A comparison of right posterior sectorectomy with formal right hepatectomy: a dual-institution study

Robotic sectionectomy versus robotic hemihepatectomy for anatomic liver resection: a comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes

Sectionectomy is a parenchma-sparing alternative to (extended) right or left hemihepatectomy. However, the effectiveness and safety of robotic sectionectomy (RS) versus robotic (extended) hemihepatectomy (RH) for the treatment of liver tumors remains unclear. We reviewed our prospective database for consecutive patients who had undergone robotic hepatectomies between March 2021 and July 2023 and included all patients with RS and RH. Demographic data, perioperative outcomes and long-term outcomes were analyzed and compared between both groups. Thirty patients met our inclusion criteria, of whom 16 patients underwent RS as opposed to 14 patients who underwent RH. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The duration of Pringle maneuver was significantly longer in the RS group, while the remaining operative details were comparable. There were no significant differences in posthepatectomy outcomes between the study groups. All patients had negative resection margins. RS is a safe and effective parenchyma-sparing treatment modality.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy for a large hepatocellular carcinoma close to inferior vena cava

Approximately 20% of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) occur in noncirrhotic livers. Resection may be considered for patients with HCC, provided sufficient future liver remnant is available, regardless of the tumor size. Tumors located posteriorly near the right hepatic vein (RHV), or inferior vena cava can be managed through anterior or caudal approaches. RHV is typically conserved during right posterior sectionectomy. When a large posteriorly placed tumor causes chronic compression on RHV, the right anterior section drainage is redirected preferentially to the middle hepatic vein. The division of RHV in such instances does not cause congestion of segments 8 and 5. The technical complexity of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy arises from the large transection surface, positioned horizontally. We describe in this multimedia article, a case of large HCC in segments 6 and 7, which was successfully treated using laparoscopic anatomic right posterior sectionectomy.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

Minor Hepatectomies: Focusing a Blurred Picture: Analysis of the Outcome of 4471 Open Resections in Patients Without Cirrhosis

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate minor hepatectomy (MiH) outcomes.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Liver surgery has moved toward a parenchyma-sparing approach, favoring MiHs over major resections. MiHs encompass a wide range of procedures.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent open liver resections in 17 high-volume centers.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

cirrhosis and associated digestive/biliary resections. Resections were classified as (Brisbane nomenclature): limited resections (LR); (mono)segmentectomies/bisegmentectomies (Segm/Bisegm); right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies (RightAnteriorSect/RightPosteriorSect). Additionally, we defined: complex LRs (ComplexLR = LRs with exposed vessels); postero-superior segmentectomies (PosteroSuperiorSegm = segment (Sg)7, Sg8, and Sg7+Sg8 segmentectomies); and complex core hepatectomies (ComplexCoreHeps = Sg1 segmentectomies and combined resections of Sg4s+Sg8+Sg1). Left lateral sectionectomies (LLSs, n = 442) and right hepatectomies (RHs, n = 1042) were reference standards. Outcomes were adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Four thousand four hundred seventy-one MiHs were analyzed. Compared with RHs, MiHs had lower 90-day mortality (0.5%/2.2%), severe morbidity (8.6%/14.4%), and liver failure rates (2.4%/11.6%, P < 0.001), but similar bile leak rates. LR and LLS had similar outcomes. ComplexLR and Segm/Bisegm of anterolateral segments had higher bile leak rates than LLS rates (OR = 2.35 and OR = 3.24), but similar severe morbidity rates. ComplexCoreHeps had higher bile leak rates than RH rates (OR = 1.94); the severe morbidity rate approached that of RH. PosteroSuperiorSegm, RightAnteriorSect, and RightPosteriorSect had severe morbidity and bile leak rates similar to RH rates. MiHs had low liver failure rates, except RightAnteriorSect (vs LLS OR = 4.02).

CONCLUSIONS

MiHs had heterogeneous outcomes. Mortality was low, but MiHs could be stratified according to severe morbidity, bile leak, and liver failure rates. Some MiHs had postoperative outcomes similar to RH.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: A single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

With growing popularity and experience in laparoscopic liver surgery, the options for more difficult procedures increase. Only small case series have been published regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumours in proximity to major vessels (MVs). The aim was to compare outcomes of LLR for tumours located less or more than 15 mm from MVs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive LLR (October 2011-August 2017). Proximity to MVs (PMV) was defined as lesions located within 15 mm to the caval vein, hepatic veins and portal vein (main trunk and first branches). The control group were all lesions located more than 15 mm from MVs.

RESULTS

Some 60/235 LLR were performed for lesions in proximity to major vasculature (24%). In the PMV group, median IWATE Difficulty Score was higher (8.5 (IQR: 6.0-9.0) VS 5.0 (IQR: 3.0-6.0), p < 0.001) as was the use of CUSA® (45.0% VS 8.6%, p < 0.001) and Pringle manoeuvre (8.3% VS 1.7%; p = 0.028). Operative time was longer (180min (IQR: 140-210) VS 120min (IQR: 75-150), p < 0.001) and blood loss was higher (190 ml (IQR: 100-325) VS 75 ml (IQR: 50-220), p < 0.001) in the PMV group. There was no difference in perioperative blood transfusion (3.3% VS 1.7%, p = 0.60) or postoperative morbidity (15.0% VS 14.3%, p = 0.89). There was no mortality in both groups. On mean follow-up of 21 months, no significant differences could be found in disease free (p = 0.77) and overall survival (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR of lesions in proximity to MVs is safe and feasible with acceptable short and long-term results.

Evaluation of postoperative ascites after somatostatin infusion following hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma by laparotomy: a multicenter randomized double-blind controlled trial (SOMAPROTECT)

Background

The majority of patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) suffer from underlying liver disease and are exposed to the risk of postoperative ascites, which is favored by an imbalance between portal venous inflow and a diminished hepatic volume. Finding a reversible, non-invasive method for modulating the portal inflow would be of interest as it could be used temporarily during the early postoperative course. Somatostatin, a well-known drug already used in several indications, may limit the risk of postoperative ascites and liver failure by decreasing portal pressure after hepatectomy for HCC in patients with underlying liver disease. We aimed to evaluate the impact of somatostatin postoperative infusion on the incidence of ascites following hepatectomy by laparotomy for HCC in patients with underlying liver disease.

Methods/design

The SOMAPROTECT study is a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo controlled phase III trial comparing two arms of patients with underlying liver disease undergoing hepatectomy for HCC by open approach. All patients will have primary abdominal drainage before closure. Patients in the experimental arm will receive a postoperative intravenous infusion of somatostatin during 6 days. Patients in the control group will receive a placebo infusion for the same duration. The primary endpoint will be the presence or absence of postoperative ascites occurring during the 90-day postoperative course, defined as ≥500 ml/24 h of fluid in the drains during at least 3 days or any ascites requiring an invasive procedure comprising percutaneous puncture or drainage. Secondary endpoints will be duration and total volume of ascites, postoperative 90-day mortality and morbidity, liver failure, acute renal failure, length of stay in intensive care unit and hospital stay. The total number of patients to be enrolled was calculated to be 152.

Discussion

Postoperative ascites remains a major issue after hepatectomy for HCC as it is associated with increased morbidity, liver and renal failure, the need for specific treatments and prolonged hospital stay. This study represents the first randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits of somatostatin on the risk of postoperative ascites after surgery for HCC.

Trial registration

NCT02799212 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). Registered prior to conducting the research on 9 June 2016.

Liver Resection and Surgical Strategies for Management of Primary Liver Cancer

Primary liver cancer-including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)-incidence is increasing and is an important source of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Management of these cancers, even when localized, is challenging due to the association with underlying liver disease and the complex anatomy of the liver. Although for ICC, surgical resection provides the only potential cure, for HCC, the risks and benefits of the multiple curative intent options must be considered to individualize treatment based upon tumor factors, baseline liver function, and the functional status of the patient. The principles of surgical resection for both HCC and ICC include margin-negative resections with preservation of adequate function of the residual liver. As the safety of surgical resection has improved in recent years, the role of liver resection for HCC has expanded to include selected patients with preserved liver function and small tumors (ablation as an alternative), tumors within Milan criteria (transplant as an alternative), and patients with large (>5 cm) and giant (>10 cm) HCC or with poor prognostic features (for whom surgery is infrequently offered) due to a survival benefit with resection for selected patients. An important surgical consideration specifically for ICC includes the high risk of nodal metastasis, for which portal lymphadenectomy is recommended at the time of hepatectomy for staging. For both diseases, onco-surgical strategies including portal vein embolization and parenchymal-sparing resections have increased the number of patients eligible for curative liver resection by improving patient outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is critical in the management of patients with primary liver cancer to provide and coordinate the best treatments possible for these patients.

Twelve-year experience of "radical but conservative" liver surgery for colorectal metastases: impact on surgical practice and oncologic efficacy

BACKGROUND

Liver surgery for colorectal metastases (CLM) is moving toward parenchyma-sparing approaches. The authors reported the technical feasibility of parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for deeply located tumors, but its impact on daily practice and long-term outcomes remain unclear.

METHODS

The patients undergoing liver resection (LR) for CLM with vascular contact (first-/second-order pedicle or hepatic vein (HV) trunk) were considered. Those undergoing major hepatectomy were excluded. The authors' technique included tumor-vessel detachment, partial resection of marginally infiltrated HVs, and detection of communicating vessels (CVs) among HVs to preserve outflow after HV resection.

RESULTS

Among 169 patients with major vascular contact, parenchyma-sparing LR was feasible in 146 (86%). Twenty-eight SERPS, 13 transversal hepatectomies, 6 mini-mesohepatectomies, and 4 liver tunnels were performed. Sixty-six (45%) patients underwent CLM-vessel detachment, 25 (17%) underwent partial HV resection, and 30 (21%) achieved outflow preservation by CV identification. The mortality and severe morbidity rates were 1.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 5-year survival rate was 30.7%. The parenchyma-sparing strategy failed in 14 (7%) patients because of recurrence in the spared parenchyma or cut edge; 13 were radically retreated.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound-guided parenchyma-sparing surgery is feasible in most patients with ill-located CLMs. This procedure is safe and achieves adequate oncologic outcomes.

Case-controlled study comparing peri-operative and cancer-related outcomes after major hepatectomy and parenchymal sparing hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Liver resection is potentially curative in selected patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). There has been a trend towards parenchyma sparing hepatectomy (PSH) rather than major hepatectomy (MH) due to lower perioperative morbidity. Although data from retrospective series suggest that long-term survival after PSM are similar to MH, these reports may be subject to selection bias. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of PSH and MH in a case-controlled study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

917 consecutive patients who underwent liver resection for CLM during 2000-2010 were identified from a prospective database. 238 patients who underwent PSH were case-matched with 238 patients who had MH, for age, gender, tumour number, maximum tumour diameter, primary Dukes' stage, synchronicity and chemotherapy status using a propensity scoring system. Peri-operative outcomes, recurrence and long-term survival were compared.

RESULTS

Fewer PSH patients received peri-operative blood transfusions (p < 0.0001). MH patients had greater incidence of complications (p = 0.04), grade III/IV complications (p = 0.01) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.03). Hospital stay was greater in the MH group (p = 0.04). There was no difference in overall/disease-free survival.

CONCLUSION

Patients with resectable CLM should be offered PSH if technically feasible. PSH is safer than MH without compromising long-term survival.

Outcomes of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis: A LiverMetSurvey study

BACKGROUND

Occasionally, right hepatectomy, rather than parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy, has been performed for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis. The relative oncologic benefits of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy are unclear. This study compared the outcomes of patients with solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and those who underwent right hepatectomy.

METHODS

The study population consisted of a multicentric cohort of 21,072 patients operated for colorectal liver metastasis between 2000 and 2015 whose data were collected in the LiverMetSurvey registry. Patients with a pathologically confirmed solitary tumor of less than 30 mm in size in the right liver were included. The short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy were compared to those of patients who underwent right hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 1,720 patients who were eligible for the study, 1,478 (86%) underwent parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and 242 (14%) underwent right hepatectomy. The parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group was associated with lower rates of major complications (3% vs 10%; P < .001) and 90-day mortality (1% vs 3%; P = .008). Liver recurrence occurred similarly in both groups (20% vs 22%; P = .39). The 5-year recurrence-free survival and overall survival rates were similar in both groups. However, in patients with liver-only recurrence, repeat hepatectomy was more frequently performed in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (67% vs 31%; P < .001), and the overall 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy group than in the right hepatectomy group (55% vs 23%; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy should be considered the standard procedure for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis in the right liver when technically feasible.

A comparison of laparoscopic resection of posterior segments with formal laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: a single-institution study

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of by laparoscopic resection for lesions located in postero-superior segments is unclear. The present series aimed at comparing intraoperative and post-operative results in patients undergoing either laparoscopic RPS or laparoscopic RH for colorectal liver metastases located in the right postero-superior segments.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2015, patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of segment 6 and/or 7 (RPS group) were compared with those with right hepatectomy (RH group) in terms of tumour characteristics, surgical treatment, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Among the 177 selected patients, 78 (44.1 %) had laparoscopic RPS and 99 (55.9 %) a laparoscopic RH. Among RPS patients, 26 (33.3 %) underwent anatomical resection of either segment 7, 8 or both. Three (3 %) patients undergoing RH died in the post-operative course and none in the RPS group. Sixty-three (35.5 %) patients experienced post-operative complications, including major complications in 24 (13.5 %) patients. Liver failure (17.1 vs. 0 %, p = 000.1), biliary leakage (6.0 vs. 1.2 %, p = 00.1), intra-abdominal collection (19.1 vs. 2.5 %, p = 000.1), and pulmonary complication (16.1 vs. 1.2 %, p = 000.1) were significantly increased in the RH group.

CONCLUSION

The present series suggests that patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of CRLM located in the postero-superior segments developed significantly less complications than patients undergoing formal RH.

Laparoscopic parenchymal preserving hepatic resections in semiprone position for tumors located in the posterosuperior segments

INTRODUCTION

All patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resections in the posterosuperior segments (LPSS) at our center were positioned in semiprone since August 2011. The aims of this study were to assess differences in perioperative outcomes between laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomies (LLLS) performed in supine position and LPSS in semiprone position.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively collected database of all liver resections performed between January 2012 and January 2015. LLLS and LPSS were compared with respect to demographics and perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent LLLS (n = 20) or LPSS (n = 25). There were no differences in patient demographics or tumor diameter (p = 0.946). There were no conversions. Pringle maneuver was not used in both groups. There was no difference in peroperative central venous pressure (p = 0.511). The median operative time in the LLLS group was 100 min (60-260) and 160 min (95-270) in the LPSS group (p = 0.002) with median intraoperative blood loss in the LLLS group of 50 ml (0-550) versus a larger 150 ml (50-700) (p = 0.010) for patients receiving LPSS. No patients required transfusion. Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were similar in both groups. Median hospital stay was 6 days in both groups (p = 0.554).

CONCLUSION

LPSS in semiprone can be performed with similar clinical outcomes as a minor laparoscopic liver resection except for longer operative time and larger intraoperative blood loss without the need for transfusion.

Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

Open parenchymal-preserving resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the posterosuperior liver segments. Laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery are emergent surgical approaches for liver resections, even in posteriorly located lesions. The objective of this study was to compare robot-assisted to laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections for lesions located in segments 7, 8, 4a, and 1.

METHODS

Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection in two centers for lesions in the posterosuperior segments between June 2008 and February 2014 were reviewed. A 1:2 matched propensity score analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the laparoscopic cohort based on demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, location, and type of resection.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients who underwent robot-assisted liver resection were matched with 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Matched patients displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, hospital stay, R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. The overall morbidity according to the comprehensive complication index was also similar (34.6 ± 33 vs. 18.4 ± 11.3, respectively, for robotic and laparoscopic approach, p = 0.11). Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer inflow occlusion time (77 vs. 25 min, p = 0.001) as compared with their laparoscopic counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Although number and severity of complications in the robotic group appears to be higher, robotic and laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments display similar safety and feasibility.

Partial Preservation of Segment IV Confers No Benefit When Performing Extended Right Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Introduction. Reducing the volume of resected liver parenchyma may lead to lower morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to determine whether partial preservation of segment IV leads to improved outcomes when undertaking extended right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods. A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing right-sided hepatectomy for CRLM was performed. Rates of 90-day mortality and organ dysfunction were compared in 117 patients undergoing right hepatectomy (n = 85), partially extended right hepatectomy with preservation of part of segment IV (n = 20), and fully extended right hepatectomy (n = 12). Results. The 90-day mortality rate of those undergoing right hepatectomy (3/85) was similar to that of those undergoing extended right hepatectomy (0/12) (P = 1.000) but lower than that of those undergoing partially extended right hepatectomy (4/20) (P = 0.024). The rates of hepatic and renal dysfunction were similar between patients undergoing right hepatectomy, partially extended or extended hepatectomy. Discussion. Preservation of part of segment IV confers little clinical benefit when performing extended right hepatectomy for CRLM.

Impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality among patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery in the USA

OBJECTIVE

To define the impact of hospital teaching status on length of stay and mortality for patients undergoing complex hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery in the USA.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified 285,442 patient records that involved a liver resection, pancreatoduodenectomy, other pancreatic resection, or hepaticojejunostomy between years 2000 and 2010. Year-wise distribution of procedures at teaching and non-teaching hospitals was described. The impact of teaching status on in-hospital mortality for operations performed at hospitals in the top tertile of procedure volume was determined using multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A majority of patients were under 65 years of age (59.6 %), white (74.0 %), admitted on an elective basis (77.3 %), and had a low comorbidity burden (70.5 %). Ninety percent were operated upon at hospitals in the top tertile of yearly procedure volume. Among patients undergoing an operation at a hospital in the top tertile of procedure volume (>25/year), non-teaching status was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death (OR 1.47 [1.3, 1.7]). Other factors associated with increased risk of mortality were older patient age (OR 2.52 [2.3, 2.8]), male gender (OR 1.73 [1.6, 1.9]), higher comorbidity burden (OR 1.49 [1.3, 1.7]), non-elective admission (OR 3.32 [2.9, 4.0]), and having a complication during in-hospital stay (OR 2.53 [2.2, 3.0]), while individuals with private insurance had a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.45 [0.4, 0.5]). After controlling for other covariates, undergoing complex HPB surgery at a non-teaching hospital remained independently associated with 32 % increased odds of death as (OR 1.32, 95 % CI 1.11-1.58; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Even among high-volume hospitals, patients undergoing complex HPB have better outcomes at teaching vs. non-teaching hospitals. While procedural volume is an established factor associated with surgical outcomes among patients undergoing complex HPB procedures, other hospital-level factors such as teaching status have an important impact on peri-operative outcomes.