The Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Technology in Right Posterior Sectionectomy

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.

Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging-Guided Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy with Glissonean Approach and Modified Hanging Maneuver

BACKGROUND

In the era of innovating minimal invasive surgery, laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (RLPS) is considered a technically challenging procedure for its deeply anatomic location.1,2 Performed by experienced surgeons, it has been shown to be a safe and feasible procedure.3-6 The purpose of this video was to show the technique of a RLPS.

METHODS

This is the case of a 70-year-old man who was treated for a mid-rectum adenocarcinoma with two synchronous liver metastases located in the posterior sector of the right liver. Tumor board decision was chemoradiotherapy followed by a simultaneous rectal and hepatic surgery.

RESULTS

An extrahepatic Glissonian approach of the right posterior pedicle was performed. After selective clamping of the right posterior pedicle and injection of indocyanine green, the right portal fissure between the two sectors of the right liver appeared. The parenchymal transection performed in a caudal approach, along a perfectly marked plane. One metastasis was in contact with the right hepatic vein. Because R1 vascular surgery has demonstrated similar oncological outcomes to R0 resection, we detached the metastasis from the vein to preserve a good venous drainage of the remaining right liver.7 The procedure was completed with a laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum. The duration of the liver resection was 200 min, and blood loss was 300 ml. Postoperative course was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative Day 10.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy is a safe and feasible procedure.3-6 However, it is technically challenging and requires advanced experience in liver and laparoscopic surgery.5,6.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs. open approach: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) is one of the most technically challenging and potentially hazardous procedures in laparoscopic liver resection. Although some available literature works demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LRPS, these data are limited to reports from a single institution and a small sample size without support from evidence-based medicine. So, we performed a meta-analysis to assess further the safety and feasibility of LRPS by comparing it with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for eligible studies comparing LRPS and open approaches. Random and fixed-effects models were used to calculate outcome measures.

Results

Four studies involving a total of 541 patients were identified for inclusion: 250 in the LRPS group and 291 in the ORPS group. The postoperative complication and margin were not statistically different between the two groups (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18 to 1.35, P = 0.17) (MD: 0.05, 95% CI: −0.47 to 0.57, P = 0.86), respectively. LRPS had a significantly longer operative time and shorter hospital stay (MD: 140.32, 95% CI: 16.73 to 263.91, P = 0.03) (MD: −1.64, 95% CI: −2.56 to −0.72, P = 0.0005) respectively.

Conclusion

Data from currently available literature suggest that LRPS performed by an experienced surgeon is a safe and feasible procedure in selected patients and is associated with a reduction in the hospital stay.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, multicenter, large-scale, population-based laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) versus open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) has rarely been reported. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LCLR compared with OCLR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Med databases up to July 30th, 2020. Multiple parameters of feasibility and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 237 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with OCLR, the LCLR group had a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 180.84; 95% CI - 225.61 to - 136.07; P < 0.0001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 4.38; 95% CI - 7.07 to - 1.7; P = 0.001), shorter operative time (MD - 50.24; 95% CI - 78.57 to - 21.92; P = 0.0005), and lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 0.12; P = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LCLR and OCLR regarding hospital expenses (MD 0.92; P = 0.12), pedicle clamping (OR 1.57; P = 0.32), postoperative complications (OR 0.58; P = 0.15), bile leak (P = 0.88), ascites (P = 0.34), and incisional infection (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

LCLR has multiple advantages over OCLR, especially intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays. LCLR is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with caudate lobe lesions.

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.