Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

A feasible and safe approach for repeat laparoscopic liver resection and patient selection based on standardized preoperative prediction of surgical difficulty

PURPOSE

This study was performed to propose a strategy for repeat laparoscopic liver resection (RLLR) and investigate the preoperative predictive factors for RLLR difficulty.

METHODS

Data from 43 patients who underwent RLLR using various techniques at 2 participating hospitals from April 2020 to March 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical outcomes, short-term outcomes, and feasibility and safety of the proposed techniques were evaluated. The relationship between potential predictive factors for difficult RLLR and perioperative outcomes was evaluated. Difficulties associated with RLLR were analyzed separately in two surgical phases: the Pringle maneuver phase and the liver parenchymal transection phase.

RESULTS

The open conversion rate was 7%. The median surgical time and intraoperative blood loss were 235 min and 200 mL, respectively. The Pringle maneuver was successfully performed in 81% of patients using the laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp (LSVC). Clavien-Dindo class ≥III postoperative complications were observed in 12% of patients without mortality. An analysis of the risk factors for predicting difficult RLLR showed that a history of open liver resection was an independent risk factor for difficulty in the Pringle maneuver phase.

CONCLUSION

We present a feasible and safe approach to address RLLR difficulty, especially difficulty with the Pringle maneuver using an LSVC, which is extremely useful in RLLR. The Pringle maneuver is more challenging in patients with a history of open liver resection.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LRLR) versus open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using propensity score matching (PSM). Despite the expanding indications for laparoscopic liver resection, limited data regarding the outcomes of LRLR have previously been reported.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent repeat liver resection for recurrent HCC. Patients were divided into the LRLR and ORLR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared via PSM.

RESULTS

There were 256 and 130 patients in the ORLR and LRLR groups, respectively. After PSM, 64 patients were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (56 vs 208 ml, P < .001). Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo IIIa or more were significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (3.1% vs 15.6%, P = .030). The length of hospital stay was notably shorter in LRLR than in ORLR (9 vs 12 days, P < .001). Survival rates after repeat liver resection at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, were comparable at 93.4%, 81.9%, and 63.5% for ORLR and at 94.8%, 80.7%, and 67.3% for LRLR (P = .623). Subgroup analysis of patients who underwent wedge resection in repeat liver resection revealed that the postoperative complication rate was notably lower in LRLR than in ORLR (7.2% vs 21.8%, P = .030).

CONCLUSION

LRLR for recurrent HCC is a viable option due to its better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared to ORLR.

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.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.

Parenchymsparende Operationen oder anatomische Resektionen bei Lebermetastasen des kolorektalen Karzinoms?

Darmkrebs ist eine der häufigsten Todesursachen in der westlichen Welt. Die Hälfte der Patienten entwickelt kolorektale Lebermetastasen (CRLM), dabei weisen weniger als 30% der Patienten zum Zeitpunkt der Diagnose eine chirurgisch resektable Metastasierung auf. Im Falle einer Resektabilität bietet die klassische anatomische (Major-)Hepatektomie eine hohe R0-Resektionsrate, allerdings bei gleichzeitig erhöhter Morbidität und Mortalität. In den letzten 2 Jahrzehnten wurden die potenziellen Vorteile der parenchymsparenden Hepatektomie (PSH) in Bezug auf die onkologischen Gesamtergebnisse, das Überleben und die Re-Resektion im Falle eines Rezidivs („Salvageability“) nachgewiesen. Der Beitrag fasst die aktuellen Erkenntnisse zur PSH als chirurgische Therapieoption zusammen und diskutiert den aktuellen „state of the art“ in verschiedenen Szenarien.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for liver cancers: A report from a nationwide surgical database in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic (repeat) liver resection (LRLR) is a well-established liver tumor treatment. However, since its outcomes and comparison with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) in recurrent liver cancer remain inadequately studied, this study then aimed to compare their short-term outcomes for liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, and metastatic liver cancer).

METHODS

Repeat liver resection cases between 2013 and 2017 from Japan's National Clinical Database were extracted. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the proportion of patients with postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher (CD2+) (primary endpoint), as well as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and intraoperative transfusion implementation rate (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 2,902 patients (ORLR, 2,476; LRLR, 426), 712 (356 per type) with comparable backgrounds remained via PSM. Before and after PSM, the postoperative CD2+ complication rate was significantly lower in the LRLR group, who had shorter operative time, smaller intraoperative bleeding volume, and lower intraoperative transfusion rate, than in the ORLR group (after matching, 7.6% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR showed better short-term outcomes than ORLR, making it a safer and more effective liver cancer treatment.

Predicting Complications following Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Newly Developed Neo-Glasgow Prognostic Score with ALBI Grade: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Cases

Background/Aim: Nutritional assessment is known to be important for predicting prognosis in patients with malignant diseases. This study examined the usefulness of a prognostic predictive nutritional assessment tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with surgical resection. Materials/Methods: HCC patients (n = 429) classified as Child−Pugh A who underwent an R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (median age 73 years, males 326 (76.0%), Child−Pugh score 5:6 = 326:103, single tumor 340 (79.2%), median tumor size 3.5 cm, open:laparoscopic = 304:125). Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the newly developed neo-GPS method, which uses albumin−bilirubin grade 1 instead of albumin, were evaluated to compare their usefulness for prognosis prediction. Results: Median survival time for patients with a GPS score of 0, 1, and 2 was 120, 51, and 20 months, respectively. As for neo-GPS, that for those with a score of 0, 1, and 2 was not applicable (NA), 53 months, and 35 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.556 and 0.611, respectively). Furthermore, median progression-free survival was 33, 22, and 9 months, and 41, 24, and 15 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.539 and 0.578, respectively). As compared to patients with a high GPS (≥1), those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed a greater rate of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) (39.2% vs. 65.1%). A comparison of patients with a high GPS (≥1) with those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed no significant difference regarding frequency of open or laparoscopic hepatectomy (17.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.670; 44.7% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.831, respectively), while the frequency of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) was lower in patients who underwent a laparoscopic hepatectomy (11.2% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the newly developed neo-GPS based on ALBI grade is an effective prognostic nutritional assessment tool and can be used for prediction of postoperative complications.

Multicenter Propensity Score-Based Study of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Cases with Tumors Far from Major Vessels

Simple Summary

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional study of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove it. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the complexity. A propensity score matching earned 115 each patient of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) without the proximity to major vessels, and the outcomes were compared. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss and less morbidity were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

Abstract

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional, propensity score-based study of emerging laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove this advantage. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex LRLR cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the indicator of complex cases. Among 1582 LRLR cases from 42 international high-volume liver surgery centers, 620 cases without the proximity to major vessels (more than 1 cm far from both first–second branches of Glissonian pedicles and major hepatic veins) were selected for this subgroup analysis. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed based on their patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumor characteristics and surgical procedures. One hundred and fifteen of each patient groups of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were earned, and the outcomes were compared. Backgrounds were well-balanced between LRLR and ORLR groups after matching. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss (283.3±823.0 vs. 603.5±664.9 mL, p = 0.001) and less morbidity (8.7 vs. 18.3 %, p = 0.034) were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

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.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score-based study

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized controlled data and even propensity-matched data, indications for, and outcomes of, laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the current indications for laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC, and to evaluate outcomes.

METHODS

Forty-two liver surgery centres around the world registered patients who underwent repeat liver resection for HCC. Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumour characteristics, surgical method, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

Analyses showed that the laparoscopic procedure was generally used in patients with relatively poor performance status and liver function, but favourable tumour characteristics. Intraoperative blood loss (mean(s.d.) 254(551) versus 748(1128) ml; P < 0·001), duration of operation (248(156) versus 285(167) min; P < 0·001), morbidity (12·7 versus 18·1 per cent; P = 0·006) and duration of postoperative hospital stay (10·1(14·3) versus 11·8(11·8) days; P = 0·013) were significantly reduced for laparoscopic compared with open procedures, whereas survival time was comparable (median 10·04 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·297). Propensity score matching showed that laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (268(730) versus 497(784) ml; P = 0·001) and a longer operation time (272(187) versus 232(129); P = 0·007) than the open approach, and similar survival time (12·55 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·086).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection is feasible in selected patients with recurrent HCC.

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.

Developments and perspectives of laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was introduced in the early 1990s, initially for partial resection of the anterolateral segments, from where it has expanded in a stepwise fashion. Movement restriction makes bleeding control demanding. Managing pneumoperitoneum pressure with inflow control can inhibit venous bleeding and create a dry surgical field for easier hemostasis. Since the lack of overview leads to disorientation, simulation and navigation with imaging studies have become important. Improved direct access to the liver inside the rib cage can be obtained in LLR, reducing destruction of the associated structures and decreasing the risk of refractory ascites and liver failure, especially in patients with a cirrhotic liver. Although LLR can be performed as bridging therapy to transplantation for severe cirrhosis, its impact on expanding the indications of liver resection (LR) and the consequent survival benefits must be evaluated. For repeat LR, LLR is advantageous by producing fewer adhesions and reducing the need for adhesiolysis. The laparoscopic approach facilitates better access in a small operative field between adhesions. Further evaluations are needed for repeat anatomical resection, since alterations of the anatomy and surrounding scars and adhesions of major vessels have a larger impact.