Laparoscopic Treatment for Intrahepatic Duct Stones in the Era of Laparoscopy: Laparoscopic Intrahepatic Duct Exploration and Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy using augmented reality navigation plus ICG fluorescence imaging for hepatolithiasis: a retrospective single-arm cohort study (with video)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) has been shown to be an effective and safe method for treating hepatolithiasis primarily affecting the left hemiliver. However, this procedure still presents challenges. Due to pathological changes in intrahepatic duct stones, safely dissecting the hilar vessels and determining precise resection boundaries remains difficult, even with fluorescent imaging. Our team proposed a new method of augmented reality navigation (ARN) combined with Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging for LLH in hepatolithiasis cases. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of this combined approach in the procedure.

METHODS

Between May 2021 and September 2023, 16 patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent LLH were included. All patients underwent preoperative 3D evaluation and were then guided using ARN and ICG fluorescence imaging during the procedure. Perioperative and short-term postoperative outcomes were assessed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the method.

RESULTS

All 16 patients successfully underwent LLH. The mean operation time was 380.31 ± 92.17 min, with a mean estimated blood loss of 116.25 ± 64.49 ml. ARN successfully aided in guiding hilar vessel dissection in all patients. ICG fluorescence imaging successfully identified liver resection boundaries in 11 patients (68.8%). In the remaining 5 patients (31.3%) where fluorescence imaging failed, virtual liver segment projection (VLSP) successfully identified their resection boundaries. No major complications occurred in any patients. Immediate stone residual rate, stone recurrence rate, and stone extraction rate through the T-tube sinus tract were 12.5%, 6.3%, and 6.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The combination of ARN and ICG fluorescence imaging enhances the safety and precision of LLH for hepatolithiasis. Moreover, ARN may serve as a safe and effective tool for identifying precise resection boundaries in cases where ICG fluorescence imaging fails.

Risk factors analyses associated with postoperative infection in choledochoscopy for intrahepatic bile duct stones (IHDs): a single-center retrospective study in real-world setting

BACKGROUND

Choledochoscopy is a highly effective approach for managing intrahepatic bile duct stones (IHDs). However, postoperative infection is a common complication that significantly impacts treatment outcomes. Despite its clinical relevance, the risk factors associated with this procedure remain largely unexplored.

METHODS

This study focused on a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent choledochoscopy for IHDs at our institution between January 2016 and December 2022. The primary objective was to analyze the relationship between various clinical factors and postoperative infection, and to compare the postoperative infection of different choledochoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 126 patients, with 60 individuals (47.6%) experiencing postoperative infection. Notably, preoperative biliary obstruction (odds ratio [OR] 1.861; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.314-8.699; p = 0.010) and operation time (OR 4.414; 95% CI 1.635-12.376; p = 0.004) were identified as risk factors for postoperative infection. Additionally, biliary tract infections (60.00%) were primarily responsible for postoperative infection, with Escherichia coli (47.22%) being the predominant bacterial strain identified in bile cultures. Furthermore, biliary tract obstruction (OR 4.563; 95% CI 1.554-13.401; p = 0.006) and body mass index (BMI) (OR 1.186; 95% CI 1.015-1.386; p = 0.031) were determined to be independent risk factors for postoperative biliary tract infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of postoperative infection in patients undergoing choledochoscopy was primarily associated with the duration of the operation and the presence of preoperative biliary obstruction.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH with open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1 day. A sample size of 86 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1-day reduction in LOS [90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)]. The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short- and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programmes. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

A nomogram to predict conversion of laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is effective for treating common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, it has high requirements for surgeons and the risk of conversion to laparotomy cannot be ignored. However, when conditions during surgery are not favorable, persisting with laparoscopic procedures blindly can lead to serious complications. Our study aimed to establish a nomogram model for predicting conversion of laparoscopic to laparotomy for choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 867 patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis and underwent laparoscopic surgery were randomly divided into a training group (70%, n = 607) and a validation group (30%, n = 260). A nomogram was constructed based on the results of logistic regression analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the predictive performance of the nomogram.

RESULTS

Previous upper abdominal surgery, maximum diameter of stone ≥12 mm, medial wall of the duodenum stone, thickening of the gallbladder wall, thickening of CBD wall, stone size/CBD size ≥0.75, and simultaneous laparoscopic hepatectomy were included in the nomogram. The AUC values were 0.813 (95% CI: 0.766-0.861) and 0.804 (95% CI: 0.737-0.871) in the training and validation groups, respectively. The calibration curve showed excellent consistency between the nomogram predictions and actual observations. DCA showed a positive net benefit for the nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed a nomogram with a good ability to predict conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis, which can help surgeons to make a reasonable operation plan before surgery and timely convert to laparotomy during operation to reduce potential harm to the patient.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology first published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis in 2010, followed by a revision in 2016. Currently, the revised third edition was published to reflect recent evidence on the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cholelithiasis conforming to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Following this revision, the present English version of the guidelines was updated and published herein. The clinical questions (CQ) in the previous version were reviewed and rearranged into three newly divided categories: background questions (BQ) dealing with basic background knowledge, CQ, and future research questions (FRQ), which refer to issues that require further accumulation of evidence. Finally, 52 questions (29 BQs, 19 CQs, and 4 FRQs) were adopted to cover the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis. Based on a literature search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and August 2019, along with a manual search of new information reported over the past 5 years, the level of evidence was evaluated for each CQ. The strengths of recommendations were determined using the Delphi method by the committee members considering the body of evidence, including benefits and harms, patient preference, and cost-benefit balance. A comprehensive flowchart was prepared for the diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder stones, common bile duct stones, and intrahepatic stones, respectively. The current revised guidelines are expected to be of great assistance to gastroenterologists and general physicians in making decisions on contemporary clinical management for cholelithiasis patients.

Development and Validation of a Difficulty Scoring System for Laparoscopic Liver Resection to Treat Hepatolithiasis

Background and Objectives: A difficulty scoring system was previously developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver tumors; however, we need another system for hepatolithiasis. Therefore, we developed a novel difficulty scoring system (nDSS) and validated its use for predicting postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study. We used clinical data of 123 patients who underwent LLR for hepatolithiasis between 2003 and 2021. We analyzed the data to determine which indices were associated with operation time or estimated blood loss (EBL) to measure the surgical difficulty. We validated the nDSS in terms of its ability to predict postoperative outcomes, namely red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and major complications defined as grade ≥IIIa according to the Clavien−Dindo classification (CDC). Results: The nDSS included five significant indices (range: 5−17; median: 8). The RBC transfusion rate (p < 0.001), POHS (p = 0.002), and major complication rate (p = 0.002) increased with increasing nDSS score. We compared the two groups of patients divided by the median nDSS (low: 5−7; high: 8−17). The operation time (210.7 vs. 240.7 min; p < 0.001), EBL (281.9 vs. 702.6 mL; p < 0.001), RBC transfusion rate (5.3% vs. 37.9%; p < 0.001), POHS (8.0 vs. 13.3 days; p = 0.001), and major complication rate (8.8% vs. 25.8%; p = 0.014) were greater in the high group. Conclusions: The nDSS can predict the surgical difficulty and outcomes of LLR for hepatolithiasis and may help select candidates for the procedure and surgical approach.

Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Laparoscopic Left Lateral Hepatectomy and Open Left Lateral Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones, also known as hepatolithiasis, refers to any intrahepatic stones of the left and right hepatic ducts. It is a benign biliary tract disease with a high recurrence rate, with many complications, and difficulty in radical cure. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic left lateral hepatectomy (LLLH) and open left lateral hepatectomy (OLLH) for IHD stones. Methods: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, WangFang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison of LLLH and OLLH in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. Standard mean difference (SMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% CI were calculated using the random-effects model or fixed-effects model according to the heterogeneity between studies. Results: From January 01, 2001 to May 30, 2021, 1,056 articles were retrieved, but only 13 articles were finally included for the meta-analysis. The results showed that compared to the OLLH group, LLLH resulted in smaller surgical incision, less intraoperative blood loss, faster postoperative recovery, and fewer postoperative complications (surgical incision: SMD = -3.76, 95% CI: -5.40, -2.12; intraoperative blood loss: SMD = -0.95, 95% CI: -1.69, -0.21; length of hospital stay: SMD = -1.56, 95% CI: -2.37, -0.75; postoperative complications: OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.26, 0.78). Conclusions: In the treatment of hepatolithiasis, compared with OLLH, LLLH has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, smaller incisions, less postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, shorter time to first postoperative exhaust, and postoperative ambulation, and rapid postoperative recovery.

Application of Laparoscopic Technique in the Treatment of Hepatolithiasis

Hepatolithiasis is commonly encountered in Southeastern and East Asian countries, and its incidence is increasing in Western countries. For symptomatic hepatolithiasis or asymptomatic hepatolithiasis with signs of liver atrophy or malignancy, surgical intervention is needed, especially when peroral cholangioscopy and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy are not suitable or fail to be performed. Currently, laparoscopic surgery is gradually replacing traditional open surgery and becoming a better option. Various types of laparoscopic surgeries, including laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic biliary exploration through the common bile duct or the hepatic duct stump, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, have been developed for the treatment of simple hepatolithiasis, hepatolithiasis concomitant with choledocholithiasis, recurrent hepatolithiasis, and complicated hepatolithiasis. The related clinical experience is gradually accumulating. In this review, the laparoscopic applications and their advantages will be summarized. In most cases, the laparoscopic technique could provide the advantages of less trauma, reduced blood loss, and faster postoperative recovery.

Validation of a difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection in hepatolithiasis

BACKGROUND

A difficulty scoring system (DSS) based on the extent of liver resection, tumor location, liver function, tumor size, and tumor proximity to major vessels was previously developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Recently, we proposed a modified DSS for patients who undergo LLR for intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones. In this study, we validated the modified DSS for LLR for IHD stones.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 121 patients who underwent LLR for IHD stones between July 2003 and November 2015 and validated the modified DSS in patients who underwent LLR according to their surgical outcomes. We divided the patients into subgroups according to their scores and compared the surgical outcomes, including hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, transfusion rate, and the postoperative complication rate and grade, among the subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

The DSS score ranged from 3 to 12 in LLR for IHD stones. The operation time (P < 0.001) significantly increased according to the DSS score. The median hospital stay after surgery (P = 0.024) and transfusion rate (P = 0.001) were significantly different among subgroups of patients divided by their difficulty scores. When we divided the patients into two groups based on the side of liver of resected, the operation time (P < 0.001), mean difficulty score (P < 0.001), and blood loss (P = 0.041) were greater in patients who underwent right liver resection.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical difficulty varies among patients undergoing the same LLR procedure for IHD stones. The modified DSS for IHD stones can effectively predict the surgery outcomes and complications of LLR.

Intrahepatic bile duct exploration lithotomy is a useful adjunctive hepatectomy method for bilateral primary hepatolithiasis: an eight-year experience at a single centre

Background

To evaluate the perioperative and long-term results of intrahepatic bile duct exploration lithotomy (IHBDIL) combined with hepatectomy for patients with complicated bilateral primary hepatolithiasis.

Methods

A study was conducted involving 56 patients with complicated bilateral primary hepatolithiasis who underwent IHBDIL combined with hepatectomy at our hospital from January 2006 to December 2014. The perioperative and long-term outcomes that were retrospectively analysed included the stone clearance rate, operative morbidity and mortality, and stone recurrence rate. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma were excluded.

Results

In all 56 patients, hepatic duct stones were located in the bilateral IHBD. The surgical method was IHBDIL combined with hepatectomy. Postoperative complications occurred in 15 patients (26.8%), 14 patients responded to conservative management, and there was 1 case of postoperative mortality because of hepatic failure. The overall initial success rate of stone clearance was 85.7%, and the final clearance rate was 92.9% following postoperative choledochoscopic lithotripsy. The stone recurrence rate was 13.5%, and the occurrence of postoperative cholangitis was 10.9% during the follow-up period.

Conclusion

IHBDIL combined with hepatectomy is a safe, effective, and promising treatment for patients with complicated bilateral primary hepatolithiasis. The perioperative and long-term outcomes are satisfactory for complicated bilateral primary hepatolithiasis.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12893-019-0480-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Laparoscopic caudate lobe resection for the treatment of hepatolithiasis

Background

To explore the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic caudate lobe (CL) resection for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

Methods

A retrospective study of nine patients who received laparoscopic CL resection for treatment of hepatolithiasis in our hospital from January 2013 to April 2017. Of these cases, we studied the patients' demographic data, the operation time, blood loss, post-operative hospital stay, post-operative complications and prognosis.

Results

All the nine cases are performed successfully; the post-operative recovery was symptom free except for one case of post-operative bile leakage. Among them, there were six cases of CL resection in combination with other lobe, three cases of separate CL resection, and three cases of whole CL resection. The average operative time was 310 min (Range: 180-450 min), the average intraoperative blood loss was 530 ml (Range: 100-1000 ml), average post-operative hospital stay was 9 days (Range: 6-13 days), average total hospital stay was 10 days (Range: 9-19 days). Intraoperative calculi exhaustion rate was 66.7% (6/9), which at the end of treatment was 88.9% (8/9). No cases had calculi recurrence.

Conclusion

The application of laparoscopic CL resection is feasible and safe.

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery for complex hepatolithiasis: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

The indication for laparoscopic treatment of hepatolithiasis is early-stage regional hepatolithiasis. Open surgery (OS) is the traditional treatment for complex hepatolithiasis. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RLS) overcomes the limitations of the traditional laparoscopic approach in terms of the visual field, instruments, and operational flexibility. RLS is thus theoretically indicated for the treatment of complicated hepatolithiasis. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of RLS for the treatment of complicated hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

From October 2010 to August 2017, 26 consecutive patients who underwent RLS and 287 consecutive patients who underwent OS for the treatment of complicated hepatolithiasis at our center were included in this study. We performed a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis between patients who underwent RLS and patients who underwent OS at a ratio of 1:2. Twenty-six patients were included in the RLS group, and 52 patients were included in the OS group.

RESULTS

The groups exhibited no differences with respect to age, sex, location of stones, liver function, history of previous surgery, or Child-Pugh classification. There were no differences in the postoperative complication rates (46.2% vs. 63.5%, p = 0.145), intraoperative stone clearance rates (96.2% vs. 90.4%, p = 1.000), or final stone clearance rates (100% vs. 98.1%, p = 0.652) between the two groups. The RLS group had less blood loss (315.38 ± 237.81 vs. 542.88 ± 518.70 ml, p = 0.037), a lower transfusion rate (15.4% vs. 46.2%, p = 0.008), shorter oral intake times (3.50 ± 1.30 vs. 5.88 ± 4.00 days, p = 0.004), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (13.54 ± 6.54 vs. 17.81 ± 7.49 days, p = 0.016) than the OS group. At a median follow-up of 48 months (range 7-90 months), there were no differences in stone recurrence rate (3.8% vs. 13.5%, p = 0.356) or recurrent cholangitis rate (3.8% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000) between RLS and OS patients.

CONCLUSION

RLS for complicated hepatolithiasis is safe and feasible with advantages over OS in terms of intraoperative blood loss, transfusion rate, duration of hospital stays, and postoperative recovery.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: A propensity, long-term follow-up analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

This trial was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy and open left-sided hepatectomy. Left-sided hepatectomy is a novel, minimally invasive operative technique for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis, but it has not been accepted widely due to the limited information about short- and long-term outcomes, effectiveness, and safety compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent left-sided hepatectomy between January 2007 and December 2016 were reviewed and grouped into the open left-sided hepatectomy and left-sided hepatectomy groups, according to propensity score matching in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function, location of stone, hepatitis serology, and comorbidity on a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics of the 200 patients included in the study. For the left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients) when compared to the open left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients, the duration of hospital stay was less (10.3 vs 14.7 days, P< .001), the incidence of postoperative biliary fistulas (5% vs 14%, P = .003) and overall morbidity were less (25% vs 45%, P = .003), out of bed return to activity was expedited (2.0 vs 2.7 days, P< .001), and the rate of stone recurrence in the long-term follow-up was les (5.1% vs 17%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Left-sided hepatectomy was associated with significantly lesser rate of stone recurrence, a shorter hospital stay, decreased morbidity and clinical biliary fistula rate, and expedited postoperative recovery compared with open left-sided hepatectomy.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Laparoscopic VS open hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis on laparoscopic hepatectomy VS conventional liver resection for treating hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, and undertook a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy VS conventional open liver resection for local hepatolithiasis in the left or right lobe. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, final residual stone and stone recurrence) were analyzed systematically.

RESULTS

A comprehensive literature search retrieved 16 publications with a total of 1329 cases. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis was associated with significantly less intraoperative estimated blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD): 61.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 14.91-108.20, P = 0.01], lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.79, P = 0.008], shorter intestinal function recovery time (WMD: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.47-1.48, P = 0.01), lower total postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.39-0.70, P < 0.0001) and shorter stay in hospital (WMD: 3.32, 95%CI: 2.32-4.32, P < 0.00001). In addition, our results showed no significant differences between the two groups in operative time (WMD: 21.49, 95%CI: 0.27-43.24, P = 0.05), residual stones (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.50-1.25, P = 0.31) and stone recurrence (OR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.11-1.08, P = 0.07). Furthermore, with subgroups analysis, our results proved that the laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis in the left lateral lobe and left side could achieve satisfactory therapeutic effects.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, with less intraoperative estimated blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and shorter intestinal function recovery time than with conventional approaches.

Effectiveness of hepatic parenchyma lithotomy of hepatolithiasis: A single-center experience

To investigate the clinical significance of hepatic parenchyma incision by lithotomy near the second hepatic portal area for the treatment of complex hepatolithiasis.A retrospective study was conducted with 35 patients who had complicated hepatolithiasis in our hospital from January 2008 to December 2013, who underwent hepatic parenchyma incision by lithotomy near the second hepatic portal area. The perioperative and long-term outcomes included the stone clearance rate, operative morbidity and mortality, and the stone recurrence rate. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma were excluded from the study.All patients with hepatic duct stones were mainly located at S2, S4, and S8 regions. Surgical methods included were hepatic parenchyma incision by lithotomy near the second hepatic portal area, or by combined partial hepatectomy. The mean follow-up period was 51 months. One patient died during hospitalization. The surgical morbidity was 17.6%, stone clearance rate was 88.2%, and final clearance rate was 94.1% followed by postoperative choledochoscopic lithotripsy. The stone recurrence rate was 15.6% and the occurrence of postoperative cholangitis was 11.8% during the follow-up period.Hepatic parenchyma incision by lithotomy near the second hepatic portal area is safe with satisfactory short and long-term outcome results for complicated hepatolithiasis.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: A comparative study with open approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis is a prevalent disease in some regions of China. Left-sided hepatectomy is an effective treatment for left intrahepatic bile duct stones with irreversible disease, such as biliary strictures, severe parenchymal fibrosis or atrophy. However, the advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) over open approach (OLH) are still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH to those of OLH in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and October 2016, 75 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis undergoing left-sided hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Among these 75 patients, 36 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 39 underwent OLH (OLH group). The LLH group exhibited a lower intraoperative blood loss (215.8 ± 75.8 vs 298.7 ± 158.9 mL, p = 0.005), intraoperative transfusion (5.6% vs 23.1%, p = 0.032), overall complication rate (13.9% vs 35.9%, p = 0.029), and shorter recovery of bowel movement (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.0 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.004), time of off-bed activities (3.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.4 d, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (7.7 ± 2.2 vs 10.9 ± 3.3 d, p < 0.001) compared to the OLH group. Similar results were also observed in left lateral sectionectomy and hemihepatectomy subgroups. There was no significant difference in the operative time, initial stone clearance rate, final stone clearance rate, stone recurrence rate and overall cost (All p > 0.05). No perioperative mortality was observed. The conversion rate was 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

LLH is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OLH in the field of intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, overall complication and postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left-Sided Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis had been successfully performed in a series of cases, its advantages over open left hepatectomy (OLH) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH with those of OLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on LLH versus OLH for hepatolithiasis from January 1991 to May 2016. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rate were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and seven nonrandomized observational clinical studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 739 patients in this meta-analysis, including 316 LLHs and 423 OLHs. The volume of intraoperative blood loss favored LLH (P = .015). Intraoperative transfusion (P < .001), overall complication (P < .001), and hospital stay (P = .001) were significantly low in LLH. There was no obvious difference in operation time, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. The mean conversion rate was 9.5% (range, 2.2%-15.6%).

CONCLUSION

LLH seems to be more effective and safer for selected patients with hepatolithiasis than OLH. As only one RCT was included, the evidence of which is still limited. More prospective, multicenter, and RCTs are needed to further define the real role of the laparoscopic technique in hepatolithiasis.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver

BACKGROUND

A few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.

A Left-Sided, Purely Laparoscopic Approach for Anatomic Caudate Hepatectomy: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy, which is a challenging procedure, has been reported sporadically. However, there is no standardized surgical technique, and the safety and feasibility of this procedure remain controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A left-sided, purely laparoscopic approach for anatomic caudate hepatectomy was used for 11 selected patients in our institution. The procedure and technique of laparoscopic caudate hepatectomy were described. Perioperative data of these patients were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The 11 cases included two subgroups: laparoscopic isolated caudate hepatectomy (n = 4) and laparoscopic combined caudate and left hemihepatectomy (n = 7). There were three major steps for anatomic caudate hepatectomy. Two conversions were required (18.2%). Two complications (Clavien Grades I and II) occurred but no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

The left-sided, purely laparoscopic approach for anatomic caudate hepatectomy is safe and feasible in selected patients. This procedure can be performed by hepatobiliary surgeons with abundant experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Oddi sphincter preserved cholangioplasty with hepatico-subcutaneous stoma for hepatolithiasis

AIM: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of Oddi sphincter preserved cholangioplasty with hepatico-subcutaneous stoma (OSPCHS) and risk factors for recurrence in hepatolithiasis.

METHODS: From March 1993 to December 2012, 202 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis underwent OSPCHS at our department. The Oddi sphincter preserved procedure consisted of common hepatic duct exploration, stone extraction, hilar bile duct plasty, establishment of subcutaneous stoma to the bile duct. Patients with recurrent stones can undergo stone extraction and/or biliary drainage via the subcutaneous stoma which can be incised under local anesthesia. The long-term results were reviewed. Cox regression model was employed to analyze the risk factors for stone recurrence.

RESULTS: Ninety-seven (48.0%) OSPCHS patients underwent hepatic resection concomitantly. The rate of surgical complications was 10.4%. There was no perioperative death. The immediate stone clearance rate was 72.8%. Postoperative cholangioscopic lithotomy raised the clearance rate to 97.0%. With a median follow-up period of 78.5 mo (range: 2-233 mo), 24.8% of patients had recurrent stones, 2.5% had late development of cholangiocarcinoma, and the mortality rate was 5.4%. Removal of recurrent stones and/or drainage of inflammatory bile via subcutaneous stoma were conducted in 44 (21.8%) patients. The clearance rate of recurrent stones was 84.0% after subsequent choledochoscopic lithotripsy via subcutaneous stoma. Cox regression analysis showed that residual stone was an independent prognostic factor for stone recurrence.

CONCLUSION: In selected patients with hepatolithiasis, OSPCHS achieves excellent long-term outcomes, and residual stone is an independent prognostic factor for stone recurrence.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open left-sided hepatectomy for intrahepatic duct stones

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones is limited by technical difficulties caused by adhesion to adjacent tissue or distorted anatomy resulting from recurrent inflammation. This study compared perioperative and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for left IHD stones.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2013, 40 patients underwent laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy [left hemihepatectomy (n = 7) or left lateral sectionectomy (n = 33)] and 54 patients without combined operations and previous operation histories underwent open left-sided hepatectomy [left hemihepatectomy (n = 24) or left lateral sectionectomy (n = 30)]. Their perioperative and clinical outcomes were compared, including stone clearance rates, stone recurrence rates, and median follow-up duration.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age (56.8 ± 8.2 vs. 55.6 ± 9.6 years, p = 0.531), sex (1.0:4.0 vs. 1.0:1.8 male:female, p = 0.108), or BMI (22.8 ± 2.8 vs. 22.9 ± 3.0 kg/m(2), p = 0.802) between the laparoscopic and open hepatectomy groups. Lateral sectionectomy was more frequent in the laparoscopic group (33/40 vs. 30/54, p = 0.010). Operation time (174.2 ± 56.6 vs. 210.4 ± 51.6 min, p = 0.002) and postoperative hospital stay (7.9 ± 2.6 vs. 14.3 ± 5.5 days, p < 0.001) were shorter in the laparoscopic group, and complication rate (17.5 vs. 40.7%, p = 0.016), in particular surgical site infection rate (5.0 vs. 18.5%, p = 0.052), was lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open hepatectomy group. Similar results were observed in the hemihepatectomy and lateral sectionectomy subgroups. There was no operation-related mortality. There were no significant differences in follow-up periods (48 ± 33.6 vs. 59.2 ± 41.7 months, p = 0.235) and rates of initial stone clearance (87.5 vs. 75.9%, p = 0.159), final clearance (100 vs. 94.4%, p = 0.130), and stone recurrence (2.5 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.468).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is safe and effective for well-selected patients with left IHD stones, when performed by experienced surgeons. Laparoscopic hepatectomy resulted in shorter operation time and postoperative hospital stay, and a lower postoperative morbidity rate, than open hepatectomy.

Outcomes of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND

Although there are very few reports of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (RPS), we believe this is a promising operative method for lesions confined to the right posterior section of the liver.

METHOD

Between September 2003 and June 2012, laparoscopic liver resection was performed in 408 patients at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. We analyzed the clinical data of 24 patients who underwent laparoscopic RPS for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and compared outcomes with patients who underwent open RPS (n = 19).

RESULTS

The mean operation time was 567 minutes, and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.6 ± 4.8 days. The mean tumor-free margin was 3.0 ± 5.8 cm. There were no deaths or major complications. Two complications occurred, which were managed by percutaneous drainage. There were three conversions to laparotomy because of an insufficient tumor margin. These patients were treated when we had limited experience of laparoscopic resection. Extended RPS (n = 6), which involved RPS and resection of the right hepatic vein, was performed to achieve an adequate margin if the tumor was located very close to the right hepatic vein. The mean operation time was longer in laparoscopy group than that in open group (P < .001), but there was no difference in the mean resection margin (P = .450) and the rate of postoperative complications (P = .380) between 2 groups. There was no statistical difference in 5-year overall patient survival rate (79.1% vs 77.7%; P = .754) and the 5-year disease-free survival rate (42.2% vs 51.5%; P = .752) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RPS is feasible when performed by experienced surgeons, but further refinements of the surgical technique are needed to reduce operation time.

Totally laparoscopic gallbladder-preserving surgery: A minimally invasive and favorable approach for cholelithiasis

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effectiveness of laparoscopic gallbladder-preserving surgery (L-GPS) for cholelithiasis and the feasibility and value of totally laparoscopic GPS (TL-GPS). A total of 517 patients underwent L-GPS, including 365 cases of laparoscopy-assisted GPS (LA-GPS), 143 cases of TL-GPS (preservation rate, 98.3%) and nine conversions to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The surgeries were all performed by one medical team and the mean operating time was 72 min. All macroscopic calculi were removed through endoscopy. The number of calculi observed in the patients was between one and several dozen; diameters ranged between 0.1 and 2.5 cm. Only three cases of incisional infection were noted in the LA-GPS group and long-term follow-up showed a low recurrence rate of 1.2%. L-GPS is, therefore, an excellent approach to cure cholelithiasis and TL-GPS is a feasible and effective option that could avoid incisional complications.

Endoscopic or laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis in the era of endoscopy in China

BACKGROUND

Many endoscopic procedures have been used to treat hepatolithiasis, including as laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH), laparoscopic intrahepatic duct exploration (LIDE), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, long-term results of such treatments are rarely reported. The series aimed to evaluate the immediate outcomes and long-term results of these treatments and their optimal indications.

METHODS

From January 2002 to April 2010, a total of 124 continuous patients with hepatolithiasis were primarily treated with endoscopic surgery, including LH (LH group, n = 37), LIDE (LIDE group n = 41), and ERCP (ERCP group, n = 46) at our two institutes. These cases were retrospectively reviewed. The patients' demographic variables, operative outcomes, complete clearance rate, and cholangitis recurrence rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

Complete stone clearance was achieved in 94.6 % of LH, 78.0 % of LIDE, and 67.4 % of ERCP patients. After a median follow-up period of 5.0 years (rang 2-8 years), we observed stone recurrence in 26.6 % (33/124) of patients and recurrent cholangitis in 24.2 % (30/124) of patients. Stricture, stones in both lobes, and non-hepatectomy treatments were significant risk factors for incomplete stone clearance on multivariate analysis. In addition, recurrent cholangitis was associated with non-hepatectomy therapy, Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, residual stones, and intrahepatic bile strictures.

CONCLUSION

In this study with 2-8 years of follow-up, residual stones, biliary stricture, Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and ERCP therapy were associated with recurrent stones and/or cholangitis after treatment, indicating that the modification of Sphincter of Oddi function and maintaining its normal pressure are very important.

Comparison of laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy for left-sided hepatolithiasis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of open versus laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (OLH vs. LLH) for left-sided hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between October 2007 and June 2012, 149 patients with left-sided hepatolithiasis who underwent LLH (n = 37) or OLH (n = 112) were evaluated. The perioperative and long-term outcomes that were reviewed included the stone clearance rate, operative morbidity and mortality, and the stone recurrence rate.

RESULTS

The mean operative time of the LLH group was significantly longer than that of the OLH group (257±50.4 minutes vs. 237±75.5 minutes, p = 0.022), but the mean hospital stay was significantly shorter (8.8±4.10 vs. 14.1±4.98 days, p < 0.001). Postoperative complications were noted in four and twenty cases among LLH and OLH patients, respectively (p = 0.982). The initial clearance rate of intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones was 100% and 96.4% in the LLH and OLH groups, respectively, but all remnant stones (n = 4, OLH group) were resolved postoperatively. There were two cases of recurrence of IHD stones in OLH patients, but none in LLH patients (p = 0.281).

CONCLUSIONS

In left-sided hepatolithiasis, LLH was safe and effective: it resulted in low postoperative morbidity, no mortality and a high stone clearance rate, and there were no incidences of recurrence in our study. The potential benefits of LLH include a shorter hospital stay and a faster return to oral intake. If consideration is given to the appropriate indication criteria, including the extent of hepatectomy and the location and distribution of lesions, LLH may be an excellent choice for treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: an experience of 116 cases

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients with hepatolithiasis were diagnosed at an early stage in China. Laparoscopic surgery has introduced new methods of treating this condition.

AIM

To investigate the patient selection, operative technique, and efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 116 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (laparoscopic group) and 78 patients who underwent open hepatectomy (open group) for hepatolithiasis were retrospectively analyzed, and were compared with the recent reports.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had a longer duration of operation (323.3 ± 103.0 min vs. 272.8 ± 66.8 min, p<0.05) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (13.1 ± 5.6 days vs. 16.5 ± 8.4 days, p<0.05) than the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss or transfusion rate, postoperative complications, calculus clearance, calculus recurrence, or recurrent cholangitis (p>0.05 for all). Efficacy in the laparoscopic group was similar to that in other recently reported studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for early stage localized hepatolithiasis, with an efficacy similar to that of open surgery. Anatomic hepatectomy is important for achieving good therapeutic outcomes.

Is the end of the T-tube drainage era in laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones is coming? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of T-tube free (TTF) versus T-tube drainage (TTD) after laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).

BACKGROUND

LCBDE has been proven to be an effective and preferred treatment approach for uncomplicated choledocholithiasis, and the appropriateness of T-tube placement after laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct (CBD) stones is still under debate.

METHODS

A systematic literature search (PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Springer-Link, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed. Postoperative complications were evaluated/graded according to the modified Clavien classification. Other variables extracted including primary closures of the CBDs and the associated assistant methods, T-tube types, and placement durations. Stratified and sensitivity analyses were performed both to explore heterogeneity between studies and to assess the effects of the study qualities.

RESULTS

A total of 956 patients from 12 studies were included. The pooled odds ratio for postoperative complications and biliary-specific complications in TTF was found to be 0.59 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.91; P = 0.02], 0.62 (95% CI, 0.36-1.06; P = 0.08), respectively, when compared with TTD. Operative time and hospital stay were significantly decreased in the TTF group, with the pooled weighted mean differences being 18.84 minutes (95% CI, -27.01 to 10.67; P < 0.01) and 3.22 days (95% CI, -4.59 to 1.84; P < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that among patients undergoing laparoscopic choledochotomy for common bile duct stones, primary closure of the CBD alone is superior to TTD; however, there is no significant benefit in terms of primary duct closure with various internal or external drainage techniques. Further randomized controlled trials are eagerly awaited to prove these findings.

Left hepatic trisectionectomy for hepatolithiasis with occluded left and right anterior branches of the portal vein: report of a case

A 64-year-old male was admitted to a local hospital with epigastric pain. Diagnostic imaging revealed hepatolithiasis in the atrophic left lobe. However, endoscopic intervention was impossible because of the presence of many large stones. He was referred to our hospital for surgical treatment. Enhanced multidetector-row computed tomography revealed that the right posterior portal vein (PV) was branched from the portal trunk as a first-order branch, and the bile duct of segment 3 ran caudally to the umbilical portion of the left PV. Furthermore, the umbilical portion of the left PV, which was located between the dilated bile ducts of segment 2 and segment 3, and also the right anterior PV, was occluded with thrombus. Based on these findings, he underwent left hepatic trisectionectomy. Although the indications for left hepatic trisectionectomy for hepatolithiasis are limited, it is therefore extremely important to determine the most appropriate surgical procedure based on the anatomy and findings of hepatic hilus in individual cases.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic literature review and comparison of 3 techniques

OBJECTIVE

This review assesses the current status of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND

The trend in laparoscopic liver resection has been moving from limited resections toward major hepatectomy. The surgical techniques for laparoscopic major hepatectomy include pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and laparoscopy-assisted methods. We performed a literature search and systematic review to assess the current status of laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Our literature review was conducted in Medline using the keywords "laparoscopy" or "laparoscopic" combined with "liver resection" or "hepatectomy." Articles written in English containing more than 10 cases of laparoscopic major hepatectomy were selected.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Twenty-nine articles were selected for this review. The laparoscopic major hepatectomies achieved similar patient and economic outcomes compared with open liver resections in selected (noncirrhotic) patients. Surgeon experience with the techniques affected the results; thus, a learning period is mandatory. Of these 3 techniques, the pure laparoscopic method is suitable for experienced surgeons to achieve better cosmetic outcomes, whereas the hand-assisted laparoscopic method was associated with better perioperative outcomes; the laparoscopy-assisted method is used by surgeons for unique resections such as resection of cirrhotic livers, laparoscopic resection of tumors in unfavorable locations, and living donor hepatectomies. In addition, the laparoscopic major hepatectomy-specific, long-term oncologic outcomes remain to be addressed in future publications.

The safety and feasibility of reoperation for the treatment of hepatolithiasis by laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis removal is associated with high rates of postoperative residual and recurrence, which in some cases may require multiple surgeries. The progress and development of laparoscopic techniques introduced a new way of treating hepatolithiasis. However, the selection criteria for laparoscopic hepatolithiasis surgery, particularly among patients with a history of biliary surgery, remain undetermined. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of reoperation for the treatment of hepatolithiasis via a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the perioperative course and outcomes was performed on 90 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures for hepatolithiasis between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012. Thirty-eight patients had previous biliary tract operative procedures (PB group) and 52 patients had no previous biliary tract procedures (NPB).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in operative time (342.3 ± 101.0 vs. 334.1 ± 102.7 min), intraoperative blood loss (561.2 ± 458.8 vs. 546.3 ± 570.5 ml), intraoperative transfusion (15.8 vs. 19.2 %), postoperative hospitalization (12.6 ± 4.2 vs. 13.4 % ± 6.3 days), postoperative complications (18.4 vs. 23.1 %), conversion to open laparotomy (10.5 vs. 9.6 %), or intraoperative stone clearance rate (94.7 vs. 90.4 %). There was also no significant difference in stone recurrence (7.9 vs. 11.5 %) and recurrent cholangitis (5.3 vs. 13.5 %) at a mean of 19 months of follow-up (range, 3-51 months) for PB patients compared to NPB patients. The final stone clearance rate was 100 % in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation for hepatolithiasis by laparoscopic approach is safe and feasible for selected patients who have undergone previous biliary operations.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: korean experiences

The development of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been slow due to technical difficulties. Therefore, LLR has been limited to easily accessible lesions. Recently, this procedure has been well applied to hepatocellular carcinoma. However, until now, the indications for LLR have been tumors in the peripheral portion of the anterolateral segments of the liver (segments II, III, V and VI and the inferior part of IV according to the classification of Couinaud). Due to the growing interest in LLR, there have been many attempts to apply this technique in difficult locations. The lesions in the posterior or superior part of the liver (segments I, VII, VIII and the superior part of IV), which are considered to be poor indications for LLR, have been reported to be successfully operated on by laparoscopic surgery. Accordingly, this laparoscopic approach has become similar to open surgery in many ways. One of the major advancements of LLR is anatomic liver resection including major and minor resection. Laparoscopic mono- and bisegmentectomies have also become possible with growing experience. There are a variety of monosegmentectomies and bisegmentectomies. The common representatives of bisegmentectomies are left lateral sectionectomy, right anterior sectionectomy and right posterior sectionectomy. The common operative types of monosegmentectomies are S4, S5, and S6 monosegmentectomies, etc. Central bi-sectionectomy will also be discussed. The Glissonian approach has been useful for these types of anatomic liver resection. The difficulty of controlling hemorrhage has been overcome by performing meticulous surgical techniques with newly developed instruments, and intraoperative sonography has been used to locate the lesions and guide the resection plane even for deep-seated or invisible lesions. Further accumulation of experience and technical refinements will make theses challenging procedures more reproducible and safer.

The clinical application of the hard gallbladder endoscope combined with soft choledochoscope in the surgery of laparoscopic microscopic trauma for the removal of calculi and preservation of gallbladder

BACKGROUND

To explore the value of minimally invasive surgery for the removal of calculus and preservation of the gallbladder with the combination of a hard gallbladder endoscope and a soft choledochoscope.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of the clinical data of 42 patients with cholecystolithiasis who underwent minimally invasive surgery for the removal of calculus and preservation of the gallbladder from April 2009 to April 2011.

RESULTS

None of the 42 cases had bile flowing from the gallbladder neck tube to the gallbladder lumen after removal of stones in the gallbladder lumen by the hard gallbladder endoscope; all the 42 cases had residual stones in the gallbladder tube when probed by the soft choledochoscope. The numbers of stones range from one to three, while the diameters of the stones range from 0.5 cm to 1.0 cm. In 8 cases, there was one calculus embedded. In 39 cases, the calculi were taken out through the soft choledochoscope, and the gallbladders were preserved successfully; yet the other 3 cases failed to receive surgery to preserve the gallbladder because of calculi embedded in the gallbladder tube, which were finally treated by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

A hard gallbladder endoscope combined with a soft choledochoscope for removing calculi and preserving the gallbladder in laparoscopic microscopic trauma surgery can effectively find residual stones in the gallbladder tube and help to increase the rate of complete removal of calculi and preserving the gallbladder.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher incident frequency in hepatolithiasis patients

PURPOSES

The primary concern regarding laparoscopic hepatectomy in hepatolithiasis patients is surgical safety, which may be high in current practice.

METHODS

Hepatolithiasis patients who underwent laparoscopic and laparotomic hepatectomies were retrospectively studies after being matched for age, location of gallstones, liver resection and underlying liver conditions at a ratio of 1:1 (n = 44 in each group). The rates of intraoperative incidents and postoperative complications were examined using validated classification and grading systems. The primary outcome measure was the procedure-related complication/mortality rate.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy was converted to open surgery in three patients (6.8 %). The length of the operation for laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly longer than that for laparotomic hepatectomy (277.5 min [range, 190-410 min] vs. 212.5 min [140-315 min], P < 0.001). The two groups had similar intraoperative blood loss (367.5 mL [150-1200 mL] vs. 392.5 mL [200-1400 mL], P > 0.05) and transfusion frequencies (13.6 vs. 18.2 %, P > 0.05). The laparoscopy group had a higher percentage of patients with at least one intraoperative incident compared with the laparotomy group (22.7 vs. 6.8 %; P < 0.05). Vascular events occurred in nine patients (20.5 %) undergoing laparoscopy and two patients (4.5 %) undergoing laparotomy (OR 5.4 [95 %CI, 1.1-26.7], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative vascular incidents in hepatolithiasis patients compared wit laparotomy.

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for left intrahepatic duct stones

Purpose

The feasibility of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for the management of intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones was evaluated.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 consecutive patients who underwent total laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for IHD stones at Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2009 and June 2011 were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

The mean operation time was 312.1 ± 63.4 minutes and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 ± 5.0 days. There were 2 cases of postoperative bile leakage and 3 cases of intra-abdominal fluid collection, which were successfully managed conservatively. Remnant stones were detected in 2 patients. The initial success rate of stone clearance was 92.3% (24 of 26). The remnant stones were located in the common bile duct in both cases and were removed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy. Therefore, the final success rate of stone clearance was 100% (26 of 26). During a mean follow-up of 22 months (range, 7 to 36 months), there was no patient with recurrent stone.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery could be an effective treatment modality for the management of IHD stones in select patients.

Laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

The liver is the organ where tumors most frequently metastasize. Hepatic recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma also occasionally occurs. With the increasing use of laparoscopic surgery for hepatic tumors, there may be a high probability that laparoscopic liver resection can be performed in patients with a surgical history. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection in patients a history of upper abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Of 202 laparoscopic liver resections, 47 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection after previous upper abdominal surgery between January 2004 and July 2009. Fifty-five previous surgeries were performed in the 47 patients. The previous types of surgical procedures included hepatobiliary and pancreatic (HPB) procedures (n=25) and non-HPB procedures (colorectal malignancies, subtotal gastrectomy, and splenectomy; n=22).

RESULTS

In patients with a history of surgery, the mean operative time for laparoscopic liver resection was 312.3 min and the mean blood loss was 481.0 ml. In 42 patients (89.4%), there were severe adhesions in the hepatoduodenal ligament and hilar areas. Transfusion was required in 7 patients (14.9%). There was one conversion to a laparotomy due to severe adhesions. Complications occurred in 11 patients (23.4%) and the mean hospital stay was 10.6 days. When we compare patients with and without a history of surgery, there were no differences in the above-mentioned perioperative results. However, among patients with a history of surgery, patients who underwent HPB procedures had longer operative times and higher postoperative morbidities than those who had not undergone HPB procedures.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery is feasible and safe.

Updates in the treatment of gallstones

For the treatment of symptomatic gallbladder stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the procedure of choice. However, open cholecystectomy is advisable in some situations, and a new technique - natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery - has been described recently. In addition, nonsurgical approaches have also been used in patients with gallbladder stones. For the treatment of common bile duct stones, endoscopic approaches comprise the most important and commonly used modality but, under certain conditions, surgical removal should be considered if the stones cannot be managed nonsurgically. Patients with concomitant gallbladder and common bile duct stones may have various options, depending on the patient's condition and the availability of local expertise. Intrahepatic stones usually have a lower rate of successful treatment compared with gallbladder or extrahepatic bile duct stones. Localized intrahepatic bile duct stones may be cured by surgical resection, or they may be safely and effectively managed using peroral or percutaneous cholangioscopy. Overall, a multidisciplinary approach is important for the optimal management of difficult gallstone diseases.

The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The lack of consensus on how to define and grade adverse postoperative events has greatly hampered the evaluation of surgical procedures. A new classification of complications, initiated in 1992, was updated 5 years ago. It is based on the type of therapy needed to correct the complication. The principle of the classification was to be simple, reproducible, flexible, and applicable irrespective of the cultural background. The aim of the current study was to critically evaluate this classification from the perspective of its use in the literature, by assessing interobserver variability in grading complex complication scenarios and to correlate the classification grades with patients', nurses', and doctors' perception.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Reports from the literature using the classification system were systematically analyzed. Next, 11 scenarios illustrating difficult cases were prepared to develop a consensus on how to rank the various complications. Third, 7 centers from different continents, having routinely used the classification, independently assessed the 11 scenarios. An agreement analysis was performed to test the accuracy and reliability of the classification. Finally, the perception of the severity was tested in patients, nurses, and physicians by presenting 30 scenarios, each illustrating a specific grade of complication.

RESULTS

We noted a dramatic increase in the use of the classification in many fields of surgery. About half of the studies used the contracted form, whereas the rest used the full range of grading. Two-thirds of the publications avoided subjective terms such as minor or major complications. The study of 11 difficult cases among various centers revealed a high degree of agreement in identifying and ranking complications (89% agreement), and enabled a better definition of unclear situations. Each grade of complications significantly correlated with the perception by patients, nurses, and physicians (P < 0.05, Kruskal-Wallis test).

CONCLUSIONS

This 5-year evaluation provides strong evidence that the classification is valid and applicable worldwide in many fields of surgery. No modification in the general principle of classification is warranted in view of the use in ongoing publications and trials. Subjective, inaccurate, or confusing terms such as "minor or major" should be removed from the surgical literature.

Techniques for performing laparoscopic liver resection in various hepatic locations

Many studies have recently reported on laparoscopic liver resection, although its development has been slow compared to laparoscopy in other fields. The indications for the location of laparoscopic liver resection have previously been limited to easily accessible lesions. Performing laparoscopic liver resection in the posterior and superior parts of the liver has been considered difficult due to inadequate exposure, the poor operative field and the difficulty with parenchymal dissection. Flexible endoscopy, high definition imaging and various kinds of equipment for parenchymal transection have been introduced for clinical use. In addition, much experience with this procedure has been accumulated at many centers. Accordingly, there are an increasing number of reports on laparoscopic liver resection in difficult locations. At our institution, the location of the tumor is no longer a limitation to laparoscopic liver resection. However, for safer laparoscopic liver resection, the patient positioning and trocar placement should be individualized according to the tumor location. The type of resection also may depend on the remaining liver's functional capacity. We describe here the technical considerations for performing laparoscopic liver resection, including the technical considerations for performing laparoscopic liver resection for lesions located in the postero-superior segments of the liver.