Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Effectiveness of Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy in Patients with Early or Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multi-Institutional Cohort Study in an Asian Population

Purpose

Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the effectiveness of MIH has yet to be well established.

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 20 years and older, newly receiving MIH for HCC with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification stage 0, A or B from 2010 to 2019. Two 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts of those receiving open hepatectomy (OH) and those receiving radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were selected as comparison groups. As a control analysis, we compared patients receiving OH with those receiving RFA under the hypothesis that the OH group had better survival outcomes than the RFA group.

Results

We included a total of 555 matched patients receiving MIH or OH, and 382 matched patients receiving MIH or RFA. Compared to the OH group, MIH group was associated with better overall survival (OS) (Hazard ratios (HR): 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.88) and similar PFS (HR: 0.92; 0.74-1.16). Compared to the RFA group, we found the MIH group was associated with better OS (0.46; 0.32-0.67) and better PFS (0.48; 0.38-0.61). We found consistent results from a series of subgroup analyses (eg, age groups, BCLC stages and hospital levels) and sensitivity analyses (eg, study period restricted to the most recent 5 years (2015-2019)). The control analysis (OH group vs RFA group) confirmed the robustness of main analyses.

Conclusion

Our study suggested that MIH had better survival outcomes for patients with early or resectable intermediate-stage HCC, compared to RFA or OH.

The Rate of Postoperative Bile Leak in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection in Comparison With Open Surgery: A Systematic Review

The rapid advances in laparoscopic surgery have meant that formerly complex techniques are now commonly performed via this method. These practices are now becoming increasingly popular in the discipline of hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgery. One such example is liver resection, which is the focus of our review. We aimed to assess the rate of bile leak complications in minimally invasive liver resection compared to an open liver approach in malignant and benign conditions. A systematic review spanning the period from 2000 to 2022 was conducted, examining the postoperative complications in laparoscopic versus open liver resections. We searched the databases Medline, Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar for relevant studies; 16 studies were included in the final analysis. Ten out of 16 studies that were included indicated that there was no significant difference in the rate of bile leaks. Five studies showed that bile leaks were found to occur more frequently in open surgery, and one study suggested that the rates were more common with the laparoscopic approach. The overall comparison of bile leak rates following open and minimally invasive liver resection suggests that there is no reduction in this complication in both types of surgery. As such, a laparoscopic or open method can both be adopted without any concerns for this particular complication.

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.

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

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

Comparative Oncology: Management of Hepatic Neoplasia in Humans and Dogs

Primary hepatic neoplasia is uncommonly reported in dogs. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent neoplasia identified in dogs and considerable effort has been committed towards identifying definitive and palliative treatment options. HCC is well recognized in humans as a sequelae of liver disease such as hepatitis or cirrhosis, while in dogs a similar link has failed to be fully elucidated. Management of HCC in people may be curative or palliative dependent on staging and transplant eligibility. Despite differences in etiology, there is substantial similarity between treatment options for liver neoplasia in human and veterinary medicine. The below summary provides a comparative discussion regarding hepatic neoplasia in dogs and people with a specific focus on HCC. Diagnosis as well as descriptions of the myriad treatment options will be reviewed.

Factors associated with and impact of open conversion on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies: An international multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid advances that minimally invasive liver resection has gained in recent decades, open conversion is still inevitable in some circumstances. In this study, we aimed to determine the risk factors for open conversion after minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy, and its impact on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of 2,445 of 2,678 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy at 45 international centers between 2004 and 2020. Factors related to open conversion were analyzed via univariate and multivariate analyses. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to analyze outcomes after open conversion versus non-converted cases.

RESULTS

The open conversion rate was 69/2,445 (2.8%). On multivariate analyses, male gender (3.6% vs 1.8%, P = .011), presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (6.1% vs 2.6%, P = .009), and larger tumor size (50 mm vs 32 mm, P < .001) were identified as independent factors associated with open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was bleeding in 27/69 (39.1%) of cases. After propensity score matching (65 open conversion vs 65 completed via minimally invasive liver resection), the open conversion group was associated with increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, and postoperative stay compared with cases completed via the minimally invasive approach.

CONCLUSION

Male sex, portal hypertension, and larger tumor size were predictive factors of open conversion after minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy. Open conversion was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared with non-converted cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term survival outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Long-term survival is the most important outcome measurement of a curative oncological treatment. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the long-term disease-free and overall survival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is shown to be non-inferior to the current standard of open liver resection (OLR). Some studies have reported a superior long-term oncological outcome in LLR when compared to OLR. It has been argued that improvement of visualization and instrumentation and reduced operative blood loss and perioperative blood transfusion may contribute to reduced risk of postoperative tumor recurrence. On the other hand, since most of the comparative studies of the oncological outcomes of LLR and OLR for HCC are non-randomized, it remained inconclusive as to whether LLR confers additional survival benefit compared to OLR. Despite the paucity of level 1 evidence, the practice of LLR for HCC has gained wide-spread acceptance due to the reproducible improvements in the perioperative outcomes and non-inferior oncological outcomes demonstrated by large-scaled, matched comparative studies. Meta-analyses of the outcomes of these studies by multiple systematic reviews have also returned noncontradictory conclusions. On the basis of a theoretical advantage of LLR over OLR in preventing tumor recurrence, the current review aims to dissect from the current meta-analyses and comparative studies any evidence of such superiority.

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.

Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: What Are the Advantages in Patients with Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Personal Experience

Background: Laparoscopic surgery is a choice of treatment for liver diseases; it can decrease postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension may benefit from minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) instead of open liver resections (OLRs). Whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional ones is still a matter of debate. We thus aimed to gather the available literature on this specific topic to achieve greater clarity. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Sciences databases were assessed for studies comparing OLRs versus MILRs for HCC in cirrhotic patients up to February 2020. Data from our surgical experience from June 2010 to February 2020 were also included. Demographic characteristics, liver function, the presence of portal hypertension, tumor number, and tumor size and location were assessed; operative time, need for Pringle maneuver, estimated blood loss (EBL), major or minor hepatectomy performance, and conversion rate were evaluated for operative findings. Postoperative outcomes and liver-related complications, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, blood transfusion (BT) rate, need for reintervention, LOS, in-hospital or 30-day mortality, and radicality of resection were also considered. Meta-analysis was performed employing Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: One thousand three hundred twenty-one patients from 13 studies and our own series were considered in the meta-analysis. At preoperative settings, the OLR and MILR groups differed significantly only by tumor size (4.4 versus 3.0, P = .006). Laparoscopic procedures resulted significantly faster (120.32-330 minutes versus 146.8-342.75 minutes, P = .002) and with lower EBL than open ones (88-483 mL versus 200-580 mL, P < .00001), thus requiring less BTs (7.9% versus 13.2%, P = .02). In terms of overall morbidity, minimally invasive surgeries resulted significantly favorable (19.32% versus 38.04%, P < .00001), as well as for ascites (2.7% versus 12.9% P < .00001), postoperative liver failure (7.51% versus 13.61% P = .009), and SSI (1.8% versus 5.42%, P = .002). Accordingly, patients who had undergone MILRs had significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than patients who underwent conventional open surgery (2.4-36 days versus 4.2-19 days P < .00001). Both groups did not differ in terms of mortality rate and radicality of resection (OLR 93.8% versus 96.1% laparoscopic liver resection, P = .12). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence in the literature, laparoscopic resections rather than open liver ones for HCC surgery in cirrhotic patients seem to reduce postoperative overall morbidity, liver-specific complications, and LOS. The lack of randomized studies on this topic precludes the possibility of achieving defining statements.

Data driven decision-making for older patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Older age is a risk factor for the development of HCC. However, the treatment options available for older patients with HCC, their safety, efficacy and utility, are poorly understood resulting in challenging decision-making. In this review, we aim to report the best available evidence to facilitate optimal decision making for older patients with HCC. We report that surgical resection for HCC is equally safe (90-day mortality ~3%) and effective (five-year disease free survival ~40%) for older patients as it is for younger patients. Five-year survival after ablation therapy for HCC is in excess of 50% in older patients, whilst morbidity rates are in the region of 3%. Survival rates of 30% after chemoembolisation reflects its role as a non-curative treatment. Transplantation is an option that may be helpful for a minority of patients, but the high risks of in-hospital mortality and lower likelihood of receiving a transplant should be duly considered before committing to this approach. We therefore advocate an individualised assessment for older patients based on these risk profiles and probabilities of optimal outcomes. In patients with a projected life-span ≥ 3 years, and who have sufficient physiological and functional reserve, surgical resection should be the treatment of choice. Patients with a projected life-span < 3 years are better served with loco-regional therapies, and tumour size, at a threshold of 3 cm, should guide the choice between ablation and chemoembolisation therapies.

Feasibility of Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy for Malignant Lesion Compared to Open Right Posterior Sectionectomy: Retrospective, Single Center Study

Purpose

We aimed to compare the operative outcomes of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (RPS) and open RPS and evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic RPS.

Methods

From January 2009 to December 2017, laparoscopic liver resections were performed in 235 patients at Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, South Korea. We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 16 patients who underwent laparoscopic RPS and compared the outcomes with those who underwent open RPS (n=17).

Results

The laparoscopic group had a mean tumor size of 3.82±1.73 cm (open group [OG]; 4.18±2.07 cm, p=0.596), mean tumor-free margin of 10.44±9.69 mm (OG; 10.06±10.62 mm, p=0.657), mean operation time of 412.2±102.2 min (OG; 275.0±60.5, p<0.001), mean estimated blood loss of 339.4±248.3 ml (OG; 236.4±102.7 ml, p=0.631), mean postoperative hospital stay of 11.63±2.58 days (OG; 14.71±4.69 days, p=0.027), and mean postoperative peaks of aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, total bilirubin, and prothrombin time of 545 mg/dl, 538 mg/dl, 1.39 mg/dl, 1.41 international normalized ratio (OG; 237 (p<0.001), 216 (p<0.001), 1.52 (p=0.817), and 1.45 (p=0.468)), respectively. There were no deaths or major complications in ether group. There were no cases of open conversion. Laparoscopic RPS was associated with a shorter hospital stay, prolonged operation time and lower complication rate. With long-term prognosis, no difference was found in overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate between the two groups.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic RPS can be performed, but the problems of long operative time and decrease in liver function should be resolved.

Laparoscopic liver resection in cirrhotics: feasibility and short-term outcomes compared to non-cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly common worldwide but its suitability in patients with cirrhosis is not clearly defined. There are minimal data in the western literature on this topic and previous work has compared LLR to open hepatectomy rather than to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients. This study compared short-term outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic patients to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of minor LLR at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from January 2006 to January 2018 was conducted. Patients were stratified by whether they had cirrhosis - defined as per radiological appearances and liver function tests. Variables of interest included baseline clinicopathological information with short-term outcomes (length of stay and complications) regarded as the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Out of 1207 liver resections in the study period, there were 120 LLR with 30 patients having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be male and have higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (3 versus 2; P < 0.01). The most common operation was left lateral sectionectomy (n = 67). There was no difference in duration of surgery (cirrhosis 88 min versus no cirrhosis 99 min; P = 0.64) and patients in the cirrhosis arm had no conversions to open (0% versus 12%; P = 0.06). There was no difference in complications (12% versus 13%; P = 0.75) or median length of stay (4 versus 4 days; P = 0.14) and no difference in survival between both groups.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, LLR is feasible in patients with cirrhosis and provides comparable outcomes to non-cirrhotic patients undergoing LLR.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Long-term perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. We retrospectively compared the perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) with those of open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in well-matched patient groups using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We reviewed medical records of patients with HCC who underwent liver resection between July 2007 and April 2016 at our center. In total, 2335 patients were included in this study and divided into LLR (n = 264) and OLR (n = 2071) groups. For group comparisons, 1:2 PSM was used with covariates of baseline characteristics, including tumor characteristics and surgical liver resection procedures.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 217 and 434 patients in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively. The LLR group had shorter hospital stays (8.9 vs. 14.8 days; P < 0.001) and lower postoperative morbidity (6.5% vs. 12.0%; P = 0.022). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 98.1%, 87.0%, and 78.6%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 98.3%, 90.8%, and 84.3%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.570). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 81.0%, 62.0%, and 49.1%, respectively, for the LLR group, and 85.3%, 64.7%, and 56.2%, respectively, for the OLR group (P = 0.563).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable between LLR and OLR for selected patients. LLR was associated with multiple benefits, even for selected patients with cirrhosis who underwent major hepatectomy. LLR for HCC performed by an experienced surgeon could be considered a safe and feasible alternative to OLR for selected patients.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score-matching Analysis

This study aimed to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Between May 2013 and December 2015, 26 patients underwent pure LLR (14 underwent laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and 12 underwent laparoscopic central bisectionectomy). In total, 18 patients in the laparoscopic group and 36 patients in the open group were matched. When the LLR and OLR groups were compared, the operation time was found to be longer in the LLR group. However, LLR was associated with less blood loss, a shorter hospital stay, and earlier time to diet resumption. In this study, we confirmed that LLR for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma can be safely performed in selected patients with cirrhosis despite a longer operation time.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Resection for hepatocellular cancer: overpassing old barriers

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

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in short- and long-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH) in patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

An electronic search of reports published before August 2017 was carried out to identify comparative studies evaluating LH versus OH for HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 5889 patients (2421 underwent LH; 3468 underwent OH) were included in our meta-analysis from 47 studies. Laparoscopic hepatectomies were associated with favorable outcomes in terms of operative blood loss (mean difference [MD], -147.27; 95% confidence interval [CI], -217.00, -77.55), blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40, 0.65), pathologic resection margins (MD, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12; P = 0.01), R0 resection rate (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.98, 1.84; P = 0.07), and length of hospital stay (MD, -5.13; 95% confidence interval, -6.23, -4.03). There were no differences between the groups in overall survival (OS) at 1 year (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00, 1.98), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.93, 1.36), or 5 years (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.46), in disease-free survival (DFS) at 1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.51), 3 years (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86, 1.33), or 5 years (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.92, 1.40), or in recurrence (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.08).

CONCLUSION

Compared to OH, LH is superior in terms of lower intraoperative blood loss and the requirement for blood transfusion, larger pathologic resection margins, increased R0 resection rates, and shorter length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic hepatectomy and OH have similar OS, DFS, and recurrence.

Robot-assisted liver surgery in a general surgery unit with a "Referral Centre Hub&Spoke Learning Program". Early outcomes after our first 70 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, feasibility and short-term outcomes of our first 70 consecutive patients treated by robotic-assisted liver resection after a reversal proctoring between a high HPB volume centre and our well-trained center in minimally invasive General Surgery. Six surgeons were involved in this Hub&Spoke learning program.

METHODS

From September 2012 to December 2016, 70 patients underwent robotic-assisted liver resections (RALR). We treated 18 patients affected by colorectal and gastric cancer with synchronous liver lesions suspected for metastases in a one-stage robotic-assisted procedure. For the first 20 procedures we had a tutor in the operatory room, who was present also in the next most difficult procedures.

RESULTS

The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was zero with an overall morbidity rate of 10.1%. Associated surgical procedures were performed in about 65,7% of patients. The observed conversion rate was 10%. The results of the first 20 cases were similar to the next 50 showing a shortned learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive robot-assisted liver resection is a safe technique; it allows overcoming many limits of conventional laparoscopy. This innovative, time-enduring Hub&Spoke may allow patients to undergo a proper standard of care also for complex surgical procedures, without the need of reaching referral centres.

Surgical outcome of laparoscopic hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A matched case-control study with propensity score matching

Background:

Although the number of reports on laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) has increased, studies of long-term outcomes regarding tumor recurrence and patient survival compared to the conventional open approach are limited. We evaluated the long-term survival and feasibility of LHR in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods:

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of patients who underwent hepatic resection for primary HCC between August 2000 and December 2013. The patients were divided into the LHR or open hepatic resection (OHR) groups. To control for selection bias in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio based on the following covariates: Child–Pugh grade, tumour size, tumour number and tumour location. Following propensity score matching, thirty patients were included in the LHR group and thirty were included in the OHR group.

Results:

The respective disease-free survival rates at 1 year, 3 years and 5 years were 78.4%, 61.1% and 38.9%, respectively, for the LHR group, and 89.3%, 57.5% and 47.9%, respectively, for the OHR group (P = 0.89). Also, the overall survival rates at 1 year, 3 years and 5 years were 96.4%, 68.2% and 62.5%, respectively, for the LHR group and 100.0%, 95.8% and 72.3%, respectively, for the OHR group (P = 0.44).

Conclusions:

According to our study, using propensity score matching, LHR for HCC is safe, feasible and comparative, with good oncologic results.

Laparoscopic vs open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis of the long-term survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cirrhosis, laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) confers short-term benefits over open hepatectomy (OH) but the long-term outcomes of this procedure are unclear. This systematic review aims to compare the long-term survival outcomes of LH and OH for patients with HCC and underlying cirrhosis.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were searched from date of inception to 7th October 2016. Controlled clinical studies comparing LH to OH for HCC in cirrhotic patients, which reported long-term overall and disease-free survival were included. The studies were evaluated using the MOOSE guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were extracted and analysed using a fixed-effects model.

RESULTS

Five non-randomised, retrospective observational studies representing 888 patients were included. LH was associated with significantly lower tumour recurrence [OR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48, 0.89]. LH conferred greater overall survival at 1- [HR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.68], 3- [HR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.87] and 5-years [HR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45, 0.80]. With LH, there was higher disease-free survival at 1-year [HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53, 0.96], but not at 3- [HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.14]; and 5-years [HR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.04].

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with comparable postoperative and survival outcomes in patients with HCC and underlying cirrhosis. With careful selection of patients, this approach is safe, feasible and advantageous.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatic Resection for Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Less Than 5 cm in Cirrhotic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Current literature is lacking level 1 evidence for surgical and oncologic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy. Aim was to compare feasibility, safety, and surgical and oncologic efficiency of laparoscopic versus open liver resection (OLR) in management of solitary small (<5 cm) peripheral HCC in Child A cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to either OLR group (25 patients) or laparoscopic liver resection (LRR) group (LRR: 25 patients). All were treated with curative intent aiming at achieving R0 resection using radiofrequency-assisted technique.

RESULTS

LLR had significantly less operative time (120.32 ± 21.58 versus 146.80 ± 16.59 minutes, P < .001) and shorter duration of hospital stay (2.40 ± 0.58 versus 4.28 ± 0.79 days, P < .001), with comparable overall complications (25 versus 28%, P = .02). LLR had comparative resection time (66.56 ± 23.80 versus 59.56 ± 14.74 minutes, P = .218), amount of blood loss (250 versus 230 mL, P = .915), transfusion rate (P = 1.00), and R0 resection rate when compared with OLR. After median follow-up of 34.43 (31.67-38.60) months, LLR achieved similar adequate oncological outcome of OLR, no local recurrence, with no significant difference in early recurrence or number of de novo lesions (P = .49). One-year and 3-year disease free survival (DFS) rates, 88% and 59%, in the LLR were comparable to corresponding rates of 84% and 54% in OLR (P = .9).

CONCLUSION

LLR is superior to the OLR with significantly shorter duration of hospital stay and does not compromise the oncological outcomes.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: early-stage management challenges

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer death and is increasing in incidence. This review focuses on HCC surveillance and treatment of early-stage disease, which are essential to improving outcomes. Multiple societies have published HCC surveillance guidelines, but screening efforts have been limited by noncompliance and overall lack of testing for patients with undiagnosed chronic liver disease. Treatment of early-stage HCC has become increasingly complex due to expanding therapeutic options and better outcomes with established treatments. Surgical indications for HCC have broadened with improved preoperative liver testing, neoadjuvant therapy, portal vein embolization, and perioperative care. Advances in post-procedural monitoring have improved efficacies of transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation, and novel therapies involving delivery of radiochemicals are being studied in small trials. Finally, advances in liver transplantation have allowed for expanded indications beyond Milan criteria with non-inferior outcomes. More clinical trials evaluating new therapies and multimodal regimens are necessary to help clinicians design better treatment algorithms and improve outcomes.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are widely accepted as safe and effective procedures for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the hands of experienced surgeons. The efficacy and extent of benefits of pure as well as hand-assisted laparoscopic and laparoscopy-assisted liver resection over open liver resection (OLR) have been investigated by numerous studies during the last 10 years. The aim of our meta-analysis is to investigate the effect of LLR in short- and long-term outcomes compared to OLR in patients operated for HCC. A total of 5203 patients from forty-four studies were included in our meta-analysis reporting for short- and long-term results for both LLR and OLR for HCC. Among them, 1830 underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy, 282 underwent pure laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic or laparoscopy-assisted hepatectomy, and 3091 were operated through open approach. LLRs were found to be significantly associated with lower blood loss, need for blood transfusion, successful achievement of R0 resection as well as wider resection margin, shorter hospital stay, lower morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. Operative time, tumor recurrence, 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival as well as 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival were not found different between the groups. This meta-analysis clearly demonstrates the superiority of laparoscopic resection over the open approach for patients with small HCC.

Totally laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumors: A single center experience

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a common procedure that has been reported frequently; however, laparoscopic resection of centrally located tumors involving segments 4, 5, and 8 remains a technically difficult procedure because it requires 2 transection planes and dissection of numerous branches of the hepatic vein and glissonean capsule compared to hemi-hepatectomy. Here, we present 7 cases of totally laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (Lap-RAS) and 3 cases of totally laparoscopic central bisectionectomy (Lap-CBS).Between May 2013 and January 2015, 10 totally laparoscopic anatomical resections of centrally located tumors were performed in our institution. The median age of the patients was 54.2 (38-72) years and the median ICG-R15 was 10.4 (3.9-17.4). There were 8 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 2 with metastatic colorectal cancer. All the HCC patients has the liver function impairment on the degree of Child-Pugh score A.The mean operation time was 330 ± 92.7 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 325 ± 234.5 mL. Only 1 patient required transfusion during surgery. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.5 ± 3.4 day and postop complication was reported only 1 case that has the fluid collection at the resection margin of the liver. Mean resection margin was 8.5 ± 6.1 mm and tumor size was 2.9 ± 1.9 cm.Totally lap-RAS and lap-CBS are feasible operative procedures in patients with centrally located tumor of the liver and particularly in patients with limited liver function such as those with cirrhosis.

Surgical outcomes following laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases

The aim of the study was to report surgical outcomes (efficacy and safety) of laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.Although the number of laparoscopic liver resections has increased, expansion of laparoscopic major hepatic resection remains limited, mainly owing to the technical difficulties for the procedure as compared to open surgery. We describe our experiences with laparoscopic major hepatectomy for various liver diseases.We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 192 patients who underwent laparoscopic major hepatectomy between October 2007 and March 2015 at Asan Medical Center, Korea.The mean age of the patients was 54 ± 11.6 years, and their mean body mass index was 23.5 kg/m. The most common preoperative diagnosis was hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 82, 42.7%), followed by intrahepatic duct stones (n = 51, 26.6%). We performed 108 left hepatectomies, 55 right hepatectomies, 18 right posterior sectionectomies, 6 right anterior sectionectomies, 2 central bisectionectomies, and 3 donor right hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 1.6% (3 cases) due to bleeding, bile leakage, and uncontrolled hypercapnea during the operation. The mean operation time was 272 ± 80.2 minutes, and the mean estimated blood loss was 300.4 ± 252.2 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was 9.8 days. All resection margins were tumor-free in cases of malignant tumors. The morbidity rate was 3.1% (n = 6), including for case of biliary stricture. There were no deaths.Laparoscopic major hepatectomy, including donor hepatectomy, is a safe and feasible option for various liver diseases when careful selection criteria are used by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The impact of body mass index on short-term surgical outcomes after laparoscopic hepatectomy, a retrospective study

Background

Surgeons may expect technical difficulties and worse outcomes when performing laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) on obese patients. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on short-term surgical outcomes and to verify risk factors of conversion rate and complications of LH.

Methods

Data were collected from 551 patients who underwent attempted LH between August 1998 and April 2013. Patients were classified into four groups depending on their BMI according to the WHO’s definition of obesity for Asia-Pacific region: underweight <18.5 kg/m² (Group1); normal 18.5–23.9 kg/m² (Group2); overweight 24–27.9 kg/m² (Group3); obese ≥ 28 kg/m² (Group4) respectively. Short-term surgical outcomes were compared across the BMI categories. Possible risk factors concerned conversion rate and complications were analyzed.

Results

The overall conversion rate of the 551 patients was 13.07 %. Conversion rate for Group 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 14.3 % (n = 5), 11.2 % (n = 38), 13.0 % (n = 19), and 34.5 % (n = 10) respectively. Patients within the obese group had a much higher conversion rate. The overall complications rate was 11.98 %, where the complication for Group 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 22.9 % (n = 8), 12.7 % (n = 43), 18.2 % (n = 12), and 10.3 % (n = 3) respectively. Patients within the underweight group had a higher complication rate, but it did not reach statistic difference. Obesity and surgical site of left lobe were independent risk factors of conversion. Age, abdominal surgery history, and type of left and right lobe resection were independent risk factors for complications.

Conclusions

In China, obesity increases risk of conversion rate but it dose not affect surgical complications and other short-outcomes after LH.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0194-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The safety and efficacy of approaches to liver resection: a meta-analysis

Background:

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.

Database:

Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3–200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.57).

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with portal hypertension: the role of laparoscopy

Liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is a major issue since patients are at risk of serious intraoperative and postoperative complications. The current EASL/AASLD guidelines recommend LR only in case of patients with stage A HCC with well-preserved liver function and consider the presence of portal hypertension (PHT) as a contraindication to surgery. Nevertheless, the literature on this topic is conflicting. Recently several studies reported that favorable outcomes can be achieved with a careful patients' selection in high volume centers. Laparoscopic LR, when performed by well-trained surgeons and with appropriate indications, proved to be a valid option for the surgical treatment of HCC on cirrhosis offering similar oncologic outcomes but a reduction in surgical related morbidities. Laparoscopic LR thanks to a reduction in the incidence of post-operative liver failure and ascites development in comparison to standard open LR could, in selected cases challenge alternative treatments in the treatment of HCC patients with preserved liver function and clinical signs of mild PHT.

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Liver resection for patients with cirrhosis remains a challenging operation. The presence of thrombocytopenia and portal hypertension could lead to severe bleeding during hepatectomy. The enthusiasm of laparoscopic hepatectomy has been growing and many studies have reported their initial favorable results for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The advancement in technology, better understanding of the use of pneumoperitoneum pressure and more experience accumulated make laparoscopic liver resection for patients with cirrhosis possible. Favorable outcome may be achieved if the patients are carefully selected and carried out in high volume centers.

The importance of surgical margins in primary malignancies of the liver

Resection is an important treatment modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Anatomic resection is generally preferred for HCC. When anatomic resection is not feasible, prospective data have demonstrated an improved outcome among HCC patients who have a resection with wide versus narrow surgical margins. Similarly, among patients with ICC, R1 resection has been associated with worse outcomes. In addition, margin width may also impact risk of recurrence and survival. As such, provided adequate functional liver remnant remains, anatomic resection with wide margins is recommended for HCC and ICC.

Comparative study and systematic review of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) as a curative treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: A PubMed database search was performed systematically to identify comparative studies of LLR vs OLR for HCC from 2000 to 2014. An extensive text word search was conducted, using combinations of search headings such as “laparoscopy”, “hepatectomy”, and “hepatocellular carcinoma”. A comparative study was also performed in our institution where we analysed surgical outcomes of 152 patients who underwent liver resection between January 2005 to December 2012, of which 42 underwent laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection and 110 underwent open resection.

RESULTS: Analysis of our own series and a review of 17 high-quality studies showed that LLR was superior to OLR in terms of short-term outcomes, as patients in the laparoscopic arm were found to have less intraoperative blood loss, less blood transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay. In our own series, both LLR and OLR groups were found to have similar overall survival (OS) rates, but disease-free survival (DFS) rates were higher in the laparoscopic arm.

CONCLUSION: LLR is associated with better short-term outcomes compared to OLR as a curative treatment for HCC. Long-term oncologic outcomes with regards to OS and DFS rates were found to be comparable in both groups. LLR is hence a safe and viable option for curative resection of HCC.

Perspective of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is associated with high risks of developing significant postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions, which can result in the need for repeated treatments. Studies comparing laparoscopic procedures to open LR consistently report reduced blood loss and transfusions requirements, lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter hospital stays, with no differences in oncologic outcomes. In addition, laparoscopic LR is associated with reduced postoperative ascites and a lower incidence of liver failure for HCC patients with CLD, due to the reduced surgery-induced parenchymal injury to the residual liver and limited destruction of the collateral blood/lymphatic flow around the liver. Finally, this procedure facilitates subsequent repeat LR due to minimal adhesion formation and improved vision/manipulation between adhesions. These characteristics of laparoscopic LR may lead to an expansion of the indications for LR. This editorial is based on the review and meta-analysis presented at the 2^nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Iwate, Japan, in October 2014 (Chairperson of the congress is Professor Go Wakabayashi from the Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine), which is published in the Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences.

A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in case-controlled patient groups using the propensity score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2013, 292 patients underwent surgical resection for HCC. Of these, 202 patients who underwent surgical resection for initial treatment for a single mass were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to the method of operation: the Lap group (patients who underwent LLR) and the Open group (patients who underwent OLR). To correct different demographic and clinical factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, 102 patients were enrolled in this study, 51 patients in each group. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative results, and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed based on the prospectively recorded database.

RESULTS

Preoperative baseline variables were well balanced in both groups. There were no differences of extent of surgery and rate of anatomical resection between the two groups. With the exception of a shorter postoperative hospital stay in the Lap group than that of the Open group (8.2 days versus 12.3 days; P=.004), there were no significant differences in perioperative, pathological, and long-term outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rates were 80.1% in the Lap group and 85.7% in the Open group, respectively (P=.173). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.8% in the Lap group and 54.8% in the Open group, respectively (P=.519).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is safe, and long-term oncologic outcomes in selected patients were comparable to those who underwent OLR.

Colorectal cancer liver metastases: laparoscopic and open radiofrequency-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

The liver is the most common site of colorectal metastases (colorectal liver metastases - CLM). Surgical treatment in combination with oncological therapy is the only potentially curative method. Unfortunately, only 10-25% of patients are suitable for surgery. Traditionally, open liver resection (OLR) is usually performed. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become popular worldwide in the last two decades.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of radiofrequency minor LLR of CLM in comparison with OLR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The indication for surgery was CLM and the possibility to perform minor laparoscopic or OLR not exceeding two hepatic segments according to Couinaud's classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six minor liver resections for CLM were performed. Twenty-five (37.9%) patients underwent a laparoscopic approach and 41 (62.1%) patients underwent OLR. The mean operative time was 166.4 min for LLR and 166.8 min for OLR. Average blood loss was 132.3 ±218.0 ml during LLR and 149.5 ±277.5 ml during OLR. Length of hospital stay was 8.4 ±2.0 days for LLR and 10.5 ±5.8 days for OLR. All resections were R0. There was no case of mortality. Postoperative complications were recognized in 9 (13.6%) patients: 8 in the group of OLR patients and 1 in the LLR group. The median survival time for LLR was 70.5 months and for OLR 61.9 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher for LLR vs. OLR - 82.1% vs. 69.8%. The average length of disease-free interval after LLR was greater (52.2 months) in comparison with OLR (49.4%). The 5-year disease-free interval was 63.2% for LLR and 58% for OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and oncological radicality of minor laparoscopic liver resections of CLM are comparable to outcomes of OLR.

Indications for liver surgery: laparoscopic or robotic approach

Laparoscopic liver resections have been demonstrated to be safe and effective with the advantages of a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, less adhesions and better postoperative recovery compared to open surgery. However, indications are usually confined to peripheral, small lesions, due to issues intrinsic to the approach. In the effort to overcome some of these technical limitations, robotic technology has been developed, with encouraging findings. We performed a review of the literature to assess the current indications for laparoscopic hepatic resections and to investigate the role of robotics in broadening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Although a paucity of data exists, especially regarding long-term oncological outcomes and specific comparisons with laparoscopy, robotics has been proved to facilitate several complex liver procedures, including parenchyma-saving resections. Thus, the number of patients who can benefit from less invasive, conservative approach is potentially increased.

Can we expand the indications for laparoscopic liver resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease

Liver resection (LR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and chronic liver disease (CLD) poses a high risk of serious postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions requiring repeated treatment. The efficacy of laparoscopic LR (LLR) for such patients has yet to be established. The objective of this study is to test the outcomes of LLR for HCC with the aim of considering potential expansion of the indications for LLR. We performed a systematic review of the pertinent English-language literature. Our search yielded four meta-analyses and 23 comparative studies of LLR for HCC. On the basis of the findings from these studies and our newly conducted meta-analysis, the possibility for expanding the indications for LLR to HCC was examined. The studies show that LLR (vs open) for HCC generally yields better short-term outcomes without compromising long-term outcomes, and that incidences of postoperative ascites and liver failure are decreased with LLR. Several studies show the benefits of LLR for patients with severe CLD and for repeat surgery. Reductions of postoperative ascites and liver failure are among the advantages of LLR. These characteristics of LLR may allow us to expand the indications of LLR to HCC with CLD.