Experience with more than 500 minimally invasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg. 2008;248:475-486. [PMID: 18791368 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0b013e318185e647]

Current status and future perspective of laparoscopic surgery in hepatobiliary disease

Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery include laparoscopic and robotic surgery. These surgical techniques have changed the paradigm of surgical treatment for hepatobiliary diseases. Minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of minimal wound extension for cosmetic effect, early postoperative recovery, and few postoperative complications in patients. For laparoscopic liver resection, the indications have been expanded and oncological outcome was proven to be similar with open surgery in the malignant disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a classical operation for benign gallbladder diseases and the effort to decrease the surgical wound resulted to perform single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For choledochal cyst, laparoscopic surgery is applied gradually despite of the difficulties associated with anastomosis, and robotic surgery for hepatobiliary disease is also performed for more minimally invasive surgery; however, while admitting the advantage of robotic surgery, robotic technology should be improved for development of more convenient and cheaper instrument and continuous efforts to enhance surgical technique to overcome long operation is necessary. In this review, the status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery for hepatobiliary diseases are summarized and discussed.

Survey results on daily practice in open and laparoscopic liver resections from 27 centers participating in the second International Consensus Conference

BACKGROUND

The proportions of laparoscopic approach and surgical procedures in liver resections have been unknown in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to investigate liver resections performed in select centers worldwide and analyze the ratios of laparoscopic approach, major liver resection, and left lateral sectionectomy.

METHODS

A questionnaire-based survey on proportions of liver resections performed between 2008 and 2013 was conducted. The data collected from 27 respondents, which joined the conference committee of the second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection (LLR), were analyzed by the working group.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2013, 11,712 liver resections were performed in the 27 centers. Of all of these liver resections, laparoscopic approach was selected in 32.1% (n = 3,765), whereas open approach was selected in 67.9% (n = 7,947). The ratio of laparoscopic approach taken in all left lateral sectionectomy (61.8%) is higher, compared with that of laparoscopic approach taken in all liver resections (32.1%), in all minor liver resections (35.9%), and in all major liver resections (24.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic approach was clinically chosen for approximately 30% of all liver resections and for more than 60% of left lateral sectionectomy in selected centers worldwide.

Robotic hepatectomy: initial experience of a single institution in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies.

RESULTS

During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38-66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1-7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155-825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50-1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4-7) days.

CONCLUSION

Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy.

The safety and efficacy of approaches to liver resection: a meta-analysis

Background:

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.

Database:

Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3–200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.57).

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.

Early and Long-term Oncological Outcomes After Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Propensity Score-based Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare early and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) by either a laparoscopic (LA) or an open (OA) approach.

BACKGROUND

The LA is still a matter of debate regarding the surgical management of CLM.

METHODS

Data of all patients from 32 French surgical centers who underwent liver resection for CLM from January 2006 to December 2013 were collected. Aiming to obtain 2 well-balanced cohorts for available variables influencing early outcome and survival, the LA group was matched 1:1 with the OA group by using a propensity score (PS)-based method.

RESULTS

The unmatched initial cohort consisted of 2620 patients (LA: 176, OA: 2444). In the matched cohort for operative risk factors (LA: 153, OA: 153), the LA group had shorter hospitalization stays [11.1 (±9) days vs 13.9 (±10) days; P = 0.01] and was associated with lower rates of grade III to V complications [odds ratio (OR): 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.51; P = 0.0002] and inhospital transfusions (OR: 0.33 95% CI 0.18-0.59; P < 0.0001). On a prognostic factors well-balanced population (LA: 73, OA: 73), the LA group and the OA group experienced similar overall (OS) and disease-free (DFS) survival rates [OS rates of 88% and 78% vs 84% and 75% at 3 and 5 years, respectively (P = 0.72) and DFS rates of 40% and 32% vs 52% and 36% at 3 and 5 years, respectively (P = 0.60)].

CONCLUSIONS

In the patients who are suitable for LA, laparoscopy yields better operative outcomes without impairing long-term survival.

Laparoscopic Anatomical Left Hepatectomy for Intrahepatic Bile Duct Papillary Mucinous Cystadenoma With Intraoperative Vascular Repair: A Case Report

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely performed for patients with benign liver tumors such as hepatic hemangioma, focal nodular hyperplasia, and hepatic adenoma.We here present a case of a 78-year-old female patient who was initially admitted to our department due to fever and jaundice for 2 days. Abdominal enhanced computed tomography scan showed intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct dilatation with liver atrophy of left lobe. Unenhanced nodules were seen within the left intrahepatic bile duct. Ultrasonography revealed intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct dilatation with viscous fluid, tubular adenoma? Tumor markers including alpha fetoprotein, carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA19-9 were normal. Preoperative total bilirubin was 64.4 mmol/L.Laparoscopic anatomical left hepatectomy and common bile duct exploration were performed. In this procedure, a lot of mucus was seen within the common bile duct and left intrahepatic bile duct. No bile duct stones were found after the exploration. During parenchymal transection, intraoperative hemorrhage from middle hepatic vein was met, and we repaired middle hepatic vein by laparoscopic suture (5-0 Prolene). No air embolism and hypotension were met. This operation took 232 minutes and estimated blood loss was 300 mL. Postoperative ultrasonography indicated a normal outflow of middle hepatic vein and there was no stricture. The patient's postoperative course was uneventful and was discharged on the 6th day after surgery. Postoperative pathological diagnosis was intrahepatic bile duct papillary mucinous cystadenoma.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and pooled analysis of minor and major hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the safety and feasibility for three subgroups of robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: (i) minor resections of easily accessible segments: 2/3, 4B, 5, 6, (ii) minor resections of difficult located segments: 1, 4A, 7, 8 and (iii) major resections: ≥ 4 segments.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Twelve observational, mostly retrospective studies reporting on 363 patients were included. Data were pooled and analyzed. For subgroup (i) (n = 81) the weighted mean operative time was 215 ± 65 min. One conversion (1%) to laparotomy was needed. Weighted mean operative time for subgroup (ii) (n = 17) was 220 ± 60 min. No conversions were needed. For subgroup (iii) (n = 99) the weighted mean operative time was 405 ± 100 min. In this subgroup 8 robotic procedures (8%) were converted to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Data show that robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection is feasible in minor resections of all segments and major resections. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to compare the possible advantages of robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy and open surgery.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

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

Tissue management with tri-staple technology in major and minor laparoscopic liver resections

One of the most relevant technologic advancements in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is owing to the improved ability to safely secure and divide vascular and biliary structures and the liver parenchyma by the use of endostaplers. We compared, retrospectively, 35 LLRs with the Tri-Staple technology versus 57 LLRs without, during a 14-month period. Colorectal liver metastases were overall the main indication for LLR. Neither major hepatectomy nor left lateral sectionectomy was done in the nonstapled group. Mean surgical time and blood loss were similar, whereas the tumor number and size were significantly larger in the stapled group (P ≤ 0.01). The conversion rate was 0% and 3.5% (n = 2); and the morbidity rate was 9% (n = 3) and 12% (n = 7), respectively, in the stapled and nonstapled group (P = 0.8). No overall 3-month mortality was recorded. Endo GIA Reloads with Tri-Staple technology allow a proper division of the intrahepatic vessels and biliary structure. These devices in LLRs are safe and feasible, allowing major hepatectomy and complex cases as 2-staged procedures and laparoscopic living donor liver resections.

Less cost by using hanging maneuver and Pringle maneuver in left lateral hepatectomy through small laparotomy wound--experience of Southern Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic segmentectomy for liver tumor located in the left lateral segment (LLS) is thought to be a standard protocol nowadays with several advantages, such as small wound, few blood loss, and short hospital stay. However, there are still many disadvantages during executing laparoscopic LLS segmentectomy. This manuscript aims to present the technique to execute LLS segmentectomy with small incision, hanging maneuver without Pringle maneuver in patients with tumor at LLS of the liver.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between November 2010 and July 2011, hepatectomies through small incision for nine patients with benign and malignant tumors were performed at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. Perioperative and postoperative results, such as operation time, blood loss, incisional width, and postoperative stay were used to determine consequents for this technique.

RESULT

Results demonstrated that modified LLS segmentectomy by the author's team was performed successfully in patient with liver tumor with fewer blood loss, smaller incisional width, and lower hospital cost than traditional open surgery. In addition, the instrument cost and blood loss in our series were less than that in laparoscopic LLS segmentectomy in published literature.

CONCLUSION

Authors concluded that minimally incisional segmentectomy, with less cost and technical demanding, could be an alternative choice in patient with liver tumor at LLS.

Facile design of plant-oil-infused fine surface asperity for transparent blood-repelling endoscope lens

Minimally invasive medical operations, especially endoscope operations, have attracted much attention and play a major role in modern medicine.

The procedure outcome of laparoscopic resection for 'small' hepatocellular carcinoma is comparable to vlaparoscopic radiofrequency ablation

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) in the treatment of small nodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 50 cirrhotic patients with similar baseline characteristics that underwent LLR (n = 26) or LRFA (n = 24), in both cases with intraoperative ultrasonography. Operative and peri-operative data were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

LLR included anatomic resection in eight cases and non-anatomic resection in 18. In LRFA patients, a thermoablation of 62 nodules was achieved. Between LLR and LRFA groups, a significant difference was found both for median diameters of treated HCC nodules (30 vs. 17.1 mm; P < 0.001) and the number of treated nodules/patient (1.29 ± 0.62 vs. 2.65 ± 1.55; P < 0.001). A conversion to laparotomy occurred in two LLR patient (7.7%) for bleeding. No deaths occurred in both groups. Morbidity rates were 26.9% in the LLR group versus 16.6% in the LRFA group (P = 0.501). Hospital stay in the LLR and LRFA group was 8.30 ± 6.52 and 6.52 ± 2.69 days, respectively (P = 0.022). The surgical margin was free of tumour cells in all LLR patients, with a margin <5 mm in only one case. In the LRFA group, a complete response was achieved in 90.3% of thermoablated HCC nodules at the 1-month post-treatment computed tomography evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for small peripheral HCC in patients with chronic liver disease represents a valid alternative to LRFA in terms of patient toleration, surgical outcome of the procedure, and short-term morbidity.

Mortality in hepatectomy: Model for End-Stage Liver Disease as a predictor of death using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

The predictive value of the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) for mortality after hepatectomy is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether MELD score predicts death after hepatectomy and to identify the most useful score type for predicting mortality. We hypothesized that an increase in this score is correlated with 30-day mortality in patients undergoing hepatic resection.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for hepatectomy. Original MELD, United Network of Organ Sharing-modified MELD (uMELD), integrated MELD (i-MELD), and sodium-corrected MELD (MELD-Na) scores were calculated. Mortality was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. MELD types were compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2011, 11,933 hepatic resections were performed, including 7,519 partial, 2,104 right, and 1,210 left resections, and 1,100 trisectionectomies. The mean duration of stay was 8.4 ± 22.0 days, and there were 275 deaths (2.4%). The 30-day mortality rates were 1.8%, 6.9%, 15.4%, and 25% according to uMELD strata of 0-9, 10-19, 20-29, and ≥ 30, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that increasing MELD stratum was independently associated with higher mortality (P < .001) for all MELD types. The uMELD had the largest effect size (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.20), whereas i-MELD had the narrowest CI (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.10-1.17) and largest area under the ROC curve.

CONCLUSION

The postoperative 30-day mortality after hepatectomy increases with increasing MELD score across all MELD types. There is a 16% increase in the odds of mortality for each point increase in uMELD.

The learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection after the Louisville statement 2008: Will it be more effective and smooth?

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proven to be feasible and safe. However, it is a difficult and complex procedure with a steep learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve of LLR at our institutions since 2008.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-six consecutive LLRs were included from May 2008 to December 2014. Patient characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were collected prospectively and analyzed.

RESULTS

The median tumor size was 25 mm (range 5-90 mm), and 96 % of the resected tumors were malignant. 41.3 % (52/126) of patients had pathologically proven liver cirrhosis. The median operation time was 216 min (range 40-602 min) with a median blood loss of 100 ml (range 20-2300 ml). The median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range 2-10 days). Six major postoperative complications occurred in this series, and there was no 90-day postoperative mortality. Regarding the incidence of major operative events including operation time longer than 300 min, perioperative blood loss above 500 ml, and major postoperative complications, the learning curve [as evaluated by the cumulative sum (CUSUM) technique] showed its first reverse after 22 cases. The indication of laparoscopic resection in this series extended after 60 cases to include tumors located in difficult locations (segments 4a, 7, 8) and major hepatectomy. CUSUM showed that the incidence of major operative events proceeded to increase again, and the second reverse was noted after an additional 40 cases of experience. Location of the tumor in a difficult area emerged as a significant predictor of major operative events.

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected patients, CUSUM analysis showed 22 cases were needed to overcome the learning curve for minor LLR.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration: a report of 855 cases

BACKGROUND

In 1998, the technique of laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration was developed and a special instrument, laparoscopic multifunctional operative dissector (LPMOD), was designed for this procedure. In the past 17 years, this procedure was developed gradually and had become the routine procedure for laparoscopic hepatectomy in local area. This paper is to report results of 17-year practice of this procedure.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy from August 1998 to March 2015 were reviewed. Hepatectomies were performed using the technique of laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration. By using the LPMOD, liver parenchyma was crashed and aspirated immediately and the intrahepatic ducts and small vessels were preserved and were safely dissected for ligation. Laparoscopic selective hepatic flow occlusion was performed routinely for hemi-hepatectomies to control intraoperative blood loss.

RESULTS

A total of 855 cases underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration. No perioperative death, 105 patients were converted to open operation, and 84 of them were converted before liver transection without any emergency. Postoperative bleeding occurred in three patients (0.4 %), and bile leakage occurred in seven patients (0.8 %).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic hepatectomy by curettage and aspiration is a safe procedure for liver resection with acceptable morbidity and mortality.

Laparoscopic Transabdominal With Transdiaphragmatic Access Improves Resection of Difficult Posterosuperior Liver Lesions

OBJECTIVE

We describe the technical details and evaluate the safety, feasibility, and usefulness of a combined lateral and abdominal (CLA) approach for laparoscopic resection of liver segments 7 and 8.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection of lesions in the posterosuperior area of segments 7 and 8 is technically challenging, and currently there is no standardized laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

Through review of a prospectively maintained database, we identified 44 patients who underwent laparoscopic resection of lesions in segment 7 or 8. Twenty-five patients required the CLA approach because their lesions were more posterosuperior and intraparenchymal; 19 patients underwent resection with a regular abdominal-only approach of more accessible anteroinferior lesions. We reviewed operative details and video footage of these operations and compared the outcomes of the 2 groups.

RESULTS

In the group treated with the CLA approach, deep location was more frequent (88% vs 42%; P = 0.035), median tumor diameter was larger (24.5 mm vs 15 mm; P = 0.114), and the median weight of the excised parenchyma was greater (56.5 g vs 23 g; P = 0.093). Median operative time was longer in the CLA approach group (217.5 minutes vs 165 minutes; P = 0.046), but blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, surgical margin status, morbidity, and mortality were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The CLA approach permits safe laparoscopic resection of lesions in the posterosuperior area of segments 7 and 8, allowing surgeons to overcome the difficulties of limited visualization and access to the target lesions.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Liver Cancer

This chapter covers a range of important topics of laparoscopic hepatectomy as a novel approach toward treatment of liver cancer. Although laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in a limited number of centers in the 1990s, technological innovations, improvements in surgical techniques and accumulation of experience by surgeons have led to more rapid progress in laparoscopic hepatectomy in the late 2000s for minimally invasive hepatic surgery. Currently, laparoscopic hepatectomy can be performed for all tumor locations and several diseases via several approaches. The laparoscopic approach can be applied to several types of resection, not only for tumors but also for liver transplantation, with equivalent or better results compared with those obtained with open surgery. Therefore, laparoscopic hepatectomy will become a standard procedure for treatment of liver cancer in the near future.

Factors associated with and outcomes of open conversion after laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: initial experience at a single institution

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection has been increasingly adopted worldwide as a result of the rapid advancement in surgical techniques and equipment. This study aims to determine the factors associated with and outcomes of open conversion after laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH) based on a single center multi-surgeon experience.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of the first 147 consecutive LMH performed between 2006 and April 2014 at a single institution. Data on patient demographics, pathology results, perioperative outcomes, and operative results were collected. Factors associated with open conversion were analyzed via univariate analysis and a P value <.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

LMH was performed for malignancy in 114 (77.6%) patients of which hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 82) and colorectal metastases (n = 16) were the most common pathologies. Forty-one (27.9%) patients had cirrhotic livers and 18 (15.7%) had fibrotic livers. Fifty patients (44%) had concomitant surgery in addition to LMH. Twenty (13.6%) procedures required open conversion and the most common reason was for bleeding (n = 12). Twenty-five patients (17%) experienced postoperative complications. Univariate analyses demonstrated that only individual surgeon volume (n ≤ 10 cases) [15 (24.2%) vs 5 (5.9%), P = .001] and institution volume (n ≤ 25 cases) [8 (32%) vs 12 (9.8%), P = .003] were factors associated with open conversion. Open conversion was significantly associated with increased intra-operative blood loss, increased intra-operative blood transfusion, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer postoperative stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual surgeon and institution volumes were important factors associated with open conversion after LMH. Open conversion after LMH resulted in poorer outcomes compared to procedures that were successfully completed laparoscopically.

Clinical comparison of laparoscopic and open liver resection after propensity matching selection

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the radicality for and clinical advantages of laparoscopic liver resection, which is increasingly used, and the corresponding open procedure by propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed 260 hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent initial liver resection at our department between January 2003 and June 2011, including 60 laparoscopic (the Lap group) and 200 open cases (the Open group). Propensity scores were calculated for each patient via the use of various clinicopathologic features as covariates, and patients' survival was compared.

RESULTS

The Lap group had more women and patients of advanced age (n = 60) than the Open group (n = 200). Tumor size (2.3 cm vs 3.5 cm median), multiple tumors (18.3% vs 41.0%), vascular invasion (15.0% vs 36.5%), poor differentiation status (11.2% vs 24.5%), intraoperative bleeding (110 mL vs 420 mL; median), and operative time (277 minutes vs 312 minutes; median) were significantly more favorable in the Lap group than in the Open group because of a selection bias of the patients (Lap vs Open). The postoperative recurrence-free and overall survival rates were greater in the Lap group than in the Open group; however, when 35 patients from each group were analyzed after propensity score matching of clinicopathologic characteristics of the patients, intraoperative bleeding was lesser in the Lap group. The recurrence-free survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 75.0%, 43.8%, and 43.8%, respectively, in the Lap group and 73.6%, 49.3%, and 37.2%, respectively, in the Open group, which indicated no significant differences (P = .954). Similarly, the overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were 93.9%, 82.1%, and 82.1%, respectively, in the Lap group and 94.3%, 85.2%, and 61.8%, respectively, in the Open group, indicating no significant differences between the 2 groups (P = .672).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that laparoscopic liver resection is comparable with the corresponding open procedure in clinical safety and prognostic efficacy.

Minimally invasive liver surgery in a hepato-biliary unit: learning curve and indications

Operative indications and type of resection represent a crucial issue of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), and they should not be modified by the increased experience of laparoscopic liver surgeons. The aim of this study was to define the indications for MILS and the learning curve in a high-volume hepatobiliary surgery Unit. Between 2009 and 2014, 993 liver resections were performed in our unit, and MILS was performed in 81 of these (8.2%). The proportion of MILS significantly increased over the study period of time and was significantly higher during the last 2 years than during the first 2 years (10.8 vs. 6.4%; p = 0.042). Rate of liver resections for benign disease between the first 2 years and the last 2 years of the study period was not significantly different (14.7 vs. 10.5%; p = 0.098). Rate of MILS for malignant disease significantly increased from the first 2 years to the last 2 years: 3.2 vs. 7.5% (p < 0.001). Indication for left lateral sectionectomy in the whole series was rare. It was performed in 37 cases as the only liver surgical procedure, on 993 liver resections (3.7%). In 25 (67.6%) of these, a minimally invasive approach was used. Rate of left lateral sectionectomies between the first 2 years and the last 2 years of the study period was not significantly different: 4.5 vs. 3.8% (p = 0.645). This study shows that the proportion of MILS significantly increased over the study period of time in our high-volume hepatobiliary surgery Unit without changing surgical indications for benign disease and type of resections.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently perceived a complex and challenging laparoscopic procedure and is limited to a few expert teams. This study analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH for HCC compared with open hepatectomy.

METHODS

From January 2006 to May 2014, 38 patients underwent LMH for HCC (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy). They were matched and compared to 38 patients (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy) who underwent a conventional open approach. Short-term operative and postoperative outcomes as well as long-term outcomes, including disease-free survival and overall survival rates, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients were well matched for several preoperative factors. Overall complication rates were significantly higher for the open group. No significant difference was seen in 3-year overall survival between the open and laparoscopic groups (69.2 vs. 73.4 %; p = 0.951). A trend toward better 3-year disease-free survival after laparoscopy was observed (29.7 vs. 50.3 %; p = 0.219), even though the difference did not reach statistical significance. The same trend was seen in subgroup analyses of right and left hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the feasibility of LMH for HCC compared to open hepatectomy in regard to both short- and long-term outcomes. LMH offers many advantages commonly attributed to laparoscopy and is well suited for HCC with cirrhosis when performed by experienced surgeons.

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

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently perceived a complex and challenging laparoscopic procedure and is limited to a few expert teams. This study analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH for HCC compared with open hepatectomy.

METHODS

From January 2006 to May 2014, 38 patients underwent LMH for HCC (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy). They were matched and compared to 38 patients (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy) who underwent a conventional open approach. Short-term operative and postoperative outcomes as well as long-term outcomes, including disease-free survival and overall survival rates, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Patients were well matched for several preoperative factors. Overall complication rates were significantly higher for the open group. No significant difference was seen in 3-year overall survival between the open and laparoscopic groups (69.2 vs. 73.4 %; p = 0.951). A trend toward better 3-year disease-free survival after laparoscopy was observed (29.7 vs. 50.3 %; p = 0.219), even though the difference did not reach statistical significance. The same trend was seen in subgroup analyses of right and left hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the feasibility of LMH for HCC compared to open hepatectomy in regard to both short- and long-term outcomes. LMH offers many advantages commonly attributed to laparoscopy and is well suited for HCC with cirrhosis when performed by experienced surgeons.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic surgery of postero-lateral segments: a comparison between transthoracic and abdominal approach

Lesions located in the postero-lateral part of the liver (segments 6 and 7) have been considered as poor candidates for a laparoscopic liver resection due to the limited visualization and difficulty in bleeding control. Although no comparison has been done between transthoracic and abdominal resection of tumors located in the postero-lateral segments, we propose a description of these different strategies, specifying the benefits as well as the disadvantages of the various approaches.

Colorectal cancer liver metastases: laparoscopic and open radiofrequency-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

The liver is the most common site of colorectal metastases (colorectal liver metastases - CLM). Surgical treatment in combination with oncological therapy is the only potentially curative method. Unfortunately, only 10-25% of patients are suitable for surgery. Traditionally, open liver resection (OLR) is usually performed. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become popular worldwide in the last two decades.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of radiofrequency minor LLR of CLM in comparison with OLR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The indication for surgery was CLM and the possibility to perform minor laparoscopic or OLR not exceeding two hepatic segments according to Couinaud's classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six minor liver resections for CLM were performed. Twenty-five (37.9%) patients underwent a laparoscopic approach and 41 (62.1%) patients underwent OLR. The mean operative time was 166.4 min for LLR and 166.8 min for OLR. Average blood loss was 132.3 ±218.0 ml during LLR and 149.5 ±277.5 ml during OLR. Length of hospital stay was 8.4 ±2.0 days for LLR and 10.5 ±5.8 days for OLR. All resections were R0. There was no case of mortality. Postoperative complications were recognized in 9 (13.6%) patients: 8 in the group of OLR patients and 1 in the LLR group. The median survival time for LLR was 70.5 months and for OLR 61.9 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher for LLR vs. OLR - 82.1% vs. 69.8%. The average length of disease-free interval after LLR was greater (52.2 months) in comparison with OLR (49.4%). The 5-year disease-free interval was 63.2% for LLR and 58% for OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and oncological radicality of minor laparoscopic liver resections of CLM are comparable to outcomes of OLR.

Indications for liver surgery: laparoscopic or robotic approach

Laparoscopic liver resections have been demonstrated to be safe and effective with the advantages of a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, less adhesions and better postoperative recovery compared to open surgery. However, indications are usually confined to peripheral, small lesions, due to issues intrinsic to the approach. In the effort to overcome some of these technical limitations, robotic technology has been developed, with encouraging findings. We performed a review of the literature to assess the current indications for laparoscopic hepatic resections and to investigate the role of robotics in broadening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Although a paucity of data exists, especially regarding long-term oncological outcomes and specific comparisons with laparoscopy, robotics has been proved to facilitate several complex liver procedures, including parenchyma-saving resections. Thus, the number of patients who can benefit from less invasive, conservative approach is potentially increased.

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy combined with partial diaphragmatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: Is it feasible and reasonable?

BACKGROUND

The impact of diaphragmatic invasion in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) remains poorly evaluated. We aimed to evaluate feasibility and safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) with or without diaphragmatic resection for CRLM.

METHODS

From 2002 to 2012, 52 patients underwent LRH for CRLM. Of them, 7 patients had combined laparoscopic partial diaphragmatic resection ("diaphragm" group). Data were retrospectively collected and short and long-term outcomes analyzed.

RESULTS

Operative time was lower in the control group (272 vs 345 min, P = .06). Six patients required conversion to open surgery. Blood loss and transfusion rate were similar. Portal triad clamping was used more frequently in the "diaphragm" group (42.8% vs 6.6%, P = .02). Maximum tumor size was greater in the "diaphragm" group (74.5 vs 37.1 mm, P = .002). Resection margin was negative in all cases. Mortality was nil and general morbidity similar in the 2 groups. Specific liver-related complications occurred in 2 patients in the "diaphragm" group and 17 in the control group (P = .69). Mean hospital stay was similar (P = 56). Twenty-two (42.3%) patients experienced recurrence. One-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival after surgery in "diaphragm" and control groups were 69%, 34%, 34%, and 97%, 83%, 59%, respectively (P = .103). One- and 3-year disease-free survival after surgery in "diaphragm" and control groups were 57%, 47% and 75%, 54%, respectively (P = .310).

CONCLUSION

LRH with en-bloc diaphragmatic resection could be reasonably performed for selected patients in expert centers. Technical difficulties related to diaphragmatic invasion must be circumvented. Further experience must be gained to confirm our results.

Comparison of minimally invasive and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection for liver metastases: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases.

METHODS

This study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.

What is the best technique in parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection? Comprehensive review for the clinical question on the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The continuing evolution of technique and devices used in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has allowed successful application of this minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of liver disease. However, the type of instruments by energy sources and technique used vary among each institution. We reviewed the literature to seek the best technique for parenchymal transection, which was proposed as one of the important clinical question in the 2nd International Consensus Conference on LLR held on October 2014. While publications have described transection techniques used in LLR from 1991 to June 2014, it is difficult to specify the best technique and device for laparoscopic hepatic parenchymal transection, owing to a lack of randomized trials with only a small number of comparative studies. However, it is clear that instruments should be used in combination with others based on their functions and the depth of liver resection. Most authors have reported using staplers to secure and divide major vessels. Preparation for prevention of unexpected hemorrhaging particularly in liver cirrhosis, the Pringle's maneuver and prompt technique for hemostasis should be performed. We conclude that hepatobiliary surgeons should select techniques based on their familiarity with a concrete understanding of instruments and individualize to the procedure of LLR.

Approaches to laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of the role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the hybrid technique

Laparoscopic liver resection has been established as a safe and feasible treatment option. Surgical approaches include pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALS), and the hybrid technique. The role of these three approaches, and their superiority over open laparotomy, is not yet known. A literature review was performed using specific search phrases, relating to hand-assisted or hybrid approaches to laparoscopic liver resection. Surgical results from 18 case series (HALS, nine series; hybrid technique, nine series), each with ≥ 10 patients, were analyzed. Results indicated that HALS was associated with a mean operative time of 82-264.5 min, an estimated blood loss of 82-300 mL, and a complication rate of 3.8-27.1%. Analysis of series involving the hybrid technique indicated a mean operative time of 111-366.5 min, an estimated blood loss of 93-936 mL, and a complication rate of 3.4-23.5%. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any single approach is superior to the others, although HALS and the hybrid technique are useful when dealing with difficulties associated with pure laparoscopy. Conversely, the need for these two methods, which can function as a bridge to pure laparoscopic liver resection, may be overcome with appropriate training.

Modified laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic hemangioma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) using many different surgical techniques has become increasingly popular for the management of hepatic tumors. The performance of surgical procedures involving the least possible impairment is expected increasingly more often by both surgeons and patients. We herein describe a clinical cohort of ten patients with hepatic cavernous hemangioma (HCH) who underwent modified LH (MLH) with a new technique. We herein present the advantages of the low level of impairment during performance of this modified procedure and compare the outcomes of MLH with those of traditional LH (TLH) for HCH.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the treatment outcomes in 24 patients with HCH who underwent MLH (n = 10) or TLH (n = 14) from February 2008 to January 2013. Their demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were compared.

RESULTS

MLH was successful in all patients. An electromechanical morcellator allowed for easy extraction of the entire HCH without the use of a cumbersome retrieval bag, enlarged incision, or hand-assisted incision. There was no conversion to an open operation or significant perioperative complications. The operation time (P = 0.037), time to removal of the HCH (P < 0.0001), visual analog scale pain score on the first postoperative day (P = 0.012), time to off-bed activity (P = 0.036), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.048) were significantly lower in the MLH group than in the TLH group.

CONCLUSIONS

MLH involving the use of an electromechanical morcellator provides expedient recovery and minimal postoperative pain and scarring. It is a feasible, effective, and safe surgical procedure and embodies all of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery for patients with HCH.

Saline-filled laparoscopic surgery: A basic study on partial hepatectomy in a rabbit model

BACKGROUND

There is still a poor understanding of the effects of pneumoperitoneum with insufflation of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) on malignant cells, and pneumoperitoneum has a negative impact on cardiopulmonary responses. A novel saline-filled laparoscopic surgery (SAFLS) is proposed, and the technical feasibility of performing saline-filled laparoscopic partial hepatectomy (LPH) was evaluated in a rabbit model.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twelve LPH were performed in rabbits, with six procedures performed using an ultrasonic device with CO2 pneumoperitoneum (CO2 group) and six procedures performed using a bipolar resectoscope (RS) in a saline-filled environment (saline group). Resection time, CO2 and saline consumption, vital signs, blood gas analysis, complications, interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels were measured. The effectiveness of the resections was evaluated by the pathological findings.

RESULTS

LPH was successfully performed with clear observation by irrigation and good control of bleeding by coagulation with RS. There were no significant differences in all perioperative values, IL-1βand CRP levels between the two groups. All pathological specimens of the saline group showed that the resected lesions were coagulated and regenerated as well as in the CO2 group.

CONCLUSIONS

SAFLS is feasible and provides a good surgical view with irrigation and identification of bleeding sites.

Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: case-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is the evaluation of the surgical and oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection (OLR) in the treatment of this disease. Retrospective analysis of laparoscopic and OLR for HCC (<5 cm) performed over a 4-year period was conducted. The LLR was done by a single surgeon.

METHODS

The study was performed on patients who received liver resection for HCC between July 2007 and August 2011 in our institution. Propensity-based matched analyses were used to account for operative method selection biases. During the 4 years, 1,050 patients with HCC received an operation. Among them patients who never received TACE or RFA before surgery and had HCC (<5 cm) were selected for this study.

RESULTS

174 patients had OLR, and 58 patients underwent LLR. Patients who received LLR had lower operative time, transfusion rate, complication rate, and shorter hospital days. There were significant differences in hospital mortality and morbidity between the two groups. Dietary recovery was relatively fast in the group of LLR. Overall and disease-free survival rates during the 4 years were also not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is a developing and safe technique in a select group of patients including those with malignancies, and use of this procedure is associated with short hospital stays, a rapid return to a normal diet, full mobility, and minimal morbidity, with acceptable oncological parameters. It may be an optimal method of hepatectomy in HCC (<5 cm). Further, long-term follow-up should be acquired for adequate evaluation for survival.

Multivariate analysis of risk factors for postoperative complications after laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The identification of modifiable perioperative risk factors in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) should aid the selection of appropriate surgical procedures and thus improve further the outcomes associated with LLR. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the risk factors for postoperative morbidity associated with laparoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

All patients who underwent elective LLR between January 1999 and December 2012 were included. Demographic data, preoperative risk factors, operative variables, histological analysis, and postoperative course were recorded. Multivariate analysis was carried out using an unconditional logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Between January 1999 and December 2012, 140 patients underwent LLR. There were 56 male patients (40%) and mean age was 57.8 ± 17 years. Postoperative complications were recorded in 30 patients (21.4%). Postoperative morbidity was significantly higher after LLR of malignant tumors [n = 26 (41.3%)] when compared to LLR of benign lesions [n = 4 (5.2%) (P < 0.0001)]. By multivariate analysis, operative time [OR = 1.008 (1.003-1.01), P = 0.001] and LLR performed for malignancy [OR = 9.8 (2.5-37.6); P = 0.01] were independent predictors of postoperative morbidity. In the subgroup of patients that underwent LLR for malignancy using the same multivariate model, operative time was the sole independent predictor of postoperative morbidity [OR = 1.008 (1.002-1.013); P = 0.004].

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative complication rate increases by 60% with each additional operative hour during LLR. Therefore, expected operative time should be assessed before and during LLR, especially when dealing with malignant tumor.

Outcomes of repeat laparoscopic liver resection compared to the primary resection

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection (R-LLR) can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce and many investigators would question its feasibility and outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, oncological efficiency and outcomes of R-LLR.

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected database of 403 patients undergoing 422 laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) from August 2003 to August 2013. Data of 19 patients undergoing R-LLR were analyzed and compared to the primary resection (P-LLR) in these patients. Demographic and clinical data were studied. A subgroup analysis was done for minor resections.

RESULTS

Twenty R-LLRs were performed in 19 patients (female 58 %; mean age: 57.5 years; age range: 23-79 years). Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) were the commonest indication for R-LLR (60 %), followed by neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NETLM) (20 %) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (10 %). The majority (90 %) of resections were for malignant disease (18/20). There were three conversions (15 %), and two patients developed complications (10 %). The operative time (p = 0.005) and blood loss (p = 0.03) were both significantly greater in R-LLR compared to P-LLR, whereas length of stay (median 4 days; p = 0.30) and complications (p = 0.58) did not differ between the groups. R0 resection rates for P-LLR and R-LLR were 95 and 90 %, respectively (p = 0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat LLR is safe, feasible, and can be performed with minimal morbidity. It appears to be technically more challenging than P-LLR, but without any increase in complications or length of hospital stay.

Experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases

Backgrounds/Aims

We present our experience of laparoscopic liver resection for various liver diseases.

Methods

From April 2008 to August 2012 in Chungnam National University, 68 of 253 liver resections were performed laparoscopically. During the first year, laparoscopy-assisted liver resection was mainly performed and subsequently totally laparoscopic liver resection was the main operative type. Surgery type for treatment purposes was decided preoperatively. Clinical data were collected retrospectively and analyzed.

Results

Preoperatively, 43 patients (63.2%) were diagnosed with benign disease, 19 patients (27.9%) were malignant liver tumors and 6 patients (8.8%) were indeterminate liver tumor but favorable towards malignancy. Anatomical major liver resection was performed in 58 cases (85.3%) and 10 cases (14.7%) were non-anatomical resection. Left hemihepatectomy was performed in 38 cases (55.8%) followed by left lateral sectionectomy in 18 cases (26.5%), and segment IV and IVa segmentectomy, were each in 1 case. Mean operation time was 235.0 minutes (range, 60-470) and 14 patients (18.6%) had intraoperative transfusion. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 10.2 days (range, 4-32). Mean operation time of laparoscopy-assisted left lobectomy was 317 minutes and totally laparoscopic left lobectomy was 281 minutes, but there was no significant statistical difference between these two operation types. There were 11 episodes of postoperative complications in 8 patients. There was no mortality after laparoscopic liver resection.

Conclusions

We concluded that laparoscopic liver resection is a feasible operation, but needs to be carefully conducted in malignant tumors.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a comparative study from a single center

PURPOSE

The significant advantages of robotic surgery have expanded the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed through minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver surgeries at a single center.

METHODS

From July 2007 to October 2011, a total of 206 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic liver surgery at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. We compared the surgical outcomes between robotic liver surgery and laparoscopic liver surgery during the same period. Only patients who underwent left hemihepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy were included in this study.

RESULTS

The robotic group consisted of 13 patients who underwent robotic liver resection including 10 left lateral sectionectomies and three left hemihepatectomies. The laparoscopic group consisted of 17 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection during the same period including six left lateral sectionectomies and 11 left hemihepatectomies. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, tumor type, and tumor size. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcome such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative liver function tests, complication rate, and hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, the medical cost was higher in the robotic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible option for liver resection in experienced hands. The authors suggest that since the robotic surgical system provides sophisticated advantages, the retrenchment of medical cost for the robotic system in addition to refining its liver transection tool may substantially increase its application in clinical practice in the near future.

Surgical treatment of liver metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumors

Liver metastases occur in 75% to 80% of patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and are considered significant adverse prognostic indicators. Management of NETs liver metastases is challenging and requires aggressive therapy. Currently, there are many therapeutic options for metastatic NETs. However, there is considerable controversy regarding the optimal management. Although complete surgical resection remains the optimal therapy, a variety of other minimally invasive surgical and medical options are available, this includes thermal ablative techniques (e.g., radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, cryotherapy), embolization using transcatheter embolization, chemoembolization, or radioembolization, and medical therapy (e.g., chemotherapy, biotherapy with somatostatin analogues and interferon). Currently there is no evidence-based data directly comparing surgical versus alternative liver-directed treatment options. An aggressive surgical approach, coupled with additional liver-directed procedures is often recommended as it extends the overall survival. Optimal patient care should be directed by a multidisciplinary team to assure that all treatment options are explored for decision-making while treating this aggressive disease.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of 610 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The objective of this manuscript was to perform a metaanalysis comparing outcomes of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatic mCRC, and to identify which patients were suitable candidates for LLR.

STUDY DESIGN

A PubMed search identified 2,122 articles. When filtered for case-matched articles comparing LLR with OLR for mCRC, 8 articles were identified consisting of 610 patients (242 LLR, 368 OLR). A random effects metaanalysis was performed.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, number of metastases, extent of major hepatectomy, and use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of metastases in the LLR and OLR groups were 1.4 and 1.5, respectively (P = .14). Estimated blood loss was less in LLR group (262 vs 385 mL; P = .049). Transfusion rate was significantly less in LLR group (9.9 vs 19.8%; P = .004). There was no difference in operative time (248.7 vs 262.8 min; P = .85). Length of stay (LOS) was less in the LLR group (6.5 vs 8.8 days; P = .007). The overall complication rate was less in LLR group (20.3% vs 33.2%; P = .03). Importantly, there was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) rates.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients with limited mCRC (1 or 2 tumors), LLR provides marked perioperative benefits without compromising oncologic outcomes or long-term survival. Specifically, LLR offers decreased blood loss, LOS, and overall complication rates with comparable 5-year OS and DFS.