Meta-analysis of short- and long-term outcomes after pure laparoscopic versus open liver surgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Surgical margin status outcome of intraoperative indocyanine green fluorescence-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy in liver malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy stands as a curative management for liver cancer. The critical factor for minimizing recurrence rate and enhancing overall survival of liver malignancy is to attain a negative margin hepatic resection. Recently, Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has been proven implemental in aiding laparoscopic liver resection, enabling real-time tumor identification and precise liver segmentation. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain whether ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy yields a higher incidence of complete tumor eradication (R0) resections.

METHODS

The search encompassed databases such as PubMed, Cochrane Library database, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Ovid in April 2024, in strict adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies involving patients with malignant liver lesions who underwent ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy and reported R0 resection outcomes were eligible for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

In a total of seven studies, involving 598 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. The ICG demonstrated a significantly elevated R0 resection rate compared to the non-ICG group [98.6% (359/364) vs. 93.1% (339/364), odds ratio (OR) = 3.76, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.45-9.51, P = 0.005]. Notably, no heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 0%, P = 0.5). However, the subtype analysis focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma [98.2% (165/168) vs. 93.6% (161/172), OR = 3.34, 95% CI 0.94-11.91, P = 0.06) and the evaluation of margin distance (4.96 ± 2.41 vs. 2.79 ± 1.92 millimeters, weighted mean difference = 1.26, 95% CI -1.8-4.32, P = 0.42) revealed no apparent differences. Additionally, the incidence of overall postoperative complications was comparable between both groups, 27.6% (66/239) in the ICG group and 25.4% (75/295) in the non-ICG group (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.53-1.76, P = 0.9). No disparities were identified in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion, and length of hospital stay after the surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of ICG-guided laparoscopic hepatectomy can be undertaken with confidence, as it does not compromise either intraoperative or postoperative events. Furthermore, the ICG-guided approach is beneficial to achieving a complete eradication of the tumor during hepatic resection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42023446440.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for multiple hepatocellular carcinoma within and beyond the Milan criteria: An Eastern-Western propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

There is still little knowledge about the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for multiple hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long- term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with multiple HCC within and beyond the Milan criteria, and in both BCLC-A and -B stage.

METHODS

Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for multiple HCC were retrospectively collected from Asian (South Korean) and European (Italian) referral HPB centers. The cases were propensity-score matched for age, BMI, center, extent of the resection, postero-superior location of the lesion, underlying liver condition, BCLB staging and the Milan criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 203 patients were included in the study: 27% of patients had undergone hemi-hepatectomy, 26.6% atypical resections, 20.6% sectionectomy and 16.2% segmentectomy. After PSM two cohorts of 57 patients were obtained, with no significant differences in all preoperative characteristics. The length of hospital stay was significantly lower after LLR (median 7 vs. 9 days, p < .01), with no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 61 (±7) months, there were no significant differences between OLR and LLR in both median OS (69 vs. 59 months, p = .74, respectively) and median DFS (12 vs. 10 months, p = .48, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LLR for multiple HCC can be safe and effective in selected cases and is able to shorten median hospital stay without affecting perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes.

Current Trends in Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Surgical management, including hepatic resection, liver transplantation, and ablation, offers the greatest potential for a curative approach. This review aims to discuss recent advancements in HCC surgery and identify unresolved issues in the field. Treatment selection relies on the BCLC staging system, with surgical therapies primarily recommended for early-stage disease. Recent studies have shown that patients previously considered unresectable, such as those with portal vein tumor thrombus and uncomplicated portal hypertension, may benefit from hepatic resection. Minimally invasive surgery and improved visualization techniques are also explored, alongside new techniques for optimizing future liver remnant, ex vivo resection, and advancements in hemorrhage control. Liver transplantation criteria, particularly the long-standing Milan criteria, are critically examined. Alternative criteria proposed and tested in specific regions are presented. In the context of organ shortage, bridging therapy plays a critical role in preventing tumor progression and maintaining patients eligible for transplantation. Lastly, we explore emerging ablation modalities, comparing them with the current standard, radiofrequency ablation. In conclusion, this comprehensive review provides insights into recent trends and future prospects in the surgical management of HCC, highlighting areas that require further investigation.

Management of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: challenges and strategies for optimal outcomes

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is associated with a poor prognosis, management of early-stage HCC is often successful with highly efficacious treatment modalities such as liver transplantation, surgical resection, and radiofrequency ablation. However, unfavorable clinical outcomes have been observed under certain circumstances, even after efficient treatment. Factors that predict unsuitable results after treatment include tumor markers, inflammatory markers, imaging findings reflecting tumor biology, specific outcome indicators for each treatment modality, liver functional reserve, and the technical feasibility of the treatment modalities. Various strategies may overcome these challenges, including the application of reinforced treatment indication criteria with predictive markers reflecting tumor biology, compensation for technical issues with up-to-date technologies, modification of treatment modalities, downstaging with locoregional therapies (such as transarterial chemotherapy or radiotherapy), and recently introduced combination immunotherapies. In this review, we discuss the challenges to achieving optimal outcomes in the management of early-stage HCC and suggest strategies to overcome these obstacles.

Breakthroughs in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapies

Several breakthroughs in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapy across tumor stages provide hope to improve its dismal prognosis. Although surgical and local ablative therapies have few significant changes in technique, an improved understanding of tumor biology has facilitated increase numbers of patients who are now eligible to undergo curative-intent procedures. Most notably, acceptable post-transplant outcomes can be achieved in well selected patients whose tumors are downstaged into Milan Criteria. Adjuvant therapy in patients at high risk of recurrence also significantly improves recurrence-free survival after resection or ablation. For patients with liver-localized disease who are not eligible for curative-intent procedures, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was historically the treatment modality of choice, regardless of tumor burden; however, there is now increased recognition of patients who are "TACE unsuitable" and may be better treated with systemic therapy. The greatest evolution in HCC treatment options has occurred with systemic therapy, where several new agents are now available in the first- and second-line setting, including immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations. Objective responses are observed in approximately 30% of patients and median survival is approaching 2 years. The availability of immune checkpoint inhibitors has renewed interest in combination therapies for earlier tumor stages, with several phase III trials ongoing. Considering increasing complexities of HCC care, requiring decisions between therapies delivered by different providers, multidisciplinary care is critical and is associated with improved clinical outcomes. In this review, we detail major breakthroughs in HCC therapy, how these breakthroughs can be applied in clinical practice, and remaining areas in need of further research.

Short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This multicenter study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic (LRLR) versus open repeat liver resection (ORLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using propensity score matching (PSM). Despite the expanding indications for laparoscopic liver resection, limited data regarding the outcomes of LRLR have previously been reported.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent repeat liver resection for recurrent HCC. Patients were divided into the LRLR and ORLR groups, and their short- and long-term outcomes were compared via PSM.

RESULTS

There were 256 and 130 patients in the ORLR and LRLR groups, respectively. After PSM, 64 patients were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (56 vs 208 ml, P < .001). Postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo IIIa or more were significantly less in LRLR than in ORLR (3.1% vs 15.6%, P = .030). The length of hospital stay was notably shorter in LRLR than in ORLR (9 vs 12 days, P < .001). Survival rates after repeat liver resection at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, were comparable at 93.4%, 81.9%, and 63.5% for ORLR and at 94.8%, 80.7%, and 67.3% for LRLR (P = .623). Subgroup analysis of patients who underwent wedge resection in repeat liver resection revealed that the postoperative complication rate was notably lower in LRLR than in ORLR (7.2% vs 21.8%, P = .030).

CONCLUSION

LRLR for recurrent HCC is a viable option due to its better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes compared to ORLR.

An integrated strategy for deciding open versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for resectable primary liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely performed in treating primary liver cancer (PLC) and yields equal long-term and superior short-term outcomes to those of open liver resection (OLR). The optimal surgical approach for resectable PLC (rPLC) remains controversial. Herein, we aimed to develop a nomogram to determine the most appropriate resection approach for the individual patient.

METHODS

Patients with rPLC who underwent hepatectomy from January 2013 to December 2018 were reviewed. Prediction model for risky surgery during LLR was constructed.

RESULTS

A total of 900 patients in the LLR cohort and 423 patients in the OLR cohort were included. A history of previous antitumor treatment, tumor diameter, tumor location and resection extent were independently associated with risky surgery of LLR. The nomogram which was constructed based on these risk factors demonstrated good accuracy in predicting risky surgery with a C index of 0.83 in the development cohort and of 0.76 in the validation cohort. Patients were stratified into high-, medium- or low-risk levels for receiving LLR if the calculated score was more than 0.8, between 0.2 and 0.8 or less than 0.2, respectively. High-risk patients who underwent LLR had more blood loss (441 ml to 417 ml) and a longer surgery time (183 min to 150 min) than those who received OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients classified into the high-risk level for LLR instead undergo OLR to reduce surgical risks and complications and patients classified into the low-risk level undergo LLR to maximize the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100049446).

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Transition from laparoscopic to robotic liver surgery: clinical outcomes, learning curve effect, and cost-effectiveness

The reproducibility of the implementation of robotic liver surgery (RLS) is still debated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate short-term outcomes and cost differences during the implementation of RLS, performed by an early adopter in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). Patients undergoing RLS between February 2020 and May 2021 were included. Short-term outcomes of the robotic group (RG) were compared to the "Initial Phase" group (IP) of 120 LLS cases and the 120 most recent laparoscopic cases or "Mastery Phase" group (MP). A cost analysis per procedure for the three groups was performed. Seventy-one patients underwent RLS during the study period. Median operative time in the RG was comparable to the IP, but significantly shorter in the MP (140 vs 138 vs 120 min, p < 0.001). Median intraoperative blood loss in the RG was lower than in both laparoscopic groups (40 ml [20-90 ml] vs 150 ml [50-250 ml] vs 80 ml [30-150 ml], p < 0.001). Median hospital stay in the RG was significantly shorter than the IP group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complication, conversion, or readmission rates. Procedural cost analysis was in favor of robotic surgery (€5008) compared to the IP (€ 6913) and the MP (€6099). Surgeons with sufficient experience in LLS can rapidly overcome the learning curve for RLS. In our experience, the short-term outcomes of the implementation phase of RLS are similar to the mastery phase of LLS. The total average cost per procedure is lower for RLS compared to LLS.

Surgical Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Left Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Propensity Score Analyses Using Retrospective Japanese and Korean Individual Patient Data

Introduction

This study aimed to compare the prognostic impact of laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) with that of open left hepatectomy (OLH) on patient survival after resection of left hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Among the 953 patients who received initial treatment for primary HCC that was resectable by either LLH or OLH from 2013 to 2017 in Japan and Korea, 146 patients underwent LLH and 807 underwent OLH. The inverse probability of treatment weighting approach based on propensity scoring was used to address the potential selection bias inherent in the recurrence and survival outcomes between the LLH and OLH groups.

Results

The occurrence rate of postoperative complications and hepatic decompensation was significantly lower in the LLH group than in the OLH group. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was better in the LLH group than in the OLH group (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.71; p = 0.029), whereas overall survival (OS) was not significantly different. Subgroup analyses of RFS and OS revealed an almost consistent trend in favor of LLH over OLH. In patients with tumor sizes of ≥4.0 cm or those with single tumors, both RFS and OS were significantly better in the LLH group than in the OLH group.

Conclusions

LLH decreases the risk of tumor recurrence and improves OS in patients with primary HCC located in the left liver.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Elderly Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is considered a safe and feasible treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent studies. However, in elderly patients, application of LH still remains controversial, and the outcomes of LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) have not been fully evaluated. Our objective is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LH with OH in elderly patients with HCC. Materials and Methods: All studies comparing LH and OH in elderly patients with HCC were systematically searched in the databases of PubMed, EmBase, and Web of Science. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). The last search was performed on March 20, 2022. Short-term outcomes include blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, overall and major postoperative complications, mortality, hospital stay, tumor size, and surgical margin. Long-term outcomes include 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS); 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS); and 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS). Results: Fourteen studies involving 1596 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The short-term outcomes of LH were a shorter postoperative hospital stay and fewer overall and major postoperative complications (all P < .00001). However, there were no significant differences in operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion rate, surgical margin, tumor size, and mortality. For the long-term outcomes, LH is comparable with OH in terms of 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS; 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS; and 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS. Conclusions: Compared with OH, LH is a safe and feasible treatment for elderly patients with HCC.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in treating recurrent liver tumors vs. conventional open surgery.

Methods

Database searching was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were applied in statistical analyses.

Results

A total of fourteen studies were finally included with 1,284 patients receiving LRH and 2,254 with ORH. LRH was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage, a higher R0 resection rate, a lower incidence of Pringle Maneuver, a lower incidence of postoperative morbidities, a better overall survival and an enhanced postoperative recovery vs. ORH. Patients receiving LRH shared similar operative time, tumor number and disease-free survival as those with ORH. However, tumor size was relatively larger in patients receiving ORH and major hepatectomy, anatomic hepatectomy were rarely performed in patients with LRH. Additional analyses between LRH and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy revealed less intraoperative blood loss in patients with LRH.

Conclusion

LRH is safe and feasible with more favorable peri-operative outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, it is only applicable for some highly-selected cases not requiring complex surgical procedures. Future larger well-designed studies are expected for further validation.

A Comparative Study of an Integrated Ultrasonic/Bipolar Sealing Device Versus an Articulating Bipolar Sealing Device for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

BACKGROUND

Sealing devices (SD) seal and cut tissue through different energy modalities, and are routinely used in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of Thunderbeat (TB), an integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD, versus Enseal (ES), an articulating bipolar SD, in LLS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center from December 2013 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was difference in blood loss (BL) between ES and TB. Secondary endpoints were complications, operative time, hospital stay, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

352 patients were identified: TB (n = 105) and ES (n = 247). Median BL was significantly lower with TB (50 mL [20-120]) compared to ES (100 mL [50-250]) (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were identified for median operative time (TB 115 min [45-300]) vs. ES 140 min [40-370]; p = 0.0008) and median hospital stay (TB 2 days [1-4] vs. ES 4 days [3-6]; p < 0.0001). No major differences were encountered for postoperative bleeding (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 0.5574), biliary leak (TB 1% vs. ES 2%; p = 1.0000), and 90-day mortality (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 1.0000).

CONCLUSION

The integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD is superior to the articulating bipolar SD in LLS for intraoperative BL without an increase in complications.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

Purpose

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

Methods

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Results

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P &lt; 0.00001, I2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD −285.69, 95% CI −481.72 to −89.65, P = 0.004, I2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD −7.88, 95% CI −11.38 to −4.37, P &lt; 0.0001, I2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI −6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

Conclusions

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.

Hemihepatic versus total hepatic inflow occlusion for laparoscopic hepatectomy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An appropriate bleeding control technique for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is needed to decrease intraoperative blood loss and avoid large hemorrhages. To date, hemihepatic inflow occlusion (HIO) versus total hepatic inflow occlusion (TIO) for LLR is still controversial. Thus, we performed this randomized controlled trial (ChiCTR-IOR-17013866) to compare the perioperative outcomes between HIO and TIO for LLR.

METHODS

From December 2017 to August 2019, patients met the criteria via surgical exploration in the operation room and were randomly assigned to both groups. Perioperative data between both groups were recorded and compared, and subgroup analysis was further performed.

RESULTS

258 patients were allocated to the TIO (n = 129) and HIO (n = 129) groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative complications, changes in postoperative liver function or early mortality. However, for patients whose transection plane was located on the liver Cantlie's plane, subgroup analysis results indicated that TIO had a shorter operative time (median, 220 vs. 240 min, P = 0.030) and occlusion time (median, 45 vs. 60 min, P = 0.011) and less intraoperative blood loss (median, 200 vs. 300 ml, P = 0.002) than HIO, whereas the morbidity and mortality of the two groups were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Both the TIO and HIO approaches could be safely performed for LLR in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons. The TIO technique for LLR had the advantage of being easier to master than the HIO approach. Additionally, when the transection plane was located on the liver Cantlie's plane, TIO seems to have some superior perioperative outcomes.

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 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 versus open caudate lobe liver resections: a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide use of laparoscopy for liver resection, laparoscopic caudate lobe resections(L-CLR) remain technically challenging, only attempted by experts in the field. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-CLR with O-CLR based on our single institution experience in a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2020, 67 consecutive patients who underwent CLR at Singapore General Hospital were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resections(O-CLR) was performed in a 1:2 ratio with no replacements using nearest neighbour matching method.

RESULTS

L-CLR was associated with a significantly decreased median blood loss (150 mL versus 500 mL, P = 0.001) and a decreased median post-operative stay (3 days versus 7.5 days, P = <0.01) in the unmatched cohorts. After 1:2 propensity score matching, these results were again demonstrated with a significantly lower blood loss (150 mL versus 400 mL, P = 0.016) and a shorter postoperative stay (3 days versus 7 days, P = <0.01) in favour of L-CLR. 30-day readmission and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) rates were all in favour of L-CLR as well but could not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

L-CLR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter perioperative stay compared to O-CLR.

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for liver cancers: A report from a nationwide surgical database in Japan

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Laparoscopic (repeat) liver resection (LRLR) is a well-established liver tumor treatment. However, since its outcomes and comparison with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) in recurrent liver cancer remain inadequately studied, this study then aimed to compare their short-term outcomes for liver cancers (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma, and metastatic liver cancer).

METHODS

Repeat liver resection cases between 2013 and 2017 from Japan's National Clinical Database were extracted. We used propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the proportion of patients with postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher (CD2+) (primary endpoint), as well as the operative time, intraoperative bleeding volume, and intraoperative transfusion implementation rate (secondary endpoints).

RESULTS

Of 2,902 patients (ORLR, 2,476; LRLR, 426), 712 (356 per type) with comparable backgrounds remained via PSM. Before and after PSM, the postoperative CD2+ complication rate was significantly lower in the LRLR group, who had shorter operative time, smaller intraoperative bleeding volume, and lower intraoperative transfusion rate, than in the ORLR group (after matching, 7.6% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR showed better short-term outcomes than ORLR, making it a safer and more effective liver cancer treatment.

Predicting Complications following Surgical Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Newly Developed Neo-Glasgow Prognostic Score with ALBI Grade: Comparison of Open and Laparoscopic Surgery Cases

Background/Aim: Nutritional assessment is known to be important for predicting prognosis in patients with malignant diseases. This study examined the usefulness of a prognostic predictive nutritional assessment tool for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with surgical resection. Materials/Methods: HCC patients (n = 429) classified as Child−Pugh A who underwent an R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (median age 73 years, males 326 (76.0%), Child−Pugh score 5:6 = 326:103, single tumor 340 (79.2%), median tumor size 3.5 cm, open:laparoscopic = 304:125). Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the newly developed neo-GPS method, which uses albumin−bilirubin grade 1 instead of albumin, were evaluated to compare their usefulness for prognosis prediction. Results: Median survival time for patients with a GPS score of 0, 1, and 2 was 120, 51, and 20 months, respectively. As for neo-GPS, that for those with a score of 0, 1, and 2 was not applicable (NA), 53 months, and 35 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.556 and 0.611, respectively). Furthermore, median progression-free survival was 33, 22, and 9 months, and 41, 24, and 15 months, respectively (each p < 0.001; c-index: 0.539 and 0.578, respectively). As compared to patients with a high GPS (≥1), those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed a greater rate of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) (39.2% vs. 65.1%). A comparison of patients with a high GPS (≥1) with those with a high neo-GPS (≥1) showed no significant difference regarding frequency of open or laparoscopic hepatectomy (17.4% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.670; 44.7% vs. 43.2%, p = 0.831, respectively), while the frequency of high Clavien−Dindo classification (≥3) was lower in patients who underwent a laparoscopic hepatectomy (11.2% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.007). Conclusion: The present findings suggest that the newly developed neo-GPS based on ALBI grade is an effective prognostic nutritional assessment tool and can be used for prediction of postoperative complications.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

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.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: A major breakthrough in living donor liver transplantation

Living donation in many countries is the main resource of organs. Healthy, volunteering individuals deserve the highest safety standards possible in addition to the least invasive technique to procure the organs. Since the introduction of living donor liver transplantation, many efforts have been made to minimize the surgical trauma inherent to living donor surgery. The journey started with a large Mercedes incision and evolved to reverse L-shaped and small upper midline incisions before the introduction of minimally invasive laparoscopic techniques originated. The technical difficulties of the laparoscopic approach due to suboptimal instrumentation, challenging ergonomics, and the long learning curve limited the application of the fully laparoscopic approach to a few centers. The recent introduction of the robotic platform with its superb optical system and advanced instruments allows for the first time, a genuine emulation of open donor surgery in a closed abdomen, thus allowing all liver donors to benefit from minimally invasive surgery (better cosmesis, less pain and morbidity, and better quality of life) without compromising donor safety. This attribute in combination with the ubiquitous presence of the robot in major transplant centers may well lead to the desired endpoint of this technology, namely, the widespread dissemination of minimally invasive donor surgery.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pure laparoscopic liver donor right hepatectomy (LLDRH) remains challenging, and its value is still unclear compared with open liver donor right hepatectomy (OLDRH). Objective: To provide comprehensive evidence about the safety and efficacy of LLDRH. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched from the date of inception to July 2021. A fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to analyze the pooled data by using Review Manager Version 5.3. Results: A total of 1940 patients from 6 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. For perioperative outcomes of donors, LLDRH had a longer operative time than OLDRH (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 29.75 [4.23-55.26] minutes, P = .02), but it had lower overall morbidity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67 [0.45-0.99], P = .04), fewer pulmonary complications (OR = 0.47 [0.29-0.76], P = .002), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -1, P < .001) than OLDRH. However, major complications, biliary complications, portal vein problems, and intra-abdominal bleeding were comparable between the 2 groups. With regard to the postoperative data of recipients, the risks of biliary problems, hepatic artery problems, portal vein problems, hepatic vein problems, and postoperative liver failure were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions: LLDRH for living donors is safe and effective, and it offers superior perioperative outcomes to OLDRH.

International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) is a technically challenging procedure. This study was designed to determine outcomes following robotic RPS (R-RPS) and laparoscopic RPS (L-RPS).

METHODS

An international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients undergoing R-RPS versus those who had purely L-RPS at 21 centres from 2010 to 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed retrospectively from a central database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, with analysis of 1 : 2 and 1 : 1 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

Three-hundred and forty patients, including 96 who underwent R-RPS and 244 who had L-RPS, met the study criteria and were included. The median operating time was 295 minutes and there were 25 (7.4 per cent) open conversions. Ninety-seven (28.5 per cent) patients had cirrhosis and 56 (16.5 per cent) patients required blood transfusion. Overall postoperative morbidity rate was 22.1 per cent and major morbidity rate was 6.8 per cent. The median postoperative stay was 6 days. After 1 : 1 matching of 88 R-RPS and L-RPS patients, median (i.q.r.) blood loss (200 (100-400) versus 450 (200-900) ml, respectively; P < 0.001), major blood loss (> 500 ml; P = 0.001), need for intraoperative blood transfusion (10.2 versus 23.9 per cent, respectively; P = 0.014), and open conversion rate (2.3 versus 11.4 per cent, respectively; P = 0.016) were lower in the R-RPS group. Similar results were found in the 1 : 2 matched groups (66 R-RPS versus 132 L-RPS patients).

CONCLUSION

R-RPS and L-RPS can be performed in expert centres with good outcomes in well selected patients. R-RPS was associated with reduced blood loss and lower open conversion rates than L-RPS.

Does laparoscopic hepatectomy offer benefits for patients with COPD? A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

To date, it remains unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is safe and feasible for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, we compared the perioperative outcomes of LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in this special cohort of patients.

METHODS

Between February 2014 and October 2020, 162 patients who underwent hepatectomy met the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study. Perioperative data were compared between the two groups by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

RESULTS

After PSM, 55 patients with well-balanced baseline data were included in each group. Intraoperative blood loss, overall postoperative complications, and postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group (P < 0.001, P = 0.047, and P = 0.020 after PSM, respectively). However, major complications, early readmission, and early mortality were comparable between the two groups. According to multivariate analysis, high stage of COPD, preoperative tobacco use, and long operative time were independent risk factors for PPCs, whereas treatment with LH was a protective factor.

CONCLUSION

LH is safe and feasible for selected patients with COPD when performed by experienced surgeons, and it has superior perioperative outcomes (especially regarding PPCs) when compared to OH.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Minimally invasive liver surgery: the Charité experience

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) was established as last abdominal surgical specialty through the 1990s. With a shift from mainly benign to malignant indications, MILS was shown to be equal to open liver surgery in terms of oncological outcomes, with benefits in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay and quality of life. With colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma as the most common indications, most liver resection can be performed minimally invasive nowadays, including patients with liver cirrhosis. Initially perceived limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery were weakened by gaining experience, technical progress and pioneering of new resection approaches. Lately robotic liver surgery was adopted to the field of MILS to further push the limits. To simplify first resections, technical variations of the minimally invasive approach can be utilized, and difficulty scores help to select resections suitable to the level of experience. We hereby give an overview of the establishing of a minimally invasive liver surgery program at our center.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy in the elderly patient: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Favorable outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) over open hepatectomy (OH) have been demonstrated. LH offers less postoperative morbidity, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay, while maintaining oncological safety. Only limited evidence about outcomes of LH in elderly is currently available. Therefore, this study aimed to compare short term outcomes of LH to OH for patients >65 years.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Cochrane guidelines. Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched to identify eligible studies. Studies were included if they compared LH to OH, and focused on an elderly population, or had a majority of patients >65 years. Perioperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 1174 patients (LH:532, OH:642) were included for analysis. When compared to OH, elderly undergoing LH had significantly less postoperative complications (risk ratio [RR]0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.43-0.63), less blood loss (mean difference [MD]-198.58; 95% CI:-299.88 to -97.28), and shorter length of stay (MD-4.83; 95%CI:-7.91 to -1.84), while oncological safety was non-inferior (RR1.04; 95%CI:1.00-1.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the elderly population LH seems to be superior to OH, concerning short-term outcomes. However, for broader applicability more trials are needed including more difficult and major resections.

Patterns, timing, and predictors of recurrence after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: results from a high-volume HPB center

Background

Although long-term outcomes may be comparable between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there has been little discussion regarding the patterns of recurrence after LLR.

Methods

Patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between April 2015 and November 2018 were included in this study. The recurrence patterns were analyzed in detail. The recurrence outcomes following laparoscopic versus OLR for HCC were compared after 1:2 propensity score matching. Potential risk factors for recurrence were also assessed with Cox proportional risk models.

Results

Among 425 patients after LLR, 144 (33.8%) experienced recurrence at the last follow-up, with a median recurrence-free survival (RFS) of 10.0 months (range 1–58 months). The most frequent recurrence site was the liver (n = 99, 68.8%), followed by the surgical margin (n = 15, 10.4%) and distant metastases (n = 12, 8.3%). Liver recurrence with distant metastasis (n = 10, 6.9%) tended to occur early (median 8.0 months), while peritoneal recurrence (n = 8, 5.6%) occurred later (median 14.0 months). A total of 120 (83.3%) patients had recurrence within 2 years after LLR. No trocar site recurrence was observed in this study. The recurrence patterns, timing, and treatment did not show significant differences between the LLR and OLR. The independent risk factors for recurrence included ALBI grade, postoperative α-fetoprotein > 8 ng/ml, tumor size > 5 cm, surgical margin ≤ 1 cm, and multiple tumors. Patients with recurrence had 1- and 5-year overall survival rates of 81.1% and 60.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 95.8% and 92.9% for patients without recurrence (P < 0.000).

Conclusion

This study suggested that intrahepatic recurrence was still the most common recurrence pattern for HCC after LLR and that LLR did not increase the risk of trocar hole recurrence or implantation. Most cases of recurrence occurred within 2 years after LLR, suggesting that surveillance should be targeted to early recurrence.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-021-08390-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Is It Just a Matter of Surgical Extension to Achieve the Cure of Hepatocarcinoma? A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched and Randomized Studies for Anatomic Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

The benefit of anatomic (AR) versus parenchyma-sparing resection (PSR) in hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is still debated. The aim of the study was to compare AR vs. PSR in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using Medline and Google Scholar. To reduce intra- and inter-study heterogeneity, only propensity-matched studies and randomized clinical trials (RCT) were evaluated and a generic inverse variance meta-analysis was run. A sub-analysis was performed in case of tumor microvascular invasion (MVI).

RESULTS

Eleven propensity-matched and one RCT were evaluated, with a total of 3445 patients (AR = 1776 and PSR = 1669). Tumor burden and liver function were comparable among studies (I² < 50%, p > 0.5). OS was similar between AR and PSR (HR 0.93; 95%CI, 0.75-1.15; p = 0.50, I² = 41%). DFS was improved in AR at 1 year (RR 0.84; 95%CI, 0.72-0.97; p = 0.02; I² = 36%) and 3 years (RR 0.90; 95%CI, 0.83-0.98; p = 0.02; I² = 40%) but not at 5 years (RR 0.94; 95%CI, 0.87-1.01; p = 0.07; I² = 41%). Furthermore, in the presence of MVI, no difference in OS and DFS was observed between AR and PSR.

CONCLUSION

When liver function and tumor burden are comparable, AR and PSR achieved similar overall survival. AR improved local control in the early period after surgery. Furthermore, in the presence of MVI, the extension of surgery was not associated with better OS and DFS.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Long-term abdominal wall benefits of the laparoscopic approach in liver left lateral sectionectomy: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is nowadays considered as the standard approach for hepatic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), but its value in the prevention of incisional hernia (IH) has not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, patients undergoing laparoscopic (LLLS) or open LLS (OLLS) in 8 centers were compared. Patients undergoing a simultaneous major abdominal procedure were excluded. The incidence of IH was assessed clinically and morphologically on computed tomography (CT) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

After IPTW, 84 LLLS were compared to 48 OLLS. Compared to OLLS, LLLS patients had reduced blood loss (100 [IQR: 50-200] ml vs. 150 [IQR: 50-415] ml, p = 0.023) and shorter median hospital stay (5 [IQR: 4-7] days vs. 7 [6-9] days, p < 0.001), but experienced similar rate of postoperative complications (mean comprehensive complication index: 12 ± 19 after OLLS versus 13 ± 20 after LLLS, p = 0.968). Long-term radiological screening was performed with a median follow-up of 27.4 (12.1-44.9) months. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of clinically relevant IH (10.7% [n = 9] after LLLS, 8.3% [n = 4] after OLLS, p = 0.768). The rate of IH detected on computed tomography was lower after LLLS than after OLLS (11.9% [n = 10] versus 29.2% [n = 14], p = 0.013). On multivariable analysis, the laparoscopic approach was the only independent factor influencing the risk of morphological IH (OR = 0.290 [95% CI: 0.094-0.891], p = 0.031). The 2 preferential sites for specimen extraction after LLLS were Pfannenstiel and midline incisions, with rates of IH across the extraction site of 2.3% [n = 1/44] and 23.8% [n = 5/21], respectively (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for LLS decreases the risk of long-term IH as evidenced on morphological examinations, with limited clinical impact. Pfannenstiel's incision should be preferred to midline incision for specimen extraction after LLLS.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resections of posterolateral liver segments - a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic resection has become an accepted approach to liver tumour surgery. However, it is considered difficult, especially in unfavourably located lesions.

AIM

To compare the outcomes of laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) of posterolateral segments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases from inception to 30 September 2019. Full text articles and conference abstracts were included for further analysis. This review follows the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

From 643 articles, 15 studies (N = 1196 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. All of them were non-randomised. Our findings showed that LLR had significantly lowered overall morbidity compared to OLR (MD = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.51-0.86; p = 0.002). Length of hospital stay (MD = 2.48; 95% CI: -3.87, -1.08; p < 0.001) was also shorter in the LLR group. Operative time (MD = 55.65; 95% CI: 24.14-87.16; p < 0.001) was significantly shorter in the OLR group. In terms of blood loss, major complications, R0 resection rates, and resection margin, there were no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis showed that the laparoscopic approach to resections of posterolateral liver segments is beneficial. However, the results are based on non-randomised trials, and further research is needed to fully establish their clinical application.

A falciform ligament flap surface sealing technique for laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery

Whether sealing the hepatic resection surface after liver surgery decreases morbidity is still unclear. Nevertheless, various methods and materials are currently in use for this procedure. Here, we describe our experience with a simple technique using a mobilized falciform ligament flap in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). We retrospectively analyzed the charts from 46 patients who received minor MILS between 2011 and 2019 from the same surgical team in a university hospital setting in Germany. Twenty-four patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 22 patients received robotic-assisted liver resection. Sixteen patients in the laparoscopic group and fourteen in the robotic group received a falciform ligament flap (FLF) to cover the resection surface after liver surgery. Our cohort was thus divided into two groups: laparoscopic and robotic patients with (MILS + FLF) and without an FLF (MILS-FLF). Twenty-eight patients (60.9%) in our cohort were male. The overall mean age was 56.8 years (SD 16.8). The mean operating time was 249 min in the MILS + FLF group vs. 235 min in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.682). The mean blood loss was 301 ml in the MILS + FLF group vs. 318 ml in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.859). Overall morbidity was 3.3% in the MILS + FLF group vs. 18.8% in the MILS-FLF group (p = 0.114). One patient in the MILS-FLF group (overall 2.2%), who underwent robotic liver surgery, developed bile leakage, but this did not occur in the MILS + FLF group. Covering the resection surface of the liver after minor minimally invasive liver resection with an FLF is a simple and cost-effective technique that does not prolong surgical time or negatively affect other perioperative parameters. In fact, it is a safe add-on step during MILS that may reduce postoperative morbidity. Further studies with larger cohorts will be needed to substantiate our proof of concept and results.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic versus open limited liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis: a propensity score matching study with the Hiroshima Surgical study group of Clinical Oncology (HiSCO)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved as a safe and effective alternative to conventional open liver resection (OLR) for malignant lesions. However, LLR in cirrhotic patients remains challenging. This study analyzed the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis compared with OLR using propensity score matching.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective analysis of records of patients who underwent limited liver resection for HCC and were histologically diagnosed with liver cirrhosis between January 2009 and December 2017 in the eight institutions belonging to the Hiroshima Surgical study group of Clinical Oncology was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: the LLR and OLR groups. After propensity score matching, we compared clinicopathological features and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total 256 patients with histological liver cirrhosis who underwent limited liver resection for HCC were included in this study; 58 patients had undergone LLR, and the remaining 198 patients OLR. The number of tumors was higher, tumor size was larger, and difficulty score was significantly higher in the OLR group before propensity matching. After the matching, the data of the well-matched 58 patients in each group were evaluated; the intraoperative blood loss was lower in the LLR group (p = 0.004), and incidence of the postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OLR group (p = 0.019). The duration of the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLR group (p < 0.001). There were no differences between two groups in overall survival and recurrent-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR decreased the incidences of postoperative complications, shortened the duration of postoperative hospital stay. Thus, LLR is a safe and feasible procedure even in patients with cirrhosis.

Decision-making based on 3D printed models in laparoscopic liver resections with intraoperative ultrasound: a prospective observational study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate impact of 3D printed models on decision-making in context of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) performed with intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) guidance.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with liver malignances (74% were colorectal cancer metastases) were prospectively qualified for LLR or radiofrequency ablation in a single center from April 2017 to December 2018. Models were 3DP in all cases based on CT and facilitated optical visualization of tumors' relationships with portal and hepatic veins. Planned surgical extent and its changes were tracked after CT analysis and 3D model inspection, as well as intraoperatively using IOUS.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included in the analysis. Information from either 3DP or IOUS led to changes in the planned surgical approach in 13/19 (68%) patients. In 5/19 (26%) patients, the 3DP model altered the plan of the surgery preoperatively. In 4/19 (21%) patients, 3DP independently changed the approach. In one patient, IOUS modified the plan post-3DP. In 8/19 (42%) patients, 3DP model did not change the approach, whereas IOUS did. In total, IOUS altered surgical plans in 9 (47%) cases. Most of those changes (6/9; 67%) were caused by detection of additional lesions not visible on CT and 3DP.

CONCLUSIONS

3DP can be helpful in planning complex and major LLRs and led to changes in surgical approach in 26.3% (5/19 patients) in our series. 3DP may serve as a useful adjunct to IOUS.

KEY POINTS

• 3D printing can help in decision-making before major and complex resections in patients with liver cancer. • In 5/19 patients, 3D printed model altered surgical plan preoperatively. • Most surgical plan changes based on intraoperative ultrasonography were caused by detection of additional lesions not visible on CT and 3D model.

Investigating Risk Factors for Complications after Ileostomy Reversal in Low Anterior Rectal Resection Patients: An Observational Study

Introduction: Defunctioning ileostomy has been widely used in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection to reduce the rate of postoperative leakage. It is still not clear whether interval between primary procedure and ileostomy reversal has an impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: In our prospective observational study we reviewed 164 consecutive cases of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to search for risk factors for prolonged length of stay and complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Receiver operating characteristic curves were utilized to set cut-off points for prolonged length of stay and perioperative morbidity. Results: In total, 132 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The median interval between primary procedure and defunctioning ileostomy reversal was 134 (range: 17-754) days, while median length of stay was 5 days (4-6 interquartile range (IQR)). Prolonged length of stay cut-off was established at 6 days. Regression models revealed that interval between primary surgery and stoma closure as well as complications after primary procedure are risk factors for complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Prolonged length of stay has been found to be related primarily to interval between primary surgery and stoma closure. Conclusions: In our study interval between primary surgery and stoma closure along with complication occurrence after primary procedure are risk factors for perioperative morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after ileostomy reversal. The effort should be made to minimize the interval to ileostomy reversal. However, randomized studies are necessary to avoid the bias which appears in this observational study and confirm our findings.