Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy as repeat surgery and repeat hepatectomy

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection after an initial open hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat open hepatectomy (ROH) for recurrent liver tumors is the preferred approach especially after initial open hepatectomy (OH). The aim of this study is to assess feasibility and safety of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after initial OH in 2 high volume hepato-biliary hospitals.

METHODS

Patients were retrieved from prospective data bases from 2012 to 2020. The patients were divided into two groups according to the approach used for repeat hepatectomy, ROH and RLH groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven patients matched the criteria, 20 in RLH and 47 in ROH. Diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma in 52.3%, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in 7.7% and colorectal liver metastases in 40%. Median operative time and blood loss were lower in RLH (199 vs 260 min, and 100 vs 400 ml respectively), as well as overall postoperative complications (20% vs 49%). There were 2 conversions (10%) due to adhesions and one died of postoperative pancreatitis in RLH. Median hospital stay was lower in RLH (5 vs 9 days).

CONCLUSION

RLH is a feasible, safe technique and a realistic option to be considered in selected patients after previous OH. Early conversion should be considered when adhesions are more severe than expected.

Robotic or laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after open hepatectomy: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomies are technically complex procedures. The evidence of robotic or laparoscopic (= minimally invasive) repeat hepatectomies (MIRH) after previous open hepatectomy is poor. Therefore, we compared postoperative outcomes of MIRH vs open repeat hepatectomies (ORH) in patients with liver tumors after previous open liver resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies after open liver resections were identified from a prospective database between April 2018 and May 2023. Postoperative complications were graded in line with the Clavien-Dindo classification. We stratified patients by intention to treat into MIRH or ORH and compared outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed to define variables associated with the utilization of a minimally invasive approach.

RESULTS

Among 46 patients included, 20 (43%) underwent MIRH and 26 (57%) ORH. Twenty-seven patients had advanced or expert repeat hepatectomies (59%) according to the IWATE criteria. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. The use of a minimally invasive approach was not dependent on preoperative or intraoperative variables. All patients had negative resection margins on final histology. MIRH was associated with less blood loss (450 ml, IQR (interquartile range): 200-600 vs 600 ml, IQR: 400-1500 ml, P = 0.032), and shorter length of stay (5 days, IQR: 4-7 vs 7 days, IQR: 5-9 days, P = 0.041). Postoperative complications were similar between the groups (P = 0.298).

CONCLUSIONS

MIRH is feasible after previous open hepatectomy and a safe alternative approach to ORH. (German Clinical Trials Register ID: DRKS00032183).

Laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy guided by middle hepatic vein in the treatment of left hepatolithiasis with a history of upper abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein (MHV) for the treatment of patients with hepatolithiasis who had a history of upper abdominal surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective data analysis was performed on patients who underwent laparoscopic left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis and with previous upper abdominal surgery at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 2018 to April 2022. According to the different surgical approaches, patients were divided into laparoscopic anatomical left hepatectomy guided by the MHV group (MHV-AH group) and laparoscopic traditional anatomical left hepatectomy not guided by the MHV group (non-MHV-AH group).

RESULTS

This study included 81 patients, with 37 and 44 patients in the MHV-AH and non-MHV-AH groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in the basic information between the two groups. Five cases were converted to laparotomy, and the remaining were successfully completed under laparoscopy. Compared to the non-MHV-AH group, the MHV-AH group had a slightly longer operation time (319.30 min vs 273.93 min, P = 0.032), lower bile leakage rate (5.4% vs 20.5%, P = 0.047), stone residual rate (2.7% vs 20.5%, P = 0.015), stone recurrence rate (5.4% vs 22.7%, P = 0.028), and cholangitis recurrence rate (2.7% vs 22.7%, P = 0.008).There were no significant differences in the results of other observation indices between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic anatomical left hepatectomy guided by the MHV is safe and effective in the treatment of left hepatolithiasis with a history of upper abdominal surgery. It does not increase intraoperative bleeding and reduces the risk of postoperative bile leakage, residual stones, stone recurrence, and cholangitis recurrence.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in treating recurrent liver tumors vs. conventional open surgery.

Methods

Database searching was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were applied in statistical analyses.

Results

A total of fourteen studies were finally included with 1,284 patients receiving LRH and 2,254 with ORH. LRH was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage, a higher R0 resection rate, a lower incidence of Pringle Maneuver, a lower incidence of postoperative morbidities, a better overall survival and an enhanced postoperative recovery vs. ORH. Patients receiving LRH shared similar operative time, tumor number and disease-free survival as those with ORH. However, tumor size was relatively larger in patients receiving ORH and major hepatectomy, anatomic hepatectomy were rarely performed in patients with LRH. Additional analyses between LRH and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy revealed less intraoperative blood loss in patients with LRH.

Conclusion

LRH is safe and feasible with more favorable peri-operative outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, it is only applicable for some highly-selected cases not requiring complex surgical procedures. Future larger well-designed studies are expected for further validation.

Previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery did not increase the difficulty in laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case–control study in 100 consecutive patients

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is still technically challenging for patients with previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery (AS). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the difficulty of performing LH for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a history of nonhepatectomy AS during the initial developing period of LH.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed with HCC receiving LH from January 2013 to June 2021. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were prospectively collected.

Results

One hundred patients were reviewed consecutively, comprising 23 in the AS group and 77 in the non-AS group. No significant differences were observed in median IWATE score (5 vs. 5, P = 0.194), operative time (219 vs. 200 min, P = 0.609), blood loss (100.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P = 0.734), transfusion rate (4.3% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.374), duration of parenchyma transection (90.0 vs. 72.4 min, P = 0.673), and mean nonparenchymal transection time (191.0 vs. 125.0 min, P = 0.228), without increasing the conversion rate (0.0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.336), postoperative complications (30.3% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.488), and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = 0.060) in AS group and non-AS groups.

Conclusion

History of previous nonhepatectomy AS can lead to longer nonparenchymal transection time instead of conversion and did not increase the difficulty. Prolonged nonparenchymal transection time did not increase the surgical complications, prolong the postoperative hospital stay, and compromise the survival outcomes.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for centrally located liver lesions-a case series

BACKGROUND

Resection of centrally located liver lesions remains a technically demanding procedure. To date, there are limited data on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for benign and malignant lesions. It was therefore the objective of this study to evaluate the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive mesohepatectomy for liver tumors at a tertiary care hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent a minimally invasive anatomic mesohepatectomy using a Glissonean pedicle approach from April 2018 to November 2021 were identified from a prospective database. Demographics, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics for continuous and categorical variables.

RESULTS

A total of ten patients were included, of whom five patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, one patient had cholangiocarcinoma, three patients had colorectal liver metastases, and one patient had a hydatid cyst. Two and eight patients underwent robotic-assisted and laparoscopic resections, respectively. The median operative time was 393 min (interquartile range (IQR) 298-573 min). Conversion to laparotomy was required in one case. The median lesion size was 60 mm and all cases had negative resection margins on final histopathological analysis. The median total blood loss was 550 ml (IQR 413-850 ml). One patient had a grade III complication. The median length of stay was 7 days (IQR 5-12 days). Time-to-functional recovery was achieved after a median of 2 days (IQR 1-4 days). There were no readmissions within 90 days after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive mesohepatectomy is a feasible and safe approach in selected patients with benign and malignant liver lesions.

Indications of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the indications of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma from the viewpoint of its difficulty.

METHODS

One hundred and one patients who underwent LRLR and 59 patients who underwent open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were included. The difficulty was classified according to the preoperative predictive factors for difficult LRLR, including an open approach during previous liver resection, history of two or more previous liver resections, history of previous major liver resection, tumor near the resected site of the previous liver resection, and intermediate or high difficulty with the difficulty scoring system. We compared the surgical outcomes between the LRLR and ORLR groups based on the difficulty class (low- or intermediate difficiulty class, 0 to 3 predictive factors; high difficiulty class, 4 or 5 factors).

RESULTS

In the low- or intermediate difficiulty class, intraoperative blood loss and the proportion of patients with postoperative complications were significantly lower in LRLR than in ORLR, and the duration of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in LRLR than in ORLR. In the high difficiulty class, total operative time and operative time before starting hepatic parenchymal resection were significantly longer in LRLR than in ORLR, and there were no significant differences in other surgical outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

LRLR is recommended for patients in the low or intermediate difficulty class. However, LRLR does not have an advantage with longer operative time for patients in the high difficulty class compared with ORLR.

Shorter operation time and improved surgical outcomes in laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy compared with open donor right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is a complex procedure, and the safety and feasibility of this operation remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and learning curve of this operation performed by a single surgeon.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the initial 100 donors who underwent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy or open donor right hepatectomy by a single surgeon from December 2012 to May 2019. Endpoints analyzed included intraoperative results, postoperative complications, and learning curve, which was evaluated using the cumulative sum method based on the operation time. We divided the pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group into initial and recent groups based on the time point of overcoming the learning curve.

RESULTS

The operative time was significantly shorter in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group (n = 57; 181.0 ± 35.7 min) than in the open donor right hepatectomy (n = 50; 203.0 ± 37.3 min) and initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy (n = 43; 282.2 ± 59.2 min) groups (P < .001). Moreover, the length of hospital stay in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group was significantly reduced compared to that in the open donor right hepatectomy group (7.7 ± 1.2 vs 5.8 ± 1.4; P < .001). The complication rate was reduced from 10% in the open donor right hepatectomy group and 8% in the initial pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group to 2% in the recent pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy group.

CONCLUSION

As technology advances, the surgical outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy are comparable and the operation time of pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is superior to those of open donor hepatectomy.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection and re-operation for liver tumor

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been reported as a safe, minimally invasive, and effective surgery for the management of liver tumor. However, the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent liver tumor are unclear. Here, we analyzed the surgical results of LRLR. From June 2010 to May 2019, we performed 575 LLR surgeries in our department, and 454 of them underwent pure LLR for the single tumor. We classified the patients who received pure LLR for the single tumor into three groups: LRLR (n = 80), laparoscopic re-operation after previous abdominal surgery (LReOp; n = 136), and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR; n = 238). We compared patient characteristics and surgical results between patients undergoing LRLR, LReOp and LPLR. We found no significant differences between LRLR and LPLR in the conversion rate to laparotomy (p = 0.8033), intraoperative bleeding (63.0 vs. 152.4 ml; p = 0.0911), or postoperative bile leakage rate (2.50 vs. 3.78%; p = 0.7367). We also found no significant difference in the surgical results between LReOp and LPLR. However, the number of patients undergoing the Pringle maneuver was lower in the LRLR group than the LPLR group (61.3 vs. 81.5%; p = 0.0004). This finding was more pronounced after open liver resection than laparoscopic liver resection (38.9 vs. 67.7%; p = 0.0270). The operative time was significantly longer in patients with proximity to previous cut surface than patients with no proximity to previous cut surface (307.4 vs. 235.7 min; p = 0.0201). LRLR can safely be performed with useful surgical results compared to LPLR.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatectomy for Secondary Liver Neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a widely accepted alternative to an open approach. The use of this technique in repeat liver resection is limited due to technical difficulties caused by postsurgical adhesions. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (HALRH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the medical files of patients who had undergone HALRH between 2010 and 2017 in 2 university-affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with repeat hepatectomy were included with a median age of 67.5 years. The first liver resection was a traditional laparotomy for 9 patients and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for 7 patients. The conversion rate to open surgery was 6%. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 166 minutes, 400 mL, and 7 days, respectively. R0 resections were achieved in 88% of patients. The median number of tumors and tumor size were 1 and of 25 mm, respectively. There were no mortalities or major complications postoperatively. For patients with colorectal liver metastases, the median follow-up and overall survival were 21 and 43 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest HALRH to be safe and feasible. Future ERAS guidelines should evaluate this approach for liver surgery.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for treating recurrent liver cancer

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Laparoscopic liver resection after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for liver metastases of ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma

Background

Repeat laparoscopic surgery has become increasingly common. However, reports of liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy are scarce, and we report the first successful case of a patient who underwent laparoscopic liver resection after laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Case presentation

A 65-year-old man underwent laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for ampulla of Vater adenocarcinoma. According to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (8th edition) staging guidelines, the tumour was labelled as stage IIIB (fT2N2M0). Twelve months later, a computed tomography (CT) scan revealed liver masses (in segments 3 and 5) and swollen para-aortic lymph nodes. After six chemotherapy courses of gemcitabine with cisplatin, the CT scan showed the disappearance of the para-aortic lymph nodes and progression of liver metastases. Nineteen months after the initial surgery, the patient underwent laparoscopic partial liver resection of segment 5 and left lateral sectionectomy. First, we performed the operation in the left half lateral decubitus position. In this position, the portal vein was isolated safely without hindering the hepato-jejunal anastomosis, although the adhesions around the hepato-jejunal anastomosis were dense. Therefore, we were able to perform liver transection safely with vascular inflow control. The operation duration was 235 min, and the volume of blood loss was 100 g. Macroscopically, the resected margins were negative. The patient was uneventfully discharged 12 days after the second operation. Afterwards, drainage was needed because of an intra-abdominal abscess. Currently, he has been alive for 8 months postoperatively, receives chemotherapy to suppress para-aortic lymph node metastases, and has not had another recurrence.

Conclusions

Liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy can be performed safely with an innovative body position to isolate the portal vein, which is a key point of the surgery. A laparoscopic approach for liver resection after pancreatoduodenectomy is a feasible option.

Feasibility and efficacy of repeat laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is an acceptable treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, repeat laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has not been widely adopted due to its technical difficulty. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of repeat LLR compared with repeat open liver resection (OLR) for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We performed 42 repeat OLR and 30 repeat LLR for cases of recurrent HCC between January 2007 and March 2018. This study retrospectively compared the patients' clinicopathological characteristics and operative and short-term outcomes including surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, duration of hospital stay, and postoperative complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups except in terms of Child-Pugh grade. The repeat LLR group had lower median intraoperative blood loss (100 mL vs. 435 mL; P = 0.001) and shorter median postoperative hospital stay (10 days vs. 14.5 days; P = 0.002). The other results including postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. Further, comparison of two subpopulations of the repeat LLR group stratified by previous hepatectomy type (open or laparoscopic) or tumor location (segments 7 and 8 or other) revealed no significant differences in the postoperative clinical characteristics between them, although the morbidity rate tended to be higher in patients who underwent open hepatectomy for primary HCC than in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LLR for recurrent HCC is feasible and useful with good short-term outcomes although an appropriate patient selection seems to be necessary.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Recurrence of liver cancers inside the liver are often treated with liver resection (LR). However, increased risks of complications and conversion during operation were reported in laparoscopic repeat LR (LRLR). The indication is still controversial. One multi-institutional propensity score matching analysis of LRLR vs open repeat LR for hepatocellular carcinoma, two propensity score matching analyses for colorectal metastases, and two meta-analyses including hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastases, and other tumors have been reported to date. LRLR was reported with better to comparable short-term and similar long-term outcomes. Furthermore, the shorter operation time and the smaller amount of intraoperative bleeding for LRLR was reported for the patients who had undergone laparoscopic rather than open LR as an earlier procedure. The speculations are presented, that complete dissection of adhesion can be dodged and laparoscopic minor repeated LR can minimize the liver functional deterioration in cirrhotic patients. LRLR, as a powerful local therapy, could contribute to the long-term outcomes of those with deteriorated liver function. However, the procedure is now in its developing stage worldwide and further accumulation of experiences and evaluation are needed.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic techniques have become the standard approach for most liver resections. Clinical studies providing conclusive evidence which patients benefit most from minimal-invasive surgery remain limited.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data of all consecutive cases of laparoscopic liver resection between 2015 and 2018 at our center. We compared patients with and without prior abdominal surgeries with respect to postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score), length of operation, length of ICU stay and length of hospitalization in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Within the study period 319 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections, 44% of which had a history of abdominal surgeries. Pre-operative characteristics were similar to patients without prior surgeries. Both groups showed comparable rates of post-operative complications (Clavien-Dindo score ≥3a; 12% in patients without vs. 16% with prior surgeries, p = 0,322). There were no significant differences in length of surgery or length of stay in the ICU or in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that history of prior abdominal surgery is not a risk factor for post-operative complications after laparoscopic liver resection. We conclude that prior abdominal surgery should not be considered a contra-indication for laparoscopic approach in liver resection.

Difficulty classifications of laparoscopic repeated liver resection in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to investigate the predictive factors and classifications for difficulty of laparoscopic repeated liver resection (LRLR) in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

Sixty patients who underwent LRLR were included. Potential predictive factors for difficult LRLR included the approach of the previous liver resection (laparoscopic or open), the number of previous liver resections, a history of cholecystectomy in previous liver resection, the operative procedure of previous liver resection, whether the tumor was near the resected site of the previous liver resection, non-surgical treatments before the present surgery, and the difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. The relationship between these factors and perioperative outcomes were evaluated to investigate the predictive factor for difficult LRLR.

RESULTS

Univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated that an open approach during previous liver resection, two or more previous liver resections, a history of previous liver resection with not less than sectionectomy, tumor near the resected site of the previous liver resection, and intermediate or high difficulty in the difficulty scoring system were independent risk factors for prolonged operative time and/or severe adhesion of LRLR. Three difficulty classifications were then suggested based on the number of these five predictive factors. The difficulty classification reflected operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of postoperative complication.

CONCLUSION

The difficulty of LRLR may be predicted by three difficulty classifications using five preoperative predictive factors.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy is a more favorable treatment than open repeat hepatectomy for contralateral recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma cases

BACKGROUND

We compared surgical outcomes, with a focus on tumor characteristics, of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) to identify recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases where the LRH procedure would be more favorable than ORH.

METHODS

Eighty-one HCC patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy in our hospital from 2008 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Of these patients, 30 and 51 patients underwent LRH and ORH, respectively. We analyzed surgical outcomes of LRH and ORH, focusing on tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from major vessels, and contralateral or ipsilateral tumor recurrence to determine what factors could affect surgical outcomes. Subsequently, using a propensity-matched cohort, we compared the impact of those factors on LRH and ORH outcomes.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort, the LRH operation time was significantly shorter in contralateral recurrent HCC cases than in ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (252 vs. 398 min, P = 0.008); however, such a difference was not observed in the ORH operation time. We subsequently compared the surgical outcomes, in terms of the location of tumor recurrence, between the LRH and ORH groups in a propensity-matched cohort. In total, 23 patients were included in each of these groups. We found that the LRH procedure had significantly shorter operative time than the ORH procedure in the contralateral recurrent HCC cases (253 vs. 391 min, P = 0.018); however, we did not observe such a difference in the ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (372 vs. 333 min, P = 0.669). LRH had lower blood loss, similar postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than ORH in both contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is likely considered a more favorable approach than ORH in treating patients with contralateral recurrent HCC.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is technical challenge for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UAS), especially for those with previous liver resection. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous UAS, in comparison with primary laparoscopic liver resection which means patients without previous upper abdominal surgery (non-UAS).

METHODS

All case-matched articles published from date of inception to 15th April 2018 were identified independently by two reviewers. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were extracted and calculated by random- or fixed-effect models. In addition, subgroup analysis according to patients with history of liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 non-randomized observational articles were included, with 1625 patients (430 patients in UAS group and 1195 in non-UAS group). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients with a history of liver resection, however, LH for patients with previous liver resection had longer operative time comparing with patients without previous liver resection (WMD = 33.03, 95% CI 3.16 to 62.90, P = 0.030); other perioperative outcomes were similar between UAS and non-UAS groups.

CONCLUSION

LH is feasible and safe for selected patients with previous UAS comparing with that of primary resection, although LH has longer operative time for patients with previous liver resection.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

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

The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).

METHODS

We introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Is Laparoscopic Hepatectomy a Safe, Feasible Procedure in Patients with a Previous Upper Abdominal Surgery?

Background:

Laparoscopic liver resection has become an accepted treatment for liver tumors or intrahepatic bile duct stones, but its application in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in these patients.

Methods:

Three hundred and thirty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy at our hospital from March 2012 to June 2015 were enrolled in the retrospective study. They were divided into two groups: Those with previous upper abdominal surgery (PS group, n = 42) and a control group with no previous upper abdominal surgery (NS group, n = 294). Short-term outcomes including operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were compared among the groups.

Results:

There was no significant difference in median operative duration between the PS group and the NS group (180 min vs. 160 min, P = 0.869). Median intraoperative blood loss was same between the PS group and the control group (200 ml vs. 200 ml, P = 0.907). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the NS group than in the PS group (17.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.030). Mortality and other short-term outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions:

Our study showed no significant difference between the PS group and NS group in term of short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a feasible and safe procedure for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic liver resection for posterosuperior tumors using caudal approach and postural changes: A new technical approach

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumors in the posterosuperior liver [segment (S) 7 and deep S6] is a challenging clinical procedure. This area is located in the bottom of the small subphrenic space (rib cage), with the large and heavy right liver on it when the patient is in the supine position. Thus, LLR of this area is technically demanding because of the handling of the right liver which is necessary to obtain a fine surgical view, secure hemostasis and conduct the resection so as to achieve an appropriate surgical margin in the cage. Handling of the right liver may be performed by the hand-assisted approach, robotic liver resection or by using spacers, such as a sterile glove pouch. In addition, the operative field of posterosuperior resection is in the deep bottom area of the subphrenic cage, with the liver S6 obstructing the laparoscopic caudal view of lesions. The use of intercostal ports facilitates the direct lateral approach into the cage and to the target area, with the combination of mobilization of the liver. Postural changes during the LLR procedure have also been reported to facilitate the LLR for this area, such as left lateral positioning for posterior sectionectomy and semi-prone positioning for tumors in the posterosuperior segments. In our hospital, LLR procedures for posterosuperior tumors are performed via the caudal approach with postural changes. The left lateral position is used for posterior sectionectomy and the semi-prone position is used for S7 segmentectomy and partial resections of S7 and deep S6 without combined intercostal ports insertion. Although the movement of instruments is restricted in the caudal approach, compared to the lateral approach, port placement in the para-vertebra area makes the manipulation feasible and stable, with minimum damage to the environment around the liver.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is effective for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC). This study aimed to determine the outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for rHCC.

METHODS

Eight consecutive patients who underwent LRLR for rHCC were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Six patients had previous open and two had laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). There was one (12.5%) open conversion for bleeding and one (12.5%) post-operative morbidity. The median tumour size was 24 mm (range: 8-50 mm). LRLR was performed for rHCC in the ipsilateral lobe as compared to the index surgery in 4/8 (50%) patients. Five of eight (62.5%) patients had rHCC in the difficult posterosuperior segments. Six patients had previous open LR, and two had previous LLR. One patient (patient 4) had two prior open LR for rHCC, and LRLR was performed for the second recurrence. The median duration from the first surgery to LRLR was 29 months (range: 6-109 months). The median post-operative stay was 3.5 days. All eight patients had R0 resections, and at a median follow-up of 7.5 months, all patients were disease-free.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. This can be performed even for patients with previous open liver resections, cirrhosis, lesions in the posterosuperior segments and prior LR of the ipsilateral lobe. LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe in highly selected patients.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy: Recent advances and current thought

The development of laparoscopic hepatectomy is rapid in recent years. Preliminary clinical studies have shown that the postoperative morbidity of laparoscopic hepatectomy has no significant difference compared with open hepatectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy has many advantages such as minimal invasiveness, faster recovery and less impairment to immune function. Both the short- and long-term effects of laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver cancer patients are similar to those of open hepatectomy. There are still many issues worthy of discussion about laparoscopic hepatectomy due to the clinical and pathological features of liver cancer such as how to evaluate patients' condition preoperatively, how to follow the principle of intraoperative non-tumor touch, how to locate the tumor within the liver parenchyma, how to optimize the surgical approach, and how to control bleeding. It is anticipated that laparoscopic hepatectomy will be more widely used once these issues are resolved.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma rupture in the caudate lobe

AIM: To demonstrate that caudate lobectomy is a valid treatment in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) rupture in the caudate lobe based on our experience with the largest case series reported to date.

METHODS: A retrospective study of eight patients presenting with spontaneous rupture and hemorrhage of HCC in the caudate lobe was conducted. Two patients underwent ineffective transarterial embolization preoperatively. Caudate lobectomy was performed in all eight patients. Bilateral approach was taken in seven cases for isolated complete caudate lobectomy. Left-sided approach was employed in one case for isolated partial caudate lobectomy. Transarterial chemoembolization was performed postoperatively in all patients.

RESULTS: Caudate lobectomy was successfully completed in all eight cases. The median time delay from the diagnosis to operation was 5 d (range: 0.25-9). Median operating time was 200 min (range: 120-310) with a median blood loss of 900 mL (range: 300-1500). Five patient remained in long-term follow-up, with one patient becoming lost to follow-up at 3 years and two patients currently alive at 7 and 19 mo. One patient required reoperation due to recurrence. Gamma knife intervention was performed for brain metastasis in another case. Two patients survived for 10 and 84 mo postoperatively, ultimately succumbing to multiple organ metastases.

CONCLUSION: Caudate lobectomy is the salvage choice for HCC rupture in the caudate lobe. Local anatomy and physiologic features of the disease render caudate lobectomy a technically difficult operation. Postponement of surgical intervention is thus recommended while the rupture remains hemodynamically stable until an experienced surgeon becomes available. Prognosis is confounded by numerous factors, but long-term survival can be expected in the majority of cases.