Minimally invasive liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and early outcomes. Ann Surg. 2009;250:842-848. [PMID: 19806058 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bc789c]

Minimally Invasive Simultaneous Colorectal and Liver Resection for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastasis-Short-Term Outcomes

Surgical management of colorectal disease and liver metastatectomy can be staged or synchronous. A minimally invasive approach in synchronous resection in the selected group of patients may improve postoperative outcomes. The present study aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of simultaneous liver and colorectal resection for synchronous metastasis by a minimally invasive approach in terms of major morbidity and R0 resection rates. The present study is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. All patients who underwent minimally invasive simultaneous resection of colorectal malignancy and liver metastases between January 2020 and April 2023 were included. A total of 39 patients were included in the study. The median age was 54 (23-79) years with 28 male (72%) and 11 female (28%) patients. Rectum (n = 21, 54%) was the most common primary location. The most commonly performed procedures were low anterior resection (n = 12) and parenchymal sparing non-anatomical resection (n = 23, 59%). The median surgery duration was 280 (150-520) min, and the median blood loss was 400 (50-2100) ml. The median hospital stay was 7 (5-18) days. Five (12.6%) patients had major complications. With a median follow-up of 12 months, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 84.6% and 37%, respectively. Simultaneous liver and colorectal resection by minimal access approach is feasible in selected groups of patients depending on the extent of hepatectomy, the patient's general condition, and surgical team experience. A minimal access approach leads to faster recovery without compromising on the oncological radicality.

Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery at a Large Regional Health System: Assessing the Safety of Program Expansion

BACKGROUND

Complex, minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (MIS HPB) is safe at high-volume centers, yet outcomes during early implementation are unknown. We describe our experience during period of rapid growth in an MIS HPB program at a large regional health system.

METHODS

During an increase in MIS HPB (60% greater from preceding year), hospital records of patients who underwent HPB surgery between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2020 were reviewed. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rates, length of stay (LOS), and perioperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

267 patients' cases were reviewed. The population was 62 ± 13 years, 50% female, 90% white. MIS was more frequently performed for hepatic than pancreatic resections (59% vs 21%, P < .001). Open cases were more frequently performed for invasive malignancy in both pancreatic (70% vs 40%, P < .018) and hepatic (87% vs 70%, P = .046) resections. There was no difference in operative time between MIS and open surgery (293[218-355]min vs 296[199-399]min, P = .893). When compared to open, there was a shorter LOS (4[2-6]d vs 7[6-10]d, P < .001) and lower readmission rate (21% vs 37%, P = .005) following MIS. Estimated blood loss was lower in MIS liver resections, particularly when performed for benign disease (200[63-500]mL vs 600[200-1200]mL, P = .041). Overall 30-day mortality was similar between MIS and open surgery (1.0% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000).

DISCUSSION

During a surgical expansion phase within our regional health system, MIS HPB offered improved perioperative outcomes when compared to open surgery. These data support the safety of implementation even during intervals of rapid programmatic growth.

Wingless/It/β-catenin signaling in liver metastasis from colorectal cancer: A focus on biological mechanisms and therapeutic opportunities

The liver is the most common site of metastases in patients with colorectal cancer. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) are the result of molecular mechanisms that involve different cells of the liver microenvironment. The aberrant activation of Wingless/It (Wnt)/β-catenin signals downstream of Wnt ligands initially drives the oncogenic transformation of the colon epithelium, but also the progression of metastatization through the epithelial-mesenchymal transition/mesenchymal-epithelial transition interactions. In liver microenvironment, metastatic cells can also survive and adapt through dormancy, which makes them less susceptible to pro-apoptotic signals and therapies. Treatment of CRLMs is challenging due to its variability and heterogeneity. Advances in surgery and oncology have been made in the last decade and a pivotal role for Wnt/β-catenin pathway has been re-cognized in chemoresistance. At the state of art, there is a lack of clear understanding of why and how this occurs and thus where exactly the opportunities for developing anti-CRLMs therapies may lie. In this review, current knowledge on the involvement of Wnt signaling in the development of CRLMs was considered. In addition, an overview of useful biomarkers with a revision of surgical and non-surgical therapies currently accepted in the clinical practice for colorectal liver metastasis patients were provided.

The Impact of Modified Two-Surgeon Technique for Laparoscopic Liver Resection on the Training of Surgeons-in-Training

Introduction Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained widespread acceptance over the last decade, it is associated with a much steeper learning curve than other laparoscopic procedures. We currently perform a modified two-surgeon technique for LLR. We assessed the effect of our LLR technique on the surgical outcome and the learning curve of surgeons-in-training when pure non-anatomical LLR was performed. Methods Between 2017 and 2021, 118 LLRs were conducted at our institution, 42 of which were pure non-anatomical LLRs performed by five surgeons-in-training (with a career of 6-13 years). The perioperative outcomes of these cases were compared to those performed by the board-certified attending surgeon. Regarding the learning curve of surgeons-in-training, the duration of operation was used as an index of the proficiency level, and the number of surgical cases in which the surgeons reached the median duration of operation was examined. Results Mortality was zero, and neither postoperative bleeding nor bile leak was experienced in the whole cohort. There were no differences between surgeons-in-training and the board-certified surgeon in the duration of the operation, intraoperative blood loss, rate of postoperative complications, or length of postoperative stay (LOS). Among the operations performed by five surgeons-in-training, the rate of LLR with a difficulty score of 4 or higher was 52% (30%-75%). Concerning the learning curve, all five surgeons-in-training gradually shortened the duration of operation for each additional case and reached the median duration (218 minutes) by experiencing a median of five cases (3-8 cases). Conclusion A modified two-surgeon technique during LLR is feasible, with a relatively low number of cases (five cases) required to shorten the duration of operation in non-anatomical LLR. This technique is safe and beneficial to the education of surgeons-in-training.

Pushing the Limits of Surgical Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: How Far Can We Go?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and up to 50% of all patients diagnosed will develop metastatic disease. Management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has been constantly improving, aided by newer and more effective chemotherapy agents and the use of multidisciplinary teams. However, the only curative treatment remains surgical resection of the CRLM. Although survival for surgically resected patients has shown modest improvement, this is mostly because of the fact that what is constantly evolving is the indication for resection. Surgeons are constantly pushing the limits of what is considered resectable or not, thus enhancing and enlarging the pool of patients who can be potentially benefited and even cured with aggressive surgical procedures. There are a variety of procedures that have been developed, which range from procedures to stimulate hepatic growth, such as portal vein embolization, two-staged hepatectomy, or the association of both, to technically challenging procedures such as simultaneous approaches for synchronous metastasis, ex-vivo or in-situ perfusion with total vascular exclusion, or even liver transplant. This article reviewed the major breakthroughs in liver surgery for CRLM, showing how much has changed and what has been achieved in the field of CRLM.

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.

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

Objectives

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

Materials and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM)

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Laparoscopic vs open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of surgical margin status and survival

BACKGROUND

Liver resection represents the curative treatment of choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Laparoscopic hepatectomy in CRLM is considered a safe approach. However, the information on their oncological results in the different series is deficient. This study aimed to compare the surgical margin, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with oncological resections of CRLM according to the type of surgical approach performed.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and June 2017, 263 patients with CRLM underwent hepatic resection. Inclusion criteria were initial resectability, tumor size ≤ 50 mm, 3 or less metastases, no bilobar involvement, and absence of extrahepatic disease. A propensity score was performed to adjust the indication bias.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included (56 open and 26 laparoscopic). Twenty-eight (50%) patients had synchronous presentation in the open approach and 6 (23%) in the laparoscopic approach (p = 0.021), with more frequent simultaneous open resections (p = 0.037). The resection margin was positive (R1) in 5 patients with an open approach and 2 with a laparoscopic approach (8.9% and 7.6% respectively; p = 0.852). Nine patients (16%) with conventional approach and 2 (7.7%) with laparoscopic approach had local complications (p = 0.3). There was one death in the open group and none in the laparoscopic. There were no significant differences in OS and DFS rate between both groups (1-3 years, OS: 92-77% and 96-75% respectively; 1-3 years, DFS: 63-20% and 73-36% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in terms of surgical margin, OS rate, and DFS rate between the laparoscopic and open approach in patients with CRLM.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

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

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

Comprehensive analysis of laparoscopic, robotic, and open hepatectomy outcomes using the nationwide readmissions database

Although open resections have been the most prevalent method of hepatectomies in the United States, laparoscopic and robotic methods of liver resection have since gained significant traction. Given the augmenting role of minimally invasive techniques in liver resection, a study that explores and analyzes the surgical outcomes of the approaches mentioned above to liver resection on a national basis is warranted. A retrospective analysis was performed in this study using the 2016-2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD). Patients who underwent liver resections via one of the following methods were selected and grouped: open, laparoscopic, or robotic. Our primary outcome variable of interest was the 45-day readmission rate. 11,186 patients were included in the analysis. The 45-day readmission rate was 13.5%, 12.9%, and 8.7% in the open, laparoscopic, and robotic groups, respectively (p < 0.001). A significantly lower complication rate (7.3%) was seen in the robotic group than its counterparts (11.4% in open vs. 9.1% in the laparoscopic group). Patients undergoing hepatectomies may benefit from the robotic approach given that it is associated with a shorter hospital length of stay and lower readmission rates.

Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes of Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Liver Resections

INTRODUCTION

Most liver resections performed in the United States are open. With the ever-increasing role of robotic surgery, our study's role is to assess national outcomes based on the surgical approach.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the 2015 National Readmission Database (NRD). We selected patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, and robotic hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was performed to match the three groups in terms of demographics, hospital characteristics, and resection type. Our primary outcome was 6-month readmission rates and associated costs.

RESULTS

3,872 patients were included in the analysis (open = 3,420, laparoscopic = 343, and robotic = 109). Robotic liver resection has lower 6-month readmission rates (18.3%) than the laparoscopic (26.7%) and open (30%) counterparts. The robotic approach was more cost-effective ($127,716.56 ± 12,567.31) than the open ($157,880.82 ± 18,560.2) and laparoscopic approach ($152,060.78 ± 8,890.13) in terms of the total cost which includes cost per readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a financial benefit of using robotics in terms of cost, hospital length of stay, and readmission rates in patients undergoing liver resection, cost.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2020 for studies, which limited to comparative articles of RH or LH for malignant tumors. Stata14.0 was performed in the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1093 patients (345 RH and 748 LH) were eligible for inclusion. Operative time, tumor size, open procedure rate and the proportion of right hepatectomy were found to be significantly different between RH and LH in the pooled analysis (P < 0.05). Compared to LH, RH was associated with longer operative time, larger tumor size, lower open procedure rate and more common use for right hepatectomy. On the other hand, there was no difference in the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, hospital stay, R0 resection rate, complications, resection margin, left lateral sectionectomy and left hepatectomy (P > 0.05). For malignant tumors that require hepatectomy, robotic approaches have demonstrated similar safety and feasibility to laparoscopy, with lower open procedure rate, were suitable for larger tumor size, and have a high right hepatectomy utilization rate. These results still need to be confirmed by multicenter, high-quality randomized controlled studies.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

[Robot-Assisted Right Hemihepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma]

Since the introduction of robot-assisted surgery, increasingly complex operations have been performed with this technique. Robot-assisted operations are also of increasing importance in hepatobiliary surgery. With articulated and scaled movements in a three-dimensional surgical field, permit precise preparation, as is needed for major hepatic resection. This video demonstrates the feasibility and precision of completely robotic surgery in right hemihepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of segments V - VIII in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The patient was 72 years old for the operation, with concomitant marked metabolic syndrome.

Stepwise implementation of robotic surgery in a high volume HPB practice in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Aims of this study were to describe the stepwise implementation and expansion of robotic HPB surgery in a high volume HPB unit in the Netherlands and to analyze clinical outcomes of all robotic liver resections and robotic pancreatoduodenectomies performed within this program.

METHODS

After proctoring by expert international surgeons, HPB surgeons were introduced to robotic liver resection and robotic pancreatoduodenectomy in a stepwise fashion. Data from two prospective databases containing all consecutive patients who underwent robotic liver resection or robotic pancreatoduodenectomy between August 1st, 2015 and March 1st, 2019 were analyzed post hoc.

RESULTS

In total, 77 consecutive robotic liver resections and 68 consecutive robotic pancreatoduodenectomies were performed. Five surgeons were consecutively introduced to robotic HPB surgery. Mean operative time for robotic liver resection was 160 ± 78 min. Mean operative time for robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was 420 ± 67 min. Operative times remained stable over time and were not affected by the introduction of new surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Stepwise implementation and expansion of robotic HPB surgery within one unit over a three-and-half year period is feasible and associated with good clinical outcomes. Despite introducing new surgeons to the technique, operative times, an indicator of the learning process, remained stable over time.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is safe and effective for the management of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases in a population-based analysis in Ontario, Canada. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been deemed safe, and, in the case of minor hepatectomy, the standard of care. Short-, long-term outcomes and costs of LH compared with open hepatectomy (OH) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases have not been well described at the population level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer undergoing hepatectomy were included in this population-based retrospective cohort study from 2006- to 2014. Postoperative complications (per Clavien-Dindo) and survival were analyzed using a linear mixed model and Cox-Proportional hazards model respectively. Costs of surgery and the 90-day postoperative period were considered in 2018 Canadian dollars and compared from the perspective of a third-party payer.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 56 months, 95% confidence interval (CI): 51 to 68), there were 2991 hepatectomies (OH: 2551 (85%) and LH: 440 (15%)). LH compared to OH was more common for patients >70 years-old (30% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and for minor hepatectomy (52% vs. 32%, p < 0.001) respectively. By multivariable analyses, OH was associated with similar 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI: 0.56-1.97), and overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.29), but higher rates of major postoperative complications (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.03-1.76), higher cost (median difference $6,163, 95% CI: $3229 to $9096), and longer length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference 3.04 days, 95% CI: 2.7 to 3.91).

CONCLUSION

LH was associated with lower postoperative complications, shorter LOS, which translated into lower costs to the healthcare system, without differences in postoperative mortality and survival.

Robotic hepatic parenchymal transection: a two-surgeon technique using ultrasonic dissection and irrigated bipolar coagulation

Liver transection is the most challenging part of hepatectomy due to the risk of hemorrhage which is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality and reduced long-term survival. Parenchymal ultrasonic dissection (UD) with bipolar coagulation (BPC) has been widely recognized as a safe, effective, and standard technique during open and laparoscopic hepatectomy. We here introduce our technique of robotic liver transection using UD with BPC and report on short-term perioperative outcomes. From a single-institution prospective liver surgery database, we identified patients who underwent robotic liver resection. Demographic, anesthetic, perioperative, and oncologic data were analyzed. Fifty patients underwent robotic liver resection using UD and BPC for liver malignancies (n = 42) and benign lesions (n = 8). The median age of the patients was 67 years and 28 were male. According to the difficulty scoring system, 60% (n = 30) of liver resection were considered difficult. Three cases (6%) were converted to open surgery. The median operative time was 240 min, and the median estimated blood loss was 200 ml; 2 patients required operative transfusions. The overall complication rate was 38% (grade I, 29; grade II, 15; grade III, 3; grade IV, 1). Seven patients (14%) experienced biliary leakage. The median length of hospital stay post-surgery was 7 (range 3-20) days. The R0 resection rate was 92%. Robotic parenchymal transection using UD and irrigated BPC appears a simple, safe, and effective technique. However, our results must be confirmed in larger series or in randomized controlled trials.

Laparoscopic staged colon-first resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: Perioperative and midterm outcomes from a single-center experience

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic colon-first staged resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM).

METHODS

This study included patients with metastatic CRC who underwent laparoscopic surgical staged resection for the primary tumor and CRCLM between June 2013 and December 2018. Data collection included the baseline patient's and tumor features, the perioperative and histopathologic outcomes from both surgical procedures, and the oncologic follow-up.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were eligible for the study. Three major and 22 minor laparoscopic liver resections were performed following laparoscopic CRC surgery. Five patients required conversion to laparotomy during CRCLM resection, but no conversion was needed for the colorectal procedures. The rate of severe intraoperative complications (CLASSIC grade III-IV) was 8% and 16% during CRC and CRCLM resection, respectively. Three patients (12%) developed major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) after both interventions, including one death due to intraoperative bleeding. During a median follow-up of 30 months, 15 patients were diagnosed with disease recurrence. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 33.3% and 73.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic staged resection for CRC and CRCLM is safe, feasible, and offers acceptable midterm oncological outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Stepwise development of laparoscopic liver resection skill using rubber traction technique

BACKGROUND

To improve patient safety, we standardized our surgical technique and implemented a stepwise strategy for surgeons learning to perform laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). The aim of the study is to describe how the stepwise training approach and standardized LLR affects surgical outcomes.

METHODS

Data from 272 consecutive patients who underwent LLR from January 2009 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) of surgical failures (conversion to laparotomy, blood transfusion, or Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and the CUSUM of operative time were used to determine optimal number of operations needed to achieve the best surgical outcome.

RESULTS

As the surgeon moved from simple to complex procedures, the complication rates, need for transfusions, and conversion rates did not increase over time. After 53 cases of minor LLR, a learning curve of 21 cases was achieved for right hepatectomy. Blood loss and operative time significantly improved thereafter. For minor anterolateral and posterosuperior segment resections, blood loss, and operative time significantly improved at the 37th and 31st case, respectively, given that the anterolateral segments had more complex surgeries performed.

CONCLUSION

Standardization of the operative technique and the implementation of a stepwise approach to training surgeons to perform LLRs could considerably improve surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: A comparative study from a single-centre

Background:

Technological innovations have made it possible to use laparoscopic liver resection in cases with pre-existing adhesions or cicatricial changes. However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons, especially in case of previous open liver surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) in cases of recurrent liver cancer.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 62 patients who underwent laparoscopic minor liver resection at our institution between September 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively divided into an LRLR group (n = 13) and a laparoscopic primary liver resection group (LPLR; n = 49). The two groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, surgical procedures and short-term outcomes. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs).

Results:

There was a significant intergroup difference in the hepatitis virus background, although the two groups' primary histology and pre-operative liver function were comparable. The two groups had statistically similar values for extent of resection, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, conversion to laparotomy, post-operative complications, surgical margins, time to oral intake and hospital stay. No significant differences were detected when we stratified the cases according to low and intermediate difficulty. Furthermore, there were no intergroup differences in RFS or OS in the two groups for patients with HCC and CRLM.

Conclusions:

The findings suggest that minor LRLR after OLR is safe and comparable with minor LPLR in the present study.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

How to increase the resectability of initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A surgical perspective

Although surgical resection is the only treatment of choice that can offer prolonged survival and a chance of cure in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), nearly 80% of patients are deemed to be unresectable at the time of diagnosis. Considerable efforts have been made to overcome this initial unresectability, including expanding the indication of surgery, the advent of conversion chemotherapy, and development and modification of specific surgical techniques, regulated under multidisciplinary approaches. In terms of specific surgical techniques, portal vein ligation/embolization can increase the volume of future liver remnant and thereby reduce the risk of hepatic insufficiency and death after major hepatectomy. For multiple bilobar CRLM that were traditionally considered unresectable even with preoperative chemotherapy and portal vein embolization, two-stage hepatectomy was introduced and has been adopted worldwide with acceptable short- and long-term outcomes. Recently, ALPPS (associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy) was reported as a novel variant of two-stage hepatectomy. Although issues regarding safety remain unresolved, rapid future liver remnant hypertrophy and subsequent shorter intervals between the two stages lead to a higher feasibility rate, reaching 98%. In addition, adding radiofrequency ablation and vascular resection and reconstruction techniques can allow expansion of the pool of patients with CRLM who are candidates for liver resection and thus a cure. In this review, we discuss specific techniques that may expand the criteria for resectability in patients with initially unresectable CRLM.

Outcomes of extended hepatectomy for hepatobiliary tumors. Initial experience from a non-university hepatobiliary center

INTRODUCTION

Hepatectomy is the gold standard curative treatment for hepatic neoplasms in patients with preserved liver function. Many large tumors require extended hepatectomy (EH). Possibility of developing major postoperative complications including liver failure is feared by many surgeons. We aim to describe our outcomes of EH for large hepatobiliary tumors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients undergoing hepatectomy between 2012 and 2017 were prospectively followed.

RESULTS

91 patients underwent hepatectomy with ten patients underwent EH. The majority of patients were women, age of 63, BMI of 24, and MELD score of 11. Six patients underwent an extended right hepatectomy, while four patients underwent extended left hepatectomy. Operative time was 224 min with estimated blood loss of 500 ml. No intraoperative complications were seen. Two patients experienced postoperative complications (pleural effusion in one patient and respiratory failure in another). Length of ICU stay was 2 days, and hospital stay was 5 days. 80% of the patients are currently alive with median follow-up of 41.2 months.

CONCLUSION

EH can be undertaken safely with acceptable morbidity and mortality in our center.

A meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) approach.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane library, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The Odds Ratio (ORs), the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were evaluated, by means of Random-Effects model.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the inclusion criteria and incorporated 2640 patients. This study reveals comparable mean operative time, mean operative margin size and rate of R1 resection between LLLS and OLLS. The intraoperative mean blood loss, mean length of ICU stay, mean hospital stay were significantly increased in the OLLS group (p < 0.05). Complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The incidence of grade I-II complications was similar between the two groups. The incidence of grade III-V complications was increased in the OLLS group (p = 0.008). The mean perioperative cost was similar between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

These outcomes for left lateral sectionectomy suggest that both approaches are feasible and safe. However, the results should be treated with caution given the small number of the included randomized controlled studies and potential for selection bias between the two techniques.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy in the management of posterosuperior segments of the Liver: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous guidance and consensus have well-addressed the advantages of laparoscopic procedures in the anterolateral segments of II, III, IVb and V of the liver, as for lesions located in the posterosuperior segments of I, IVa, VII and VIII is challenging but has become more practical recently due to progress in operative techniques.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LH and OH patients with tumors located in posterosuperior segments. The primary sources of the reviewed studies through April 2018, with restriction on the language of English, were Pubmed and Embase.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies qualified for inclusion in this quantified meta-analysis with a total of 647 patients. LH was associated with significantly less overall complication (OR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.28-0.65; P < 0.0001, I² = 0%) and non-significantly less severe complication significantly (P = 0.06) compared with OH. Shorter length of hospital stay of 2.08day (95%CI: -3.68day to -0.49day; P = 0.01, I² = 81%) was observed in LH. As for mortality, transfusion, R0 resection, tumor-free margin and operative time the pooled outcomes were comparable. Long-term survivals were similar between LH and OH for the posterosuperior segments.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy could be the preferred option for posterosuperior segments for selected patients. Future well designed and large studies should focus on the impacts of underlined liver chronic diseases such as cirrhosis on patient prognosis.

Image-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy in the treatment of metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of computed tomography (CT)- and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR IBT = IBT) in patients with metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Material and methods

Eleven patients with 21 unresectable metastases of histologically proven esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were included in this retrospective study. Fourteen visceral and 7 lung metastases were treated with image-guided (CT or open MRI guidance) IBT using a ¹⁹²Iridium source (single fraction irradiation). Clinical and imaging follow-up were performed every 3 months after treatment. Primary endpoint was local tumor control (LTC) and safety. Furthermore, we analyzed safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

Results

The median diameter of the target lesions was 2.2 cm (range: 0.7-6.8 cm), treated with a median D₁₀₀ of 20.1 Gy (range: 10-25 Gy). During a median follow-up of 6.3 months (range: 3-21.8 months), three patients displayed local recurrences, resulting in LTC of 85.7%. Median PFS was 3.4 months and median OS after IBT was 13.7 months. No severe adverse events (grade 3+) requiring hospitalization or invasive intervention were recorded.

Conclusions

Image-guided IBT is a safe and effective treatment in patients with metastasized esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Postoperative Bleeding After Laparoscopic Pancreaticoduodenectomy: the Achilles' Heel?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is technically demanding, and its impact on postoperative outcomes remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term outcomes between laparoscopic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) in order to assess the safety of LPD.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2014, all consecutive patients undergoing LPD or OPD at two tertiary centers were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were matched for demographics, comorbidities, pathological diagnosis, and pancreatic texture. Results for the two groups were compared for postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Sixty-five LPD were performed and compared to 290 OPD. In the whole population, postoperative pancreatic fistula (PF) was higher in the LPD group, but the proportion of ampullary adénocarcinoma (25 vs. 10%, p = 0.004) and soft pancreatic parenchyma (52 vs. 38%, p = 0.001) were higher in the LDP group. After matching (n = 65), LPD was associated with longer operative time (429 vs. 328 min, p < 0.001) and lower blood loss (370 vs. 515 mL, p = 0.047). The PF rate and its severity were similar (33 vs. 27%, p = 0.439, p = 0.083) in the two groups. However, both complications (78 vs. 71%, p = 0.030) and major complications (40 vs. 23%, p = 0.033) were more frequent in the LPD group. LPD patients experience more postoperative bleeding (21 vs. 14%, p = 0.025) compared to their open counterparts. In multivariate analysis, perioperative transfusion (OR = 5 IC 95% (1.5-16), p = 0.008), soft pancreas (OR = 2.5 IC 95% (1.4-4.6), p = 0.001), and ampullary adenocarcinoma (OR = 2.6 IC 95% (1.2-5.6), p = 0.015) were independent risks factors of major complications.

CONCLUSION

Despite lower blood loss and lower intraoperative transfusion, LPD leads to higher rate of postoperative complications with postoperative bleeding in particular.

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection (LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR (LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open (reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.

Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes Following Robotic Liver Resections for Primary Hepatobiliary Malignancies: A Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

Robotic liver surgery (RLS) has emerged as a feasible alternative to laparoscopic or open resections with comparable perioperative outcomes. Little is known about the oncologic adequacy of RLS. The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term oncologic outcomes for patients undergoing RLS for primary hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We performed an international, multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent RLS for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma (CC), or gallbladder cancer (GBC) between 2006 and 2016. Age, gender, histology, resection margin status, extent of surgical resection, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were retrospectively collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 61 included patients, 34 (56%) had RLS performed for HCC, 16 (26%) for CC, and 11 (18%) for GBC. The majority of resections were nonanatomical or segmental resections (39.3%), followed by central hepatectomy (18%), left-lateral sectionectomy (14.8%), left hepatectomy (13.1%), right hepatectomy (13.1%), and right posterior segmentectomy (1.6%). R0 resection was achieved in 94% of HCC, 68% of CC, and 81.8% of GBC patients. Median hospital stay was 5 days, and conversion to open surgery was needed in seven patients (11.5%). Grade III-IV Dindo-Clavien complications occurred in seven patients with no perioperative mortality. Median follow-up was 75 months (95% confidence interval 36-113), and 5-year OS and DFS were 56 and 38%, respectively. When stratified by tumor type, 3-year OS was 90% for HCC, 65% for GBC, and 49% for CC (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

RLS can be performed for primary hepatobiliary malignancies with long-term oncologic outcomes comparable to published open and laparoscopic data.

Minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of patients with liver damage B: A propensity score-based analysis

AIM

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is considered a safe and feasible treatment for malignant liver tumors. However, few studies have investigated the surgical outcomes of MILR in patients with impaired liver function. Liver damage is used for consideration of hepatectomy. The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of MILR for patients with impaired liver function by using propensity score matching.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients with liver damage B underwent hepatic resection were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups, the MILR group (n = 24) and the open liver resection (OLR) group (n = 75). After matching of a propensity score, we compared clinicopathological features and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

After matching, 36 patients (18 patients from each group) were selected and the patients' characteristics and tumor characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Blood loss (P = 0.0163) and complication rate (P = 0.0162) were significantly decreased in the MILR group. Complications were observed in eight patients, comprising one patient in the MILR group and seven patients in the OLR group. The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shortened in the MILR group (P = 0.0118).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive liver resection might be effective for patients with impaired liver function. It reduces surgical complications and consequently shortens hospitalization time.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Evaluation of a new energy device for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection

INTRODUCTION

THUNDERBEAT (TB) is a novel device that uses both ultrasonic and advanced bipolar energies for hemostasis. Several recent human studies have proved the safety and efficacy of TB in different surgical procedures, but there have been no similar studies about its efficacy in hepatic parenchymal transection. Therefore, the aim of the study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the TB device in laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

This retrospective study compared TB and ultrasonic Harmonic devices in 80 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection from 2010 to 2016 in our institution. To reduce the selection bias, the two groups were matched in a 1-to-2 ratio on the basis of propensity scores.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the preoperative patient characteristics between the two groups. The extent of liver resection was comparable between the groups. Although the Harmonic group's intraoperative blood loss and operative time were less than that of the TB group, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.08, P = 0.32, respectively). Postoperative complications, mortality within 90 days, and hospital stay were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

TB is as safe and effective for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic hepatectomy as ultrasonic devices, but it is not a superior alternative.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective studies with 1679 colorectal liver metastases patients were analyzed: 683 patients treated with laparoscopic liver resection and 996 patients with open liver resection. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss (MD, -216.7, 95% CI, -309.4 to -124.1; P < 0.00001), less requiring blood transfusion (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), lower postoperative complication morbidity (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization time (MD, -3.85, 95% CI, -5.00 to -2.71; P < 0.00001). However, operation time and postoperative mortality were no significant difference between the two approaches. With respect to oncological outcomes, laparoscopic liver resection group was prone to lower recurrence rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61−0.99; P = 0.04), but surgical margins R0, overall survival and disease-free survival were no significant difference.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases have the same effect on oncological outcomes, but laparoscopic liver resection achieves better surgical outcomes.