Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched pair analysis

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score-matching Analysis

This study aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Between May 2013 and December 2015, 26 patients underwent pure LLR (14 underwent laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and 12 underwent laparoscopic central bisectionectomy). In total, 18 patients in the laparoscopic group and 36 patients in the open group were matched. When the LLR and OLR groups were compared, the operation time was found to be longer in the LLR group. However, LLR was associated with less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and earlier time to diet resumption. In this study, we confirmed that LLR for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma can be safely performed in selected patients with cirrhosis despite a longer operation time.

Current topics in liver surgery

Liver resection is one of the main treatment strategies for liver malignancies. Mortality and morbidity of liver surgery has improved significantly with progress in selection criteria, development of operative procedures and improvements in perioperative management. Safe liver resection has thus become more available worldwide. We have identified four current topics related to liver resection (anatomical liver resection, laparoscopic liver resection, staged liver resection and chemotherapy-induced liver injury). The balance between treatment effect and patient safety needs to be considered when planning liver resection. Progress in this area has been rapid thanks to the efforts of many surgeons, and outcomes have improved significantly as a result. These topics remain to be solved and more robust evidence is needed. Precise selection of the optimal procedure and risk evaluation should be standardized with further development of each topic. The present article reviews these four current topics with a focus on safety and efficacy in recent series.

Enhanced Recovery in Liver Transplantation: A Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programmes after surgery are effective in reducing length of stay, functional recovery and complication rates in liver surgery (LS) with the indirect advantage of reducing hospitalisation costs. Preoperative comorbidities, challenging surgical procedures and complex post-operative management are the points that liver transplantation (LT) shares with LS. Nevertheless, there is little evidence regarding the feasibility and safety of ERAS programmes in LT.

METHODS

We designed a pilot, small-scale, feasibility study to assess the impact on hospital stay, protocol compliance and safety of an ERAS programme tailored for LT. The ERAS arm was compared with a 1:2 match paired control arm with similar characteristics. All patients with MELD <25 were included. A dedicated LT-tailored protocol was derived from publications on ERAS liver surgery.

RESULTS

Ten patients were included in the Fast-Trans arm. It was observed a 47% reduction of the total LOS, as compared to the control arm: 9.5 (9.0-10.5) days versus 18.0 (14.3-24.3) days, respectively, p <0.001. The protocol achieved 72.9% compliance. No differences were observed in terms of post-operative complications or readmission rates after discharge between the two arms. Overall, it was observed a reduction of length of stay in ICU and surgical ward in the Fast-Trans arm compared with the control arm.

CONCLUSION

Considered the main points in common between LS and LT, this small-scale study suggests that the application of an ERAS programme tailored to the LT setting is feasible. Further testing will be appropriate to generalise these findings.

Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery

BACKGROUND

The application of laparoscopic hepatectomy is gaining momentum. However, the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are yet to be adequately evaluated. We aimed to assess the surgical and oncological outcomes of LRH for HCC by comparing it with open right hepatectomy (ORH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC from May 2007 to January 2018 in our hospital were obtained. Baseline characteristics, postoperative recovery, and survival outcomes were compared. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize selection biases by balancing factors, including age, sex, preoperative therapy, tumor size, and pattern.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 109 patients (LRH, 41 patients; ORH, 68 patients). Of the 41 patients who underwent LRH, 8 patients (19.5%) required conversion to laparotomy. The overall morbidity was 19.5%, and no mortality in LRH was noted. After PSM, LRH was associated with a tendency of prolonged operative time (255.5 ± 93.4 minutes versus 225.9 ± 39.8 minutes, P = .08) and less intraoperative blood loss [300 (100-1200) versus 500 (200-2000) mL, P < .01]. LRH showed up a trend of less overall morbidity without statistical significance (18.4% versus 26.3%, P = .41). Moreover, the 3-year overall and disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the groups during a median follow-up of 19 (3-58) months for the LRH group and 23 (3-97) months for the ORH group.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH can be performed as safe and effective as ORH for HCC in regard to both surgical and oncological outcomes. LRH holds the benefit in less intraoperative blood loss and appears to achieve less postoperative morbidity, which could serve as a promising alternative to ORH in selected individuals.

Surgery strategy of 13 cases to control bleeding from the liver on laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction:

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is a safe and effective treatment in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) in particular patients. However, there are less reports about surgery strategy of LRLR for rHCC. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic strategy for bleeding of liver to increase the safety and feasibility of LRLR for rHCC.

Methods:

In this study, a total of 13 cases of LRLR for rHCC, including 8 males and 5 females; aged 28–72 years, mean age 54 years, who were received at least one laparotomy due to HCC. We employ to block the local blood flow, ligation of the left or right hepatic artery and/or approach of Pringle according to the assessment of the degree of adhesions in the abdominal and the first hepatic portal, the location of the tumour (edge/central).

Results:

Three cases were less adhesions, nine cases were dense adhesions but 1 case was serious adhesions. Two cases were employed to block the local blood flow, 3 cases were employed to ligation of the left or right hepatic artery and 7 cases were employed to approach of Pringle. Twelve cases were successfully completed by LRLR whereas 1 case was completed by transfer to the open resection, including massive resection in 3 cases (the diameter of resection ≥3 cm), small hepatectomy in 10 cases (the diameter of resection <3 cm), no severe perioperative complication. The average operative time was (142 ± 34) min, the average intraoperative blood loss was (251 ± 92) ml and the average post-operative hospital time was (9 ± 3) d. The mean follow-up time was 25 months. Until the last follow-up, 11 cases survived while 2 cases died because of tumour recurrence.

Conclusions:

It can improve the safety and feasibility of LRLR for rHCC, according to the degree of adhesion of the peritoneal adhesions and the first hepatic portal, then selecting the appropriate technique to control the bleeding of the hepatectomy.

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.

Preoperative albumin-bilirubin grade plus platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio predict the outcomes of patients with BCLC stage A hepatocellular carcinoma after liver resection

There is little information regarding the predictive ability of albumin-bilirubin grades (ALBI) plus platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following liver resection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the prognostic power of the ALBI-PLR score in patients with hepatitis B virus-related (HBV-related) HCC within Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A after liver resection.Around 475 patients were included in this study. Patients with preoperative ALBI grades 1, 2, or 3 were allocated a score of 0, 1, or 2, respectively. Patients with preoperative PLR >150 or ≤150 were allocated a score of 0 or 1, respectively. The ALBI-PLR score was the summary of the ALBI and PLR scores.During the follow-up period, 256 patients experienced recurrence, and 150 patients died. Multivariate analysis revealed tumor size, multiple tumors, positive HBV-DNA load, cirrhosis, and ALBI-PLR score as being independently associated with postoperative recurrence, whereas tumor size, high preoperative α-fetoprotein level, and ALBI-PLR score were independent risk factors for postoperative mortality. HCC patients with high ALBI-PLR score had poor recurrence-free and overall survival.The preoperative ALBI-PLR score is a surrogate marker for predicting HBV-related HCC patient's prognosis after liver resection. A high ALBI-PLR score is associated with a high incidence of postoperative recurrence and mortality.

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.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for elderly patients: Major findings based on a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As the general population continues to age, there is an increase need for surgical management of elderly patients. Compared to open hepatectomy (OH), laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) offers earlier mobilization, less blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay. However, whether these advantages of LH over OH are retained in elderly patients remains to be clarified. Therefore, in this study, we sought to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LH for elderly patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed to identify studies that compared LH and OH. Studies comparing LH in elderly and LH in nonelderly patients were also identified. Outcomes of interest included conversion rate, operative time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, rate and type of morbidity, mortality rate, margin status (R0), and long-term oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria for this analysis. Of these, 5 compared LH and OH in elderly patients, 3 compared LH in elderly and nonelderly patients, and 1 included both outcomes. Compared to those with OH, elderly patients who underwent LH had similar operative times [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 1.15 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI): -28.28-30.59, P = .94], less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -0.71 mL; 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.16, P = .01), a lower rate of transfusion [risk ratio (RR) = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40-0.94, P = .02], comparable R0 rates (RR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07, P = .70), less postoperative complications (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.76, P < .01), and shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.22 days; 95% CI: -4.21 to -2.23, P < .01). The limited long-term outcomes indicated that survival status was comparable between LH and OH for elderly patients. The pooled outcomes for elderly versus nonelderly patients indicated that the safety and effectiveness of LH over OH in elderly patients was not inferior to those in nonelderly patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LH is a feasible and safe alternative to OH in elderly patients, providing a lower rate of morbidity and favorable postoperative recovery and outcomes.

Which approach is preferred in left hepatocellular carcinoma? Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy using propensity score matching

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its perioperative and oncological outcomes have not been evaluated in left hepatectomy patients. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of left hepatectomy through laparoscopic and open approaches in left HCC.

Methods

From December 2012 to October 2016, laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) was performed in 40 patients and open left hepatectomy (OLH) was performed in 80 patients. All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching of patients in a 1:1 ratio was conducted based on tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion.

Results

Tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion were higher in the OLH group than the LLH group (P < 0.05). However, the operative time was longer in the LLH group than in the OLH group (266 min vs. 239 min; P = 0.005). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLH group than in the OLH group before and after matching (9 days vs. 13 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of complications in the LLH and OLH groups was 10.0 and 7.5%, respectively. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the LLH group were not different from those in the OLH group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

A laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for left HCC. The oncologic outcome of LLH is comparable to that of OLH.

Pure laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy using the caudodorsal side approach (with videos)

BACKGROUND

In our process of standardizing laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (Lap-RH), we found several advantages of the laparoscopic caudate lobe first approach by using a unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and October 2017, 21 patients underwent pure Lap-RH at our hospital. The mean patient age was 62 years (range 36-75 years), and there were more male than female patients (66.7%). Of 21 patients, 11 had hepatocellular carcinoma, eight had metastatic tumor, and the other two had focal nodular hyperplasia and refractory liver abscess. All 21 patients had Child-Pugh class A liver function. The surgical technique was recorded on video.

RESULTS

The mean operative time was 409 min (range 241-522 min), and the mean blood loss was 279 g (range 0-1,010 g). No procedure was converted to open surgery. With regard to postoperative complications, one patient had bile leakage from the stump of the main Glissonean branch and another patient had abscess formation in the subphrenic space. No postoperative bleeding, hepatic failure, and mortality occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Our standardized procedure of Lap-RH using the unique laparoscopic caudodorsal view is not only feasible but also confers a true advantage of the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic extended liver resection: are postoperative outcomes different?

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is becoming increasingly common in specialized centers, data regarding laparoscopic extended major hepatectomies (LEMH) and their outcomes are limited. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes of LEMH to standard LMH.

METHODS

All patients who underwent purely laparoscopic anatomical right or left hepatectomy and right or left trisectionectomy between February 1998 and January 2016 are enrolled. Demographic, clinicopathological, and perioperative factors were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes in LEMH were compared to those of standard LMH.

RESULTS

Among 195 patients with LMH, 47 (24.1%) underwent LEMH, colorectal liver metastases representing 66.7% of all indications. Preoperative portal vein embolization was undertaken in 31 (15.9%) patients. Despite more frequent vascular clamping, blood loss was higher in LEMH group (400 vs. 214 ml; p = 0.006). However, there was no difference in intraoperative transfusion requirements. Thirty-one patients experienced liver failure with no differences between LMH and LEMH groups. Postoperative mortality was comparable in the two groups [3 (2.5%) LMH patients vs. 2 (5%) LEMH patients (p = 0.388)]. Overall morbidity was higher in the LEMH group [49 LMH patients (41.5%) vs. 24 LEMH patients (60%) (p = 0.052)]. Patients treated with left LEMH experienced more biliary leakage (p = 0.011) and more major pulmonary complications (p = 0.015) than left LMH.

CONCLUSION

LEMH is feasible at the price of important morbidity, with manageable and acceptable outcomes. These exigent procedures require high-volume centers with experienced surgeons.

Long-term results of laparoscopic liver resection for the primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: role of the surgeon in anatomical resection

BACKGROUND

Liver resection is a potentially curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). LLR is a newly developed and safe technique associated with shorter hospital stay, less pain, better cosmetic outcomes, and similar complication rates as open surgery; however, data on its long-term outcomes remain scarce.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the clinical and follow-up data of 234 patients who underwent LLR (performed by a single surgeon in all cases) for the primary treatment of HCC between July 2007 and December 2015 at Asan Medical Center.

RESULTS

The mean patient age was 55.63 (range 31-76) years; 167 were men. The median follow-up duration was 38 (range 6-116) months. A total of 227 patients (97.0%) had Child-Turcotte-Pugh grade A disease. Of them, 167 (71.4%) underwent anatomical resections and 63 (28.6%) underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomies. Overall survival rates were 98.3, 91.7, and 87.1%, and recurrence-free survival rates were 82.1, 67.5, and 55.3% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. In Cox regression analysis, anatomical resection was a risk factor for recurrence (univariate analysis: hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.75; p = 0.001; multivariate analysis: HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.38-0.94; p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is an acceptable primary treatment for patients with HCC with good hepatic function and with an appropriate anatomical structure, and is associated with improved prognosis. LLR can achieve lower recurrence rates through anatomical resection.

Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies.

METHODS

All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality case-matched studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2017 comparing LH and OH for HCC were identified. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) with case-matched design was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. Morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, margin distance, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the surgical extension (minor or major hepatectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty studies with a total of 830 patients (388 in LH and 442 in OH) were identified. For short-term surgical outcomes, LH showed less morbidity (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47~0.65; P < 0.01), less mortality (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18~1.00; P = 0.05), less blood loss (WMD = -93.21 ml, 95% CI, -157.33~-29.09 ml; P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95% CI, -3.63~-2.08; P < 0.01), and comparable operation time (WMD = 9.15 min; 95% CI: -7.61~25.90, P = 0.28). As to oncological outcomes, 5-year overall survival rate was slightly better in LH than OH (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52~0.84, P < 0.01), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between two groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74~1.06, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis has highlighted that LH can be safely performed in selective patients and improves surgical outcomes as compared to OH. Given the limitations of study design, especially the limited cases of major hepatectomy, methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

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.

Ablation approach for primary liver tumors: Peri-operative outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ablation is a common treatment modality for malignant primary liver tumors(PLTs), outcomes following laparoscopic (LA) versus open ablation (OA) are ill-defined. This project compares peri-procedural outcomes of LA versus OA for PLTs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with PLTs undergoing radiofrequency ablation were queried from ACS NSQIP Database (2005-2013) using CPT codes. Patients undergoing percutaneous ablation or hepatic resection were excluded. Multivariable logistic regression analyses determined the association of ablation approach with 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 5747 with PLTs, 655 (11.4%) ablations were identified: 177 (27.0%) underwent OA, 478 (73.0%) underwent LA. Patients undergoing LA had lower mortality (1.9% vs 5.1%, P = 0.026), lower minor morbidity (2.3% vs 5.7%, P = 0.031), and lower major morbidity (4.2% vs 17.0%, P < 0.001). Adjusting for demographics, disease-specific variables (preoperative ascites, total bilirubin, platelet count, albumin, and INR), 30-day mortality (OR 3.85, 95%CI: 1.38-10.80, P = 0.010), minor morbidity (OR 2.98, 95%CI: 1.16-7.67, P = 0.024), and major morbidity (OR 4.59 95%CI: 2.41-8.76, P < 0.001) were statistically lower in LA. OA demonstrated increased length of stay(LOS) (5 vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and longer operative time (152 vs 112 min, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LA offers decreased peri-procedural morbidity, mortality, and reduced LOS. LA should be the preferred method for hepatic ablation.

Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy

AIM

To evaluate the clinical advantages of single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (SPLH) compare to multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy (MPLH).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 246 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between January 2008 and December 2015 at our hospital. We divided the surgical technique into two groups; SPLH and MPLH. We performed laparoscopic liver resection for both benign and malignant disease. Major hepatectomy such as right and left hepatectomy was also done with sufficient disease-free margin. The operative time, the volume of blood loss, transfusion rate, and the conversion rate to MPLH or open surgery was evaluated. The post-operative parameters included the meal start date after operation, the number of postoperative days spent in the hospital, and surgical complications was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 246 patients, 155 patients underwent SPLH and 91 patients underwent MPLH. Conversion rate was 22.6% in SPLH and 19.8% in MPLH (P = 0.358). We performed major hepatectomy, which was defined as resection of more than 2 sections, in 13.5% of patients in the SPLH group and in 13.3% of patients in the MPLH group (P = 0.962). Mean operative time was 136.9 ± 89.2 min in the SPLH group and 231.2 ± 149.7 min in the MPLH group (P < 0.001). The amount of blood loss was 385.1 ± 409.3 mL in the SPLH group and 559.9 ± 624.9 mL in the MPLH group (P = 0.016). The safety resection margin did not show a significant difference (0.84 ± 0.84 cm in SPLH vs 1.04 ± 1.22 cm in MPLH, P = 0.704). Enteral feeding was started earlier in the SPLH group (1.06 ± 0.27 d after operation) than in the MPLH group (1.63 ± 1.27 d) (P < 0.001). The mean hospital stay after operation was non-significantly shorter in the SPLH group than in the MPLH group (7.82 ± 2.79 d vs 7.97 ± 3.69 d, P = 0.744). The complication rate was not significantly different (P = 0.397) and there was no major perioperative complication or mortality case in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Single-port laparoscopic liver surgery seems to be a feasible approach for various kinds of liver diseases.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains uncertain in current liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant publications. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Continuous variables were calculated by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas dichotomous variables were calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible studies with 1130 patients were identified, of which 455 (40.3%) patients in the LMH group and 675 (59.7%) patients in the OMH group. LMH was associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18, p < .00001), less transfusion requirement (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.29-0.82, p = .007), decreased postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.76, p = .0001), and shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.24, p < .0001) when compared with the OMH group. But the operative time was significantly longer in LMH group (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.79-1.86, p = .01). Both the two groups achieved similar surgical margin and R0 resection rate for malignant lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LMH appeared to be feasible and safe in current liver surgery. LMH is associated with less blood loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncological outcomes compared with OMH.

Outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

To compare the surgical outcomes of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 177 patients who underwent major liver resection for HCC between January 2004 and June 2015. We divided the 177 patients into two groups according to the type of procedure: major LLR (LLR group; n = 67) and major OLR (OLR group; n = 110).

RESULTS

Procedures in the LLR group were right hepatectomy (30 patients), right posterior sectionectomy (28), left hepatectomy (11), right anterior sectionectomy (6), extended right hepatectomy (6), and central bisectionectomy (2). Tumor size was greater in the OLR group than in the LLR group (6.3 ± 3.8 vs 4.1 ± 2.4 cm; P = 0.016). The mean indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (P = 0.698) and serum α-fetoprotein (P = 0.186) were similar in both groups. The mean operation time was longer in the LLR group (416.6 ± 166.9 vs 332.5 ± 105.4 min; P = 0.002). Blood loss (P = 0.319), transfusion rate (P = 0.260), and R0 rate (P = 0.255) were similar in both groups. Hospital stay was shorter (11.3 ± 8.3 vs. 18 ± 21.4 days; P = 0.007) and the complication rate was lower (20.5% vs. 38.7%; P = 0.005) in the LLR group. The 5-year overall survival (77.3% vs 60.2%; P = 0.087) and disease-free survival (50.8% vs 40.1%; P = 0.139) rates were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Major LLR of HCC is feasible and oncologically safe when performed by experienced surgeons. Further refinements of the surgical technique are needed to reduce operation time.

Minimally invasive surgery as a treatment option for gastric cancer with liver metastasis: a comparison with open surgery

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive techniques advances, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has emerged as an alternative modality for advanced gastric cancer. In this study, we compared the short- and long-term surgical outcomes of MIS and conventional open surgery for gastric cancer liver metastasis (GCLM) in terms of safety, feasibility, and efficacy.

METHODS

This retrospective study used data from a prospective database at the Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital. From January 2006 to June 2016, 53 gastric cancer patients with synchronous liver metastasis accepted radical gastrectomy combined with either or both hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation for liver metastases. The 53 patients enrolled in the study were divided into two groups: a conventional open surgery group (n = 42) and an MIS group (n = 11). Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to overcome possible bias.

RESULTS

With PSM performed at a 1:3 ratio, 11 patients who received MIS were compared with 33 open surgery cases. Mean operation time was significantly longer for the MIS group compared with the open surgery group (301 vs. 236 min, P = 0.032), while the open surgery group had a larger estimated blood loss than the MIS group (421 vs. 196 ml, P = 0.019). Time to first flatus and postoperative complications, including Clavien-Dindo classification, were similar in the two groups. However, patients undergoing MIS had a significantly shorter time to first sips of water (P = 0.020) and soft diet (P = 0.020) compared with open surgery counterparts. Long-term outcomes were comparable between groups (P = 0.090) after adjustment by PSM analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MIS achieved superior short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in GCLM patients. For experienced surgeons, both laparoscopic and robotic methods of MIS are reasonable approaches for the management of highly selected GCLM patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Lesions Adjacent to Major Vessels: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for lesions adjacent to major vessels was still associated with difficulty and challenge. This study aimed to compare outcomes after LLR and open liver resection (OLR) of lesions adjacent to major vessels.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with hepatic tumors close to main or second branches of Glisson's tree, to the major hepatic vein, or to the inferior vena cava within 1 cm between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed based on the propensity score matching (PSM) method. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were then evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 64 patients underwent LLR and 86 patients had OLR. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 40 patients in each group were obtained. The operative time (240 versus 210 minutes, P = .012) in the LLR group was significantly longer than that in the OLR group, whereas blood loss (200 versus 400 mL, P = .003) was less in the laparoscopic group. The median hospital stay for LLR (6 versus 8 days, P = .032) was shorter than for the open procedure. No statistical differences was noted according to overall postoperative complications, but the OLR group tended to be vulnerable to more severe complications. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, the comparable oncological results in terms of 2-year overall survival (P = .898) and disease-free survival (P = .992) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for tumors adjacent to major vessels appears to be feasible and safe in selected patients. LLR is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes compared with OLR.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in a patient with situs inversus totalis: A case report

RATIONALE

Hepatectomy in a patient with situs inversus totalis (SIT) is technically challenging, and pure laparoscopic major hepatectomy has not been previously described.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 70-year-old male with SIT was referred to our hospital for investigation and treatment of a liver mass in segment 5/6.

DIAGNOSIS

Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed features of chronic liver disease and a 5-cm sized mass with a bulging contour at segment 5/6.

INTERVENTIONS

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy was performed.

OUTCOMES

There was no intraoperative complication and the procedure was completed without a transfusion. The patient recovered well and was discharged on postoperative day 8.

LESSONS

Considering the position of the port sites and the assistant, and the operator's hand for the working port, a pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy can be a feasible procedure, even in a patient with SIT.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis remains controversial due to limited reports in the literature. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LMH for HCC with cirrhosis compared with open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy for HCC between January 2015 and January 2017 was performed. Patients were divided into the LMH group and the OMH group. Short-term and oncological outcomes were compared before and after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients who received major liver resection were enrolled. There were 36 (35.0%) patients in the LMH group and 67 (65.0%) patients in the OMH group. After 1:1 PSM, well-matched 32 patients in each group were evaluated. Significant differences were observed in operative time (median, 255 vs. 200 min, p < 0.001) and Pringle time (median, 50 vs. 30 min, p < 0.001) between two groups. The blood loss and transfusion requirement were comparable in two groups. The rate of overall postoperative complications did not differ between two groups, while the incidence of ascites in the LMH group was significantly less than OMH group (9.4 vs. 31.3%, p = 0.030). The oncological outcomes between the two groups were comparable with regard to 2-year overall survival (85.7 vs. 86.7%, p = 0.694) and disease-free survival (72.9 vs. 81.5%, p = 0.990), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LMH for HCC patients with liver cirrhosis showed comparable results in terms of postoperative morbidity and oncological outcomes compared with traditional open procedure. LMH may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe our experience with pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and to compare its outcomes with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of liver cancer; however, its outcomes have not been evaluated in a large cohort of HCC patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent pure LRH (n = 37) or ORH (n = 115) between June 2008 and July 2015 at the Asan Medical Center in Seoul, Korea. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LRH and ORH groups. Subsequently, 33 patients were included in each group.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the LRH and ORH groups regarding the rate of complications (P = 0.053). However, the mean comprehensive complication index, which accounts for the severity of complications, was significantly lower in the LRH group (0.63 vs 4.42; P = 0.025). There were no significant differences between the LRH and ORH groups regarding 2-year disease-free survival rate or 2-year overall survival rate (P = 0.645 and P = 0.090, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in patients with cirrhosis, pure LRH is not less safe than the traditional open approach. The oncological outcomes of HCC were also comparable between the two groups. In selected patients, pure LRH for HCC appears to represent a viable alternative to ORH.

Development Process and Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: Learning Curve Based on 15 Years of Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy continues to be a challenging operation associated with a steep learning curve. This study aimed to evaluate the learning process during 15 years of experience with laparoscopic hepatectomy and to identify approaches to standardization of this procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospectively collected data of 317 consecutive laparoscopic hepatectomies performed from January 2000 to December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The operative procedures were classified into 4 categories (minor hepatectomy, left lateral sectionectomy [LLS], left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy), and indications were classified into 5 categories (benign-borderline tumor, living donor, metastatic liver tumor, biliary malignancy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

RESULTS

During the first 10 years, the procedures were limited mainly to minor hepatectomy and LLS, and the indications were limited to benign-borderline tumor and living donor. Implementation of major hepatectomy rapidly increased the proportion of malignant tumors, especially hepatocellular carcinoma, starting from 2011. Conversion rates decreased with experience for LLS (13.3% vs 3.4%; p = 0.054) and left hepatectomy (50.0% vs 15.0%; p = 0.012), but not for right hepatectomy (41.4% vs 35.7%; p = 0.661).

CONCLUSIONS

Our 15-year experience clearly demonstrates the stepwise procedural evolution from LLS through left hepatectomy to right hepatectomy, as well as the trend in indications from benign-borderline tumor/living donor to malignant tumors. In contrast to LLS and left hepatectomy, a learning curve was not observed for right hepatectomy. The ongoing development process can contribute to faster standardization necessary for future advances in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Outcome after laparoscopic and open resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection of posterosuperior (PS) segments of the liver is hindered by limited visualization and curvilinear resection planes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after open and laparoscopic liver resections of PS segments.

METHODS

Patients who underwent minor open liver resection (OLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) between 2006 and 2014 were identified from the institutional databases of seven tertiary referral European hepatobiliary surgical units. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to match groups for known confounders. Perioperative outcomes including complications were assessed using the Dindo-Clavien classification, and the comprehensive complication index was calculated. Survival was analysed with the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Some 170 patients underwent OLR and 148 had LLR. After propensity score-matched analysis, 86 patients remained in both groups. Overall postoperative complication rates were significantly higher after OLR compared with LLR: 28 versus 14 per cent respectively (P = 0·039). The mean(s.d.) comprehensive complication index was higher in the OLR group, although the difference was not statistically significant (26·7(16·6) versus 18·3(8·0) in the LLR group; P = 0·108). The mean(s.d.) duration of required analgesia and the median (range) duration of postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LLR group: 3·0(1·1) days versus 1·6(0·8) days in the OLR group (P < 0·001), and 6 (3-44) versus 4 (1-11) days (P < 0·001), respectively. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (37 per cent for OLR versus 30 per cent for LLR; P = 0·534) and those with colorectal liver metastases (36 versus 36 per cent respectively; P = 0·440) were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

LLR of tumours in PS segments is feasible in selected patients. LLR is associated with fewer complications and does not compromise survival compared with OLR.

Evolution and revolution of laparoscopic liver resection in Japan

Due to important technological developments and improved endoscopic techniques, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered the approach of choice and is increasingly performed worldwide. Recent systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of observational data reported that LLR was associated with less bleeding, fewer complications, and no oncological disadvantage; however, no prospective randomized trials have been conducted. LLR will continue to evolve as a surgical approach that improves patient's quality of life. LLR will not totally supplant open liver surgery, and major LLR remains to be technically challenging procedure. The success of LLR depends on individual learning curves and adherence to surgical indications. A recent study proposed a scoring system for stepwise application of LLR, which was based on experience at high‐volume Japanese centers. A cluster of deaths after major LLR was sensationally reported by the Japanese media in 2014. In response, the Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery conducted emergency data collection on operative mortality. The results demonstrated that mortality was not higher than that for open procedures except for hemi‐hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. An online prospective registry system for LLR was established in 2015 to be transparent for patients who might potentially undergo treatment with this newly developed, technically demanding surgical procedure.

Multidisciplinary management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Current approaches

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a common primary hepatic tumor. However, its outcomes are usually worse than those of hepatocellular carcinoma owing to its non-specific presentation and detection at an advanced stage. The most widely used serum marker, carbohydrate antigen 19-9, is non-specific. Furthermore, imaging studies rarely identify any pathognomonic features. Surgery is the only treatment option that offers a chance of long-term survival. However, the resectability rate is low owing to the high frequencies of intrahepatic metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or extrahepatic metastases. Surgical treatment should be tailored according to the macroscopic classification of ICC (e.g. mass-forming, periductal infiltrating, and intraductal growth types) because it reflects the tumor's dissemination pattern. Although lymph node metastasis is a negative prognostic factor, the importance and extent of lymph node dissection is still controversial. To improve patient survival, liver transplantation is considered in some patients with unresectable ICC, especially in those with an insufficient remnant liver volume. Minimally invasive procedures, including laparoscopic and robotic liver resection, have been tested and achieved comparable outcomes to conventional surgery in preliminary studies. No randomized trials have confirmed the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in ICC, and several trials have evaluated molecular-targeted agents as monotherapy or in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Multidisciplinary approaches are necessary to improve the outcomes of ICC.

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.

Robotic major hepatectomy: Is there a learning curve?

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested as a safe and effective management of liver disease. However, no large case series have documented the learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy.

METHOD

We conducted a retrospective study for robotic major hepatectomy performed by the same operative team between January 2012 and October 2015 and evaluated the learning curve for operation time using the cumulative sum method, presented as cumulative sum_{operation time}.

RESULTS

Overall, there were 183 robotic hepatectomies, 92 of which were performed in patients who underwent robotic major hepatectomy: left hemihepatectomy was performed in 32 (34.8%) patients, right hemihepatectomy in 41 (44.6%), left trisectionectomy in 3 (3.3%), right trisectionectomy in 6 (6.5%), and 8-5-4 trisegmentectomy in 10 (10.8%). The median duration of surgery was 434 minutes (142-805 minutes) and the median blood loss was 195 mL (50-2,000 mL). Fifty-nine percent of patients had malignancies, and those with advanced stages of cancer had more blood loss during an operation. The cumulative sum_{operation time} model of robotic major hepatectomy suggested that the learning curve comprised 3 characteristic phases: initial (phase 1, 15 patients), intermediate (phase 2, 25 patients), and mature (phase 3, 52 patients). The learning effects were underlined by shorter operation time and hospital stay after phase 1 and less blood loss after phase 2.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest series regarding robotic major hepatectomy. Our findings suggest that a solid training program based on the learning curve should be considered for beginners of robotic hepatectomy. Participants should evaluate the evolution of our minimally invasive hepatectomy before considering our robotic experience.

Robotic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Robotic hepatectomy has been suggested to be a safe and effective approach for liver disease; however, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are limited. Accordingly, we performed a matched comparison of surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic and open hepatectomy.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and October 2015, a total of 183 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy and 275 patients underwent open hepatectomy by the same surgical team in our center. Eighty-one newly diagnosed HCC cases in each group were compared under propensity score matching (PSM) in a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

With robotic hepatectomy, the conversion rate was 1.6 % and the complication rate was 4.4 %. On PSM, the groups had a comparable percentage of major liver resections (41.9 vs. 39.5 %) and liver cirrhosis (45.7 vs. 46.9 %). Compared with the open group, the robotic group required longer operation times (343 vs. 220 min), shorter hospital stays (7.5 vs. 10.1 days), and lower dosages of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (350 vs. 554 ng/kg). The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (72.2 % vs. 58.0 %; p = 0.062), as was the 3-year overall survival (92.6 vs. 93.7 %; p = 0.431).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first oncological study comparing robotic liver resection for HCC with open resection. Robotic hepatectomy can be applied for challenging major resections in patients with cirrhotic liver disease with less postoperative pain and shorter hospital stays without compromising oncological outcomes.

Liver Exposure Using Sterile Glove Pouch During Laparoscopic Right Liver Surgery in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopy is widely accepted for liver resection, lesions in the posterior and superior segments and deep region in the right lobe are difficult for visualization during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). In this study, we aim examine the effects of using sterile gloves (SG) pouch padding during LLR.

METHODS

Forty-two hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients were included in our study. We performed LLR using SG (n = 24, SG group) and without SG during LLR (n = 18, NSG). We also compared the time of various procedures, blood loss, and liver function between the two groups.

RESULTS

We did not observe any major complications or death in all patients. The time of liver parenchyma transection and portal triad clamping in SG group is significantly shorter than those in NSG group (30.29 ± 5.55 vs. 39.00 ± 3.68 min p < .001 for liver parenchyma transection, 23.00 ± 5.60 vs. 31.60 ± 5.03 min p < .001 for portal triad clamping). Blood loss in SG group (162.91 ± 90.91 ml) was significantly lower than in NSG group (236.66 ± 101.67 ml p = .024). The levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were increased one day after LLR, and decreased to normal level on day 7 after LLR in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggests that a sterile glove pouch could enhance exposure in surgical field, which results in decrease in blood loss and procedure time. More studies with large sample size, large tumor size, and longer follow-up are needed.

Long-Term Nononcologic Outcomes for Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Improvement over Open Hepatectomy?

Prior studies of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have evaluated long-term outcomes in terms of cancer survival, but few have evaluated nononcologic outcomes. This study analyzes long-term nondisease-specific complications associated with LLR and open liver resection (OLR). We performed a retrospective single-institution review of patients undergoing liver resection for any reason from January 2005 to December 2014. Long-term complication was defined as any complication not related to the primary disease process, and occurring more than 90 days after surgery, emphasizing incisional hernia (IH) and small bowel obstruction (SBO). A total of 208 patients were included in the OLR group and 79 patients in the LLR group. Forty-one patients (19.6%) developed IH after OLR, whereas only six patients (7.5%) developed IH after LLR ( P = 0.01). About 3.8 per cent of patients developed IH requiring surgical repair in both groups. Seven patients developed SBO (3.4%) after OLR; no patient developed SBO after LLR. Median time to development of complications was 13.8 months (range 3–54 months) after OLR compared with 8.5 months after LLR (range 6–36 months). Male gender, body mass index, prior abdominal surgery, and OLR were independent risk factors for development of long-term complications. There is a higher incidence of nondisease-specific complications after OLR than LLR.

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.

Clinical impact of laparoscopic hepatectomy: technical and oncological viewpoints

The objective of this study was to assess the clinical impact of laparoscopic hepatectomy from technical and oncological viewpoints through the consecutive 5-year experience of an expert team. The subjects consisted of 491 consecutive hepatectomies performed over the course of 5 years. A total of 190 hepatectomies (38.6 %) were performed laparoscopically, and the remaining 301 (61.4 %) were open hepatectomies. Chronological trends of operative procedures and their indications were evaluated, and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were analyzed from an oncological viewpoint. The proportion of laparoscopic hepatectomies performed increased significantly during the study period (from 17.6 to 49.5 %). According to chronological trends, right hepatectomy was standardized using consecutive steps after minor hepatectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, and left hepatectomy were standardized. The proportion of laparoscopic hepatectomies performed for HCC increased from 21.4 to 71.0 %. No significant difference was observed in the proportion of major hepatectomies performed for HCC between the open and laparoscopy groups (50.6 vs. 48.6 %, p = 0.8053), whereas that of anatomical segmentectomy for HCC was significantly lower in the laparoscopy group (28.7 vs. 11.1 %, p = 0.0064). All laparoscopic anatomical segmentectomies were of segments 5 and 6, and there was no segmentectomy of posterosuperior lesions. The present study shows the consecutive technical developmental processes for minor hepatectomy, left lateral sectionectomy, left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy without compromising oncological principles. Laparoscopic anatomical segmentectomy for posterosuperior lesions may be the most technically demanding procedure, requiring individualized standardization.

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.

Safely extending the indications of laparoscopic liver resection: When should we start laparoscopic major hepatectomy?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) is an innovative procedure that is still in the exploration phase. Although new surgical techniques have learning curves, safety should be maintained from the onset. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the safe introduction of LMH.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 245 consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection. Patients were divided into three groups: Phase I, the first 64 cases, all minor hepatectomies; Phase II, cases from the first LMH case to the midmost of the LMH cases (n = 69, including 22 LMHs); Phase III, the most recent 112 cases, including 22 LMHs. Patient characteristics and surgical results were evaluated, and the learning curve was analysed with the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method.

RESULTS

The first LMH was adopted after sufficient preparatory experience was gained from performing 64 minor hepatectomies. In cases of LMH, there were no significant differences in the surgical time between Phases II and III (356 vs. 309 min; P = 0.318), morbidity rate (22.7 vs. 31.8 %; P = 0.736), or major morbidity rate (18.2 vs. 9.1 %; P = 0.664); however, estimated blood loss was significantly reduced from Phase II to Phase III (236 vs. 68 mL; P = 0.018). The CUSUM for morbidity also showed similar outcomes through Phases II and III.

CONCLUSION

There is a learning curve associated with laparoscopic liver resection. To maintain a low morbidity rate, 60 laparoscopic minor hepatectomies could provide adequate experience before the adoption of LMH.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic resection of a hepatic mucinous cystic neoplasm: A case report

•

The first report of a hepatic mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN-H) completely resected by laparoscopy.

•

MCN-H has been reported to have the potential for malignancy, and recommended to resection.

•

Benign liver lesions including MCN-H are commonly observed in young females and lacparoscopic liver resection might have cosmetic advantages for patients.

Introduction

We aimed to present a case of hepatic mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN-H) that was completely resected by laparoscopy.

Presentation of case

A 47-year-old female exhibited mild elevation of serum liver enzyme levels. Abdominal computed tomography revealed a 45-mm multilocular cystic tumor in segment IV of the liver, along with intermittent border calcification and minimal wall thickness. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed fluid-to-fluid level in the cystic tumor, thereby increasing the suspicion of a mild hemorrhage. The patient underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with a diagnosis of suspected mucinous cystic neoplasm of the liver. The entire tumor was successfully resected with a laparoscopic approach. The resected specimen was a 4.2 × 3.3 × 2.2-cm cystic tumor. Histological findings revealed mucin-producing singular epithelium and ovarian-like stroma. The tumor was diagnosed as a MCN-H with no malignancy.

Discussion

This is the first report in which a MCN-H was completely resected by laparoscopy. MCN-H is rare and is observed in only <5% of liver cystic tumors. MCN-H has been reported to have the malignant potential. And complete resection might be a good treatment option. Along with technical development, LLR has been indicated for benign liver tumors to date. Benign liver tumors are commonly observed in young females. The smaller incisions of the laparoscopic approach might provide cosmetic advantages for patients.

Conclusion

We presented the first case of a MCN-H completely resected by laparoscopy. Benign tumors and tumors with malignant potential might be good indications for a laparoscopic surgery.

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.

Evidence supporting laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasing in frequency with over 9,000 cases done worldwide. Benefits of laparoscopic resection include less blood loss, smaller incisions, decreased postoperative morbidity, and shorter length of stay compared to open liver resection. With increased experience, several centers have reported series of laparoscopic major hepatectomy, although this represents only about 25% of total LLR performed. Evidence is accumulating to support laparoscopic major hepatectomy with the understanding that there is a steep learning curve, and surgeons should begin with minor LLR before moving on to laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Controversy still remains concerning indications, techniques, learning curve, risks, and long-term cancer outcomes with laparoscopic major hepatectomy.