Pure laparoscopic versus open liver resection in treatment of hepatolithiasis within the left lobes: A randomized trial study. Surgical Laparoscopy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25:392-394. [PMID: 25793351 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0000000000000120]

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for liver resection: a multicenter cohort study

The relative risk and benefits of Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are still controversial. This study aimed to evaluate perioperative and survival outcomes for three primary malignant liver tumors related outcomes following LLR. Data from three Homogeneous-High-Volume-Expert-Centers were collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for the association between LLR, and major complications defined as Clavien-Dindo Classification grade ≥ II. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to explore the impact of LLR on primary malignant liver tumor survival. Overall, 5886 patients underwent liver resection, of which 1991 underwent LLR. After adjusting for covariables, LLR had significantly lower rate of CDC grade ≥ II (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.48-0.67, P < 0.001). Interaction analysis showed that LLR had significant association with sex, drinking status, history of abdominal surgery, and platelet count (all P < 0.05). The overall survival for each primary malignant liver tumor shown potential risk but without significantly different between LLR and OLR (all P > 0.05). LLR was associated with lower rate of major complications, especially in women, non-drinkers, those without a history of abdominal surgery, and those with normal platelet. For primary malignant liver tumors, the survival outcomes did not differ significantly between LLR and OLR.

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.

Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value.

RESULTS

A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Operative and Hepatic Function Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liver resection is a pivotal treatment for various liver diseases, and the choice between laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) methods is debatable. This study aims to compare their respective complications and hepatic outcomes comprehensively, providing critical insights to guide clinical decisions and optimize patient results. We conducted a comprehensive review across PubMed, SCOPUS, WOS, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) liver resections were included. Data screening, extraction, and quality assessments utilized the Risk of Bias (ROB-2). We conducted our analysis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) software, and the data were presented as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our comprehensive research yielded 3,192 relevant records, and 9 RCTs were finally included. LR exhibited reduced operative bleeding (MD = -82.87 ml, 95% CI: -132.45 to -33.30, P=0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD = -2.32 days, 95% CI: -3.65 to -0.98, P=0.0007). The risk of complications was significantly lower in the LR group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76, P<0.0001), especially in Clavian-Dindo classification degree 1 and 2 complications (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.79, P=0.005). LR patients also had lower postoperative AST levels at one day (MD = -123.16 U/L, 95% CI: -206.08 to -40.24, P=0.004) and three days (MD = -35.95 U/L, 95% CI: -65.83 to -6.06, P=0.02). These findings underscore LR's superiority, emphasizing its potential to significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce complications, and improve recovery in liver resection procedures.

Impact of liver cirrhosis, the severity of cirrhosis, and portal hypertension on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension on perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies remains unclear. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients with preserved and compromised liver function (noncirrhotics versus Child-Pugh A) when undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies. In addition, we aimed to determine if the extent of cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A versus B) and the presence of portal hypertension had a significant impact on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

This was an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,526 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies at 60 centers worldwide between 2004 and 2021. In the study, 1,370 patients met the inclusion criteria and formed the final study group. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. To minimize confounding factors, 1:1 propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching were performed.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 559, 753, and 58 patients who did not have cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A, and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, respectively. Six-hundred and thirty patients with cirrhosis had portal hypertension, and 170 did not. After propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching, Child-Pugh A patients with cirrhosis undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies had longer operative time, higher intraoperative blood loss, higher transfusion rate, and longer hospital stay than patients without cirrhosis. The extent of cirrhosis did not significantly impact perioperative outcomes except for a longer duration of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Liver cirrhosis adversely affected the intraoperative technical difficulty and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies.

Implementation and Outcome of Robotic Liver Surgery in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve.

BACKGROUND

RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss.

RESULTS

Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

New clinical pathological classification and treatment system for hepatolithiasis

Hepatolithiasis is a complex disease with extensive lesions. There are currently many clinical classifications available. However, these classifications cannot accurately reflect the pathological changes and degree of hepatolithiasis, and are not conducive to communication. Various methods are used for treatment of hepatolithiasis, but they are often misused. We tried to establish a new HLDO classification based on the clinicopathological characteristics of hepatolithiasis and a treatment system based on this classification, so as to comprehensively and accurately describe the pathological changes and degree, scientifically and reasonably treat it, and reduce its residual stone rate and recurrence rate.

International multicenter propensity score matched study on laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of high-level evidence, current guidelines recommend laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) as the routine approach over open LLS (OLLS). Randomized studies and propensity score matched studies on LLLS vs OLLS for all indications, including malignancy, are lacking.

METHODS

This international multicenter propensity score matched retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing LLLS or OLLS in six centers from three European countries (January 2000-December 2016). Propensity scores were calculated based on nine preoperative variables and LLLS and OLLS were matched in a 1:1 ratio. Short-term operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included. Out of 200 LLLS, 139 could be matched to 139 OLLS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. LLLS was associated with shorter operative time (144 (110-200) vs 199 (138-283) minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 (50-300) vs 350 (100-750) mL, P = 0.005) and a 3-day shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 (3-7) vs 7 (5-9) days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter propensity score matched study confirms the superiority of LLLS over OLLS based on shorter postoperative hospital stay, operative time, and less blood loss thus validating current guideline advice.

Robotic ICG guided anatomical liver resection in a multi-centre cohort: an evolution from "positive staining" into "negative staining" method

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major anatomical liver resection is challenging. The robotic liver resection (RLR) approach, with Firefly indocyanine green (ICG) imaging, was proposed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy. The aim of this multi-centre international study was to evaluate the use of Firefly ICG imaging in anatomical RLR.

METHODS

A retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing RLR anatomical resection with intra-operative ICG administration from January 2015 to July 2018 were enrolled. Patients who underwent simultaneous or en-bloc resections of other organs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were recruited of which 32 patients were healthy donors, 17 with malignancy and 3 for benign conditions. 12 patients had cirrhosis. 28 patients underwent a right hepatectomy (53.8%) with left hepatectomy performed with 18 patients. 40 patients underwent negative staining and 12 patients via direct portal vein injection for positive staining. ICG demarcation line was visualized in 43 patients and was clearer than the ischaemic demarcation line in 29 patients. All resections for malignancy had clear margins. There were no 30-day/inpatient mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Robotic ICG guided hepatectomy technique for anatomical liver resection is safe, feasible and has the benefit for improved visualization in healthy donors and cirrhotic patients.

Application of Laparoscopic Technique in the Treatment of Hepatolithiasis

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

Long-term abdominal wall benefits of the laparoscopic approach in liver left lateral sectionectomy: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is nowadays considered as the standard approach for hepatic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), but its value in the prevention of incisional hernia (IH) has not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, patients undergoing laparoscopic (LLLS) or open LLS (OLLS) in 8 centers were compared. Patients undergoing a simultaneous major abdominal procedure were excluded. The incidence of IH was assessed clinically and morphologically on computed tomography (CT) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

After IPTW, 84 LLLS were compared to 48 OLLS. Compared to OLLS, LLLS patients had reduced blood loss (100 [IQR: 50-200] ml vs. 150 [IQR: 50-415] ml, p = 0.023) and shorter median hospital stay (5 [IQR: 4-7] days vs. 7 [6-9] days, p < 0.001), but experienced similar rate of postoperative complications (mean comprehensive complication index: 12 ± 19 after OLLS versus 13 ± 20 after LLLS, p = 0.968). Long-term radiological screening was performed with a median follow-up of 27.4 (12.1-44.9) months. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of clinically relevant IH (10.7% [n = 9] after LLLS, 8.3% [n = 4] after OLLS, p = 0.768). The rate of IH detected on computed tomography was lower after LLLS than after OLLS (11.9% [n = 10] versus 29.2% [n = 14], p = 0.013). On multivariable analysis, the laparoscopic approach was the only independent factor influencing the risk of morphological IH (OR = 0.290 [95% CI: 0.094-0.891], p = 0.031). The 2 preferential sites for specimen extraction after LLLS were Pfannenstiel and midline incisions, with rates of IH across the extraction site of 2.3% [n = 1/44] and 23.8% [n = 5/21], respectively (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for LLS decreases the risk of long-term IH as evidenced on morphological examinations, with limited clinical impact. Pfannenstiel's incision should be preferred to midline incision for specimen extraction after LLLS.

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.

Total laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Background:

There have been an increasing number of articles that demonstrate the potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from retrospective observational studies susceptible to bias, especially selection bias. In addition, in many series, several modalities of minimally invasive surgery are included in the same comparison group.

Aim:

To compare the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of patients submitted to total laparoscopic liver resection with those submitted to open liver resection, matched by propensity score matching (PSM).

Method:

Consecutive adult patients submitted to liver resection were included. PSM model was constructed using the following variables: age, gender, diagnosis (benign vs. malignant), type of hepatectomy (minor vs. major), and presence of cirrhosis. After matching, the groups were redefined on a 1:1 ratio, by the nearest method.

Results:

After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. Those undergoing total laparoscopic surgery had shorter operative time (286.8±133.4 vs. 352.4±141.5 minutes, p<0.001), shorter ICU stay (1.9±1.2 vs. 2.5±2.2days, p=0.031), shorter hospital stay (5.8±3.9 vs. 9.9±9.3 days, p<0.001) and a 45% reduction in perioperative complications (19.2 vs. 35%, p=0.008).

Conclusion:

Total laparoscopic liver resections are safe, feasible and associated with shorter operative time, shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lower rate of perioperative complications.

Surgical technique and clinical results of one- or two-stage laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after portal vein embolization in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A case series

BACKGROUND

The use of the laparoscopic approach in one-stage or second-step of two-stage right hemihepatectomy (RHH) after portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) is technically demanding. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. This paper reports our experience, results, techniques and variety of tips and tricks (highlighted in the attached video), to facilitate this resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of laparoscopic liver surgery within our unit at a tertiary referral centre between August 2003 and March 2019 was reviewed. Patients with initially unresectable CRLMs who underwent laparoscopic RHH or extended RHH after PVE in the context of a one or two-stage procedure were included.

RESULTS

Between August 2003 and March 2019, 19 patients with initially unresectable CRLMs underwent laparoscopic RHH after PVE. Twelve patients (63.2%) had RHH in the context of a two-stage hepatectomy and 7 as a one-stage procedure. Median time interval between PVE and surgery was 42.5 days (IQR, 34.5-60.0 days). Mean operating time was 351.8 ± 80.5 minutes. Median blood loss was 850 mL (IQR, 475-1350 mL). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2 of 19 cases (10.5%). Severe postoperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients. The mortality rate was 5.3%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR, 4-7 days). Radical resection was obtained in eighteen patients (94.7%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RHH after PVE in the context of a one- or two-stage resection in patients with initially unresectable CRLMs is a safe and feasible procedure with favourable oncological outcomes.

The efficacy and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in laparoscopic digestive system surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program has been applied to a variety of surgeries. However, the efficacy and safety of the ERAS program in laparoscopic digestive system surgery remain unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the ERAS program and traditional perioperative care (TPC) in laparoscopic digestive system surgery.

METHODS

We searched five electronic databases for eligible trials. STATA version 14.0 and Revman version 5.3 were used to analyze the data. The results were presented and analyzed by weighted mean difference (WMD) and risk ratio (RR) at their 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of 2219 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results revealed that the postoperative hospital stay (PHS) (WMD: 2.13 day, 95% CI: 2.56 to -1.70, p = 0.000), time to first flatus (WMD: 12.68 h, 95% CI: 15.95 to -9.41, p = 0.000), and time to defecation (WMD: 34.35 h, 95% CI: 46.82 to -21.88, p = 0.000) were significantly shorter in the ERAS group compared to the TPC group. Additionally, the overall postoperative complication rate (RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.88, p = 0.000) was markedly lower in patients using the ERAS program.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated that the ERAS program is associated with faster postoperative rehabilitation, shorter PHS, and better postoperative complication rates. The use of the ERAS program for laparoscopic digestive system surgery is more effective and safe than TPC, and it should be recommended. (PROSPERO registration number:CRD42018118551).

Laparoscopic vs. open left lateral sectionectomy: An update meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is thought to be the anatomical liver resection most suitable for the laparoscopic approach. Despite increasing popularity, comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open LLS are mostly limited to retrospective, underpowered studies with small sample size. Recent population-based studies and prospective trials have generated new data; however, this new body of knowledge has not been submitted systematic reviews or meta-analyses and high quality evidence regarding the actual benefits of minimally invasive LLS is lacking.

METHODS

Systematic review of studies published until December 31st, 2017 and indexed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and Scielo/LILACS databases. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing perioperative results of laparoscopic and open LLS were included. Studies with patients submitted to LLS for living donation were excluded. Treatment outcomes, including conversion rates, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, operative time, length of in-hospital stay, morbidity and mortality rates, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 2838 articles, 23 of which (21 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials; 3415 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall conversion rate was 7.4%. Patients submitted to laparoscopic LLS had less blood loss (mean difference, MD = -119.81 ml, 95% CI = -127.90, -111.72, P < .00001, I² = 32%, N = 618), lower transfusion rates (4.1% vs. 10.1%; risk difference, RD = - 0.06, 95% CI = - 0.08, - 0.05, P < .00001, I² = 13%, N = 2968) and shorter length of in-hospital stay (MD = - 2.02 days, 95% CI = - 2.15, - 1.89, P < .00001, I² = 77%, N = 3160) compared to those undergoing open surgery. Marginally decreased overall complication (21.4% vs. 27.5%; RD = - 0.03, 95% CI = - 0.06, 0.00, P = .05, I² = 0%, N = 3268) and perioperative mortality (0.3% vs. 1.5%; RD = - 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.02, - 0.00, P = .01, I² = 0%; N = 3332) rates were also observed. Operative time and biliary, cardiac or pulmonary complication rates did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic LLS. The laparoscopic approach is associated with reduced blood loss, lower transfusion rates and shorter length of in-hospital stay and should be considered the gold-standard for LLS.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy was expected to be the standard for the treatment of left hepatic lobe lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLLHS) has been widely accepted because of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to assess the benefits and drawbacks of left lateral sectionectomy (of segments II/III) compared with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. We calculated odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 14 trials involving 685 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between LLLHS and open LLHS (OLLHS) regarding analgesia (P = .31), pedicle clamping (P = .70), operative time (P = .54), hospital expenses (P = .64), postoperative alanine aminotransferase levels (P = .57), resection margin (95% CI -3.02-4.28; P = .73), or tumor recurrence (95% CI 0.51-3.05; P = .62). However, the LLLHS group showed significantly better results regarding blood transfusion (95% CI 0.14-0.73; P = .007), blood loss (95% CI -140.95 to -67.23; P <.001), total morbidity (95% CI 0.24-0.56; P <.01), and hospital stay (95% CI -3.84 to -2.31; P <.001) than the OLLHS group.

CONCLUSION

LLLHS has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, and total morbidity. It is an ideal method for LLHS surgery.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy produces better outcomes for hepatolithiasis than open hepatectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present meta-analysis focused on comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatolithiasis. In detail, short-term outcomes including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative time to oral intake, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, and stone recurrence were analyzed systematically.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for eligible studies up to Jun. 30. 2017. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNoteX7) was applied to literature management. Quality assessment was carried out according to the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Stata SE12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Sensitivity analysis was conducted by deleting single study step by step. Odds ratio (OR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated continuous data.

RESULTS

= 0%; P = 0.22). In addition, our stratified analysis according to types of LH indicated that the laparoscopic approach still produced more favorable outcomes whatever patients underwent left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) or left hemihepatectomy (LHH).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic hepatectomy is a better alternative to open approach in patients with hepatolithiasis, providing less overall complication rate, shorter postoperative stay of hospital stay, less blood loss, and shorter time to oral intake. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are badly needed to provide higher-level evidence due to unavoidable bias from non-randomized trials.

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

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic Liver Resection For Primary Hepatolithiasis: Is It Beneficial?

BACKGROUND

Primary hepatolithiasis is a disease characterized by primary biliary ductal abnormality with stone formation predominantly within the intrahepatic bile ducts. Its management is difficult, but liver resection has emerged as a promising treatment option.

METHODS

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has been adopted in our center for the management of patients with hepatolithiasis. The operative and short-term outcomes of this cohort of patients were compared with a historical cohort of patients using open approach (OLR). A subgroup analysis was performed for left lateral sectionectomy.

RESULTS

Between September 2010 and April 2015, 15 RLRs were performed on patients with primary hepatolithiasis. The historical cohort consisted of 42 OLRs with operation done between January 2005 and January 2014. No differences were found in patient demographics, disease characteristics, or types of resection. No operative deaths occurred, and no difference was seen in complication rates. RLR had significantly less blood loss (100 vs. 235 ml; p = 0.011) and shorter hospital stays (6 vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). After a median follow-up of 19.4 months for RLRs and 79.2 months for OLRs (p < 0.001), there were no differences in residual stone rate, recurrent stone rate, or rate of recurrent cholangitis. Subgroup analysis of lateral sectionectomy (10 RLRs vs. 27 OLRs) revealed similar outcomes, i.e., less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in RLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stays compared with OLR. A longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term outcomes of RLR regarding prevention of recurrent stones and cholangitis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Strategy of minimally invasive surgery for patients with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a common, frequently occurring disease. In recent years, traditional laparotomy is challenged by minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review combined with our practical experience based on the present situation of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, a strategy for improving the effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment is discussed as follows: (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy can be chosen according to the indications; (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), LC + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), LC + LCBDE + T tube drainage or primary suture can be chosen according to the indications; (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross-section, LCBDE, EST, or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be chosen according to the indications. Reasonable selection of minimally invasive treatments according to this strategy is of great significance to improve the therapeutic effect for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) - a systematic review

Background: Today, minimally invasive liver resections for both benign and malignant tumors are routinely performed. Recently, some authors have described single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) procedures. Since SILL is a relatively young branch of laparoscopy, we performed a systematic review of the current literature to collect data on feasibility, perioperative results and oncological outcome.

Methods: A literature research was performed on Medline for all studies that met the eligibility criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently. A study was included for review if consensus was obtained by discussion between the authors on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria. A thorough quality assessment of all included studies was performed. Data were analyzed and tabulated according to predefined outcome measures. Synthesis of the results was achieved by narrative review.

Results: A total of 15 eligible studies were identified among which there was one prospective cohort study and one randomized controlled trial comparing SILL to multi incision laparoscopic liver resection (MILL). The rest were retrospective case series with a maximum of 24 patients. All studies demonstrated convincing results with regards to feasibility, morbidity and mortality. The rate of wound complications and incisional hernia was low. The cosmetic results were good.

Conclusions: This is the first systematic review on SILL including prospective trials. The results of the existing studies reporting on SILL are favorable. However, a large body of scientific evidence on the field of SILL is missing, further randomized controlled studies are urgently needed.