Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients

Laparoscopic central hepatectomy: Feasibility and safety

BACKGROUND

Anatomical liver resection is the gold standard for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), enhancing survival and disease-free outcomes. For centrally located tumors, major resections are necessary but risky, especially for patients with liver disease. Central hepatectomy (CH) offers a parenchymal-sparing alternative to extended or hemihepatectomy (HH), reducing postoperative liver failure risk. However, its complexity and the large transection area make it challenging, especially with laparoscopic techniques. This study evaluates the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic CH for centrally located HCC, comparing surgical outcomes with those of the HH group.

METHODS

A total of 1592 laparoscopic hepatectomy cases from January 2011 to April 2023 were reviewed in a single institution. Patients undergoing laparoscopic CH were compared to those receiving HH during the same period. Exclusion criteria included non-HCC diagnosis, non-central tumors, and cases involving combined procedures.

RESULTS

70 cases of laparoscopic CH and 32 cases of laparoscopic HH were included. The CH and HH groups showed similar estimated blood loss (median 400 ml vs. 290 ml, p = 0.187) and intraoperative blood transfusion rates (10% vs. 15%, p = 0.413). Operation time did not significantly differ (median 330 min vs. 360 min, p = 0.862). Postoperative hospital stay was shorter in CH (median 6 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.018), with fewer ICU transfers (19% vs. 44%, p = 0.014) and lower 90-day mortality (1% vs. 9%, p = 0.055) compared to HH. Complication rates were similar overall (26% vs. 41%, p = 0.069), but HH had more Clavien-Dindo class I and II complications (13% vs. 19%, p = 0.040). Long-term survival did not significantly differ, but tended to favor the CH group.

CONCLUSION

Despite the complexity, laparoscopic CH offers comparable perioperative outcomes and favorable long-term survival compared to HH. It can be considered a viable option for centrally located HCC, preserving liver function.

Comparing Outcomes of Minimally Invasive and Open Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Malignancies in Patients with Low-MELD Cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Cirrhotic patients with primary liver cancer may undergo curative-intent resection when selected appropriately. Patients with T1 tumors and low-MELD are generally referred for resection. We aim to evaluate whether minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) is associated with improved outcomes versus open hepatectomy (OH).

METHODS

NSQIP hepatectomy database 2014-2021 was used to select patients with T1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) or Intra-hepatic Cholangiocarcionoma (IHCC) and low-MELD cirrhosis (MELD ≤ 10) who underwent partial hepatectomy. Propensity score matching was applied between OH and MIH patients, and 30-day postoperative outcomes were compared. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in the selected population.

RESULTS

There were 922 patients: 494 (53.6%) OH, 372 (40.3%) MIH, and 56 (6.1%) began MIH converted to OH (analyzed with the OH cohort). We matched 354 pairs of patients with an adequate balance between the groups. MIH was associated with lower rates of bile leak (HR 0.37 [0.19-0.72)], PHLF (HR 0.36 [0.15-0.86]), collections requiring drainage (HR 0.30 [0.15-0.63]), postoperative transfusion (HR 0.36 [0.21-0.61]), major (HR 0.45 [0.27-0.77]), and overall morbidity (HR 0.44 [0.31-0.63]), and a two-day shorter median hospitalization (3 vs. 5 days; HR 0.61 [0.45-0.82]). No difference was noted in operative time, wound, respiratory, and septic complications, or mortality. Regression analysis identified ascites, prior portal vein embolization (PVE), additional hepatectomies, Pringle's maneuver, and OH (vs. MIH) as independent predictors of PHLF.

CONCLUSION

MIH for early-stage HCC/IHCC in low-MELD cirrhotic patients was associated with improved postoperative outcomes over OH. These findings suggest that MIH should be considered an acceptable approach in this population of patients.

The Outcome of Conversion to Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is known as a useful option. However, the outcome and predictor of conversion to HALS in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who planned pure LLR between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and compared pure LLR, HALS, and converted open liver resection (OLR).

RESULTS

Among the 169 LLRs, conversion to HALS was performed in 19 (11.2%) and conversion to OLR in 16 (9.5%). The most frequent reasons for conversion to HALS were failure to progress (11 cases). Subsequently, bleeding (3 cases), severe adhesion (2 cases), and oncological factors (2 cases) were the reasons. In the multivariable analysis, the tumor located in segments 7 or 8 (p = 0.002) was evaluated as a predictor of conversion to HALS. Pure LLR and HALS were associated with less blood loss than conversion to OLR (p = 0.005 and p = 0.014, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictor of conversion to HALS was a tumor located in segments 7 or 8. The outcome of conversion to HALS was not inferior to pure LLR in terms of bleeding, operation time, hospital stay, or severe complication.

Previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery did not increase the difficulty in laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case–control study in 100 consecutive patients

Objectives

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is still technically challenging for patients with previous nonhepatectomy abdominal surgery (AS). Therefore, this study aimed to assess the difficulty of performing LH for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a history of nonhepatectomy AS during the initial developing period of LH.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective study enrolled patients who were newly diagnosed with HCC receiving LH from January 2013 to June 2021. Demographic characteristics, perioperative variables, and surgical complications were prospectively collected.

Results

One hundred patients were reviewed consecutively, comprising 23 in the AS group and 77 in the non-AS group. No significant differences were observed in median IWATE score (5 vs. 5, P = 0.194), operative time (219 vs. 200 min, P = 0.609), blood loss (100.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P = 0.734), transfusion rate (4.3% vs. 10.4%, P = 0.374), duration of parenchyma transection (90.0 vs. 72.4 min, P = 0.673), and mean nonparenchymal transection time (191.0 vs. 125.0 min, P = 0.228), without increasing the conversion rate (0.0% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.336), postoperative complications (30.3% vs. 33.8%, P = 0.488), and postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 days, P = 0.060) in AS group and non-AS groups.

Conclusion

History of previous nonhepatectomy AS can lead to longer nonparenchymal transection time instead of conversion and did not increase the difficulty. Prolonged nonparenchymal transection time did not increase the surgical complications, prolong the postoperative hospital stay, and compromise the survival outcomes.

Predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection and evaluation of alternative procedures to assist bleeding control

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver (PM) in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and to assess alternative procedures to PM.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing LLR between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and the outcomes of patients who underwent PM or alternative procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Among 106 patients who underwent LLR, PM could not be performed in 18 (17.0%) because of abdominal adhesions in 14 (77.8%) and/or collateral flow around the hepatoduodenal ligament in 5 (27.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed that Child-Pugh classification B (p = 0.034) and previous liver resection (p < 0.001) were independently associated with difficulty in performing PM in LLR. We evaluated pre-coagulation of liver tissue using microwave tissue coagulators, saline irrigation monopolar, clamping of the hepatoduodenal ligament using an intestinal clip, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as alternatives procedures to PM. There were no significant differences in blood loss (p = 0.391) or transfusion (p = 0.518) between the PM and alternative procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Child-Pugh classification B and previous liver resection were identified as predictors of a difficult PM in LLR. The alternative procedures were found to be effective.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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 Segment 1 with Partial IVC Resection in Advanced Cirrhosis: How to Do It Safely

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic versus open hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) resection reduces morbidity without a compromise in oncologic safety.1^-4 Moreover, in the subgroup of cirrhotic patients, a decreased risk of prolonged postoperative ascites and liver decompensation has been reported.5^-7 METHODS: A 54-year-old homeless, deaf male with chronic alcoholism, hepatitis C, and advanced cirrhosis was referred with a caudate tumor from a critical access hospital. Imaging showed a 3.6-cm HCC in the caudate lobe compressing the inferior vena cava (IVC). With the patient in reversed, modified French position, the liver was mobilized, and the hepatocaval space dissected. Portal and short hepatic vein branches were individually controlled, and the caudate lobe was dissected off the IVC. At the superior portion of the Spiegel process, the tumor was inseparable from the IVC, necessitating en bloc segment 1 with partial IVC resection. The IVC was reconstructed laparoscopically following a preplanned approach. The pathology report confirmed R0 resection of a moderately differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma without microvascular or perineural invasion (pT1bN0M0).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic caudate lobectomy for cirrhotic patients with partial IVC resection is technically demanding. It therefore requires a strategic and preplanned approach with dedicated instrumentation and laparoscopic skills available. Although the caudal view along the axis of the IVC facilitates dissection, a laparoscopic approach necessitates particular attention to central venous pressure management (intravenous fluid and respiratory tidal volume), meticulous control of portal and short hepatic vein branches, and availability of specialty laparoscopic instrumentation to ensure procedural safety.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis on Perioperative Outcomes Among Elderly Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy: the Effect of Minimally Invasive Surgery

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis on perioperative outcomes for elderly patients undergoing hepatectomy remains not well defined. We sought to determine the influence of underlying cirrhosis and minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on postoperative outcomes among elderly patients who underwent a hepatectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hepatectomy between 2013 and 2015 were identified using the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) 100% Limited Data Set (LDS) Standard Analytic Files (SAFs). Short-term outcomes after hepatectomy, stratified by the presence of cirrhosis and MIS, were examined.

RESULTS

Among 7452 patients who underwent a hepatectomy, a minority had cirrhosis (n = 481, 6.5%) whereas the vast majority did not (n = 6971, 93.5%). Overall, median patient age was 72 years (IQR 68-76) and preoperative Charlson comorbidity score was 6 (IQR 2-8). Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be younger (median age 71 [67-76] vs 72 [IQR 68-76] years), male (64.4% vs 50%), African American (8.1% vs 6.4%) and have a malignant diagnosis (87.1% vs 78.7%) compared to non-cirrhotic patients (all p < 0.001). There was no difference among patients with and without cirrhosis regarding type of hepatectomy or surgical approach (open vs MIS) (both p > 0.05). Patients with versus without cirrhosis had similar complication rates (24.1% vs 22.3%, p = 0.36), as well as 30-day (6.2% vs 5%, p = 0.25) and 90-day (10.4% vs 8.5%, p = 0.15) mortality. MIS reduced the length-of-stay in non-cirrhotic patients (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-0.99, p < 0.05), yet was not associated with morbidity or mortality (both p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The presence of cirrhosis did not generally impact outcomes in elderly patients undergoing hepatectomy for benign and malignant diseases. MIS hepatectomy in the elderly Medicare beneficiary population reduced LOS among patients without cirrhosis, yet was not associated with differences in morbidity or mortality.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is technical challenge for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UAS), especially for those with previous liver resection. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to assess the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with previous UAS, in comparison with primary laparoscopic liver resection which means patients without previous upper abdominal surgery (non-UAS).

METHODS

All case-matched articles published from date of inception to 15th April 2018 were identified independently by two reviewers. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed. Data were extracted and calculated by random- or fixed-effect models. In addition, subgroup analysis according to patients with history of liver resection was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 8 non-randomized observational articles were included, with 1625 patients (430 patients in UAS group and 1195 in non-UAS group). The results showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in perioperative outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of patients with a history of liver resection, however, LH for patients with previous liver resection had longer operative time comparing with patients without previous liver resection (WMD = 33.03, 95% CI 3.16 to 62.90, P = 0.030); other perioperative outcomes were similar between UAS and non-UAS groups.

CONCLUSION

LH is feasible and safe for selected patients with previous UAS comparing with that of primary resection, although LH has longer operative time for patients with previous liver resection.

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 liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in early and advanced cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evolution and revolution of laparoscopic liver resection in Japan

Due to important technological developments and improved endoscopic techniques, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered the approach of choice and is increasingly performed worldwide. Recent systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of observational data reported that LLR was associated with less bleeding, fewer complications, and no oncological disadvantage; however, no prospective randomized trials have been conducted. LLR will continue to evolve as a surgical approach that improves patient's quality of life. LLR will not totally supplant open liver surgery, and major LLR remains to be technically challenging procedure. The success of LLR depends on individual learning curves and adherence to surgical indications. A recent study proposed a scoring system for stepwise application of LLR, which was based on experience at high‐volume Japanese centers. A cluster of deaths after major LLR was sensationally reported by the Japanese media in 2014. In response, the Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery conducted emergency data collection on operative mortality. The results demonstrated that mortality was not higher than that for open procedures except for hemi‐hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. An online prospective registry system for LLR was established in 2015 to be transparent for patients who might potentially undergo treatment with this newly developed, technically demanding surgical procedure.

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.

Short-term efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis

AIM: To compare the short-term efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) vs open hepate-ctomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of 56 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis who were treated from September 2011 to December 2014 at our hospital. They were randomly divided into either an LH group (24 cases) or an OH group (32 cases) based on the mode of surgery. Intraoperative variables, postoperative recovery and short-term postoperative recurrence were analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: There were comparable demographic data (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Operative time was 355.42 min ± 22.36 min for the LH group and 200.87 min ± 18.59 min for the OH group. Blood loss volume was 117.26 mL ± 57.17 mL for the LH group and 353.52 mL ± 80.63 mL for the OH group. The incidence rates of postoperative infection, bile leakage and ascites were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group. Levels of liver function (ALT, AST) within three days after operation, hospitalization, and short-term tumor recurrence rate were significantly lower in the LH group than in the OH group.

CONCLUSION: In the treatment of cirrhosis with liver cancer, LH is better than OH in terms of operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery and short-term recurrence.

Evidence supporting laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasing in frequency with over 9,000 cases done worldwide. Benefits of laparoscopic resection include less blood loss, smaller incisions, decreased postoperative morbidity, and shorter length of stay compared to open liver resection. With increased experience, several centers have reported series of laparoscopic major hepatectomy, although this represents only about 25% of total LLR performed. Evidence is accumulating to support laparoscopic major hepatectomy with the understanding that there is a steep learning curve, and surgeons should begin with minor LLR before moving on to laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Controversy still remains concerning indications, techniques, learning curve, risks, and long-term cancer outcomes with laparoscopic major hepatectomy.

An evaluation of the safety of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with liver cirrhosis: investigations including serum albumin and ascites

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate scientific advantages and safety of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with severe damaged liver and cirrhosis.

METHODS

Three cohorts were evaluated: group I, patients with severe liver damage or cirrhosis (f3-4) who underwent laparoscopic-assisted hepatectomy (n=8); group II, patients with severe liver damage or cirrhosis (f3-4) who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy (n=10); group III, patients with normal liver (f0) who underwent pure laparoscopic hepatectomy (control, n=7). A comparison of operative time, blood loss, serum albumin, C-reactive protein, duration of hospitalization, duration of postoperative indispensable hospitalization, and the duration of ascites drainage was made between the 3 cohorts.

RESULTS

All parameters except for operative time and C-reactive protein investigated were significantly worse in group I compared with the other 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy might be safe for patients with damaged liver and cirrhosis.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: improvement in outcomes and similar cost

OBJECTIVE

To compare outcomes of laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection (OHR) exclusively for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of morbidity and cost.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatic resection (LHR) has become more prevalent with recent improvements in instrumentation and surgeon experience.

METHODS

A review of multicenter, prospectively collected hepatobiliary databases from three institutions was performed from 12/1990 to 12/2009. Prospective evaluation of all patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular cancer was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 354 patients who had resections for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were analyzed, 100 were performed laparoscopically. The two groups were similar in terms of demographics and comorbidities. Evaluation of outcomes showed significantly higher intraoperative estimated blood loss although postoperative transfusion rates were similar. The incidence of any complication (44 vs 44%, p = 0.23) and 90-day mortality (6 vs 6%, p = 0.8) were similar between the two groups, with a similar reoperation rate (4.0 vs. 2.4%; p = 0.9). Using Cox regression analysis, the laparoscopic approach had no effect on disease-free interval (OR 1.4, CI 0.31-6.3, p = 0.66) or overall survival (HR 1.2, CI 0.59-2.5 p = 0.6). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group 6.2 vs. 9.3 days (p = 0.001). Adjusted operative charges ($41 vs. $39 k, p = 0.601) and adjusted total hospital charges ($71 vs. $82 k, p = 0.368) were similar in LHR versus OHR.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms previous literature showing comparable perioperative outcomes and recurrence. We further show comparable cost with laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC.

Donor safety in live donor laparoscopic liver procurement: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Donor safety is a major concern in live organ donation. Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement is an advanced surgical procedure that is performed in highly specialized centers. Since its first report, not much progress has been endeavored for that procedure.

METHODS

We planned to include all the randomized and comparative nonrandomized studies. Patients' population: live donors who are submitted to organ procurement via laparoscopy.

RESULTS

Out of 5,636 records retrieved from the literature, only seven nonrandomized studies were included in this review, which encompassed 418 patients, 151 patients of whom underwent laparoscopic procurement. The quality scores for the included studies ranged from 66 to 76 %. The operative time was significantly shorter in the conventional open group (SD = 0.863, 95 % CI 0.107-1.819). Blood loss in the laparoscopic group was comparable with the conventional open approach (SD = -0.307, 95 % CI -0.807 to 0.192). In subgroup analysis, laparoscopy was protective against blood loss in laparoscopic parenchymal dissection (SD = -1.168, 95 % CI -1.758 to -0.577). The hospital stay was equal in both groups. Patients in laparoscopic group consumed fewer analgesics compared with conventional open group (SD = -0.33, 95 % CI -0.63 to -0.03). Analgesics use was lower in the laparoscopic group compared with the conventional approach. The rate of Clavien complications was equal in both groups (OR 0.721, 95 % CI 0.303-1.716). No difference was found between subgroup analysis based on the harvested liver lobe. Funnel plot and statistical methods used revealed low probability of publication BIAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Live donor laparoscopic liver procurement could be as safe as the conventional open approach. Lower blood loss and lower consumtion of analgesics might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

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.

Anatomical laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging

PURPOSE

It is important to minimize surgical invasiveness in the therapy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and consequently laparoscopic hepatic resection is widely performed. However, most anatomical resections, except left lateral sectionectomy, remain difficult technically, and laparoscopy-assisted procedures have been introduced as an alternative approach because of the safety and curative success of the operation. We reported previously pure laparoscopic subsegmentectomy of the liver using puncture of the portal branch under percutaneous ultrasound (US) with artificial ascites. Herein, we describe pure anatomical laparoscopic segmentectomy using the puncture method with indocyanine green (ICG) injection under laparoscopic US.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pure laparoscopic segmentectomy was planned for 2 patients with HCC of the liver. Identification of the segment was performed by ICG injection for optical imaging using near-infrared fluorescence under laparoscopic US guidance.

RESULTS

The procedures were completed successfully, and the postoperative courses were uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic segmentectomy for HCC with a conventional puncture technique by ICG injection under laparoscopic US is considered to be a useful procedure featuring both low invasiveness and curative success.

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.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic pringle maneuver in patients with severe cirrhosis

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a standard surgical procedure. However, it is difficult to perform in patients with severe cirrhosis because of fibrosis and a high risk of hemorrhage. We report our recent experience in five cases of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver in patients with severe cirrhosis. From 2012 to 2014, we performed pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy in five patients with severe liver cirrhosis (indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min [ICG R15] >30% and fibrosis stage f4). A pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver was employed in all patients. We investigated operative time, blood loss, duration of hospitalization and the days when discharge was possible, and compared these findings with those of patients with a normal liver (ICG R15 <10%, f0) who underwent pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy during the same period (n = 7). As a result, operative time, blood loss, duration of hospitalization and the days when discharge was possible were similar in patients with cirrhosis undergoing pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver to those in patients with a normal liver undergoing pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy. In conclusion, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy combined with a pure laparoscopic Pringle maneuver appears to be safe in patients with severe cirrhosis.

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.

Efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection in colorectal liver metastases and the influence of preoperative chemotherapy

Background

Since 1993, we have performed minimally invasive laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to treat malignant liver cancer, including colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, further studies are needed to accumulate sufficient evidence on the oncological outcome of LLR for CLM.

Methods

To elucidate the efficacy of LLR for CLM, this study comparatively analyzed the invasiveness and short-term prognosis of LLR (n = 43 cases) and open liver resection (OR) (n = 62 cases) performed for CLM after 2006 and also investigated the safety of LLR following chemotherapy.

Results

Compared with the OR group, the LLR group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). The E-PASS scoring system was used to compare surgical invasiveness, and although the preoperative risk score did not differ between the groups, the surgical stress score and comprehensive risk score were significantly lower in the LLR group (P < 0.001). Concerning the survival rate and disease-free survival rate, there were no significant differences between procedures. However, more clinical cases and longer follow-up periods are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Preoperative hemanalysis, intraoperative bleeding, complications, and postoperative length of stay did not differ significantly between LLR patients with preoperative chemotherapy and those with surgery alone, indicating no adverse effects of chemotherapy.

Conclusions

LLR can be an effective minimally invasive surgery in CLM patients receiving both perioperative chemotherapy and surgery. Because LLR is comparable with OR with regard to short-term oncological outcome, LLR may be a valuable option for CLM.

Recent advances in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy. The treatment of HCC is complex and complicated by the severity of associated chronic liver disease, the stage of HCC, and the clinical condition of the patient. Liver resection (LR) is one of the most efficient treatments for patients with HCC, with an expected 5-year survival of 38%-61% depending on the stage of the disease. Improved liver function assessment, increased understanding of segmental liver anatomy from advanced imaging studies, and surgical technical progress are important factors that have led to reduced mortality in patients with HCC. The indication for LR may be expanded due to emerging evidences from laparoscopic hepatectomies and combined treatments with newly developed chemotherapies. Liver transplantation (LT) is considered as an ideal treatment for removal of existing tumors and the injured/preneoplastic underlying liver tissue with impaired liver function and the risk of multicentric carcinogenesis that results from chronically injured liver. However, LT is restricted to patients with minimal risk of tumor recurrence under immunosuppression. The expansion of criteria for LT in HCC patients is still under trial and discussion. Limited availability of grafts, as well as the risk and the cost of transplantation have led to considerable interest in expansion of the donor pool, living donor-related transplantation, and combined treatment involving LR and LT. This highlight presents evidence concerning recent studies evaluating LR and LT in HCC patients. In addition, alternative therapies for the treatment of early stage tumors and the management of patients on transplant waiting lists are discussed.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Recent advances in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy. The association of HCC with chronic liver disease (CLD) is well known and making treatment complex and challenging. The treatment of HCC must take into consideration, the severity of CLD, the stage of HCC, and the clinical condition of the patient. Liver resection (LR) is one of the most efficient treatments for patients with HCC. Better liver function assessment, increased understanding of segmental liver anatomy using more accurate imaging studies, and surgical technical progress are the important factors that have led to reduced mortality, with an expected 5 year survival of 38-61% depending on the stage of the disease. However, the procedure is applicable to <30% of all HCC patients, and 80% of the patients after LR recurred within 5 years. There are recent advances and prospects in LR for HCC in several aspects. Three-dimensional computed tomography imaging assisted preoperative surgical planning facilitates unconventional types of LR. Emerging evidences of laparoscopic hepatectomy and prospects for the use of newly developing chemotherapies as a combined therapy may lead to expanding indication of LR. LR and liver transplantation could be associated rather than considered separately with the current concepts of "bridging LR" and "salvage transplantation."

Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between Middle Eastern and Western experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is growing in popularity, but the short- and long-term outcome of patients undergoing LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not yet been established.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) from cited English and Chinese publications. Clinical and survival parameters were extracted. The search was last conducted in October 2013. After application of selective criteria, 24 remaining original studies with more than 15 patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

In the Western experience, mean operative time was between 150 to 300 minutes, and mean blood loss ranged from 55 to 452 mL. Transfusion was required in all series, ranging from 2.8% to 50%. The conversion rate ranged from 5% to 19.4%. Three cases of death were reported. General morbidity rate ranged from 1.5% to 25%. Specific complications were divided into hemorrhage (2.4% to 25%), ascites (3.7% to 15.3%), and biliary collection (0.6% to 5%). Liver insufficiency was reported in two cases. Mean hospital stay ranged from 5.4 to 15 days. In all case-matched studies, LLR was statistically associated with a shorter hospital stay. The 5-year overall survival rate ranged from 55% to 70%. No trocar-site recurrence was observed. The recurrence rate ranged from 21.4% to 50%. Comparative studies did not demonstrate any significant difference in terms of recurrence between LLR and open liver resection (OLR). In the Middle Eastern experience, mean operative time ranged from 147 to 325 minutes, and mean blood loss ranged from 88 to 808 mL. Transfusion was required, ranging from 1.8% to 19.2%. The conversion rate ranged from 1.8% to 18.6%, and four series reported no conversion. There was no mortality. The main specific complication was ascites (1.7% to 26.6%). A biliary collection was reported in only two series (10.7% and 13.3%), and only one case of postoperative liver insufficiency was reported. Mean hospital stay ranged from 4 to 11.5 days. Statistically, three comparative studies reported a shorter postoperative hospital stay following LLR versus OLR. The 5-year overall survival rate ranged from 50% to 76.6%. Comparative studies did not demonstrate any significant difference in terms of overall survival and recurrence rate between LLR and OLR. No trocar-site recurrence was reported. The recurrence rate ranged from 26.9% to 45.5%, and two series reported no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic surgery should be considered an acceptable alternative for the treatment of HCC.

Laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal malignancies: toward the future with caution

After the rapid acceptance of laparoscopy to manage multiple benign diseases arising from gastrointestinal districts, some surgeons started to treat malignancies by the same way. However, if the limits of laparoscopy for benign diseases are mainly represented by technical issues, oncologic outcomes remain the foundation of any procedures to cure malignancies. Cancerous patients represent an important group with peculiar aspects including reduced survival expectancy, worsened quality of life due to surgery itself and adjuvant therapies, and challenging psychological impact. All these issues could, potentially, receive a better management with a laparoscopic surgical approach. In order to confirm such aspects, similarly to testing the newest weapons (surgical or pharmacologic) against cancer, long-term follow-up is always recommendable to assess the real benefits in terms of overall survival, cancer-free survival and quality of life. Furthermore, it seems of crucial importance that surgeons will be correctly trained in specific oncologic principles of surgical oncology as well as in modern miniinvasive technologies. Therefore, laparoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal malignancies requires more caution and deep analysis of published evidences, as compared to those achieved for inflammatory bowel diseases, gastroesophageal reflux disease or diverticular disease. This review tries to examine the evidence available to date for the use of laparoscopy and robotics in malignancies arising from the gastrointestinal district.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with chronic liver disease

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy is a less invasive procedure than conventional open hepatectomy for the resection of hepatic lesions. Increases in experiences with the technique, in combination with advances in technology, have promoted the popularity of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. However, indications for usage and potential contraindications of the procedure remain unresolved. The characteristics and specific advantages of the procedure, especially for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with chronic liver diseases, are reviewed and discussed in this paper. For cirrhotic patients with liver tumors, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy minimizes destruction of the collateral blood and lymphatic flow from laparotomy and mobilization, and mesenchymal injury from compression. Therefore, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy has the specific advantage of minimal postoperative ascites production that leads to lowering the risk of disturbance in water or electrolyte balance and hypoproteinemia. It minimizes complications that routinely trigger postoperative serious liver failure. Under adequate patient positioning and port arrangement, the partial resection of the liver in the area of subphrenic space, peri-inferior vena cava area or next to the attachment of retro-peritoneum is facilitated in pure laparoscopic surgery by providing good vision and manipulation in the small operative field. Furthermore, the features of reduced post-operative adhesion, good vision, and manipulation within the small area between the adhesions make this procedure safer in the context of repeat hepatectomy procedures. These improved features are especially advantageous for patients with liver cirrhosis and multicentric and/or metachronous HCCs.

Gas embolism in laparoscopic hepatectomy: what is the optimal pneumoperitoneal pressure for laparoscopic major hepatectomy?

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has become popular as a surgical treatment for liver diseases, and numerous recent studies indicate that it is safe and has advantages in selected patients. Because of the magnified view offered by the laparoscope under pneumoperitoneal pressure, LH results in less bleeding than open laparotomy. However, gas embolism is an important concern that has been discussed in the literature, and experimental studies have shown that LH is associated with a high incidence of gas embolism. Major hepatectomies are done laparoscopically in some centers, even though the risk of gas embolism is believed to be higher than for minor hepatectomy due to the wide transection plane with dissection of major hepatic veins and long operative time. At many high-volume centers, LH is performed at a pneumoperitoneal pressure less than 12 mmHg, and reports indicate that the rate of clinically severe gas embolism is low. However, more studies will be necessary to elucidate the optimal pneumoperitoneal pressure and the incidence of gas embolism during LH.

Usefulness of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in a severely cirrhotic patient

The number of patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy has rapidly increased in recent years, and indications for this procedure are gradually expanding. Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy is reportedly useful in cases with severe liver cirrhosis. A 55-year-old woman under observation for liver cirrhosis was found to have hepatocellular carcinoma in liver segment III and was referred to our hospital for surgery. The tumor was located in the edge of liver segment III, where percutaneous ablation therapy was unsuitable. Since her hepatic functional reserve was poor, pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy was performed. The postoperative course was favorable, with no ascites retention, edema or weight gain. The greatest advantage of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with concomitant liver cirrhosis is that postoperative ascites retention is minimal, meaning that there is little risk of water-electrolyte imbalance associated with ascites retention or hypoproteinemia. This is believed to be because the abdominal incision is small and mobilization of the liver is minimized, reducing the destruction of the routes of collateral lymph flow and blood flow generated in patients with liver cirrhosis. Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy may be a treatment choice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and concomitant severe liver cirrhosis.

Surgical resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: the Eastern experience

Detection of small Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) by screening of high-risk populations is important to increase the percentage of patients suitable for curative treatment, which would lead to prolongation of the mean survival of patients with HCC. It should be remembered that small HCC is not always necessarily equivalent to early HCC as defined histologically. With recent advances in diagnostic imaging modalities, including contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging with liver-specific contrast enhancement, accurate differential diagnosis of early HCCs from dysplastic nodules has become possible. Because a certain proportion of small HCCs is known to show microscopic vascular invasion, surgical resection would be the treatment of first choice. To minimize potential microscopic invasion, anatomic resection and/or resection with a wide margin should be performed, while preserving liver function to the maximum extent possible. Surgical resection, however, cannot prevent multicentric occurrence of HCC, which remains a major issue precluding curative treatment of HCC.

Laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

The current treatment of HCC is truly multidisciplinary. Notwithstanding, surgical management remains the gold standard which other therapies are compared to. Operative management is divided into transplantation and resection; the latter is further subdivided among open and laparoscopic approaches. Resection has become safer, remains superior to locoregional treatments, and can be a life-prolonging bridge to transplantation. The decision to pursue laparoscopic resection for HCC is driven by safety and a view toward the long-term management of both the malignancy and the underlying liver disease. For patients with a solitary HCC <5 cm in segments 2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6, no evidence of extrahepatic tumor burden, compensated liver disease, and the absence of significant portal hypertension, laparoscopy has an important role. Under these circumstances, resection can be performed with reduced mortality and morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes, disease-free survival, and overall survival when compared with similarly selected cirrhotic patients undergoing open resection. Blood loss and transfusion requirements are low, and laparoscopy itself does not expose the patient to complications and does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence or dissemination. Finally, because HCC recurrence remains high in the cirrhotic liver, treatment following surgical resection mandates routine surveillance and treatment by locoregional therapy, reresection, or transplantation as required-the latter two of which are facilitated by an initial laparoscopic resection.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

In the field of gastroenterological surgery, laparoscopic surgery has advanced remarkably, and now accounts for most gastrointestinal operations. This paper outlines the current status of and future perspectives on robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatectomy.

METHODS

A review of the literature and authors' experience was undertaken.

RESULTS

The da Vinci Surgical System is a robot for assisting laparoscopy and is safer than conventional endoscopes, thanks to the 3-dimensional hi-vision images it yields, high articular function with the ability to perform 7 types of gripping, scaling function enabling 2:1, 3:1, and 5:1 adjustment of surgeon hand motion and forceps motions, a filtering function removing shaking of the surgeon's hand, and visual magnification. By virtue of these functions, this system is expected to be particularly useful for patients requiring delicate operative manipulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Issues of importance remaining in robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatectomy include its time of operation, which is longer than that of open surgery, and the extra time needed for application of the da Vinci compared with ordinary laparoscopic surgery. These issues may be resolved through accumulation of experience and modifications of the procedure. Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatectomy appears likely to become a standard procedure in the near future.