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

Navigating the challenges of laparoscopic anatomical SVIII resection: A step forward in hepatobiliary surgery

This article comments on the study by Peng et al, published in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, representing a notable advancement in hepatobiliary surgery. This article examines laparoscopic anatomical segment VIII resection, a challenging procedure due to the complex liver anatomy and difficulty in accessing deep-seated lesions. Peng and colleagues’ experience with caudal and cranial approaches in 34 patients underscores the feasibility of these techniques while sparking debates about the optimal approach. Their study’s strengths lie in technique standardization and comprehensive analysis, although its limitations highlight the need for further research. As minimally invasive liver surgery progresses, larger, prospective trials and integration of advanced technologies are essential for establishing best practices.

Laparoscopic anatomical SVIII resection via middle hepatic fissure approach: Caudal or cranio side

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a proven safe and technically feasible approach for liver tumor resection, but laparoscopic anatomical SVIII resection (LASVIIIR) remains rarely reported due to poor accessibility, difficult exposure, and the deep-lying Glissonean pedicle. This study examined the safety, feasibility, and perioperative outcomes of LASVIIIR via a middle hepatic fissure approach at our institution.

AIM

To investigate the safety, feasibility, and perioperative outcomes of LASVIIIR via a middle hepatic fissure approach at our institution.

METHODS

From November 2017 to December 2022, all patients with a liver tumor who underwent LASVIIIR were enrolled. The perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients underwent LASVIIIR via a middle hepatic fissure approach from the side or cranio side and were included. The mean operation time was 164 ± 54 minutes, and the intra-operative blood loss was 100 mL (range: 20-1000 mL). The mean operative times were, respectively, 152 ± 50 minutes and 222 ± 29 minutes (P = 0.001) for the caudal side and cranial side approaches. In addition, the median blood loss volumes were 100 mL (range: 20-300 mL) and 250 mL (range: 20-1000 mL), respectively, for the caudal and cranial sides (P = 0.064). Three patients treated using the cranial side approach experienced bile leakage, while 1 patient treated using the caudal side approach had subphrenic collection and underwent percutaneous drainage to successfully recover. There were no differences regarding postoperative hospital stays for the caudal and cranial side approaches [9 (7-26) days vs 8 (8-19) days] (P = 0.226).

CONCLUSION

LASVIIIR resection remains a challenging operation, but the middle hepatic fissure approach is a reasonable and easy-to-implement technique.

Initial laparoscopic liver resection is associated with reduced adhesions and transfusions at the time of salvage liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with improved patient recovery as well as reduced postoperative adhesions compared to open LR (OLR) and could therefore facilitate redo liver surgery. LLR prior to liver transplantation (LT) is increasingly performed, LT being saved for HCC recurrence. LT is still performed by open surgery due to vascular reconstructions and underlying liver chronic disease. We evaluated the impact of laparoscopic approach for LR prior to LT in terms of intraoperative transfusions, adhesions severity and outcome.

METHODS

Data from all patients who underwent a LT after LR in two French high-volume tertiary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The impact of LLR on per operative and postoperative outcome was assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

170 patients were included, 43 patients in the LLR group and 127 in the OLR group. Preoperative characteristics were comparable between both groups, except LLR group included more patients with "very early-stage" BCLC tumors than OLR group (51% vs. 33%, p = 0.02) and less anatomical resections (54% vs. 75%, p = 0.015). During LT, the transfusion rate was significantly higher in the OLR group (71.4% vs 44.2%, p = 0.002) as well as the proportion of type III adhesions according to OLSG classification (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis found LLR to be an independent protective factor for adhesions and transfusion (p = 0.001 and p = 0.03 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection was associated with reduced postoperative adhesions and transfusion requirements during subsequent liver transplantation.

Benchmarks and Geographic Differences in Gallbladder Cancer Surgery: An International Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

High-quality surgery plays a central role in the delivery of excellent oncologic care. Benchmark values indicate the best achievable results. We aimed to define benchmark values for gallbladder cancer (GBC) surgery across an international population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included consecutive patients with GBC who underwent curative-intent surgery during 2000-2021 at 13 centers, across seven countries and four continents. Patients operated on at high-volume centers without the need for vascular and/or bile duct reconstruction and without significant comorbidities were chosen as the benchmark group.

RESULTS

Of 906 patients who underwent curative-intent GBC surgery during the study period, 245 (27%) were included in the benchmark group. These were predominantly women (n = 174, 71%) and had a median age of 64 years (interquartile range 57-70 years). In the benchmark group, 50 patients (20%) experienced complications within 90 days after surgery, with 20 patients (8%) developing major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa). Median length of postoperative hospital stay was 6 days (interquartile range 4-8 days). Benchmark values included ≥ 4 lymph nodes retrieved, estimated intraoperative blood loss ≤ 350 mL, perioperative blood transfusion rate ≤ 13%, operative time ≤ 332 min, length of hospital stay ≤ 8 days, R1 margin rate ≤ 7%, complication rate ≤ 22%, and rate of grade ≥ IIIa complications ≤ 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for GBC remains associated with significant morbidity. The availability of benchmark values may facilitate comparisons in future analyses among GBC patients, GBC surgical approaches, and centers performing GBC surgery.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center 10-year experience

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. However, the long-term outcomes of LLR for HCCs should be validated further. Besides, the validity of laparoscopic minor liver resection in difficult segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) (LMLR-DS) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for HCCs need to be studied.

Methods

A total of 1773 HCC patients were collected: 683 received LLR and 1090 received OLR. Propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the selection bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. In subgroup analyses, the validity of LMLR-DS or LMH for HCCs was studied.

Results

After PSM, 567 patients were in LLR or OLR group. LLR had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OLR. The postoperative complications were lower in LLR group (23.8% vs. 32.8%, P=0.001). The Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) had no significant difference between LLR and OLR groups (P=0.973, P=0.812). The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year OR rates were 87.9%, 68.9%, and 57.7% for LLR group, and 85.9%, 68.8%, 58.8% for OLR group. The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates were 73.0%, 51.5%, 40.6% for LLR group, and 70.3%, 49.0%, 42.4% for OLR group. In subgroup analyses, 178 patients were in LMLR-DS or open surgery (OMLR-DS) group after PSM. LMLR-DS had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMLR-DS. The postoperative complications were lower in LMLR-DS group. The OS and DFS had no difference between LMLR-DS and OMLR-DS groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 61.6%, 43.9% for LMLR-DS group, and 66.5%, 47.7% for OMLR-DS group. In another subgroup analyses, 115 patients were in LMH or open major hepatectomy (OMH) group. LMH had lower blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMH. The complications, OS and DFS had no significantly differences between two groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 44.3%, 29.9% for LMH group, and 44.7%, 33.2% for OMH group.

Conclusions

LLR for HCCs showed better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes with OLR, even for patients who received LMLR-DS or LMH. LLR could be reliable and recommended for HCC treatment.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Comparison of survival and post-operation outcomes for minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-matched studies

Background

With the rapid development of minimally invasive techniques and instruments, more and more patients begin to accept minimally invasive surgery. Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has obvious advantages in terms of surgical incision, but there is still no strong evidence of its long-term survival effect.

Purpose

The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term survival outcomes between MIH and Open hepatectomy (OH) in hepatocellular carcinoma based on high-quality case-control studies.

Methods

The study on the comparison of MIH (including RH or LH) and OH in the treatment of HCC from the date of establishment to June 1, 2022 was searched through PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The main results were long-term overall and disease-free survival and short-term postoperative effect; All studies were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and meta-analysis of random effect models was adopted.

Results

43 articles included 6673 patients. In these studies, the data from 44 studies need to be extracted and pooled in the meta-analysis. Our results showed that compared with OH group, OS (HR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02, 1.35; P=0.02) and DFS (HR 1.15; 95%CI 1.05, 1.26; P=0.002) in MIH group were slightly lower than those in OH group. The operation time (Z=2.14, P=0.03, MD8.01, 95% CI: 2.60–13.42) was longer than OH group. In terms of length of hospital stay (Z=10.76, p&lt;0.00001, MD -4.0, 95% CI: -4.72 to -3.27), intraoperative blood loss (Z=5.33, P&lt;0.00001, MD -108.33, 95% CI: -148.15 to -68.50), blood transfusion rate (Z=5.06, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.64, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.76, I2 = 0%), postoperative complications (Z=9.24, p&lt;0.00001, OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.55, I2 = 21%), major morbidity (Z=6.11, p&lt;0.00001, OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.59,I2 = 0%), R0 resection (Z=2.34, P=0.02, OR=1.46, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.0, I2 = 0%) and mortality(Z=2.71,P=0.007, OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.85), the MIH group was significantly better than the OH group. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference in terms of major hepatectomy Z=0.47, P=0.64, OR=1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, I2 = 0%), anatomical resection (Z=0.48, P=0.63, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.67 to 1.27), satellite nodules (Z=0.54, P=0.59, OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.69 to 1.23, I2 = 0%), microvascular invasion (Z=1.15, P=0.25, OR=1.11, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.34, I2 = 0%) and recurrence (Z=0.71, p=0.48, OR=0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12, I2 = 19%).

Conclusion

This study is the first to compare the clinical efficacy of MIH and OH in the treatment of HCC based on a high-quality propensity score matching study. The results show that in terms of long-term survival outcomes (OS and DFS), although the gap between MIH and OH is not obvious, OH was better than MIH on the whole. However, in terms of short-term postoperative outcomes (post-operation outcomes), MIH was slightly better than OH.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022332556.

Perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study comparing open hepatectomy

Background

To compare the perioperative and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) based on propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate therapeutic safety, efficacy, and value for clinical application.

Methods

Forty-nine patients with rHCC who underwent surgery at Wenzhou People’s Hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed and classified into LLR (n=30) and OLR (n=22) cases based on the surgical method. Thirty-eight patients were screened using PSM for data analysis to compare basic clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative recurrence in both groups.

Results

Before PSM, the tumour diameter was larger, tumor staging (BCLC staging system), intraoperative blood loss, units of blood transfused, constituent ratio of liver cirrhosis, incidence of MVI and intravascular tumour thrombus and postoperative complication were higher, and duration of hospital stay was significantly longer in the OLR group compared to those in the LLR group (p &lt; 0.05). After PSM, there were no significant differences regarding tumour diameter, MVI incidence, blood transfusion amount or postoperative complication rate in the LLR and OLR groups. The tumor staging, incidence of vascular cancer thrombus, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative duration of hospitalisation were significantly higher in the OLR group than in the LLR group (p&lt;0.05). The difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.383).

Conclusion

LLR for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma can reduce intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complication rate, shorten the duration of hospitalisation, and is superior to OLR regarding perioperative and short-term efficacy, demonstrating good safety and feasibility.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

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

Application of da Vinci robot and laparoscopy on repeat hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection has been used safely and effectively on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have been performed on repeat HCC surgery by a da Vinci robot. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robot or laparoscopic system at a single centre.

METHODS

All of the patients with repeat HCC treated using a da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic system between April 2017 and April 2020 were included in this retrospective study.

RESULTS

There were 24 patients with a mean age of 56 years who underwent da Vinci robotic or laparoscopic surgery for treatment of repeat HCC who were included in this study. The operations lasted 152 ± 25 min and 142 ± 34 min. The average intraoperative blood loss was 284 ± 89 ml and 251 ± 92 ml. The average hospitalisation stay lasted 9 ± 2 days and 9 ± 3 days. The rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery were 9% and 23%. No serious perioperative or post-operative complications were encountered.

CONCLUSION

Da Vinci robots can provide a precise dissection of the tissue under a perfect view. It is a technically feasible procedure for less rates at which surgeons switched to open surgery on repeat HCC.

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.

Laparoscopic vs open liver re-resection for cirrhotic patients with post-hepatectomy hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeated liver resection is an effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have compared the outcome of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent HCC, and few of those have included cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of cirrhotic patients with LRH and ORH for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical records retrieved from a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent hepatectomy for post-hepatectomy recurrent HCC at our institute between May 2006 and June 2021. Cases of recurrent HCCs larger than 7 cm were excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, perioperative outcomes, pathologic details, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) data of LRH and ORH were compared.

RESULTS

Data from 29 patients with LRH and 22 with ORH were compared. The LRH group showed significantly better outcomes for blood loss (median 300 mL vs 750 mL, P = 0.013) and length of hospital stay (median 5 d vs 7 d, P = 0.003). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the LRH group were 100.0%, 60.0% and 30.0%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 81.8%, 36.4% and 18.2% (P = 0.336). The 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS rates in the LRH group were 68.2%, 27.3% and 4.5%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 31.3%, 6.3% and 6.3% (P = 0.055). There were no significant differences in overall and DFS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic re-resection should be considered for patients presenting with recurrent HCC less than or equal to 7 cm after previous hepatectomy.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

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.

Risk factors for the recurrence of early hepatocellular carcinoma treated by percutaneous radiofrequency ablation with a multiple-electrode switching system: a multicenter prospective study

PURPOSE

To investigate the long-term efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with a multiple-electrode switching system (MESS) in the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and evaluate the patterns and risk factors of intrahepatic recurrence of HCC after RFA.

METHODS

In total, 139 patients with early HCC who underwent RFA with MESS as primary treatment at multiple centers were prospectively enrolled according to the inclusion criteria. We evaluated the local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), the incidence of cumulative disease-free survival (DFS), LTP-free survival, IDR-free survival, and overall survival. We also analyzed the associated risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 139 patients were included in the study and the median follow-up time was 64 months, ranging from 11 to 72 months. The complete ablation rate was 98.56%. Sixty-nine (49.64%) were found to have intrahepatic recurrence (LTP, n = 15; IDR, n = 55) during follow-up. The 1-year, 3-year and 5-year cumulative DFS, LTP-free survival, and IDR-free survival rates were 74.82, 94.46 and 78.75%; 54.68, 88.03 and 61.79%; and 51.80, 85.67 and 60.17%, respectively. In the multivariable analysis, tumor size > 4 cm was the only important risk factor for LTP. The alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level and the number of tumors were independent risk factors for IDR; α-fetoprotein (AFP) level > 400 µg/L and recurrence interval were risk factors for the overall survival period.

CONCLUSIONS

The MESS-RFA is an effective method for local control of tumors in early HCC. Early HCC with multiple high-ALP tumors has a higher rate of recurrence, which mainly occurs in an IDR pattern. Early HCC with high AFP levels and a shorter initial recurrence interval resulted in a poorer prognosis. Thus, treatments such as liver transplantation or surgical resection may be a good strategy in those cases.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV ID

NCT02046356.

Pure laparoscopic liver resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score and multivariate analysis

BACKGROUND

In treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) provided similar short-term advantages. However, there was no robust clinical trial comparing the efficacy of LLR and RFA especially for small HCC. This study aimed to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of LLR and RFA for patients with small HCC using a propensity score matching analysis to minimize potential selection bias. Factors affecting survival were then identified with multivariate analysis.

METHODS

All patients underwent RFA or LLR for small HCC [defined as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0 or A, size ≤3 cm, ≤3 nodules on contrast CT scan or MRI with no evidence of macrovascular invasion] from April 2005 to August 2020 were included. Propensity score matching was conducted to match patients in the LLR group and RFA group. Prognostic indicators, i.e., age, gender, tumor size, tumor number, Child's grading, albumin, bilirubin, platelet count, international normalized ratio, alpha-fetoprotein level and presence of cirrhosis on imaging were chosen for propensity score calculation. The demographic data, tumor characteristics, operative data, post-operative outcomes and survival data of the two groups were compared. A multivariate analysis based on Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 34 months. LLR and RFA had similar overall survival (91.8% vs. 79.2% at 5-year, P=0.060); while the LLR had a significantly better disease-free survival (49.0% vs. 30.3% at 5-year, P=0.002) and local recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs. 63.7% at 5-year, P<0.001) when compared with the RFA. Multivariate analysis showed that treatment received by patient (LLR vs. RFA), prothrombin time and platelet counts were significantly associated with disease-free survival. On the other hand, the only factor associated with local recurrence-free survival was the treatment received by patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RFA and LLR are safe and feasible treatment options for patients with small HCC. LLR should be considered for patients with preserved liver function with a better disease-free survival; while RFA offered a comparable overall survival with less surgical trauma and shorter hospital stay.

Current status of laparoscopic hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) was first introduced in the 1990s and has now become widely accepted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is considered a safe and effective approach for liver disease. However, the role of laparoscopic hepatectomy in HCC with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed, and the present literature review aimed to review the surgical and oncological outcomes of Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). According to Hong and colleagues laparoscopic resection for liver cirrhosis is a very safe and feasible procedure for both ideal cases and select patients with high risk factors [29]. The presence of only 1 of these factors does not represent an absolute contraindication for LH.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We selected 23 studies involving about 1363 HCC patients treated with LH. 364 (27%) patients experienced major resections. The mean operative time was 244.9 minutes, the mean blood loss was 308.1 mL and blood transfusions were required in only 4.9% of patients. There were only 2 (0.21%) postoperative deaths and overall morbidity was 9.9%. Tumor recurrence ranged from 6 to 25 months. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year disease free Survival (DFS) rates ranged from 71.9% to 99%, 50.3% to 91.2%, and 19% to 82% respectively. Overall survival rates ranged from 88% to 100%, 73.4% to 94.5%, and 52.6% to 94.5% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our summery LH is lower risk and safer than conventional open liver surgery and is just as efficacious. Also, the LH approach decreased blood-loss, operation time, postoperative morbidity and had a lower conversion rate compared to other procedures whether open or robotic. Finally, LH may serve as a promising alternative to open procedures.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis of a high-volume North American center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections for malignancy are increasing worldwide, and yet data from North America are lacking. We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection as a treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

Patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 were retrospectively studied. A propensity score matching was performed using patient demographics, laboratory parameters, etiology of liver disease, liver function, and tumor characteristics. Primary outcomes included overall survival and cumulative incidence of recurrence. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk cumulative incidence were used for survival analyses. Multivariable Cox regression and Fine-Gray proportional hazard regression were performed to determine hazard for death and recurrence, respectively.

RESULTS

Three hundred and ninety-one patients were identified (laparoscopic liver resection: 110; open liver resection: 281). After propensity score matching, 149 patients remained (laparoscopic liver resection: 57; open liver resection: 92). There were no significant differences between groups with regard to extent of hepatectomy performed and tumor characteristics. The laparoscopic liver resection group experienced a lower proportion of ≥Clavien-Dindo grade III complications (14% vs 29%; P = .01). In the matched cohort, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate in the laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection group was 90.9%, 79.3%, 70.5% vs 91.3%, 88.5%, 83.1% (P = .26), and the cumulative incidence of recurrence 31.1%, 59.7%, 62.9% vs 18.9%, 40.6%, 49.2% (P = .06), respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the largest single institutional study from North America comparing long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection and open liver resection as a treatment for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. The combination of reduced short-term complications and equivalent long-term oncologic outcomes favor the laparoscopic approach when feasible.

Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

Background

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) are still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Method

Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

Results

Intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.007) was significantly lower in the LMH group. In addition, the LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P = 0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P = 0.215) and operative cost (P = 0.860). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard to long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.172).

Conclusion

LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.

Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies

Background

The role of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis remains controversial and needs to be further assessed. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LH with those of open hepatectomy (OH) for HCC with cirrhosis.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies comparing LH and OH until Mar 2021. Weighted mean differences (WMDs), odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for continuous, dichotomous, and long-term variables, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analysis was performed according to different resection types: major resection and minor resection. The meta-analysis was performed using the STATA 12.0.

Results

A total of 16 case-matched studies (784 patients in the LH group and 1,191 patients in the OH group.) were included in this meta-analysis. In terms of primary outcomes, LH was associated with decreased overall complication rate (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.71; P <0.01), major complication rate (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; P < 0.01), postoperative mortality (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.66; P  <0.01), 1-y overall survival (OS) rate (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.73; P <0.01), 2-y OS (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; P < 0.01), and 5-y OS (0.67; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; P < 0.01). With respect to secondary outcomes, blood loss (WMD −69.16; 95% CI −101.72 to −36.61; P < 0.01), length of hospitalization (LOH) (WMD −2.65; 95% CI −3.41 to −1.89; P < 0.01), minor complication rate (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.94; P = 0.02), postoperative liver failure (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.95; P = 0.03), and postoperative ascites (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.72; P < 0.01) was lower in LH than in OH. No significant differences in operation time (P = 0.07), transfusion rate (P = 0.05), 1-, 2-, and 5-year DFS rate (1-year, P = 0.08; 2-year, P = 0.08; 5-year, P = 0.23) were noted between LH and OH. Subgroup analysis based on minor resection revealed that LH had similar favored outcomes in comparison with those in the overall pooled analysis. However, LH had a longer operation time than OH in the setting of major resection (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

LH is technically feasible and safe for selected HCC patients with cirrhosis. LH can achieve favored short-term and long-term oncological outcomes in minor liver resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) seems to offer some advantages over the open approach; however concerns about surgical and oncological safety remain. More evidence on LMH is warranted before expanding its indication to patients with cirrhosis.

Preoperative transarterial chemoembolization for laparoscopic liver resection in Child A cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) offers better short-term results than open surgery with similar long-term results although it is technically difficult due to the risk of bleeding.

METHODS

This study included patients with HCC in Child A cirrhosis who underwent TACE before LLR between 2009 and 2019. The primary endpoint was to analyze the intraoperative and early results of this technique. We also analyzed the long-term outcomes. Patients with and without clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 44 cirrhotic patients with HCC were included (24 CSPH and 20 non-CSPH). The Pringle maneuver was used in two cases (4.5%), mean blood losses was 100 ml (range 50-200), and three patients (6.8%) required a blood transfusion. The degree of necrosis achieved was greater than 90% in 27 patients (61.4%). At 1, 3, and 5 years, overall survival was 97.7%, 81.5%, and 63.4%, respectively, and disease-free survival was 85.2%, 52.5%, and 34.5%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between non-CSPH and CSPH groups regarding intraoperative, early, and long-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, TACE could be beneficial to perform LLR in HCC Child-Pugh A patients with and without CSPH without serious complications and similar oncological outcomes.

Impact of previous history of choledochojejunostomy on the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection after hepatectomy

PURPOSE

Impact of previous history of choledochojejunostomy (PCJ) on the incidence of organ/space surgical site infection (SSI) after hepatectomy remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and causes of SSI after hepatectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hepatectomy of ≤1 Couinaud's sector between January 2011 and September 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Incidence of and risk factors for organ/space SSI (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥2) after hepatectomy were investigated.

RESULTS

Among 750 hepatectomies, 18 patients (2.4%) had a medical history of PCJ. Incidence of organ/space SSI was higher in patients with PCJ (50%) than in those without PCJ (3%, P < 0.001), and the trend was consistent even after estimated propensity score matched cohort. Multivariate analysis showed PCJ was a strong risk factor for organ/space SSI (grade ≥2), with the highest odds ratios (OR) among all other clinicopathological risk factors (OR, 32.25; P < 0.001). Among hepatectomies with PCJ, pneumobilia (OR, 12.25; P = 0.015), operation time ≥171 min (OR, 12.25; P = 0.016), and liver steatosis (OR, 24.00; P ≤ 0.005) were associated with organ/space SSI after hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Previous history of choledochojejunostomy was a strong risk factor for organ/space SSI after hepatectomy. The high rate of organ/space SSI after hepatectomy with PCJ might be attributed to intrahepatic bile duct contamination, increased operation time, and histological liver steatosis.

Minimally invasive versus open right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy for central liver malignancies: a propensity-score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The utility of minimally-invasive liver resection (MILR) for deep centrally located tumours (CLT) remains controversial. We aimed to review our institution's experience and outcomes with minimally invasive central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) for CLT in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained surgical database revealed 23 patients who underwent MILR (6 CH, 17 RAS) and 53 patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR; 24 CH, 29 RAS) for CLT. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Peri-operative outcomes were then compared.

RESULTS

There was one laparoscopic-assisted, one robot-assisted and two laparoscopic-converted-open procedures in the MILR cohort. Across the unmatched cohort, there was only one mortality (MILR) and five patients with major morbidity (all OLR). MILR was associated with a longer operating time (P < 0.001), but shorter post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.002) and decreased morbidity (P = 0.018) in the unmatched cohort. Examination of peri-operative outcomes after PSM revealed that MILR was similarly associated with a longer operating time (P = 0.001) and shortened post-operative hospital stay (P = 0.043). OLR was associated with a significantly reduced application of Pringle manoeuvre (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences between MILR and OLR with regards to blood loss, blood transfusions, morbidity and margin status in the PSM analysis.

CONCLUSION

MILR for CLT is safe and feasible when performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with shorter hospital stays but at the expense of longer operation times and more frequent application of Pringle manoeuver.

Laparoscopic liver resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) play central roles to treat early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, ≤3 cm, 1-3 nodules, and no macrovascular involvement), although data are lacking regarding whether LLR or RFA is preferable. This study aimed to compare outcomes of both treatments for small HCCs.

METHODS

Treatment outcomes of small HCCs were compared between all the minor LLRs performed between 2005 and 2016 and RFAs performed between 2011 and 2016 at Kyoto University.

RESULTS

A total of 85 and 136 patients underwent LLR and RFA, respectively. Patients that underwent LLR had higher incidence of blood transfusions, complications, and longer hospital stay. Overall and disease-specific survival rates were similar between LLR and RFA; however, recurrence-free (49.2% vs. 22.1% at 3-year) and local recurrence-free survival rates (94.9% vs. 63.6% at 3-year) were higher after LLR. Multivariate analyses identified that multiple nodules and 65-year-old and above are predictors of disease-specific survival, and that RFA is a predictor of recurrence and local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

RFA is less invasive, although both LLR and RFA are safe and effective. LLR provides better local control with superior recurrence-free and local-recurrence free survival. These results help optimize treatment selection based on patient-specific factors.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity case-matched analysis of the long-term survival

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Despite the widespread popularity of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains in evolution. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤7 cm.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HCC treated by hepatectomy from October 2000 to May 2019 were included. Excluding tumors larger than 7 cm, 1:2 propensity score matching was performed between laparoscopic and open hepatectomies. The perioperative outcomes, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients who underwent LLR were matched to 90 open hepatectomy (OH) during the same period. LLR group had shorter median hospital stay (5 days vs. 9 days, p=0.00) but required longer operative time (326.0 minutes vs. 272.5 minutes, p=0.018) than the OH group. The 5-year overall survival was better in the LLR group (84.9% vs. 61.1%; p=0.036), though there was no significant difference in the 5-year disease free survival (20.0% vs. 22.2%, p=0.613). The rate of R0 resection was comparable between the 2 groups with a slightly better margin distance in the LLR (5 mm vs. 3 mm, p=0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible for cirrhotic patients with HCC size up to 7 cm. It has better short-term outcomes and comparable perioperative blood loss and complication rates. The resection margin is not jeopardized and the 5-year overall and disease-free survivals are comparable with the open group.

Robotic Versus Open Liver Resection in Hepatocarcinoma: Surgical and Oncological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches are spreading in every field of surgery, including liver surgery. However, studies comparing robotic hepatectomy with the conventional open approach regarding oncologic outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma are limited.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed demographics characteristics, pathologic features, surgical, and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent robotic and conventional open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

No significant differences in demographics features, tumor size, tumor location, and type of liver resection were found. The morbidity rate was similar, 23% for the open group versus 17% of the robotic group (P=0.605). Perioperative data analysis showed a greater estimated blood loss in patients who underwent open resection, if compared with robotic group (P=0.003). R0 resection and disease-free resection margins showed no statistically significant differences. The 3-year disease-free survival of the robotic group was comparable with that of the open group (54% vs. 37%; P=0.592), as was the 3-year overall survival (87% vs. 78%; P=0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical and the oncological outcomes seem to be comparable between minimally invasive and open hepatectomy. Robotic liver resections are effective, and do not compromise the oncological outcome, representing a reasonable alternative to the open approach.

Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: Do Not Underestimate the Impact of Specimen Extraction Site

BACKGROUND

In laparoscopic major hepatectomy, analysis of outcomes according to specimen extraction site remains poorly described. The aim was to compare postoperative outcomes according to specimen extraction site.

METHODS

From 2000 to 2017, all laparoscopic major hepatectomies were reviewed and postoperative outcomes were analyzed according to specimen extraction site: subcostal (Group 1), midline (Group 2), or suprapubic (Group 3) incision.

RESULTS

Among 163 patients, 15 (9.2%) belonged to Group 1, 49 (30.1%) in Group 2, and 99 (60.7%) in Group 3. The proportion of right-sided, left-sided, or central hepatectomies, mortality, and overall and severe complications were comparable between groups. Group 1 had larger tumors (61 vs. 38 vs. 47 mm; P = 0.014), higher operative time (338 vs. 282 vs. 260 min; P < 0.008), higher adjacent organ resection rate (46.6 vs. 16.3 vs. 7.1%; P < 0.001), and tended to increase pulmonary complications (40.0 vs. 12.2 vs. 18.2%; P = 0.064). In Group 2, a previous midline incision scar was more frequently used for specimen extraction site (65.3 vs. 26.6 and 30.3%, Group 1 and 3; P < 0.001). Postoperative incisional hernia was observed in 16.4% (n = 23) and was more frequent in Group 2 (26.6 vs. 6.6% and 10.1%, Group 1 and Group 3; P = 0.030). Finally, Group 2 (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.41-3.53; P = 0.032) was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative incisional hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

While using a previous incision makes sense, the increased risk of postoperative incisional hernia after midline incision promotes the suprapubic incision.

The Impact of Hospital Volume on Failure to Rescue after Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Analysis from the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Italian Registry

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate correlation between centers' volume and incidence of failure to rescue (FTR) following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

FTR, defined as the probability of postoperative death among patients with major complication, has been proposed to assess quality of care during hospitalization. Perioperative management is challenging in cirrhotic patients and the ability to recognize and treat a complication may be fundamental to rescue patients from the risk of death.

METHODS

Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC between 2008 and 2018 in 18 Centers enrolled in the He.Rc.O.Le.S. Italian register. Early results included major complications (Clavien ≥3), 90-day mortality, and FTR and were analyzed according to center's volume.

RESULTS

Among 1935 included patients, major complication rate was 9.4% (8.6%, 12.3%, and 7.0% for low-, intermediate- and high-volume centers, respectively, P = 0.001). Ninety-day mortality rate was 2.6% (3.7%, 4.2% and 0.9% for low-, intermediate- and high-volume centers, respectively, P < 0.001). FTR was significantly higher at low- and intermediate-volume centers (28.6% and 26.5%, respectively) than at high-volume centers (6.1%, P = 0.002). Independent predictors for major complications were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) >2, portal hypertension, intraoperative blood transfusions, and center's volume. Independent predictors for 90-day mortality were ASA >2, Child-Pugh score B, BCLC stage B-C, and center's volume. Center's volume and BCLC stage were strongly associated with FTR.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of major complications and mortality was related with comorbidities, cirrhosis severity, and complexity of surgery. These factors were not correlated with FTR. Center's volume was the only independent predictor related with severe complications, mortality, and FTR.

Anatomic Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Scenario of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To assess the impact of the laparoscopic anatomic resections (LARs) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, analyzing the pooled short- and long-term outcomes of this technique and comparing it with the standard open approach [open anatomic resections (OAR)]. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning LAR for HCC. Results: After screening 311 articles, 10 studies with a total of 398 patients who underwent LAR for HCC were included. The pooled cohort included mostly male (76.6%), Child A (98.2%), with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related disease (60.5%). The pooled conversion rate was 7.3%. The pooled overall complication rate was 10.2 with a mortality rate of 1.0%. In the pooled analyses of only comparative studies, LAR group included 378 versus 455 in OAR. Operative time was longer in the LAR group (329 minutes versus 248; P = .001). Blood loss (179 versus 331 mL; P = .018) was lower in the LAR group. The pooled mean length of hospital stay was 8.4 days in LARs and 11.3 in OARs (P = .002). The pooled rate of postoperative complications was higher in the OAR group (25.3 versus 13.8; P = .009), while mortality rates were similar. The LAR group had a pooled 3- and 5-year overall survival of 90.1 and 81.9 versus 83.5 and 80.7 of the OARs (P > .05), respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, the LAR for HCC is safe and associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Survival rates are comparable with those of the conventional open approach.

Short-term Outcomes of "Difficult" Laparoscopic Liver Resection at Specialized Centers: Report From INSTALL (International Survey on Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Liver Resection)-2 on 4478 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To define the current status of "difficult" LLR, a global database was created and investigated.

BACKGROUND

In the Second International Consensus Conference in 2014, minor LLR was considered as a standard practice and major LLR remained an innovative procedure. Since then, no updates on worldwide trends have been available.

METHODS

A questionnaire on all consecutive patients who underwent difficult LLR (major hepatectomy, posterosuperior segmentectomy, sectionectomy, living donor hepatectomy, tumor size ≥10 cm, Child-Pugh grade ≥B, combined with biliary reconstruction, and Iwate criteria difficulty score ≥7) in 2014-2018 was distributed via email to 65 high-volume LLR centers worldwide. Individual data on patient and tumor demographics, surgical information, and short-term outcomes were obtained to create a large-scale international registry for analyses.

RESULTS

Overall, 58 centers in 19 countries performed 4478 difficult LLR (median, 58.5; range, 5-418) during the study period. Hepatocellular carcinoma accounted for ≥40% of all indications. Half of the patients underwent major hepatectomy, followed by sectionectomy, posterosuperior segmentectomy, and living donor hepatectomy. In the vast majority of procedures, Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa complication rates of ≈10% and 90-day mortality rates of ≈1% were achieved. Left or right trisectionectomy had the worst Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa complication rate of ≥10% and 90-day mortality rate of 5%-10%. No significant correlation was observed between center volume and short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Total 4478 patients underwent difficult LLR worldwide in 2014-2018. Most procedures are safe and feasible when conducted in specialized centers.

Robotic Major Hepatectomy: Influence of Age on Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

This study was undertaken to determine if age influences postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy were prospectively followed. With regression analysis, demographic data and postoperative outcomes were compared to age. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Overall, the patients were of age 62 (61 ± 13) years, body mass index (BMI) of 29 (29 ± 5.9) kg/m², and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 3 (3 ± 0.5). The mass size was 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm. The operative duration was 252 (276 ± 106) minutes with an estimated blood loss (EBL) of 175 (249 ± 275.9) mL. One operation was converted to "open" due to bleeding, accounting for the only intraoperative complication. Nine patients required intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Postoperatively, 7 patients had complications with no in-hospital mortalities, and a length of stay (LOS) of 4 (5 ± 2.6) days. Thirteen patients were readmitted within 30 days with 0 deaths within 30 days.A significant relationship was found between age and ASA class (P = .001) and LOS (P = .03). No correlation was found when comparing age to operative duration, EBL, ICU admission, ICU duration, complications, and readmission within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

For patients undergoing robotic major hepatectomy, there was no significant correlation between age and perioperative outcomes, with the exception of LOS. Increasing age is not associated with increased morbidity or perioperative mortality. With the application of innovative technology, that is, the robotic approach, surgeons should be encouraged to undertake major hepatectomy in elderly patients deemed candidates for surgery.

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.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The short- and long-term prognoses are unclear following laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH vs. open major hepatectomy (OMH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

All studies comparing LMH with OMH for HCC published until April 2019 were identified independently by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We analyzed data for surgical and oncological outcomes, namely, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major complications, mortality, hospital stay, margin distance, negative margin rate, long-term overall survival, and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

We included 13 studies involving 1,225 patients with HCC (LMH: 534 patients; OMH: 691 patients) in the meta-analysis. Regarding short-term outcomes, the pooled data showed that LMH was associated with longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 72.14 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.07-101.21; P<0.00001], less blood loss (WMD: -102.32 mL; 95% CI: -150.99 to -53.64; P<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -3.77 d; 95% CI: -4.95 to -2.60; P<0.00001), lower morbidity [risk difference (RD): -0.01; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06; P<0.00001], and lower major complication rates (RD: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.05; P<0.00001). However, the need for blood transfusion (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.05; P=0.78), mortality (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.01; P=0.57), margin distance (WMD: 0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.1 to 0.19; P=0.52), and negative margin rate (RD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.05; P=0.65) were significantly comparable between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there was no difference in 3-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72-1.37; P=0.95], 3-year overall survival (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.70-2.21; P=0.45), 5-year DFS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64-1.38; P=0.76), and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45-1.99; P=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

LMH can be performed as safely as OMH in select patients and provides improved short-term surgical outcomes without affecting long-term survival. However, confirming our results requires more evidence from high-quality and prospective randomized controlled trials.

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.

Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Inconsistent Outcomes from Matched or Weighted Cohorts

BACKGROUND

The aim of the current study was to re-evaluate the role of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) among patients with early-stage (stage I or II) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing partial hepatectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) was conducted to identify patients with early-stage HCC who underwent partial hepatectomy in the USA from 2010 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was compared in three cohorts: crude; stabilized inverse probability of treatment propensity score weighting (IPTW); and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Among 4027 patients included in the study, only 11.7%, (n = 473) underwent MILR. In the stabilized IPTW cohort, patients who underwent MILR versus open resection were more likely to have tumors greater than 3 cm (63.9%, n = 285 vs. 51.4%, n = 228, p < 0.001) and poorly/undifferentiated tumors (21.5%, n = 96 vs. 12.9%, n = 57, p < 0.001). Within the crude cohort, a 5-year OS was superior among patients in the open surgical group (67.8%) compared with patients who underwent MILR (56.6%) (p < 0.001). After classic PSM analysis, the 5-year OS of patients undergoing MILR and open surgery were noted to be comparable (57.3% vs 63.8%, p = 0.17; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.92-1.45). In contrast, after applying IPTW, the 5-year OS of patients who underwent MILR (55.5%) was worse compared with patients who had an open resection (67.5%) (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15-1.84; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing MILR were comparable with patients who had open surgery when assessed by standard PSM. The use of IPTW resulted in more unbalanced groups leading to residual confounding and bias.

Clinical outcome of open surgery versus laparoscopic surgery for cirrhotic hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Open surgery remains the major approach to treat hepatocellular carcinoma, and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection has been recommended as a superior treatment. However, the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for cirrhotic patients is under debate. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for eligible literature updated on November 2018. After rigorous review of quality, the data were extracted from eligible trials. All the data were pooled with the corresponding 95% confidence interval using RevMan software. Sensitivity analyses and heterogeneity were quantitatively evaluated.

RESULTS

Fourteen trials met the inclusion criteria. According to the pooled result of surgery duration, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly shorter hospital stay [STD mean difference (SMD) = -0.61, 95% confidence interval -0.89 to -0.32; P < 0.0001], lower intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.56, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.12; P = 0.01), fewer complications (odds ratio = 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.52; P < 0.00001) and lower transfusion rate (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.36-0.93; P = 0.02). Nevertheless, there was no remarkable difference in operative time (SMD = 0.17, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.59; P = 0.42) between the two groups. The pooled analysis of overall survival showed that laparoscopic surgery did not achieve benefit compared with open surgery (P = 0.02). Moreover, the pooled results of three subgroups indicated that laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly better disease-free survival (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The current analysis indicates that laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma improved intraoperative and disease-free survival, with similar overall survival compared to the open procedure. Laparoscopic surgery may serve as a safe and feasible alternative for selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis.

Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers

INTRODUCTION

A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies.

METHODS

Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses).

RESULTS

Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated.

Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies

Background

The application of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has expanded rapidly in recent decades. Although multiple authors have reported LLR shows improved safety and efficacy in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic (LMLR) and open (OMLR) major liver resections for HCC treatment remain inadequately evaluated. This work aimed to test the hypothesis that LMLR is safer and more effective than OMLR for HCC.

Methods

Comparative cohort and registry studies on LMLR and OMLR, searched in PubMed, the Science Citation Index, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and published before March 31, 2018, were collected systematically and meta-analyzed. Fixed- and random-effects models were employed for generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q-statistic.

Results

Nine studies (1173 patients) were included. Although the pooled data showed operation time was markedly increased for LMLR in comparison with OMLR (weighted mean difference [WMD] 74.1, 95% CI 35.1 to 113.1, P = 0.0002), blood loss was reduced (WMD = − 107.4, 95% CI − 179.0 to − 35.7, P = 0.003), postoperative morbidity was lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, P <  0.0001), and hospital stay was shorter (WMD = − 3.27, 95% CI − 4.72 to − 1.81, P <  0.0001) in the LMLR group. Although 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was increased in patients administered LMLR (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.31, P = 0.03), other 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival outcomes (overall survival [OS] and/or DFS) were comparable in both groups.

Conclusions

Compared with OMLR, LMLR has short-term clinical advantages, including reduced blood loss, lower postsurgical morbidity, and shorter hospital stay in HCC, despite its longer operative time. Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable in both groups.

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.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted/Hybrid Major Hepatectomy at Two Western Centers

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is expanding, but little data exist comparing surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLAP) has advantages over hand-assisted (HALS) or hybrid (HYB) resection for major hemi-hepatectomy at two western centers.

METHODS

Using propensity score matching, 65 cases of HALS + HYB (18 hand-assisted and 47 hybrid) were matched to 65 cases of PLAP. Baseline characteristics were well matched for gender, age, ASA score, Childs A cirrhosis, right/left hepatectomy, malignancy, tumor size, and type between the groups.

RESULTS

The HALS + HYB group had 27 right and 38 left major hepatectomies (n = 65) versus 29 right and 36 left (n = 65) in the PLAP group (p = NS). The median number of lesions resected was 1 in each group, with median size 5.6 cm (HALS + HYB) versus 6.0 cm (PLAP), (p = NS). The HALS + HYB group had shorter OR time (240 versus 330 min, p < 0.01), and less blood loss (EBL 150 ml vs. 300 ml, p < 0.01) versus the PLAP group, respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days with HALS + HYB versus 5 days in the PLAP group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in use of the Pringle maneuver, transfusion rate, ICU stay, post-op morbidity, liver-specific complications, or R0 resection. Pain regimen/usage in each group is provided. There were no 30/90-day deaths in either group.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported series of propensity score matching of HALS + HYB versus PLAP for major hepatectomy. The HALS + HYB group had non-inferior OR time, blood loss, and LOS versus the PLAP group, while the other perioperative parameters were comparable. We conclude that minimally invasive liver resection with either PLAP or HALS + HYB technique yields excellent results.

Preoperative Prognosticators of Safe Laparoscopic Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection in Advanced Cirrhosis: a Propensity Score Matching Population-Based Analysis of 1799 Western Patients

BACKGROUND

The safety and oncologic outcomes of patients with advanced cirrhosis undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared to open resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain unclear.

METHODS

Patients with HCC resection during 2010-2014 were identified from the National Cancer Database. Patients with severe fibrosis; single lesions; M0; and known grade, margin status, tumor size, length of hospital stay, 30- and 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, surgical approach, and complete follow-up were included. A 1:1 propensity score matching analysis of LLR:OLR was performed. Prognostic effect of LLR was assessed by multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 1799 hepatectomy patients (minor (n = 491, 27.3%); major (n = 1308, 72.7%)) were included. Of 193 (10.7%) LLR patients, 190 were eligible for matching. The LLR vs OLR did not differ for patient characteristics, resection margin status, and 30-day (p = 0.141), 90-day mortality (p = 0.121), or 30-day readmission (p = 0.784). Median hospital stay was shorter for LLR (6 vs 8 days, p = 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was similar for LLR vs OLR (44.2 and 39.5 months, respectively, p = 0.064). Predictors of worse OS were older age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, p = 0.034), > 2 comorbidities (HR 1.29, p = 0.012), grade 3-4 disease (HR 1.81, p = 0.025), N1 disease (HR 1.04, p = 0.048), and R1 margins (HR 1.34, p = 0.002). After adjustment for confounders, LLR vs OLR was not a significant risk factor for OS (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76-1.71, p = 0.522).

CONCLUSION

While LLR in advanced cirrhosis for patients with HCC proved safe, optimal patient selection based on the preoperatively available factors comorbidities, age, degree of underlying liver disease, and high-quality oncologic surgery will determine long-term survival.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Open Major Hepatectomy Using CUSA and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy Using "Lotus" Liver Blade. A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Introduction: Evolution in laparoscopic liver surgery during the past two decades is an indisputable fact. According to the second international consensus conference for laparoscopic liver resection held in Morioka, Japan in 2014 major resections are still regarded as innovative procedures in the exploration phase. On this basis, our study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs. open major liver resection and therefore increase the existing evidence on major laparoscopic liver surgery. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent major liver resection, open and laparoscopic from January 2016 to May 2018 were identified from our prospectively maintained database. Propensity score matching analysis was performed using R statistical tool in SPSS to isolate matched open and laparoscopic cases which were compared for intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes. Lotus ultrasonic energy device was used for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic cases vs. CUSA in open procedures. Results: Propensity score matching analysis was performed on 82 consecutive patients (61 open and 21 laparoscopic major hepatectomies) resulting in 40 matched patients, 20 in each group. The mean total duration of surgery and duration of parenchymal transection were slightly longer in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.419, p = 0.348). There was no difference in the intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates. Patients after laparoscopic surgery were discharged 2 days earlier on average (p = 0.310). No difference was observed in complication rates and mortality. Conclusion: Our data did not reveal inferiority of the laparoscopic major hepatectomy vs. the open approach in any parameter compared. The use of the Lotus ultrasonic energy device appeared to be efficient and safe for parenchymal transection in the laparoscopic procedures.