The comparison of oncologic and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p<0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P<0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p<0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p<0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p<0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection and Risk Factors for Adverse Events

PURPOSE

The perioperative outcomes and risk factors associated with adverse events (AEs) after initial laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear. We studied the outcomes of LLR and identified the predictive factors for AEs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 100 adults who underwent LLR between April 2014 and February 2020 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics, surgery details, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were tabulated. The AEs included conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Major and minor LLRs accounted for 16% and 84% of cases, respectively. Of the indications for LLR, 88% were malignancies. Conversion to open surgery was necessary for 7% of the patients, the overall morbidity rate was 21%, the major morbidity rate was 7%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 1%. Although the incidence of AEs was higher after major LLR (37.5%) than after minor LLR (21.4%), the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.095); the rate of AEs in the resection of posterosuperior segments (43.7%) did not significantly differ from that of the anteroinferior segments (19.2%; P=0.095). Multivariable analysis revealed that the significant predictors of AEs included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III (odds ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-19.1; P=0.003) and an operative time longer than 5 hours (odds ratio, 9.20; 95% confidence interval, 2.41-35.07; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

To improve outcomes in LLR, patients with ASA class III and those in whom surgery is expected to last longer than 5 hours should be taken into account for better patient selection.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Enhanced recovery after surgery strategy for cirrhosis patients undergoing hepatectomy: experience in a single research center

Purpose

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme after curative liver resection in cirrhotic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

Methods

One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled in the study; 80 patients whose data were collected prospectively were assigned to the ERAS group, and 82 patients whose data were collected retrospectively were assigned to the control group. Preoperative clinicopathologic factors, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes of the 2 groups were compared. Logistic regression was applied to explore potential predictors of hospital stay and morbidity.

Results

The postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, and recovery of liver function on postoperative day 5 seemed to be better in the ERAS group. The composition of complications was different in the 2 groups; pleural effusion and postoperative ascites were more common in the control group, and indocyanine green retention at 15 minutes, operation time, preoperative alanine aminotransferase, and number of liver segmentectomies were associated with postoperative complications rather than ERAS intervention.

Conclusion

The ERAS programme is safe and effective for HCC patients with chronic liver disease undergoing hepatectomy, but it seems that surgical factors, such as operation type, have a greater impact on morbidity than other factors. Operative characteristics such as the method of blood loss control and the volume of liver resection should be augmented into ERAS protocol of hepatectomy.

Study on the mechanism underlying Al-induced hepatotoxicity based on the identification of the Al-binding proteins in liver

Aluminum (Al) is the most abundant metal element in the earth's crust, and is implicated in the pathogenesis of liver lesions. However, the mechanisms underlying Al³⁺-induced hepatotoxicity are still largely elusive. Based on analysis with native gel electrophoresis, Al³⁺ plus 8-hydroxyquinoline staining and LC-MS/MS, the proteins with high Al³⁺ affinity were identified to be carbamoyl-phosphate synthase, adenosylhomocysteinase, heat shock protein 90-alpha, carbonic anhydrase 3, serum albumin and calreticulin. These proteins are involved in physiological processes such as the urea cycle, redox reactions, apoptosis and so on. Then we established an Al³⁺-treated rat model for biochemical tests, morphology observation and Ca²⁺ homeostasis analysis, in order to evaluate the extent of oxidative damage, hepatic histopathology and specific indicators of Al³⁺-related proteins in liver. Our findings indicated the high-affinity interactions with Al³⁺ perturbed the normal function of the above proteins, which could account for the mechanism underlying Al³⁺-induced hepatotoxicity.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes after pure laparoscopic versus open liver surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Background

The advantages of laparoscopy are widely known. Nevertheless, its legitimacy in liver surgery is often questioned because of the uncertain value associated with minimally invasive methods. Our main goal was to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases to find eligible studies. The most recent search was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were regarded as suitable if they reported morbidity in patients undergoing LLR versus OLR. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Clinical applicability of results was evaluated using predictive intervals. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

From 2085 articles, forty-three studies (N = 5100 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LLR had lower overall morbidity than OLR (15.59% vs. 29.88%, p < 0.001). Moreover, major morbidity was reduced in the LLR group (3.78% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of mortality (1.58% vs. 2.96%, p = 0.05) and both 3- and 5-year overall survival (68.97% vs. 68.12%, p = 0.41) and disease-free survival (46.57% vs. 44.84%, p = 0.46).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis showed that LLR is beneficial in terms of overall morbidity and non-procedure-specific complications. That being said, these results are based on non-randomized trials. For these reasons, we are calling for randomization in upcoming studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084576.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-6431-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in short- and long-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH) in patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

An electronic search of reports published before August 2017 was carried out to identify comparative studies evaluating LH versus OH for HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 5889 patients (2421 underwent LH; 3468 underwent OH) were included in our meta-analysis from 47 studies. Laparoscopic hepatectomies were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -147.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -217.00, -77.55), blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40, 0.65), pathologic resection margins (MD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12; P = 0.01), R0 resection rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.98, 1.84; P = 0.07), and length of hospital stay (MD, -5.13; 95% confidence interval, -6.23, -4.03). There were no differences between the groups in overall survival (OS) at 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.98), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.36), or 5 years (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.46), in disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.51), 3 years (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86, 1.33), or 5 years (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92, 1.40), or in recurrence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Compared to OH, LH is superior in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and the requirement for blood transfusion, larger pathologic resection margins, increased R0 resection rates, and shorter length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic hepatectomy and OH have similar OS, DFS, and recurrence.

[Identical oncological results with lower perioperative morbidity after laparoscopic liver resection : Results of a matched pair analysis]

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection belongs to the standard repertoire in hepatobiliary surgery. The advantages and disadvantages are still the subject of controversial discussion.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients who underwent liver resection in the Department of Surgery at the certified liver center of the  municipal hospital Karlsruhe were analyzed. From a total of 268 hepatic resections 65 laparoscopic liver resections were identified and matched 1:1 with 65 open resections, based primarily on the extent of the resection and secondarily on diagnosis, age and gender of the patients. The demographic data, comorbidities, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

Both groups had comparable demographic parameters and comorbidities. Operation time, duration of intensive care stay and percentage of negative resection margins were comparable in both groups. The 30-day mortality was 0% and 90-day mortality 1.5% in both groups. The laparoscopic group showed lower intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates (p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall and tumor-free survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases was comparable (p = 0.984; p = 0.947). The same applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (p = 0.803; p = 0.935).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resections have identical long-term outcomes with lower overall morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resections offer advantages regarding transfusion rates, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are widely accepted as safe and effective procedures for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the hands of experienced surgeons. The efficacy and extent of benefits of pure as well as hand-assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection over open liver resection (OLR) have been investigated by numerous studies during the last 10 years. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of LLR in short- and long-term outcomes compared to OLR in patients operated for HCC. A total of 5203 patients from forty-four studies were included in our meta-analysis reporting for short- and long-term results for both LLR and OLR for HCC. Among them, 1830 underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy, 282 underwent pure laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy, and 3091 were operated through open approach. LLRs were found to be significantly associated with lower blood loss, need for blood transfusion, successful achievement of R0 resection as well as wider resection margin, shorter hospital stay, lower morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Operative time, tumor recurrence, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival as well as 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival were not found different between the groups. This meta-analysis clearly demonstrates the superiority of laparoscopic resection over the open approach for patients with small HCC.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: initial experience in Greece

Background

Liver resection represents the treatment of choice for a small proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), amenable to surgery. The remarkable evolution in surgical techniques during the last decades introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy in the operative management of HCC, even in the presence of liver cirrhosis. No comparative study on laparoscopic or open liver resection for HCC has been conducted in Greece yet.

Methods

Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC by one senior hepatobiliary surgeon in our Institution during the period 11/2011-02/2016 were prospectively sampled and retrospectively analyzed for the purposes of this study. Statistical analysis encompassed Student’s t-test, Fisher’s exact test, the Kaplan-Meier method/log rank test and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses.

Results

Eleven patients underwent laparoscopic and 21 open liver resection, respectively. Statistical differences between the 2 groups were observed for tumor size (P=0.04), major resections (P=0.01), Pringle maneuver (P=0.008), intraoperative blood transfusion (P=0.03), and duration of operation (P=0.004). Resection margins, and tumor recurrence showed no statistical differences. Three-year postoperative survival after laparoscopic and open hepatectomy was 100%, and 67%, respectively (P=0.06). Regression analysis for patient survival revealed prognostic value for BCLC staging, γ-glutamyl transferase levels, laparoscopic hepatectomy, UICC stage, Dindo-Clavien classification, and hospital stay. Laparoscopic hepatectomy remained as independent predictor of survival by multivariate analysis (P=0.0142).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC in chronic liver disease represents a safe and innovative treatment tool in the management of these patients under the presupposition of careful patient selection.

An evaluation of the safety of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: investigations including serum albumin and ascites

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate scientific advantages and safety of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with severe damaged liver and cirrhosis.

METHODS

Three cohorts were evaluated: group I, patients with severe liver damage or cirrhosis (f3-4) who underwent laparoscopic-assisted hepatectomy (n=8); group II, patients with severe liver damage or cirrhosis (f3-4) who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy (n=10); group III, patients with normal liver (f0) who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy (control, n=7). A comparison of operative time, blood loss, serum albumin, C-reactive protein, duration of hospitalization, duration of postoperative indispensable hospitalization, and the duration of ascites drainage was made between the 3 cohorts.

RESULTS

All parameters except for operative time and C-reactive protein investigated were significantly worse in group I compared with the other 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy might be safe for patients with damaged liver and cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver

Operations on the liver have been undertaken for centuries for numerous indications including trauma, infections, and even for malignancy, but it was not until the past few decades that rates dramatically increased. This expanse in liver operations is due to a multitude of factors, including broader indications as well as improved safety. Our understanding of metastatic disease to the liver, especially colorectal cancer metastases, has vastly amplified the number of patients who would be candidates for hepatic resections and liver-directed therapies. We will focus our discussion here on planned minimally invasive operations for benign and malignant tumors as the majority of the literature relates to this setting.

Comparative study and systematic review of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) as a curative treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: A PubMed database search was performed systematically to identify comparative studies of LLR vs OLR for HCC from 2000 to 2014. An extensive text word search was conducted, using combinations of search headings such as “laparoscopy”, “hepatectomy”, and “hepatocellular carcinoma”. A comparative study was also performed in our institution where we analysed surgical outcomes of 152 patients who underwent liver resection between January 2005 to December 2012, of which 42 underwent laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection and 110 underwent open resection.

RESULTS: Analysis of our own series and a review of 17 high-quality studies showed that LLR was superior to OLR in terms of short-term outcomes, as patients in the laparoscopic arm were found to have less intraoperative blood loss, less blood transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay. In our own series, both LLR and OLR groups were found to have similar overall survival (OS) rates, but disease-free survival (DFS) rates were higher in the laparoscopic arm.

CONCLUSION: LLR is associated with better short-term outcomes compared to OLR as a curative treatment for HCC. Long-term oncologic outcomes with regards to OS and DFS rates were found to be comparable in both groups. LLR is hence a safe and viable option for curative resection of HCC.

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.

A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in case-controlled patient groups using the propensity score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2013, 292 patients underwent surgical resection for HCC. Of these, 202 patients who underwent surgical resection for initial treatment for a single mass were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to the method of operation: the Lap group (patients who underwent LLR) and the Open group (patients who underwent OLR). To correct different demographic and clinical factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, 102 patients were enrolled in this study, 51 patients in each group. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative results, and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed based on the prospectively recorded database.

RESULTS

Preoperative baseline variables were well balanced in both groups. There were no differences of extent of surgery and rate of anatomical resection between the two groups. With the exception of a shorter postoperative hospital stay in the Lap group than that of the Open group (8.2 days versus 12.3 days; P=.004), there were no significant differences in perioperative, pathological, and long-term outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rates were 80.1% in the Lap group and 85.7% in the Open group, respectively (P=.173). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.8% in the Lap group and 54.8% in the Open group, respectively (P=.519).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is safe, and long-term oncologic outcomes in selected patients were comparable to those who underwent OLR.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic pringle maneuver in patients with severe cirrhosis

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a standard surgical procedure. However, it is difficult to perform in patients with severe cirrhosis because of fibrosis and a high risk of hemorrhage. We report our recent experience in five cases of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver in patients with severe cirrhosis. From 2012 to 2014, we performed pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy in five patients with severe liver cirrhosis (indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min [ICG R15] >30% and fibrosis stage f4). A pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver was employed in all patients. We investigated operative time, blood loss, duration of hospitalization and the days when discharge was possible, and compared these findings with those of patients with a normal liver (ICG R15 <10%, f0) who underwent pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy during the same period (n = 7). As a result, operative time, blood loss, duration of hospitalization and the days when discharge was possible were similar in patients with cirrhosis undergoing pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver to those in patients with a normal liver undergoing pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy. In conclusion, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver appears to be safe in patients with severe cirrhosis.

From minimal to maximal surgery in the treatment of hepatocarcinoma: A review

Hepatocellular carcinoma represents one of the most challenging frontiers in liver surgery. Surgeons have to face a broad spectrum of aspects, from the underlying liver disease to the new surgical techniques. Safe liver resection can be performed in patients with portal hypertension and well-compensated liver function with a 5-year survival rate of 50%, offering good long-terms results in selected patients. With the advances in laparoscopic surgery, major liver resections can be performed with minimal harm, avoiding the wound and leak complications related to the laparotomies. Studies have shown that oncological margins are the same as in open surgery. In patients submitted to liver resection (either laparoscopic or open) who experience recurrence, re-resection or salvage liver transplantation has been showing to be an alternative approach in well selected cases. The decision making approach to the cirrhotic patient is becoming more complex and should involve hepatologists, liver surgeons, radiologists and oncologists. Better understanding of the different risk factors for recurrence and survival should be aimed in these multidisciplinary discussions. We here in discuss the hot topics related to surgical risk factors regarding the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: anatomical resection, margin status, macrovascular tumor invasion, the place of laparoscopy, salvage liver transplantation and liver transplantation.

Rationale and surgical technique of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy using endoscopic staples

Purpose

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been widely accepted due to benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Some surgeons prefer to isolate glissonian pedicles to segments II and III and to control individual pedicles with surgical clips, whereas opt like to control glissonian pedicles simultaneously using endoscopic stapling devices. The aim of this study was to find the rationale of LLLS using endoscopic staples.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed and compared the clinical outcomes (operation time, drainage length, transfusion, hospital stay, and complication rate) of 35 patients that underwent LLLS between April 2004 and February 2012. Patients were dichotomized by surgical technique based on whether glissonian pedicles were isolated and controlled (the individual group, n = 21) or controlled using endoscopic staples at once (the batch group, n = 14).

Results

Mean operation time was 265.3 ± 21.3 minutes (mean ± standard deviation) in the individual group and 170 ± 22.9 minutes in the batch group. Operation time in the batch group was significantly shorter than the individual group (P = 0.007). Mean drainage length was 4.8 ± 1.6 and 2.6 ± 1.5 days in the individual and the batch group. There was significantly shorter in the batch group, also (P = 0.006). No transfusion was required in the batch group, but 4 patients in the individual group needed transfusion. Mean hospital stay was 10.7 ± 1.1 and 9.4 ± 0.8 days in the individual and the batch groups (P = 0.460). There were no significant complications or mortality in both groups.

Conclusion

LLLS using endoscopic staples (batch group) was found to be an easier and safer technique without morbidity or mortality.