Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: an evolution in standard of care. Ann Surg. 2009;250:856-860. [PMID: 19806057 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bcaf46]

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

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

The Current Role of Single-Site Robotic Approach in Liver Resection: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a critical surgical procedure for treating various hepatic pathologies. Minimally invasive approaches have gradually gained importance, and, in recent years, the introduction of robotic surgery has transformed the surgical landscape, providing potential advantages such as enhanced precision and stable ergonomic vision. Among robotic techniques, the single-site approach has garnered increasing attention due to its potential to minimize surgical trauma and improve cosmetic outcomes. However, the full extent of its utility and efficacy in liver resection has yet to be thoroughly explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review to evaluate the current role of the single-site robotic approach in liver resection. A detailed search of PubMed was performed to identify relevant studies published up to January 2024. Eligible studies were critically appraised, and data concerning surgical outcomes, perioperative parameters, and post-operative complications were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Our review synthesizes evidence from six studies, encompassing a total of seven cases undergoing robotic single-site hepatic resection (SSHR) using various versions of the da Vinci© system. Specifically, the procedures included five left lateral segmentectomy, one right hepatectomy, and one caudate lobe resection. We provide a summary of the surgical techniques, indications, selection criteria, and outcomes associated with this approach.

CONCLUSION

The single-site robotic approach represents an option among the minimally invasive approaches in liver surgery. However, although the feasibility has been demonstrated, further studies are needed to elucidate its optimal utilization, long-term outcomes, and comparative effectiveness against the other techniques. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the current state of single-site robotic liver resection and underscores the need for continued research in this rapidly evolving field.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Safety of advanced laparoscopic hepatectomy for elderly patients: a Japanese nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Although basic laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has become the standard procedure for hepatectomy, the safety of advanced LH remains to be clarified, especially in elderly patients. We investigated the safety of advanced LH in elderly Japanese patients.

METHODS

Elderly patients (≥ 65 years) who underwent advanced LH between 2016 and 2021 were analyzed using a nationwide claims database in Japan. The perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent open hepatectomy (OH group) or LH (LH group) were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The E-value method was performed to assess the strength of the outcome point estimates against possible unmeasured confounding factors.

RESULTS

Among 5,021 patients, eligible patients were classified into the OH (n = 4,152) and LH (n = 527) groups. The median patient age was 74 years in both groups. Hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic liver tumors were the major indications for hepatectomy (OH: 52.5% versus 30.6%; LH: 60.7% versus 26.4%). After PSM, in-hospital mortality rates for OH and LH were 1.7 and 0.76%, respectively. The risk ratio was 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.16-1.25; E-value = 3.87). Compared with OH, LH was associated with a longer anesthesia time (411 versus 432 min), lower rate of blood product use (red blood concentrate: 33.5% versus 20.3%; fresh frozen plasma: 29.2% versus 17.1%), and shorter hospital stay (13 versus 12 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In elderly patients, the safety of advanced LH was similar to that of advanced OH, or might be better in Japan under the current policy of hospital accreditation.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy along the middle hepatic vein from the head side approach

Background

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) is commonly used for benign and malignant left liver lesions. We compared the benefits and drawbacks of LLH from the head side approach (LLHH) with those of conventional laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (CLLH). This study was conducted to investigate the safety and feasibility of LLHH by comparing it with CLLH.

Methods

In this study, 94 patients with tumor or hepatolithiasis who underwent LLHH (n = 39) and CLLH (n = 55) between January 2016 and January 2023 were included. The preoperative features, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

For hepatolithiasis, patients who underwent LLHH exhibited shorter operative time (p = 0.035) and less blood loss (p = 0.023) than those who underwent CLLH. However, for tumors, patients undergoing LLHH only showed shorter operative time (p = 0.046) than those undergoing CLLH. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in hospital stay, transfusion, hospital expenses, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) count, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05) for tumor or hepatolithiasis. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), no differences in both overall survival (p = 0.532) and disease-free survival (p = 0.274) were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

LLHH is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for tumors or hepatolithiasis of the left liver.

Management of potential portal vein thrombus during laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy following portal vein embolization

BACKGROUND

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is often performed prior to right hemihepatectomy (RH) to increase the future liver remnants. However, intraoperative removal of portal vein thrombus (PVT) is occasionally required. An algorithm for treating the right branch of the PV using laparoscopic RH (LRH) after PVE is lacking and requires further investigation.

METHODS

In our department, after the confirmation of a lack of extension of PVT to the main portal trunk or left branch on preoperative examination (ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography), a final evaluation was performed using intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS). Here we present the cases of eight patients who underwent LRH after PVE and examine the safety of our treatment strategies.

RESULTS

IOUS revealed PVT extension into the main portal trunk in two cases. For the other six patients without PVT extension, we continued the laparoscopic procedure. In contrast, in the two cases with PVT extension, we converted to laparotomy after hepatic transection and removed the PVT. The median operation time for hepatectomy was 562 min (421-659 min), the median blood loss was 293 mL (85-1010 mL), no liver-related postoperative complications were observed, and the median length of stay was 10 days (6-34 days).

CONCLUSIONS

PVT evaluation and removal are important in cases of LRH after PVE. Our strategy is safe and IOUS is particularly useful for laparoscopically evaluating PVT extension.

Circumstances and implications of conversion from minimally invasive to open liver resection: a multi-center analysis from the AMILES registry

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared.

RESULTS

Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p < 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p < 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p = 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

Intraoperative laparoscopic liver surface registration with preoperative CT using mixing features and overlapping region masks

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection is a minimal invasive surgery. Augmented reality can map preoperative anatomy information extracted from computed tomography to the intraoperative liver surface reconstructed from stereo 3D laparoscopy. However, liver surface registration is particularly challenging as the intraoperative surface is only partially visible and suffers from large liver deformations due to pneumoperitoneum. This study proposes a deep learning-based robust point cloud registration network.

METHODS

This study proposed a low overlap liver surface registration algorithm combining local mixed features and global features of point clouds. A learned overlap mask is used to filter the non-overlapping region of the point cloud, and a network is used to predict the overlapping region threshold to regulate the training process.

RESULTS

We validated the algorithm on the DePoLL (the Deformable Porcine Laparoscopic Liver) dataset. Compared with the baseline method and other state-of-the-art registration methods, our method achieves minimum target registration error (TRE) of 19.9 ± 2.7 mm.

CONCLUSION

The proposed point cloud registration method uses the learned overlapping mask to filter the non-overlapping areas in the point cloud, then the extracted overlapping area point cloud is registered according to the mixed features and global features, and this method is robust and efficient in low-overlap liver surface registration.

Pure abdominal laparoscopic approach versus thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic approach: What is the best technique for liver resection in segment 7 and segment 8? An answer from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris experience with short- and long-term outcome evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lesions in segments 7 and 8 are a challenge during standard laparoscopic liver resection. The addition of transthoracic trocars could be useful in the standard abdominal approach for laparoscopic liver resection. We report our experience with a thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach for liver resection with the aim of comparing short- and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed 1,003 laparoscopic liver resections in a prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We compared patient outcomes intraoperatively and postoperatively. We analyzed the long-term outcomes of the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. Propensity score matching 1:1 was performed based on the following variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, multiple or single liver resection, lesion >50 mm or <50 mm, presence of solitary or multiple lesions, T stage, and N stage.

RESULTS

The standard abdominal approach was used in 110 laparoscopic liver resections, and the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was used in 62 laparoscopic liver resections. The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was associated with better intraoperative results (less blood loss and no need for conversion to open surgery). The R1s rate for segmentectomy 7 and 8 was lower in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in the entire group and in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. In the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup, the 3- and 5-year overall survival was 90% and 80% in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach group and 76% and 52% in the standard abdominal approach group, respectively (P = .02). In univariate and multivariate analysis, the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was a significant factor that positively affected disease-free survival and overall survival.

CONCLUSION

The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in laparoscopic liver resection in segments 7 and 8 is safe and feasible, and it has demonstrated better oncologic outcomes than the pure abdominal approach, especially in segmentectomy.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation in swine

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic technology has achieved rapid development in the surgical field, it has not been applied to liver transplantation, primarily because of difficulties associated with laparoscopic vascular anastomosis. In this study, we introduced a new magnetic-assisted vascular anastomosis technique and explored its application in laparoscopic liver transplantation in pigs.

METHODS

Two sets of magnetic vascular anastomosis rings (MVARs) with different diameters were developed. One set was used for anastomosis of the suprahepatic vena cava (SHVC) and the other set was used for anastomosis of the infrahepatic vena cava (IHVC) and portal vein (PV). Six laparoscopic orthotopic liver transplantations were performed in pigs. Donor liver was obtained via open surgery. Hepatectomy was performed in the recipients through laparoscopic surgery. Anastomosis of the SHVC was performed using hand-assisted magnetic anastomosis, and the anastomosis of the IHVC and PV was performed by magnetic anastomosis with or without hand assistance.

RESULTS

Liver transplants were successfully performed in five of the six cases. Postoperative ultrasonographic examination showed that the portal inflow was smooth. However, PV bending and blood flow obstruction occurred in one case because the MVARs were attached to each other. The durations of loading of MVAR in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 13 ± 5 vs. 5 ± 1 min (P < 0.01) and 10 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 1 min (P < 0.05), respectively. The durations of MVAR anastomosis in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), and 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), respectively. The anhepatic phase was 43 ± 4 min in the laparoscope group and 23 ± 2 min in the manual assistance group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation can be successfully carried out in pigs.

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Bile Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study of 13,379 Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite many developments, postoperative bile leakage (POBL) remains a relatively common postoperative complication after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). This study aimed to assess the incidence and clinical impact of POBL in patients undergoing LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter cohort using a propensity score-matched analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all indications between January 2000 and October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed using a large, international, multicenter liver database including data from 15 tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was clinically relevant POBL (CR-POBL), defined as Grade B/C POBL.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,379 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (6,369 LLR and 7,010 OLR), with 6.0% POBL. After propensity score matching, a total of 3,563 LLR patients were matched to 3,563 OLR patients. In both groups, propensity score matching accounted for similar extent and types of resections. The incidence of CR-POBL was significantly lower in patients after LLR as compared with patients after OLR (2.6% vs 6.0%; p < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with CR-POBL, patients after LLR experienced less severe (non-POBL) postoperative complications (10.1% vs 20.9%; p = 0.028), a shorter hospital stay (12.5 vs 17 days; p = 0.001), and a lower 90-day/in-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.4%; p = 0.027) as compared with patients after OLR with CR-POBL.

CONCLUSION

Patients after LLR seem to experience a lower rate of CR-POBL as compared with the open approach. Our findings suggest that in patients after LLR, the clinical impact of CR-POBL is less than after OLR.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Early-Stage Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma After Mastering the Learning Curve: A Multicenter Data-Based Matched Study

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the only widely accepted curative method for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, little is known about the efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC, especially in patients with early-stage disease. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term and long-term effects of laparoscopy and open surgery for the treatment of ICC.

METHODS

Data from 1,084 patients treated at three hospitals from January 2011 to December 2018 were selected and analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to compare the long-term outcomes (overall survival and recurrence-free survival) and short-term outcomes (perioperative outcomes) of all-stage and early-stage patients.

RESULTS

After matching, 244 patients (122 vs. 122) in the all-stage group and 65 patients (27 vs. 38) in the early-stage group were included. The baseline of the two groups was balanced, and no significant differences were found in sex or age. The short-term results of the laparoscopic group were better than those of the open group, including less blood loss [blood loss ≥400 ml 27 (22.1%) vs. 6 (4.92%), p<0.001 for all-stage, 12 (31.6%) vs. 2 (7.41%), p=0.042 for early stage), shorter surgery [200 (141; 249) min vs. 125 (115; 222) min, p=0.025 for early stage] and shorter hospital stay [11.0 (9.00; 16.0) days vs. 9.00 (7.00; 12.0) days, p=0.001 for all stage, 11.0 (8.50; 17.8) days vs. 9.00 (6.50; 11.0) days, p=0.011 for early stage]. Regarding long-term outcomes, no significant differences were found for all-stage patients, while there were significant differences observed for the early-stage group (p=0.013 for OS, p=0.014 for RFS). For the early-stage patients, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates of the OLR group were 84.2, 65.8, and 41.1%, respectively, and those of the LLR group were 100, 90.9, and 90.9%, respectively. The RFS rates of the OLR group were 84.2, 66.7, and 41.7%, respectively, and those of the LLR group were and 92.3, 92.3, and 92.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients treated with laparoscopy seemed to have better short-term outcomes, such as less blood loss, shorter operation duration, and shorter hospital stay, than patients undergoing open surgery. Based on the long-term results, laparoscopic treatment for early ICC may have certain advantages.

A safe and simple procedure for laparoscopic hepatectomy with combined diaphragmatic resection

Diaphragmatic resection may be required beneath the diaphragm in some patients with liver tumors. Laparoscopic diaphragmatic resection is technically difficult to secure in the surgical field and in suturing. We report a case of successful laparoscopic hepatectomy with diaphragmatic resection. A 48-year-old man who underwent laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver metastasis of rectal cancer 20 months ago underwent surgery because of a new hepatic lesion that invaded the diaphragm. The patient was placed in the left hemilateral decubitus position. The liver and diaphragm attachment areas were encircled using hanging tape. Liver resection preceded diaphragmatic resection with the hanging tape in place. Two snake retractors were used to secure the surgical field for the inflow of CO₂ into the pleural space after diaphragmatic resection. The defective part of the diaphragm was repaired using continuous or interrupted sutures. Both ends of the suture were tied with an absorbable suture clip without ligation. In laparoscopic liver resection with diaphragmatic resection, the range of diaphragmatic resection can be minimized by performing liver resection using the hanging method before diaphragmatic resection. The surgical field can be secured using snake retractors. Suturing with an absorbable suture clip is conveniently feasible.

Performance of image guided navigation in laparoscopic liver surgery - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Compared to open surgery, minimally invasive liver resection has improved short term outcomes. It is however technically more challenging. Navigated image guidance systems (IGS) are being developed to overcome these challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of their current capabilities and limitations.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using free text terms and corresponding controlled vocabulary. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened for inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the retrieved data it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Therefore results are presented in tabulated and narrative format.

RESULTS

Out of 2015 articles, 17 pre-clinical and 33 clinical papers met inclusion criteria. Data from 24 articles that reported on accuracy indicates that in recent years navigation accuracy has been in the range of 8-15 mm. Due to discrepancies in evaluation methods it is difficult to compare accuracy metrics between different systems. Surgeon feedback suggests that current state of the art IGS may be useful as a supplementary navigation tool, especially in small liver lesions that are difficult to locate. They are however not able to reliably localise all relevant anatomical structures. Only one article investigated IGS impact on clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Further improvements in navigation accuracy are needed to enable reliable visualisation of tumour margins with the precision required for oncological resections. To enhance comparability between different IGS it is crucial to find a consensus on the assessment of navigation accuracy as a minimum reporting standard.

Demarcating the Exact Midplane of the Liver Using Indocyanine Green Near-Infrared Fluorescence Imaging During Laparoscopic Donor Hepatectomy

Indocyanine green (ICG) near-infrared fluoroscopy has been recently implemented in pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH). This study aims to quantitatively evaluate the effectiveness of ICG fluoroscopy during liver midplane dissection in PLDH and to demonstrate that a single injection of ICG is adequate for both midplane dissection and bile duct division. Retrospective analysis was done with images acquired from recordings of PLDH performed without ICG (pre-ICG group) from November 2015 to May 2016 and with ICG (post-ICG group) from June 2016 to May 2017. 30 donors from the pre-ICG group were compared with 46 donors from the post-ICG group. The operation time was shorter (P = 0.002) and postoperative peak aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were lower (P = 0.031 and P = 0.019, respectively) in the post-ICG group than the pre-ICG group. Within the post-ICG group, the color intensity differences between the clamped versus nonclamped regions in the natural, black-and-white, and fluorescent modes were 39.7 ± 36.2, 89.6 ± 46.9, and 19.1 ± 36.8 (mean ± SD, P < 0.001), respectively. The luminosity differences were 37.2 ± 34.5, 93.8 ± 32.1, and 26.7 ± 25.7 (P < 0.001), respectively. Meanwhile, the time from when ICG was injected to when the near-infrared camera was turned on for bile duct visualization was 85.6 ± 25.8 minutes. All grafts received from the 46 donors were successfully transplanted. In conclusion, ICG fluoroscopy helps to reduce operation time and lower postoperative AST/ALT levels. ICG injection visualized with black-and-white imaging is most effective for demarcating the liver midplane during PLDH. A single intravenous injection of ICG is sufficient for midplane dissection as well as bile duct division.

Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes

The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.

Outcomes of surgery for giant hepatic hemangioma

BACKGROUND

The surgical indications for liver hemangioma remain unclear.

METHODS

Data from 152 patients with hepatic hemangioma who underwent hepatectomy between 2004 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. We analyzed characteristics including tumor size, surgical parameters, and variables associated with Kasabach-Merritt syndrome and compared the outcomes of laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Here, we describe surgical techniques for giant hepatic hemangioma and report on two meaningful cases.

RESULTS

Most (63.8%) patients with hepatic hemangioma were asymptomatic. Most (86.4%) tumors from patients with Kasabach-Merritt syndrome were larger than 15 cm. Enucleation (30.9%), sectionectomy (28.9%), hemihepatectomy (25.7%), and the removal of more than half of the liver (14.5%) were performed through open (87.5%) and laparoscopic (12.5%) approaches. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with an operative time, estimated blood loss, and major morbidity and mortality rate similar to those of open hepatectomy, but a shorter length of stay. 3D image reconstruction is an alternative for diagnosis and surgical planning for partial hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The main indication for surgery is giant (> 10 cm) liver hemangioma, with or without symptoms. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was an effective option for hepatic hemangioma treatment. For extremely giant hemangiomas, 3D image reconstruction was indispensable. Hepatectomy should be performed by experienced hepatic surgeons.

Minimally invasive versus open radical resection surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: Comparable outcomes associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness

Background

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) provides a new approach for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA). However, whether it can achieve similar outcomes to traditional open surgery (OS) remains controversial.

Methods

To assess the safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the outcomes of MIS with OS. Seventeen outcomes were assessed.

Results

Nine studies involving 382 patients were included. MIS was comparable in blood transfusion rate, R0 resection rate, lymph nodes received, overall morbidity, severe morbidity (Clavien–Dindo classification > = 3), bile leakage rate, wound infection rate, intra-abdominal infection rate, days until oral feeding, 1-year overall survival, 2-year overall survival and postoperative mortality with OS. Although operation time was longer (mean difference (MD) = 93.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 64.10 to 122.91, P < 0.00001) and hospital cost (MD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.33, P = 0.04) was higher in MIS, MIS was associated with advantages of minimal invasiveness, that was less blood loss (MD = -81.85, 95% CI = -92.09 to -71.62, P < 0.00001), less postoperative pain (MD = -1.21, 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.79, P < 0.00001), and shorter hospital stay (MD = -4.22, 95% CI = -5.65 to -2.80, P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

The safety and feasibility of MIS for HCCA is acceptable in selected patients. MIS is a remarkable alternative to OS for providing comparable outcomes associated with a benefit of minimal invasiveness and its application should be considered more.

The effect of diabetes on major robotic hepatectomy

Studies regarding the influence of diabetes on perioperative outcomes after major hepatectomy are conflicting. The objective of this study is to analyze the effects of diabetes on patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy. With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, 94 patients undergoing major hepatectomy were prospectively followed. Demographic data and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Patients were of age 62 (61 ± 13.0) years, BMI of 29 (29 ± 5.9) kg/m², and ASA class of 3 (3 ± 0.55). The mass size was 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm. Operative duration was 252 (277 ± 106.6) min with estimated blood loss (EBL) was 175 (249 ± 275.9) mL. One operation was converted to 'open' due to bleeding, accounting for one intraoperative complication. Postoperatively, nine patients required ICU admission, with a duration of 1 (4 ± 5.9) day. Seven patients had postoperative complications. Length of stay (LOS) was 4 (4 ± 2.6) days. Fourteen patients were readmitted within 30 days. There were no deaths in-hospital or within 30 days. Of the 94 patients, 22 were diabetic and 72 were nondiabetic. Diabetic patients were older (70 (69 ± 11.3) years versus 58 (58 ± 12.4) years (p = 0.004)). Intraoperatively, operative duration, EBL, and complications were not significantly different. Postoperatively, LOS, ICU admission, ICU duration, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmission in 30 days, and death after 30 days showed no significant difference between diabetics and nondiabetics. In our experience, diabetes has no significant effect on perioperative outcomes after a robotic major hepatectomy.

The Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Technology in Right Posterior Sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been accepted widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery, but laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of LRPS by comparing it with open surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2014 and July 2019, 51 patients who underwent right posterior sectionectomy were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative data. LRPS showed significantly less blood loss (P=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (P=0.002) than open right posterior sectionectomy, but hospital expenses (P=0.382), operative time (P=0.196), surgical margin (P=0.311), the rate of other complications, and the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and total bilirubin showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P>0.05). For hepatocellular carcinoma, the results showed there were no differences in both disease-free survival (P=0.220) and overall survival (P=0.417) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that LRPS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure that is efficient from an oncological point of view. It may be the preferred choice for lesions in the right posterior hepatic lobe.

Operative Time, Age, and Serum Albumin Predict Surgical Morbidity After Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Background. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has emerged as a considerable alternative to conventional liver surgery. However, the increasing complexity of liver resection raises the incidence of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for postoperative morbidity in a monocentric cohort of patients undergoing LLR. Methods. All consecutive patients who underwent LLR between 2015 and 2019 at our institution were analyzed for associations between complications with demographics and clinical and operative characteristics by multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. Our cohort comprised 156 patients who underwent LLR with a mean age of 60.0 ± 14.4 years. General complications and major perioperative morbidity were observed in 19.9% and 9.6% of the patients, respectively. Multivariable analysis identified age>65 years (HR = 2.56; P = .028) and operation time>180 minutes (HR = 4.44; P = .001) as significant predictors of general complications (Clavien ≥1), while albumin<4.3 g/dl (HR = 3.66; P = .033) and also operative time (HR = 23.72; P = .003) were identified as predictors of major postoperative morbidity (Clavien ≥3). Conclusion. Surgical morbidity is based on patient- (age and preoperative albumin) and procedure-related (operative time) characteristics. Careful patient selection is key to improve postoperative outcomes after LLR.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) have been increasingly performed in recent years. However, the majority of MILRs are actually minor or limited resections of peripheral lesions. Due to the technical complexity major hepatectomies remain challenging for minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomies (MIRHs) with contemporary patients undergoing open right hepatectomies (ORHs) METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to anatomic right hepatectomies between January 2013 and December 2018 in two tertiary referral centers were studied. Study groups were compared on an intention-to-treat basis after propensity score matching (PSM). Overall survival (OS) analyses were performed for the entire cohort and specific etiologies subgroups RESULTS: During study period 178 right hepatectomies were performed. After matching, 37 patients were included in MIRH group and 60 in ORH group. The groups were homogenous for all baseline characteristics. MIRHs had significant lower blood loss (400 ml vs. 500 ml, P = 0.01), lower rate of minor complications (13.5% vs. 35%, P = 0.03) and larger resection margins (10 mm vs. 5 mm, P = 0.03) when compared to ORHs. Additionally, a non-significant decrease in hospital stay (ORH 9 days vs. MIRH 7 days, P = 0.09) was observed. No differences regarding the use of Pringle's maneuver, operative time, overall morbidity or perioperative mortality were observed. OS was similar between the groups (P = 0.13). Similarly, no difference in OS was found in subgroups of patients with primary liver tumors (P = 0.09) and liver metastasis (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRHs are feasible and safe in experienced hands. Minimally invasive approach was associated with less blood loss, a significant reduction in minor perioperative complications, and did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

Improved outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Minor laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is currently becoming standard treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) while major LLR is still challenging. Recent advancement of surgical techniques has enabled surgeons to perform major LLR. This study compared the outcomes of major LLR for HCC before and after the adaptation of technological improvements.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 141 patients who underwent major LLR for HCC from January 2004 to July 2018.32 open conversion cases were excluded. We divided the patients into two groups according to the date of operation: Group 1 (n = 38) and Group 2 (n = 71) who underwent major LLR before and after 2012, when advanced techniques including the use of intercostal trocars, Pringle maneuver, and semi-lateral position of patient were introduced. We also compared these patients including open conversion cases (n = 141) with those who underwent major open liver resection (OLR; n = 131) during the same period.

RESULTS

Mean operative time (413.0 min vs 331.0 min; P = 0.009), transfusion rate (31.6% vs 11.3%, P = 0.009) and hospital stay (9.8 days vs 8.5 days; P = 0.001) were significantly less in Group 2. Intraoperative blood loss (1269.7 ml vs 844.5 ml; P = 0.341) and postoperative complication (15.8% vs 23.9%; P = 0.320) were not significantly different between the groups. Although tumor size in OLR group and type of resection was different, transfusion rate (36.6% vs 24.1%; P = 0.026), postoperative complication (41.2% vs 25.5%; P = 0.007), and hospital stay (17.2 days vs 10.0 days; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in LLR group.

CONCLUSION

Development of surgical techniques have gradually improved the surgical outcomes of the laparoscopic major liver resection.

Colorectal liver metastases: Current management and future perspectives

The liver is the commonest site of metastatic disease for patients with colorectal cancer, with at least 25% developing colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of their illness. The management of CRLM has evolved into a complex field requiring input from experienced members of a multi-disciplinary team involving radiology (cross sectional, nuclear medicine and interventional), Oncology, Liver surgery, Colorectal surgery, and Histopathology. Patient management is based on assessment of sophisticated clinical, radiological and biomarker information. Despite incomplete evidence in this very heterogeneous patient group, maximising resection of CRLM using all available techniques remains a key objective and provides the best chance of long-term survival and cure. To this end, liver resection is maximised by the use of downsizing chemotherapy, optimisation of liver remnant by portal vein embolization, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and combining resection with ablation, in the context of improvements in the functional assessment of the future remnant liver. Liver resection may safely be carried out laparoscopically or open, and synchronously with, or before, colorectal surgery in selected patients. For unresectable patients, treatment options including systemic chemotherapy, targeted biological agents, intra-arterial infusion or bead delivered chemotherapy, tumour ablation, stereotactic radiotherapy, and selective internal radiotherapy contribute to improve survival and may convert initially unresectable patients to operability. Currently evolving areas include biomarker characterisation of tumours, the development of novel systemic agents targeting specific oncogenic pathways, and the potential re-emergence of radical surgical options such as liver transplantation.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score‑based analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: What Are the Advantages in Patients with Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Personal Experience

Background: Laparoscopic surgery is a choice of treatment for liver diseases; it can decrease postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension may benefit from minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) instead of open liver resections (OLRs). Whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional ones is still a matter of debate. We thus aimed to gather the available literature on this specific topic to achieve greater clarity. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Sciences databases were assessed for studies comparing OLRs versus MILRs for HCC in cirrhotic patients up to February 2020. Data from our surgical experience from June 2010 to February 2020 were also included. Demographic characteristics, liver function, the presence of portal hypertension, tumor number, and tumor size and location were assessed; operative time, need for Pringle maneuver, estimated blood loss (EBL), major or minor hepatectomy performance, and conversion rate were evaluated for operative findings. Postoperative outcomes and liver-related complications, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, blood transfusion (BT) rate, need for reintervention, LOS, in-hospital or 30-day mortality, and radicality of resection were also considered. Meta-analysis was performed employing Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: One thousand three hundred twenty-one patients from 13 studies and our own series were considered in the meta-analysis. At preoperative settings, the OLR and MILR groups differed significantly only by tumor size (4.4 versus 3.0, P = .006). Laparoscopic procedures resulted significantly faster (120.32-330 minutes versus 146.8-342.75 minutes, P = .002) and with lower EBL than open ones (88-483 mL versus 200-580 mL, P < .00001), thus requiring less BTs (7.9% versus 13.2%, P = .02). In terms of overall morbidity, minimally invasive surgeries resulted significantly favorable (19.32% versus 38.04%, P < .00001), as well as for ascites (2.7% versus 12.9% P < .00001), postoperative liver failure (7.51% versus 13.61% P = .009), and SSI (1.8% versus 5.42%, P = .002). Accordingly, patients who had undergone MILRs had significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than patients who underwent conventional open surgery (2.4-36 days versus 4.2-19 days P < .00001). Both groups did not differ in terms of mortality rate and radicality of resection (OLR 93.8% versus 96.1% laparoscopic liver resection, P = .12). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence in the literature, laparoscopic resections rather than open liver ones for HCC surgery in cirrhotic patients seem to reduce postoperative overall morbidity, liver-specific complications, and LOS. The lack of randomized studies on this topic precludes the possibility of achieving defining statements.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely in liver disease due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) has been reported rarely. We aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of LCLR by comparing it with open liver surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent LCLR and open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) between January 2015 and August 2019. Twenty-two patients were involved in this study and divided into LCLR (n = 10) and OCLR (n = 12) groups based on preoperative imaging, tumor characteristics, and blood and liver function test. Patient demographic data and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant inter-group differences between gender, age, preoperative liver function, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities (P > 0.05). The LCLR showed significantly less blood loss (50 vs. 300 ml, respectively; P = 0.004), shorter length of hospital stay (15 vs. 16 days, respectively; P = 0.034), and shorter operative time (216.50 vs. 372.78 min, respectively; P = 0.012) than OCLR, but hospital expenses (5.02 vs. 6.50 WanRMB, respectively; P = 0.208) showed no statistical difference between groups. There was no statistical difference in postoperative bile leakage (P = 0.54) and wound infection (P = 0.54) between LCLR and OCLR. Neither LCLR nor OCLR resulted in bleeding or liver failure after operation. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSION

LCLR is a very useful technology, and it is a feasible choice in selected patients with benign and malignant tumors in the caudate lobe.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

No alteration of Cyp3A4 activity after major hepatectomy in the early postoperative period - A prospective before-after study

BACKGROUND

The impact of major liver resection (LR) on the detoxifying function of the remaining liver tissue as represented by CYP3A activity has yet to be assessed. Therefore, this study evaluates the changes in CYP3A activity between preoperative values and after liver resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To determine CYP3A activity, midazolam (MDZ) was used as a marker substance, 3 μg were applied intravenously one day before surgery and on the 3rd day after surgery. Subsequently blood was withdrawn at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3, 4 and 6 h post application of the study drug. Plasma MDZ and 1-OH-MDZ concentration was assessed using a LC-MS/MS method. Volumetric analysis of the resected liver was done by syngo.CT liver analysis software (Siemens Healthineers) using preoperative multidetector computed tomography.

RESULTS

N = 13 (8 male/5 female) patients were included in this study and received preoperative evaluation, 11 patients were studied also after liver resection. The mean age was 62 (±15.3) years with a mean BMI of 23.6 ± 4.8 kg/m². No patient suffered from acute liver dysfunction postoperatively. None of the pharmacokinetic parameters assessed were significantly altered by liver resection. CYP3A activity over time was not significantly reduced by major liver resection.

CONCLUSION

This study gives first time data on the impact of major liver resection on CYP3A activity. It was shown that MDZ clearance representing in vivo CYP3A activity is not altered by major liver resection. This suggests no dose adjustment of commonly applied drugs which are CYP3A substrates needs to be carried out.

A propensity-matched study of full laparoscopic versus hand-assisted minimal-invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The implications of multi-incision (MILS) and hand-assisted (HALS) laparoscopic techniques for minimally invasive liver surgery with regard to perioperative outcomes are not well defined. The purpose of this study was to compare MILS and HALS using propensity score matching.

METHODS

309 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) between January 2013 and June 2018. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after a 1:1 propensity score match. Subgroup analyses of matched groups, i.e., radical lymphadenectomy (LAD) as well as resections of posterosuperior segments (VII and/or VIII), were performed.

RESULTS

MILS was used in 187 (65.2%) and HALS in 100 (34.8%) cases, with a significant decrease of HALS resections over time (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, previous abdominal surgery and cirrhosis between both groups. Patients scheduled for HALS were characterized by a significantly higher rate of malignant tumors (p < 0.001) and major resections (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching (PMS), 70 cases remained in each group and all preoperative variables as well as resection extend were well balanced. A significantly higher rate of radical LAD (p = 0.039) and posterosuperior resections was found in the HALS group (p = 0.021). No significant differences between the matched groups were observed regarding operation time, conversion rate, frequency of major complications, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, overall hospital stay and R1 rate.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests MILS and HALS to be equivalent regarding postoperative outcomes. HALS might be particularly helpful to accomplish complex surgical procedures during earlier stages of the learning curve.

Laparoscopic liver resection in cirrhotics: feasibility and short-term outcomes compared to non-cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly common worldwide but its suitability in patients with cirrhosis is not clearly defined. There are minimal data in the western literature on this topic and previous work has compared LLR to open hepatectomy rather than to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients. This study compared short-term outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic patients to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of minor LLR at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from January 2006 to January 2018 was conducted. Patients were stratified by whether they had cirrhosis - defined as per radiological appearances and liver function tests. Variables of interest included baseline clinicopathological information with short-term outcomes (length of stay and complications) regarded as the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Out of 1207 liver resections in the study period, there were 120 LLR with 30 patients having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be male and have higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (3 versus 2; P < 0.01). The most common operation was left lateral sectionectomy (n = 67). There was no difference in duration of surgery (cirrhosis 88 min versus no cirrhosis 99 min; P = 0.64) and patients in the cirrhosis arm had no conversions to open (0% versus 12%; P = 0.06). There was no difference in complications (12% versus 13%; P = 0.75) or median length of stay (4 versus 4 days; P = 0.14) and no difference in survival between both groups.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, LLR is feasible in patients with cirrhosis and provides comparable outcomes to non-cirrhotic patients undergoing LLR.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been accepted widely owing to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (LRH) has rarely been reported. We aimed to compare the benefits and drawbacks of LRH and open approaches. Between January 2014 and October 2017, 85 patients with tumor and hepatolithiasis who underwent LRH (n = 30) and open right hemihepatectomy (ORH) (n = 55) were enrolled in this study. For tumors, LRH showed significantly better results with respect to blood loss (P = 0.024) and duration of hospital stay (P = 0.008) than ORH, while hospital expenses (P = 0.031) and bile leakage rate (P = 0.012) were higher with LRH. However, the operative time and rate of other complications were not significantly different between the two groups. However, for hepatolithiasis, there was less blood loss (P = 0.015) and longer operative time (P = 0.036) with LRH than with ORH. There were no significant difference between LRH and ORH in terms of hospital stay, hospital expenses, and complication rate (P > 0.05). Moreover, the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase level, aspartate aminotransferase level, and total bilirubin were not significantly different in both types of patients (P > 0.05). Our results suggest the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology for right hemihepatectomy in both tumor and hepatolithiasis patients.

Evaluating the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study between standard and learning curve CUSUM

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) requires training in both hepatobiliary surgery and advanced laparoscopy. Available data on LLR learning curves are derived from pioneer surgeons. The aims of this study were to evaluate the LLR learning curve for second generation surgeons, and to compare different CUSUM methodology with and without risk adjustment.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 111 consecutive patients who underwent LLR by two surgeons at a single centre between 2011 and 2016. The LLR learning curve for minor hepatectomy (MH) was evaluated for each surgeon using standard CUSUM before and after risk-adjusting for operative difficulty using the Iwate index, and compared with Learning Curve (LC) CUSUM. The end points were operative time and conversion rate.

RESULTS

Standard CUSUM analysis identified a learning curve of 50-60 MH procedures. The corresponding learning curve reduced to 25-30 after risk-adjusting for operative difficulty, whilst LC-CUSUM identified a learning curve of 17-25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for laparoscopic minor liver resection by second generation surgeons is shorter than that for pioneer surgeons. Laparoscopic HPB fellowship programmes may further shorten the learning curve, facilitating safe expansion of LLR. The LC-CUSUM method is an alternative technique that warrants further study.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Experience of 436 Cases in One Center

BACKGROUND

To report experience of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in one center.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 436 consecutive LLRs in 411 patients between December 2010 and December 2016. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, we divided the 436 cases into two groups: Simple Group (n = 203) and Difficult Group (n = 233).

RESULTS

The indications were HCC (n = 194), colorectal cancer liver metastasis (n = 156), benign tumors (n = 62), hepatolithiasis (n = 2), and other malignant lesions (n = 22). The median tumor size was 24 mm (range 3 to 130). Procedures of LLR included wedge resection (n = 230), one segmentectomy (n = 8), two segmentectomies (n = 12), left lateral sectionectomy (n = 75), right hepatectomy (n = 52), left hepatectomy (n = 31), extended right hepatectomy (n = 2), extended left hepatectomy (n = 5), central bisectionectomy (n = 3), right posterior sectionectomy (n = 12), and right anterior sectionectomy (n = 6). The median operative time was 228 min (range 9-843) and median blood loss was 150 ml (range 2-3500). Twenty-five cases required blood transfusion (5.7%). Conversion to open surgery was required in six cases (1.4%). The mean length of stay was 6.4 ± 2.9 days. Overall complication rate was 9.4% and major complication rate was 5%. One patient died of liver failure on the thirtieth postoperative day after a right hepatectomy. We had higher median blood loss (200 vs. 100 ml; p < 0.001), higher transfusion rate (8.2 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.020), longer median operative time (297 vs. 164 min; p < 0.001), higher conversion rate (2.6 vs. 0%; p = 0.021), higher complication rate (14.2 vs. 3.9%; p < 0.001), and longer mean postoperative hospital stay (6.8 ± 2.9 vs. 5.9 ± 3.0 days; p < 0.001) in the Difficult Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe for selected patients in the Difficult Group. On the basis of the 2008 Louisville Statement, selection criteria of LLR are helpful to predict the difficulty of the operation and the postoperative outcomes of LLR.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection.

RESULTS

Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692).

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted/Hybrid Major Hepatectomy at Two Western Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is expanding, but little data exist comparing surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLAP) has advantages over hand-assisted (HALS) or hybrid (HYB) resection for major hemi-hepatectomy at two western centers.

METHODS

Using propensity score matching, 65 cases of HALS + HYB (18 hand-assisted and 47 hybrid) were matched to 65 cases of PLAP. Baseline characteristics were well matched for gender, age, ASA score, Childs A cirrhosis, right/left hepatectomy, malignancy, tumor size, and type between the groups.

RESULTS

The HALS + HYB group had 27 right and 38 left major hepatectomies (n = 65) versus 29 right and 36 left (n = 65) in the PLAP group (p = NS). The median number of lesions resected was 1 in each group, with median size 5.6 cm (HALS + HYB) versus 6.0 cm (PLAP), (p = NS). The HALS + HYB group had shorter OR time (240 versus 330 min, p < 0.01), and less blood loss (EBL 150 ml vs. 300 ml, p < 0.01) versus the PLAP group, respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days with HALS + HYB versus 5 days in the PLAP group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in use of the Pringle maneuver, transfusion rate, ICU stay, post-op morbidity, liver-specific complications, or R0 resection. Pain regimen/usage in each group is provided. There were no 30/90-day deaths in either group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported series of propensity score matching of HALS + HYB versus PLAP for major hepatectomy. The HALS + HYB group had non-inferior OR time, blood loss, and LOS versus the PLAP group, while the other perioperative parameters were comparable. We conclude that minimally invasive liver resection with either PLAP or HALS + HYB technique yields excellent results.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the results between laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy in two French university hospitals, for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity score matching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic surgery group (LA) was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach group (OA) using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. Matching criteria included age, presence of comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and resection type (major or minor). Patients of the LA group without matches were excluded. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared in both groups. Survival was compared in both groups using the following matching criteria: number and size of lesions, alpha-fetoprotein rate, and cell differentiation.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2017, a total of 447 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, 99 hepatectomies of which were performed for the management of hepatocellular carcinomas. Forty-nine resections were performed among the open approach (OA) group (49%), and 50 resections were performed among the laparoscopic surgery (LA) group (51%). Mortality rate was 2% in the LA group and 4.1% in the OA group. After propensity score matching, there was a statistical difference favorable to the LA group regarding medical complications (54.55% versus 27.27%, p = 0.04), and operating times were shorter (p = 0.03). Resection rate R0 was similar between both groups: 90.91% (n = 30) in the LA group and 84.85% (n =) in the OA group. There was no difference regarding overall survival (p = 0.98) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for the management of HCC seems to provide the same short-term and long-term results as compared to the open approach. Laparoscopic liver resections could be considered as an alternative and become the gold standard in well-selected patients.

Early experience of laparoscopic liver resection: A single institution experience with 37 consecutive cases

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved and broadened in scope. While open liver resections are currently being performed safely in our hospital, LLRs are being implemented in fewer cases. The aim of this study was to review our initial experience in LLR to assess early outcomes of the procedure.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for 37 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resections for various indications between January 2014 and July 2017 by a single surgeon who had performed 161 open liver resections and 50 live donor hepatectomies during the same period.

Results

Of 37 laparoscopic liver resections performed, male to female ratio was 23 to 4. Their mean age was 61.4 years. There were 13 cases of wedge resections, 7 cases of left lateral sectionectomy, 9 cases of left hepatectomy, and 8 cases of right hepatectomy. Pathology included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=20), cholangiocarcinoma (n=3), intrahepatic duct stones (n=6), metastatic liver carcinoma (n=6), primary neuroendocrine tumor of liver (n=1), and huge hemangioma (n=1). The mean operation time was 174.7 minutes (range, 40–410 minutes). Mean blood loss was 200.5 ml (range, 10–2200 ml). There were no open-conversion cases. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications except that a case of severe portal vein stenosis in the laparoscopic right hepatectomy occurred postoperatively. The patient underwent reoperation (portal vein resection and anastomosis, stenting). The mean hospital stay was 8.7 days (range, 2–44 days).

Conclusions

Even though our experience in laparoscopic liver resection is still developing, our results are comparable to those of other studies. Therefore, an experienced surgeon in performing open liver resection should be able to perform the laparoscopic liver resection safely.

A Single Center Experience for a Feasibility of Totally Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy

Purpose

Donor safety is the most important problem of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Although laparoscopic liver resection has gained popularity with increased surgical experience and the development of laparoscopes and specialized instruments, a totally laparoscopic living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) technique has not been investigated for efficacy and feasibility. We describe the experiences and outcomes associated with LDRH in adult-to-adult LDLT in order to assess the safety of the totally laparoscopic technique in donors.

Methods

Between May 2016 and July 2017, we performed hepatectomies in 22 living donors using a totally laparoscopic approach. Among them, 20 donors underwent LDRH. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records to ascertain donor safety and the reproducibility of LDRH; intra-operative and post-operative results including complications were demonstrated after performing LDRH.

Results

The median donor age was 29 years old and the median body mass index was 22.6 kg/m². The actual graft weight was 710 g and graft weight/body weight (GRWR) was 1.125. No donors required blood transfusion, conversion to open surgery, or reoperation. The postoperative mortality was nil and postoperative complications were identified in two donors. One had fluid collection in the supra-pubic incision site for graft retrieval and the second had a minor bile leakage from the cutting edge of the right hepatic duct stump. All the liver function tests returned to normal ranges within one month.

Conclusion

LDRH is a feasible operation owing to low blood loss and few complications. However, LDRH can be initially attempted after attaining sufficient experience in laparoscopic hepatectomy and LDLT techniques.