A comparative study of the long-term outcomes after laparoscopy-assisted and open left lateral hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with lower postoperative complications compared with open liver resection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 109 hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent minor liver resection at a Japanese tertiary care hospital from November 2010 to December 2022.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic liver resection group experienced significantly lower median intraoperative blood loss compared with the open liver resection group (P = 0.0001). Furthermore, the laparoscopic liver resection group had a significantly shorter median hospital stay compared with the open liver resection group (P = 0.0002). However, there was no significant difference in median postoperative survival between the laparoscopic liver resection group and the open liver resection group (P = 0.717).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma resulted in reduced blood loss and hospital stay without compromising long-term survival outcomes.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Factors affecting sufentanil consumption for intravenous controlled analgesia after hepatectomy: retrospective analysis

Background

Pain control after hepatectomy is usually achieved by opioids. There are significant individual differences in the amount of opioids used after hepatectomy, and the metabolism of opioids is liver-dependent. The purpose of our study was to explore the possible risk factors for opioid consumption during the first 48 h after surgery.

Methods

In a retrospective study design involving 562 patients undergoing open or laparoscopic hepatectomy, all patients were treated with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) along with continuous and bolus doses of sufentanil for a duration of 48 h after surgery during the time period of August 2015 and February 2019. The primary endpoint was high sufentanil consumption 48 h after hepatectomy, and patients were divided into two groups: those with or without a high PCA sufentanil dosage depending on the third quartile (Q3). The secondary endpoint was the effect of a high PCA sufentanil dosage on various possible clinical risk factors. The relevant parameters were collected, and correlation and multivariate regression analyses were performed.

Results

The median operation time was 185 min (range, 115–250 min), and the median consumption of sufentanil 48 h after the operation was 91 μg (IQR, 64.00, 133.00). Factors related to the consumption of sufentanil at 48 h after hepatectomy included age, operation time, blood loss, intraoperative infusion (red blood cells and fresh-frozen plasma), pain during movement after surgery (day 1 and day 2), preoperative albumin, and postoperative blood urea nitrogen. Age (≤ 60 and > 60 years), extent of resection (minor hepatic resection and major hepatic resection), surgical approach (laparoscope and open) and operation time (min) were independent risk factors for sufentanil consumption at 48 h postoperatively.

Conclusion

Age younger than 60 years, major hepatic resection, an open approach and a longer operation are factors more likely to cause patients to require higher doses of sufentanil after hepatectomy, and the early identification of such patients can increase the efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Long-term survival is the most important outcome measurement of a curative oncological treatment. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the long-term disease-free and overall survival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is shown to be non-inferior to the current standard of open liver resection (OLR). Some studies have reported a superior long-term oncological outcome in LLR when compared to OLR. It has been argued that improvement of visualization and instrumentation and reduced operative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion may contribute to reduced risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. On the other hand, since most of the comparative studies of the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR for HCC are non-randomized, it remained inconclusive as to whether LLR confers additional survival benefit compared to OLR. Despite the paucity of level 1 evidence, the practice of LLR for HCC has gained wide-spread acceptance due to the reproducible improvements in the perioperative outcomes and non-inferior oncological outcomes demonstrated by large-scaled, matched comparative studies. Meta-analyses of the outcomes of these studies by multiple systematic reviews have also returned noncontradictory conclusions. On the basis of a theoretical advantage of LLR over OLR in preventing tumor recurrence, the current review aims to dissect from the current meta-analyses and comparative studies any evidence of such superiority.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open living donor hepatectomy: A meta-analysis

Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (LDH), accepted as a minimally invasive approach, has become increasingly popular for living donor liver transplant. However, the outcomes of LDH remain to be fully clarified when compared with open living donor hepatectomy. Thus, our meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy of laparoscopic in comparison with conventional open donor hepatectomy.The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase electronic databases were searched to identify the articles concerning the comparison of the efficacy of laparoscopic versus open surgery in treatment of living donor liver transplantation updated to March, 2020. The main search terms and medical Subject Heading terms were: "living donor," "liver donor," "minimally invasive," "laparoscopic surgery," and "open surgery." After rigorous evaluation on quality, the data was extracted from eligible publications. The outcomes of interest included intraoperative and postoperative results.The inclusion criteria were met by a total of 20 studies. In all, 2001 subjects involving 633 patients who received laparoscopic surgery and 1368 patients who received open surgery were included. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, the laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter duration of hospital stay (MD = -1.07, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.29; P = .007), less blood loss (MD = -57.57, 95% CI -65.07 to -50.07; P < .00001), and less postoperative complications (OR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = .003). And the open donor hepatectomy achieved a trend of shorter operation time (MD = 30.31, 95% CI 13.93-46.69; P = .0003) than laparoscopic group. Similar results were found in terms of ALT (P = .52) as well as the AST (P = .47) peak level between the 2 groups.LDH showed the better perioperative outcomes as compared with open donor hepatectomy. The findings revealed that LDH may be a feasible and safe procedure for the living donor liver transplantation.

Weight Loss Following Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery. How Much is Too Much? A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background & Aims. Postoperative weight loss is common following hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgical resections; however, the extent of weight loss and the association with poor outcomes have not been well described. We assessed the average percentage of weight loss and risk factors associated with sustained postoperative weight loss. Materials and Methods. We enrolled patients undergoing major HPB surgical resections from 2011-2016 at a single institution. We evaluated percent change in weight postoperatively, incidence of complications, and nutritional clinical markers at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively compared to preoperative baseline. We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with significant weight loss (>10% from baseline) at 3 months from surgery. Results. Among 262 patients undergoing HPB surgery, liver surgery patients lost 2.5% of baseline weight at 3 months postoperatively but regained baseline weight by 6 months. Pancreatic surgery patients lost 7.7% at 3 months and were unable to recover their baseline weights at 6 months. Forty-three (16%) patients had major postoperative complications including abdominal abscess (5.3%) and anastomotic leak (3.8%). Patients who experienced major postoperative complications had a greater percentage weight loss at 3 months compared to those without major complications: median 11% (interquartile range (IQR): 7%-15%) vs 4% (IQR: 0%-8%), P < .001. In the multivariable analysis, major postoperative complications were associated with significant weight loss at 3 months (OR 3.39, 95% CI 1.38-8.33). Conclusions. Due to the association of weight loss and major postoperative complications, patients who experience significant weight loss (>10% from baseline) may benefit from nutritional assessment for dietary intervention.

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.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity case-matched analysis of the long-term survival

Backgrounds/Aims

Despite the widespread popularity of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains in evolution. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤7 cm.

Methods

Patients diagnosed with HCC treated by hepatectomy from October 2000 to May 2019 were included. Excluding tumors larger than 7 cm, 1:2 propensity score matching was performed between laparoscopic and open hepatectomies. The perioperative outcomes, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the two groups were compared.

Results

Forty-five patients who underwent LLR were matched to 90 open hepatectomy (OH) during the same period. LLR group had shorter median hospital stay (5 days vs. 9 days, p=0.00) but required longer operative time (326.0 minutes vs. 272.5 minutes, p=0.018) than the OH group. The 5-year overall survival was better in the LLR group (84.9% vs. 61.1%; p=0.036), though there was no significant difference in the 5-year disease free survival (20.0% vs. 22.2%, p=0.613). The rate of R0 resection was comparable between the 2 groups with a slightly better margin distance in the LLR (5 mm vs. 3 mm, p=0.043).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible for cirrhotic patients with HCC size up to 7 cm. It has better short-term outcomes and comparable perioperative blood loss and complication rates. The resection margin is not jeopardized and the 5-year overall and disease-free survivals are comparable with the open group.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A 7-Year Experience of 123 Resections in a Single Institution

There has been a significant increase in the use of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) over the past 2 decades. This study aimed to analyze the outcomes associated with LLR at a single tertiary care hospital. Patients with benign or malignant tumors who underwent LLR by a single surgeon from January 2012 to November 2019 were identified. There were 123 patients who underwent LLR in the study period; 52% were men, and the median age was 61 (24-90) years. Five patients (4.1%) had unplanned conversion to open resection. Ninety-five patients (77.2%) had a wedge resection or single segmentectomy, and 28 (22.8%) underwent resection of 2+ liver segments. Seventy-one cases (57.7%) were for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 24 (19.5%) for colorectal metastasis, and 28 (22.8%) were for other benign and malignant tumors. Median operative time was 239 (range 89-526) minutes. Mean estimated blood loss was 192 (range 0-1800) mL. The median length of stay (LOS) overall was 2 (range 0-9) days. From 2017 to 2019, the mean LOS was 1.2 days, compared to a mean LOS of 3.3 days from 2012 to 2016. More cases were performed as same-day surgery from 2017 onward; 19 patients (33.9%) had same-day surgery from 2017 to 2019, in comparison to only 1 patient (1.5%) in the period of 2012-2016 (P < .0001). Overall, 28 patients (22.8%) experienced postoperative morbidity; major postoperative morbidity occurred in 4 patients (3.3%). The 90-day mortality was .8%, and the 30-day readmission rate was 5.7%. In conclusion, LLR can be performed safely to treat liver tumors, and LOS decreased over time. Although overall morbidity is moderate, serious morbidity is low, as was the readmission rate. Laparoscopic wedge resection may be a feasible option as an outpatient procedure in select patients.

Long-term surgical outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: A retrospective and propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

There is limited availability of well-designed comparative studies using propensity score matching with a sufficient sample size to compare laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) vs. open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare the feasibility and safety of LLR and OLR in patients with HCC.

METHODS

We enrolled 168 patients who underwent elective LLR (n = 58) or OLR (n = 110) for HCC in two tertiary medical centers between November 2009 and December 2018. Patients who underwent LLR were propensity score-matched to patients who underwent OLR in a 1:1 ratio. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes and disease-free and overall survival rates were prospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the 116 patients analyzed, 58 each belonged to the LLR and OLR groups. We performed 85 segmentectomies or sectionectomies, 19 left-lateral-sectionectomies, 9 left-hemihepatectomies, and 3 right-hemihepatectomies. There was no significant difference in age, sex, Child-Pugh class, original liver disease, preoperative alpha-fetoprotein, tumor size, tumor location, overall morbidity, and operative time. There was a significant difference in the length of postoperative hospital stay between the two groups (LLR vs OLR; 8 vs 10 days, p = 0.003). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates in the LLR and OLR groups were 96.6%, 92.8%, and 73.3% and 93.1%, 88.8%, and 76.1%, respectively (p = 0.642). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates in the LLR and OLR groups were 84.4%, 64.0%, and 60.2% and 93.1%, 67.4%, and 63.9%, respectively (p = 0.391).

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC can be performed safely with acceptable short-term and long-term outcomes compared with OLR.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Open Major Hepatectomy Using CUSA and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy Using "Lotus" Liver Blade. A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Introduction: Evolution in laparoscopic liver surgery during the past two decades is an indisputable fact. According to the second international consensus conference for laparoscopic liver resection held in Morioka, Japan in 2014 major resections are still regarded as innovative procedures in the exploration phase. On this basis, our study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs. open major liver resection and therefore increase the existing evidence on major laparoscopic liver surgery. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent major liver resection, open and laparoscopic from January 2016 to May 2018 were identified from our prospectively maintained database. Propensity score matching analysis was performed using R statistical tool in SPSS to isolate matched open and laparoscopic cases which were compared for intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes. Lotus ultrasonic energy device was used for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic cases vs. CUSA in open procedures. Results: Propensity score matching analysis was performed on 82 consecutive patients (61 open and 21 laparoscopic major hepatectomies) resulting in 40 matched patients, 20 in each group. The mean total duration of surgery and duration of parenchymal transection were slightly longer in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.419, p = 0.348). There was no difference in the intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates. Patients after laparoscopic surgery were discharged 2 days earlier on average (p = 0.310). No difference was observed in complication rates and mortality. Conclusion: Our data did not reveal inferiority of the laparoscopic major hepatectomy vs. the open approach in any parameter compared. The use of the Lotus ultrasonic energy device appeared to be efficient and safe for parenchymal transection in the laparoscopic procedures.

Comparison study between open and laparoscopic liver resection in a Saudi tertiary center

Objectives:

To compare King Saud University Medical City experience in laparoscopic liver resection with our previously established database for open resections.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All adult patients who underwent liver resection from 2006 to 2017 were included. Patients who had their procedure converted to open were excluded.

Results:

Among the 111 liver resections included, 22 (19.8%) were performed laparoscopically and 89 (80.1%) were performed using the open technique. Malignancy was the most common indication in both groups (78.5%). The mean operative time was 275 min (SD 92.2) in the laparoscopic group versus 315 min (SD 104.3) in the open group. Intraoperative blood transfusion was required in the laparoscopic (9%) and open groups (31.4%). The morbidity rate was 13.6% in the laparoscopic group and 31.4% in the open group, and the mortality rate was 0% in the laparoscopic group and 5.6% in the open group.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic liver resection appears to be a safe technique and can be performed in various benign and malignant cases.

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.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Laparoscopic hand-assisted liver resection for tumours in the left lateral section

Context:

The role of the laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) is debatable, and Level-1 data are lacking.

Aims:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this approach.

Settings and Design:

This was a retrospective study.

Subjects and Methods:

From 2007 to 2014, patients undergoing LLLS were identified from two institutions.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Continuous variables were compared between groups with Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney test, as appropriate by type of distribution. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, depending on the number of observations.

Results:

Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. The mean age was 63.5 + 13 years (range, 31–89), and the mean number of tumours was 1.7 + 1.5. Eleven (29%) patients underwent LLS combined with an additional liver resection (combined resections group). The mean duration of the operation and the mean estimated blood loss were significantly decreased in the LLS group compared to the combined resection group (101 + 71 min vs. 208 + 98 min and 216 + 217 ml vs. 450 + 223 ml; P < 0.05 for both, respectively). The major complications rate was 8% and no mortality occurred.

Conclusions:

In a subset of carefully selected cases, LLLS may provide the benefits of laparoscopy. This does not appear to compromise perioperative morbidity rates. We believe that this approach may serve as a training platform for surgical trainees.

Laparoscopy-assisted versus open and pure laparoscopic approach for liver resection and living donor hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy-assisted (hybrid) liver surgery is considered a minimally invasive technique, however there are doubts regarding loss of the benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative results of hybrid vs. open and hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic approach to liver resection for focal lesions and living donation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and LILACS databases. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

21 studies were included. Hybrid vs. open: operative time was lower in open group (mean difference [MD] = 34 min; 95%CI: 22-47; P < 0.001; N = 669). Hybrid technique was associated with a reduction in operative blood loss [MD = -43 ml; 95%CI: -74-(-13); P = 0.005, N = 1738]; shorter hospital stay [MD = -1.9 days; 95%CI: -3.2-(-0.5); P = 0.008; N = 833] and lower morbidity [risk difference (RD) = -0.05; 95%CI: -0.10-(-0.01); P = 0.010; N = 1359]. Hybrid vs. pure laparoscopic: There was no difference regarding blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay and morbimortality.

DISCUSSION

Hybrid technique had perioperative outcomes that were more in keeping with pure laparoscopic outcomes than open surgery. Hybrid liver surgery should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: A three-port method

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has become popular recent years. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is now a standard operation with sufficient safety and feasibility. To improve the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, we invented and have been performing a reduced port LLS procedure using 3 ports since 2009.

Materials and Methods

All patients who underwent LLS at Toranomon Hospital (Tokyo, Japan) were included, except for patients with a previous history of upper abdominal surgery or those who had undergone the simultaneous resection of another organ. An essential point of this procedure was the extracorporeal traction of the divided round ligament using a ligature. As a result, the operator was able to perform the parenchymal transection within a good operative field.

Results

Twelve patients were enrolled in the study. All the patients had a Child-Pugh classification of Class A. The median indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min was 9.5%. Compared with previously reported results for conventional LLS, the median operation time (82.5 min), blood loss (0 mL) and rate of blood transfusion (0%) were lower for the 3-port LLS procedure. The rates of complications (9%) and a positive surgical margin (0%) were similar to those reported for the conventional approach.

Conclusion

Three-port LLS appears to be a safe and feasible procedure.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatic Resection for Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Less Than 5 cm in Cirrhotic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Current literature is lacking level 1 evidence for surgical and oncologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy. Aim was to compare feasibility, safety, and surgical and oncologic efficiency of laparoscopic versus open liver resection (OLR) in management of solitary small (<5 cm) peripheral HCC in Child A cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to either OLR group (25 patients) or laparoscopic liver resection (LRR) group (LRR: 25 patients). All were treated with curative intent aiming at achieving R0 resection using radiofrequency-assisted technique.

RESULTS

LLR had significantly less operative time (120.32 ± 21.58 versus 146.80 ± 16.59 minutes, P < .001) and shorter duration of hospital stay (2.40 ± 0.58 versus 4.28 ± 0.79 days, P < .001), with comparable overall complications (25 versus 28%, P = .02). LLR had comparative resection time (66.56 ± 23.80 versus 59.56 ± 14.74 minutes, P = .218), amount of blood loss (250 versus 230 mL, P = .915), transfusion rate (P = 1.00), and R0 resection rate when compared with OLR. After median follow-up of 34.43 (31.67-38.60) months, LLR achieved similar adequate oncological outcome of OLR, no local recurrence, with no significant difference in early recurrence or number of de novo lesions (P = .49). One-year and 3-year disease free survival (DFS) rates, 88% and 59%, in the LLR were comparable to corresponding rates of 84% and 54% in OLR (P = .9).

CONCLUSION

LLR is superior to the OLR with significantly shorter duration of hospital stay and does not compromise the oncological outcomes.

Are Hybrid Liver Resections Truly Minimally Invasive? A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hybrid liver resection is considered a modality of minimally invasive surgery; however, there are doubts regarding loss of benefits of laparoscopy due to the use of an auxiliary incision. We compared perioperative results of patients undergoing hybrid × open and hybrid × pure laparoscopic resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing liver resection between June 2008 and January 2016 were studied. Study groups were compared after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Six hundred forty-four resections were included in the comparative analysis: 470 open, 120 pure laparoscopic, and 54 hybrids. After PSM, 54 patients were included in each group. Hybrid × open: hybrid technique had shorter operative time (319.5 ± 108.6 × 376.2 ± 155.8 minutes, P = .033), shorter hospital stay (6.0 ± 2.7 × 8.1 ± 5.6 days, P = .001), and lower morbidity (18.5% × 40.7%, P = .003). Hybrid × pure laparoscopic: hybrid group had lower conversion rate (0% × 13%, P = .013). There was no difference regarding estimated blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, complications, or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid resection has better perioperative results than the open approach and is similar to pure laparoscopy. The hybrid technique should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

METHODS

In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m2 and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are widely accepted as safe and effective procedures for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the hands of experienced surgeons. The efficacy and extent of benefits of pure as well as hand-assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection over open liver resection (OLR) have been investigated by numerous studies during the last 10 years. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of LLR in short- and long-term outcomes compared to OLR in patients operated for HCC. A total of 5203 patients from forty-four studies were included in our meta-analysis reporting for short- and long-term results for both LLR and OLR for HCC. Among them, 1830 underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy, 282 underwent pure laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy, and 3091 were operated through open approach. LLRs were found to be significantly associated with lower blood loss, need for blood transfusion, successful achievement of R0 resection as well as wider resection margin, shorter hospital stay, lower morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Operative time, tumor recurrence, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival as well as 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival were not found different between the groups. This meta-analysis clearly demonstrates the superiority of laparoscopic resection over the open approach for patients with small HCC.

Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection at Singapore General Hospital: a nine-year experience of 195 consecutive resections

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to analyse the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) at a single centre.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who underwent LLR from 2006 to 2014 at our institution was performed. To explore the evolution of LLR, the study was divided into three equal consecutive time periods (Period 1: 2006-2008, Period 2: 2009-2011, and Period 3: 2012-2014).

RESULTS

Among 195 patients who underwent LLR, 24 (12.3%) required open conversions, 68 (34.9%) had resection of tumours in the difficult posterosuperior segments and 12 (6.2%) underwent major (≥ 3 segments) hepatectomies. Median operation time was 210 (range 40-620) minutes and median postoperative stay was 4 (range 1-26) days. Major postoperative morbidity (> Grade II) occurred in 11 (5.6%) patients and 90-day/in-hospital mortality was 1 (0.5%). During the study, the number of LLRs performed showed an increasing trend (Period 1: n = 22; Period 2: n = 19; Period 3: n = 154). Other statistically significant trends were: (a) increase in malignant neoplasms resected; (b) increase in resections of difficult posterosuperior segments; (c) longer median operation time; and (d) decrease in open conversion rates.

CONCLUSION

Over the study period, the number of LLRs increased rapidly. LLR was increasingly performed for malignant neoplasms and lesions located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, resulting in longer operation times. However, open conversion rates decreased, and there was no change in postoperative morbidity and other perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Tumors in the Left Lateral Liver Section

Background:

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly adopted for liver resections today especially for lesions located in the left lateral liver section. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the introduction of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) as a surgical option for suspected small- to medium-sized (<8 cm) tumors located in the left lateral section (LLS).

Methods:

This is a retrospective review of 156 consecutive patients who underwent LLR or open liver resection (OLR) of tumors located in the LLS. The study was divided into 2 consecutive periods (period 1, January 2003 through September 2006, and period 2, October 2006 through April 2014); LLR was available as a surgical option only in the latter period. Comparisons made were LLR versus OLR, LLR versus OLR (in period 2 only), and resections performed in period 1 versus period 2.

Results:

Forty-two patients underwent LLR with 4 conversions. LLR was significantly associated with a longer median operative time [167.5 minutes (range, 60–525) vs 105 minutes (range, 40–235); P < .001], decreased need for the Pringle maneuver [n = 1 (2%) vs 22 (19%); P = .008], and shorter postoperative stay [n = 4 (range, 1–10) days vs 5 days (range, 2–47); P < .001] compared with open resection. Comparison of the 42 patients who underwent LLR with the 64 contemporaneous patients who underwent OLR demonstrated similar outcomes. Again, LLR was associated with a significantly longer operation, decreased need for the Pringle maneuver, and shorter hospital stay.

Conclusions:

LLR can be safely adopted to treat lesions in the LLS. The procedure is associated with a shorter postoperative stay and a decreased need for the Pringle maneuver, but longer operative time compared with that required for OLR.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Favorable Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Reports on the long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared to open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are rare. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of LLR and OLR as a treatment for HCC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 125 patients were included in the study (32 patients underwent LLR and 93 underwent OLR). Data were categorized according to operation methods. The primary endpoints were disease-free survival and overall survival. The secondary endpoints were surgical outcomes of LLR for HCC.

RESULTS

Capsular invasion was more frequent in the LLR group (P = .001). The median follow-up period was 48 months (1-188 month). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding mortality and morbidity. Hospitalization days were shorter in the LLR group (P = .042). Disease-free 5-year survival of HCC was 40.9% and 47.2% in the LLR and OLR group, respectively (P = .376). Overall 5-year survival for HCC was 96.4% and 96.7% for the LLR and OLR group, respectively (P = .748).

CONCLUSION

Our long-term analysis on oncologic aspects confirms the safety of LLR compared to OLR in HCC patients.

The safety and efficacy of approaches to liver resection: a meta-analysis

Background:

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.

Database:

Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3–200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.57).

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.

Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with portal hypertension: the role of laparoscopy

Liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is a major issue since patients are at risk of serious intraoperative and postoperative complications. The current EASL/AASLD guidelines recommend LR only in case of patients with stage A HCC with well-preserved liver function and consider the presence of portal hypertension (PHT) as a contraindication to surgery. Nevertheless, the literature on this topic is conflicting. Recently several studies reported that favorable outcomes can be achieved with a careful patients' selection in high volume centers. Laparoscopic LR, when performed by well-trained surgeons and with appropriate indications, proved to be a valid option for the surgical treatment of HCC on cirrhosis offering similar oncologic outcomes but a reduction in surgical related morbidities. Laparoscopic LR thanks to a reduction in the incidence of post-operative liver failure and ascites development in comparison to standard open LR could, in selected cases challenge alternative treatments in the treatment of HCC patients with preserved liver function and clinical signs of mild PHT.

Comparative study and systematic review of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) as a curative treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: A PubMed database search was performed systematically to identify comparative studies of LLR vs OLR for HCC from 2000 to 2014. An extensive text word search was conducted, using combinations of search headings such as “laparoscopy”, “hepatectomy”, and “hepatocellular carcinoma”. A comparative study was also performed in our institution where we analysed surgical outcomes of 152 patients who underwent liver resection between January 2005 to December 2012, of which 42 underwent laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection and 110 underwent open resection.

RESULTS: Analysis of our own series and a review of 17 high-quality studies showed that LLR was superior to OLR in terms of short-term outcomes, as patients in the laparoscopic arm were found to have less intraoperative blood loss, less blood transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay. In our own series, both LLR and OLR groups were found to have similar overall survival (OS) rates, but disease-free survival (DFS) rates were higher in the laparoscopic arm.

CONCLUSION: LLR is associated with better short-term outcomes compared to OLR as a curative treatment for HCC. Long-term oncologic outcomes with regards to OS and DFS rates were found to be comparable in both groups. LLR is hence a safe and viable option for curative resection of HCC.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case-matched study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Laparoscopic liver resection has gained wide acceptance and is established as a safe alternative to open liver resection. Until now, there is no prospective randomized comparative study between laparoscopic and open liver resection. Previous comparative studies reported minor resections for peripheral tumors, and enrolled small numbers of patients. Moreover, few reported the long term outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare perioperative and long term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma between two matched groups.

METHODS

389 patients underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma during the period between 2004 and 2013. To overcome selection bias, we performed 1:1 match using propensity score matching between laparoscopic and open liver resection.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 88 patients were included in each group. Laparoscopic group had shorter hospital stay (8 vs. 10 days, p⩽0.001), and lower postoperative morbidity (12.5% vs. 20.4%, p=0.042). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survivals were 91.6%, 87.5%, and 76.4%, for laparoscopic group, and were 93.1%, 87.8%, and 73.2%, for open group (p=0.944). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease free survivals were 69.7%, 52%, and 44.2%, for laparoscopic group, and 74.7%, 49.5%, 41.2%, for open group (p=0.944).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed comparative perioperative and long term outcomes between both groups, providing evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Perspective of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is associated with high risks of developing significant postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions, which can result in the need for repeated treatments. Studies comparing laparoscopic procedures to open LR consistently report reduced blood loss and transfusions requirements, lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter hospital stays, with no differences in oncologic outcomes. In addition, laparoscopic LR is associated with reduced postoperative ascites and a lower incidence of liver failure for HCC patients with CLD, due to the reduced surgery-induced parenchymal injury to the residual liver and limited destruction of the collateral blood/lymphatic flow around the liver. Finally, this procedure facilitates subsequent repeat LR due to minimal adhesion formation and improved vision/manipulation between adhesions. These characteristics of laparoscopic LR may lead to an expansion of the indications for LR. This editorial is based on the review and meta-analysis presented at the 2^nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Iwate, Japan, in October 2014 (Chairperson of the congress is Professor Go Wakabayashi from the Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine), which is published in the Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences.

Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between well-matched patient groups.

METHODS

Hepatocellular carcinoma patients underwent primary liver resection between 2000 and 2010, were collected from 31 participating institutions in Japan and were divided into LLR (n = 436) and OLR (n = 2969) groups. A one-to-one propensity case-matched analysis was used with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics and surgical procedures of hepatic resections. Long-term and short-term outcomes were compared between the matched two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were well balanced by propensity score matching and 387 patients were matched. There were no significant differences in overall survival and disease-free survival between LLR and OLR. The median blood loss (158 g vs. 400 g, P < 0.001) was significantly less with LLR, and the median postoperative hospital stay (13 days vs. 16 days, P < 0.001) was significantly shorter for LLR. Complication rate (6.7% vs. 13.0%, P = 0.003) was significantly less in LLR.

CONCLUSION

Compared with OLR, LLR in selected patients with HCC showed similar long-term outcomes, associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and fewer postoperative complications.

Colorectal cancer liver metastases: laparoscopic and open radiofrequency-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

The liver is the most common site of colorectal metastases (colorectal liver metastases - CLM). Surgical treatment in combination with oncological therapy is the only potentially curative method. Unfortunately, only 10-25% of patients are suitable for surgery. Traditionally, open liver resection (OLR) is usually performed. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become popular worldwide in the last two decades.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of radiofrequency minor LLR of CLM in comparison with OLR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The indication for surgery was CLM and the possibility to perform minor laparoscopic or OLR not exceeding two hepatic segments according to Couinaud's classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six minor liver resections for CLM were performed. Twenty-five (37.9%) patients underwent a laparoscopic approach and 41 (62.1%) patients underwent OLR. The mean operative time was 166.4 min for LLR and 166.8 min for OLR. Average blood loss was 132.3 ±218.0 ml during LLR and 149.5 ±277.5 ml during OLR. Length of hospital stay was 8.4 ±2.0 days for LLR and 10.5 ±5.8 days for OLR. All resections were R0. There was no case of mortality. Postoperative complications were recognized in 9 (13.6%) patients: 8 in the group of OLR patients and 1 in the LLR group. The median survival time for LLR was 70.5 months and for OLR 61.9 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher for LLR vs. OLR - 82.1% vs. 69.8%. The average length of disease-free interval after LLR was greater (52.2 months) in comparison with OLR (49.4%). The 5-year disease-free interval was 63.2% for LLR and 58% for OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and oncological radicality of minor laparoscopic liver resections of CLM are comparable to outcomes of OLR.

How surgical technology translates into practice: the model of laparoscopic liver resections performed in France

OBJECTIVES

Analyze, at a national level, the adoption and practice of laparoscopic liver resections (LAP), compared to open resections (OPEN).

BACKGROUND

LAP initiated 20 years ago, has been described for all hepatectomies, and is considered as the reference technique for some resections. There are, however, no data on its adoption outside selected specialty centers.

METHODS

French Healthcare databases were screened to identify all patients who underwent an elective LAP or OPEN between 2007 and 2012. Patients' demographics, associated conditions, indication for surgery, hepatectomy performed, and hospital type and hepatectomy caseload were retrieved. Patients who had possible overcoding of biopsies as wedge resections were identified to select REAL resections. Time trend analyses were performed using a piecewise linear regression and the average annual percent change (AAPC) calculated.

RESULTS

There were 7881 (17.8%) LAP and 36,359 (82.2%) OPEN performed in an average of 483 hospitals. Of these, biopsies accounted for 29.9% of the LAP (7.3% of the OPEN, P<0.0001) and the incidence of LAP biopsies increased after 2009. The AAPC of the incidence of real LAP increased more than that of real OPEN (7.0% vs 1.3%) but most were minor resections (61.1% vs 28.9% for OPEN, P<0.0001), only 15% of patients were operated by LAP and intermediate (or major) resections were performed in 19.5% (or 4.8%) of hospitals performing liver resections. The proportion of resections performed by LAP was inversely related to annual caseload. The overall incidence of resections performed for benign conditions did not increase.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP is not developing, has not been adopted for intermediate/major resections, does not result in overuse for benign indications and some of the 2009 -consensus statements are not applied.

Laparoscopic liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Accumulation of experiences and technological advances after the first report of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are now revealing the characteristics and specific advantages of this approach, especially for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). In laparoscopic approach, there are minimum needs for: (1) laparotomy and dissection of the attachments and adhesion which may cause destructions in the collateral blood and lymphatic flows; and (2) compression of the liver which may cause parenchymal damage for the liver resection (LR). These are especially beneficial for the patients with CLD. LLR results in minimal postoperative ascites and the other complications, which could potentially lead to lowering the risk of fatal liver failure. These characteristics of LLR facilitate surgical treatment application to the patients of HCC with background CLD. Laparoscopic approach also results in improved vision and manipulation in a small operative field under several conditions, including the cases where it is necessary to perform repeat LR between adhesions. These characteristics make LLR safer and more accessible to the repeat treatment, such as multicentric and metachronous lesions in the cirrhotic liver. These advantages of LLR indicate it is a superior method than open LR under certain conditions in patients of HCC with background CLD.

Can we expand the indications for laparoscopic liver resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease

Liver resection (LR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and chronic liver disease (CLD) poses a high risk of serious postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions requiring repeated treatment. The efficacy of laparoscopic LR (LLR) for such patients has yet to be established. The objective of this study is to test the outcomes of LLR for HCC with the aim of considering potential expansion of the indications for LLR. We performed a systematic review of the pertinent English-language literature. Our search yielded four meta-analyses and 23 comparative studies of LLR for HCC. On the basis of the findings from these studies and our newly conducted meta-analysis, the possibility for expanding the indications for LLR to HCC was examined. The studies show that LLR (vs open) for HCC generally yields better short-term outcomes without compromising long-term outcomes, and that incidences of postoperative ascites and liver failure are decreased with LLR. Several studies show the benefits of LLR for patients with severe CLD and for repeat surgery. Reductions of postoperative ascites and liver failure are among the advantages of LLR. These characteristics of LLR may allow us to expand the indications of LLR to HCC with CLD.

Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of this disease. Retrospective analysis of laparoscopic and OLR for HCC (<5 cm) performed over a 4-year period was conducted. The LLR was done by a single surgeon.

METHODS

The study was performed on patients who received liver resection for HCC between July 2007 and August 2011 in our institution. Propensity-based matched analyses were used to account for operative method selection biases. During the 4 years, 1,050 patients with HCC received an operation. Among them patients who never received TACE or RFA before surgery and had HCC (<5 cm) were selected for this study.

RESULTS

174 patients had OLR, and 58 patients underwent LLR. Patients who received LLR had lower operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, and shorter hospital days. There were significant differences in hospital mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Dietary recovery was relatively fast in the group of LLR. Overall and disease-free survival rates during the 4 years were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is a developing and safe technique in a select group of patients including those with malignancies, and use of this procedure is associated with short hospital stays, a rapid return to a normal diet, full mobility, and minimal morbidity, with acceptable oncological parameters. It may be an optimal method of hepatectomy in HCC (<5 cm). Further, long-term follow-up should be acquired for adequate evaluation for survival.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To review the currently available literature comparing laparoscopic to open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with known liver cirrhosis.

METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. The search terms used included (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy) AND (hepatic or liver) AND (surgery or resection) AND “hepatocellular carcinoma” AND (cirrhosis or cirrhotic). Furthermore, to widen the search, we also used the “related articles” section. Studies reporting a comparison of outcomes and methods of open vs laparoscopic hepatic resection for HCC in patients with liver cirrhosis were included. Meta-analysis of results was performed using a random effects model to compute relative risk (RR) and for dichotomous variables and standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.

RESULTS: A total of 420 patients from 4 cohort studies were included in final analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures had statistically less blood loss compared to the open cohort, SMD of -1.01 (95%CI: -1.23-0.79), P < 0.001, with a reduced risk of transfusion, RR = 0.19 (95%CI: 0.09-0.38), P < 0.001. A wider clearance at tumour resection margins was achieved following a laparoscopic approach, SMD of 0.34 (95%CI: 0.08-0.60), P = 0.011. No significant difference was noted between laparoscopic and open resection operative times, SMD of -0.15 (95%CI: 0.35-0.05), P = 0.142. The overall RR of suffering from postoperative morbidity is 0.25 in favour of the open surgery cohort (95%CI: 0.17-0.37), P < 0.001. Patients under-going laparoscopic surgery had significantly shorter length of stays in hospital compared to the open cohort, SMD of -0.53 (95%CI: -0.73 to -0.32), P < 0.001.

CONCLUSION: This review suggests that laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis is safe and may provide improved patient outcomes when compared to the open technique.

Recent advances in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy. The association of HCC with chronic liver disease (CLD) is well known and making treatment complex and challenging. The treatment of HCC must take into consideration, the severity of CLD, the stage of HCC, and the clinical condition of the patient. Liver resection (LR) is one of the most efficient treatments for patients with HCC. Better liver function assessment, increased understanding of segmental liver anatomy using more accurate imaging studies, and surgical technical progress are the important factors that have led to reduced mortality, with an expected 5 year survival of 38–61% depending on the stage of the disease. However, the procedure is applicable to <30% of all HCC patients, and 80% of the patients after LR recurred within 5 years. There are recent advances and prospects in LR for HCC in several aspects. Three-dimensional computed tomography imaging assisted preoperative surgical planning facilitates unconventional types of LR. Emerging evidences of laparoscopic hepatectomy and prospects for the use of newly developing chemotherapies as a combined therapy may lead to expanding indication of LR. LR and liver transplantation could be associated rather than considered separately with the current concepts of “bridging LR” and “salvage transplantation.”

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current role and limitations

Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently known to be a safer procedure than it was before because of technical advances and improvement in postoperative patient management and remains the first-line treatment for HCC in compensated cirrhosis. The aim of this review is to assess current indications, advantages and limits of laparoscopic surgery for HCC resections. We also discussed the possible evolution of this surgical approach in parallel with new technologies.

Effects of different pressure levels of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on liver regeneration after liver resection in a rat model

BACKGROUND

A recent study demonstrated that high pressure of carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum before liver resection impairs postoperative liver regeneration. This study was aimed to investigate effects of varying insufflation pressures of CO2 pneumoperitoneum on liver regeneration using a rat model.

METHODS

180 male Wistar rats were randomly divided into three groups: control group (without preoperative pneumoperitoneum), low-pressure group (with preoperative pneumoperitoneum at 5 mmHg), and high-pressure group (with preoperative pneumoperitoneum at 10 mmHg). After pneumoperitoneum, all rats were subjected to 70% partial hepatic resection and then euthanized at 0 min, 12 h, and on postoperative days (PODs) 1, 2, 4, and 7. Following outcome parameters were used: liver regeneration (liver regeneration rate, mitotic count, Ki-67 labeling index), hepatocellular damage (serum aminotransferases), oxidative stress [serum malondialdehyde (MDA)], interleukin-6 (IL-6), and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) expression in the liver tissue.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed for all parameters between control and low-pressure groups. The liver regeneration rate and mitotic count were significantly decreased in the high-pressure group than in control and low-pressure groups on PODs 2 and 4. Postoperative hepatocellular damage was significantly greater in the high-pressure group on PODs 1, 2, 4, and 7 compared with control and/or low-pressure groups. Serum MDA levels were significantly higher in the high-pressure group on PODs 1 and 2, and serum IL-6 levels were significantly higher in the high-pressure group at 12 h and on POD 1, compared with control and/or low-pressure groups. The HGF tissue expression was significantly lower in the high-pressure group at 12 h and on PODs 1 and 4, compared with that in control and/or low-pressure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

High-pressure pneumoperitoneum before 70% liver resection impairs postoperative liver regeneration, but low-pressure pneumoperitoneum has no adverse effects. This study suggests that following laparoscopic liver resection using appropriate pneumoperitoneum pressure, no impairment of liver regeneration occurs.

Laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: when, why, and how? A single-center experience

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and intermediate-term results of laparoscopic liver resection in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eighty-five patients with HCC were subjected to liver resection between February 2007 and January 2013. From these, 30 (35.2%) were subjected to laparoscopic liver resection and were retrospectively analyzed. Special emphasis was given to the indication criteria and to surgical results.

RESULTS

There were 21 males and 9 females with a mean age of 57.4 years. Patients were subjected to 10 nonanatomic and 20 anatomic resections. Two patients were subjected to hand-assisted procedures (right posterior sectionectomies); all other patients were subjected to totally laparoscopic procedures. Conversion to open surgery was necessary in 4 patients (13.3%). Postoperative complications were observed in 12 patients (40%), and the mortality rate was 3.3%. Mean overall survival was 29.8 months, with 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates of 76% and 58%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic treatment of selected patients with HCC is safe and feasible and can lead to good short- and intermediate-term results.

Laparoscopic left lateral resection is the gold standard for benign liver lesions: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

A left lateral section is the first choice for a laparoscopic anatomic liver resection. The objective of this case-control study was to assess the surgical outcome after a laparoscopic left lateral resection for benign liver lesions compared with the open approach.

METHODS

From January 2004 to April 2011, 31 laparoscopic left lateral resections were matched with 31 open left lateral resections by selection based on pathology of the lesion, size of the lesion, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), age and gender of the patient.

RESULTS

Duration of the operation (laparoscopic: 182 ± 71 versus open: 244 ± 105 min; P = 0.04), blood loss (223 ± 281 versus 455 ± 593 ml; P = 0.03), duration of hospital stay (4.1 ± 1.7 versus 8.1 ± 4.4 days; P < 0.001) and total cost of hospitalization (7475 ± 2679 versus 11504 ± 7776 Euros; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched case-control study demonstrated procedural safety, excellent post-operative outcomes and economic benefits for a laparoscopic liver resection. A laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy is recommended as a gold standard for benign liver lesions.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single centre

In the past two decades there has been an enormous increase in laparoscopic liver surgery. There is a trend from limited to laparoscopic major resections and more centres are adopting laparoscopic liver surgery as a standard of care. Although no randomized clinical trials are published, different reports on minor and major hepatectomies and meta-analyses suggest (at least) equal outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to open procedures.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review

Laparoscopic liver surgery was slower to develop than other fields of laparoscopic surgery because of a steep learning curve, and fear of uncontrolled bleeding or gas embolism. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is associated with significant advantages: faster recovery, less post-operative pain, less morbidity, easier subsequent surgery and better cosmetic results. Since the inception of this technique, more than 3000 procedures have been reported. The aim of this update was to review the literature in order to define the indications (malignant tumors, benign tumors, major resections), the advantages and limits of this approach as well as the expected value of new technology, such as intra-operative guidance or robotics, in the development of this branch of surgery.