Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy: the New Maximally Minimal Invasive Surgery of the Liver-a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal sparing liver resections for high tumour burden colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has proved effective in the treatment of oligometastatic disease (1 or 2 colorectal liver metastases CRLM) with similar long-term outcomes and improved short-term results compared to open liver resection (OLR). Feasibility of parenchymal sparing LLR for high tumour burden diseases is largely unknown. Aim of the study was to compare short and long-term results of LLR and OLR in patients with ≥ 3 CRLM.

METHODS

Patients who underwent first LR of at least two different segments for ≥ 3 CRLM between 01/2012 and 12/2021 were analysed. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1:1 matching was based on relevant prognostic factors.

RESULTS

277 out of 673 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (47 LLR and 230 OLR). After match two balanced groups of 47 patients with a similar mean number of CRLM (5 in LLR vs 6.5 in OLR, p = 0.170) were analysed. The rate of major hepatectomy was similar between the two group (10.6% OLR vs. 12.8% LLR). Mortality (2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR) and overall morbidity rates (34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR) were comparable. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the LLR group (5 vs 9 days, p = 0.001). No differences were observed in median overall (41.1 months OLR vs median not reached LLR) and disease-free survival (18.3 OLR vs 27.9 months LLR).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach should be considered in selected patients scheduled to parenchymal sparing LR for high tumour burden disease as associated to shorter LOS and similar postoperative and long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

Indocyanine green fluorescence image-guided laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection using the TICGL technique

BACKGROUND

Segment 2/3 (S2/3) resection, which can preserve more residual liver parenchyma, is a feasible alternative to left lateral sectionectomy. However, it is still challenging to perform anatomical S2/3 resection safely and precisely, especially laparoscopically. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of the temporary inflow control of the Glissonean pedicle (TICGL) technique combined with indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging in laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 12 patients recruited at Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University from June 2021 to August 2022 were included in the study. All patients underwent ICG fluorescence imaging guided laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection. The TICGL technique was used to control the blood inflow of the target segment. The total time used to control the hepatic inflow of the target segment, the time of hemostasis, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, predicted resected liver volume (PRLV) and actual resected liver volume (ARLV) were used to evaluate the simplicity, safety, and accuracy of the TICGL technique combined ICG fluorescent imaging in guiding laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

RESULTS

Of the 12 included patients, 7 underwent S2 resection and 5 underwent S3 resection. The operation time was 76.92 ± 11.95 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 15.42 ± 5.82 ml, and the time of hepatic blood inflow control was 7.42 ± 2.43 min. There was a strong correlation between PRLV and ARLV (r = 0.903, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of the TICGL technique with ICG negative staining fluorescence imaging is a feasible approach for laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

[Videofluorescence navigation during parenchymal-sparing liver resections using a domestic fluorescence imaging system]

Parenchyma- sparing liver resections are aimed at maximizing the possible preservation of parenchyma not affected by the tumor - a current trend in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. On the other hand, a prerequisite for operations is to ensure their radicality. To effectively solve this problem, all diagnostic imaging methods available in the arsenal are used, which make it possible to comprehensively solve the issues of perioperative planning of the volume and technical features of the planned operation. Diagnostic imaging methods that allow intraoperative navigation through intraoperative, instrumentally based determination of the tumor border and resection plane have additional value. One of the methods of such mapping is ICG video fluorescence intraoperative navigation. An analysis of the clinical use of the domestic video fluorescent navigation system "MARS" for parenchymal-sparing resections of focal liver lesions is presented. An assessment was made of the dynamics of the distribution of the contrast agent during ICG videofluorescent mapping during parenchymal-sparing resection interventions on the liver, with the analysis of materials from histological examination of tissues taking into account three-zonal videofluorescent marking of the resection edge, performed using the domestic videofluorescence imaging system «MARS».

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center

BACKGROUND

Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38).

CONCLUSION

The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.

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.

Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection for large (≥ 50 mm) colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, patients with large liver tumors (≥ 50 mm) have been considered for anatomic major hepatectomy. Laparoscopic resection of large liver lesions is technically challenging and often performed by surgeons with extensive experience. The current study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic safety of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection in patients with large colorectal metastases.

METHODS

Patients who primarily underwent laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (less than 3 consecutive liver segments) for colorectal liver metastases between 1999 and 2019 at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. In some recent cases, a computer-assisted surgical planning system was used to better visualize and understand the patients' liver anatomy, as well as a tool to further improve the resection strategy. The surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with large (≥ 50 mm) and small (< 50 mm) tumors were compared. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for survival.

RESULTS

In total 587 patients met the inclusion criteria (large tumor group, n = 59; and small tumor group, n = 528). Median tumor size was 60 mm (range, 50-110) in the large tumor group and 21 mm (3-48) in the small tumor group (p < 0.001). Patient age and CEA level were higher in the large tumor group (8.4 μg/L vs. 4.6 μg/L, p < 0.001). Operation time and conversion rate were similar, while median blood loss was higher in the large tumor group (500 ml vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001). Patients in the large tumor group had shorter 5 year overall survival (34% vs 49%, p = 0.027). However, in the multivariable Cox-regression analysis tumor size did not impact survival, unlike parameters such as age, ASA score, CEA level, extrahepatic disease at liver surgery, and positive lymph nodes in the primary tumor.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resections for large colorectal liver metastases provide satisfactory short and long-term outcomes.

Generic surgical process model for minimally invasive liver treatment methods

Surgical process modelling is an innovative approach that aims to simplify the challenges involved in improving surgeries through quantitative analysis of a well-established model of surgical activities. In this paper, surgical process model strategies are applied for the analysis of different Minimally Invasive Liver Treatments (MILTs), including ablation and surgical resection of the liver lesions. Moreover, a generic surgical process model for these differences in MILTs is introduced. The generic surgical process model was established at three different granularity levels. The generic process model, encompassing thirteen phases, was verified against videos of MILT procedures and interviews with surgeons. The established model covers all the surgical and interventional activities and the connections between them and provides a foundation for extensive quantitative analysis and simulations of MILT procedures for improving computer-assisted surgery systems, surgeon training and evaluation, surgeon guidance and planning systems and evaluation of new technologies.

Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Liver Resections in Low and High-Volume Centers: A Multicentric Case-Matched Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is the gold standard for liver resections. Despite its feasibility and safety in high-volume centers (HVC), its performance is controversial in low-volume centers (LVCs). We aimed to evaluate the results of LLR performed in LVC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR between 2013 and 2019 in three LVCs were compared after case-matching with those in an HVC using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris LLR Difficulty Score (IMMLDS).

RESULTS

Seventy-six patients treated in three LVCs were matched to 152 in HVCs for age, body mass index, and resection type. The incidence of LLR significantly increased in LVCs over time (2013-2016 vs. 2017-2019) (21.2% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.002 and) while abdominal drainage rate decreased (77.4% vs. 51.1%; p = 0.003). In IMMLDS group I (60 vs. 120 patients), higher Pringle maneuver (43.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), median blood loss (175 ml vs. 50 ml; p < 0.0001), abdominal drainage (58.3% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001), and conversion rate (8.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.04) were observed in LVCs. The overall postoperative morbidity was comparable (Clavien I-II: p = 0.54; Clavien > II: p = 0.71). In IMMLDS groups II-III, Pringle maneuver (56.5% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.0001), blood loss (350 ml vs. 175 ml; p = 0.02), and abdominal drainage (75% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.004) were different; however, postoperative morbidity was not. The surgical difficulty notwithstanding, length of stay (group I: p = 0.13; group II-III: p = 0.93) and R0 surgical margin (group I: p = 0.3; group II-III p = 0.39) were not different between LVCs and HVCs.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR performed at an LVC can be feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery: 20-year experience of a Norwegian high-volume referral center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver surgery has evolved to become a standard surgical approach in many specialized centers worldwide. In this study we present the evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery at a single high-volume referral center since its introduction in 1998.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) between August 1998 and December 2018 at the Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. Perioperative outcomes were compared between three time periods: early (1998 to 2004), middle (2005 to 2012) and recent (2013-2018).

RESULTS

Up to December 2020, 1533 LLRs have been performed. A total of 1232 procedures were examined (early period, n = 62; middle period, n = 367 and recent period, n = 803). Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery (68%). The rates of conversion to laparotomy and hand-assisted laparoscopy were 3.2% and 1.4%. The median operative time and blood loss were 130 min [interquartile range (IQR), 85-190] and 220 ml (IQR, 50-600), respectively. The total postoperative complications rate was 20.3% and the 30-day mortality was 0.3%. The median postoperative stay was two (IQR, 2-4) days. When comparing perioperative outcomes between the three time periods, shorter operation time (median, from 182 to 120 min, p < 0.001), less blood loss (median, from 550 to 200 ml, p = 0.023), decreased rate of conversions to laparotomy (from 8 to 3%) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median, from 3 to 2 days, p < 0.001) was observed in the later periods, while the number of more complex liver resections had increased.

CONCLUSION

During the last two decades, the indications, the number of patients and the complexity of laparoscopic liver procedures have expanded significantly. Initially being an experimental approach, laparoscopic liver surgery is now safely implemented across our unit and has become the method of choice for surgical treatment of most liver tumors.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups.

RESULTS

During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)).

CONCLUSION

Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

One-stage laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resection for bilobar colorectal liver metastases: safety, recurrence patterns and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are challenging and the safety and long-term outcomes are unclear. In this study, the short- and long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns of one-stage LLR for bilobar CRLM were compared to single laparoscopic resection for CRLM.

METHODS

This single-center study consisted of all patients who underwent a parenchymal sparing LLR for CRLM between October 2011 and December 2018. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, short-term outcomes, oncologic outcomes and recurrence patterns were compared. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Thirty six patients underwent a LLR for bilobar CRLM and ninety patients underwent a single LLR. Demographics were similar among groups. More patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the bilobar group (55.6% vs 34.4%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in conversion rate, R0 resection and transfusion rate. Blood loss and operative time were higher in the bilobar group (250 ml (IQR 150-450) vs 100 ml (IQR 50-250), P < 0.001 and 200 min (IQR 170-230) vs 130 min (IQR 100-165), P < 0.001) and hospital stay was longer (5 days (IQR 4-7) vs 4 days (IQR 3-6), P = 0.015). The bilobar group had more technically major resections (88.9% vs 56.7%, P < 0.001). Mortality was nil in both groups and major morbidity was similar (2.8% vs 3.3%, P = 1.0). There was no difference in recurrence pattern. Overall survival (OS) was similar (1 yr: 96% in both groups and 5 yr 76% vs 66%, P = 0.49), as was recurrence-free survival (RFS) (1 yr: 64% vs 73%, 3 yr: 38 vs 42%, 5 yr: 38% vs 28%, P = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for bilobar CRLM can be performed safely with similar oncologic outcomes as patients who underwent a single LLR for CRLM.

Modern therapeutic approaches for the treatment of malignant liver tumours

Malignant liver tumours include a wide range of primary and secondary tumours. Although surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment, modern therapies integrate a variety of neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies and have achieved dramatic improvements in survival. Extensive tumour loads, which have traditionally been considered unresectable, are now amenable to curative treatment through systemic conversion chemotherapies followed by a variety of interventions such as augmentation of the healthy liver through portal vein occlusion, staged surgeries or ablation modalities. Liver transplantation is established in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma but is now emerging as a promising option in many other types of tumour such as perihilar cholangiocarcinomas, neuroendocrine or colorectal liver metastases. In this Review, we summarize the available therapies for the treatment of malignant liver tumours, with an emphasis on surgical and ablative approaches and how they align with other therapies such as modern anticancer drugs or radiotherapy. In addition, we describe three complex case studies of patients with malignant liver tumours. Finally, we discuss the outlook for future treatment, including personalized approaches based on molecular tumour subtyping, response to targeted drugs, novel biomarkers and precision surgery adapted to the specific tumour.