Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and open approaches for right anterior sectionectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has minimally invasive advantages, but reports on laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (LRAS) are rare. Herein, we try to explore the benefits and drawbacks of LRAS by comparing it with open right anterior sectionectomy (ORAS). Between January 2015 and September 2023, 39 patients who underwent LRAS (n = 18) or ORAS (n = 21) were enrolled in the study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. No significant differences in the preoperative data were observed between the two groups. The LRAS group had significantly lesser blood loss (P = 0.019), a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.045), and a higher rate of bile leak (P = 0.039) than the ORAS group. There was no significant difference in the operative time (P = 0.156), transfusion rate (P = 0.385), hospital expenses (P = 0.511), rate of other complications, postoperative white blood cell count, and alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). Beside, there was no significant difference in disease-free survival (P = 0.351) or overall survival (P = 0.613) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between the two groups. LRAS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure. It may be preferred for lesions in the right anterior lobe of the liver.

Comparative Analysis of the Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Versus Open Segment 7 Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely accepted owing to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic segment 7 (S7) hepatectomy (LSH) has been rarely reported. We aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of LSH by comparing it with open surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients who underwent S7 hepatectomy between January 2016 and January 2023 were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the preoperative data. The patients who underwent LSH had significantly shorter hospital stays ( P =0.016) but longer operative times ( P =0.034) than those who underwent open S7 hepatectomy. No significant differences in blood loss ( P =0.614), transfusion ( P =0.316), hospital expenses ( P =0.391), surgical margin ( P =0.442), rate of other complications, postoperative white blood cell count, and alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were noted between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). For hepatocellular carcinoma, the results showed no differences in either disease-free survival ( P =0.432) or overall survival ( P =0.923) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH is a safe and feasible surgical procedure that is efficient from an oncological point of view. It may be the preferred technique for lesions in the S7 of the liver.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy along the middle hepatic vein from the head side approach

Background

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) is commonly used for benign and malignant left liver lesions. We compared the benefits and drawbacks of LLH from the head side approach (LLHH) with those of conventional laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (CLLH). This study was conducted to investigate the safety and feasibility of LLHH by comparing it with CLLH.

Methods

In this study, 94 patients with tumor or hepatolithiasis who underwent LLHH (n = 39) and CLLH (n = 55) between January 2016 and January 2023 were included. The preoperative features, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

For hepatolithiasis, patients who underwent LLHH exhibited shorter operative time (p = 0.035) and less blood loss (p = 0.023) than those who underwent CLLH. However, for tumors, patients undergoing LLHH only showed shorter operative time (p = 0.046) than those undergoing CLLH. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in hospital stay, transfusion, hospital expenses, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) count, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05) for tumor or hepatolithiasis. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), no differences in both overall survival (p = 0.532) and disease-free survival (p = 0.274) were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

LLHH is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for tumors or hepatolithiasis of the left liver.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right or Extended Right Hemi Hepatectomy Following Modulation of the Future Liver Remnant in Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review

Background: Major hepatectomies after future liver remnant (FLR) modulation are technically demanding procedures, especially when performed as minimally invasive surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to assess current evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation. Materials and Methods: The Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched for studies involving laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomies after FLR modulation, from their inception to December 2021. Two reviewers independently selected eligible articles and assessed their quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from the included studies and summarized. Results: Six studies were included. In these studies, the median length of stay after the second stage ranged from 4.5 to 15.5 days and postoperative complication rates between 4.5% and 42.8%. Overall, 7.4% of patients developed liver failure, and 90-day mortality occurred in 3.2% of patients. The R0 resection rate was 93.5%. Only one study reported long-term outcomes, describing comparable 3-year overall survival rates following laparoscopic and open surgery (80% versus 54%, P = .154). Conclusions: The current evidence is scarce, but it suggests that in experienced centers, laparoscopic right or extended right hemihepatectomy, following FLR modulation, is a safe and feasible procedure.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Robotic minor hepatectomy: optimizing outcomes and cost of care

BACKGROUND

The advantages of robotic liver surgery are strongest for minor resections, where incision size drives recovery time, but cost remains a concern. We hypothesized that patients who underwent robotic minor liver resections would have superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in decreased cost.

METHODS

We queried the medical record and cost data for patients who underwent open or robotic minor (1-2 segment) liver resection from 1/2016-8/2019. Financial data were normalized to Medicare reimbursements.

RESULTS

There were 87 patients who underwent minor liver resections (robotic n = 46, open n = 41). Specimen size (173 ± 203 vs 257 ± 481 cm³), surgical duration (233 ± 87 vs 227 ± 83 min), estimated blood loss (187 ± 236 vs 194 ± 165 mL), and margin status (89% vs 93% R0) were similar for robotic and open resections respectively, yet complications (3/46, 7% vs 10/41, 24%, p = 0.02) and length of stay (2.2 ± 2.2 vs 6.2 ± 2.9, p < 0.001) were significantly lower for patients who underwent robotic resection. These factors contributed to minor robotic liver resections costing $534 less than open resections ($3597 ± 1823 vs $4131 ± 1532, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing robotic minor hepatectomy had superior peri-operative outcomes resulting in lower total cost of care when compared to open minor hepatectomy. Financial considerations should not adversely influence selection of a robotic approach for minor hepatectomy.

International multicenter propensity score matched study on laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of high-level evidence, current guidelines recommend laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) as the routine approach over open LLS (OLLS). Randomized studies and propensity score matched studies on LLLS vs OLLS for all indications, including malignancy, are lacking.

METHODS

This international multicenter propensity score matched retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing LLLS or OLLS in six centers from three European countries (January 2000-December 2016). Propensity scores were calculated based on nine preoperative variables and LLLS and OLLS were matched in a 1:1 ratio. Short-term operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included. Out of 200 LLLS, 139 could be matched to 139 OLLS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. LLLS was associated with shorter operative time (144 (110-200) vs 199 (138-283) minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 (50-300) vs 350 (100-750) mL, P = 0.005) and a 3-day shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 (3-7) vs 7 (5-9) days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter propensity score matched study confirms the superiority of LLLS over OLLS based on shorter postoperative hospital stay, operative time, and less blood loss thus validating current guideline advice.

The Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Technology in Right Posterior Sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been accepted widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery, but laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of LRPS by comparing it with open surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2014 and July 2019, 51 patients who underwent right posterior sectionectomy were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative data. LRPS showed significantly less blood loss (P=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (P=0.002) than open right posterior sectionectomy, but hospital expenses (P=0.382), operative time (P=0.196), surgical margin (P=0.311), the rate of other complications, and the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and total bilirubin showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P>0.05). For hepatocellular carcinoma, the results showed there were no differences in both disease-free survival (P=0.220) and overall survival (P=0.417) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that LRPS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure that is efficient from an oncological point of view. It may be the preferred choice for lesions in the right posterior hepatic lobe.

Impact of resection margins for colorectal liver metastases in laparoscopic and open liver resection: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus over the optimal width of resection margin for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), with evolving definitions alongside the advances on the management of the disease. In addition, data on the impact of resection margin after laparoscopic liver resection are still scarce.

METHODS

Prospectively maintained databases of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic CRLM resection in 7 European tertiary hepatobiliary referral centres were reviewed. After propensity score matching (PSM), the influence of 1 mm and wider margins on OS and DFS were evaluated in open and laparoscopic cohorts.

RESULTS

After PSM, 648 patients were comparable in each group. The incidence of positive margins (< 1 mm) was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (17% vs 13%, p = 0,142). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter RFS in open (12 vs 26 months, p = 0.042) and in laparoscopic group (13 vs 23, p = 0,002). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter OS in open (36 vs 57 months, p = 0.027), but not in laparoscopic group (49 vs 60, p = 0,177). Subgroups with margins ≥ 1 mm (1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) presented similar RFS in open (p = 0,251) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.117), as well as similar OS in open (p = 0.295) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.908). In the presence of liver recurrence, repeat liver resection was performed in 70 (30%) patients in the open group and 88 (48%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that a positive resection margin (less than 1 mm) width does not impact OS after laparoscopic resection of CRLMs as it does in open liver resection. However, a positive margin continues to affect RFS in open and laparoscopic resection. Wider margins than 1 mm do not seem to improve oncological results in open or laparoscopic surgery.

Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging predicts individual future liver performance after liver resection for cancer

The risk of poor post-operative outcome and the benefits of surgical resection as a curative therapy require careful assessment by the clinical care team for patients with primary and secondary liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques have improved patient outcomes but identifying which individual patients are at greatest risk of poor post-operative liver performance remains a challenge. Here we report results from a multicentre observational clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03213314) which aimed to inform personalised pre-operative risk assessment in liver cancer surgery by evaluating liver health using quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We combined estimation of future liver remnant (FLR) volume with corrected T1 (cT1) of the liver parenchyma as a representation of liver health in 143 patients prior to treatment. Patients with an elevated preoperative liver cT1, indicative of fibroinflammation, had a longer post-operative hospital stay compared to those with a cT1 within the normal range (6.5 vs 5 days; p = 0.0053). A composite score combining FLR and cT1 predicted poor liver performance in the 5 days immediately following surgery (AUROC = 0.78). Furthermore, this composite score correlated with the regenerative performance of the liver in the 3 months following resection. This study highlights the utility of quantitative MRI for identifying patients at increased risk of poor post-operative liver performance and a longer stay in hospital. This approach has the potential to inform the assessment of individualised patient risk as part of the clinical decision-making process for liver cancer surgery.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: comprehensive comparison of complications and costs at 90 days using a propensity method

Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LHH) may offer advantages over open hemihepatectomy (OHH) in blood loss, recovery, and hospital stay. The aim of this study is to evaluate our recent experience performing hemihepatectomy and compare complications and costs up to 90 days following laparoscopic versus open procedures. Retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing hemihepatectomy at our center 01/2010-12/2018 was performed. Patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics; 90-day complications; and costs were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates. A total of 141 hemihepatectomies were included: 96 OHH and 45 LHH. While operative times were longer for LHH, blood loss and transfusions were less. At 90 days, there were similar rates of liver-specific and surgical complications but fewer medical complications following LHH. Medical complications that arose with greater frequency following OHH were primarily pulmonary complications and urinary and central venous catheter infections. Complications at 90 days were lower following LHH (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III OHH 23%, LHH 11%, p = 0.130; Comprehensive Complication Index OHH 20.0 ± 16.1, LHH 10.9 ± 14.2, p = 0.001). While operating costs were higher, costs for hospital stay and readmissions were lower with LHH. Patients undergoing LHH experience a significant reduction in postoperative medical complications and costs, resulting in 90-day cost equity compared with OHH.

Analysis of economic impact of laparoscopic liver resection according to surgical difficulty

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are well known, but their financial costs are poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic impact of surgical difficulty on LLR costs, and to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LLR from 2014 to 2018 in a single French center were included. The IMM classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from group I through group III. The costing method was done combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy patients were included (Group I: n = 136 (50%), Group II: n = 60 (22%), Group III: n = 74 (28%)). Total expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III, but there was no difference regarding financial income (p = 0.133). Technical platform expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III and represented the main expense among all costs with a total of 4 930 ± 2 601€. Among technical platform expenses, the anesthesia platform represented the main expense. In multivariate analysis, the four clinical factors that affected global charges in the whole study population were operating time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), admission in ICU (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of major complication (p < 0.05). An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that affected most global charges, as an ICU stay had a 39.1% increase effect on global charges in the whole study population.

CONCLUSION

LLR is a cost-effective procedure. The more complex is the LLR, the higher is the hospital cost. An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that most affected global charges.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score‑based analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Impact of Surgeon Volume on Outcomes and Expenditure Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver Resection: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although the role of annual surgeon volume on perioperative outcomes after liver resection (LR) has been investigated, there is a paucity of data regarding the impact of surgeon volume on outcomes of minimally invasive LR (MILR) versus open LR (OLR).

METHODS

Patients undergoing LR between 2013 and 2015 were identified in the Medicare inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Patients were classified into three groups based on surgeons' annual caseload: low (≤ 2 cases), medium (3-5 cases), or high (≥ 6 cases). Short-term outcomes and expenditures of LR, stratified by surgeon volume and minimally invasive surgery (MIS), were examined.

RESULTS

Among 3403 surgeons performing LR on 7169 patients, approximately 90% of surgeons performed less than 5 liver resections per year for Medicare patients. Only 7.1% of patients underwent MILR (n = 506). After adjustment, the likelihood of experiencing a complication and death within 90 days decreased with increasing surgeon volume. Outcomes of open and MILR among low- or high-volume surgeon groups, including rates of complications, 30- and 90-day readmission and mortality were similar. However, the difference of average total episode payment between open and MIS was higher in the high-volume surgeon group (low volume: $2929 vs. medium volume: $2333 vs. high volume: $7055).

CONCLUSION

Annual surgeon volume was an important predictor of outcomes following LR. MILR had comparable results to open LR among both the low- and high-volume surgeons.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Comparison of manual and semi-automatic registration in augmented reality image-guided liver surgery: a clinical feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection may reduce morbidity and hospital stay. However, uptake has been slow due to concerns about patient safety and oncological radicality. Image guidance systems may improve patient safety by enabling 3D visualisation of critical intra- and extrahepatic structures. Current systems suffer from non-intuitive visualisation and a complicated setup process. A novel image guidance system (SmartLiver), offering augmented reality visualisation and semi-automatic registration has been developed to address these issues. A clinical feasibility study evaluated the performance and usability of SmartLiver with either manual or semi-automatic registration.

METHODS

Intraoperative image guidance data were recorded and analysed in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection or cancer staging. Stereoscopic surface reconstruction and iterative closest point matching facilitated semi-automatic registration. The primary endpoint was defined as successful registration as determined by the operating surgeon. Secondary endpoints were system usability as assessed by a surgeon questionnaire and comparison of manual vs. semi-automatic registration accuracy. Since SmartLiver is still in development no attempt was made to evaluate its impact on perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The primary endpoint was achieved in 16 out of 18 patients. Initially semi-automatic registration failed because the IGS could not distinguish the liver surface from surrounding structures. Implementation of a deep learning algorithm enabled the IGS to overcome this issue and facilitate semi-automatic registration. Mean registration accuracy was 10.9 ± 4.2 mm (manual) vs. 13.9 ± 4.4 mm (semi-automatic) (Mean difference - 3 mm; p = 0.158). Surgeon feedback was positive about IGS handling and improved intraoperative orientation but also highlighted the need for a simpler setup process and better integration with laparoscopic ultrasound.

CONCLUSION

The technical feasibility of using SmartLiver intraoperatively has been demonstrated. With further improvements semi-automatic registration may enhance user friendliness and workflow of SmartLiver. Manual and semi-automatic registration accuracy were comparable but evaluation on a larger patient cohort is required to confirm these findings.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been accepted widely owing to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (LRH) has rarely been reported. We aimed to compare the benefits and drawbacks of LRH and open approaches. Between January 2014 and October 2017, 85 patients with tumor and hepatolithiasis who underwent LRH (n = 30) and open right hemihepatectomy (ORH) (n = 55) were enrolled in this study. For tumors, LRH showed significantly better results with respect to blood loss (P = 0.024) and duration of hospital stay (P = 0.008) than ORH, while hospital expenses (P = 0.031) and bile leakage rate (P = 0.012) were higher with LRH. However, the operative time and rate of other complications were not significantly different between the two groups. However, for hepatolithiasis, there was less blood loss (P = 0.015) and longer operative time (P = 0.036) with LRH than with ORH. There were no significant difference between LRH and ORH in terms of hospital stay, hospital expenses, and complication rate (P > 0.05). Moreover, the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase level, aspartate aminotransferase level, and total bilirubin were not significantly different in both types of patients (P > 0.05). Our results suggest the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology for right hemihepatectomy in both tumor and hepatolithiasis patients.

Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage

BACKGROUND

Benefits over the open technique are demonstrated for laparoscopic liver resections. Whether the degree of advantage is different for anterolateral and posterosuperior resections is investigated in this retrospective study.

METHODS

Laparoscopic anterolateral and posterosuperior resections (Lap-AL/Lap-PS) were compared with open (Open-AL/Open-PS) after propensity score matching. Mean/median differences of relevant parameters were calculated after bootstrap sampling. The degree of advantage was compared between anterolateral and posterosuperior resections and expressed as delta of differences (Δ-difference).

RESULTS

239 Lap-AL were compared with 239 matched Open-AL, and 176 Lap-PS with 176 matched Open-PS. Lap-AL showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization and total stay; Lap-PS showed reduced blood loss, transfusions, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization, functional recovery and total stay. The degree of advantage of Lap-PS resulted significantly greater than Lap-AL blood loss (Δ-difference: 101 mL, p 0.017), transfusions (Δ-difference: 6.3%, p 0.008), morbidity (Δ-difference: 7.6%, p 0.034), time to orally-controlled pain (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.020) and functional recovery (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

While both resulting in benefit, the advantage of laparoscopy is greater for posterosuperior than anterolateral resections. Despite their technical difficulty, these should be considered among the most worthwhile laparoscopic liver resections.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH).

METHODS

Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Global hospital and operative costs associated with various ventral cavity procedures: a comprehensive literature review and analysis across regions

Objectives: The aim of this literature review was to provide a comprehensive report on hospital costs, and cost components, for a range of ventral cavity surgical procedures across three regions of focus: (1) Americas, (2) Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and (3) Asia-Pacific. Methods: A structured search was performed and utilized a combination of controlled vocabulary (e.g., "Hepatectomy", "Colectomy", "Costs and Cost Analysis") and keywords (e.g. "liver resection", "bowel removal", "economics"). Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they reported hospital-related costs associated with the procedures of interest. Cost outcomes included operating room (OR) time costs, total OR costs, ward stay costs, total admission costs, OR cost per minute and ward cost per day. All costs were converted to 2018 USD. Results: Total admission costs were observed to be highest in the Americas, with an average cost of $15,791. The average OR time cost per minute was found to vary by region: $24.83 (Americas), $14.29 (Asia-Pacific), and $13.90 (EMEA). A cost-breakdown demonstrated that OR costs typically comprised close to 50%, or more, of hospital admission costs. This review also demonstrates that decreasing OR time by 30 min provides cost savings approximately equivalent to a 1-day reduction in ward time. Conclusion: This literature review provided a comprehensive assessment of hospital costs across various surgical procedures, approaches, and geographical regions. Our findings indicate that novel processes and healthcare technologies that aim to reduce resources such as operating time and hospital stay, can potentially provide resource savings for hospital payers.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy-a cost analysis after propensity score matching

INTRODUCTION

Cost efficiency is important for hospitals in order to provide high-quality health care for all patients. As hemihepatectomies are increasingly being performed laparoscopically, the aims of this study were to evaluate the costs of laparoscopic hemihepatectomy and to compare them to conventional open techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and financial calculations of all patients who underwent hemihepatectomy between January 2015 and December 2016 at the Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Charité Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany, being allocated to the DRG (diagnosis-related group) H01A (complex operations of the liver and pancreas with complex intensive care treatment) or H01B (operations of the liver and pancreas without complex intensive care treatment). To overcome selection bias, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, a total of 64 patients were identified; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH); and 32 patients received open hemihepatectomy (OH). After PSM, no significant differences were observed in clinical baseline characteristics. The duration of surgery was significantly longer for patients undergoing LH compared to OH (LH, 334 min, 186-655 min; OH, 274 min, 176-454 min; p = 0.005). Patients in the LH group had a significantly shortened median hospital stay of 5 d, when compared to OH (LH, 9.5 d, 3-35 d; OH, 14.5 d, 7-37d; p = 0.005). We observed a significant higher rate of postoperative complication in the OH group (p = 0.022). Cost analysis showed median overall costs of 17,369.85€ in the LH group and 16,103.64€ in the OH group (p = 0.390).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that higher intraoperative costs of laparoscopic liver surgery, e.g., for surgical devices and due to longer operation times, are compensated by fewer postoperative complications and consecutive shorter length of stay when compared with OH.

Standardization of operative technique in minimally invasive right hepatectomy: improving cost-value relationship through value stream mapping in hepatobiliary surgery

BACKGROUND

With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar.

METHODS

MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016.

RESULTS

Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.

A Comparison of the Learning Curves of Laparoscopic Liver Surgeons in Differing Stages of the IDEAL Paradigm of Surgical Innovation: Standing on the Shoulders of Pioneers

OBJECTIVE

To compare the learning curves of the self-taught "pioneers" of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) with those of the trained "early adopters" in terms of short- and medium-term patient outcomes to establish if the learning curve can be reduced with specific training.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in the next few years. Current guidelines stress the need for an incremental, stepwise progression through the learning curve in order to minimize harm to patients. Previous studies have examined the learning curve in Stage 2 of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation; however, LLS is now in stage 3 with specific training being provided to surgeons.

METHODS

Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis, the learning curves and short- and medium-term outcomes of 4 "pioneering" surgeons from stage 2 were compared with 4 "early adapting" surgeons from stage 3 who had received specific training for LLS.

RESULTS

After 46 procedures, the short- and medium-term outcomes of the "early adopters" were comparable to those achieved by the "pioneers" following 150 procedures in similar cases.

CONCLUSIONS

With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the learning curve for minor and major liver resections faster than the "pioneers" who were self-taught in LLS. The findings of this study are applicable to all surgical specialties and highlight the importance of specific training in the safe expansion of novel surgical practice.

Conversion for Unfavorable Intraoperative Events Results in Significantly Worse Outcomes During Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Lessons Learned From a Multicenter Review of 2861 Cases

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the risk factors for conversion during laparoscopic liver resection and its effect on patient outcome in a large cohort of patients. Additional analysis of outcomes in patients who required conversion for unfavorable intraoperative findings and conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events will be performed to establish if the cause of conversion effects outcome.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Multiple previous studies demonstrate that laparoscopic liver surgery reduces intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity while maintaining comparable oncological and survival outcomes when compared with open liver resections. However, limited information is available regarding the possible sequelae of conversion to open surgery, especially with regards to cause of conversion.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 2861 cases from prospectively maintained databases of 7 tertiary liver centers across Europe was performed.

RESULTS

Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, previous liver resection(s), resections for malignant lesions, postero-superior location, and the extent of the resection are associated with an increased risk of conversion. Patients who require conversion have longer operations with higher blood loss; a longer HDU and total hospital stay, increased frequency and severity of complications and higher 30- and 90-day mortality. Patients who had an elective conversion for an unfavorable intraoperative finding had better outcomes than patients who had an emergency conversion secondary to an unfavorable intraoperative event in terms of HDU and total hospital stay, severity of complication, and 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the risk factors for conversion and suggests that conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events is associated with worse outcomes.

Laparoscopic vs. open left lateral sectionectomy: An update meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is thought to be the anatomical liver resection most suitable for the laparoscopic approach. Despite increasing popularity, comparative analysis of laparoscopic and open LLS are mostly limited to retrospective, underpowered studies with small sample size. Recent population-based studies and prospective trials have generated new data; however, this new body of knowledge has not been submitted systematic reviews or meta-analyses and high quality evidence regarding the actual benefits of minimally invasive LLS is lacking.

METHODS

Systematic review of studies published until December 31st, 2017 and indexed in Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library Central and Scielo/LILACS databases. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing perioperative results of laparoscopic and open LLS were included. Studies with patients submitted to LLS for living donation were excluded. Treatment outcomes, including conversion rates, estimated blood loss, transfusion rates, operative time, length of in-hospital stay, morbidity and mortality rates, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The primary search yielded 2838 articles, 23 of which (21 observational studies and 2 randomized controlled trials; 3415 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Overall conversion rate was 7.4%. Patients submitted to laparoscopic LLS had less blood loss (mean difference, MD = -119.81 ml, 95% CI = -127.90, -111.72, P < .00001, I² = 32%, N = 618), lower transfusion rates (4.1% vs. 10.1%; risk difference, RD = - 0.06, 95% CI = - 0.08, - 0.05, P < .00001, I² = 13%, N = 2968) and shorter length of in-hospital stay (MD = - 2.02 days, 95% CI = - 2.15, - 1.89, P < .00001, I² = 77%, N = 3160) compared to those undergoing open surgery. Marginally decreased overall complication (21.4% vs. 27.5%; RD = - 0.03, 95% CI = - 0.06, 0.00, P = .05, I² = 0%, N = 3268) and perioperative mortality (0.3% vs. 1.5%; RD = - 0.01, 95% CI = - 0.02, - 0.00, P = .01, I² = 0%; N = 3332) rates were also observed. Operative time and biliary, cardiac or pulmonary complication rates did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence supports the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic LLS. The laparoscopic approach is associated with reduced blood loss, lower transfusion rates and shorter length of in-hospital stay and should be considered the gold-standard for LLS.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Considering the cost of a simultaneous versus staged approach to resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases in a publicly funded healthcare model

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is an established alternative to a staged approach. This study aimed to compare these approaches with regards to economic parameters and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was cost per episode of care. Secondary measures included 30-day clinical outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of a simultaneous surgical approach on total cost of care.

RESULTS

Fifty-three cases were identified; 27 in the staged approach, and 26 in the simultaneous group. Age (P = 0.49), sex (P = 0.20), BMI (P = 0.74), and ASA class (P = 0.44) were comparable between groups. Total cost ($20297 vs $27522), OR ($6830 vs $10376), PACU ($675 vs $1182), ward ($7586 vs $11603) and pharmacy costs ($728 vs $1075) were significantly less for the simultaneous group (P < 0.05). The adjusted rate ratio for total cost of care in the staged group compared to simultaneous group was 1.51 (95%CI: 1.16-1.97, P < 0.05). The groups had comparable Clavien-Dindo scores (P = 0.89), 30-day readmissions (P = 0.44), morbidity (P = 0.50) and mortality (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that a simultaneous approach is associated with a significantly lower total cost while maintaining comparable short-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy was expected to be the standard for the treatment of left hepatic lobe lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLLHS) has been widely accepted because of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to assess the benefits and drawbacks of left lateral sectionectomy (of segments II/III) compared with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. We calculated odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 14 trials involving 685 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between LLLHS and open LLHS (OLLHS) regarding analgesia (P = .31), pedicle clamping (P = .70), operative time (P = .54), hospital expenses (P = .64), postoperative alanine aminotransferase levels (P = .57), resection margin (95% CI -3.02-4.28; P = .73), or tumor recurrence (95% CI 0.51-3.05; P = .62). However, the LLLHS group showed significantly better results regarding blood transfusion (95% CI 0.14-0.73; P = .007), blood loss (95% CI -140.95 to -67.23; P <.001), total morbidity (95% CI 0.24-0.56; P <.01), and hospital stay (95% CI -3.84 to -2.31; P <.001) than the OLLHS group.

CONCLUSION

LLLHS has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, and total morbidity. It is an ideal method for LLHS surgery.

Advances and challenges in laparoscopic surgery in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common malignancy and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. From the wide variety of treatment options, surgical resection and liver transplantation are the only therapeutic ones. However, due to shortage of liver grafts, surgical resection is the most common therapeutic modality implemented. Owing to rapid technological development, minimally invasive approaches have been incorporated in liver surgery. Liver laparoscopic resection has been evaluated in comparison to the open technique and has been shown to be superior because of the reported decrease in surgical incision length and trauma, blood loss, operating theatre time, postsurgical pain and complications, R0 resection, length of stay, time to recovery and oral intake. It has been reported that laparoscopic excision is a safe and feasible approach with near zero mortality and oncologic outcomes similar to open resection. Nevertheless, current indications include solid tumors in the periphery < 5 cm, especially in segments II through VI, while according to the consensus laparoscopic major hepatectomy should only be performed by surgeons with high expertise in laparoscopic and hepatobiliary surgery in tertiary centers. It is necessary for a surgeon to surpass the 60-cases learning curve observed in order to accomplish the desirable outcomes and preserve patient safety. In this review, our aim is to thoroughly describe the general principles and current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as future prospects.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS): surgical techniques and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Right posterior sectionectomy is one of the most technically challenging laparoscopic liver resections. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility.

AIM

To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a variety of tips and tricks to facilitate this resection. A video is attached for technical demonstration.

METHODS

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases from June 2006 to June 2016. Three different techniques were used: resection following hilar inflow control, inflow control at Rouviere's sulcus and resection with intra parenchymal control.

RESULTS

29 LRPS were performed over a 10-year period. Median operative time was 240 min (150-480). Pringle's manoeuvre was performed in 19 (65.5%) with a median total duration of 35 (20-75) min. Median perioperative blood loss was 600 (100-2500) ml. Additional liver resections were performed in 16 (55.1%). There were two(6.9%) laparoscopic to open conversions. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (2-30) days. The median size of the tumour resected was 25 (10-54) mm with median number of resected lesions were 2 (1-4), median free resection margin was 9.5 (1-45) mm, margins were infiltrated (R1) in two (6.7%) cases. There was one death within 30-days (3.4%).

CONCLUSION

LRPS is feasible, efficient and safe. However, it is a technically challenging procedure and requires advance skills in liver and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons should be familiar with a variety of approaches as each offers different advantages depending on the location and nature of the lesion, surgical preference and intraoperative findings.

Laparoscopic parenchymal sparing resections in segment 8: techniques for a demanding and infrequent procedure

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections for lesions in the postero-superior segments are technically demanding due their deep location and relation with the vena cava. However, previous reports have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of these resections in centres with advanced experience in laparoscopic liver surgery. In this case series, we present our results and experience of laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections of lesions in segment 8.

METHODS

All patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resections of segment 8 lesions, alone or combined with other liver resections, between August 2003 and July 2016 were included. Analysis of baseline characteristics and perioperative results was performed for the whole cohort. A separate subgroup analysis was performed for isolated segment 8 resections. Long-term results were analyzed in patients with colorectal liver metastases. A video is attached for thorough explanation of surgical technique.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients were included. Among them, 13 patients had isolated segment 8 resections. Operative time for the whole cohort and isolated segment 8 resections were 210 min (range 180-247 min) and 200 min (range 90-300 min), respectively. The conversion rate was 3.4% for the entire cohort and 0 for isolated segment 8 resections. Major morbidity was 7 and 0%, respectively. R0 rates were 96% for the entire cohort and 92% for isolated segment 8 resections. Recurrence free survival in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup was 82, 71 and 54% at 1, 3 and 5 years. Overall survival was 94, 82 and 65% at 1, 3 and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic resection of lesions in segment 8 is feasible and offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with parenchyma sparing resections. However, advanced experience in LLR is essential to ensure safety and oncological results.

Stepwise introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery: validation of guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) could compromise postoperative outcomes. A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training is advised. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of such a stepwise introduction.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center case series assessing short term outcomes of all consecutive LLS in the period November 2006-January 2017. The technique was implemented in a stepwise fashion. To evaluate the impact of this stepwise approach combined with structured training, outcomes of LLS before and after a laparoscopic HPB fellowship were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 135 laparoscopic resections were performed. Overall conversion rate was 4% (n = 5), clinically relevant complication rate 13% (n = 18) and mortality 0.7% (n = 1). A significant increase in patients with major LLS, multiple liver resections, previous abdominal surgery, malignancies and lesions located in posterior segments was observed after the fellowship as well as a decrease in the use of hand-assistance. Increasing complexity in the post fellowship period was reflected by an increase in operating times, but without comprising other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training reduced the clinical impact of the learning curve, thereby confirming guideline recommendations.

Cost-Effective Surgical Management of Liver Disease Amidst a Financial Crisis

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative use of specialized equipment and disposables contributes to the increasing cost of modern liver surgery. As a response to the recent severe financial crisis in our country we have employed a highly standardized protocol of liver resection that minimizes intraoperative and postoperative costs. Our goal is to evaluate cost-effectiveness of this protocol.

STUDY DESIGN

We evaluated retrospectively all patients who underwent open hepatic resections for 4 years. All resections were performed by the same surgical team under selective hepatic vascular exclusion, i.e., occlusion of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the major hepatic veins, occasionally combined with extrahepatic ligation of the ipsilateral portal vein. Sharp parenchymal transection was performed with a scalpel and hemostasis was achieved with sutures without the use of energy devices. In each case we performed a detailed analysis of costs and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Our cohort included 146 patients (median age 63 years). 113 patients were operated for primary or metastatic malignancies and 33 for benign lesions. Operating time was 121 ± 21 min (mean ± SD), estimated blood loss was 310 ± 159 ml (mean ± SD), and hospital stay was 7 ± 5 days (mean ± SD). Six patients required admission in the ICU postoperatively. 90-day mortality was 2.74 %, and 8.9 % of patients developed grade III/IV postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification). Total in-hospital cost excluding physician fees was 6987.63 ± 3838.51 USD (mean ± SD).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that, under pressing economic conditions, the proposed surgical protocol can significantly lessen the financial burden of liver surgery without compromising patient outcomes.

Financial Impact of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery: A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes and Costs Between the Robotic and Open Technique in a Single Institution

BACKGROUND

One of the perceived major drawbacks of minimally invasive techniques has always been its cost. This is especially true for the robotic approach and is one of the main reasons that has prevented its wider acceptance among hospitals and surgeons. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and economic impact of robotic and open liver surgery in a single institution.

METHODS

Sixty-eight robotic and 55 open hepatectomies were performed at our institution between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were collected and compared between the two groups. An independent company performed the financial analysis. The economic parameters comprised direct variable costs, direct fixed costs, and indirect costs.

RESULTS

Mean estimated blood loss was significantly less in the robotic group (438 versus 727.8 mL; P = .038). Overall morbidity was significantly lower in the robotic group (22% versus 40%; P = .047). Clavien III/IV complications were also lower, with 4.4% in the robotic versus 16.3% in the open group (P = .043). The length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) was shorter for patients who underwent a robotic procedure (2.1 versus 3.3 days; P = .004). The average total cost, including readmissions, was $37,518 for robotic surgery and $41,948 for open technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resections had less overall morbidity, ICU, and hospital stay. This translates into decreased average costs for robotic surgery. These procedures are financially comparable to open resections and do not represent a financial burden to the hospital.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

The comparative costs of laparoscopic and open liver resection: a report for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The techniques of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have developed rapidly in selected centers, while global adoption of this approach has been cautious. The costs of LLR compared to open resection (OLR) are considered an important metric in evaluating this approach and may be a barrier to adoption in some centers.

METHODS

To formulate a consensus statement using the Zurich-Danish consensus model to the question of "What are the comparative outcomes of cost for LLR and OLR, minor and major?" a systematic search of the literature was conducted. Results were presented to the jury in September 2014 and updated in August 30, 2015. Adjustments for currency conversions and inflation were not performed due to limitations in available data.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies were reviewed, and 11 relevant papers were selected for inclusion. No randomized control studies were found. Five studies were case-matched comparisons, while the remaining studies were retrospective reviews. The number of patients in each study ranged from 28 to 74, and the cumulative number of patients was 643 comparing 350 OLR to 293 LLR. Overall median hospital stay was lower for LLR at 4.6 versus 7.4 days. This remained valid when only the case-matched studies were analyzed, 4.6 (n = 178) versus 6.6 days (n = 266). The median overall total costs were 16.3 % lower (range 0 to -22 %) for LLR compared to OLR. This remained valid in the subgroup analysis of the case-matched studies, with a median 17.4 % lower costs for the LLR. Median OR costs were 3 % higher for LLR (range -9 to 40 %) but 32.9 % lower for hospital ward costs (range 0 to -60 %) when compared to OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, the published literature indicates that overall hospital costs are less for LLR when compared to OLR (Level of evidence 3a and 3b). This evidence is strongest for minor hepatic resections. The decreased cost is based on savings in hospital ward costs and likely related to a significantly shorter hospital stay for LLR.

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.

Learning curve of self-taught laparoscopic liver surgeons in left lateral sectionectomy: results from an international multi-institutional analysis on 245 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was suggested as gold standard for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), thanks to recognized benefits compared to open approach. Aim of this study was to define learning curve (LC) of laparoscopic LLS (LLLS) using operative time (OT) as tool to analyze outcome of procedures performed by four experienced surgeons. Reproducibility and safety of LC in LLLS among independent surgeons were also analyzed as essential features of "standard procedure" concept.

METHODS

LLLS performed by four experienced surgeons was collected. Multivariate analysis was carried out to screen factors affecting OT. A cumulative LC was created calculating median OT. Skewness of OT was analyzed, and ROC curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for LC. The impact of LC on outcomes (morbidity and mortality, blood loss, conversions, surgical margins and length of stay) was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 245 LLLSs were collected. Conversion rate was 1.2 %. Median OT was 141 min, blood loss 100 mL, morbidity 11.4 % and mortality 0.4 %. "Associated procedures" was the only independent factor affecting OT. The skewness of the OT was calculated, and the cutoff point for LC was determined after 15 LLLSs. LLLS performed during and after LC period had similar outcomes.

CONCLUSION

LLLS is feasible with low morbidity, mortality and conversion rate. LC in LLLS is shorter compared to minor liver resections. Furthermore, it is reproducible and safe since it does not negatively affect clinical outcome. A reproducible, safe and short LC contributes to considering laparoscopy as the gold standard approach to perform LLS.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification

BACKGROUND

According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision.

METHODS

We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic "posterosuperior" major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

Totally laparoscopic liver resection: new Brazilian experience

Background

Despite the increasing number of laparoscopic hepatectomy, there is little published experience.

Aim

To evaluate the results of a series of hepatectomy completely done with laparoscopic approach.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of 61 laparoscopic liver resections. Were studied conversion to open technique; mean age; gender, mortality; complications; type of hepatectomy; surgical techniques applied; and simultaneous operations.

Results

The conversion to open technique was necessary in one case (1.6%). The mean age was 54.7 years (17-84), 34 were men. Three patients (4.9%) had complications. One died postoperatively (mortality 1.6%) and no deaths occurred intraoperatively. The most frequent type was right hepatectomy (37.7%), followed by bisegmentectomy (segments II-III and VI-VII). Were not used hemi-Pringle maneuvers or assisted technic. Six patients (8.1%) underwent simultaneous procedures (hepatectomy and colectomy).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is feasible procedure and can be considered the gold standard for various conditions requiring liver resections for both benign to malignant diseases.

Pure laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living donors: from innovation to development in France

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we report the results obtained from 70 living donors in France.

BACKGROUND

Left lateral sectionectomy for pediatric live donor liver transplantation is a well-standardized surgical procedure. Our team introduced the laparoscopic approach to live donation in 2002, and the reproducibility and safety of this method was discussed in 2006.

METHODS

Between March 2001 and October 2012, a total of 70 donors underwent a liver procurement. Sixty-seven donors (95.7%) underwent a left lateral sectionectomy, and 3 underwent a left hepatectomy without middle hepatic vein procurement. All data were prospectively recorded in a database.

RESULTS

Of the 70 donors, 66 (94%) liver grafts were procured by laparoscopy, whereas 4 (6%) patients required conversion into an open technique. Seventeen donors experienced complications, leading to an overall complication rate of 24.2%. Eleven donors (16%) had grade 1 complications, according to the Clavien system. Five donors (7.1%) presented grade 2 complications, and 1 donor (1.4%) had a grade 3 complication. No death occurred. Overall, patient and graft survival rates for pediatric recipients were 95% and 92% at 1 year, 95% and 88% at 3 years, and 95% and 84% at 5 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic retrieval of the left lateral section for live donor liver transplantation is safe and reproducible and has transitioned from an innovative surgery to a development phase in France.

A cost effective analysis of a laparoscopic versus an open left lateral sectionectomy in a liver transplant unit

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) procedure and its role as a training operation as well as the learning curve associated with a laparoscopic approach.

METHOD

Between 2004 and 2013, a prospectively maintained database was reviewed. LLLS were compared with age- and sex-matched OLLS. In addition, the outcomes of LLLS with a consultant as the primary surgeon were compared with those performed by trainees.

RESULTS

Forty-three LLLS were performed during the study period. LLLS was a significantly cheaper operation compared with OLLS (P = 0.001, £3594.14 versus £5593.41). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002, 3 versus 7 days). No difference was found in outcomes between a LLLS performed by a trainee or consultant (operating time, morbidity or R1 resection rate). The procedure length was significantly shorter during the later half of the study period [120 versus 129 min (P = 0.045)].

CONCLUSION

LLLS is a significantly cost effective operation compared with an open approach with a reduction in hospital stay. In addition, it is suitable to use as a training operation.