Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: 10-year single-center experience

Validation of the Iwate scoring system for the stratification of laparoscopic liver resections: An international multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The Iwate difficulty scoring system (DSS) is one of the most widely validated DSS for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). However, these studies only validated the 4 difficulty levels and did not validate the 12-point difficulty index of the system. To address current limitations in the studies validating the Iwate difficulty scoring system (DSS), we performed an international multicenter study to validate the Iwate DSS across both its four difficulty levels and 12-point difficulty index.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 22,252 patients undergoing LLR across 64 centers worldwide between 2005 and 2021 was performed. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed across the four difficulty levels and 12-point difficulty index of the Iwate DSS.

RESULTS

A total of 14,759 patients met the inclusion criteria. The main indications for LLR were hepatocellular carcinoma/intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (52.8 %), and metastatic tumors liver (26.5 %). In terms of underlying liver pathology, 5127 patients (34.8 %) had liver cirrhosis, and 1214 patients (8.3 %) had portal hypertension. Intraoperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion, use of Pringles maneuver and open conversion) and postoperative outcomes (length of stay, morbidity, major complications, and 90-day mortality) significantly increased with stepwise increases across the four difficulty levels (P < 0.001) and 12-point difficulty index (P < 0.001). These trends remained significant following adjustment for baseline characteristics (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Iwate DSS 12-point difficulty index and four difficulty levels correlated well with LLR difficulty as determined by key surrogate perioperative measures.

A meta-analysis: laparoscopic versus open liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The indication of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for treating large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial. In this study, we compared the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for large HCC.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched eligible articles about LLR versus OLR for large HCC in PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE and performed a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Eight publications involving 1,338 patients were included. Among them, 495 underwent LLR and 843 underwent OLR. The operation time was longer in the LLR group (MD: 22.23, 95% CI: 4.14-40.33, p = 0.02). but the postoperative hospital stay time was significantly shorter (MD : -4.88, CI: -5.55 to -4.23, p < 0.00001), and the incidence of total postoperative complications and major complications were significantly fewer (OR: 0.49, 95% CI:0.37-0.66, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.54, 95% CI:0.36 - 0.82, p = 0.003, respectively). Patients in the laparoscopic group had no significant difference in intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion rate, resection margin size, R0 resection rate, three-year overall survival (OS) and three-year disease-free survival (DFS).

CONCLUSION

LLR for large HCC is safe and feasible. This surgical strategy will not affect the long-term outcomes of patients.

Single incision laparoscopic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma

Single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILLR) is the most recent development in the laparoscopic approach to the liver. SILLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has developed much more slowly than multiport LLR. So far, 195 patients completed SILLR for HCC. In this paper, we reviewed all published papers about SILLR for HCC and discussed the feasibility of the SILLR, peri and postoperative findings, tricks of patient selection and whether SILLR compromise the oncological principles.

Laparoscopic anatomic vs. nonanatomic liver resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma (≥5 cm) in the right lobe

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impacts and outcomes of laparoscopic anatomic liver resection (LAR) and laparoscopic nonanatomic resection (LNAR) in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the right lobe of the liver.

BACKGROUND

There are few comparative studies of LAR and LNAR for large HCC.

METHOD

Three hundred thirty-seven patients underwent liver resection for large HCC (≥5 cm) at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul, Korea, between January 2004 and December 2022. After the exclusion of patients treated with open hepatic resection and those who had left-lobe or bilobar tumors, 94 patients were ultimately included. Patients were divided into LAR group (61 patients) and LNAR group (33 patients). After propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 matching, 31 patients were included in each group. The outcomes in the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

LAR group had longer operative time than LNAR group (333.7 ± 113.7 vs 210 ± 117.6 min, respectively, P < 0.001), wider safety margin (1.4 ± 1.5 vs 0.7 ± 0.7 cm, respectively, P = 0.015), and lower incidence of recurrence (25.8% vs. 54.8%, respectively, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

LAR required longer operative time, achieved wider safety margin, and had lower incidence of recurrence than LNAR.

Sarcopenia negatively affects postoperative short-term outcomes of patients with non-cirrhosis liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Literature review have shown that sarcopenia substantially alters the postoperative outcomes after liver resection for malignant tumors. However, these retrospective studies do not distinguish cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic liver cancer patients, nor combine the assessment of muscle strength in addition to muscle mass. The purpose of this study is to study the relationship between sarcopenia and short-term outcomes after hepatectomy in patients with non-cirrhotic liver cancer.

METHODS

From December 2020 to October 2021, 431 consecutive inpatients were prospectively enrolled in this study. Muscle strength and mass were assessed by handgrip strength and the skeletal muscle index (SMI) on preoperative computed tomographic scans, respectively. Based on the SMI and the handgrip strength, patients were divided into four groups: group A (low muscle mass and strength), group B (low muscle mass and normal muscle strength), group C (low muscle strength and normal muscle mass), and group D (normal muscle mass and strength). The main outcome was major complications and the secondary outcome was 90-d Readmission rate.

RESULTS

After strictly exclusion, 171 non-cirrhosis patients (median age, 59.00 [IQR, 50.00-67.00] years; 72 females [42.1%]) were selected in the final analysis. Patients in group A had a statistically significantly higher incidence of major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III) (26.1%, p = 0.032), blood transfusion rate (65.2%, p < 0.001), 90-day readmission rate (21.7%, p = 0.037) and hospitalization expenses (60,842.00 [IQR, 35,563.10-87,575.30], p < 0.001) than other groups. Sarcopenia (hazard ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.44-9.48; p = 0.025) and open approach (hazard ratio, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.01-6.49; p = 0.004) were independent risk factors associated with major postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Sarcopenia is closely related to poor short-term postoperative outcomes in non-cirrhosis liver cancer patients and the assessment that combines muscle strength and muscle mass can simply and comprehensively identify it.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT04637048 . (19/11/2020).

Pure laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Since minimally invasive surgery has been incorporated in overall surgery, pure laparoscopic technology is involved in most hepatectomies, including right hepatectomy, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its feasibility and safety in right hepatectomy are still controversial owing to the limited literature. This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy (PLRH) with those of open right hepatectomy (ORH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

The prospectively collected medical records of 327 patients with HCC who underwent right hepatectomy between January 2010 and April 2020 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the PLRH and ORH groups. The primary end point was short-term outcomes, including hospital stay, blood loss, and morbidity; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes, including overall and recurrence-free survival.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included in each group. Patients who underwent PLRH had a shorter postoperative hospital stay than those who underwent ORH (12.2 vs 8.9 days; P < .001). The requirement for blood transfusion was significantly lower in the PLRH group than in the ORH group (10.2% vs 2.0%; P = .010). The operative time (P = .479) and proportion of major complications (P = .487) were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in overall survival (P = .524) and the recurrence-free survival rate (P = .576) between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative outcomes, including oncological outcomes, were comparable between PLRH and ORH, showing that PLRH can be a safe and feasible option to replace ORH in patients with HCC.

Short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive liver resection for single small hepatocellular carcinoma: An analysis of 714 patients from the IGoMILS (Italian group of minimally invasive liver surgery) registry

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) contributed to the reduction of surgical risk of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC (November 2014 - December 2019) were identified from the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) Registry.

RESULTS

Of 714 patients included, 641 (93.0%) were Child-Pugh A; 65.7% were limited resections and 2.2% major resections, with a conversion rate of 5.2%. Ninety-day mortality rate was 0.3%. Overall morbidity rate was 22.4% (3.8% major complications). Mean postoperative stay was 5 days. Robotic resection showed longer operative time (p = 0.004) and a higher overall morbidity rate (p < 0.001), with similar major complications (p = 0.431). Child-Pugh B patients showed worse mortality (p = 0.017) and overall morbidity (p = 0.021), and longer postoperative stay (p = 0.005). Five-year overall survival was 79.5%; cirrhosis, satellite micronodules, and microvascular invasion were independently associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

MILS for ≤3 cm HCC was associated with low morbidity and mortality rates, showing high safety, and supporting the increasing indications for surgical resection in these patients.

Influence of Child-Pugh B7 and B8/9 cirrhosis on laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been shown to be beneficial. However, less is known regarding the outcomes of such treatment in patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC in patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, focusing on surgical risks, recurrence, and survival.

METHODS

357 patients with HCC who underwent laparoscopic liver resection from 2007 to 2021 were identified from our single-institute database. The patients were divided into three groups by their Child-Pugh score: the Child-Pugh A (n = 280), Child-Pugh B7 (n = 42), and Child-Pugh B8/9 groups (n = 35). Multivariable Cox regression models for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were constructed with adjustment for preoperative and postoperative clinicopathological factors.

RESULTS

The Child-Pugh B8/9 group had a significantly higher complication rate, but the complication rates were comparable between the Child-Pugh B7 and Child-Pugh A groups (Child-Pugh A vs. B7 vs. B8/9: 8.2% vs. 9.6% vs. 26%, respectively; P = 0.010). Compared with the Child-Pugh A group, the risk-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) in the Child-Pugh B7 and B8/9 groups for RFS were 1.39 (0.77-2.50) and 3.15 (1.87-5.31), respectively, and those for OS were 0.60 (0.21-1.73) and 1.80 (0.86-3.74), respectively. There were no significant differences in major morbidities (Clavien-Dindo grade > II) (P = 0.117) or the proportion of retreatment after HCC recurrence (P = 0.367) among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with HCC, those with Child-Pugh A and B7 cirrhosis can be good candidates for laparoscopic liver resection in terms of complications and recurrence. Despite poor postoperative outcomes in patients with Child-Pugh B8/9 cirrhosis, laparoscopic liver resection is less likely to interfere with retreatment and can be performed as part of multidisciplinary treatment.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center propensity-score-matching comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival

BACKGROUND

Although the benefits of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in most circumstances are evident, the benefits for large HCC are contentious. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival after LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in large HCC patients.

METHODS

An analysis of prospectively maintained database included 215 hepatectomies for large HCC (diameter ≥ 5 cm). The operative and survival outcomes were compared between the LH group (n = 109) and the OH group (n = 106). Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 included 70 patients in each group. The entire cohort multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with surgical complications and suboptimal recurrence-free survival (RFS).

RESULTS

After PSM, baseline characteristics and the extent of liver resection were similar in both groups. The LH group had a shorter hospital stay than the OH group (7 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.001). The R0 resection rate, complication rate, overall survival, and RFS were similar between the groups. The multivariate analyses revealed two independent factors predicting surgical complication (major resection; p < 0.001 and large volume blood loss; p = 0.042), and 3 independent factors predicting suboptimal RFS including R1 resection (p = 0.011), multifocal HCC (p = 0.005), and microvascular invasion (p = 0.001). LH was not associated with surgical complication and suboptimal RFS.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the benefits of LH by improving the perioperative outcomes, without long-term survival inferiority in selected large HCC patients compared with conventional OH. LH can be an attractive option for large HCC treatment.

Laparoscopic liver resection reduces postoperative infection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score-based analysis

BACKGROUND

This study is aimed to compare the occurrence of postoperative infections between patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and those undergoing open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

This study included 446 patients who underwent initial curative liver resection for HCC 5 cm or less in size without macroscopic vascular invasion. To adjust for confounding factors between the LLR and OLR groups, propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting (IPW) analysis were performed. The incidence rates of postoperative infection, including incisional surgical site infection (SSI), organ/space SSI, and remote infection (RI), were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

An imbalance in several confounding variables, including period of surgery, extent of liver resection, difficult location, proximity to a major vessel, tumor size ≥ 3 cm, and multiple tumors, was observed between the two groups in the original cohort. After matching and weighting, the imbalance between the two groups significantly decreased. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with a lower volume of intraoperative blood loss (140 vs. 350 mL, P < 0.001 in the matched cohort; 120 vs. 320 mL, P < 0.001 in the weighted cohort) and reduced risk of postoperative infection (2.0% vs. 12%, P = 0.015 in the matched cohort; 2.9% vs. 14%, P = 0.005 in the weighted cohort). Of the types of postoperative infections, organ/space SSI and RI were less frequently observed in the LLR group than in the OLR group in the matched cohort (1.0% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.091 for organ/space SSI; 0% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.001 for RI) and in the weighted cohort (1.2% vs. 7.8%, P < 0.001 for organ/space SSI; 0.3% vs. 5.1%, P = 0.009 for RI).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OLR, LLR for HCC might reduce postoperative infections, including organ/space SSI and RI.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for resectable HCC with BCLC stage B: a propensity score-matched analysis

To date, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B. Thus, this study was performed to assess the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for these patients by comparison with open liver resection (OLR). Between April 2015 and October 2018, a total of 217 resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into the LLR group and the OLR group according to different procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for known confounders. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. LLR was performed in 75 of the 217 included patients. After PSM, 72 patients with well-balanced baseline levels were enrolled into each group. Although the operative time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 237.5 vs. 210 min, P = 0.024), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 200 vs. 350 ml, P = 0.005). Patients in the LLR group had fewer complications than those in the OLR group (P = 0.035). Furthermore, overall survival (OS, P = 0.827) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, P = 0.694) were comparable between the two groups. LLR for resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B is safe and feasible in carefully selected patients and has superior perioperative outcomes and similar survival rates compared with OLR.

Robotic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.

Is the anterior approach suitable for laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy in patients with large HCC (5-10 cm)? A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Right hemihepatectomy via the anterior approach was initially employed to improve the survival of patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To date, the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy via the anterior approach (ALRH) for patients with large HCC remains unclear; thus, we compared short-term and long-term outcomes between ALRH and open right hemihepatectomy via the anterior approach (AORH).

METHODS

161 patients with HCC who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in our department were enrolled in this study between January 2015 and August 2018. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared using propensity score matching analysis (PSM).

RESULTS

There were 45 patients in the ALRH group and 116 patients in the AORH group. After 1:3 PSM, 40 ALRH patients and 95 AORH patients were well matched. The intraoperative time was longer in the ALRH group than in the AORH group after PSM (median, 297.5 vs. 205 min, P < 0.001). However, ALRH led to less intraoperative blood loss than AORH after PSM (median, 265 vs. 350 ml, P = 0.049). The rates of overall complications (12.5% vs. 30.5%, P = 0.028) in the ALRH group were significantly lower than those in the AORH group after PSM. Moreover, the survival outcomes were equivalent between the two groups with regard to 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates (P = 0.698) and disease-free survival rates (P = 0.510).

CONCLUSION

ALRH could be safe and feasible for some patients with large HCCs (5-10 cm) when performed by experienced surgeons, and it had superior perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncological outcomes to AORH.

Is partial hepatectomy a curable treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by cirrhosis? A meta-analysis and cure model analysis

Backgrounds/Aims

It is challenging to assess the efficacy of partial hepatectomy (PH) as a treatment option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accompanied by cirrhosis. This study aimed to determine the cure fraction of PH for HCC accompanied by cirrhosis compared to that for HCC without cirrhosis.

Methods

A systematic review was performed on outcomes of previous studies that compared recurrence-free survival (RFS) after PH in patients with HCC with or without cirrhosis. A meta-analysis was conducted to obtain the cumulative hazard ratio for two patient groups: cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis. Cure fractions after PH in both groups were determined using a cure model analysis.

Results

A total of 18 studies were eligible for meta-analysis and 13 studies were selected for the cure model analysis. The cumulative hazard ratio for RFS of the cirrhosis group compared to that of the non-cirrhosis group was 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–1.93). Survival data of 3,512 patients in both groups were reconstructed from survival curves of original articles for cure model analysis. The probability of being statistically cured after PH for HCC was 14.1% (95% CI, 10.6%–18.1%) in the cirrhosis group lower than that (32.5%) in the non-cirrhosis group (95% CI, 28.6%–36.4%).

Conclusions

The prognosis after PH for HCC accompanied by cirrhosis is inferior to that for HCC without cirrhosis. However, a cure can be expected for one-seventh of patients with HCC accompanied by cirrhosis after PH.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods: From September 2016 to June 2019, 282 patients were enrolled, and ERAS was implemented since March 2018. All indicators related to surgery, liver function, and postoperative outcomes were included in the analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) identified 174 patients for further comparison.

Results: After PSM, the clinicopathological baselines were well-matched. The group showed significantly less intraoperative blood loss (100.00 [100.00–200.00] vs. 200.00 [100.00–300.00] ml, P = 0.001), fewer days before abdominal drainage tube removal (4.00 [3.00–4.00] days vs. 4.00 [3.00–5.00] days, P = 0.023), shorter hospital stay after surgery (6.00 [5.00–6.00] days vs. 6.00 [6.00–7.00] days, P < 0.001), and reduced postoperative morbidity (18.39 vs. 34.48%, P = 0.026). The proportion of patients with a pain score ≥ 4 was significantly lower in the ERAS group within the first 2 days after surgery (1.15 vs. 13.79% and 8.05 vs. 26.44%, P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively). Pringle maneuver was performed more frequently in the ERAS group (70.11 vs. 18.39%, P < 0.001), and a significantly higher postoperative alanine aminotransferase level was also observed (183.40 [122.85–253.70] vs. 136.20 [82.93–263.40] U/l, P = 0.026). The 2-year recurrence-free survival was similar between the two groups (72 vs. 71%, P = 0.946).

Conclusions: ERAS programs are feasible and safe and do not influence mid-term recurrence in HCC patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Comparative Study of Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection in Gallbladder Cancer

Background: In recent decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been gradually adopted at high-volume centers, particularly for hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis. However, LLR in patients with gallbladder cancer (GBC) is a controversial issue, and there are few studies of LLR for GBC. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of patients who underwent laparoscopic or open liver resection for GBC. Materials and Methods: All patients admitted with stage II or III GBC requiring liver resection, together with cholecystectomy and lymphadenectomy, were analyzed retrospectively. Patients with thickness of the resected liver specimen >2 cm in pathology reports were included. Results: A total of 56 patients with stage II or III GBC were included in this study; 23 (41.1%) underwent laparoscopic surgery and 33 (58.9%) underwent open surgery. Propensity score matching was performed using a 1:1 matching scheme. After matching, 12 patients were included in each group. The preoperative characteristics of both groups were similar, as were the operative times (laparoscopic versus open group: 237.5 minutes versus 272.5 minutes, respectively; P = .319) and blood loss (300 mL versus 275 mL, respectively; P = .307). The laparoscopic group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospital stay than the open surgery group (4.5 days versus 8 days, respectively; P = .012). There were no major complications in either group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of lymph nodes harvested at surgery (P = .910). There were no differences between the two groups in disease-free (P = .503) or overall (P = .719) survival. Conclusion: LLR extended to GBC provides outcomes similar to those of open surgery. With increasing experience, LLR can be a viable alternative to open surgery for GBC.

Recent advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing, despite effective antiviral treatment for hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus infection and the application of preventive measures such as vaccination at birth against HBV infection. This is mainly due to the increase in metabolic syndrome and its hepatic components, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and steatohepatitis. Liver resection and transplantation are the main treatment options, offering long-term survival and potential cure. In this review, the recent advances in the surgical management of HCC are presented. More specifically, the role of liver resection in the intermediate and advanced stages, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, is analyzed. In addition, the roles of minimally invasive surgery and of living-related liver transplantation in the management of patients with HCC are discussed. Finally, recent data on the role of molecular markers in the early diagnosis and recurrence of HCC are presented. The management of HCC is complex, as there are several options for each stage of the disease. In order for, each patient to get the maximum benefit, an individualized approach is suggested, in specialized liver units, where cases are discussed in multidisciplinary tumor boards.

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been demonstrated as beneficial. However, the role of laparoscopy in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis is undetermined. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare open and laparoscopic resection for HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.

METHODS

Data on liver resections were gathered from 17 centres. A 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed according to 17 predefined variables.

RESULTS

Of 382 available liver resections, 100 laparoscopic and 100 open resections were matched and analysed. The 90-day postoperative mortality rate was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (4.0 versus 2.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.687). Laparoscopy was associated with lower blood loss (median 110 ml versus 400 ml in the open group; P = 0.004), less morbidity (38.0 versus 51.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.041) and fewer major complications (7.0 versus 21.0 per cent; P = 0.010), and ascites was lower on postoperative days 1, 3 and 5. For laparoscopic resections, patients with portal hypertension developed more complications than those without (26 versus 12 per cent respectively; P = 0.002), and patients with a Child-Pugh B9 score had higher morbidity rates than those with B8 and B7 (7 of 8, 10 of 16 and 21 of 76 respectively; P < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 7.5 (range 2-243) days for laparoscopic liver resection and 18 (3-104) days for the open approach (P = 0.058). The 5-year overall survival rate was 47 per cent for open and 65 per cent for laparoscopic resection (P = 0.142). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 32 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.742).

CONCLUSION

Patients without preoperative portal hypertension and Child-Pugh B7 cirrhosis may benefit most from laparoscopic liver surgery.

Post-hepatectomy liver failure after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center experience

PURPOSE

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is one of the most feared morbidities after liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate the incidence and predictors of PHLF after LR for HCC and its impact on survival outcomes.

METHODS

We reviewed the patients who underwent LR for HCC during the period between January 2010 and 2019.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-eight patients were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to the occurrence of PHLF, defined according to ISGLS. The non-PHLF group included 138 patients (51.5%), while the PHLF group included 130 patients (48.5%). Two hundred forty-six patients (91.8%) had hepatitis C virus. Major liver resections were more performed in the PHLF group (40 patients (30.8%) vs. 18 patients (13%), p = 0.001). Longer operation time (3 vs. 2.5 h, p = 0.001), more blood loss (1000 vs. 500 cc, p = 0.001), and transfusions (81 patients (62.3%) vs. 52 patients (37.7%), p = 0.001) occurred in PHLF group. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall survival rates for the non-PHLF group were 93.9%, 79.5%, and 53.9% and 73.2%, 58.7%, and 52.4% for the PHLF group, respectively (log rank, p = 0.003). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year Kaplan-Meier disease-free survival rates for the non-PHLF group were 77.7%, 42.5%, and 29.4%, and 73.3%, 42.9%, and 25.3% for the PHLF group, respectively (log rank, p = 0.925). Preoperative albumin, bilirubin, INR, and liver cirrhosis were significant predictors of PHLF in the logistic regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Egyptian patients with HCC experienced higher PHLF incidence after LR for HCC. PHLF significantly affected the long-term survival of those patients.

Propensity score matching analysis for outcomes of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobectomy

BACKGROUND

To date, laparoscopic caudate lobectomy (LCB) remains a challenge, and evidence about its value is rare. Therefore, this study was performed to assess the benefits of LCB for patients with tumours located in the caudate lobe compared with open caudate lobectomy (OCB).

METHODS

From October 2015 to June 2019, 102 patients meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were eligible for this study. The patients were divided into LCB and OCB groups. Short-term outcomes between the groups were compared with propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

LCB was performed in 31 of the 102 included patients. After PSM, 30 patients with well-balanced baseline levels were enrolled in each group. Intraoperative blood loss in the LCB group was less than that in the OCB group (median, 100 versus 200 mL, P = 0.017), even though it did not reach a statistically significant difference after PSM (median, 100 versus 187.5 mL, P = 0.085). Moreover, although post-operative overall complications were similar in the two groups, a tendency of lower rates of respiratory infection in the LCB group than the OCB group was observed (0% versus 12.7%, P = 0.054 before PSM; 0% versus 16.7%, P = 0.063 after PSM). There was no early mortality in either group. LCB had a shorter post-operative hospital stay than OCB (median, 5 versus 6 days, P < 0.001). However, the hospitalization cost was higher in the LCB group than in the OCB group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LCB is safe and feasible in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons.

Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: A Single-Institutional Propensity Score Matching Comparison

BACKGROUND

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients is increasing worldwide. Although open hepatectomy (OH) yields acceptable outcomes, high morbidity rate is concerned. Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has evolved to improve perioperative outcomes. However, comparative study between both techniques for elderly patients with HCC is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare outcomes between LH and OH specifically.

METHODS

HCC patients aged ≥70 years after hepatectomy (2003-2018) were included. The propensity score matching (PSM) and comparative analyses between groups were performed.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 41 patients in each group with similar demographics, radiographic tumor characteristics, cirrhotic status, and extent of resection. The LH group had a shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 11 days, p = 0.002) compared with the OH group. The completeness of resection and complication rates were not statistically different between groups. The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates were 86.7 and 43.4% in the LH group and 62.2 and 30.8% in the OH group (p = 0.221 and 0.500).

CONCLUSION

Our study confirmed the operative and oncological safety of LH in elderly HCC patients with improved perioperative outcomes compared with OH.

Outcomes of resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with macroscopic bile duct tumour thrombus: A propensity score matched study

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with bile duct tumour thrombus (BDTT) is low, and related studies, especially studies on long-term survival, are uncommon. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinicopathological characteristics, prognostic factors and postoperative long-term outcomes of BDTT in patients with HCC. The clinicopathological characteristics and postoperative long-term outcomes of patients with HCC both with and without BDTT were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Prognostic risk factors were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression analyses after PSM. Tumour stages in the BDTT group were significantly higher than those in the group without BDTT (P=0.001). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were significantly higher in the group without BDTT than in the BDTT group before PSM (P<0.001 and P=0.003, respectively). However, no significant difference in OS or RFS was found between the two groups after PSM (P=0.249 and P=0.121, respectively). Moreover, the median OS and RFS times of the BDTT patients who underwent tumour thrombectomy and bile duct resection were not significantly different (P=0.891 and P=0.787, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, macrovascular invasion (HR, 3.701; 95% CI, 1.313-9.10.437; P=0.013) was the only independent predictor of OS. Although the clinicopathological characteristics of the BDTT group suggested more advanced stage disease and poorer oncological outcomes than the group without BDTT, BDTT was not a poor prognostic factor for patients with HCC who underwent liver resection. Curative resection is recommended for patients with HCC and BDTT, even for those with poor liver function, after proper perioperative management in order to achieve good long-term survival.

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.

Relevance of blood loss as key indicator of the quality of surgical care in laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The development of laparoscopic liver resection has led to the hypothesis that intraoperative blood loss may be a key indicator of surgical care quality. This study assessed short- and long-term results of patients according to three levels of intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis.

METHODS

All patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis between 2000 and 2018 were included. Difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection was defined according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Three levels of the extent of intraoperative blood loss were defined: massive (≥1,000 mL), substantial (≥75th percentile of intraoperative blood loss within each grade of difficulty), and normal intraoperative blood loss.

RESULTS

During study period, 317 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Among them, 213 (67.2%), 80 (25.2%), and 24 (7.6%) patients had normal, substantial, and massive intraoperative blood loss, respectively. Twenty-six patients (8.2%) required transfusion. Massive intraoperative blood loss came from a major hepatic vein in 54% of cases and were managed by laparoscopy in 83% of the cases. Laparoscopic liver resection difficulty grade (odds ratio = 3.15; P = .053) and number of colorectal liver metastasis (odds ratio = 1.24; P = .020) were independently associated with massive intraoperative blood loss. Risks factors for substantial intraoperative blood loss were bi-lobar colorectal liver metastasis (odds ratio = 3.12; P = .033) and sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (odds ratio = 3.27; P = .004). The level of intraoperative blood loss was not associated with severe complications nor overall and disease-free survival. Requirement of transfusion was associated with severe complications (odds ratio = 7.27; P = .002) and decreased 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (87%, 68%, and 61% vs 95%, 88%, and 79%; P = .042).

CONCLUSION

The extent of intraoperative blood loss did not affect short- and long-term results of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Massive intraoperative blood loss was often incidental and, 83% of the time, manageable by laparoscopy. Rather than intraoperative blood loss, transfusion is a better relevant indicator of laparoscopic liver resection surgical quality.

Reappraisal of the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection for intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma within a stage migration perspective: Propensity score analysis of the differential benefit

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to analyze the outcome of laparoscopic approach specifically in patients with Intermediate-stage disease and to define the differential benefit with Early-stage patients.

METHODS

Six hundred twenty-two resections for HCC were dichotomized according to staging (Early and Intermediate) and to approach and then matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores to obtain four groups (E-MILS and E-Open, including 104 patients respectively; Int-MILS and Int-Open, including 142 patients, respectively). The differential benefit associated with the minimally invasive technique was evaluated between intermediate-stage and early-stage patients taking into account blood loss and morbidity rate as outcome indicators.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic approach resulted in a statistically significant lower blood loss, reduced morbidity, reduced incidence of hepatic decompensation and shorter time for functional recover and length of stay. The evaluation of the differential benefit showed a greater advantage of laparoscopic approach in Intermediate-stage patients compared with Early-stage patients, both in terms of blood loss and morbidity rate.

CONCLUSIONS

The favorable biological scenario associated with laparoscopic approach allows to obtain enhanced benefits in the setting of more advanced liver disease. The push towards minimal invasiveness and the incremental benefit associated with it could potentially promote stage migration in suitable patients.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Setting of Portal Vein Hypertension: Results of an International Multi-institutional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein hypertension assessed with platelet count (PVH-PLT; platelet count < 100,000/mL) are often denied surgery even when the disease is technically resectable. Short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive surgery (MIS) versus open resection for HCC and PVH-PLT were compared.

METHODS

Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the clinicopathological differences between MIS and non-MIS patents. Univariate comparison and standard survival analyses were utilized.

RESULTS

Among 1974 patients who underwent surgery for HCC, 13% had a PVH-PLT and 33% underwent MIS. After 1:1 PSM, 407 MIS and 407 non-MIS patients were analyzed. Incidence of complications and length-of-stay (LoS) were higher among non-MIS versus MIS patients (both p ≤ 0.002). After PSM, among 178 PVH-PLT patients (89 MIS and 89 non-MIS), patients who underwent a non-MIS approach had longer LoS (> 7 days; non-MIS: 55% vs. MIS: 29%), as well as higher morbidity (non-MIS: 42% vs. MIS: 29%) [p <0.001]. In contrast, long-term oncological outcomes were comparable, including 3-year overall survival (non-MIS: 66.2% vs. MIS: 72.9%) and disease-free survival (non-MIS: 47.3% vs. MIS: 50.2%) [both p ≥ 0.08].

CONCLUSION

An MIS approach was associated with improved short-term outcomes, but similar long-term outcomes, compared with open liver resection for patients with HCC and PVH-PLT. An MIS approach for liver resection should be considered for patients with HCC, even those individuals with PVH-PLT.

Is laparoscopic liver resection suitable for selected patients with BCLC stage B HCC? A propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial given the variability of tumour status within this group of patients. This aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in a subset of selected patients with BCLC stage B HCC.

METHODS

Patients with resectable BCLC stage B HCC who underwent treatment between April 2015 and October 2018 were identified for further analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to minimize effect of confounding factors. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups and multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors related to the overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

From a total of 224 patients 70 were included into each group after PSM. The overall and major morbidity were comparable between the LLR and TACE groups (P = 0.700 and P = 0.500 after PSM, respectively). The OS in LLR group was significantly better than that in the TACE group (P < 0.001). Tumor number ≥4, the diameter of the biggest tumor >5 cm, and patients who underwent TACE were independent predictors of poorer OS.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for selected patients with BCLC stage B HCC is safe and feasible and has improved survival as compared to TACE.

Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey

BACKGROUND

The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection.

RESULTS

Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010).

CONCLUSION

Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.

Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Patients with Multiple Hepatocellular Carcinomas Meeting the Milan Criteria: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Background: Until now, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for patients with multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). This study was performed to assess the efficacy and outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria. Methods: One hundred fifteen patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria who underwent liver resection from April 2015 to March 2018 were enrolled into this study. According to the different surgical procedures, patients were divided into LLR group and OLR group. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups after propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 match. Results: Thirty three patients were included into each group after PSM with well-balanced basic level. The intraoperative blood loss in LLR group was less than OLR group before PSM (median, 200 vs. 300 mL, P = .004), but the difference was not statistically significant after PSM (median, 200 vs. 300 mL, P = .064). LLR group showed shorter postoperative hospital stay when compared with OLR group (median, 7 vs. 8 days, respectively, P = .014). The perioperative complications and early mortality were comparable in both groups. There were no significant differences in the term of overall survival (OS. P = .502) or recurrence-free survival (RFS. P = .887) between the two groups after PSM. Conclusions: LLR could be safely and feasibly performed for patients with multiple HCC meeting the Milan criteria in selected patients. It does not increase the risks of postoperative complications and has a similar oncological outcomes compared to OLR.

Surgical outcomes between patients with and without a cirrhotic liver undergoing laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis (CL) is considered to be challenging. Recent studies have shown that laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is more beneficial of reduced operative stress and postoperative complications in patients with CL.

AIM

A meta-analysis was done to review the currently available published data comparing LLR for patients with CL versus those non-cirrhosis of the liver (NCL).

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed, Wiley, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from date of inception to January 29, 2018. Studies reporting a comparison of outcomes and methods of LLR in CL and NCL groups were included. The studies were evaluated using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

A total of 1573 patients from six cohort studies were included in final analysis. The CL group had a slightly shorter operative time compared with the NCL group (weighted mean difference [WMD], 18.78min shorter; 95% confidence interval [CI], -43.54-5.98; P=0.14) and delayed hospital stay (WMD, 1.26 days longer; 95% CI, -0.05-2.56; P=0.06). Blood loss, blood transfusion rate, mortality, and conversion rate did not differ significantly between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR is safe and feasible in the CL compared with the NCL groups. Our present review indicates that LLR should be considered when selecting surgery for patients with CL.

Resection for hepatocellular cancer: overpassing old barriers

Several recent studies have shown that the selection limits commonly used for patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) potentially requiring a liver resection (LR) are too restrictive. The present review aims at investigating the studies showing that LR is no longer a treatment suitable only for highly selected patients, but also for patients selectively presenting one-to-more negative factors. Several specific variables have been investigated, none of them showing to be an absolute contraindication for LR: age; single vs. multiple diseases; the dimension of the nodule; hyperbilirubinemia; clinically relevant portal hypertension; Child-Pugh status; macrovascular invasion. As a consequence, LR for the treatment of HCC-on-cirrhosis is a safe and effective procedure not only in "ideal cases", but also for selected patients presenting risk factors. The presence of only one of these factors does not represent an absolute contraindication for LR. On the opposite, the contemporaneous presence of risk factors should contraindicate the procedure. Further studies investigating the "borderline" cases are required, mainly looking at the possible decisive role of laparoscopy in this setting.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in early and advanced cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is well described in early cirrhosis. Less is known regarding outcomes with more advanced cirrhosis, and this study aimed to compare these groups.

METHODS

A retrospective review of resections at a high-volume hepatobiliary center over a 15-year period was performed. Primary end-points were 30 and 90-day mortality. Secondary end-points included complications and survival.

RESULTS

80 early (Child's A) were compared to 26 advanced (20 Child's B and 6 Child's C) patients. Baseline patient and tumor characteristics were similar except for parameters indicating degree of cirrhosis. Only early cirrhotic patients underwent anatomic hepatectomies (six cases) and median operative times were longer (151 vs 99 min, p = 0.03). Intraoperative blood loss, conversion, R0 resection, length-of-stay and perioperative complications were comparable. 30 and 90-day mortality were statistically similar (2.5 vs 0%, OR 1.69, 95% CI 0.08-36.19 and 2.5 vs 7.7%, OR 0.31 95% CI 0.04-2.30). There was a trend toward longer survival in the early cirrhotic group but this did not reach significance (50 vs 21 months, p = 0.077).

CONCLUSIONS

In carefully selected advanced cirrhotic patients, laparoscopic liver resection may be performed with acceptable outcomes. Though this is not yet well established, further trials may be warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

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

SUMMARY

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

KEY MESSAGE

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

Correlation between Resection Margin and Disease Recurrence with a Restricted Cubic Spline Model in Patients with Resected Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The relationship between resection margin (RM) and recurrence of resected hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear.

METHODS

We reviewed clinical data for 419 patients with HCC. The oncologic outcomes were compared between 2 groups of patients classified according to the inflexion point of the restricted cubic spline plot.

RESULTS

The patients were divided according to an RM of <1 cm (n = 233; narrow RM group) or ≥1 cm (n = 186; wide RM group). The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate was lower (34.8 vs. 43.8%, p = 0.042) and recurrence near the resection site was more frequent (4.7 vs. 0%, p = 0.010) in the narrow RM group. Patients with multiple lesions, or prior transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were excluded from subgroup analyses. In patients with a 2-5 cm HCC, the 5-year RFS was greater in the wide RM group (54.4 vs. 32.5%, p = 0.036). Narrow RM (hazard ratio 1.750, 95% CI 1.029-2.976, p = 0.039) was independently associated with disease recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In patients with a single 2-5 cm HCC without prior TACE/RFA, an RM of ≥1 cm was associated with lower risk of recurrence after liver resection.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can we extend the surgical indication in cirrhotic patients?

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the value of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and severe cirrhosis is still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic HCC patients.

METHODS

The analysis included 403 LLR for HCC from seven European centres. 333 cirrhotic and 70 non-cirrhotic patients were compared. A matched comparison was performed between 100 Child-Pugh A and 25 Child-Pugh B patients.

RESULTS

There was no difference in blood loss (250 vs. 250 mL, p 0.465) and morbidity (28.6 vs. 26.4%, p 0.473) between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics, and liver-specific complications were similar (12.8 vs. 12%, p 0.924). The sub-analysis revealed similar perioperative outcomes in either Child-Pugh A or B patients. Noteworthy, ascitis (11 vs. 12%, p 0.562) and liver failure (3 vs. 4%, p 0.595) were not different. ASA score (OR 1.76, p 0.034) and conversion (OR 2.99, p 0.019) were risk factors for major morbidity. Despite lower recurrence-free survival in cirrhotics (43 vs. 55 months, p 0.034), overall survival was similar to non-cirrhotic patients (84 vs. 76.5, p 0.598).

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC appear equally safe in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, and the advantages can be witnessed in those with advanced cirrhosis. Severe comorbidities and conversion should be considered risk factors for complications-rather than the severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension-when liver resection is performed laparoscopically. Such results may be of great interest to liver surgeons and hepatologists when deciding on the management of HCC within cirrhosis.

Prediction of surgical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma by defining surgical difficulty

BACKGROUND

Several classification systems for assessing the surgical difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have been proposed. We evaluated three current classification systems, including traditional Major/Minor Classification, Complexity Classification, and the Difficulty Scoring System for predicting the surgical outcomes after LLR.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 301 patients who underwent LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma between March 1, 2004 and June 30, 2015. We compared the intraoperative, pathologic, and postoperative outcomes according to the three classifications. We also compared the prognostic value of the three classifications using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

The Major/Minor Classification, Complexity Classification, and the Difficulty Scoring System efficiently differentiated surgical difficulty in terms of blood loss (P = 0.001, P = 0.009, and P < 0.001, respectively) and operation time (all P < 0.001). Regarding intraoperative outcomes, the Difficulty Scoring System and Complexity Classification successfully differentiated the transfusion rate (P = 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). However, only the Complexity Classification adequately predicted severe postoperative complications (P = 0.032), the severity of complications (P < 0.001), and the length of hospital stay (P = 0.005). In ROC curve analysis, the Complexity Classification (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.611) outperformed the Major/Minor Classification (AUC = 0.544) and the Difficulty Scoring System (AUC = 0.530) for predicting severe postoperative complications. None of the classification systems predicted recurrence or patient survival.

CONCLUSION

The Complexity Classification was superior to the other methods for assessing surgical difficulty and predicting complications after LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Laparoscopic and robotic approach for hepatocellular carcinoma-state of the art

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignant tumor worldwide and the most common primary liver cancer, in over 80% of cases HCC grown on a cirrhotic liver. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now worldwide accepted considering the excellent results shown. Minimally invasive surgical approach for HCC is increasing continuously and in specialized centers seems to become the first-line approach for those patients. The aim of this review presents and discusses state of the art in the laparoscopic and robotic surgical treatment of HCC. An electronic search was performed to identify all studies dealing with HCC resected with laparoscopy or robotic approach. Indications for laparoscopic resection, robotic assisted and totally robotic resection of HCC will be doubtless increased in future years. LLR and robotic approach for HCC is safe and feasible.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is becoming widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and minor laparoscopic liver resection are now considered standard approaches, especially for tumors located in the anterolateral segments of the liver. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in adult donors is also gaining acceptance for child liver transplantation in many centers. Major LLRs, including left hepatectomy and right hepatectomy, have been recently attempted. Laparoscopic donor hepatectomy is becoming more popular owing to increasing demand from young living donors who appreciate its minimal invasiveness and excellent cosmetic outcomes. Several centers have performed total laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. Many meta-analyses have shown that LLR is better than open liver resection in terms of short-term outcomes, principally cosmetic outcomes. Although no randomized control trials have compared LLR with open liver resection, the long-term oncologic outcomes were similar for both procedures in recent case-matched studies.