Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis

Predictive risk factors for resection surface-related complications after laparoscopic simultaneous resection of primary colorectal tumor and synchronous liver metastases: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic simultaneous resection (LSR) of primary colorectal tumors and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has been recently performed. This study aimed to evaluate the postoperative outcomes after LSR and determine the risk factors for resection surface-related complications (RSRC), such as postoperative biliary fistula and liver-transection surface abscess.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2022, consecutive patients with sCRLM who underwent LSR were included. We retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological data, including intraoperative factors and postoperative outcomes. The difficulty level of all liver resections was classified according to the IWATE difficulty scoring system (DSS). We then performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the risk factors for RSRC.

RESULTS

Of the 112 patients, 94 (83.9%) underwent partial hepatectomy and colorectal surgery. The median DSS score was 5 points (1-11), with 12 (10.7%) patients scoring ≥ 7 points. Postoperative complications were observed in 41 (36.6%) patients, of whom 16 (14.3%) experienced severe complications classified as Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa or higher. There was no postoperative mortality. The most common complication was RSRC (19 patients, 17.0%). Multivariate analysis identified American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification ≥ 3 [odds ratio (OR) 10.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-77.8; P = 0.023], DSS score ≥ 7 points (OR 5.08, 95% CI 1.17-20.0; P = 0.030), and right-sided colectomy (OR 4.67, 95% CI 1.46-15.0; P = 0.009) as independent risk factors for RSRC. Postoperative hospital stays were significantly longer for patients with RSRC than for those without RSRC (22 days vs. 11 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Short-term outcomes of LSR for patients with sCRLM were acceptable in an experienced center. RSRC was the most common complication, and high-difficulty hepatectomy, right-sided colectomy, and ASA classification ≥ 3 were independent risk factors for RSRC.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05.

RESULTS

IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05).

DISCUSSION

Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.

Advancing minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: ensuring safety with implementation

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs.

METHODS

Sixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used.

RESULTS

Twenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes.

Surgical margin status outcome of intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy in liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy stands as a curative management for liver cancer. The critical factor for minimizing recurrence rate and enhancing overall survival of liver malignancy is to attain a negative margin hepatic resection. Recently, Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has been proven implemental in aiding laparoscopic liver resection, enabling real-time tumor identification and precise liver segmentation. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain whether ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy yields a higher incidence of complete tumor eradication (R0) resections.

METHODS

The search encompassed databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library database, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Ovid in April 2024, in strict adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies involving patients with malignant liver lesions who underwent ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy and reported R0 resection outcomes were eligible for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

In a total of seven studies, involving 598 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The ICG demonstrated a significantly elevated R0 resection rate compared to the non-ICG group [98.6% (359/364) vs. 93.1% (339/364), odds ratio (OR) = 3.76, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.45-9.51, P = 0.005]. Notably, no heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 0%, P = 0.5). However, the subtype analysis focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma [98.2% (165/168) vs. 93.6% (161/172), OR = 3.34, 95% CI 0.94-11.91, P = 0.06) and the evaluation of margin distance (4.96 ± 2.41 vs. 2.79 ± 1.92 millimeters, weighted mean difference = 1.26, 95% CI -1.8-4.32, P = 0.42) revealed no apparent differences. Additionally, the incidence of overall postoperative complications was comparable between both groups, 27.6% (66/239) in the ICG group and 25.4% (75/295) in the non-ICG group (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.53-1.76, P = 0.9). No disparities were identified in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy can be undertaken with confidence, as it does not compromise either intraoperative or postoperative events. Furthermore, the ICG-guided approach is beneficial to achieving a complete eradication of the tumor during hepatic resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023446440.

A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The indication of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. In this study, we compared the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched eligible articles about LLR versus OLR for large HCC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE and performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving 1,338 patients were included. Among them, 495 underwent LLR and 843 underwent OLR. The operation time was longer in the LLR group (MD: 22.23, 95% CI: 4.14-40.33, p = 0.02). but the postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter (MD : -4.88, CI: -5.55 to -4.23, p < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and major complications were significantly fewer (OR: 0.49, 95% CI:0.37-0.66, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.36 - 0.82, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic group had no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion rate, resection margin size, R0 resection rate, three-year overall survival (OS) and three-year disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

LLR for large HCC is safe and feasible. This surgical strategy will not affect the long-term outcomes of patients.

Intraoperative artificial intelligence system identifying liver vessels in laparoscopic liver resection: a retrospective experimental study

BACKGROUND

The precise recognition of liver vessels during liver parenchymal dissection is the crucial technique for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). This retrospective feasibility study aimed to develop artificial intelligence (AI) models to recognize liver vessels in LLR, and to evaluate their accuracy and real-time performance.

METHODS

Images from LLR videos were extracted, and the hepatic veins and Glissonean pedicles were labeled separately. Two AI models were developed to recognize liver vessels: the "2-class model" which recognized both hepatic veins and Glissonean pedicles as equivalent vessels and distinguished them from the background class, and the "3-class model" which recognized them all separately. The Feature Pyramid Network was used as a neural network architecture for both models in their semantic segmentation tasks. The models were evaluated using fivefold cross-validation tests, and the Dice coefficient (DC) was used as an evaluation metric. Ten gastroenterological surgeons also evaluated the models qualitatively through rubric.

RESULTS

In total, 2421 frames from 48 video clips were extracted. The mean DC value of the 2-class model was 0.789, with a processing speed of 0.094 s. The mean DC values for the hepatic vein and the Glissonean pedicle in the 3-class model were 0.631 and 0.482, respectively. The average processing time for the 3-class model was 0.097 s. Qualitative evaluation by surgeons revealed that false-negative and false-positive ratings in the 2-class model averaged 4.40 and 3.46, respectively, on a five-point scale, while the false-negative, false-positive, and vessel differentiation ratings in the 3-class model averaged 4.36, 3.44, and 3.28, respectively, on a five-point scale.

CONCLUSION

We successfully developed deep-learning models that recognize liver vessels in LLR with high accuracy and sufficient processing speed. These findings suggest the potential of a new real-time automated navigation system for LLR.

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

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

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection: A Case-control Study With Propensity Score Matching

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of patients with benign and malignant liver lesions scheduled for laparoscopic and open surgery using a propensity score-matched approach to analyze additional cofactors influencing outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this study, we retrospectively reviewed 270 patients who underwent laparoscopic or open liver resection at our institute between October 2016 and November 2021. Patients were divided into open and laparoscopic liver resection groups and compared according to the intention to treat principle. In the purification process for the nonrandom nature of the study, a matching analysis was performed at a 1:1 case-control ratio. The PS model included selected data on body mass index, additional data on the American Society of Anesthesiology score, cirrhosis, lesion <2 cm from the hilum, lesion <2 cm from the hepatic vein or inferior vena cava, and type of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The operation time and 30- and 90-day mortality rates were similar between the groups. The average length of hospital stay was 11 days in the open surgery group and 9 days in the laparoscopic surgery group after matching ( P =0.011). The 30-day morbidity rate was statistically different between the groups before and after matching, favoring the laparoscopic group ( P =0.001 and 0.006, respectively). After the propensity score-matched approch, the open group's Pringle time was shorter than that of the laparoscopic group. The total operative time was longer in the laparoscopic than in the open surgery group. This did not change after matching (300 vs. 240 min).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is a feasible and safe treatment option for patients with liver tumors, with promising results in terms of morbidity and hospital stay.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally Invasive Donors Right Hepatectomy versus Open Donors Right Hepatectomy: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

How to obtain a donor liver remains an open issue, especially in the choice of minimally invasive donors right hepatectomy versus open donors right hepatectomy (MIDRH versus ODRH). We conducted a meta-analysis to clarify this question.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 24 retrospective studies were identified. For MIDRH vs. ODRH, the operative time was longer in the MIDRH group (mean difference [MD] = 30.77 min; p = 0.006). MIDRH resulted in significantly less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -57.86 mL; p < 0.00001), shorter length of stay (MD = -1.22 days; p < 0.00001), lower pulmonary (OR = 0.55; p = 0.002) and wound complications (OR = 0.45; p = 0.0007), lower overall complications (OR = 0.79; p = 0.02), and less self-infused morphine consumption (MD = -0.06 days; 95% CI, -1.16 to -0.05; p = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, similar results were observed in pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (PLDRH) and the propensity score matching group. In addition, there were no significant differences in post-operation liver injury, bile duct complications, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 III, readmission, reoperation, and postoperative transfusion between the MIDRH and ODRH groups.

DISCUSSION

We concluded that MIDRH is a safe and feasible alternative to ODRH for living donators, especially in the PLDRH group.

Minimally invasive versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis of 224 patients

PURPOSE

To compare the peri-operative and long-term survival outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) (robotic or laparoscopic) with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent liver resection for HCC were reviewed from a prospectively collected database. Outcomes of MILR were compared with those of OLR. A propensity score matching analysis with a ratio of 1:1 was performed to minimise the potential bias in clinical pathological factors.

RESULTS

From January 2003 to December 2017, a total of 705 patients underwent liver resection for HCC. Amongst them, 112 patients received MILR and 593 patients received OLR. After propensity score matching, there were 112 patients in each of the MILR and OLR groups. Patients were matched by age, sex, hepatitis status, presence of cirrhosis, platelet count, albumin level, bilirubin level, alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level, alanine transferase (ALT) level, creatinine level, tumour differentiation, tumour size, tumour number, presence of tumour rupture, presence of vascular invasion, extent of liver resection (minor/major) and difficulty score. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.4%, 90.4% and 82.3% in the MILR group vs 95.4%, 80.5% and 71.8% in the open group (p = 0.240). The 1-, 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 63.1% and 55.8% in the MILR group vs 79.1%, 58.1% and 45.7 in the open group (p = 0.449). The MILR group demonstrated significantly less blood loss (p < 0.001), less blood transfusion (p = 0.004), lower post-operative complications (p < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) when compared with the OLR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shows MILR yielded superior post-operative outcomes to OLR, with comparable 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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open omental patch repair of perforated peptic ulcer

BACKGROUND

The mainstay of surgical management of perforated peptic ulcer is omental patch repair. Advances in minimally invasive techniques have shown feasibility of laparoscopic omental patch repair (LOPR). Laparoscopic omental patch repair is limited by learning curve (LC), but there is a lack of reporting of LC in LOPR. This study aims to compare outcomes following LOPR versus open omental patch repair (OOPR) with reporting of LC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception till January 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs comparing LOPR and OOPR in perforated peptic ulcer. Exclusion criteria were primary repair without use of omental patch repair. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, postoperative leak, and LC analysis.

RESULTS

There were a total of 29 studies including 5,311 patients (LOPR, n = 1,687; OOPR, n = 3,624), with 4 RCTs with 238 patients (LOPR, n = 118; OOPR, n = 120). Majority of ulcers were located in the duodenum (57.0%) followed by stomach (30.7%). Mean ulcer size ranged from 5 to 16.2 mm in LOPR and 4.7 to 15.8 mm in OOPR. Laparoscopic omental patch repair was associated with lower 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.92; p = 0.02), overall morbidity (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.18-0.53; p < 0.0001), surgical site infection (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42; p < 0.00001), and length of stay (mean difference, -2.84 days; 95% CI, -3.63 to -2.06; p < 0.00001). Postoperative leakage (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.43-2.61; p = 0.90) was comparable between LOPR and OOPR. Only three studies analyzed the proportion of consultants to trainees; LOPR was performed mainly by consultants (range, 82.4-91.4%), while OOPR was mainly performed by trainees (range, 52.8-96.8%). One study showed that consultants who performed open conversion had shorter operating time compared with chief residents (85 vs. 186.6 minutes, p < 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic omental patch repair has lower mortality, overall morbidity, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative pain compared with OOPR. More prospective studies should be conducted to evaluate LC in LOPR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis; Level IV.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

Purpose

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Results

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P &lt; 0.00001, I2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD −285.69, 95% CI −481.72 to −89.65, P = 0.004, I2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD −7.88, 95% CI −11.38 to −4.37, P &lt; 0.0001, I2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI −6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Conclusions

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.

Effects of iNOS in Hepatic Warm Ischaemia and Reperfusion Models in Mice and Rats: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Warm ischaemia is usually induced by the Pringle manoeuver (PM) during hepatectomy. Currently, there is no widely accepted standard protocol to minimise ischaemia-related injury, so reducing ischaemia-reperfusion damage is an active area of research. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as an early inflammatory response to hepatic ischaemia reperfusion injury (HIRI) in mouse- and rat-liver models. A systematic search of studies was performed within three databases. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. We performed a meta-analysis of studies grouped by different HIRI models and ischaemia times. Additionally, we investigated a possible correlation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and nitric oxide (NO) regulation with iNOS expression. Of 124 included studies, 49 were eligible for the meta-analysis, revealing that iNOS was upregulated in almost all HIRIs. We were able to show an increase of iNOS regardless of ischemia or reperfusion time. Additionally, we found no direct associations of eNOS or NO with iNOS. A sex gap of primarily male experimental animals used was observed, leading to a higher risk of outcomes not being translatable to humans of all sexes.

Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Delayed return of gastrointestinal function after hepatectomy in an ERAS program: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND

Delayed return of gastrointestinal function (DGIF) after hepatectomy can involve increased morbidity and prolonged hospital stay. Yet, data on incidence and risks factors are lacking.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy between June 2018 and December 2020 were included. All patients were included in an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. DGIF was defined by the need for nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion after surgery. DGIF risk factors were identified.

RESULTS

Overall, 206 patients underwent hepatectomy. DGIF occurred in 41 patients (19.9%) after a median time of 2 days (range, 1-14). Among them, 6 patients (14.6%) developed aspiration pneumonia, of which one required ICU for mechanical ventilation. DGIF developed along with an intraabdominal complication in 7 patients (biliary fistula, n = 5; anastomotic fistula, n = 1; adhesive small bowel obstruction, n = 1). DGIF was associated with significantly increased severe morbidity rate (p = 0.001), prolonged time to normal food intake (p < 0.001) and hospital stay (p < 0.001) and significantly decreased overall compliance rate (p = 0.001). Independent risk factors of DGIF were age (p < 0.001), vascular reconstruction (p = 0.007), anaesthetic induction using volatiles (p = 0.003) and epidural analgesia (p = 0.004). Using these 4 variables, a simple DGIF risk score has been developed allowing patient stratification in low-, intermediate- and high-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

DGIF after hepatectomy was frequently observed and significantly impacted postoperative outcomes. Identifying risk factors remains critical for preventing its occurrence.

Usefulness of ethiodized oil and gelatin sponge particles for delaying the washout of indocyanine green from the liver in swine

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of ethiodized oil (EO) and gelatin sponge particles (GS) on delaying the washout of indocyanine green (ICG) from the liver in swine.

METHODS

Fifteen swine were divided into 3 groups: injection of a mixture of ICG and water-soluble contrast medium (CM) followed by embolization with GS (group A), injection of a mixture of ICG and EO (group B) and injection of a mixture of ICG and EO followed by embolization with GS (group C). The liver surface was observed using an infrared camera system during and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 h after the procedure to measure ICG contrast. Livers were removed at 6 h for histopathological examination.

RESULTS

The contrast ratio between injected and non-injected regions at 6 h was 1.45 ± 0.44 in group A, 1.89 ± 0.37 in group B, and 3.62 ± 0.76 in group C. The contrast ratio in group C was significantly greater than that in groups A and B (P = 0.032 and 0.033, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

EO and GS delayed the washout of ICG from the liver in swine and may extend intraoperative navigation in clinical use. Indocyanine green (ICG) mixed with ethiodized oil (EO) was injected into the left hepatic artery in swine, and the artery was embolized with gelatin sponge particles (GS). We confirmed that ICG remained in the liver parenchyma up to 6 h after the procedure. EO and GS delayed the washout of ICG from the liver in swine.

Impact of Frailty on Short-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Open Hepatectomy

Background

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is associated with improved short-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH), it is unknown whether frail patients also benefit from LH. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of frailty on post-operative outcomes after LH and OH.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients who underwent LH and OH between January 2011 and December 2018 were identified from a prospective database. Frailty was assessed using the modified Frailty Index (mFI), with patients scoring mFI ≥ 1 deemed to be frail.

Results

Of 1826 patients, 34.7% (N = 634) were frail and 18.6% (N = 340) were elderly (≥ 75 years). Frail patients had significantly higher 90-day mortality (6.6% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) and post-operative complications (36.3% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001) than those who were not frail, effects that were independent of patient age on multivariate analysis. For those undergoing minor resections, the benefits of LH vs. OH were similar for frail and non-frail patients. Length of hospital stay was 53% longer in OH (vs. LH) in frail patients, compared to 58% longer in the subgroup of non-frail patients.

Conclusions

Frailty is independently associated with inferior post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, the benefits of laparoscopic (compared to open) hepatectomy are similar for frail and non-frail patients. Frailty should not be a contraindication to laparoscopic minor hepatectomy in carefully selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is a first-line curative option for hepatocellular carcinoma, but its role is still unclear in elderly patients. The aim of our study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

The study included 665 consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma liver resection cases in patients with ≥70 years of age treated in eight European hospital centres. Patients were divided into laparoscopic and open liver resection groups. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between these groups.

RESULTS

After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 219 patients were included in each group. Clavien-Dindo grades III/IV (6 vs. 20%, p = 0.04) were lower in the laparoscopic than in the open matched group. Hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic than in the open matched group (5 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between laparoscopic and open groups regarding overall survival and disease-free survival at 1-, 3- and 5- year periods.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with good short-term outcomes in patients with ≥70 years of age compared to open liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Impact of Three-Dimensional (3D) Visualization on Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The impact of three-dimensional (3D) visualization on laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma is largely unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective review with propensity-score matched analysis of 3D and two-dimensional (2D) laparoscopic hepatectomy performed in a tertiary hepatobiliary surgery center.

RESULTS

Since the availability of 3D laparoscopy, the proportion of laparoscopic major hepatectomies has significantly expanded (1.7% vs. 24.0%, p < 0.0001) and the percentage of difficult resections among patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy has also increased (12.6% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.0001). A total of 305 patients (92 in the 3D group and 213 in the 2D group) underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy between 2002 and 2019. The 3D group had better liver function, larger tumors at more difficult locations, more major resections, and more difficult surgeries. After propensity score matching, 144 patients were analyzed (72 in both the 3D and 2D groups). Patients were comparable in terms of liver status, tumor status, and complexity of liver surgery. Operative time (218 vs. 218 mins, p = 0.50) and blood loss (0.2 vs. 0.2L, p = 0.49) were comparable between the two groups, however overall complications were higher in the 2D group (1.4 vs. 11.1%, p = 0.03). Patients who underwent 3D laparoscopic major hepatectomy had a shorter hospital stay than their comparable counterparts operated through an open approach (7 vs. 6 days, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

3D visualization enhanced the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomy and difficult laparoscopic liver resection. 3D resection was potentially associated with fewer operative morbidities and the 3D laparoscopic approach did not jeopardize the outcome of major hepatectomy.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in older patients: a propensity score matching analysis

Background

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requiring surgical treatment in older patients has been continuously increasing. This study aimed to examine the safety and feasibility of performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for HCC in older patients at a Japanese institution.

Methods

Between January 2010 and June 2021, 133 and 145 older patients (aged ≥ 70 years) who were diagnosed with HCC underwent LLR and OLR, respectively. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis with covariates of baseline characteristics was performed. The intraoperative and postoperative data were evaluated in both groups.

Results

After PSM, 75 patients each for LLR and OLR were selected and the data compared. No significant differences in demographic characteristics, clinical data, and operative times were observed between the groups, although less than 10% of cases in each group underwent a major resection. Blood loss (OLR: 370 mL, LLR: 50 mL; P < 0.001) was lower, and the length of postoperative hospital stay (OLR: 12 days, LLR: 7 days; P < 0.001) and time to start of oral intake (OLR: 2 days, LLR: 1 day; P < 0.001) were shorter in the LLR group than in the OLR group. The incidence of complications ≥ Clavien–Dindo class IIIa was similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

LLR, especially minor resections, is safely performed and feasible for selected older patients with HCC.

Recent Technical Developments in the Field of Laparoscopic Surgery: A Literature Review

The benefits of laparoscopic surgery (LS) include a speedy recovery, shorter duration of hospital stay, minimal postoperative pain, discomfort and disabilities, and better cosmetic outcomes (less scarring) that help an individual to resume normal daily activities and return to work. A comprehensive literature search on laparoscopic surgeries was conducted using different Internet-based search engines and databases from August 2021 to October 2021. The search was limited to articles published in the English language and those published between years 2005 and 2021. A total of 126 articles were initially identified. Two independent reviewers thoroughly examined the quality and content of the articles. Articles with duplicate data were excluded, and the remaining articles were screened and assessed by the titles and abstracts. After a vigorous assessment, we included data from 49 articles for this review process. Bibliographic management was done using the software “EndNote” (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA).

It was concluded that LS has become the technique of choice for virtually every kind of abdominal surgery, evident by numerous scholarly publications in this field. Level I evidence demonstrating the advantage of LS over open surgery has been reported for numerous operations, including fundoplication for gastroesophageal regurgitation disease, bariatric surgery for weight loss, and cancer resection. Advanced LS has subsequently been expanded to include hepatectomy, pancreatectomy, urology, and gynecology. Patients who are at risk of having elevated abdominal pressure during LS, however, should proceed with care. Recent advances in natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, single-incision laparoscopic surgery, and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery are promising.

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Bile Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study of 13,379 Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite many developments, postoperative bile leakage (POBL) remains a relatively common postoperative complication after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). This study aimed to assess the incidence and clinical impact of POBL in patients undergoing LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter cohort using a propensity score-matched analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all indications between January 2000 and October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed using a large, international, multicenter liver database including data from 15 tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was clinically relevant POBL (CR-POBL), defined as Grade B/C POBL.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,379 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (6,369 LLR and 7,010 OLR), with 6.0% POBL. After propensity score matching, a total of 3,563 LLR patients were matched to 3,563 OLR patients. In both groups, propensity score matching accounted for similar extent and types of resections. The incidence of CR-POBL was significantly lower in patients after LLR as compared with patients after OLR (2.6% vs 6.0%; p < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with CR-POBL, patients after LLR experienced less severe (non-POBL) postoperative complications (10.1% vs 20.9%; p = 0.028), a shorter hospital stay (12.5 vs 17 days; p = 0.001), and a lower 90-day/in-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.4%; p = 0.027) as compared with patients after OLR with CR-POBL.

CONCLUSION

Patients after LLR seem to experience a lower rate of CR-POBL as compared with the open approach. Our findings suggest that in patients after LLR, the clinical impact of CR-POBL is less than after OLR.

First 100 minimally invasive liver resections in a new tertiary referral centre for liver surgery

Background

In the last decades, there has been an exponential diffusion of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate our initial experience of 100 patients undergoing MILS resection comparing their outcomes with the standard open procedures.

Materials and Methods

One hundred consecutive MILS from 2016 to 2019 were included. Clinicopathological data were reviewed to evaluate outcomes. Standard open resections were used as the control group and compared exploiting propensity score matching.

Results

In total, 290 patients were included. The rate of MILS has been constantly increasing throughout years, representing the 48% in 2019. Of 100 (34.5%) MILS patients, 85 could be matched. After matching, the MILS conversion rate was 5.8% (n = 5). The post-operative complication rates were higher in the open group (45.9% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.004). Post-operative blood transfusions were less common in the MILS group (4.7% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.021). Biliary leak occurred in 2 (2.4) MILS versus 13 (15.3) open. The median comprehensive complication index was higher in the open group (8.7 [0-28.6] vs. 0 [0-10.4], P = 0.0009). The post-operative length of hospital stay was shorter after MILS (median 6 [5-8] vs 8 [7-13] days, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The rate of MILS has been significantly increasing throughout the years. The benefits of MILS over the traditional open approach were confirmed. The main advantages include lower rates of post-operative complications, blood transfusions, bile leaks and a significantly decreased hospital stay.

Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection Versus Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinomas Smaller Than 3 cm: Analysis of Treatment Outcomes Using Propensity Score Matching

Objective

To compare the therapeutic outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) for single subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and Methods

We screened 244 consecutive patients who had received either LHR or LRFA between January 2014 and December 2016. The feasibility of LRFA in patients who underwent LHR was retrospectively assessed by two interventional radiologists. Finally, 60 LRFA-feasible patients who had received LHR and 29 patients who had received LRFA as the first treatment for a solitary subcapsular HCC between 1 cm and 3 cm were finally included. We compared the therapeutic outcomes, including local tumor progression (LTP), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) between the two groups before and after propensity score (PS) matching. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was also used to evaluate the difference in OS and RFS between the two groups for all 89 patients.

Results

PS matching yielded 23 patients in each group. The cumulative LTP and OS rates were not significantly different between the LHR and LRFA groups after PS matching (p = 0.900 and 0.003, respectively). The 5-year LTP rates were 4.6% and 4.4%, respectively, and OS rates were 100% and 90.7%, respectively. The RFS rate was higher in LHR group without statistical significance (p = 0.070), with 5-year rates of 78.3% and 45.3%, respectively. OS was not significantly different between the LHR (reference) and LRFA groups in multivariable analyses, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 0.12–1.54) (p = 0.818). RFS was higher in LHR (reference) than in LRFA without statistical significance in multivariable analysis, with an HR of 2.01 (0.87–4.66) (p = 0.102).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in therapeutic outcomes between LHR and LRFA for single subcapsular HCCs measuring 1–3 cm. The difference in RFS should be further evaluated in a larger study.

Laparoscopic surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of single hepatocellular carcinoma ≤3 cm in the elderly: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) represented potential treatments for patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) smaller than 3 cm. As the aging population soared, our study aimed to examine the advantage/drawback balance for these treatments, which should be reassessed in elderly patients.

METHODS

A multicentric retrospective study compared 184 elderly patients (aged >70 years) (86 patients underwent LLR and 98 had RFA) with single ≤3 cm HCC, observed from January 2009 to January 2019.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching (PSM), the estimated 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.5 and 87.9% for the LLR group, and 94.6 and 68.1% for the RFA group (p = 0.001) respectively. The estimated 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.5 and 67.4% for the LLR group, and 68.5 and 36.9% for the RFA group (p = 0.001). Patients with HCC of anterolateral segments were more often treated with laparoscopic resection (47 vs. 36, p = 0.04). The median operative time in the resection group was 205 min and 25 min in the RFA group (p = 0.01). Length of hospital stay was 5 days in the resection group and 3 days in the RFA group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer length of hospital stay and operative time, LLR guarantees a comparable postoperative course and a better overall and disease-free survival in elderly patients with single HCC (≤3 cm), located in anterolateral segments.

Initial Experience in Rectal Cancer Surgery for the Next Generation of Robotic Surgeons Trained in a Dual Console System

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer is used worldwide, with an increasing incidence of robotic surgeons. Therefore, the most appropriate educational system for next-generation robotic surgeons should be urgently established.

METHODS

We analyzed 39 patients who underwent robotic rectal surgery performed by a next-generation surgeon with limited experienced in laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery. The dual console system was used in the initial 15 cases, and we assessed short-term outcomes and the learning curve on operative time using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

The patients were divided into two groups: 15 cases in the early phase, and 24 cases in the late phase. The operative time and surgeon console time were significantly shorter in the late phase than the early phase (P < 0.001). Postoperative complications were more frequently observed in the early phase (P = 0.049); however, the estimated blood loss and length of hospital stay were not significantly different. In the initial 15 cases that using the dual console, the average operative time changing to the expert surgeon was 82 minutes in the first 5 cases, 19 minutes on average in the next 5 cases, and no change occurred in the last 5 cases. The learning curve peaked after 14 cases, plateaued from case number 15 to 23, and decreased in a linear fashion until the final case.

CONCLUSION

Education of a next generation surgeon using a dual console system for robotic rectal cancer surgery was performed safely.

Evaluation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment Response After Locoregional Therapy

Locoregional therapy (LRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma can be used alone or with other treatment modalities to reduce rates of progression, improve survival, or act as a bridge to cure. As the use of LRT expands, so too has the need for systems to evaluate treatment response, such as the World Health Organization and modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors systems and more recently, the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) treatment response algorithm (TRA). Early validation results for LI-RADS TRA have been promising, and as research accrues, the TRA is expected to evolve in the near future.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection and open liver resection: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has gained momentum in recent years. This study of contemporary data compares economic and clinical outcomes between MILR and open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

We extracted data for patients undergoing liver resection between October 2015-September 2018 from the Premier Healthcare Database. We conducted a propensity score matched analysis to compare complications, in-hospital mortality, inpatient readmissions, discharge to institutional post-acute care, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost between MILR and OLR patients.

RESULTS

From the eligible OLR (n = 3349) and MILR (n = 1367) patients, we propensity score matched 1261 from each cohort at a 1:1 ratio. After matching, MILR was associated with lower rates of complications (bleeding: 8.2% vs. 17.4%; respiratory failure: 5.5% vs. 10.9%; intestinal obstruction: 3.6% vs. 6.0%, and pleural effusion: 1.9% vs. 4.9%), in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs. 3.0%), 90-day inpatient readmissions (10.4% vs. 14.3%), discharge to institutional post-acute care (6.9% vs. 12.3%), shorter ORT (257 vs. 308 min) and LOS (4.3 vs. 7.2 days), and lower hospital costs ($19463 vs. $29119) (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MILR was associated with lower risk of complications and reduced hospital resource utilizations as compared with OLR.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for tumors located in right posterior segment: A single institution study

OBJECT

With the gradual advancement of laparoscopic technology, surgeries can be successfully performed with the help of laparoscopy increasingly. This study initially explored the difference between laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS)of liver in our center, discussed the effectiveness, benefits and safety of LRPS and introduce some surgical techniques in our center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyze 96 cases of liver tumor located in the right posterior lobe of liver in our institution from January 2015 to January 2018. There were 46 cases performed the LRPS surgery and 50 cases performed the ORPS surgery. Through analysis of the perioperative outcomes of these two groups by a case control study, we compare the differences between these two groups.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the LRPS and ORPS group in demographic and baseline characteristics before surgery. Patients in the LRPS group were significantly superior to ORPS in terms of postoperative liver function recovery, postoperative inflammatory factor level, pain sensation (3.03 ± 0.79 vs 4.58 ± 1.25), abdominal incision length (6.25 ± 2.34 vs 32.15 ± 3.21), carrying abdominal drainage tube time (3.26 ± 0.77 vs 4.83 ± 0.76), recovery of bowel function time (1.6 ± 0.61 VS 3.05 ± 0.85)and postoperative hospital stay (5.73 ± 0.99 vs 7.16 ± 0.95) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional ORPS, LRPS has the advantages of minor injury, faster recovery and mild inflammatory reaction. The LRPS is safe and feasible, and it should be gradually promoted in clinical practice.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Analysis of Short-term and Long-term Results

BACKGROUND

There is scant data regarding the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The aim of this study is to report our experience and analyze the short-term and long-term results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of patients undergoing HALS for CRLM in 2 university affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-eight liver procedures were performed on 145 patients including 205 parenchymal sparing resections and 33 anatomic resections. The median number of metastases was 1 (range: 1 to 8), 38 patients (26.2%) had 3 or more metastases, and 41 patients (28.3 had a bi-lobar disease. The tumor size was 20 (2 to 90) mm, and 52 patients (36.6%) had a tumor larger than 30 mm. Nighty-nine patients (67.8%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In 8 patients (5.5%) the laparoscopic liver resection was combined with ablation, and 16 patients (11%) underwent a synchronous resection of colorectal cancer. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 163 minutes, 300 mL, and 4 days, respectively. The median modified Iwate complexity score was 4 (0 to 10) and the conversion rate to open surgery was 5.5%. The overall and major complication rates were 23.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The mortality rate was 0.7%. R0 resections were achieved in 91% of patients. Median overall survival for all the cohort (intend to treat) was 59 months, and the 8- and 10-year overall survival rates were 47.3% and 24.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that HALS is a safe and efficacious treatment for selected patients with CRLM.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Minimally invasive versus open right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy for central liver malignancies: a propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The utility of minimally-invasive liver resection (MILR) for deep centrally located tumours (CLT) remains controversial. We aimed to review our institution's experience and outcomes with minimally invasive central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for CLT in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical database revealed 23 patients who underwent MILR (6 CH, 17 RAS) and 53 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR; 24 CH, 29 RAS) for CLT. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were then compared.

RESULTS

There was one laparoscopic-assisted, one robot-assisted and two laparoscopic-converted-open procedures in the MILR cohort. Across the unmatched cohort, there was only one mortality (MILR) and five patients with major morbidity (all OLR). MILR was associated with a longer operating time (P < 0.001), but shorter post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.002) and decreased morbidity (P = 0.018) in the unmatched cohort. Examination of peri-operative outcomes after PSM revealed that MILR was similarly associated with a longer operating time (P = 0.001) and shortened post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.043). OLR was associated with a significantly reduced application of Pringle manoeuvre (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between MILR and OLR with regards to blood loss, blood transfusions, morbidity and margin status in the PSM analysis.

CONCLUSION

MILR for CLT is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with shorter hospital stays but at the expense of longer operation times and more frequent application of Pringle manoeuver.

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.

Robotic major liver resections: Surgical outcomes compared with open major liver resections

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic major liver resections are still considered innovative procedures despite the recent development of laparoscopic liver surgery. Robotic surgery has been introduced as an innovative system for laparoscopic surgery. In this study, we investigated surgical outcomes after major liver resections using robotic systems.

Methods

From January 2009 to October 2018, 70 patients underwent robotic major liver resections, which included conventional major liver resections and right sectionectomy. The short-term and long-term outcomes were compared with 252 open major resections performed during the same period.

Results

Operative time was longer in the robotic group (472 min vs. 349 min, p<0.001). However, estimated blood loss was lower in the robotic group compared with the open resection group (269 ml vs. 548 ml, p=0.009). The overall postoperative complication rate of the robotic group was lower than that of the open resection group (31.4% vs. 58.3%, p<0.001), but the major complication rate was similar between the two groups. Hospital stay was shorter in the robotic group (9.5 days vs. 15.1 days, p=0.006). Among patients with HCC, cholangiocarcinoma, and colorectal liver metastasis, there was no difference in overall and disease-free survival between the two groups. After propensity score matching in 37 patients with HCC for each group, the robotic group still showed a shorter hospital stay and comparable long-term outcomes.

Conclusions

Robotic major liver resections provided improved perioperative outcomes and comparable long-term oncologic outcome compared with open resections. Therefore, robotic surgery should be considered one of the options for minimally invasive major liver resections.

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 role of the laparoscopic approach in two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

In selected patients, laparoscopic liver surgery for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) leads to better short-term outcomes and comparable oncologic outcomes in comparison with an open approach. However, its role in two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) remains poorly explored.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was performed to evaluate the role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in the first and second stage of TSH. Demographic data, comorbid factors, perioperative outcomes, and short-term outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between September 2011 and May 2020, 23 patients were planned to undergo a TSH. The first stage hepatectomy (FSH) was performed laparoscopically in 22 patients (96%) without need for conversion. The median blood loss was 50 cc (IQR 30-100 cc) and postoperative length of hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 2.5-5 days). R0 resections were obtained in 18 FSHs (78%), while all others were R1 vascular (22%). Fourteen patients (61%) underwent a second stage hepatectomy (SSH). All SSHs were anatomically major hepatectomies. SSH was performed laparoscopically in 7 patients (50%), with need for conversion in 1 case (14%). The median blood loss was slightly lower in the open liver resection (OLR) group compared to the LLR group (200 cc (IQR 110-375 cc) vs. 240 cc (IQR 150-400 cc), respectively. The median postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 days shorter in the LLR group compared to the OLR group (4 days (IQR 3.5-4 days) vs. 7 days (IQR 4.5-8.5 days), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The already proven advantages of LLR in the treatment of CRLM favor the role of a laparoscopic approach in TSH for CRLM. In first stage minor or technically major hepatectomy, LLR is progressively becoming the gold standard. Laparoscopic second stage anatomically major hepatectomy is feasible in experienced hands, but should be limited to selected cases and should be performed in expert centers.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in North America: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias.

RESULTS

Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.

Laparoscopic procedure is associated with lower morbidity for simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: an updated meta-analysis

Background

It has been demonstrated that simultaneous resection of both primary colorectal lesion and metastatic hepatic lesion is a safe approach with low mortality and postoperative complication rates. However, there are some controversies over which kind of surgical approach is better. The aim of study was to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic surgeries and open surgeries for simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (SCRLM).

Methods

A systemic search of online database including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase was performed until June 5, 2019. Intraoperative complications, postoperative complications, and long-term outcomes were synthesized by using STATA, version 15.0. Cumulative and single-arm meta-analyses were also conducted.

Results

It contained twelve studies with 616 patients (273 vs 343, laparoscopic surgery group and open surgery group, respectively) and manifested latest surgical results for the treatment of CRC and SCRLM. Among patients who underwent laparoscopic surgeries, they had lower rates of postoperative complications (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.96, P = 0.028), less intraoperative blood loss (weight mean difference (WMD) = − 113.31, 95% CI: − 189.03 to − 37.59, P = 0.003), less time in the hospital and recovering after surgeries (WMD = − 2.70, 95% CI: − 3.99 to − 1.40, P = 0.000; WMD = − 3.20, 95% CI: − 5.06 to − 1.34, P = 0.001), but more operating time (WMD = 36.57, 95% CI: 7.80 to 65.35, P = 0.013). Additionally, there were no statistical significance between two kinds of surgical approaches in disease-free survival and overall survival. Moreover, cumulative meta-analysis indicated statistical difference in favor of laparoscopic surgery in terms of morbidity was firstly detected in the 12th study in 2018 (OR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.96, P = 0.028) as the 95% CI narrowed.

Conclusion

Compared with open surgeries, laparoscopic surgeries are safer (postoperative complications and intraoperative blood loss) and more effective (length of hospital stay and postoperative stay), and it can be considered as the first option for management of SCRLM in high-volume laparoscopic centers.

Trial registration

CRD42020151176

A Concise Review on Current Trends in Imaging and Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary cancer of the liver whose incidence has seen an upsurge in the United States within the last 2 decades. Despite improvements in detection and management techniques, the prognosis for patients with HCC generally remains poor. There are multiple factors that have been implicated in the etiology of HCC with cirrhosis occurring as a common final pathway. This review presents a concise summary of current trends in imaging and surgical management of HCC. An internet-based (PubMed) search using the search terms "hepatocellular carcinoma" and "imaging" and "surgical management" was performed. Our search was limited to articles related to human studies published in English during the period of 07/01/2011 to 06/30/2016. A review of all relevant articles was conducted, and findings were summarized. Modern imaging modalities employed in the diagnosis of HCC include ultrasound scan (USS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The utility of diagnostic imaging is enhanced when interpreted in conjunction with appropriate laboratory tests such as alpha-fetoprotein.  The definitive treatment for HCC remains challenging; hepatic resection (HR) and liver transplantation (LT) are two approaches offering potentially curative options. For patients undergoing HR, important considerations include achieving maximum resection while maintaining optimal post-resection liver remnant volume (LRV) and functional capacity (FC), which can be assessed using 3-dimensional CT and indocyanine green clearance. Generally, an LRV of 40-50% is considered an acceptable lower limit for individuals with HCC compared to 20-30% among individuals with normal livers. With increasing knowledge of disease pathology, appropriate patient selection, coupled with advances in anesthesia and surgical technique, overall 5-year survival rates have significantly improved. Challenges associated with LT on the other hand include donor-liver shortages with resultant long wait times and continued disease progression. The scarcity of cadaveric-donor livers has led to employing living-donor livers. Ethical considerations with respect to subjecting potentially healthy donors to undue morbidity and mortality risk however remain. Additional donor-shortage circumventing strategies include employing marginal, domino, and split-organ liver transplants. For patients awaiting transplant, employing bridging therapy such as radiofrequency ablation and transhepatic artery chemoembolization might occasionally help slow disease progression and maintain transplant eligibility. Appropriate patient selection achieved through the Milan and UCSF criteria designed to guide allotment of donor livers to patients with the best chances of survival could help improve outcomes and 5-year survival rates. The main radiological options for diagnosis include USS, CT, and MRI. HR and LT are two distinct surgical options, which in practice can be used to complement one another. Appropriate patient selection is necessary to achieve maximum benefits from HCC therapies.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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