Pushing the Limits of Surgical Resection in Colorectal Liver Metastasis: How Far Can We Go?

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, and up to 50% of all patients diagnosed will develop metastatic disease. Management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has been constantly improving, aided by newer and more effective chemotherapy agents and the use of multidisciplinary teams. However, the only curative treatment remains surgical resection of the CRLM. Although survival for surgically resected patients has shown modest improvement, this is mostly because of the fact that what is constantly evolving is the indication for resection. Surgeons are constantly pushing the limits of what is considered resectable or not, thus enhancing and enlarging the pool of patients who can be potentially benefited and even cured with aggressive surgical procedures. There are a variety of procedures that have been developed, which range from procedures to stimulate hepatic growth, such as portal vein embolization, two-staged hepatectomy, or the association of both, to technically challenging procedures such as simultaneous approaches for synchronous metastasis, ex-vivo or in-situ perfusion with total vascular exclusion, or even liver transplant. This article reviewed the major breakthroughs in liver surgery for CRLM, showing how much has changed and what has been achieved in the field of CRLM.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

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.

Long-Term and Oncologic Outcomes of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

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.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

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

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

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

RESULTS

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

Minimally Invasive Management of Secondary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic liver surgery for secondary liver cancer is increasing. The most common indications are colorectal cancer liver metastases followed by adenocarcinoma metastases from other solid organs, such as breast, pancreatic neuroendocrine, and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. This article provides a comprehensive review of crucial concepts when managing secondary liver cancer minimally invasively, a summary of the up-to-date literature, and a discussion of the development of the application of this technique over time.

Long term outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Because of the advancements in the surgical techniques of liver resection and improvements in anesthesia and postoperative critical care, the simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis either by the laparoscopic procedure or by the open resection method has been considered as a safe and acceptable option. However, there is limited information on the comparison of postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. This study investigated the clinical results and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis in comparison with those of open surgery.

METHODS

Patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastasis who underwent simultaneous resection at Shuang Ho Hospital from 2009 to 2017 were identified. The patient demographics, perioperative morbidity, and survival rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. Laparoscopic procedure was performed for 16 patients, and the remaining 22 patients underwent open surgery. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics between the two groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 56% and 35% in the laparoscopic group and 70% and 15% in the open surgery group, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 100% and 84% in the laparoscopic group and 73% and 48% in the open surgery group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic surgery for simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis seems to be safe and had a similar outcome to that of open surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proposed as a safe and feasible treatment option for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the short-term and oncologic outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for CRLM have not been adequately assessed. Thus, we herein provide an updated systematic review comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of CRLM patients undergoing LLR versus OLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until November 2, 2016) with a limitation to the publications in English. Quality assessment was performed based on the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies enrolling 4591 patients with CRLM were included. With respect to short-term outcomes, patients in LLR group showed significantly reduced blood loss (WMD: -143.64; 95% CI: -180.56 to -106.73; I2 = 86%; P < 0.001), lower operative transfusion requirement (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.53; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.94; I2 = 82%; P < 0.001), reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42-0.66; I2 = 38%; P < 0.001) and reduced severe morbidity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; I2 = 35%; P < 0.001). Regarding oncologic outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two surgical procedures in recurrence and 1-, 3-, and 5-overall survival and disease-free survival except for slightly higher R0 resection rate in LLR group was slightly higher than that of OLR group (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03-1.97; I2 = 37%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR should be the standard approach for selected patients with CRLM, and further research should focus on determining which patients would benefit most from LLR.

Application of endobronchial ultrasonography in laparoscopic liver segmentectomy in an animal model

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated whether laparoscopic ultrasound-guided segment staining and real-time ultrasound-guided hepatectomy, with endobronchial ultrasonography equipped with a guide sheath, would be useful for laparoscopic liver segmentectomy in a porcine model.

MATERIAL AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

The abdominal cavity (in two pigs) was reached via a 12-mm umbilical trocar. An artificial tumor was created by radiofrequency ablation within the intended resection area. Portal vein puncture and staining were performed by the endobronchial ultrasonography-guided method. The targeted portal branch was successfully visualized and punctured with a needle through an equipped guide sheath. After targeted segment staining, the liver parenchyma was resected with a bipolar energy device; the regional Glisson's sheath was ligated and cut, and a surgical specimen was extracted. Real-time endobronchial ultrasonography from the cut surface provided information vital for preserving the surgical margin. All procedures were performed laparoscopically.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated the technical feasibility of laparoscopic ultrasound-guided portal vein staining and safe surgical resection during laparoscopic liver segmentectomy.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Patients with Large Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Case-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the expansion of laparoscopic approach in the treatment of liver tumors, limited data have been reported regarding large colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). This study aimed at assessing the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large (≥5 cm) CRLMs.

METHODS

This was a case-matched study (1:2) comparing patients with large (group L; ≥5 cm) and small (group S; <5 cm) CRLMs using demographic, tumor, and surgical characteristics as matching variables. Postoperative outcomes and survival data were compared in the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Forty patients who underwent LLR for large CRLMs were matched with 80 patients with tumors <5 cm. Major hepatectomy was performed with 75.0 % of patients in Group L and 66.3 % in group S (p = 0.403). Operative time was 300 min in group L and 240 min in group S (p = 0.059). The postoperative mortality and overall morbidity rates were comparable in the 2 groups (p = 1.000 and 0.170, respectively). Postoperative major complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.072). R0 resection was achieved in 92.5 % in the group L and in 95.0 % in the group S (p = 1.000). The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were better for group S than for group L (47.3 vs. 35.4 %, p = 0.044 and 27.3 vs. 14.9 %, p = 0.042, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified positive surgical margins and synchronous presentation as prognostic factors.

CONCLUSION

Since LLR was performed safely with favorable oncological adequacy in selected patients with large CRLMs, tumor size should not modify the surgical approach.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy by the Caudal Approach Versus Conventional Approach: A Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is increasingly performed for the treatment of many liver diseases. However, it remains a challenging procedure and is limited to highly specialized centers. Increasing the safety and efficacy of LRH is crucial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the novel caudal approach (CDA) in LRH and in comparison with the conventional approach (CA).

METHODS

Of a total of 40 patients who underwent LRH between June 2007 and July 2015 at our center, 10 cases underwent the CDA, while 30 underwent the CA. Operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Clinical data and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Only 1 patient required a laparoscopic-assisted procedure in the CDA group, while 14 patients were converted to laparotomy (n = 10) or laparoscopic-assisted procedures (n = 4) in the CA group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .060). However, the difference in conversion to laparotomy between the two groups was significant (P = .043). In addition, when considering 23 patients with malignancies, the median surgical margin was significantly greater in the CDA group (n = 6) (20 mm versus 10 mm; P = .023) than in the CA group (n = 17). Other operative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDA achieves safety and feasibility similar to that of the CA in LRH and requires relatively less conversion to laparotomy. In selected patients, the CDA offers an alternative option to the CA for LRH in experienced hands. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to evaluate the CDA.

Pure laparoscopic liver resection for large malignant tumors: does size matter?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large malignant tumors can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce, and many question its feasibility, safety, and oncologic efficiency. This study aimed to assess outcomes of LLR for large (≥ 5 cm) and giant (≥ 10 cm) malignant liver tumors.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of 422 LLRs was reviewed from August 2003 to August 2013. The data for 52 patients undergoing LLR for large malignant tumors were analyzed. A subgroup analysis of giant tumors also is reported.

RESULTS

During the period studied, 52 LLRs were performed (males, 53.8 %; mean age, 64.6 years) for large malignant tumors. Colorectal liver metastasis was the most common indication (42.3 %). The 52 LLRs included 32 major (61.5 %) and 20 minor (38.5 %) LLRs for tumors with a mean diameter of 83 mm. The median operative time was 240 min [interquartile range (IQR), 150-330 min], and the blood loss was 500 ml (IQR, 200-1,373 ml). Eight conversions (15.4 %) were performed. Six patients experienced complications (11.5 %). Among the 44 patients with successful LLRs, two patients (4.5 %) had an R1 resection. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 1-21 days), and no mortality occurred during a 90-day period. A subgroup analysis of patients with giant tumors showed greater blood loss (p = 0.002) and a longer operative time (p = 0.052) but no difference in terms of conversions (p = 0.64) or complications (p = 0.32).

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that LLR is feasible and safe for large malignant tumors and can be performed with acceptable morbidity and oncologic efficiency. When used for giant malignant tumors, LLR is associated with greater blood loss and a longer operative time but no increase in complications.

Initial experience with a new articulating energy device for laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Although significant advances have been made in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), most techniques still rely on multiple energy devices and staplers, which increase operative costs. The aim of this study was to report the initial results of a new multifunctional energy device for hepatic parenchymal transection.

METHODS

Fourteen patients who underwent LLR using this new device were compared to 20 patients who had LLR using current laparoscopic techniques (CL). Data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

The groups were similar demographics and tumor type and size. Although the type of resection was similar between the groups, the parenchymal transection time was less in the Caiman group (32 ± 5 vs. 63 ± 4 min, respectively, p = 0.0001). The operative time was similar (194 ± 21 vs. 233 ± 16 min, respectively, p = 0.158). There was reduction of the number of advanced instrumentation used in the Caiman group, including the staplers. Estimated blood loss, size of surgical margin, and hospital stay were similar. There was no mortality, and morbidity was 7 % in the Caiman and 20 % in the CL group.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial study shows that the new device is safe and efficient for LLR. Its main advantage is shortening of hepatic parenchymal transection time. This has implications for increasing efficiency and cost saving in LLR.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.

Results

Finally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR = 0.57, 95%CI:0.42–0.78, P = 0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR = 2.44, 95%CI:1.21–4.94, P = 0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD = −3.40, 95%CI:−4.37–2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.