Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher incident frequency in hepatolithiasis patients. Surg Today. 2013;43:1371-1381. [PMID: 23184324 DOI: 10.1007/s00595-012-0425-0]

The effectiveness of two-step percutaneous transhepatic choledochoscopic lithotripsy for hepatolithiasis: a retrospective study

The study was designed to compare the effectiveness of two-step percutaneous transhepatic choledochoscopic lithotripsy (T-PTCSL) with laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy combined with choledocholithotomy (LAHC) for patients with hepatolithiasis. From January 2020 to September 2023, 98 patients who underwent LAHC (n = 40) or T-PTCSL (n = 58) for hepatolithiasis in our hospital were included in this study. Their perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in stone clearance rates (90.0% vs. 84.5%, P = 0.429) and postoperative complication rates (35.0% vs. 22.4%, P = 0.170). The T-PTCSL group had significantly shorter operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and intake time (all P < 0.001). Postoperative biochemical indices showed lower ALB, ALT, AST, and WBC in the T-PTCSL group compared to the LAHC group (all P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression indicated age as an independent risk factor for stone clearance (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89-0.99, P = 0.049). Subgroup analysis showed no significant impact of gender and type of stone distribution on stone clearance (all P > 0.05). The KM curve analysis revealed no significant difference in stone recurrence between the groups (log-rank P = 0.925). Hemoglobin concentration was significantly associated with time-to-stone recurrence (TR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1.01-1.04, P < 0.05) in the multivariate Accelerated Failure Time Model. T-PTCSL may be an alternative option to LAHC. Compared with LAHC, T-PTCSL offers favorable postoperative recovery and less surgical injury for patients with hepatolithiasis, as well as equivalent effectiveness of stone clearance and recurrence.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process.

METHODS

We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches."

RESULTS

This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.

Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A case-matched analysis of short- and long-term outcomes

Background

The feasibility and safety of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) are still uncertain. The purpose of the present study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH with those of open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Method

Between January 2012 and December 2018, a total of 26 patients received laparoscopic major hepatectomy in our center. To minimize any confounding factors, a 1:3 case-matched analysis was conducted based on the demographics and extent of liver resection. Data of demographics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term oncologic outcomes were reviewed.

Results

Intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.007) was significantly lower in the LMH group. In addition, the LMH group exhibited a lower overall complication rate (P = 0.039) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.024). However, no statistically significant difference was found between LMH and OMH regarding operation time (P = 0.215) and operative cost (P = 0.860). Two laparoscopic cases were converted to open liver resection. In regard to long-term outcomes, there was no significant difference between LMH and OMH regarding disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.079) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.172).

Conclusion

LMH can be an effective and safe alternative to OMH for selected patients with liver cancer in short- and long-term outcomes.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy produces better outcomes for hepatolithiasis than open hepatectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present meta-analysis focused on comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatolithiasis. In detail, short-term outcomes including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative time to oral intake, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, and stone recurrence were analyzed systematically.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for eligible studies up to Jun. 30. 2017. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNoteX7) was applied to literature management. Quality assessment was carried out according to the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Stata SE12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Sensitivity analysis was conducted by deleting single study step by step. Odds ratio (OR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated continuous data.

RESULTS

= 0%; P = 0.22). In addition, our stratified analysis according to types of LH indicated that the laparoscopic approach still produced more favorable outcomes whatever patients underwent left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) or left hemihepatectomy (LHH).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic hepatectomy is a better alternative to open approach in patients with hepatolithiasis, providing less overall complication rate, shorter postoperative stay of hospital stay, less blood loss, and shorter time to oral intake. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are badly needed to provide higher-level evidence due to unavoidable bias from non-randomized trials.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: A propensity, long-term follow-up analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

This trial was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy and open left-sided hepatectomy. Left-sided hepatectomy is a novel, minimally invasive operative technique for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis, but it has not been accepted widely due to the limited information about short- and long-term outcomes, effectiveness, and safety compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent left-sided hepatectomy between January 2007 and December 2016 were reviewed and grouped into the open left-sided hepatectomy and left-sided hepatectomy groups, according to propensity score matching in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function, location of stone, hepatitis serology, and comorbidity on a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics of the 200 patients included in the study. For the left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients) when compared to the open left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients, the duration of hospital stay was less (10.3 vs 14.7 days, P< .001), the incidence of postoperative biliary fistulas (5% vs 14%, P = .003) and overall morbidity were less (25% vs 45%, P = .003), out of bed return to activity was expedited (2.0 vs 2.7 days, P< .001), and the rate of stone recurrence in the long-term follow-up was les (5.1% vs 17%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Left-sided hepatectomy was associated with significantly lesser rate of stone recurrence, a shorter hospital stay, decreased morbidity and clinical biliary fistula rate, and expedited postoperative recovery compared with open left-sided hepatectomy.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Laparoscopic VS open hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a meta-analysis on laparoscopic hepatectomy VS conventional liver resection for treating hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library, and undertook a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy VS conventional open liver resection for local hepatolithiasis in the left or right lobe. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative intestinal function recovery time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, final residual stone and stone recurrence) were analyzed systematically.

RESULTS

A comprehensive literature search retrieved 16 publications with a total of 1329 cases. Meta-analysis of these studies showed that the laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis was associated with significantly less intraoperative estimated blood loss [weighted mean difference (WMD): 61.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 14.91-108.20, P = 0.01], lower blood transfusion rate [odds ratio (OR): 0.41, 95%CI: 0.22-0.79, P = 0.008], shorter intestinal function recovery time (WMD: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.47-1.48, P = 0.01), lower total postoperative complication rate (OR: 0.52, 95%CI: 0.39-0.70, P < 0.0001) and shorter stay in hospital (WMD: 3.32, 95%CI: 2.32-4.32, P < 0.00001). In addition, our results showed no significant differences between the two groups in operative time (WMD: 21.49, 95%CI: 0.27-43.24, P = 0.05), residual stones (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.50-1.25, P = 0.31) and stone recurrence (OR: 0.34, 95%CI: 0.11-1.08, P = 0.07). Furthermore, with subgroups analysis, our results proved that the laparoscopic approach for hepatolithiasis in the left lateral lobe and left side could achieve satisfactory therapeutic effects.

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach is safe and effective, with less intraoperative estimated blood loss, fewer postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and shorter intestinal function recovery time than with conventional approaches.

Laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis concomitant with calculus of the left intrahepatic duct or abdominal adhesions

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) has been widely promoted in recent years as a safe and effective treatment for choledocholithiasis. However, there are no standard guidelines for the treatment of patients who have concomitant hepatolithiasis of the left liver and abdominal adhesions. The aim of the current research was to compare the outcomes of open versus laparoscopic common bile duct exploration with left hepatectomy (OCBDH vs. LCBDH) in patients with choledocholithiasis concomitant with left-sided hepatolithiasis, and to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis in patients with abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Between October 2012 and October 2015, a total of 321 consecutive patients with choledocholithiasis underwent surgical treatment. LCBDE was performed in 107 patients, and open common bile duct exploration (OCBDE) was performed in 111 patients. Further, 31 patients and 72 patients underwent LCBDH and OCBDH, respectively. A total of 133 patients who underwent LCBDE or OCBDE had abdominal adhesions, which were classified as mild, moderate, or severe according to an abdominal adhesion scoring system, which was validated in the LCBDE group and OCBDE group. The perioperative results were reviewed and analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In the mild adhesion group, blood loss, postoperative recovery in the LCBDE group was lesser than those in the OCBDE group. In the moderate adhesion group, the postoperative recovery was significantly shorter in the LCBDE group than in the OCBDE group. In the severe adhesion group, the operation time and blood loss in the LCBDE group were higher than those in the OCBDE group. The postoperative recovery was significantly better in the LCBDH group than in the OCBDH group.

CONCLUSION

LCBDH can obviously improve recovery and shorten the hospitalization period. Further, LCBDE is safe and feasible for patients of choledocholithiasis with mild and moderate abdominal adhesions.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left-Sided Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis had been successfully performed in a series of cases, its advantages over open left hepatectomy (OLH) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH with those of OLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on LLH versus OLH for hepatolithiasis from January 1991 to May 2016. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rate were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and seven nonrandomized observational clinical studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 739 patients in this meta-analysis, including 316 LLHs and 423 OLHs. The volume of intraoperative blood loss favored LLH (P = .015). Intraoperative transfusion (P < .001), overall complication (P < .001), and hospital stay (P = .001) were significantly low in LLH. There was no obvious difference in operation time, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. The mean conversion rate was 9.5% (range, 2.2%-15.6%).

CONCLUSION

LLH seems to be more effective and safer for selected patients with hepatolithiasis than OLH. As only one RCT was included, the evidence of which is still limited. More prospective, multicenter, and RCTs are needed to further define the real role of the laparoscopic technique in hepatolithiasis.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical application of navigation surgery using augmented reality in the abdominal field

This article presents general principles and recent advancements in the clinical application of augmented reality-based navigation surgery (AR based NS) for abdominal procedures and includes a description of our clinical trial and subsequent outcomes. Moreover, current problems and future aspects are discussed. The development of AR-based NS in the abdomen is delayed compared with another field because of the problem of intraoperative organ deformations or the existence of established modalities. Although there are a few reports on the clinical use of AR-based NS for digestive surgery, sophisticated technologies in urology have often been reported. However, the rapid widespread use of video- or robot assisted surgeries requires this technology. We have worked to develop a system of AR-based NS for hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. Then we developed a short rigid scope that enables surgeons to obtain 3D view. We recently focused on pancreatic surgery, because intraoperative organ shifting is minimal. The position of each organ in overlaid image almost corresponded with that of the actual organ with about 5 mm of mean registration errors. Intraoperative information generated from this system provided us with useful navigation. However, AR-based NS has several problems to overcome such as organ deformity, evaluation of utility, portability or cost.