Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Robotic versus laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy: A comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes

PURPOSE

A repeat liver resection is considered a technically challenging procedure and therefor an open approach is frequently preferred. With the introduction of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic repeat liver resection demonstrates favorable results, however, limited data on robotic repeat liver resections exists. Our aim is to compare the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one for a repeat liver resection.

METHODS

In a single-center retrospective analysis, we report the data of all minimally invasive repeat liver resections performed between September 2011 and August 2023. Short-term outcomes - including procedure time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality - were compared for a laparoscopic and a robotic approach.

RESULTS

A total of 136 minimally invasive repeat liver resections were performed, of which 56 robotic procedures and 80 laparoscopic procedures. Both groups were similar in baseline demographics, diagnosis and surgical procedure. While the mean procedure time was slightly longer in the robotics group by 15 min (145min and 130min, p = 0.04), the median blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (30 ml and 80 ml, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards less conversions in the robotic group (n = 0 and n = 6, p = 0.42). Post-operative morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach for minimally invasive repeat liver surgery is both safe and feasible, while also demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. In our experience, the 'tunnel technique' - which avoids dissection of intra-abdominal adhesions - is a key advantage of this approach.

Early experience with pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: comparison with open donor hepatectomy and non-donor laparoscopic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (L-DH) has seen a rise in uptake in recent years following the popularization of minimally invasive modality for major hepatobiliary surgery. Our study aimed to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-DH with open donor hepatectomy (O-DH) and laparoscopic non donor hepatectomy (L-NDH) based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Eighty of 113 laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomies performed between 2015 and 2022 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were L-DH. PSM in a 1:2 ratio of L-DH versus L-NDH and 1:1 ratio of L-DH versus O-DH were performed, identifying patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics.

RESULTS

After 2:1 matching, the L-DH cohort were significantly younger (P < 0.001) and had lower ASA scores (P < 0.001) than the L-NDH cohort. L-DH was associated with a longer median operating time (P < 0.001) and shorter median postoperative stay (P < 0.001) than L-NDH. After 1:1 matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic between the L-DH and O-DH cohorts. L-DH was associated with lower median blood loss (P = 0.040) and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in recipient outcomes for both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

L-DH can be adopted safely by surgeons experienced in L-NDH and ODH. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH.

Efficacy and prognostic factors of repeated hepatectomy for postoperative intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing initial hepatectomy

Background

Postoperative recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with low survival rates. While HCC treatment options have expanded substantially, they are accompanied by several challenges. This study assessed the outcomes of repeated hepatectomy (RH) for postoperative intrahepatic recurrence of HCC among patients undergoing initial hepatectomy (IH) as well as independent risk factors for HCC recurrence among patients undergoing repeated hepatectomy (RH).

Methods

Clinical data from 84 patients undergoing both IH and RH and 66 recurrent HCC patients who had received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) from July 2011 to September 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The following groups were compared: (1) RH Group A (n = 84), (2) IH Group (n = 84, same individuals as RH Group A), (3) RH Group B (n = 45/84 from RH Group A), and (4) RFA Group (n = 66). The clinical pathology and operative characteristics of the patients in RH Group A were compared to those in the IH Group. Meanwhile, the clinical pathology and pre- and post-treatment features of the patients in RH Group B were compared to those in the RFA Group. The tumor-free survival time was compared between patients in RH Group A and the IH Group as well as between patients in RH Group B and the RFA Group. The independent risk factors for the 1-year postoperative tumor-free survival of RH Group A patients were investigated using univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results

Measures of clinical pathology, including AFP, Child-Pugh score, HBV-DNA, tumor number, liver cirrhosis, tumor differentiation, surgical approach, and TNM stage differed significantly between patients in RH Group A and the IH Group (all P < 0.05), with the exception of tumor number and tumor size (both P > 0.05). No significant differences were found in these measures between the patients in RH Group B and the RFA Group (all P > 0.05). While patients in the RH Group A had a longer operation time than those in the IH Group (4.35 ± 1.25 h vs. 3.55 ± 0.92 h, P < 0.001), the level of intraoperative bleeding was similar (400.00 ± 199.25 ml vs. 359.40 ± 213.37 ml, P = 0.204). RH Group B patients had a longer hospitalization time than those in the RFA Group (6.5 ± 0.8 d vs. 5.5 ± 1.1 d, P < 0.001), however, the difference in hospitalization costs was not statistically significant (29,009 ± 3,806 CNY vs. 29,944 ± 3,752 CNY, P = 0.202). Five-day post-operative serum biomarker levels, including direct bilirubin (DB) and albumin (ALB), were significantly higher in RH Group B than in the RFA Group (all P < 0.05), with the exception of ALT, AST, and total bilirubin (TB) (all P > 0.05). Patients in RH Group A had a lower tumor-free survival time than those in the IH Group (median: 12 vs. 22 months, P < 0.001), and patients in the RH Group B had a significantly higher tumor-free survival time than those in the RFA group (median: 15 months vs. 8 months, P < 0.001). Age ≥50 y, Child-Pugh class A, and negative HBV-DNA were independent risk factors that positively impacted the 1-year postoperative tumor-free survival rate of postoperative intrahepatic recurrent HCC patients undergoing RH (P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Due to the potential of harm related to relapse of recurrent HCC for cancer patients, RH is a superior option. RH could offer better outcomes for recurrent HCC patients undergoing IH. Compared with lesion pathology, the better target organ of the liver will be key to ameliorating tumor-free survival for recurrent HCC patients undergoing RH.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LRLR) versus open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using propensity score matching (PSM). Despite the expanding indications for laparoscopic liver resection, limited data regarding the outcomes of LRLR have previously been reported.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent repeat liver resection for recurrent HCC. Patients were divided into the LRLR and ORLR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared via PSM.

RESULTS

There were 256 and 130 patients in the ORLR and LRLR groups, respectively. After PSM, 64 patients were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (56 vs 208 ml, P < .001). Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo IIIa or more were significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (3.1% vs 15.6%, P = .030). The length of hospital stay was notably shorter in LRLR than in ORLR (9 vs 12 days, P < .001). Survival rates after repeat liver resection at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, were comparable at 93.4%, 81.9%, and 63.5% for ORLR and at 94.8%, 80.7%, and 67.3% for LRLR (P = .623). Subgroup analysis of patients who underwent wedge resection in repeat liver resection revealed that the postoperative complication rate was notably lower in LRLR than in ORLR (7.2% vs 21.8%, P = .030).

CONCLUSION

LRLR for recurrent HCC is a viable option due to its better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared to ORLR.

Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection: A Review of Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, and both liver resection and liver transplantation are considered potentially curative options. However, high recurrence rates affect the prognosis depending both on the primary HCC pathology characteristics or on the type and time of the relapse. While great attention has been usually posted on treatment algorithms for the first HCC, treatment algorithms for recurrent HCC (rHCC) are lacking. In these cases, surgery still represents a curative option with both redo hepatectomy and/or salvage liver transplantation, which are considered valid treatments in selected patients. In the current era of personalised medicine with promises of new systemic-targeted immuno-chemotherapies, we wished to perform a narrative review of the literature on the role of surgical strategies for rHCC.

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.

Efficacy of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy compared with open repeat hepatectomy: a single-center, propensity score matching study

Introduction

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is considered to be a technically challenging procedure which has not been widely applied. This study aimed to assess the accessibility and security of LRH for patients with hepatic tumor recurrence.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2020, we performed 48 LRHs and 31 open repeat hepatectomies (ORHs) for recurrent liver cancer. LRHs were matched to ORHs (1:1) using propensity score matching (PSM) created by comparing preoperative factors. The perioperative data of patients were retrospectively analyzed, including baseline data, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, pathology, days of postoperative stay, complication morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates with appropriate follow-up were obtained to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Results

Compared with the ORH, LRH was related with shorter operative duration (169.9 versus 232.9 ml, p < 0.01), less intraoperative bleeding (100.0 versus 500.0 ml, p < 0.01), lower rate of blood transfusion (8.3% versus 58.1%, p < 0.01), and shorter hospitalization (5.0 versus 11.0 days, p < 0.01). The median follow-up was 31 months. The LRH 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival were 77.1%, 61.6%, and 46.2% versus 82.3%, 66.5%, and 29.5% for ORH (p = 0.77). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates of the two groups were 73.4%, 62.0%, and 44.3% versus 66.1%, 44.1%, and 14.7%, respectively (p = 0.22).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repeated hepatectomy is safe and practicable with great short-term results for selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe liver resections: a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide use of laparoscopy for liver resection, laparoscopic caudate lobe resections(L-CLR) remain technically challenging, only attempted by experts in the field. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-CLR with O-CLR based on our single institution experience in a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2020, 67 consecutive patients who underwent CLR at Singapore General Hospital were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resections(O-CLR) was performed in a 1:2 ratio with no replacements using nearest neighbour matching method.

RESULTS

L-CLR was associated with a significantly decreased median blood loss (150 mL versus 500 mL, P = 0.001) and a decreased median post-operative stay (3 days versus 7.5 days, P = <0.01) in the unmatched cohorts. After 1:2 propensity score matching, these results were again demonstrated with a significantly lower blood loss (150 mL versus 400 mL, P = 0.016) and a shorter postoperative stay (3 days versus 7 days, P = <0.01) in favour of L-CLR. 30-day readmission and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) rates were all in favour of L-CLR as well but could not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

L-CLR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter perioperative stay compared to O-CLR.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for liver cancers: A report from a nationwide surgical database in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic (repeat) liver resection (LRLR) is a well-established liver tumor treatment. However, since its outcomes and comparison with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) in recurrent liver cancer remain inadequately studied, this study then aimed to compare their short-term outcomes for liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, and metastatic liver cancer).

METHODS

Repeat liver resection cases between 2013 and 2017 from Japan's National Clinical Database were extracted. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the proportion of patients with postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher (CD2+) (primary endpoint), as well as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and intraoperative transfusion implementation rate (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 2,902 patients (ORLR, 2,476; LRLR, 426), 712 (356 per type) with comparable backgrounds remained via PSM. Before and after PSM, the postoperative CD2+ complication rate was significantly lower in the LRLR group, who had shorter operative time, smaller intraoperative bleeding volume, and lower intraoperative transfusion rate, than in the ORLR group (after matching, 7.6% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR showed better short-term outcomes than ORLR, making it a safer and more effective liver cancer treatment.

Predicting Complications following Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Newly Developed Neo-Glasgow Prognostic Score with ALBI Grade: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Cases

Background/Aim: Nutritional assessment is known to be important for predicting prognosis in patients with malignant diseases. This study examined the usefulness of a prognostic predictive nutritional assessment tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with surgical resection. Materials/Methods: HCC patients (n = 429) classified as Child−Pugh A who underwent an R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (median age 73 years, males 326 (76.0%), Child−Pugh score 5:6 = 326:103, single tumor 340 (79.2%), median tumor size 3.5 cm, open:laparoscopic = 304:125). Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the newly developed neo-GPS method, which uses albumin−bilirubin grade 1 instead of albumin, were evaluated to compare their usefulness for prognosis prediction. Results: Median survival time for patients with a GPS score of 0, 1, and 2 was 120, 51, and 20 months, respectively. As for neo-GPS, that for those with a score of 0, 1, and 2 was not applicable (NA), 53 months, and 35 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.556 and 0.611, respectively). Furthermore, median progression-free survival was 33, 22, and 9 months, and 41, 24, and 15 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.539 and 0.578, respectively). As compared to patients with a high GPS (≥1), those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed a greater rate of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) (39.2% vs. 65.1%). A comparison of patients with a high GPS (≥1) with those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed no significant difference regarding frequency of open or laparoscopic hepatectomy (17.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.670; 44.7% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.831, respectively), while the frequency of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) was lower in patients who underwent a laparoscopic hepatectomy (11.2% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the newly developed neo-GPS based on ALBI grade is an effective prognostic nutritional assessment tool and can be used for prediction of postoperative complications.

Application of da Vinci robot and laparoscopy on repeat hepatocellular carcinoma

Background:

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection has been used safely and effectively on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have been performed on repeat HCC surgery by a da Vinci robot. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robot or laparoscopic system at a single centre.

Methods:

All of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic system between April 2017 and April 2020 were included in this retrospective study.

Results:

There were 24 patients with a mean age of 56 years who underwent da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic surgery for treatment of repeat HCC who were included in this study. The operations lasted 152 ± 25 min and 142 ± 34 min. The average intraoperative blood loss was 284 ± 89 ml and 251 ± 92 ml. The average hospitalisation stay lasted 9 ± 2 days and 9 ± 3 days. The rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery were 9% and 23%. No serious perioperative or post-operative complications were encountered.

Conclusion:

Da Vinci robots can provide a precise dissection of the tissue under a perfect view. It is a technically feasible procedure for less rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery on repeat HCC.

Laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma: A coarsened exact-matched single-surgeon study

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly being utilised worldwide for the management of both benign and malignant liver tumours. However, there is limited data to date regarding the safety and feasibility of this approach for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). We present here our early experience performing LLR for huge HCCs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 280 consecutive patients who underwent LLR by a single surgeon from 2012 to August 2020.15 patients had a preoperative radiological diagnosis of huge (≥10 cm) HCC. Coarsened exact-matched (CEM) weighting was used to compare them to 101 patients who underwent LLR for non-huge HCC.

RESULTS

After CEM-weighting, both groups were well-balanced for baseline variables. There was no difference in the rates of open conversion. The huge HCC patients had a higher mean Iwate difficulty score than the non-huge HCC patients (9.13 vs 6.53, p = 0.007). As such, the median operating time for the huge HCC group was longer (360 min vs 240min, p = 0.049). However, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, utilization of Pringle maneuver or median Pringle duration. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences in median LOS, overall and major morbidity rates, and 90-day mortality rates between both groups. Median resection margins were also similar for both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

LLR may be performed successfully for selected patients with huge HCC, with encouraging perioperative outcomes and no compromise in oncologic efficacy.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

The Management of Recurrence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Occurring Within 6 Months After Hepatic Resection: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy is currently recommended as the most reliable treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, the association between the choice of treatment for recurrence and the timing of recurrence remains controversial.

METHODS

Three-hundred thirty-nine patients who underwent hepatectomy were retrospectively analyzed using a propensity score matching analysis for the risk factors and outcomes for early recurrences within 6 months. The remnant liver volumes and laboratory data were measured postoperatively using multidetector computed tomography on days 7 and months 1, 2, and 5 after surgery. The Student's t test and chi-square test, the likelihood-ratio test, Fisher's exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used in the statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Early recurrence developed in 41/312 patients (13.1%). Vascular invasion and non-curative resection were independent risk factors for the occurrence of early recurrence (P < 0.001 and < 0.001, respectively). Patients with early recurrence had a poorer prognosis than patients who developed later recurrences (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent surgery or other local treatments had better outcomes (P < 0.001). The changes in remnant liver volumes and laboratory data after postoperative month 2 were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients with early recurrence within 6 months had a poorer prognosis than patients who developed a later recurrence. However, patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy for recurrences had a better prognosis than did those who underwent other treatments, with good prospects for long-term survival.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for treating recurrent liver cancer

Background

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is a technically challenging procedure, so LRH for recurrent liver cancer has not been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to identify and evaluate available data of LRH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) and metastases tumour of liver, especially of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), focusing on the safety and feasibility.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed for all studies published in English evaluating LRH for rHCC and recurrent metastases tumour of liver from 1^st January, 2005 to 1^st June, 2019.

Results

A total of 15 studies which comprised 444 patients and reported outcomes for the efficacy and safety of LRH in the treatment of rHCC or CRLM were included in the present review. Moreover, nine studies compared the perioperative outcomes of LRH versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH). LRH was superior to ORH with reduced blood loss, shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates.

Conclusions

LRH can safely performed in rHCC or CRLM patients with cirrhosis, previous open hepatectomy, multiple recurrent lesions and tumours located in difficult posterosuperior segments.

Analysis of perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic repeat liver resection compared to laparoscopic primary liver resection based on a single surgeon's experience: A 1:2 propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

We report a single surgeon experience with laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR), and analyse short-term outcomes relative to laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR).

METHODS

Two-hundred and twenty-two laparoscopic liver resections were performed from 2012 to 2019 of which 33 were LRLR. 1:2 propensity-score matching was done to compare 32 LRLR with 64 LPLR cohort. We further analyzed the first 16 LRLR cases compared to the subsequent 17 cases.

RESULTS

32 LRLR cases were matched to 64 LPLR cases. Apart from a higher frequency of Pringle maneuver in the LPLR cohort (p = 0.006), there were no differences in other perioperative outcomes. There were more posterosuperior located tumours (75.0% vs 17.6%, p = 0.003) and higher median difficulty score (8.50 vs 5.00, p = 0.025) in the initial 16 LRLR cases compared to the next 17. The earlier group had higher median blood loss (250.00 ml vs 50.00 ml, p = 0.012), but other outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSION

LRLR may be safely performed in selected patients with no difference in key perioperative outcomes compared to LPLR.

Pure laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver F4 cirrhosis without routine Pringle maneuver - A propensity analysis in a single center

BACKGROUND

/Aim: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been gaining popularity but its evidence in major hepatectomy for cirrhotic liver is lacking. We studied the long-term outcomes of the pure laparoscopic approach versus the open approach in major hepatectomy without Pringle maneuver in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis using the propensity score analysis.

METHODS

We reviewed patients diagnosed with HCC and cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy as primary treatment. The outcomes of patients who received the laparoscopic approach were compared with those of propensity-case-matched patients (ratio, 4:1) who received the open approach. The matching was made on the following factors: tumor size, tumor number, age, sex, hepatitis serology, HCC staging, comorbidity, and liver function.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients underwent pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy for HCC with cirrhosis. Ninety-six patients who underwent open major hepatectomy were matched by propensity scores. The laparoscopic group had less median blood loss (300 ml vs 645 ml, p = 0.001), shorter median hospital stay (6 days vs 10 days, p = 0.002), and lower rates of overall complication (12.5% vs 39.6%, p = 0.012), pulmonary complication (4.2% vs 25%, p = 0.049) and pleural effusion (p = 0.026). The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival rates in the laparoscopic group vs the open group were 95.2%, 89.6% and 89.6% vs 87.5%, 72.0% and 62.8% (p = 0.211). Correspondingly, the disease-free survival rates were 77.1%, 71.2% and 71.2% vs 75.8%, 52.7% and 45.5% (p = 0.422).

CONCLUSIONS

The two groups had similar long-term survival. The laparoscopic group had favorable short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy without routine Pringle maneuver for HCC with cirrhosis is a safe treatment option at specialized centers.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatic Resection for the Management of Liver Tumors

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatic resection has been developed as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic repeat minor hepatic resection (LRH) carries a higher risk of damage to other organs because of postoperative changes to and losses of anatomical landmarks. The current standard approach at many facilities has been to perform open repeat minor hepatic resection (ORH). This paper describes the surgical outcomes, procedure safety, and utility of ORH versus LRH, as well as the laparoscopic techniques used in LRH.

METHODS

Between February 2010 and May 2018, the data of 142 patients who underwent LRH or ORH at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical outcomes, procedure safety, and procedure utility data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent LHR and 97 patients underwent ORH. The conversion rate from LHR to OHR was 13.3%. After propensity score matching (PSM), the estimated blood loss was significantly lower in the LRH group than in the ORH group (50 mL vs. 350 mL; P < 0.001). The LRH group had an 8.1% complication rate, while the ORH group had a complication rate of 24.3% (P = 0.044). The postoperative length of stay was significantly shorter in the LHR group than in the OHR group (9 days vs. 11 days) (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSION

LRH can be performed safely using various surgical devices. More favorable results are achieved with LRH than with ORH in terms of surgical outcomes including intraoperative bleeding, postoperative complications, and postoperative lengths of stay.

Preoperative Predictors Including the Role of Inflammatory Indices in Predicting Early Recurrence After Re-resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection (RLR) for recurrent HCC (rHCC) is a widely accepted treatment modality. However, early recurrence rate is high, frequently resulting in futile resection. We performed this study to evaluate preoperative factors, including the value of inflammatory indices, in predicting early (<1 year) recurrence in patients who underwent RLR for rHCC. This may help clinicians better select patients for RLR, while excluding cases in which RLR for rHCC would likely be futile.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of 80 patients where 90 operative cases of RLR and 84 cases of early recurrence (<1 year) post-RLR were evaluated. Preoperative predictors of early recurrence and overall survival (OS) were assessed.

RESULTS

There were 31 (34.4%) early recurrences with a 5-year OS of 38.9%. Elevated platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) >103.6 was a significant independent preoperative predictor of both early recurrence, relative risk (RR) 4.284 (P = 0.001) and OS, RR 2.139 (P = 0.027), while alphafetoprotein (AFP) ≥ 200 was a significant independent preoperative predictor of early recurrence only, RR 11.655 (P = 0.030). Patients were followed-up at a median of 14.3 months with 54.8% developing intrahepatic recurrences and 19.4% developing extrahepatic recurrences.

CONCLUSION

Both, elevated PLR and AFP ≥ 200 were independent predictors of early (<1 year) recurrence after RLR for rHCC, while only an elevated PLR was an independent preoperative prognosticators of overall survival. Indication for RLR should be carefully discussed in patients with relapsed HCC with an elevated PLR, due to the potential of early recurrence and poor overall survival.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC: Comparison with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC and Laparoscopic Resection for Primary HCC

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC).

METHODS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR for rHCC between 2015 and 2017. The control groups consisted of 79 open RLR (ORLR) for rHCC and 185 LLR for primary HCC. We undertook propensity score-adjusted analyses (PSA) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for the comparison of LRLR versus ORLR. Comparison of LRLR versus LLR was done using multivariable regression models with adjustment for clinically relevant covariates.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR with three open conversions (15%). Both PSA and 1:1-PSM demonstrated that LRLR was significantly associated with a shorter stay, superior disease-free survival (DFS) but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Comparison between LRLR versus LLR demonstrated that patients undergoing LRLR were significantly older, had smaller tumors, longer operation time and decreased frequency of Pringle's maneuver applied. There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that in highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR was associated with a shorter hospitalization but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Moreover, other than a longer operation time, LRLR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared to LLR for primary HCC.

Early experience with laparoscopic liver resection for spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction

There are limited data to date regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for spontaneously ruptured hepatocellular carcinoma (srHCC). We performed this study to determine the safety and feasibility of LLR for srHCC.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of all patients who underwent liver resection for srHCC from 2000 to 2018. A total of five patients underwent LLR for srHCC, and they were matched to 10 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR) for srHCC to perform a 1:2 comparison. A separate cohort of patients who underwent LLR for non-ruptured HCC (nrHCC) was also compared against the laparoscopic group.

Results

The comparison between LLR versus OLR for srHCC demonstrated no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. There was also no significant difference in perioperative outcomes such as median operating time, estimated blood loss (EBL), rate of blood transfusion, post-operative median length of stay (LOS), overall complication rates, major morbidity rates and 90-day mortality rates. Comparison between LLR for srHCC and LLR for nrHCC demonstrated no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups. There was also no significant difference in key perioperative outcomes such as median operating time, EBL, rate and volume of blood transfusion, median post-operative LOS, morbidity rates or mortality rates.

Conclusion

LLR may be performed safely in selected cases of srHCC. These patients have comparable perioperative outcomes as those who undergo OLR for srHCC and LLR for nrHCC.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons especially in case with previous open liver surgery. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current literature to investigate the feasibility of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) for liver diseases.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the short-term outcomes in comparative studies between LRLR with previous laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and OLR.

RESULTS

From the initial 55 manuscripts, 8 studies including 3 comparative studies between LRLR after OLR and LLR were investigated. There was a total of 108 patients. Considering initial surgery, the extent of initial liver resection was major liver resection in 20% of patients in whom it was reported. In all the patients, the most frequent primary histology was hepatocellular carcinoma, followed by colorectal liver metastasis. A half of reported patients had severe adhesions at the time of LRLR. The median operative time for LRLR was ranged from 120 to 413 min and the median blood loss ranged from 100 to 400 mL. There were 11% of the patients conversions to open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, or tumor ablation. The overall postoperative morbidity was 15% of all the patients, and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was ranged from 3.5 to 10 days. The meta-analysis shows that LRLR after OLR is associated with a longer operative time and a more important blood loss compared to LRLR after LLR. However, no difference between LRLR after OLR and LLR was shown as far as hospital stay and morbidity rate are concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR after OLR has been described in eight articles with favorable short-term outcomes in highly selected patients.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study

OBJECTIVE(S)

The technical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) poses unique challenges distinct from open surgery. An objective scoring system was developed that preoperatively quantifies the difficulty of LRR to help guide surgeon decision-making regarding the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this multiinstitutional study was to externally validate this scoring system.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at two institutions were reviewed. LLR difficulty score (LDS) was calculated based on patient, tumor, and anatomic characteristics by two independent, blinded hepatobiliary surgeons. Surrogates of case complexity (e.g., conversion rate, operative time) were used for validation of this index.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2016, 444 LLR were scored as low (n = 94), intermediate (n = 98), and high difficulty (n = 152) with respective conversion rates of 5.3%, 15.7%, and 25%. Cases of higher LDS correlated with larger mean blood loss (203 ml vs. 331 ml vs. 635 ml). Mean operative and Pringle maneuver used were associated with increasing LDS (155 min vs. 202 min vs. 315 min and 14.4% vs. 29.7% vs. 45.1% respectively). These operative surrogates of difficulty correlated significantly with the LDS (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive external validation of the LDS is robust and applicable in diverse patient populations. This LDS serves as a useful objective predictor of technical difficulty for LLR to help surgeons in selecting patients according to their individual operative experience and is valuable for preoperative risk estimation and stratification in randomized trials.

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

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

Short-term surgical outcomes of minimally invasive repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is an effective treatment, with long-term surgical outcomes for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastasis. However, the efficacy of a minimally invasive surgical approach for recurrent liver cancer is not yet confirmed. The purpose of this study is to examine the efficacy of minimally invasive repeat liver resection (MISRLR) compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological features and short-term surgical outcomes of patients undergoing MISRLR and ORLR.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2016, 97 patients with liver cancer underwent repeat hepatectomy. Of these patients, 68 patients receiving macroscopically curative resection and only hepatectomy, without other additional operations, were selected. Twenty patients underwent MISRLR and 48 patients underwent ORLR. We compared the clinicopathological and surgical parameters in the MISRLR group with those in the ORLR group.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in patients' gender, age, viral infection status, Child-Pugh classification, tumor size, tumor number, tumor location, or the presence of liver cirrhosis in the two groups. The operative times were similar, but blood loss was significantly lower in MISRLR group (159 vs. 502 ml, P = 0.0035). The length of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the MISRLR group (14.2 vs. 19.2 days, P = 0.0275). Postoperative complications were observed only in the ORLR group, with a complication rate of 19%.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate that MISRLR for primary and metastatic liver cancer reduces blood loss and postoperative complications compared with ORLR. MISRLR might be a feasible and effective procedure for the selected patients.

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.

Review of 103 Cases of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) has been shown in small retrospective studies to be a safe and effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) in selected patients. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to determine the safety, feasibility, and oncologic integrity of LRLR for rHCC.

METHODS

A computerized search of the PubMed database was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR for HCC from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Ten studies reporting on 103 patients were included in this review. 30/51 (58.5%) patients had liver cirrhosis. In 66/95 (69.5%) patients, the index surgery was an open resection and this was a major hepatectomy in 8/49 (16.3%) patients. In 17/72 (23.6%) patients, LRLR was performed for tumors in the posterosuperior segments and in 21/60 (35%) for ipsilateral HCC recurrence. The median tumor size of rHCC ranged from 17-40 mm and 8/69 (11.6%) LRLR were for multifocal rHCC. In 100/103 (97%) patients LRLR was attempted via pure laparoscopy and 2 (1.9%) required open conversion. Median operation time of LRLR ranged from 73-343 minutes and the median blood loss ranged from 50 to 297 mL. The reported postoperative morbidity was 24/97 (24.7%) and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative length of stay ranged from 3.5 to 11 days. Three studies compared the outcomes of LRLR versus open resection for rHCC and all three demonstrated a significant decrease in blood loss in favor of LRLR.

CONCLUSION

In highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR can be performed for patients with previous open LR, previous major hepatectomy, two previous LR, multiple tumors, liver cirrhosis, ipsilateral HCC recurrence, and cancers located in the difficult posterosuperior segments. Comparative studies have demonstrated that LRLR is superior to open repeat liver resection in terms of perioperative outcomes such as decreased blood loss and length of stay.