Short-term and middle-term evaluation of laparoscopic hepatectomies compared with open hepatectomies: A propensity score matching analysis

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023446440.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Total laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Background:

There have been an increasing number of articles that demonstrate the potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from retrospective observational studies susceptible to bias, especially selection bias. In addition, in many series, several modalities of minimally invasive surgery are included in the same comparison group.

Aim:

To compare the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of patients submitted to total laparoscopic liver resection with those submitted to open liver resection, matched by propensity score matching (PSM).

Method:

Consecutive adult patients submitted to liver resection were included. PSM model was constructed using the following variables: age, gender, diagnosis (benign vs. malignant), type of hepatectomy (minor vs. major), and presence of cirrhosis. After matching, the groups were redefined on a 1:1 ratio, by the nearest method.

Results:

After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. Those undergoing total laparoscopic surgery had shorter operative time (286.8±133.4 vs. 352.4±141.5 minutes, p<0.001), shorter ICU stay (1.9±1.2 vs. 2.5±2.2days, p=0.031), shorter hospital stay (5.8±3.9 vs. 9.9±9.3 days, p<0.001) and a 45% reduction in perioperative complications (19.2 vs. 35%, p=0.008).

Conclusion:

Total laparoscopic liver resections are safe, feasible and associated with shorter operative time, shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lower rate of perioperative complications.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparative Study Using a Propensity Score Matching

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the results between laparoscopic hepatectomy and open hepatectomy in two French university hospitals, for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using a propensity score matching.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A patient in the laparoscopic surgery group (LA) was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach group (OA) using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. Matching criteria included age, presence of comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and resection type (major or minor). Patients of the LA group without matches were excluded. Intraoperative and postoperative data were compared in both groups. Survival was compared in both groups using the following matching criteria: number and size of lesions, alpha-fetoprotein rate, and cell differentiation.

RESULTS

From January 2012 to January 2017, a total of 447 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, 99 hepatectomies of which were performed for the management of hepatocellular carcinomas. Forty-nine resections were performed among the open approach (OA) group (49%), and 50 resections were performed among the laparoscopic surgery (LA) group (51%). Mortality rate was 2% in the LA group and 4.1% in the OA group. After propensity score matching, there was a statistical difference favorable to the LA group regarding medical complications (54.55% versus 27.27%, p = 0.04), and operating times were shorter (p = 0.03). Resection rate R0 was similar between both groups: 90.91% (n = 30) in the LA group and 84.85% (n =) in the OA group. There was no difference regarding overall survival (p = 0.98) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.42).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for the management of HCC seems to provide the same short-term and long-term results as compared to the open approach. Laparoscopic liver resections could be considered as an alternative and become the gold standard in well-selected patients.

Long-term perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. We retrospectively compared the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in well-matched patient groups using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of patients with HCC who underwent liver resection between July 2007 and April 2016 at our center. In total, 2335 patients were included in this study and divided into LLR (n = 264) and OLR (n = 2071) groups. For group comparisons, 1:2 PSM was used with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics and surgical liver resection procedures.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 217 and 434 patients in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively. The LLR group had shorter hospital stays (8.9 vs. 14.8 days; P < 0.001) and lower postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs. 12.0%; P = 0.022). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.1%, 87.0%, and 78.6%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 98.3%, 90.8%, and 84.3%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.570). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 62.0%, and 49.1%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 85.3%, 64.7%, and 56.2%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.563).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between LLR and OLR for selected patients. LLR was associated with multiple benefits, even for selected patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy. LLR for HCC performed by an experienced surgeon could be considered a safe and feasible alternative to OLR for selected patients.

Intention to Treat Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemi-Hepatectomy: A Paired Case-Matched Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to open hemi-hepatectomy are not clear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to share our experience with the laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to an open approach.

METHODS

A total of 40 consecutive laparoscopically started hemi-hepatectomy (intention-to-treat analysis) cases between August 2012 and October 2015 were matched against open cases using the following criteria: laterality of surgery and pathology (essential criteria); American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, pre-operative bilirubin, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, additional procedures, portal vein embolization, and presence of cirrhosis/fibrosis on histology (secondary criteria); age and gender (tertiary criteria). Hand-assisted and extended hemi-hepatectomy cases were excluded from the study. The two groups were compared for blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes. All complications were quantified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Two groups were well matched (p = 1.00). In the two groups, 10 patients had left and 30 had right hemi-hepatectomy. Overall conversion rate was 15%. Median length of hospital and high dependency unit stay was less in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.025 and 1 versus 2 days, p = 0.07. Median operative time was longer in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 420 min (range: 389.5-480) versus 305 min (range: 238.8-348.8; p = 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss was equivalent, but the overall blood transfusions were higher in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy (50 vs 29 units, p = 0.36). The overall morbidity (18 vs 20 patients, p = 0.65), mortality (2.5%), and the positive resection margin status were similar (18% vs 21%, p = 0.76). The 1- (87.5% vs 92.5%, p = 0.71) and 3-year survival (70% vs 72.5%, p = 1.00) was also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed lower hospital and high dependency unit stay in the laparoscopic group. However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating time and a non-significant increase in blood transfusion requirements. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, re-admission rate, and oncological outcomes.

Minimally invasive management of the entire treatment sequence in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: a propensity-score weighting analysis

BACKGROUND

In patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), minimally invasive surgery (MIS) may offer optimal oncologic outcome with low morbidity. However, the relative benefit of MIS compared to open surgery in patients requiring multistage resections has not been evaluated.

METHODS

Patients who underwent totally minimally invasive (TMI) or totally open (TO) resections of CRC primary and liver metastases (CLM) in 2009-2016 were analyzed. Inverse probability of weighted adjustment by propensity score was performed before analyzing risk factors for complications and survival.

RESULTS

The study included 43 TMI and 121 TO patients. Before and after adjustment, TMI patients had significantly less cumulated postoperative complications (41% vs. 59%, p = 0.001), blood loss (median 100 vs. 200 ml, p = 0.001) and shorter length of hospital stay (median 4.5 vs. 6.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified TO approach vs. MIS (OR = 2.4, p < 0.001), major liver resection (OR = 4.4, p < 0.001), and multiple CLM (OR = 2.3, p = 0.001) as independent risk factors for complications. 5-year overall survival was comparable (81% vs 68%, p = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRC undergoing multistage surgical treatment, MIS resection contributes to optimal perioperative outcomes without compromise in oncologic outcomes.

Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated that patient, surgical, tumour and operative variables affect the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections. However, current difficulty scoring systems address only tumour factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resections.

Methods

The prospectively maintained databases of seven European tertiary referral liver centres were compiled. Data from two-thirds of the patients were used for development and one-third for validation of the model. Intraoperative complications were based on a modified Satava classification. Using the methodology of the Framingham Heart Study, developed to identify risk factors that contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, factors found to predict intraoperative complications independently were assigned points, and grouped into low-, moderate-, high- and extremely high-risk groups based on the likelihood of intraoperative complications.

Results

A total of 2856 patients were included. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lesion type and size, classification of resection and previous open liver resection were found to be independent predictors of intraoperative complications. Patients with intraoperative complications had a longer duration of hospital stay (5 versus 4 days; P &lt; 0·001), higher complication rates (32·5 versus 15·5 per cent; P &lt; 0·001), and higher 30-day (3·0 versus 0·3 per cent; P &lt; 0·001) and 90-day (3·8 versus 0·8 per cent; P &lt; 0·001) mortality rates than those who did not. The model was able to predict intraoperative complications (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) 0·677, 95 per cent c.i. 0·647 to 0·706) as well as postoperative 90-day mortality (AUC 0·769, 0·681 to 0·858).

Conclusion

This comprehensive scoring system, based on patient, surgical and tumour factors, and developed and validated using a large multicentre European database, helped estimate the risk of intraoperative complications.

The Asia Pacific Consensus Statement on Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Report from the 7th Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Meeting Held in Hong Kong

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been gaining momentum, and it has become an accepted practice after the two international consensus conferences where experts worked up guidelines to standardize this approach and improve its safety. However, most laparoscopic hepatectomies were performed in patients with liver metastases. The concurrent presence of liver cirrhosis with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a great challenge to clinicians trying to establish a routine use of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC.

SUMMARY

The first Asia Pacific consensus meeting on laparoscopic liver resection for HCC was held in July 2016 in Hong Kong. A group of expert liver surgeons with experience in both open and laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC convened to formulate recommendations on the role and perspective of laparoscopic liver resection for primary liver cancer. The recommendations consolidate the most recent evidence pertaining to laparoscopic hepatectomy together with the latest thinking of practicing clinicians involved in laparoscopic hepatectomy, and give detailed guidance on how to deploy the treatment effectively for patients in need.

KEY MESSAGE

The panel of experts gathered evidence and produced recommendations providing guidance on the safe practice of laparoscopic hepatectomy for patients with HCC and cirrhosis. The inherent advantage of the laparoscopic approach may result in less blood loss if the procedure is performed in experienced centers. The laparoscopic approach to minor hepatectomy, particularly left lateral sectionectomy, is a preferred practice for HCC at experienced centers. Laparoscopic major liver resection for HCC remains a technically challenging operation, and it should be carried out in centers of excellence. There is emerging evidence that laparoscopic liver resection produces a better oncological outcome for HCC when compared with radiofrequency ablation, particularly when the lesions are peripherally located. Augmented features in laparoscopic liver resection, including indocyanine green fluorescence, 3D laparoscopy, and robot, will become important tools of surgical treatment in the near future. A combination of all of these features will enhance the experience of the surgeons, which may translate into better surgical outcomes. This is the first consensus workforce on laparoscopic liver resection for HCC, which is a unique condition that occurs in the Asia Pacific region.

Laparoscopic management of neuroendocrine tumors: state-of-the-art

Over recent years, minimally invasive pancreatic resections have increasingly been reported in the literature. Even though pancreatic surgery is still considered a challenge for surgeons due to its technical difficulties and high morbidity, the consolidation of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery has included the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs). This article presents a systematic review of the literature with regards to the laparoscopic treatment of PNETs in order to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic pancreatic resections.