 0.673), and mean nonparenchymal transection time (191.0 vs. 125.0 min, P = 0.228), without increasing the conversion rate (0.0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.336), postoperative complications (30.3% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.488), and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = 0.060) in AS group and non-AS groups.

Conclusion

History of previous nonhepatectomy AS can lead to longer nonparenchymal transection time instead of conversion and did not increase the difficulty. Prolonged nonparenchymal transection time did not increase the surgical complications, prolong the postoperative hospital stay, and compromise the survival outcomes.

Laparoscopic surgery for gallstones or common bile duct stones: A stably safe and feasible surgical strategy for patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery

Backgrounds/Aims

A history of upper abdominal surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopy. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with and without previous upper abdominal surgery.

Methods

In total, 131 patients with previous upper abdominal surgery and 64 without upper abdominal surgery underwent LC or LCBDE between September 2017 and September 2021 at the Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. Patients with previous upper abdominal surgery were divided into four groups: group A included patients with previous right upper abdominal surgery who underwent LC (n = 17), group B included patients with previous other upper abdominal surgery who underwent LC (n = 66), group C included patients with previous right upper abdominal surgery who underwent LCBDE (n = 30), and group D included patients with previous other upper abdominal surgery who underwent LCBDE (n = 18). Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

The preoperative liver function indexes showed no significant difference between the observation and control groups. For patients who underwent LC, groups A and B had more abdominal adhesions than the control group. One case was converted to open surgery in each of groups A and B. There was no statistical difference in operation time, estimated blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, and drainage volume. For patients who underwent LCBDE, groups C and D had more estimated blood loss than the control group (group C, 41.33 ± 50.84 vs. 18.97 ± 13.12 ml, p = 0.026; group D, 66.11 ± 87.46 vs. 18.97 ± 13.12 ml, p = 0.036). Compared with the control group, group C exhibited longer operative time (173.87 ± 60.91 vs. 138.38 ± 57.38 min, p = 0.025), higher drainage volume (296.83 ± 282.97 vs. 150.83 ± 127.04 ml, p = 0.015), and longer postoperative hospital stay (7.97 ± 3.68 vs. 6.17 ± 1.63 days, p = 0.021). There was no mortality in all groups.

Conclusions

LC or LCBDE is a safe and feasible procedure for experienced laparoscopic surgeons to perform on patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

Variations in risk-adjusted outcomes following 4318 laparoscopic liver resections

Background/Purpose

Quality measures in surgery are important to establish appropriate levels of care and to develop improvement strategies. The purpose of this study was to provide risk‐adjusted outcome measures after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

Methods

Data from a prospective, multicenter database involving 4318 patients submitted to LLRs in 41 hospitals from an intention‐to‐treat approach (2014–2020) were used to analyze heterogeneity (I²) among centers and to develop a risk‐adjustment model on outcome measures through multivariable mixed‐effect models to account for confounding due to case‐mix.

Results

Involved hospitals operated on very different patients: the largest heterogeneity was observed for operating in the presence of previous abdominal surgery (I²:79.1%), in cirrhotic patients (I²:89.3%) suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma (I²:88.6%) or requiring associated intestinal resections (I²:82.8%) and in regard to technical complexity (I² for the most complex LLRs: 84.1%). These aspects determined substantial or large heterogeneity in overall morbidity (I²:84.9%), in prolonged in‐hospital stay (I²:86.9%) and in conversion rate (I²:73.4%). Major complication had medium heterogeneity (I²:46.5%). The heterogeneity of mortality was null. Risk‐adjustment accounted for all of this variability and the final risk‐standardized conversion rate was 8.9%, overall morbidity was 22.1%, major morbidity was 5.1% and prolonged in‐hospital stay was 26.0%. There were no outliers among the 41 participating centers. An online tool was provided.

Conclusions

A benchmark for LLRs including all eligible patients was provided, suggesting that surgeons can act accordingly in the interest of the patient, modifying their approach in relation to different indications and different experience, but finally providing the same quality of care.

The risk factors of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy is a challenge during laparoscopic hepatectomy; however, the risk factors of conversion have been poorly elucidated.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each risk factor and evaluated heterogeneity using a L'Abbe plot, Galbraith radial plot, Cochran's Q test, and I². An extended funnel plot was used to evaluate the robustness of the results of meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to determine sources of heterogeneity. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 25 eligible studies were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Higher body mass index (OR 1.346, 95% CI 1.055-1.717), hypertension (OR 1.387, 95% CI 1.100-1.749), male sex (OR 1.278, 95% CI 1.072-1.523), cirrhosis (OR 1.378, 95% CI 1.062-1.788), major resection (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.748-2.382), posterosuperior tumor location (OR 2.420, 95% CI 1.923-3.044), and larger tumor diameter (OR 1.618, 95% CI 1.270-2.061) were found to be significantly related to intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Malignant tumor (OR 1.253, 95% CI 0.970-1.619), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists stage (OR 1.186, 95% CI 0.863-1.631), multiple tumors (OR 1.273, 95% CI 0.866-1.871), and abdominal surgery history (OR 1.236, 95% CI 0.589-2.597) were not associated with conversion. A history of abdominal surgery showed significant heterogeneity with an I² of 80.8% (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that heterogeneity was caused by the different number of patients among enrolled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified a number of factors associated with intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Our findings can help patient risk evaluation to reduce the laparotomy conversion rate in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy Following Prior Upper Abdominal Surgery (Pancreatectomy and Prior Surgery)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Previous abdominal surgery can be a risk factor for perioperative complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures. Today, distal pancreatectomy is increasingly performed laparoscopically. This study investigates the consequences of prior upper abdominal surgery (PUAS) for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP).

METHODS

Patients who had undergone LDP from April 1997 to January 2020 were included. Based on the history and type of PUAS, these were categorized into three groups: minimally invasive (I), open (II), and no PUAS (III). To reduce possible confounding factors, the groups were matched in 1:2:4 fashion based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiology grade.

RESULTS

After matching, 30, 60, and 120 patients were included in the minimally invasive, open and no PUAS groups, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of intraoperative outcomes. Postoperative morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay were similar. Open PUAS was associated with higher Comprehensive Complication Index (33.7 vs 20.9 vs 26.2, p = 0.03) and greater proportion of patients with ≥ 2 complications (16.7 vs 0 vs 6.7%, p = 0.02) compared with minimally invasive and no PUAS. Male sex, overweight (BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2), diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasia, and open PUAS were risk factors for severe morbidity in the univariable analysis. Only open PUAS was statistically significant in the multivariable model.

CONCLUSIONS

PUAS does not impair the feasibility and safety of LDP as its perioperative outcomes are largely comparable to those in patients without PUAS. However, open PUAS increases the burden and severity of postoperative complications.

The Italian Consensus on minimally invasive simultaneous resections for synchronous liver metastasis and primary colorectal cancer: A Delphi methodology

At the time of diagnosis synchronous colorectal cancer, liver metastases (SCRLM) account for 15-25% of patients. If primary tumour and synchronous liver metastases are resectable, good results may be achieved performing surgical treatment incorporated into the chemotherapy regimen. So far, the possibility of simultaneous minimally invasive (MI) surgery for SCRLM has not been extensively investigated. The Italian surgical community has captured the need and undertaken the effort to establish a National Consensus on this topic. Four main areas of interest have been analysed: patients' selection, procedures, techniques, and implementations. To establish consensus, an adapted Delphi method was used through as many reiterative rounds were needed. Systematic literature reviews were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses instructions. The Consensus took place between February 2019 and July 2020. Twenty-six Italian centres participated. Eighteen clinically relevant items were identified. After a total of three Delphi rounds, 30-tree recommendations reached expert consensus establishing the herein presented guidelines. The Italian Consensus on MI surgery for SCRLM indicates possible pathways to optimise the treatment for these patients as consensus papers express a trend that is likely to become shortly a standard procedure for clinical pictures still on debate. As matter of fact, no RCT or relevant case series on simultaneous treatment of SCRLM are available in the literature to suggest guidelines. It remains to be investigated whether the MI technique for the simultaneous treatment of SCRLM maintain the already documented benefit of the two separate surgeries.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

The Impact of Previous Abdominal Surgery in a High-Acuity Liver Transplant Population

BACKGROUND

It is not uncommon for liver transplant (LT) recipients to have had previous abdominal surgery (PAS) preceding transplant. The impact of PAS on morbidity and mortality in LT patients remains unclear. In this study, we investigated the correlation between PAS and LT outcomes in a high-acuity patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective review of 936 adult primary LT recipients between 2012 and 2018. Patients were divided based on PAS history. PAS was subdivided into upper abdominal surgery (UAS) and lower abdominal surgery (LAS). UAS was separated into high-impact UAS and low-impact UAS. Finally, we studied patients with PAS ≤90 d versus PAS >90 d.

RESULTS

Extensive adhesiolysis was the only significant perioperative factor between the PAS group (n = 367) and the non-PAS group (n = 569) (P < 0.001). Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion (20U versus 17U, P = 0.044) and abdominal packing (24.2% versus 13.3%, P = 0.008) were significantly higher in the UAS group (n = 186) versus the LAS group (n = 181). Patients with high-impact UAS required greater RBC (P = 0.021) and fresh frozen plasma transfusion (P = 0.005), and arterial conduits (P = 0.016) during LT. Compared with recipients with PAS >90 d (n = 338), recipients with PAS ≤90 d (n = 29) had significantly higher RBC transfusion (P = 0.046), fresh frozen plasma transfusion (P = 0.022), and abdominal packing (P = 0.025). No differences in patient and graft survival was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, with appropriate care in the perioperative setting, PAS is not a contraindication to successful LT. Careful consideration is warranted when risk stratifying patients with multiple comorbidities who had PAS, especially those with UAS or PAS ≤90 d.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Correlation Between Type of Retrieval Incision and Postoperative Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: A Critical Assessment

Background: At the end of a laparoscopic major hepatectomy, an incision wide enough for specimen retrieval is required. Classically, Pfannenstiel (PF) incision is the type of access favored as service incision in laparoscopy. However, in specific settings the use of a midline (ML) incision can be favorable, with doubtful impaction on the outcomes of a purely laparoscopic operation. The aim of this study was to investigate on clinical outcomes after laparoscopic hemihepatectomies using PF/ML incisions in comparison with open. Methods: The institutional clinical database of the Hepatobiliary Division at San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) was retrospectively reviewed identifying cases of laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies. Three analyses were performed: whole laparoscopic versus open; ML versus open; PF versus ML. Clinical outcomes such as intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative morbidity, motility resumption, perceived pain, and length of stay (LOS) were used for comparisons. Results: Laparoscopy was confirmed to be superior to open approach also in the present series in terms of lower blood loss (300 versus 400 mL, P = .041), fewer complications (14.2% versus 25.9%, P = .024), shorter hospitalization (5 versus 7 days, P = .033), and enhanced recovery in terms of better pain control (P = .035) and mobility resumption (P = .047). Similar outcomes were observed comparing ML alone with open (estimated blood loss 300 mL versus 400 mL, P = .039; complications 13.1% versus 25.9%, P = .037; LOS 5 days versus 7 days, P = .04; lower pain perception, P = .048 and faster mobility resumption, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in postoperative outcomes of PF versus ML. Conclusions: Suprapubic and ML incisions at the end of a pure laparoscopic case lead to comparable outcomes between each other. The adoption of ML incision for specimen retrieval does not affect outcomes of minimal invasiveness.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic techniques have become the standard approach for most liver resections. Clinical studies providing conclusive evidence which patients benefit most from minimal-invasive surgery remain limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of all consecutive cases of laparoscopic liver resection between 2015 and 2018 at our center. We compared patients with and without prior abdominal surgeries with respect to postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score), length of operation, length of ICU stay and length of hospitalization in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Within the study period 319 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections, 44% of which had a history of abdominal surgeries. Pre-operative characteristics were similar to patients without prior surgeries. Both groups showed comparable rates of post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥3a; 12% in patients without vs. 16% with prior surgeries, p = 0,322). There were no significant differences in length of surgery or length of stay in the ICU or in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that history of prior abdominal surgery is not a risk factor for post-operative complications after laparoscopic liver resection. We conclude that prior abdominal surgery should not be considered a contra-indication for laparoscopic approach in liver resection.

ERAS Protocol for Perioperative Care of Patients Treated with Laparoscopic Nonanatomic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The ISMETT Experience

Background: Liver resection (LR) remains the best therapeutic option for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with preserved hepatic function and who are not eligible for liver transplantation. After its inception, the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol was widely used for treating patients with liver cancer, although there are still no clear indications for improving upon it in both open and laparoscopic surgery. Objective: This study aims to describe our institute's experience in the application of the ERAS protocol in a cohort of HCC patients, and to explore possible factors that could have an impact on postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed our experience with LR performed from September 2017 to January 2020 in patients treated with ERAS protocol, focusing on describing impact on postoperative nutrition, analgesic requirements, and length of hospitalization. Demographics, operative factors, and postoperative complications of patients were reviewed. Results: During the study period, 89 HCC patients were eligible for LR, and 75% of patients presented with liver cirrhosis. The most prevalent among etiologic factors was hepatitis C virus infection (53 patients out of 89, 60%), followed by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (18 patients, 20%). The median age was 70 years. Liver cirrhosis did not have an impact on postoperative course of patients. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and nonanatomic LR experienced low complication rates, shorter length of stay, and shorter time of intravenous analgesic requirements. Conclusions: Continual refinement with ERAS protocol for treating HCC patients based on perioperative counseling and surgical decision-making is crucial to guarantee low complication rates, and reduce patient morbidity and time for recovery.

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations

Background

A history of abdominal biliary tract surgery has been identified as a relative contraindication for laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), and there are very few reports about laparoscopic procedures in patients with a history of abdominal biliary tract surgery.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the clinical outcomes of 227 consecutive patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations at our institution between December 2013 and June 2019. A total of 110 consecutive patients underwent LCBDE, and 117 consecutive patients underwent open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE). Patient demographics and perioperative variables were compared between the two groups.

Results

The LCBDE group performed significantly better than the OCBDE group with respect to estimated blood loss [30 (5–700) vs. 50 (10–1800) ml; p = 0.041], remnant common bile duct (CBD) stones (17 vs. 28%; p = 0.050), postoperative hospital stay [7 (3–78) vs. 8.5 (4.5–74) days; p = 0.041], and time to oral intake [2.5 (1–7) vs. 3 (2–24) days; p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences in the operation time [170 (60–480) vs. 180 (41–330) minutes; p = 0.067]. A total of 19 patients (17%) in the LCBDE group were converted to open surgery. According to Clavien’s classification of complications, the LCBDE group had significantly fewer postoperative complications than the OCBDE group (40 vs. 57; p = 0.045). There was no mortality in either group. Multiple previous operations (≥ 2 times), a history of open surgery, and previous biliary tract surgery (including bile duct or gallbladder + bile duct other than cholecystectomy alone) were risk factors for postoperative adhesion (p = 0.000, p = 0.000, and p = 0.000, respectively).

Conclusion

LCBDE is ultimately the least invasive, safest, and the most effective treatment option for patients with previous abdominal biliary tract operations and is especially suitable for those with a history of cholecystectomy, few previous operations (< 2 times), or a history of laparoscopic surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

Benefits over the open technique are demonstrated for laparoscopic liver resections. Whether the degree of advantage is different for anterolateral and posterosuperior resections is investigated in this retrospective study.

METHODS

Laparoscopic anterolateral and posterosuperior resections (Lap-AL/Lap-PS) were compared with open (Open-AL/Open-PS) after propensity score matching. Mean/median differences of relevant parameters were calculated after bootstrap sampling. The degree of advantage was compared between anterolateral and posterosuperior resections and expressed as delta of differences (Δ-difference).

RESULTS

239 Lap-AL were compared with 239 matched Open-AL, and 176 Lap-PS with 176 matched Open-PS. Lap-AL showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization and total stay; Lap-PS showed reduced blood loss, transfusions, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization, functional recovery and total stay. The degree of advantage of Lap-PS resulted significantly greater than Lap-AL blood loss (Δ-difference: 101 mL, p 0.017), transfusions (Δ-difference: 6.3%, p 0.008), morbidity (Δ-difference: 7.6%, p 0.034), time to orally-controlled pain (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.020) and functional recovery (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

While both resulting in benefit, the advantage of laparoscopy is greater for posterosuperior than anterolateral resections. Despite their technical difficulty, these should be considered among the most worthwhile laparoscopic liver resections.

A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures

The objective of this study is to define the learning curve in a series of procedures grouped according to their complexity calculated by difficulty index to define a standard for technical improvement. 1032 laparoscopic liver resections performed in a single tertiary referral center were stratified by difficulty scores: low difficulty (LD, n = 362); intermediate difficulty (ID, n = 332), and high difficulty (HD, n = 338). The learning curve effect was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method taking into consideration the expected risk of conversion. The ratio of laparoscopic/total liver resections increased from 5.8% (2005) to 71.1% (2018). The CUSUM analysis per group showed that the average value of the conversion rate was reached at the 60th case in the LD Group and at the 15th in the ID and HD groups. The evolution from LD to ID and HD procedures occurred only when learning curve in LD resections was concluded. Reflecting different degree of complexity, procedures showed significantly different blood loss, morbidity, and conversions among groups. A standard educational model-stepwise and progressive-is mandatory to allow surgeons to define the technical and technological backgrounds to deal with a specific degree of difficulty, providing a help in the definition of indications to laparoscopic approach in each phase of training.

Totally Laparoscopic Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer: A Single Center Experience

Background: Primary laparoscopic approach for the treatment of cancers of the biliary tract is not popular in the surgical community. The aim of this study is to report the short-term data of patients who underwent total laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer (GBC) at a single center of specialized hepatobiliary surgery. Methods: From November 2016 to January 2019, we routinely performed a laparoscopic approach for two groups of patients: (1) patients with primary GBC (diagnosed preoperatively) and (2) patients with incidental GBC (IGBC) discovered after cholecystectomy. Results: Our retrospective study included 18 patients (7 primary GBCs, 11 IGBCs). Conversion rate from laparoscopy to laparotomy was 28.6% and 9.1%, respectively, for the two groups, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .28). Only 3 patients had liver recurrence (27.3%) and 1 had liver invasion (14.3%). A more advanced T category and TNM stage were presented in the preoperative suspicion cases (T3-T4 18.2% versus 57.1%, P = .06, stage IVA-B 9.1% versus 71.4%, P = .017). Regional lymphadenectomy was performed in 15 patients, in 73.3% the total number of lymph nodes (total LNs) retrieved was more than 7 (7-12 LNs in 66.7% of patients and >12 LNs in 6.6% of patients). The mean postoperative long stay was 8 days excluding for cases who developed complication. Conclusions: Laparoscopy can be considered a safe treatment for IGBC or primary GBC. The T3 stage with only liver involvement was not a contraindication. The real reasons that lead to convert the laparoscopic procedure were due to oncological concerns, unrelated to the liver infiltration.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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