Validation of difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection in patients who underwent laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

Development of a novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection procedure in patients with intrahepatic duct stones

BACKGROUND

For intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is currently a reliable treatment. However, the current LLR difficulty scoring system (DSS) is only available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM

To explore the development of a DSS for IHD stone patients with LLR and the validation of its reliability.

METHODS

We used clinical data from 80 patients who received LLR for IHD stones. Forty-six of these patients were used in multiple linear regression to construct a scoring system. Another 34 patients from different centers were used as external validation. The completeness of our DSS was then evaluated in patients with varying degrees of surgical difficulty based on documented surgical outcomes in the study group of patients.

RESULTS

The following five predictors were ultimately included and scored by calculating the weighted contribution of each factor to the prediction of operative time in the training cohort: Location of stones, number of stones ≥ 3, stones located in the bile ducts of several grades, previous biliary surgery less than twice, distal bile duct atrophy. Subsequently, the data set was validated using a DSS developed from the variables. The following variables were identified as statistically significant in external validation: Operative time, blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, postoperative alanine aminotransferase, and Clavien-Dindo grading ≥ 3. These variables demonstrated statistically significant differences in patients with three or more grades.

CONCLUSION

Patients with IHD stones have varying degrees of surgical difficulty, and the newly developed DSS can be validated with external data to effectively predict risks and complications after LLR surgery.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH with open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1 day. A sample size of 86 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1-day reduction in LOS [90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)]. The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short- and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programmes. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Nomogram predicting surgical risk of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the surgical risk factors of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis and establish and validate a nomogram to estimate the corresponding surgical risks.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy were retrospectively enrolled. Demographic data, clinicopathological parameters, and surgical factors were collected. Three hundred fifty-three patients were enrolled and randomly divided into training set (n=267) and validation set (n=86) by 3:1. Conversion to laparotomy was used as a surrogate index to evaluate the surgical risk. Univariate analysis was used to screen potential surgical risk factors, and multivariate analysis using logistic regression model was used to screen independent surgical risk factors. Nomogram predicting the surgical risks was established based on the independent risk factors. Discrimination, calibration, decision curve, and clinical impact analyses were used to evaluate the performance of the nomogram on the statistical and clinical aspects both in the training and validation sets.

RESULTS

Five independent surgical risk factors were identified in the training set, including recurrent abdominal pain, bile duct stricture, ASA classification ≥2, extent of liver resection, and biliary tract T tube drainage. No collinearity was found among these five factors, and a nomogram was established. Performance analyses of the nomogram showed good discrimination (AUC=0.850 and 0.817) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p=0.530 and 0.930) capabilities both in the training and validation sets. Decision curve and clinical impact analyses also showed that the prediction performance was clinically valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

A nomogram was established and validated to be effective in evaluating and predicting the surgical risk of patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomies for hepatolithiasis.

Development and Validation of a Difficulty Scoring System for Laparoscopic Liver Resection to Treat Hepatolithiasis

Background and Objectives: A difficulty scoring system was previously developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver tumors; however, we need another system for hepatolithiasis. Therefore, we developed a novel difficulty scoring system (nDSS) and validated its use for predicting postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study. We used clinical data of 123 patients who underwent LLR for hepatolithiasis between 2003 and 2021. We analyzed the data to determine which indices were associated with operation time or estimated blood loss (EBL) to measure the surgical difficulty. We validated the nDSS in terms of its ability to predict postoperative outcomes, namely red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, postoperative hospital stay (POHS), and major complications defined as grade ≥IIIa according to the Clavien−Dindo classification (CDC). Results: The nDSS included five significant indices (range: 5−17; median: 8). The RBC transfusion rate (p < 0.001), POHS (p = 0.002), and major complication rate (p = 0.002) increased with increasing nDSS score. We compared the two groups of patients divided by the median nDSS (low: 5−7; high: 8−17). The operation time (210.7 vs. 240.7 min; p < 0.001), EBL (281.9 vs. 702.6 mL; p < 0.001), RBC transfusion rate (5.3% vs. 37.9%; p < 0.001), POHS (8.0 vs. 13.3 days; p = 0.001), and major complication rate (8.8% vs. 25.8%; p = 0.014) were greater in the high group. Conclusions: The nDSS can predict the surgical difficulty and outcomes of LLR for hepatolithiasis and may help select candidates for the procedure and surgical approach.

A machine learning analysis of difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver surgery

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, several difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been proposed to predict technical difficulty in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The present study aimed to investigate the ability of four DSS for LLR to predict operative, short-term, and textbook outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at a single tertiary referral center from January 2014 to June 2020 were included in the present study. Four DSS for LLR (Halls, Hasegawa, Kawaguchi, and Iwate) were investigated to test their ability to predict operative and postoperative complications. Machine learning algorithms were used to identify the most important DSS associated with operative and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 346 patients were included in the analysis, 28 (8.1%) patients were converted to open surgery. A total of 13 patients (3.7%) had severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) complications; the incidence of prolonged length of stay (> 5 days) was 39.3% (n = 136). No patients died within 90 days after the surgery. According to Halls, Hasegawa, Kawaguchi, and Iwate scores, 65 (18.8%), 59 (17.1%), 57 (16.5%), and 112 (32.4%) patients underwent high difficulty LLR, respectively. In accordance with a random forest algorithm, the Kawaguchi DSS predicted prolonged length of stay, high blood loss, and conversions and was the best performing DSS in predicting postoperative outcomes. Iwate DSS was the most important variable associated with operative time, while Halls score was the most important DSS predicting textbook outcomes. No one of the DSS investigated was associated with the occurrence of complication.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results DDS are significantly related to surgical complexity and short-term outcomes, Kawaguchi and Iwate DSS showed the best performance in predicting operative outcomes, while Halls score was the most important variable in predicting textbook outcome. Interestingly, none of the DSS showed any correlation with or importance in predicting overall and severe postoperative complications.

Achievement of textbook outcomes and comparisons with benchmark values after laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) is considered a standard approach for patients. Textbook outcomes (TOs) with benchmark values have been developed to help centers assess their outcomes of LLLS. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with achieving TOs after LLLS. This is a retrospective cohort study including 195 patients undergoing LLLS between January 2004 and December 2018. Our outcomes were compared to benchmark values and graded as similar, better, or worse. A TO was achieved in 106 patients (54.4%). The main determinant for achieving a TO was prolonged hospital stay. Year of surgery [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.913, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.666-9.188], American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.015; OR 0.104, 95% CI 0.017-0.650), body mass index (BMI) score (P = 0.075; OR 1.135, 95% CI 0.988-1.304), inflow clamping > 40 min (P = 0.037; OR 0.090, 95% CI 0.009-0.867) and operation time (P = 0.002; OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.985-0.997) were the factors associated with achieving a TO. Our outcomes were similar to the benchmark values for all criteria, except for the transfusion rate (our study vs benchmark values; 6.2% vs 3.8%), which was worse in our patients. We achieved better outcomes with a lower conversion rate (4.6% vs 7.2%), fewer patients requiring massive transfusion (4.1% vs 8.3%), lower rate of prolonged inflow clamping (3.9% vs 6.3%), lower overall complication rate (11.9% vs 19.8%), lower reoperation rate (0% vs 3.4%), and fewer patients with a positive margin (1.5% vs 10.8%). Year of surgery, ASA score, inflow clamping > 40 min and operation time were independently associated with failure to achieve a TO. TOs are useful tools to measure the surgical outcomes and compare surgical performance with benchmark values. TOs also offer a new method to retrospectively compare outcomes.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

Evaluation of the Iwate Model for Predicting the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Does Tumor Size Matter?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to externally validate the Iwate scoring model and its prognostic value for predicting the risks of intra- and postoperative complications of laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection between 2008 and 2019 at a single tertiary center were included. The Iwate scores were calculated according to the original proposition (four difficulty levels based on six indices). Intra- and postoperative complications were compared across difficulty levels. Fitting the obtained data to the cumulative density function of the Weibull distribution and a linear function provided the mean risk curves for intra- and postoperative complications, respectively.

RESULTS

The difficulty levels of 142 laparoscopic liver resections were scored as low, intermediate, advanced, and expert level in 41 (28.9%), 53 (37.3%), 32 (22.5%), and 16 (11.3%) patients, respectively. Intraoperative complications were detected in 26 (18.3%) patients and its rates (2.4%, 7.5%, 34.3%, and 62.5%) increased gradually with statistically significant values among difficulty levels (P ˂ 0.001). Major postoperative complications occurred in 21 (14.8%) patients and its rates (4.8%, 5.6%, 28.1%, 43.7%; P ˂ 0.001) showed the same trend as for intraoperative complications. Then, the mean risk curves of both complications were obtained. Due to outliers, a new threshold for a tumor size index was proposed at 38 mm. The repeated analysis showed improved results.

CONCLUSIONS

The Iwate scoring model predicts the probability of complications across difficulty levels. Our proposed tumor size threshold (38 mm) improves the quality of the prediction. The model is upgraded by a probability of complications for every difficulty score.

Comparison and validation of three difficulty scoring systems in laparoscopic liver surgery: a retrospective analysis on 300 cases

BACKGROUND

Difficulty scores (DSs) have been proposed to rate laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) technical difficulty increasing surgical safety. The aim of the study was to validate three DSs (Hasegawa, Halls and Kawaguchi) and compare their ability to predict technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent LLR from January 2006 to January 2019 were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were cyst fenestrations, thermal ablation, missing data for the computation of the DS and a follow-up < 90 days.

RESULTS

The population comprised 300 patients. The DS distribution in the study population was: Halls low 55 (18.3%), moderate 82 (27.3%), high 111 (37%) and extremely high 52 (17.3%); Hasegawa low 130 (43.3%), medium 105 (35%) and high 65 (21.7%); Kawaguchi Grade I 194 (64.7%), Grade II 47 (15.7%) and Grade III 59 (19.7%). Hasegawa and Kawaguchi showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.798, p < 0.001). Technical complexity, evaluated using the Pringle maneuver, Pringle time, blood loss and operative time, increased significantly with Hasegawa and Kawaguchi score classes (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). None of the scores properly stratified postoperative complications. The highest Kawaguchi (23.7% grade III vs. 13.7% grades I and II, p = 0.057) and Hasegawa (24.6% high vs. 13.2% low/medium, p = 0.025) classes had a higher overall morbidity rate than medium-low ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Kawaguchi and Hasegawa scores predicted LLR's technical difficulty. None of the scores discriminated the postoperative complication risk of low classes compared with medium ones.

When should we choose a laparoscopic approach? A high-volume center recommendation score

Laparoscopic liver resection is a demanding procedure that is undergoing continuous development. The surgeon's skill is constantly improving, new surgical instruments are being introduced, and the indications for this procedure are expanding. However, there is still great concern about patient safety during the procedure and it is not commonly performed in many centers, although numerous studies have confirmed the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver techniques. Our center tries to use laparoscopy routinely for most cases and we do not consider conversion to open surgery to be a complication. We present our current opinion on patient selection for laparoscopic liver resection in the hope of encouraging more centers to adopt and develop this technique. Although laparoscopic liver resection is not an official standard of care, it should be considered according to the surgeon's experience and available resources.

Validation of a difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection in hepatolithiasis

BACKGROUND

A difficulty scoring system (DSS) based on the extent of liver resection, tumor location, liver function, tumor size, and tumor proximity to major vessels was previously developed to assess the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Recently, we proposed a modified DSS for patients who undergo LLR for intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones. In this study, we validated the modified DSS for LLR for IHD stones.

METHODS

We reviewed the clinical data of 121 patients who underwent LLR for IHD stones between July 2003 and November 2015 and validated the modified DSS in patients who underwent LLR according to their surgical outcomes. We divided the patients into subgroups according to their scores and compared the surgical outcomes, including hospital stay, operation time, blood loss, transfusion rate, and the postoperative complication rate and grade, among the subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

The DSS score ranged from 3 to 12 in LLR for IHD stones. The operation time (P < 0.001) significantly increased according to the DSS score. The median hospital stay after surgery (P = 0.024) and transfusion rate (P = 0.001) were significantly different among subgroups of patients divided by their difficulty scores. When we divided the patients into two groups based on the side of liver of resected, the operation time (P < 0.001), mean difficulty score (P < 0.001), and blood loss (P = 0.041) were greater in patients who underwent right liver resection.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical difficulty varies among patients undergoing the same LLR procedure for IHD stones. The modified DSS for IHD stones can effectively predict the surgery outcomes and complications of LLR.

The external validation of a difficulty scoring system for predicting the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to externally validate and upgrade the recent difficulty scoring system (DSS) proposed by Halls et al. to predict intraoperative complications (IOC) during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

The DSS was validated in a cohort of 128 consecutive patients undergoing pure LLRs between 2008 and 2019 at a single tertiary referral center. The validated DSS includes four difficulty levels based on five risk factors (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, previous open liver resection, lesion type, lesion size and classification of resection). As established by the validated DSS, IOC was defined as excessive blood loss (> 775 mL), conversion to an open approach and unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Additionally, intra- and postoperative outcomes were compared according to the difficulty levels with usual statistic methods. The same five risk factors were used for validation done by linear and advanced nonlinear (artificial neural network) models. The study was supported by mathematical computations to obtain a mean risk curve predicting the probability of IOC for every difficulty score.

RESULTS

The difficulty level of LLR was rated as low, moderate, high and extremely high in 36 (28.1%), 63 (49.2%), 27 (21.1%) and 2 (1.6%) patients, respectively. IOC was present in 23 (17.9%) patients. Blood loss of >775 mL occurred in 8 (6.2%) patients. Conversion to open approach was required in 18 (14.0%) patients. No patients suffered from unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Rates of IOC (0, 9.5, 55.5 and 100%) increased gradually with statistically significant value among difficulty levels (P < 0.001). The relations between the difficulty level, need for transfusion, operative time, hepatic pedicle clamping, and major postoperative morbidity were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Linear and nonlinear validation models showed a strong correlation (correlation coefficients 0.914 and 0.948, respectively) with the validated DSS. The Weibull cumulative distribution function was used for predicting the mean risk probability curve of IOC.

CONCLUSION

This external validation proved this DSS based on patient's, tumor and surgical factors enables us to estimate the risk of intra- and postoperative complications. A surgeon should be aware of an increased risk of complications before starting with more complex procedures.

Novel patient risk factors and validation of a difficulty scoring system in laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

The indications for laparoscopic liver resection have expanded; however, the safety and benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) remain unclear. We retrospectively reviewed data from 137 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy without thoracotomy. We compared patients’ clinical factors using a difficulty scoring system for LRH. We defined factors associated with blood loss volumes in the 75th percentile or above as risk factors for bleeding in open repeat hepatectomy, and determined whether these factors were useful for LRH risk assessment. Open repeat hepatectomy and LRH was performed in 96 and 41 patients, respectively. Four of 41 (9.8%) patients undergoing LRH were converted to laparotomy. Blood loss volume was significantly greater in the intermediate-risk group than in the low-risk group (P = 0.046). Multivariate analysis revealed that the presence of tumours located adjacent and caudal or dorsal to the primary tumour site was an independent risk factor for bleeding in LRH (odds ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.16–8.88, P = 0.024). Our study validated the usefulness of a difficulty scoring system, identified patient factors that predicted the difficulty of LRH, and presented a novel difficulty scoring system for LRH based on an existing difficulty scoring system.

Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system

BACKGROUND

The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.

METHODS

Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.

RESULTS

A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1-3) and intermediate (DSS 4-6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.

CONCLUSIONS

DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study

OBJECTIVE(S)

The technical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) poses unique challenges distinct from open surgery. An objective scoring system was developed that preoperatively quantifies the difficulty of LRR to help guide surgeon decision-making regarding the feasibility and safety of minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this multiinstitutional study was to externally validate this scoring system.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at two institutions were reviewed. LLR difficulty score (LDS) was calculated based on patient, tumor, and anatomic characteristics by two independent, blinded hepatobiliary surgeons. Surrogates of case complexity (e.g., conversion rate, operative time) were used for validation of this index.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2016, 444 LLR were scored as low (n = 94), intermediate (n = 98), and high difficulty (n = 152) with respective conversion rates of 5.3%, 15.7%, and 25%. Cases of higher LDS correlated with larger mean blood loss (203 ml vs. 331 ml vs. 635 ml). Mean operative and Pringle maneuver used were associated with increasing LDS (155 min vs. 202 min vs. 315 min and 14.4% vs. 29.7% vs. 45.1% respectively). These operative surrogates of difficulty correlated significantly with the LDS (all p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive external validation of the LDS is robust and applicable in diverse patient populations. This LDS serves as a useful objective predictor of technical difficulty for LLR to help surgeons in selecting patients according to their individual operative experience and is valuable for preoperative risk estimation and stratification in randomized trials.

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.

[Early outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection]

AIM

To assess an experience of robot-assisted liver resection using CUSUM-test.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The results of 46 robot-assisted liver resections were retrospectively analyzed by using of CUSUM-test.

RESULTS

There were 3 periods in development of the technology. The 1st period - procedures with the lowest index of difficulty (n=16), the 2nd period - expansion of the indications for difficult resections (n=18) and the 3rd period - stabilization of the results (n=12). The dynamics of difficulty index, intraoperative blood loss, duration of procedure and morbidity (Clavien-Dindo Grade II-V) were evaluated. Five liver resections were needed to decrease blood loss and duration of the procedure. Expansion of indications was feasible after 16 procedures. Stable results were obtained after 34 liver resections.

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.