Pure Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 110 Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Propensity Analysis at a Single Center. Ann Surg. 2016;264:612-620. [PMID: 27433917 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001848]

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

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

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the 2 principal minimally invasive surgical approaches and the first line of treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is not clear which one has greater safety and efficacy. In this meta-analysis, we aim to compare the safety and effectiveness of LH versus RFA for patients with HCC, especially where perioperative and postoperative outcomes differrent.

METHODS

In PROSPERO, a meta-analysis with registration number CRD42021257575 was registered. Using an established search strategy, we systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase to identify eligible studies before June 2023. Data on operative times, blood loss, length of stay, overall complications, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the present meta-analysis included 8 retrospective and 6 PSM studies comprising 1,848 patients (810 and 1,038 patients underwent LH and RFA). In this meta-analysis, neither LH nor RFA showed significant differences in 1-year and 3-year OS rate and 5-year RFS rate. Despite this, in comparison to the RFA group, LH resulted in significantly higher 1-year(p<0.0001) and 3-year RFS rate (p = 0.005), higher 5-year OS rate (p = 0.008), lower local recurrence rate (p<0.00001), longer length of stay(LOS) (p<0.0001), longer operative time(p<0.0001), more blood loss (p<0.0001), and higher rate of complications (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Comparative studies indicate that LH seemed to provide better OS and lower local recurrence rate, but higher complication rate and longer hospitalization.

Indications of pro-inflammatory cytokines in laparoscopic and open liver resection for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Our clinical practice of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) had achieved better short-term and long-term benefits for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) over open liver resection (OLR), but the underlying mechanisms are not clear. This study was to find out whether systemic inflammation plays an important role.

METHODS

A total of 103 patients with early-stage HCC under liver resection were enrolled (LLR group, n = 53; OLR group, n = 50). The expression of 9 inflammatory cytokines in patients at preoperation, postoperative day 1 (POD1) and POD7 was quantified by Luminex Multiplex assay. The relationships of the cytokines and the postoperative outcomes were compared between LLR and OLR.

RESULTS

Seven of the circulating cytokines were found to be significantly upregulated on POD1 after LLR or OLR compared to their preoperative levels. Compared to OLR, the POD1 levels of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), interleukin-6 (IL-6), IL-8, and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) in the LLR group were significantly lower. Higher POD1 levels of these cytokines were significantly correlated with longer operative time and higher volume of blood loss during operation. The levels of these cytokines were positively associated with postoperative liver injury, and the length of hospital stay. Importantly, a high level of IL-6 at POD1 was a risk factor for HCC recurrence and poor disease-free survival after liver resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly lower level of GM-CSF, IL-6, IL-8, and MCP-1 after liver resection represented a milder systemic inflammation which might be an important mechanism to offer better short-term and long-term outcomes in LLR over OLR.

Feasibility and safety of robotic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma in a single centre: A propensity score-matched single-surgeon study

BACKGROUND

The applicability of robot-assisted resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of ≥10 cm remains contentious with limited available data.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis involved 337 patients who underwent robotic liver resection for HCC by a single surgeon. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to compare perioperative indicators between patients with regular and huge HCC.

RESULTS

The regular HCC group exhibited a shorter median operative duration than the huge HCC group. The IWATE criteria revealed higher scores in the huge HCC group than in the regular HCC group. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in Pringle time, drainage tube removal, duration of hospital stays, blood loss volume, blood product transfusion, margin status, conversion rate to open surgery, bile leakage, in-hospital mortality, and reoperation rate.

CONCLUSION

Robotic liver resection is feasible for huge HCC, with effective perioperative risk management potentially improving outcomes for subsequent minimally invasive surgeries.

Textbook outcome in liver surgery: open vs minimally invasive hepatectomy among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We sought to investigate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) was superior to open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of achieving textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS) after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Patients who underwent resection of HCC between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international database. TOLS was defined by the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 events, R1 resection margin, posthepatectomy liver failure, bile leakage, major complications, in-hospital mortality, and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1039 patients who underwent HCC resection were included in the analysis. Although most patients underwent OH (n = 724 [69.7%]), 30.3% (n = 315) underwent MIH. Patients who underwent MIH had a lower tumor burden score (3.6 [IQR, 2.6-5.2] for MIH vs 6.1 [IQR, 3.9-10.1] for OH) and were more likely to undergo minor hepatectomy (84.1% [MIH] vs 53.6% [OH]) than patients who had an OH (both P < .001). After propensity score matching to control for baseline differences between the 2 cohorts, the incidence of TOLS was comparable among patients who had undergone MIH (56.6%) versus OH (64.8%) (P = .06). However, MIH was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (6.0 days [IQR, 4.0-8.0] for MIH vs 9.0 days [IQR, 6.0-12.0] for OH). Among patients who had MIH, the odds ratio of achieving TOLS remained stable up to a tumor burden score of 4; after which the chance of TOLS with MIH markedly decreased.

CONCLUSION

Patients with HCC who underwent resection with MIH versus OH had a comparable likelihood of TOLS, although MIH was associated with a short length of stay.

What Is the Role of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery in Treating Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis?

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) has been slowly introduced in the past two decades and today represents a major weapon in the fight against HCC, for several reasons. This narrative review conveys the major emerging concepts in the field. The rise in metabolic-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD)-related HCC means that patients with significant cardiovascular risk will benefit more profoundly from MILS. The advent of efficacious therapy is leading to conversion from non-resectable to resectable cases, and therefore more patients will be able to undergo MILS. In fact, resection outcomes with MILS are superior compared to open surgery both in the short and long term. Furthermore, indications to surgery may be further expanded by its use in Child B7 patients and by the use of laparoscopic ablation, a curative technique, instead of trans-arterial approaches in cases not amenable to radiofrequency. Therefore, in a promising new approach, multi-parametric treatment hierarchy, MILS is hierarchically superior to open surgery and comes second only to liver transplantation.

Association between Unplanned Conversion and Patient Survival after Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Unplanned conversion (UPC) is considered to be a predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. However, the effects of UPC on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and those who underwent UPC for HCC. Among 1029 patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between 2004 and 2021, 251 were eligible for the study. Of 251 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC in PS segments, 29 (26.0%) required UPC, and 222 underwent LLR. After 1:5 PSM, 25 patients were selected for the UPC group and 125 for the LLR group. Blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, and postoperative complication were higher in the UPC group. Regarding oncologic outcomes, although the 5-year overall survival rate was similar in both groups (p = 0.544), the recurrence-free survival rate was lower in the UPC group (p < 0.001). UPC was associated with poor short-term as well as inferior long-term outcomes compared with LLR for HCC in PS segments. Therefore, surgeons must carefully select patients and consider early conversion if unexpected bleeding occurs to maintain safety and oncologic outcomes.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies.

METHODS

A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis.

RESULTS

A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).

BACKGROUND

Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].

CONCLUSIONS

This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Hepatectomy After Conversion Therapy Using Transarterial Chemoembolization or Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy for Patients with Initially Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is more advantageous than open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, surgical methods of conversion resection for patients with HCC have not been compared. We aimed to compare LH with OH for HCC after conversion therapy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the data of 334 patients who underwent conversion resection between January 2016 and December 2020 at Sun Yat-sen University, China. Propensity score matching (PSM) of patients in a ratio of 1:2 was conducted, and 62 patients and 121 patients who underwent LH and OH, respectively, were matched.

Results

The LH and OH groups differed at baseline in terms of ALT (P=0.008), AFP (P=0.042), largest tumor size (P=0.028), macrovascular invasion (P=0.006), BCLC stages (P=0.021), and CNLC stages (P=0.048). The incidences of postoperative complications before and after PSM were lower in the LH group than in the OH group (P=0.007 and 0.003, respectively). There were no significant differences in the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the two groups (P=0.79 and 0.8, respectively). According to the multivariable Cox regression analyses, the largest tumor size (P<0.0001) and tumor number (P=0.004) were significant and independent prognostic factors of OS.

Conclusion

In our study, we found that LH is technically feasible and safe in patients after conversion therapy. Compared with OH, LH showed similar OS and RFS and was associated with fewer postoperative complications.

Comparison of Open versus Laparoscopic Approaches in Salvage Hepatectomy for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Radiofrequency Ablation

Background and Objectives: Although radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is widely used as an effective local treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), evidence on salvage hepatectomy for local recurrence after RFA is limited. This study aims to compare open and laparoscopic approaches in salvage hepatectomy for recurrent HCC after RFA. Materials and Methods: Among patients who underwent hepatectomy between January 2004 and August 2022 at a single tertiary referral center, 55 patients who underwent salvage hepatectomy for marginal recurrence after RFA were selected. An open approach was used in 23 (41.8%) patients, while 32 (58.2%) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Major hepatectomy was more often performed in the open group (9 [39.1%] vs. 4 [12.5%], p = 0.022). Intraoperative blood loss was also greater in the open group (450 (325-750) vs. 300 (200-600), p = 0.034). Operation time (p = 0.144) and postoperative morbidity rates (p = 0.639) were similar, and there was no postoperative mortality in either group. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group compared to the laparoscopy group (8 (6-11) days vs. 5 (4-7) days, p = 0.028). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates showed no difference between the two groups (44.6% vs. 62.5%, 16.5% vs. 13.5%, and 8.3% vs. 13.5%, respectively; p = 0.154). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates between the two groups were also similar (85.7% vs. 96.8%, 79.6% vs. 86.0%, and 79.6% vs. 79.4%, respectively; p = 0.480). Conclusions: Laparoscopic salvage hepatectomy shows oncologic outcomes comparable to the open approach with faster postoperative recovery rates. Considering that recurrence rates are high after RFA, the laparoscopic approach should be considered as a first-line option in selected patients.

Minimally Invasive Anatomic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using the Extrahepatic Glissonian Approach: Surgical Techniques and Comparison of Outcomes with the Open Approach and between the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

Surgical techniques and outcomes of minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (AR) using the extrahepatic Glissonian approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are undefined. In 327 HCC cases undergoing 185 open (OAR) and 142 minimally invasive (MIAR; 102 laparoscopic and 40 robotic) ARs, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the approaches, using propensity score matching. After matching (91:91), compared to OAR, MIAR was significantly associated with longer operative time (643 vs. 579 min, p = 0.028); less blood loss (274 vs. 955 g, p < 0.0001); a lower transfusion rate (17.6% vs. 47.3%, p < 0.0001); lower rates of major 90-day morbidity (4.4% vs. 20.9%, p = 0.0008), bile leak or collection (1.1% vs. 11.0%, p = 0.005), and 90-day mortality (0% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.043); and shorter hospital stay (15 vs. 29 days, p < 0.0001). On the other hand, laparoscopic and robotic AR cohorts after matching (31:31) had comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after AR for newly developed HCC were comparable between OAR and MIAR, with potentially improved survivals in MIAR. The survivals were comparable between laparoscopic and robotic AR. MIAR was technically standardized using the extrahepatic Glissonian approach. MIAR was safe, feasible, and oncologically acceptable and would be the first choice of AR in selected HCC patients.

Benefits of laparoscopic liver resection in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

The indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have expanded to high-risk patients, such as elderly people. However, to date, little evidence has been established of the safety and feasibility of LLR in elderly patients. The short-term outcomes of LLR in elderly patients as compared to non-elderly patients were investigated.

METHODS

Data of a total of 297 patients who underwent LLR were reviewed. Among these 297 patients, 181 patients were < 75 years age (non-elderly) and 116 patients were ≥ 75 years age (elderly), and the surgical outcomes were compared between the groups. In addition, we evaluated the risk factors for postoperative morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) utilizing the preoperative, operative, and postoperative variables RESULTS: The preoperative liver/renal function, frequency of anti-thrombotic drug use, number of comorbidities, and American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status classification were more unfavorable in elderly patients than in non-elderly patients. No significant inter-group differences were observed in the operation time, blood loss, conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, or 30-day mortality. The 3-year overall survival rate was comparable between the two groups. Multivariate analysis identified anti-thrombotic drug use, operation time > 7 h, and peak serum total bilirubin > 2 mg/dl within postoperative day 3 as independent risk factors for Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIa postoperative morbidity (P = 0.016, P < 0.001, and P = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR in elderly patients may provide comparable short-term outcomes to those in non-elderly patients.

An integrated strategy for deciding open versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for resectable primary liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely performed in treating primary liver cancer (PLC) and yields equal long-term and superior short-term outcomes to those of open liver resection (OLR). The optimal surgical approach for resectable PLC (rPLC) remains controversial. Herein, we aimed to develop a nomogram to determine the most appropriate resection approach for the individual patient.

METHODS

Patients with rPLC who underwent hepatectomy from January 2013 to December 2018 were reviewed. Prediction model for risky surgery during LLR was constructed.

RESULTS

A total of 900 patients in the LLR cohort and 423 patients in the OLR cohort were included. A history of previous antitumor treatment, tumor diameter, tumor location and resection extent were independently associated with risky surgery of LLR. The nomogram which was constructed based on these risk factors demonstrated good accuracy in predicting risky surgery with a C index of 0.83 in the development cohort and of 0.76 in the validation cohort. Patients were stratified into high-, medium- or low-risk levels for receiving LLR if the calculated score was more than 0.8, between 0.2 and 0.8 or less than 0.2, respectively. High-risk patients who underwent LLR had more blood loss (441 ml to 417 ml) and a longer surgery time (183 min to 150 min) than those who received OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients classified into the high-risk level for LLR instead undergo OLR to reduce surgical risks and complications and patients classified into the low-risk level undergo LLR to maximize the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100049446).

Short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive liver resection for single small hepatocellular carcinoma: An analysis of 714 patients from the IGoMILS (Italian group of minimally invasive liver surgery) registry

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) contributed to the reduction of surgical risk of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC (November 2014 - December 2019) were identified from the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) Registry.

RESULTS

Of 714 patients included, 641 (93.0%) were Child-Pugh A; 65.7% were limited resections and 2.2% major resections, with a conversion rate of 5.2%. Ninety-day mortality rate was 0.3%. Overall morbidity rate was 22.4% (3.8% major complications). Mean postoperative stay was 5 days. Robotic resection showed longer operative time (p = 0.004) and a higher overall morbidity rate (p < 0.001), with similar major complications (p = 0.431). Child-Pugh B patients showed worse mortality (p = 0.017) and overall morbidity (p = 0.021), and longer postoperative stay (p = 0.005). Five-year overall survival was 79.5%; cirrhosis, satellite micronodules, and microvascular invasion were independently associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

MILS for ≤3 cm HCC was associated with low morbidity and mortality rates, showing high safety, and supporting the increasing indications for surgical resection in these patients.

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

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

Editorial: Surgical Advances in Pancreaticobiliary Diseases

Pancreaticobiliary diseases include malignant tumors arising in organs with a complex anatomy, such as the pancreas and bile ducts, often presenting as locally advanced or metastatic lesions, and they frequently have a poor prognosis [...].

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.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth commonest malignancy worldwide, and the fourth-leading cause of cancer related death. Partial liver resection (LR) forms the mainstay of therapy for suitable patients with preserved liver function. In recent years, significant advances in surgical technology, refinement of operative techniques and improvements in peri-operative care have facilitated the widespread adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with encouraging outcomes. Liver cirrhosis (LC) is present in up to 80% of patients with HCC, and adds a further dimension of complexity to LR. Cirrhotic patients have a propensity for greater intraoperative blood loss as well as increased postoperative complications such as refractory ascites and posthepatectomy liver failure. Tumor localization within the fibrotic parenchyma is challenging, giving rise to concerns about resection margin status. Patients are also at higher risk of developing metachronous lesions, which affects long-term survival. Presently, the exact role of LLR in HCC patients with underlying LC is not well-defined. Current evidence suggests that LLR offers a multitude of benefits in the short-term such as reduced blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and lower morbidity, when compared to open resection. Oncologic adequacy and long-term survival do not appear to be compromised. Special consideration must be given for LLR in patients with advanced cirrhosis, or those who require extensive major hepatectomies. We present here a brief review of the literature surrounding LLR for HCC on a background of LC.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center 10-year experience

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. However, the long-term outcomes of LLR for HCCs should be validated further. Besides, the validity of laparoscopic minor liver resection in difficult segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) (LMLR-DS) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for HCCs need to be studied.

Methods

A total of 1773 HCC patients were collected: 683 received LLR and 1090 received OLR. Propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the selection bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. In subgroup analyses, the validity of LMLR-DS or LMH for HCCs was studied.

Results

After PSM, 567 patients were in LLR or OLR group. LLR had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OLR. The postoperative complications were lower in LLR group (23.8% vs. 32.8%, P=0.001). The Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) had no significant difference between LLR and OLR groups (P=0.973, P=0.812). The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year OR rates were 87.9%, 68.9%, and 57.7% for LLR group, and 85.9%, 68.8%, 58.8% for OLR group. The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates were 73.0%, 51.5%, 40.6% for LLR group, and 70.3%, 49.0%, 42.4% for OLR group. In subgroup analyses, 178 patients were in LMLR-DS or open surgery (OMLR-DS) group after PSM. LMLR-DS had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMLR-DS. The postoperative complications were lower in LMLR-DS group. The OS and DFS had no difference between LMLR-DS and OMLR-DS groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 61.6%, 43.9% for LMLR-DS group, and 66.5%, 47.7% for OMLR-DS group. In another subgroup analyses, 115 patients were in LMH or open major hepatectomy (OMH) group. LMH had lower blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMH. The complications, OS and DFS had no significantly differences between two groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 44.3%, 29.9% for LMH group, and 44.7%, 33.2% for OMH group.

Conclusions

LLR for HCCs showed better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes with OLR, even for patients who received LMLR-DS or LMH. LLR could be reliable and recommended for HCC treatment.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Short-term Outcomes and Difficulty of Repeat Laparoscopic Liver Resection

Objectives

To investigate the feasibility of repeat laparoscopic liver resection (Rep-LLR), including repeat anatomical resection (Rep-AR), as compared to initial-LLR (Ini-LLR).

Background

The indications of LLR have expanded to treatment of recurrent liver tumors. However, the feasibility of Rep-LLR, including Rep-AR, has not yet been adequately assessed.

Methods

Data of 297 patients who had undergone LLR were reviewed. Among the 297 patients, 235 (AR: 168) had undergone Ini-LLR and 62 (AR: 27) had undergone Rep-LLR, and the surgical outcomes were compared between the groups. In addition, multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of the difficulty of Rep-LLR based on the operation time and volume of blood loss.

Results

Of the 62 patients who had undergone Rep-LLR, 44, 14, and 4 had undergone second, third, and fourth repeat LRs, respectively. No significant intergroup differences were observed in regard to the operation time, blood loss, conversion rate to open surgery, postoperative morbidity, or postoperative hospital stay. However, the proportion of patients in whom the Pringle maneuver was used was significantly lower in the Rep-LLR group than in the Ini-LLR group. Multivariate analysis identified surgical procedure ≥sectionectomy at the initial/previous LR and an IWATE difficulty score of ≥6 as being independent predictors of the difficulty of Rep-LLR. Use of adhesion barriers at the initial/previous LR was associated with a decreased risk of failure to perform the Pringle maneuver during Rep-LLR.

Conclusions

Rep-LLR can offer outcomes comparable to those of Ini-LLR over the short term.

Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes of laparoscopic versus laparotomic hepatectomy for BCLC stages 0-A hepatocellular carcinoma patients associated with or without microvascular invasion: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze the long-term oncological outcomes of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages 0-A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients associated with or without microvascular invasion (MVI) treated with laparoscopic versus laparotomic liver resection.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data of HCC patients with BCLC stages 0-A from four medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. The survival outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared with those who underwent laparotomic hepatectomy. Subgroup analyses in terms of MVI were further performed to explore the effect of surgical approaches on the long-term survival outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients between the laparoscopic and laparotomic resection groups in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

495 HCC patients at BCLC stages 0-A were enrolled, including 243 in the laparoscopic resection group and 252 in the laparotomic resection group. Laparoscopic resection group had a shorter operation time, less blood loss, a lower frequency of blood transfusion and postoperative complication rates. The laparoscopic resection group had a significantly better overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) than the laparotomic resection group before and after PSM. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that OS and RFS of patients without MVI were remarkably better in the laparoscopic resection group compared with the laparotomic resection group. However, no significant differences in OS and RFS between the two groups were found in patients with MVI after PSM.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients with BCLC stages 0-A HCC can be performed safely with favorable perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes at high-volume liver cancer centers, regardless of the presence of MVI.

Laparoscopic vs open liver re-resection for cirrhotic patients with post-hepatectomy hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeated liver resection is an effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have compared the outcome of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent HCC, and few of those have included cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of cirrhotic patients with LRH and ORH for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical records retrieved from a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent hepatectomy for post-hepatectomy recurrent HCC at our institute between May 2006 and June 2021. Cases of recurrent HCCs larger than 7 cm were excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, perioperative outcomes, pathologic details, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) data of LRH and ORH were compared.

RESULTS

Data from 29 patients with LRH and 22 with ORH were compared. The LRH group showed significantly better outcomes for blood loss (median 300 mL vs 750 mL, P = 0.013) and length of hospital stay (median 5 d vs 7 d, P = 0.003). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the LRH group were 100.0%, 60.0% and 30.0%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 81.8%, 36.4% and 18.2% (P = 0.336). The 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS rates in the LRH group were 68.2%, 27.3% and 4.5%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 31.3%, 6.3% and 6.3% (P = 0.055). There were no significant differences in overall and DFS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic re-resection should be considered for patients presenting with recurrent HCC less than or equal to 7 cm after previous hepatectomy.

Impact of laparoscopic liver resection on liver regeneration

BACKGROUND

Liver regeneration after liver resection plays an important role in preventing posthepatectomy liver failure. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the impact of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on liver regeneration.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocellular carcinoma, and colorectal liver metastases at our institution between January 2010 and December 2018 were included in this study. The patients were divided into the OLR and LLR groups. Preoperative liver volume (PLV), future remnant liver volume, resected liver volume (RLV), liver volume at 1 month after the surgery, and liver volume at 6 months after the surgery were calculated. The liver regeneration rate was defined as the increase in the rate of RLV, and the liver recovery rate was defined as the rate of return to the PLV.

RESULTS

The study included 72 patients. Among them, 43 were included in the OLR group and 29 were included in the LLR group. No differences were observed in the baseline characteristics and surgical procedures between the two groups. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the liver regeneration rate at 1 month after the surgery (OLR vs. LLR: 68.9% vs. 69.0%, p = 0.875) and at 6 months after the surgery (91.8% vs. 93.2%, p = 0.995). Furthermore, the liver recovery rates were not significantly different between the two groups at 1 month after the surgery (90.3% vs. 90.6%, p = 0.893) and at 6 months after the surgery (96.9% vs. 98.8%, p = 0.986).

CONCLUSION

Liver regeneration after liver resection is not affected by the type of surgical procedure and both laparoscopic and open procedures yield similar regeneration and recovery rates.

Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses

Background

The application and feasibility of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) for huge liver tumours (≥10 cm) has not been well documented.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of data on 6,617 patients who had MILR for liver tumours were gathered from 21 international centers between 2009-2019. Huge tumors and large tumors were defined as tumors with a size ≥10.0 cm and 3.0-9.9 cm based on histology, respectively. 1:1 coarsened exact-matching (CEM) and 1:2 Mahalanobis distance-matching (MDM) was performed according to clinically-selected variables. Regression discontinuity analyses were performed as an additional line of sensitivity analysis to estimate local treatment effects at the 10-cm tumor size cutoff.

Results

Of 2,890 patients with tumours ≥3 cm, there were 205 huge tumors. After 1:1 CEM, 174 huge tumors were matched to 174 large tumors; and after 1:2 MDM, 190 huge tumours were matched to 380 large tumours. There was significantly and consistently increased intraoperative blood loss, frequency in the application of Pringle maneuver, major morbidity and postoperative stay in the huge tumour group compared to the large tumour group after both 1:1 CEM and 1:2 MDM. These findings were reinforced in RD analyses. Intraoperative blood transfusion rate and open conversion rate were significantly higher in the huge tumor group after only 1:2 MDM but not 1:1 CEM.

Conclusions

MILR for huge tumours can be safely performed in expert centers It is an operation with substantial complexity and high technical requirement, with worse perioperative outcomes compared to MILR for large tumors, therefore judicious patient selection is pivotal.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The exact role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and underlying liver cirrhosis (LC) is not well defined. In this meta-analysis, both long- and short-term outcomes following LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) were analysed.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science databases were searched systematically for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies reporting outcomes of LLR versus OLR of HCC in patients with cirrhosis. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This was analysed using one-stage (individual participant data meta-analysis) and two-stage (aggregate data meta-analysis) approaches. Secondary outcomes were operation duration, blood loss, blood transfusion, Pringle manoeuvre utilization, overall and major complications, length of hospital stay (LOHS), 90-day mortality and R0 resection rates.

RESULTS

Eleven studies comprising 1618 patients (690 LLR versus 928 OLR) were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analysis, an approximately 18.7 per cent lower hazard rate (HR) of death in the LLR group (random effects: HR 0.81, 95 per cent confidence interval [C.I.] 0.68 to 0.96; P = 0.018) was observed. Two-stage meta-analysis resulted in a pooled HR of 0.84 (95 per cent C.I. 0.74 to 0.96; P = 0.01) in the overall LLR cohort. This indicated a 16-26 per cent reduction in the HR of death for patients with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent LLR. For secondary outcomes, LLR was associated with less blood loss (mean difference [MD] -99 ml, 95 per cent C.I. -182 to -16 ml), reduced overall complications (odds ratio 0.49, 95 per cent C.I. 0.37 to 0.66) and major complications (odds ratio 0.45, 95 per cent C.I. 0.26 to 0.79), and shorter LOHS (MD -3.22 days, 95 per cent C.I. -4.38 to -2.06 days).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic resection of HCC in patients with cirrhosis is associated with improved survival and perioperative outcomes.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been based on non-randomized studies and reviews of these. Aim of this study was to evaluate if the randomized evidence comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) supports these findings.

METHODS

A prospectively registered (reviewregistry866) systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines comparing LLR to OLR for benign and malignant diseases was performed via Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL up to 31.12.2020. The main outcome was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0, certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2080 results. 13 RCTs assessing mostly minor liver resections with 1457 patients were included. There were reduced odds of experiencing any complication (Odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0·42 [0·30, 0·58]) and severe complications (OR[CI]: 0·51 [0·31, 0·84]) for patients undergoing LLR. LOS was shorter (Mean difference (MD) [CI]: -2·90 [-3·88, -1·92] days), blood loss was lower (MD: [CI]: -115·41 [-146·08, -84·75] ml), and functional recovery was better for LLR. All other outcomes showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR shows significant postoperative benefits. RCTs assessing long-term outcomes and major resections are needed.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Liver Resection for Stage I/II Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is increasingly used as a surgical treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is no large scale data to compare the effectiveness of MILR in comparison to open liver resection (OLR). We identified patients with stage I or II HCC from the National Cancer Database using propensity score matching techniques. Overall, 1931 (66%) and 995 (34%) patients underwent OLR or MILR between 2010 and 2015. After propensity matching, 5-year OS was similar in the MILR and OLR group (51.7% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.766). MILR was associated with lower 90-day mortality (5% vs. 7%, p = 0.041) and shorter length of stay (4 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), but higher rates of positive margins (6% vs. 4%, p = 0.001). An operation at an academic institution was identified as an independent preventive factor for a positive resection margin (OR 0.64: 95% CI 0.43-0.97) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41-0.91). MILR for HCC is associated with similar overall survival to OLR, with the benefit of improved short term postoperative outcomes. The increased rate of positive margins after MILR requires further investigation, as do the differences in perioperative outcomes between academic and nonacademic institutions.

Survival analysis between laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been widely used in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is generally believed that the long-term outcomes of LH are not inferior to open hepatectomy (OH). However, the quality of evidence is low. The purpose of this study was to reconstruct time-to-event data for meta-analysis based on Kaplan-Meier curves from propensity-score matched studies and compare survival rates following LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

All published propensity-score matched studies reported in English that compared LH and OH for hepatocellular carcinoma with Kaplan-Meier curves were screened. Patients' survival information was reconstructed with the aid of a computer vision program. Different models (fixed-effects model for two-stage survival analysis and Cox regression for one-stage survival analysis) were performed for sensitivity analysis. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, two specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients by types of resection, cirrhosis status.

RESULTS

Time-to-event data were extracted from 45 propensity-score matched studies (N = 8905). According to the time-to-event data and the reconstructed Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative overall survival rate was 49.0% and 50.9% in the LH and OH cohorts, respectively, a log-rank test did not demonstrate statistical significance (p > 0.05). The cumulative recurrence-free survival (RFS) probability was both close to 0.0%. The median RFS time was 49.1 (95% CI 46.1 ~ 51.7) and 44.3 (95% CI 41 ~ 46.1) months. The difference in disease status was statistically significant by the Log-rank test (p < 0.05). Using the random-effects model of two-stage analysis, the minor hepatectomy subgroup (HR = 1.32, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], I² = 6.2%, p = 0.383) and the shared fragile model of one-stage analysis (HR = 1.44 95% CI [1.23, 1.69], p < 0.001) suggested that LH could significantly prolong RFS of patients compared with OH. This result was consistent with sensitivity analysis using different models.

CONCLUSION

This study was the first reconstructed time-to-event data based on a high-quality propensity-score matching study to compare the survival outcomes of LH and OH in the treatment of HCC. Results suggested that LH can improve RFS in patients with HCC undergoing minor hepatectomy and may also benefit long-term RFS in overall patients.

Anatomical Versus Non-anatomical Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma, a Propensity-matched Analysis Between Taiwanese and Japanese Patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of anatomical resection (AR) versus non-anatomical resection (NAR) for Japanese and Taiwanese patients with single, resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of the AR group to those of the NAR group. Tumor size <5 cm, T1 or T2 grade, without evidence of extrahepatic metastasis, invasion of portal or hepatic veins, or direct invasion of adjacent organs, were included in the study.

RESULTS

A total of 385 cases (Taiwanese 105, Japanese 280) were analyzed. After PSM, a total of 152 cases remain (Taiwan and Japan both 76 cases). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data were not significantly different between the two groups at 5 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

AR of HCC in Japanese patients has a similar 5-year DFS and OS as NAR of HCC in Taiwanese patients.

Radiofrequency ablation versus repeat hepatectomy in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in subcapsular location: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Repeat hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used to treat early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) located in the subcapsular region, but the optimal treatment strategy remains to be controversial.

Methods

A total of 126 RHCC patients in the subcapsular location after initial radical hepatectomy were included in this study between Dec 2014 and Jan 2018. These patients were divided into the RFA group (46 cases) and the repeat hepatectomy group (80 cases). The primary endpoints include repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS) and overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was complications. The propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to minimize the bias. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification, and severe complications were defined as classification of complications of ≥grade 3.

Results

There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe complications were observed between RFA group and repeat hepatectomy group in rRFS and OS both before (1-, 2-, and 3-year rRFS rates were 65.2%, 47.5%, and 33.3% vs 72.5%, 51.2%, and 39.2%, respectively, P = 0.48; 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 93.5%, 80.2%, and 67.9% vs 93.7%, 75.8%, and 64.2%, respectively, P = 0.92) and after PSM (1-, 2-, and 3-year rRFS rates were 68.6%, 51.0%, and 34.0% vs 71.4%, 42.9%, and 32.3%, respectively, P = 0.78; 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 94.3%, 82.9%, and 71.4% vs 88.6%, 73.8%, and 59.0%, respectively, P = 0.36). Moreover, no significant differences in the incidence of severe complications were observed between the RFA group and repeat hepatectomy group.

Conclusion

Both repeat hepatectomy and RFA are shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of RHCC located in the subcapsular region.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02277-4.

Comparison between short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open primary liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: A 1:1 matched analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for nonrecurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Review of 204 MILR and 755 OLR without previous LR performed between 2005 and 2018. 1:1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) and 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) were performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 190 MILR were well-matched with 190 OLR by PSM and 86 MILR with 86 OLR by CEM according to patient baseline characteristics. After PSM and CEM, MILR was associated with a significantly longer operation time [230 min (interquartile range [IQR], 145-330) vs. 160 min (IQR, 125-210), p < .001] [215 min (IQR, 135-295) vs. 153.5 min (120-180), p < .001], shorter postoperative stay [4 days (IQR, 3-6) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-8), p = .001)] [4 days (IQR, 3-5) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-7), p = .004] and lower postoperative morbidity [40 (21%) vs. 67 (35.5%), p = .003] [16 (18.6%) vs. 27 (31.4%), p = .036] compared to OLR. MILR was also associated with a significantly longer median time to recurrence (70 vs. 40.3 months, p = .014) compared to OLR after PSM but not CEM. There was no significant difference in terms of overall survival and recurrence-free survival.

CONCLUSION

MILR is associated with superior short-term postoperative outcomes and with at least equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to OLR for HCC.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies

Background

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P  <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD −69.16; 95% CI −101.72 to −36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD −2.65; 95% CI −3.41 to −1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.

Management of early hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the Delphi consensus process of the Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association

BACKGROUND

There are many potential treatment options for patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and practice patterns vary widely. This project aimed to use a Delphi conference to generate consensus regarding the management of small resectable HCC.

METHODS

A base case was established with review by members of AHPBA Research Committee. The Delphi panel of experts reviewed the literature and scored clinical case statements to identify areas of agreement and disagreement. Following initial scoring, discussion was undertaken, questions were amended, and scoring was repeated. This cycle was repeated until no further likelihood of reaching consensus existed.

RESULTS

The panel achieved agreement or disagreement consensus regarding 27 statements. The overarching themes included that resection, ablation, transplantation, or any locoregional therapy as a bridge to transplant were all appropriate modalities for early or recurrent HCC. For larger lesions, consensus was reached that radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation were not appropriate treatments.

CONCLUSION

Using a validated system for identifying consensus, an expert panel agreed that multiple treatment modalities are appropriate for early stage HCC. These consensus guidelines are intended to help guide physicians through treatment modalities for early HCC; however, clinical decisions should continue to be made on a patient-specific basis.

Current status of radical laparoscopy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with portal hypertension

The laparoscopic technique is clinically effective in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal hypertension (PHT). However, existing studies lack systematic arrangement and induction. Here, we review the latest research advancement in laparoscopic technique for treatment of HCC with PHT, based on published literature and our single-institution experience. Our single-center experience reveals no statistical difference in both short- and long-term prognosis of HCC patients after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), regardless of whether they suffer from PHT, which is consistent with previous studies on the use of LLR for HCC with PHT. Retrieval outcomes indicate existence of short- and long-term prognostic superiority, following laparoscopic treatment, relative to non-laparoscopic treatment. Besides that, LLR offers long-term prognostic advantage compared to laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation. In addition, we review the previous literature and propose corresponding perspectives on the therapy of hypersplenism, the utilization of Pringle maneuver, and the adoption of anatomical hepatectomy during radical laparoscopic treatment. HCC with PHT is not the "forbidden zone" of radical laparoscopic treatment. However, patients’ preoperative liver function should be adequately estimated.

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.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Should Be a Standard Procedure for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Low or Intermediate Difficulty

BACKGROUND

To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we compared the outcome between LLR and conventional open liver resection (OLR) in patient groups with different IWATE criteria difficulty scores (DS).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 607 primary HCC patients (LLR: 81, OLR: 526) who underwent liver resection in Linkou Chang Gung Memorial hospital from 2012 to 2019. By using 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, their baseline characteristics and the DS stratified by the IWATE criteria were matched between the LLR and OLR. Their perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

After 1:1 PSM, 146 patients (73 in LLR, 73 in OLR) were analyzed. Among them, 13, 41, 13 and 6 patients were classified as low, intermediate, advanced and expert DS group, respectively. Compared to OLR, the LLR had shorter hospital stay (9.4 vs. 11.5 days, p = 0.071), less occurrence of surgical complications (16.4% vs. 30.1%, p = 0.049), lower rate of hepatic inflow control (42.5% vs. 65.8%, p = 0.005), and longer time of inflow control (70 vs. 51 min, p = 0.022). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survivals were comparable between the two groups. While stratified by the DS groups, the LLR tended to have lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay than OLR. The DFS of LLR in the intermediate DS group was superior to that of the OLR (p = 0.020). In the advanced and expert DS groups, there were no significant differences regarding outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that with sufficient experience and technique, LLR for HCC is feasible and the perioperative outcome is favorable. Based on the current study, we suggest LLR should be a standard procedure for HCC with low or intermediate difficulty. It can provide satisfactory postoperative recovery and comparable oncological outcomes. Further larger scale prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings.

Advances in the surgical outcomes of 300 cases of pure laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy divided into three periods of 100 cases: a single-centre case series

Background

Minimally invasive surgery has been widely used for hepatobiliary operations. This study aimed to determine the safety and feasibility of pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy.

Methods

From November 2015 to April 2019, 300 cases of adult pure laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy performed at Seoul National University Hospital were divided into three subgroups of periods 1-3 of 100 cases each: 1-100, 101-200, and 201-300, respectively. We retrospectively reviewed and analysed the safety and feasibility outcomes.

Results

The operative time (period 1: 318.9±62.2 min, period 2: 256.7±71.4 min, period 3: 227.7±57.4 min) and blood loss (period 1: 419.7±196.5 mL, period 2: 198.9±197.2 mL, period 3: 166.0±130.0 mL) gradually decreased (P<0.01). Similarly, the length of hospital stay decreased (period 1: 8.1±2.0 days, period 2: 7.3±3.1 days, period 3: 6.9±2.4 days, P<0.01). There was no requirement for intraoperative transfusions or care in the intensive care unit. The overall complication rate was 20/300 (6.7%), of which 8/300 (2.7%) were Clavien-Dindo grade III and above. Complications were not different among the three periods. In terms of anatomical variations, the incidences of multiple portal veins, multiple hepatic arteries, and multiple bile ducts were 32/300 (10.7%), 11/300 (3.7%), and 161/300 (53.7%), respectively. No differences were found among the three periods.

Conclusions

Owing to the technical improvements over time, pure laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy is currently feasible and safe even for donors with anatomical variations.

Laparoscopic liver resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) play central roles to treat early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, ≤3 cm, 1-3 nodules, and no macrovascular involvement), although data are lacking regarding whether LLR or RFA is preferable. This study aimed to compare outcomes of both treatments for small HCCs.

METHODS

Treatment outcomes of small HCCs were compared between all the minor LLRs performed between 2005 and 2016 and RFAs performed between 2011 and 2016 at Kyoto University.

RESULTS

A total of 85 and 136 patients underwent LLR and RFA, respectively. Patients that underwent LLR had higher incidence of blood transfusions, complications, and longer hospital stay. Overall and disease-specific survival rates were similar between LLR and RFA; however, recurrence-free (49.2% vs. 22.1% at 3-year) and local recurrence-free survival rates (94.9% vs. 63.6% at 3-year) were higher after LLR. Multivariate analyses identified that multiple nodules and 65-year-old and above are predictors of disease-specific survival, and that RFA is a predictor of recurrence and local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

RFA is less invasive, although both LLR and RFA are safe and effective. LLR provides better local control with superior recurrence-free and local-recurrence free survival. These results help optimize treatment selection based on patient-specific factors.

Minimally invasive versus open right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy for central liver malignancies: a propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The utility of minimally-invasive liver resection (MILR) for deep centrally located tumours (CLT) remains controversial. We aimed to review our institution's experience and outcomes with minimally invasive central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for CLT in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical database revealed 23 patients who underwent MILR (6 CH, 17 RAS) and 53 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR; 24 CH, 29 RAS) for CLT. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were then compared.

RESULTS

There was one laparoscopic-assisted, one robot-assisted and two laparoscopic-converted-open procedures in the MILR cohort. Across the unmatched cohort, there was only one mortality (MILR) and five patients with major morbidity (all OLR). MILR was associated with a longer operating time (P < 0.001), but shorter post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.002) and decreased morbidity (P = 0.018) in the unmatched cohort. Examination of peri-operative outcomes after PSM revealed that MILR was similarly associated with a longer operating time (P = 0.001) and shortened post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.043). OLR was associated with a significantly reduced application of Pringle manoeuvre (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between MILR and OLR with regards to blood loss, blood transfusions, morbidity and margin status in the PSM analysis.

CONCLUSION

MILR for CLT is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with shorter hospital stays but at the expense of longer operation times and more frequent application of Pringle manoeuver.

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.

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.

Patterns, timing, and predictors of recurrence after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: results from a high-volume HPB center

Background

Although long-term outcomes may be comparable between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there has been little discussion regarding the patterns of recurrence after LLR.

Methods

Patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between April 2015 and November 2018 were included in this study. The recurrence patterns were analyzed in detail. The recurrence outcomes following laparoscopic versus OLR for HCC were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching. Potential risk factors for recurrence were also assessed with Cox proportional risk models.

Results

Among 425 patients after LLR, 144 (33.8%) experienced recurrence at the last follow-up, with a median recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 10.0 months (range 1–58 months). The most frequent recurrence site was the liver (n = 99, 68.8%), followed by the surgical margin (n = 15, 10.4%) and distant metastases (n = 12, 8.3%). Liver recurrence with distant metastasis (n = 10, 6.9%) tended to occur early (median 8.0 months), while peritoneal recurrence (n = 8, 5.6%) occurred later (median 14.0 months). A total of 120 (83.3%) patients had recurrence within 2 years after LLR. No trocar site recurrence was observed in this study. The recurrence patterns, timing, and treatment did not show significant differences between the LLR and OLR. The independent risk factors for recurrence included ALBI grade, postoperative α-fetoprotein > 8 ng/ml, tumor size > 5 cm, surgical margin ≤ 1 cm, and multiple tumors. Patients with recurrence had 1- and 5-year overall survival rates of 81.1% and 60.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 95.8% and 92.9% for patients without recurrence (P < 0.000).

Conclusion

This study suggested that intrahepatic recurrence was still the most common recurrence pattern for HCC after LLR and that LLR did not increase the risk of trocar hole recurrence or implantation. Most cases of recurrence occurred within 2 years after LLR, suggesting that surveillance should be targeted to early recurrence.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-021-08390-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predicting the Risk of Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Resection of Primary Liver Tumors

Minimal-invasive techniques are increasingly applied in clinical practice and have contributed towards improving postoperative outcomes. While comparing favorably with open surgery in terms of safety, the occurrence of severe complications remains a grave concern. To date, no objective predictive system has been established to guide clinicians in estimating complication risks as the relative contribution of general patient health, liver function and surgical parameters remain unclear. Here, we perform a single-center analysis of all consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection for primary hepatic malignancies since 2010. Among the 210 patients identified, 32 developed major complications. Several independent predictors were identified through a multivariate analysis, defining a preoperative model: diabetes, history of previous hepatectomy, surgical approach, alanine aminotransferase levels and lesion entity. The addition of operative time and whether conversion was required significantly improved predictions and were thus incorporated into the postoperative model. Both models were able to identify patients with major complications with acceptable performance (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for a preoperative model = 0.77 vs. postoperative model = 0.80). Internal validation was performed and confirmed the discriminatory ability of the models. An easily accessible online tool was deployed in order to estimate probabilities of severe complication without the need for manual calculation.