The learning curve in laparoscopic major liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013;20:131-136. [PMID: 23064988 DOI: 10.1007/s00534-012-0571-1]

Towards a Standardization of Learning Curve Assessment in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to analyze the learning curves of minimal invasive liver surgery(MILS) and propose a standardized reporting.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

MILS offers benefits compared to open resections. For a safe introduction along the learning curve, formal training is recommended. However, definitions of learning curves and methods to assess it lack standardization.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases identified studies on learning curves in MILS. The primary outcome was the number needed to overcome the learning curve. Secondary outcomes included endpoints defining learning curves, and characterization of different learning phases(competency, proficiency and mastery).

RESULTS

60 articles with 12'241 patients and 102 learning curve analyses were included. The laparoscopic and robotic approach was evaluated in 71 and 18 analyses and both approaches combined in 13 analyses. Sixty-one analyses (60%) based the learning curve on statistical calculations. The most often used parameters to define learning curves were operative time (n=64), blood loss (n=54), conversion (n=42) and postoperative complications (n=38). Overall competency, proficiency and mastery were reached after 34 (IQR 19-56), 50 (IQR 24-74), 58 (IQR 24-100) procedures respectively. Intraoperative parameters improved earlier (operative time: competency to proficiency to mastery: -13%, 2%; blood loss: competency to proficiency to mastery: -33%, 0%; conversion rate (competency to proficiency to mastery; -21%, -29%), whereas postoperative complications improved later (competency to proficiency to mastery: -25%, -41%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the highest evidence on learning curves in MILS taking into account different definitions and confounding factors. A standardized three-phase reporting of learning phases (competency, proficiency, mastery) is proposed and should be followed.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Sequential TACE-PVE: A Multicentric Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Right hepatectomy (RH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is ideally preceded by transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and portal vein embolization (PVE). Laparoscopic approach improves short-term outcome and textbook outcome (TO), which reflects the "ideal" surgical outcome, after RH. However, laparoscopic RH on an underlying diseased liver and after TACE/PVE remains a challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or open liver resection (OLR) following TACE/PVE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with HCC who underwent RH after TACE/PVE in five French centers were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between the LLR group and the OLR group using propensity score matching (PSM). Quality of surgical care was defined by TO.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2019, 117 patients were included (41 in LLR group, 76 in OLR group). Overall morbidity was comparable (51% versus 53%, p = 0.24). In LLR group, TO was completed in 66% versus 37% in OLR group (p = 0.02). LLR and absence of clamping were the only factors associated with TO completion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.27, [1.77-10.28], p = 0.001]. After PSM, 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 55% in matched LLR versus 77% in matched OLR, p = 0.35, and 13% in matched LLR versus 17% in matched OLR, p = 0.97. TO completion was independently associated with a better 5-year OS (65.2% versus 42.5%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Major LLR after TACE/PVE should be considered as a valuable option in expert centers to increase the chance of TO, the latter being associated with a better 5-year OS.

Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection

BACKGROUND

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission.

CONCLUSION

The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.

The learning curve of bilateral laparoscopic varicocelectomy: a prospective study

Varicocele occurs in 15% of general male population and in 35% of infertile men. Since 1992, surgical correction with laparoscopic varicocelectomy is the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic patients or patients with abnormal seminal analysis. The learning curve for this frequently performed procedure has not yet been described. In the present study, we investigated the learning curve of a single urologist in training performing his first 21 laparoscopic varicocelectomies using qualitative and quantitative tools to evaluate his performance during the process. Our results show that 14 bilateral laparoscopic varicocelectomies are enough to achieve the plateau of the learning curve.

Application of trans-sutural distraction osteogenesis based on an optical surgical navigation system to correct midfacial dysplasia

Midfacial hypoplasia is a common maxillofacial deformity in patients with cleft lip and palate, which requires surgical treatment. However, trans-sutural distraction osteogenesis (TSDO) remains some disadvantages, including difficulty in accurate location of surgical path, prolonged operation time, and excess surgical bleeding. This study aimed to evaluate the application of an optical surgical navigation system (OSNS) developed for TSDO. Six consecutive patients with midfacial hypoplasia who required TSDO were included in the study. Preoperatively, a head computed tomography was performed, and the data were imported into Mimics software (version: 20.0.0.691, Materialise Inc, Belgium) to design a three-dimensional simulation of the surgical approach. TSDO was performed with the use of OSNS. The accuracy and results of the procedure were initially evaluated by comparing the preoperative and postoperative periods. The patients included five boys and one girl, with an average age of 10 years; five with postoperative cleft lip and palate, and one without combined cleft lip and palate. The surgical procedure was successful, with a postoperative follow-up of 4–5 months. All patients demonstrated good treatment results without complications. In conclusioin, OSNS-assisted TSDO can noninvasively correct midfacial dysplasia, improve surgical precision, reduce bleeding and obtain better clinical results. OSNS can guide the TSDO safely and effectively.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM)

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Early results of the implementation of laparoscopic major liver resection program

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections offer potential benefits but may require advanced laparoscopic skills and are volume dependent.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 12 patients who underwent major laparoscopic resection and 24 patients after open major liver resection for liver malignancy in the time period between September 2020 and May 2021. The primary outcomes were complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Median duration of hospital stay in laparoscopic resection group (6 days) was significantly shorter than in open resection group (8 days) (p = 0.046). Complications classified as grade II or higher were significantly less frequent in the laparoscopic resection group (2 patients) versus open resection group (13 patients) (p = 0.031).

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic major liver resections should be limited to expert hepatobiliary centers and are characterized by long learning curve, this approach may offer favorable short-term outcomes even during launching a new program.

Outcomes in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass and Implications for Surgical Resident Education

OBJECTIVES

Some surgery residents feel inadequately prepared to perform advanced operations, partly due to losing operative opportunities to fellows. In turn, they are prompted to pursue fellowships. Allowing residents the opportunity to participate in advanced procedures and complex cases may alleviate this cycle, if their participation is safe. This study examined the effects of resident participation in laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures (LRYGBs).

DESIGN

Our MBSAQIP database was used to identify LRYGBs performed at our institution between 2015 and 2018. Operative notes were reviewed to determine training level of the assistant. Patient comorbidities and outcomes (duration of surgery, length of stay, post-operative complications, readmissions, and reoperations) were stratified by assistant level of training for comparison.

SETTING

Urban tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Trainees and attending surgeons acting as assistants during LRYGBs.

RESULTS

Among 987 total cases, the assistants for the procedures were chief residents (n = 549, 56%), fourth-year residents (n = 258, 26%), attending surgeons (n = 143, 14%), and third-year residents (n = 37, 4%). Attending surgeons assisted more often when patients had a BMI ≥ 45 (38% attendings vs. 25% residents, p = 0.007), ≥ 2 comorbidities (54% vs. 40%, p = 0.007), or had a history of prior bariatric surgery (22% vs. 3%, p < 0.0001).Post-operative complication rate was low (4%) and did not differ significantly between all training levels (p = 0.86). Average length of stay, readmission rates, and reoperation rates were not significantly different across training levels (p = 0.75, p = 0.072, and p = 0.91 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Complication rates, hospital length of stay, readmission rates, and reoperation rates were equivalent for patients regardless of the level of training of the assistant for LRYGBs. Involving residents in complex bariatric procedures such as LRYGB is a safe model of education that does not compromise patient safety or hospital outcomes. Involvement in advanced cases allows general surgery residents to more confidently move toward independent practice.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: An individual patient data survival meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We compared the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) vs. open hepatectomy (OH) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: 08-June-2020). Individual patient data on overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses, and one- and two-stage survival analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective cohort studies comparing LH (n = 544) vs. OH (n = 2256) were identified. LH demonstrated lower overall complication (Risk ratio [RR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.90; p = 0.01), surgical lymphadenectomy (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; p = 0.01) and margin-positive resection (RR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; p = 0.04) rates, and higher recurrence-free rate (RR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.51; p = 0.04) vs. OH. In Cox regression, no difference was observed regarding OS (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.65-1.91; p = 0.70) and RFS (HR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74-1.90; p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

The use of LH should be considered when feasible in well-selected iCCA patients by hepatobiliary surgeons with experience in minimally-invasive surgery.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has become an important option for the treatment of various liver tumours. A major concern is the learning curve required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and summarize current literature analysing the learning curve for MIH.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in MIH to July 2019 was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. All original full-text articles published in English relating to learning curves for both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), or a combination of these, were included. To explore quantitatively the learning curve for MIH, a meta-regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Forty studies relating to learning curves in MIH were included. The median overall number of procedures required in studies utilizing cumulative summative (CUSUM) methodology for LLR was 50 (range 25-58) and for RLR was 25 (16-50). After adjustment for year of adoption of MIH, the CUSUM-derived caseload to surmount the learning curve for RLR was 47.1 (95 per cent c.i. 1.2 to 71.6) per cent; P = 0.046) less than that required for LLR. A year-on-year reduction in the number of procedures needed for MIH was observed, commencing at 48.3 cases in 1995 and decreasing to 23.8 cases in 2015.

CONCLUSION

The overall learning curve for MIH decreased steadily over time, and appeared less steep for RLR compared with LLR.

Current status of radical laparoscopy for treating hepatocellular carcinoma with portal hypertension

The laparoscopic technique is clinically effective in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal hypertension (PHT). However, existing studies lack systematic arrangement and induction. Here, we review the latest research advancement in laparoscopic technique for treatment of HCC with PHT, based on published literature and our single-institution experience. Our single-center experience reveals no statistical difference in both short- and long-term prognosis of HCC patients after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), regardless of whether they suffer from PHT, which is consistent with previous studies on the use of LLR for HCC with PHT. Retrieval outcomes indicate existence of short- and long-term prognostic superiority, following laparoscopic treatment, relative to non-laparoscopic treatment. Besides that, LLR offers long-term prognostic advantage compared to laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation. In addition, we review the previous literature and propose corresponding perspectives on the therapy of hypersplenism, the utilization of Pringle maneuver, and the adoption of anatomical hepatectomy during radical laparoscopic treatment. HCC with PHT is not the "forbidden zone" of radical laparoscopic treatment. However, patients’ preoperative liver function should be adequately estimated.

Operative Time, Age, and Serum Albumin Predict Surgical Morbidity After Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Background. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has emerged as a considerable alternative to conventional liver surgery. However, the increasing complexity of liver resection raises the incidence of postoperative complications. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for postoperative morbidity in a monocentric cohort of patients undergoing LLR. Methods. All consecutive patients who underwent LLR between 2015 and 2019 at our institution were analyzed for associations between complications with demographics and clinical and operative characteristics by multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results. Our cohort comprised 156 patients who underwent LLR with a mean age of 60.0 ± 14.4 years. General complications and major perioperative morbidity were observed in 19.9% and 9.6% of the patients, respectively. Multivariable analysis identified age>65 years (HR = 2.56; P = .028) and operation time>180 minutes (HR = 4.44; P = .001) as significant predictors of general complications (Clavien ≥1), while albumin<4.3 g/dl (HR = 3.66; P = .033) and also operative time (HR = 23.72; P = .003) were identified as predictors of major postoperative morbidity (Clavien ≥3). Conclusion. Surgical morbidity is based on patient- (age and preoperative albumin) and procedure-related (operative time) characteristics. Careful patient selection is key to improve postoperative outcomes after LLR.

Variation in complications and mortality following ALPPS at early-adopting centers

BACKGROUND

Various, often conflicting, estimates for post-operative morbidity and mortality following ALPPS have been reported in the literature, suggesting that considerable center-level variation exists. Some of this variation may be related to center volume and experience.

METHODS

Using data from seventeen centers who were early adopters of the ALPPS technique, we estimated the variation, by center, in standardized 90-day mortality and comprehensive complication index (CCI) for patients treated between 2012 and 2018.

RESULTS

We estimated that center-specific 90-day mortality following treatment with ALPPS varied from 4.2% (95% CI: 0.8, 9.9) to 29.1% (95% CI: 13.9, 50.9), and that center-specific CCI following treatment with ALPPS varied from 17.0 (95% CI: 7.5, 26.5) to 49.8 (95% CI: 38.1, 61.8). Declines in estimated 90-day mortality and CCI were observed over time, and almost all individual centers followed this trend. Patients treated at centers with a higher number of ALPPS cases performed over the prior year had a lower risk of post-operative mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite considerable center-level variation in ALPPS outcomes, perioperative outcomes following ALPPS have improved over time and treatment at higher volume centers results in a lower risk of 90-day mortality. Morbidity and mortality remain concerningly high at some centers.

The ILLS Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Fellow Skills Curriculum

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is becoming the standard approach in liver surgery. As the degree of difficulty varies greatly from core skills to advanced procedures, strategies for teaching young surgeons need to be reconsidered. We here aimed to design a skills curriculum for LLR.

METHODS

Using the nominal group technique, 22 substeps of LLR were identified by 61 hepatobiliary surgeons. The raters were asked to rate (1) the difficulty of substeps and (2) the minimum number of times that the substep must be performed for mastery of the technique. According to the frequency of defined substeps, being estimated on the basis of high volume center experiences (n = 222 LLR; 1/2017-12/2018), the center's training capacity and defined goals for a 2-year fellowship were calculated.

RESULTS

Ten surgical substeps (45%) are routinely performed and can thus be taught sufficiently at centers carrying out ≥50 LLR in 2 years. As the mobilization of the right liver lobe and the dissection of the hepatic artery or portal vein is performed in only 27% and 28% of all LLR, respectively, sufficient training can only be provided at centers with ≥100 LLRs in 2 years. Mastery of complex parenchymal dissection (19%) and hilar lymphadenectomy (8%) can only be achieved in center performing ≥200 LLR in 2 years.

CONCLUSION

We here suggest a stepwise approach for training of hepatobiliary fellows in LLR. Based on the estimated complexity of the substeps and the size of the center, not every substep can be learned within 2 years.

Analysis of economic impact of laparoscopic liver resection according to surgical difficulty

INTRODUCTION

The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are well known, but their financial costs are poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic impact of surgical difficulty on LLR costs, and to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges.

METHODS

All patients who underwent LLR from 2014 to 2018 in a single French center were included. The IMM classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from group I through group III. The costing method was done combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy patients were included (Group I: n = 136 (50%), Group II: n = 60 (22%), Group III: n = 74 (28%)). Total expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III, but there was no difference regarding financial income (p = 0.133). Technical platform expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III and represented the main expense among all costs with a total of 4 930 ± 2 601€. Among technical platform expenses, the anesthesia platform represented the main expense. In multivariate analysis, the four clinical factors that affected global charges in the whole study population were operating time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), admission in ICU (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of major complication (p < 0.05). An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that affected most global charges, as an ICU stay had a 39.1% increase effect on global charges in the whole study population.

CONCLUSION

LLR is a cost-effective procedure. The more complex is the LLR, the higher is the hospital cost. An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that most affected global charges.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AIM

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Concise Review on Current Trends in Imaging and Surgical Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary cancer of the liver whose incidence has seen an upsurge in the United States within the last 2 decades. Despite improvements in detection and management techniques, the prognosis for patients with HCC generally remains poor. There are multiple factors that have been implicated in the etiology of HCC with cirrhosis occurring as a common final pathway. This review presents a concise summary of current trends in imaging and surgical management of HCC. An internet-based (PubMed) search using the search terms "hepatocellular carcinoma" and "imaging" and "surgical management" was performed. Our search was limited to articles related to human studies published in English during the period of 07/01/2011 to 06/30/2016. A review of all relevant articles was conducted, and findings were summarized. Modern imaging modalities employed in the diagnosis of HCC include ultrasound scan (USS), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan. The utility of diagnostic imaging is enhanced when interpreted in conjunction with appropriate laboratory tests such as alpha-fetoprotein.  The definitive treatment for HCC remains challenging; hepatic resection (HR) and liver transplantation (LT) are two approaches offering potentially curative options. For patients undergoing HR, important considerations include achieving maximum resection while maintaining optimal post-resection liver remnant volume (LRV) and functional capacity (FC), which can be assessed using 3-dimensional CT and indocyanine green clearance. Generally, an LRV of 40-50% is considered an acceptable lower limit for individuals with HCC compared to 20-30% among individuals with normal livers. With increasing knowledge of disease pathology, appropriate patient selection, coupled with advances in anesthesia and surgical technique, overall 5-year survival rates have significantly improved. Challenges associated with LT on the other hand include donor-liver shortages with resultant long wait times and continued disease progression. The scarcity of cadaveric-donor livers has led to employing living-donor livers. Ethical considerations with respect to subjecting potentially healthy donors to undue morbidity and mortality risk however remain. Additional donor-shortage circumventing strategies include employing marginal, domino, and split-organ liver transplants. For patients awaiting transplant, employing bridging therapy such as radiofrequency ablation and transhepatic artery chemoembolization might occasionally help slow disease progression and maintain transplant eligibility. Appropriate patient selection achieved through the Milan and UCSF criteria designed to guide allotment of donor livers to patients with the best chances of survival could help improve outcomes and 5-year survival rates. The main radiological options for diagnosis include USS, CT, and MRI. HR and LT are two distinct surgical options, which in practice can be used to complement one another. Appropriate patient selection is necessary to achieve maximum benefits from HCC therapies.

Major Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Based on Surgeons' Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Surgical complications for surgeons still in the learning phase of major laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) have been frequently observed. We aimed to compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery based on the surgeons' learning curve for LLR after propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all patients with a histologic diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2013 and December 2018. A PSM analysis was used to compare the groups of patients who underwent LLR and open major liver resection (OLR) before and after the learning curve was maximized.

RESULTS

Among 405 patients, 106 underwent LLR and 299 underwent OLR. The learning curve was maximized after 42 cases. Compared with OLR, LLR had more liver-related injury and grade III or higher complications during the learning phase. The LLR group had less blood loss, fewer transfusion requirements, and fewer liver-related complications during the 'experienced' phase. Hospital stay was significantly shorter during and after maximization of the learning curve in LLR compared with OLR. Operative time was comparable in the two phases. Overall, LLR was associated with less blood loss, fewer complications, and shorter hospital stay compared with open surgery. There was no significant difference in long-term survival outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR had a higher incidence of liver-related complications during the surgeon's learning phase compared with OLR. This association was significantly diminished with surgeon experience. Overall perioperative outcomes such as estimated blood loss, surgical complications, and hospital stay remained better for LLR compared with OLR.

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

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

Robotic Liver Resection

Robotic surgery has rapidly evolved. It is particularly attractive as an alternative minimally invasive approach in liver surgery because of improvements in visualization and articulated instruments. Limitations include increased operative times and lack of tactile feedback, but these have not been shown in studies. Considerations unique to robotic surgery, including safety protocols, must be put in place and be reviewed at the beginning of every procedure to ensure safety in the event of an emergent conversion. Despite the lack of early adoption by many hepatobiliary surgeons, robotic liver surgery continues to evolve and find its place within hepatobiliary surgery.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for liver tumors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is one of the most challenging procedures. Right liver resections have been always performed in open procedure and open right hepatectomy (ORH) was initially considered as routine way. Moreover, it is unclear how beneficial the minimally invasive technique is to patients; thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to acquire a more reliable conclusion about the feasibility and safety of LRH compared with ORH.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched the electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the key words. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager, with results expressed as odds ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals. The fixed-effect model was selected initially if high heterogeneity was not present between the studies; otherwise, the randomized-effect model was used. Subgroup analysis was performed based on different surgical methods of pure laparoscopic operation or hand-assisted operation.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 467 patients were included. In the overall analysis, less intraoperative blood loss (MD = -155.17; 95% CI, -238.89, -71.45; P = .0003) and a shorter length of stay (MD = -4.45; 95% CI, -5.84, -3.07; P < .00001) were observed in the LRH group compared to the ORH group. There were fewer overall complications (OR = 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.90; P = 0.03) and severe complications (OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.10, 0.58; P = .002;) in the LRH group than in the ORH group. The disadvantage of LRH was the longer operative time (MD = 49.39; 95% CI, 5.33, 93.45; P = .03). No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in portal occlusion, rate of R0 resection, transfusion rate, mild complications, and postoperative mortality. In the subgroup analysis, intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the pure LRH group and hand-assist LRH group compared with ORH group. Length of stay was shorter by use of pure LRH and hand-assisted LRH manners than ORH. The incidence rate of complications was lower in the pure LRH group than in the ORH group. In contrast, there was no significant difference between hand-assisted LRH group and ORH group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to ORH, LRH has short-term surgical advantages and leads to a shorter recovery time in selected patients. We speculate that the operative time of LRH is closer with ORH. Overall, LRH can be considered a feasible choice in routine clinical practice with experienced surgeons, although more evidence is needed to make a definitive conclusion.

Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection demands expertise and a long learning curve. Resection of the posterosuperior segments is challenging, and there are no data on the learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for laparoscopic resection of the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the difficulty score for resection was undertaken using patient data from four specialized centres. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis of duration of operation, blood loss and conversions was performed, adjusting for the difficulty score of the procedures. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

According to the CUSUM analysis of 464 patients, the learning curve showed an initial decrease in the difficulty score followed by an increase and, finally, stabilization. More patients with cirrhosis or previous surgery were operated in the latest phase of the learning curve. A smaller number of wedge resections and a larger number of anatomical resections were performed progressively. Dissection using a Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and the Pringle manoeuvre were used more frequently with time. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis showed a progressive decrease in operating time. Blood loss initially increased slightly, then stabilized and finally decreased over time. A similar trend was found for conversions. The learning curve was estimated to be 40 procedures for wedge and 65 for anatomical resections.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments consists of a stepwise process, during which accurate patient selection is key.

Evaluation of Validity Evidence for Personality, Emotional Intelligence, and Situational Judgment Tests to Identify Successful Residents

Importance

The ability to identify candidates who will thrive and successfully complete their residency is especially critical for general surgery programs.

Objective

To assess the extent to which 3 screening tools used extensively in industrial selection settings-emotional intelligence (EQ), personality profiles, and situational judgment tests (SJTs)-could identify successful surgery residents.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this analysis, personality profiles, EQ assessments, and SJTs were administered from July through August 2015 to 51 postgraduate year 1 through 5 general surgery residents in a large general surgery residency program. Associations between these variables and residency performance were investigated through correlation and hierarchical regression analyses.

Interventions

Completion of EQ, personality profiles, and SJT assessments.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Performance in residency as measured by a comprehensive performance metric. A score of zero represented a resident whose performance was consistent with that of their respective cohort's performance; below zero, worse performance; and greater than zero, better performance.

Results

Of the 61 eligible residents, 51 (84%) chose to participate and 22 (43%) were women. US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 (USMLE1), but not USMLE2, emerged as a significant factor (t2,49 = 1.98; β = 0.30; P = .03) associated with overall performance. Neither EQ facets nor overall EQ offered significant incremental validity over USMLE1 scores. Inclusion of the personality factors did not significantly alter the test statistic and did not explain any additional portion of the variance. By contrast, inclusion of SJT scores accounted for 15% more of the variance than USMLE1 scores alone, resulting in a total of 25% of the variance explained by both USMLE1 and SJT scores (F2,57 = 7.47; P = .002). Both USMLE1 (t = 2.21; P = .03) and SJT scores (t = 2.97; P = .005) were significantly associated with overall resident performance.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found little support for the use of EQ assessment and only weak support for some distinct personality factors (ie, agreeableness, extraversion, and independence) in surgery resident selection. Performance on the SJT was associated with overall resident performance more than traditional cognitive measures (ie, USMLE scores). These data support further exploration of these 2 screening assessments on a larger scale across specialties and institutions.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Early experience of laparoscopic liver resection: A single institution experience with 37 consecutive cases

Backgrounds/Aims

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved and broadened in scope. While open liver resections are currently being performed safely in our hospital, LLRs are being implemented in fewer cases. The aim of this study was to review our initial experience in LLR to assess early outcomes of the procedure.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted for 37 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resections for various indications between January 2014 and July 2017 by a single surgeon who had performed 161 open liver resections and 50 live donor hepatectomies during the same period.

Results

Of 37 laparoscopic liver resections performed, male to female ratio was 23 to 4. Their mean age was 61.4 years. There were 13 cases of wedge resections, 7 cases of left lateral sectionectomy, 9 cases of left hepatectomy, and 8 cases of right hepatectomy. Pathology included hepatocellular carcinoma (n=20), cholangiocarcinoma (n=3), intrahepatic duct stones (n=6), metastatic liver carcinoma (n=6), primary neuroendocrine tumor of liver (n=1), and huge hemangioma (n=1). The mean operation time was 174.7 minutes (range, 40–410 minutes). Mean blood loss was 200.5 ml (range, 10–2200 ml). There were no open-conversion cases. There were no intraoperative or postoperative complications except that a case of severe portal vein stenosis in the laparoscopic right hepatectomy occurred postoperatively. The patient underwent reoperation (portal vein resection and anastomosis, stenting). The mean hospital stay was 8.7 days (range, 2–44 days).

Conclusions

Even though our experience in laparoscopic liver resection is still developing, our results are comparable to those of other studies. Therefore, an experienced surgeon in performing open liver resection should be able to perform the laparoscopic liver resection safely.

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

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

A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures

The objective of this study is to define the learning curve in a series of procedures grouped according to their complexity calculated by difficulty index to define a standard for technical improvement. 1032 laparoscopic liver resections performed in a single tertiary referral center were stratified by difficulty scores: low difficulty (LD, n = 362); intermediate difficulty (ID, n = 332), and high difficulty (HD, n = 338). The learning curve effect was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method taking into consideration the expected risk of conversion. The ratio of laparoscopic/total liver resections increased from 5.8% (2005) to 71.1% (2018). The CUSUM analysis per group showed that the average value of the conversion rate was reached at the 60th case in the LD Group and at the 15th in the ID and HD groups. The evolution from LD to ID and HD procedures occurred only when learning curve in LD resections was concluded. Reflecting different degree of complexity, procedures showed significantly different blood loss, morbidity, and conversions among groups. A standard educational model-stepwise and progressive-is mandatory to allow surgeons to define the technical and technological backgrounds to deal with a specific degree of difficulty, providing a help in the definition of indications to laparoscopic approach in each phase of training.

Ultrasound liver map technique for laparoscopic liver resections: perioperative outcomes are not impaired by technical complexity

Intraoperative liver ultrasound has a crucial role to guide open liver surgery. A 4-step ultrasound liver map technique for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been standardized in our center. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of our technique according to the hepatectomy technical complexity. A difficulty scale (DS) ranging from 1 to 10 was applied to each LLR. A cumulative sum control-chart analysis identified 3 periods of gradually increasing DS. Perioperative outcomes of the 3 periods were compared. 300 LLRs performed between 2006 and 2018 were analyzed. Median DS was 3 for first 100 cases (P1), 5 for cases 101-200 (P2) and 6 for cases 201-300 (P3). A significantly greater percentage of postero-superior segments resections (P1 11%, P2 36%, P3 46%, p < 0.001) were performed in P3. P3 LLRs had a significantly longer transection time (p < 0.001) and wider cut surface area (p < 0.001), but median blood losses were similar among the 3 periods (P1 100 cc, P2 100 cc, P3 140 cc). There were no differences among periods in overall morbidity (P1 12%, P2 17%, P3 17%), major morbidity (P1 1%, P2 2%, P3 3%) and length of hospital stay (5 days in all the three groups). Despite the increasing surgical complexity of LLR, ultrasound liver map technique allows good perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Score-a Validation Study

OBJECTIVE(S)

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

The advantages of laparoscopy are widely known. Nevertheless, its legitimacy in liver surgery is often questioned because of the uncertain value associated with minimally invasive methods. Our main goal was to compare the outcomes of pure laparoscopic (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases to find eligible studies. The most recent search was performed on December 1, 2017. Studies were regarded as suitable if they reported morbidity in patients undergoing LLR versus OLR. Extracted data were pooled and subsequently used in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model. Clinical applicability of results was evaluated using predictive intervals. Review was reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

From 2085 articles, forty-three studies (N = 5100 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Our findings showed that LLR had lower overall morbidity than OLR (15.59% vs. 29.88%, p < 0.001). Moreover, major morbidity was reduced in the LLR group (3.78% vs. 8.69%, p < 0.001). There were no differences between groups in terms of mortality (1.58% vs. 2.96%, p = 0.05) and both 3- and 5-year overall survival (68.97% vs. 68.12%, p = 0.41) and disease-free survival (46.57% vs. 44.84%, p = 0.46).

Conclusions

The meta-analysis showed that LLR is beneficial in terms of overall morbidity and non-procedure-specific complications. That being said, these results are based on non-randomized trials. For these reasons, we are calling for randomization in upcoming studies. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084576.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00464-018-6431-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Assessment of the Learning Process After Introducing a New Liver Transplantation Procedure in a Center With Extensive Experience in Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LTx) is one of the most complex transplant procedures. The aim of the present study was to determine whether the learning process can be observed after the introduction of LTx in a center with extensive previous experience in renal transplantation.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 264 primary LTx procedures performed with the piggyback technique (2005-2016). The procedures were divided into 4 equal groups. The characteristics of the recipients, data related to the surgery, and the postoperative course and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

We observed a significant reduction in surgical time and in the anhepatic phase duration between Group 1 and the other groups (median surgical time was 455 minutes vs 415 minutes, 410 minutes and 387 minutes, respectively, P < .05; median anhepatic phase duration was 75 min vs 60 min, 62 min, 60 min, respectively, P < .05). There was a decrease in the number of transfused blood units (median in Group 1 of 6 packs vs 3 packs in Group 4, P < .05) and a decrease in blood recovered from the operating field using the Cell Saver system (median in Group 1 of 1570 mL vs 1057 mL, 1123 mL, and 1045 mL, respectively, P < .05). A significant reduction in the number of hemorrhages was found (1.5% in Group 4 vs 13.6%, 10.6%, and 7.6% in the other groups P < .05). The remaining studied parameters were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive previous transplantation experience affected the lack of typical features of the learning process.

Low conversion rate during minimally invasive major hepatectomy: Ten-year experience at a high-volume center

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approaches for major hepatectomy have been marred by significant rates of conversion and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine risk factors for conversion as well as postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing minimally invasive right-sided hepatectomy (MIRH).

METHODS

Data for patients undergoing MIRH between 2008 and 2017 at Emory University were reviewed. Risk factors for conversion were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Outcomes of conversion patients were compared with those who underwent successful MIRH or elective open surgery.

RESULTS

Unplanned conversion occurred in 7 (6.25%) of 112 patients undergoing MIRH. Primary reason for conversion was difficult dissection secondary to inflammation and severe adhesions. No preoperative clinical factor was identified that predicted conversions. Converted cases had higher EBL and pRBC transfusion compared to non-converted cases however morbidity was similar to those undergoing primary open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Difficult dissection and adhesions remained the only clinically applicable parameter leading to unplanned conversions. While these did offset benefits of a successful minimally invasive approach, it did not increase risk of postoperative complications compared with planned open surgery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Approach for Formal Right and Left Hepatectomy: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding worldwide, but further evidence is needed to assess safety and efficacy of laparoscopic major hepatectomy. The study analyzes perioperative outcomes of pure laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomies matched by the propensity score method.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2017, 268 major hepatectomies were performed of which 73 were laparoscopic. After a 1:1 propensity score matching, 59 laparoscopic right and left hepatectomies were compared to 59 open. The matching was based on age, gender, year of procedure, BMI, ASA score, underlying liver disease, previous abdominal surgery, type of hepatectomy, preoperative chemotherapy, number, dimension and nature of lesions. An intention-to-treat analysis and a per-protocol analysis were carried out.

RESULTS

Mean surgical time was 315 min in the laparoscopic group and 292.5 min in the open group (p = 0.039); conversion rate in laparoscopy was 20.3%; blood loss was 480 ml (50-3000) versus 550 ml (50-2600), respectively, for laparoscopic and open (p = 0.577). Lengths of postoperative analgesia and hospital stay were shorter in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.0001 and 0.024, respectively). Postoperative complications occurred in 11.9% of laparoscopic cases and in 25.4% of open cases (p = 0.098). Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 26.2 (8.7-54.2) in the open group versus 20.9 (8.7-66.2) in open (p = 0.368). Per-protocol analysis showed a better trend in favor of laparoscopy concerning surgical time.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies are safe and feasible procedures allowing a similar complication rate with a shorter hospital stay and diminished postoperative pain with respect to the standard approach.

Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have demonstrated that patient, surgical, tumour and operative variables affect the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections. However, current difficulty scoring systems address only tumour factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resections.

METHODS

The prospectively maintained databases of seven European tertiary referral liver centres were compiled. Data from two-thirds of the patients were used for development and one-third for validation of the model. Intraoperative complications were based on a modified Satava classification. Using the methodology of the Framingham Heart Study, developed to identify risk factors that contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, factors found to predict intraoperative complications independently were assigned points, and grouped into low-, moderate-, high- and extremely high-risk groups based on the likelihood of intraoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 2856 patients were included. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lesion type and size, classification of resection and previous open liver resection were found to be independent predictors of intraoperative complications. Patients with intraoperative complications had a longer duration of hospital stay (5 versus 4 days; P < 0·001), higher complication rates (32·5 versus 15·5 per cent; P < 0·001), and higher 30-day (3·0 versus 0·3 per cent; P < 0·001) and 90-day (3·8 versus 0·8 per cent; P < 0·001) mortality rates than those who did not. The model was able to predict intraoperative complications (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) 0·677, 95 per cent c.i. 0·647 to 0·706) as well as postoperative 90-day mortality (AUC 0·769, 0·681 to 0·858).

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive scoring system, based on patient, surgical and tumour factors, and developed and validated using a large multicentre European database, helped estimate the risk of intraoperative complications.

Glissonian approach combined with major hepatic vein first for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy remains challenging because of the complex interior structures of the liver. Our novel strategy includes the Glissonian approach and the major hepatic vein first, which serves to define the external and internal landmarks for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy.

METHODS

Eleven cases underwent laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, including three right hepatectomies, three left hepatectomies, three right posterior hepatectomies, and two mesohepatectomies. The Glissonian approach was used to transect the hepatic pedicles as external demarcation. The major hepatic vein near the hepatic portal was exposed and served as the internal landmark for parenchymal transection. The liver parenchyma below and above the major hepatic vein was transected along the major hepatic vein. Fifty-nine subjects were used to compare the distance between the major hepatic vein and secondary Glisson pedicles among different liver diseases.

RESULTS

The average operative time was 327 min with an estimated blood loss of 554.55 mL. Only two patients received three units of packed red blood cells. The others recovered normally and were discharged on postoperative day 7. The distance between right posterior Glissonian pedicle and right hepatic vein was shorter in the patients with cirrhosis than that without cirrhosis, and this distance was even shorter in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

CONCLUSION

The Glissonian approach with the major hepatic vein first is easy and feasible for laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy, especially in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Which approach is preferred in left hepatocellular carcinoma? Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy using propensity score matching

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported as a safe and effective approach for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its perioperative and oncological outcomes have not been evaluated in left hepatectomy patients. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of left hepatectomy through laparoscopic and open approaches in left HCC.

Methods

From December 2012 to October 2016, laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) was performed in 40 patients and open left hepatectomy (OLH) was performed in 80 patients. All clinical data were analyzed retrospectively. Propensity score matching of patients in a 1:1 ratio was conducted based on tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion.

Results

Tumor size and presence of microvascular invasion were higher in the OLH group than the LLH group (P < 0.05). However, the operative time was longer in the LLH group than in the OLH group (266 min vs. 239 min; P = 0.005). The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LLH group than in the OLH group before and after matching (9 days vs. 13 days; P < 0.001). The incidence of complications in the LLH and OLH groups was 10.0 and 7.5%, respectively. The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in the LLH group were not different from those in the OLH group after propensity score matching.

Conclusions

A laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for left HCC. The oncologic outcome of LLH is comparable to that of OLH.

The clinical and biological impacts of the implementation of fast-track perioperative programs in complex liver resections: A propensity score-based analysis between the open and laparoscopic approaches

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the fast-track approach in patients undergoing complex liver procedures and to analyse factors that influence morbidity and functional recovery.

METHODS

Hepatic resections (2014-2016) were stratified according to difficulty score, obtaining a group of 215 complex resections (102 laparoscopic, 163 open). The laparoscopic group was matched by propensity score with open patients to obtain the minimally invasive liver surgery group (n = 102) and the open group (n = 102).

RESULTS

Groups were similar in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The postoperative morbidity was 31.4% in the minimally invasive liver surgery and 38.2% in the open group (P = .05), and functional recovery was shorter in the minimally invasive liver surgery (respectively 4 versus 6 days, P = .041). The adherence to fast-track was high in both groups, with several items with higher penetrance in the minimally invasive liver surgery group. Among factors associated with morbidity and functional recovery, a laparoscopic approach and strict adherence to a fast-track protocol resulted in protective factors.

CONCLUSION

The combination of minimally invasive approaches and fast-track protocols allows a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity and satisfactory functional recovery even in the setting of complex liver resections. When the laparoscopic approach is not feasible, strict adherence to a fast-track program is associated with the achievement of adequate results and should be implemented.

Minimally Invasive Approaches for Surgical Management of Primary Liver Cancers

The benefits of minimally invasive approaches in oncologic surgery are increasingly recognized, and laparoscopic liver surgery has become increasingly widespread. In light of the complexity and technical challenges of hepatobiliary procedures, robotic approaches are also employed. The utility, safety, and oncologic integrity of these methods in the management of primary liver cancers are reported. PubMed was used to search the medical literature for studies and articles pertaining to laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery. Studies that particularly addressed hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma were identified and reviewed. Laparoscopic liver surgery, including for major resections, has been shown to be safe in experienced hands without any compromise of oncologic outcomes for either hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Some studies show improved clinical outcomes including shorter hospital stays and lower complication rates when compared to open surgery, particularly for patients with cirrhosis. Robotic liver surgeries seem to have equally acceptable clinical outcomes; however, there is limited data regarding oncologic integrity and considerable additional expense. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections are both feasible and safe for the management of primary liver tumors. Future studies should aim to clarify specific indications and optimize applications of these approaches.

Are the current difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver surgery telling the whole story? An international survey and recommendations for the future

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have suggested that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections are related to both patient and tumour factors, however the available difficulty scoring systems only incorporate tumour factors. The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of laparoscopic liver surgeons regarding the factors that affect the perceived difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections.

METHOD

Using a Visual Analogue Scale an international survey of laparoscopic liver surgeons was undertaken to assess the perceived difficulty of 26 factors previously demonstrated to affect the difficulty of a laparoscopic liver resection.

RESULTS

80 surgeons with a combined experience of over 7000 laparoscopic liver resections responded to the survey. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery was suggested to be increased by a BMI > 35 by 89% of respondents; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 79%; repeated liver resection by 99% and concurrent procedures by 59% however these factors have not been included in the previous difficulty scoring systems.

CONCLUSION

The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.

Dissemination of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Primary Malignancy: Reevaluating Effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Experiences at specialized hepatobiliary centers have demonstrated efficacy of minimally invasive liver resection, but concerns exist regarding whether these procedures would remain effective once disseminated to a broad range of clinical practices. We sought to present the first comparison of MILR and open liver resection (OLR) for primary liver malignancy from a nationally representative cancer registry.

METHODS

Cases of liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer were identified from the National Cancer Data Base Participant Use File. Mixed effects logistic regression and stratified Cox proportional hazards regression were used for analysis. A propensity score matched cohort was used as an alternative form of analysis to evaluate the robustness of results.

RESULTS

A total of 3236 cases were analyzed from 2010 to 2011 with 2581 OLR (80%) and 655 MILR (20%). Of the variation in patient selection for MILR 28.5% was related to treatment at a specific treatment center; however, the proportion of MILR was similar among low-, medium-, and high-volume centers. Overall 90-day mortality was lower at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.85) compared with low-volume centers. MILR was similar to OLR in both 90-day mortality and overall survival (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.62-1.10) and hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 (95% CI 0.72-1.07), regardless of treatment center volume.

CONCLUSIONS

MILR for primary liver malignancy is used across a variety of practice settings, with similar outcomes to OLR. While volume is associated with short-term outcomes of liver resection as a whole, this relationship is not explained by adoption of MILR at low-volume centers.