Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

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

Purpose

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield.

RESULTS

Thirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups.

CONCLUSION

This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.

Safety of laparoscopic liver resection for high-risk patients

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

To investigate the safety of laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) for high-risk patients (HRs) with preoperative comorbidities affecting the heart, lungs, kidneys, glucose tolerance, and central nervous system.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 585 patients who had undergone total hepatectomies from 2006 to 2020. Among them, 239 patients underwent LLRs, and 349 underwent open liver resections (OLRs). The safety and validity of LLRs were analyzed by comparing outcomes and preoperative records between HRs and nonhigh-risk patients (nHRs). HRs were defined as patients with any type of chronic heart disease rated New York Heart Association II or higher, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease rated stage III or higher, chronic kidney disease rated stage III or higher, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, or cerebrovascular disease with neurological sequelae.

RESULTS

A total of 117 LLRs (49.0%) were performed in HRs, and there were more patients with ASA class III or higher than nHRs. Complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade 3b or higher were not observed in HRs and in only one nHR. Furthermore, no postoperative exacerbations of the five HRs factors were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous assessment of surgical indications and perioperative management can promote safe LLRs, even in HRs with comorbidities.

Laparoscopic minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested that laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with lower postoperative complications compared with open liver resection.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 109 hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent minor liver resection at a Japanese tertiary care hospital from November 2010 to December 2022.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic liver resection group experienced significantly lower median intraoperative blood loss compared with the open liver resection group (P = 0.0001). Furthermore, the laparoscopic liver resection group had a significantly shorter median hospital stay compared with the open liver resection group (P = 0.0002). However, there was no significant difference in median postoperative survival between the laparoscopic liver resection group and the open liver resection group (P = 0.717).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma resulted in reduced blood loss and hospital stay without compromising long-term survival outcomes.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

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

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

Laparoscopic liver resection is associated with less significant muscle loss than the conventional open approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been shown a treatment approach comparable to open liver resections (OLR) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the influence of procedural type on body composition has not been investigated. The aim of the current study was to compare the degree of skeletal muscle loss between LLR and OLR for HCC.

METHODS

By using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, 64 pairs of patients were enrolled. The change of psoas muscle index (PMI) after the operation was compared between the matched patients in the LLR and OLR. Risk factors for significant muscle loss (defined as change in PMI > mean change minus one standard deviation) were further investigated by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among patients enrolled, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The PMI was significantly decreased in the OLR group (P = 0.003). There were also more patients in the OLR group who developed significant muscle loss after the operations (P = 0.008). Multivariate analysis revealed OLR (P = 0.023), type 2 diabetes mellitus, indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (ICG-15) > 10%, and cancer stage ≧ 3 were independent risk factors for significant muscle loss. In addition, significant muscle loss was associated with early HCC recurrence (P = 0.006). Metabolomic analysis demonstrated that the urea cycle may be decreased in patients with significant muscle loss.

CONCLUSION

LLR for HCC was associated with less significant muscle loss than OLR. Since significant muscle loss was a predictive factor for early tumor recurrence and associated with impaired liver metabolism, LLR may subsequently result in a more favorable outcome.

Propensity Score Analysis of Outcomes Following Laparoscopic or Open Radical Resection for Gallbladder Cancer in T2 and T3 Stages

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic radical resection (LRR) has long been contraindicated in gallbladder cancer (GBC), recent studies have demonstrated laparoscopic surgery did not adversely affect the perioperative and survival outcomes of GBC patients. However, these literatures are mainly focused on GBC of relatively early stages or incidental GBC. This study aimed to investigate the perioperative and long-term outcomes of LRR versus open radical resection (ORR) for GBCs in T2 and T3 stages.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 99 patients with GBC of T2 and T3 stages who underwent radical resection at Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital from January 2010 to December 2020. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), which is widely used to reduce selection bias, was performed to compare the surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis between LRR and ORR. A logistic regression analysis was implemented to identify the predictive risk factors of postoperative overall survival.

RESULTS

By using PSM, the baseline characteristics of two groups (with 30 patients in each group) were generally well balanced. In the LRR group, the length of operation was significantly longer than the ORR group, but the intraoperative bleeding and postoperative days of hospital stay were significantly decreased compared to the ORR group. The two groups showed comparable outcomes regarding the incidence of biliary reconstruction, lymph node yield, the incidence of postoperative morbidities, the incidence of Clavien-Dindo (C-D) grades III-IV, the days of drainage tubes indwelling, mortality at 30 postoperative days and 90 postoperative days, and the incidence of port-site metastasis. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 61.2, 40.1, and 30.1%, respectively, in the LRR group, and 53.3, 40.1, and 40.1%, respectively, in the OLR group (P = 0.644). On multivariate analysis, T stage, vascular invasion, and tumor differentiation were found to be the independent risk factors for overall survival of GBC in T2 and T3 stages.

CONCLUSIONS

For GBC in T2 and T3 stages, LRR can achieve comparable perioperative outcomes and similar long-term survival benefit compared to ORR. LRR tends to show advantages over ORR regarding intraoperative bleeding and postoperative days of hospital stay.

Modified Two-Surgeon Technique for Laparoscopic Liver Resection

While minimizing intraoperative blood loss during liver resection is one of the most important tasks, it is more difficult to control the refractory bleeding during laparoscopic liver resection than with an open approach. We herein provide a modification of the two-surgeon technique that enables laparoscopic liver parenchymal transection to be performed as quickly and securely as open liver resection. To achieve proper "role sharing," the "transection mode" and the "hemostatic mode" are independent sets in place in this procedure, and these modes are switched rigidly according to the surgical field condition. By thoroughly sharing the roles, rapid laparoscopic liver parenchymal transection comparable to open liver resection can be accomplished. The present modified approach achieves satisfactory transection and hemostasis of the liver parenchyma and is also advantageous for teaching young surgeons and the entire surgical team.

OUP accepted manuscript

Extrahepatic liver (EL) rests are rare, with a reported annual incidence of 0.24–0.47. While reports often note EL incidentally found on pathologic specimens of aberrant tissue, there has been a case report of hepatocellular carcinoma arising from one of these rests, highlighting the importance of surgical resection. EL has been reported to cause symptoms such as abdominal pain, intraperitoneal bleeding and compression of adjacent organs. Most commonly, it has been identified in the gallbladder, likely due to proximity of the gallbladder to the native liver. The paucity of diagnostic tests makes the preoperative diagnosis challenging. We present a case of a 12-year-old female presenting with severe epigastric pain secondary to incapsulated EL tissue attached to the stomach via a narrow stalk. By describing this case, we hope to improve the diagnosis and management of abdominal masses with unclear etiology.

Laparoscopic surgery versus radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of single hepatocellular carcinoma ≤3 cm in the elderly: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) represented potential treatments for patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) smaller than 3 cm. As the aging population soared, our study aimed to examine the advantage/drawback balance for these treatments, which should be reassessed in elderly patients.

METHODS

A multicentric retrospective study compared 184 elderly patients (aged >70 years) (86 patients underwent LLR and 98 had RFA) with single ≤3 cm HCC, observed from January 2009 to January 2019.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching (PSM), the estimated 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 96.5 and 87.9% for the LLR group, and 94.6 and 68.1% for the RFA group (p = 0.001) respectively. The estimated 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 92.5 and 67.4% for the LLR group, and 68.5 and 36.9% for the RFA group (p = 0.001). Patients with HCC of anterolateral segments were more often treated with laparoscopic resection (47 vs. 36, p = 0.04). The median operative time in the resection group was 205 min and 25 min in the RFA group (p = 0.01). Length of hospital stay was 5 days in the resection group and 3 days in the RFA group (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Despite a longer length of hospital stay and operative time, LLR guarantees a comparable postoperative course and a better overall and disease-free survival in elderly patients with single HCC (≤3 cm), located in anterolateral segments.

Limited upper midline incision for major hepatectomy in adults: safety and feasibility

Objective: Optimal incision for major hepatectomy remains controversial. In this study, we described our experience with a limited upper midline incision (UMI) for major hepatectomy. The objective was to analyze the feasibility and safety of UMI in major hepatectomy.

Material and Methods: Fifty-seven consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomies performed via an UMI were compared to a control group of 36 patients who underwent major hepatectomies with a conventional incision (CI).

Results: In 85% of the patients, the indication was malignancy, with a median tumor size of 6 cm. Fifty-three percent of the patients had underlying chronic liver disease, and liver fibrosis was found in 61% of the patients. Ninteen percent of the patients had previous upper abdominal surgery. Twenty- six patients underwent left hepatectomy, 20 patients had right hepatectomy and 11 patients trisegmentectomy. Additional combined surgical proce- dures were performed in 42% of the patients. Median operative time was 323 minutes, estimated blood loss was 500 ml, and median post-operative hospital stay was seven days. Surgical complications occurred in 22 patients (39%). 5-year overall survival was 67%. When compared with the control group with CI, patients with UMI had no statistical difference on operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and overall survival.

Conclusion: Major hepatectomies can be safely performed through UMI. This approach should be considered as a reasonable option in addition to conventional and laparoscopic approaches for major hepatectomies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection and re-operation for liver tumor

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been reported as a safe, minimally invasive, and effective surgery for the management of liver tumor. However, the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent liver tumor are unclear. Here, we analyzed the surgical results of LRLR. From June 2010 to May 2019, we performed 575 LLR surgeries in our department, and 454 of them underwent pure LLR for the single tumor. We classified the patients who received pure LLR for the single tumor into three groups: LRLR (n = 80), laparoscopic re-operation after previous abdominal surgery (LReOp; n = 136), and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR; n = 238). We compared patient characteristics and surgical results between patients undergoing LRLR, LReOp and LPLR. We found no significant differences between LRLR and LPLR in the conversion rate to laparotomy (p = 0.8033), intraoperative bleeding (63.0 vs. 152.4 ml; p = 0.0911), or postoperative bile leakage rate (2.50 vs. 3.78%; p = 0.7367). We also found no significant difference in the surgical results between LReOp and LPLR. However, the number of patients undergoing the Pringle maneuver was lower in the LRLR group than the LPLR group (61.3 vs. 81.5%; p = 0.0004). This finding was more pronounced after open liver resection than laparoscopic liver resection (38.9 vs. 67.7%; p = 0.0270). The operative time was significantly longer in patients with proximity to previous cut surface than patients with no proximity to previous cut surface (307.4 vs. 235.7 min; p = 0.0201). LRLR can safely be performed with useful surgical results compared to LPLR.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Repeat Hepatectomy for Secondary Liver Neoplasm

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery is a widely accepted alternative to an open approach. The use of this technique in repeat liver resection is limited due to technical difficulties caused by postsurgical adhesions. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of hand-assisted laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (HALRH).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the medical files of patients who had undergone HALRH between 2010 and 2017 in 2 university-affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients with repeat hepatectomy were included with a median age of 67.5 years. The first liver resection was a traditional laparotomy for 9 patients and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery for 7 patients. The conversion rate to open surgery was 6%. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 166 minutes, 400 mL, and 7 days, respectively. R0 resections were achieved in 88% of patients. The median number of tumors and tumor size were 1 and of 25 mm, respectively. There were no mortalities or major complications postoperatively. For patients with colorectal liver metastases, the median follow-up and overall survival were 21 and 43 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest HALRH to be safe and feasible. Future ERAS guidelines should evaluate this approach for liver surgery.

Intraoperative guidance using ICG fluorescence imaging system for safe and precise laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been spread as minimally invasive surgery for liver disease. Advances in surgical technique and devices enabled us to perform various procedures of LLR. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging has been suggested as useful tool to identify liver tumors, anatomical territory of liver parenchyma, and cholangiography in open liver surgery. Due to recent development, this technology can be applied in LLR. we describe safe and effective using of the ICG fluorescence imaging during LLR.

METHODS

From September 2013 to August 2019, 34 patients were performed LLR using a total of 46 procedures by ICG fluorescence imaging system for purposes including identification of anatomic domain of the liver in 12 LLRs, detection of liver tumors in 30 nodules, or intraoperative cholangiography in 4 LLRs.

RESULTS

During the detection of liver tumors, 25 nodules in 30 malignant to benign tumors were positively detected (83.3%). Although there has been no publication regarding information on ICG fluorescence imaging of low grade malignant or benign tumors, we found positive emission in focal nodular hyperplasia, an angiomyolipoma, and an intraductal papillary neoplasm of the bile duct. The identification of anatomic domain in the liver was successful in all 12 LLRs with negative and positive staining techniques. In the intraoperative cholangiography, all 4 tests were successfully performed. One of 4 patients were found to have biliary leakage which was repaired intraoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICG fluorescence imaging could be useful in safe and precise performance of LLR.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity case-matched analysis of the long-term survival

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Despite the widespread popularity of laparoscopic surgery, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains in evolution. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes for patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤7 cm.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HCC treated by hepatectomy from October 2000 to May 2019 were included. Excluding tumors larger than 7 cm, 1:2 propensity score matching was performed between laparoscopic and open hepatectomies. The perioperative outcomes, 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients who underwent LLR were matched to 90 open hepatectomy (OH) during the same period. LLR group had shorter median hospital stay (5 days vs. 9 days, p=0.00) but required longer operative time (326.0 minutes vs. 272.5 minutes, p=0.018) than the OH group. The 5-year overall survival was better in the LLR group (84.9% vs. 61.1%; p=0.036), though there was no significant difference in the 5-year disease free survival (20.0% vs. 22.2%, p=0.613). The rate of R0 resection was comparable between the 2 groups with a slightly better margin distance in the LLR (5 mm vs. 3 mm, p=0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible for cirrhotic patients with HCC size up to 7 cm. It has better short-term outcomes and comparable perioperative blood loss and complication rates. The resection margin is not jeopardized and the 5-year overall and disease-free survivals are comparable with the open group.

Frequency and risk factors for major complications after stereotactic radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors in 1235 ablation sessions: a 15-year experience

Objectives

To assess the frequency of major complications after multi-probe stereotactic radiofrequency ablation (SRFA) in a large cohort of patients over 15 years and to elucidate risk factors for adverse events.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study was carried out between July 2003 and December 2018. Seven hundred ninety-three consecutive patients (median 65.0 years (0.3–88), 241 women and 552 men, were treated in 1235 SRFA sessions for 2475 primary and metastatic liver tumors with a median tumor size of 3.0 cm (0.5–18 cm). The frequency of major complications was evaluated according to SIR guidelines and putative predictors of adverse events analyzed using simple and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

Thirty-day mortality after SRFA was 0.5% (6/1235) with an overall major complication rate of 7.4% (91/1235). The major complication rate decreased from 11.5% (36/314) (before January 2011) to 6.0% (55/921) (p = 0.001). 50.5% (46/91) of major complications were successfully treated in the same anesthetic session by angiographic coiling for hemorrhage and chest tube insertion for pneumothorax. History of bile duct surgery/intervention, number of coaxial needles, and location of tumors in segment IVa or VIII were independent prognostic factors for major complications following multivariable logistic regression analysis. Simple logistic regression revealed the number of tumors, tumor size, location close to the diaphragm, tumor conglomerate, and segment VII as other significant predictors.

Conclusion

SRFA of liver tumors is safe and can extend the treatment spectrum of conventional RFA. Adaptations over time combined with increasing experience resulted in a significant decrease in complications.

Key Points

• In 1235 ablation sessions in 793 patients over 15 years, we found a mortality rate of 0.5% (6/1235) and an overall major complication rate of 7.4%, which fell from 11.5 (36/314) to 6.0% (55/921, p = 0.001) after January 2011, likely due to procedural adaptations.

• History of bile duct surgery/intervention (p = 0.013, OR = 3.290), number of coaxial needles (p = 0.026, OR = 1.052), and location of tumors in segment IVa (p = 0.016, OR = 1.989) or VIII (p = 0.038, OR = 1.635) were found to be independent prognostic factors.

• Simple logistic regression revealed that number of tumors, tumor size, location close to the diaphragm, tumor conglomerates, and segment VII were other significant predictors of major complications.

Robotic hepatic resection in postero-superior region of liver

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region is technically challenging and demanding. However, minimally invasive procedures carried out using the Da Vinci robot provide potential advantages in complex hepatectomy. This study reported the experience of a single center on robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the general characteristics and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region at our center from March 2015 to January 2020.

RESULTS

For 100 patients who were included into this study, 53 underwent anatomical segmentectomy or subsegmentectomy and 47 non-anatomical partial hepatectomy. There was no conversion to laparotomy. The R0 resection rate was 100%. The following perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who underwent anatomical segmentectomy/subsegmentectomy versus those who underwent non-anatomical partial hepatectomy: operation times of 160 versus 126 min, intraoperative blood losses of 100 versus 50 ml, intraoperative blood transfusion rates of 7.54% versus 4.26%, postoperative lengths of hospital stay of 5 versus 4 days, Clavien-Dindo Grade I-II complications rates of 15.09% versus 19.15%, Grade III-V complications rates of 3.77% versus 0%, bile leakage rates of 4% versus 7% and pleural effusion rates of also 4% versus 7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The results indicated the safety and feasibility of robotic anatomical and non-anatomical liver resections in the posterosuperior hepatic region. The robotic transabdominal approach is an option for hepatectomy in the posterosuperior hepatic region.

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

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

Short-term Results of Laparoscopic versus Open Liver Resection for Liver Metastasis from Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study

Laparoscopic liver resection is currently performed in an increasing number of institutions as a minimally invasive treatment. However, no randomized controlled trials have compared laparoscopic and open liver resections. Twenty-three laparoscopic and 24 open liver resections for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM) were performed, and these data for both were retrospectively compared in the short-term results. The estimated blood loss was 99 ± 207 mL in the laparoscopic group and 397 ± 381 mL in the open group ( P = 0.0018); blood loss was significantly higher in the open group. There were no differences in the surgical procedure, blood loss, transfusion rate, pathological margins, postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, duration of intravenous drip, or hospital stay. On postoperative courses, the values of total bilirubin, white blood cell count, and C-reactive protein were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group. The data of the present series suggest the lesser invasiveness and safety of laparoscopic liver resection even for patients with CRCLM, and they showed that postoperative laboratory tests were better after laparoscopy than after the traditional open approach with better short-term results. Tumor diameter less than 5 cm appears to be the appropriate indication for laparoscopic liver resection for CRCLM.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

New device with force sensors for laparoscopic liver resection - investigation of grip force and histological damage

Introduction: As the benefits of minimally invasive surgery are recognized, the rate of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is rapidly increasing. Liver tissue is fragile compared to tissue of the stomach and colon. In endoscopic and robotic surgery, sufficient tactile sensation is yet to be obtained. Therefore, it is necessary to measure and indicate the grip force of forceps during surgery. We developed a new device consisting of force sensors and investigated its grip force and the resulting histological damage to liver tissue.Material and methods: We measured the grip force generated during laparoscopic surgery in pigs using the forceps with pressure sensors developed by us. Throughout the hepatectomy, we measured the grip force generated by the forceps in real time. We investigated the histological damage to the liver caused by using the forceps with different grip forces.Results: The subject produced a mean grip force of 1.75 N during the procedures. The maximum grip force was 3.38 N. By grasping the tissues of the liver with forceps, bleeding and destruction of the hepatic lobules were observed in a manner dependent on increasing grip force.Conclusion: The new device is necessary for preventing liver damage in laparoscopic hepatic resection.

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) arises from the epithelial cells of the intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile ducts and occurs proximal to the segmental biliary ducts. Risk factors include chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis, biliary inflammatory diseases, and hepatobiliary flukes, although in most cases, no known risk factor is identified. ICC is highly aggressive, with long-term survival only observed in patients with a complete R0 surgical resection. Technical and physiologic resectability should be considered when performing an operative plan. Nodal involvement is among the most important prognostic factors associated with survival and a porta hepatis lymphadenectomy should be performed at the time of resection. Adjuvant chemotherapy can provide a significant survival benefit for patients with more advanced or aggressive tumors. Systemic, locoregional, and targeted therapies exist for patients with unresectable or metastatic disease.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Feasibility of laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection for rare hepatic mesenchymal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Mesenchymal tumors such as perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasm (PEComa) and inflammatory pseudotumor-like follicular dendritic cell sarcoma (IPT-like FDC sarcoma) are relatively uncommon in the liver and are particularly rare in the caudate lobe. The clinical manifestations and available imaging tests lack specificity for hepatic mesenchymal tumors. To the best of our knowledge, no caudate PEComa or IPT-like FDC sarcoma has been completely resected by laparoscopy. The standard laparoscopic technique, surgical approaches, and tumor margins for potentially malignant or malignant caudate mesenchymal tumors are still being explored.

AIM

To assess both the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic resection for rare caudate mesenchymal neoplasms.

METHODS

Eleven patients who underwent isolated caudate lobe resection from 2003 to 2017 were identified from a prospective database. Three consecutive patients with rare caudate mesenchymal tumors underwent laparoscopic resection. Patient demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were assessed and compared with the open surgery group.

RESULTS

All procedures for the three resection patients with caudate mesenchymal tumors were completed using a total laparoscopic technique by two different approaches. The average operative time was 226 min, and the estimated blood loss was 133 mL. The average length of postoperative hospital stay was 6.3 ± 0.3 d for the laparoscopy group and 15.5 ± 2.3 d for the open surgery group (P < 0.05). There were no perioperative complications or patient deaths in this series.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic isolated caudate lobe resection for rare mesenchymal neoplasms is a feasible and curative surgical option in selected patients.

Single Incision Pediatric Endoscopic Surgery: From Myth to Reality a Case Series

Laparoscopic surgery has continued to evolve to minimize access sites and scars in both the adult and pediatric populations. In children, single-incision pediatric endoscopic surgery (SIPES) has been shown to be effective, feasible, and safe with comparative results to multiport equivalents. Thus, the use of SIPES continues over increasingly complex cases, however, conceptions of its efficacy continue to vary greatly. In the present case series and discussion, we review the history of SIPES techniques and its current application today. We present this in the setting of five common myths about SIPES techniques: limitations against complex cases, restrictions to specialized training, increased morbidity outcomes, increased operative lengths, and increased operative costs. Regarding the myth of SIPES being limited in application to simple cases, examples were highlighted throughout the literature in addition to the authors’ own experience with three complex cases including resection of a lymphatic malformation, splenectomy with cholecystectomy, and distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. A review of SIPES learning curves shows equivalent operative outcomes to multiport learning curves and advancements towards practical workshops to increase trainee familiarity can help assuage these aptitudes. In assessing comorbidities, adult literature reveals a slight increase in incisional hernia rates, but this does not correlate with single-incision pediatric data. In experienced hands, operative SIPES times average approximate multiport laparoscopic equivalents. Finally, regarding expenses, SIPES represents an equivalent alternative to laparoscopic techniques.

Feasibility, safety, and long-term efficacy of stereotactic radiofrequency ablation for tumors adjacent to the diaphragm in the hepatic dome: a case-control study

Objectives

Achievement of adequate treatment margins may be challenging when the target is either difficult to visualize, awkward to access, or situated adjacent to vulnerable structures. Treatment of tumors located close to the diaphragm in the hepatic dome is challenging for percutaneous radiofrequency (RF) ablation for these reasons. The purpose was to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcome of multi-probe stereotactic RF ablation (SRFA) of liver tumors in the subdiaphragmatic area.

Methods

Between 2006 and 2018, 177 patients (82 HCCs, 6 ICCs, and 89 metastatic tumors) underwent SRFA of 238 tumors abutting the diaphragm in the hepatic dome. For comparison, 177 patients were randomly selected from our database by the R package “MatchIt” for propensity score matching to compare treatment safety and efficacy in this retrospective, single-center study.

Results

Median treated tumor size was 2.2 cm (range 0.5 to 10 cm). SRFA was primarily successful for 232/238 (97.5%) tumors. Five tumors were successfully retreated, resulting in a secondary technical efficacy rate of 99.6%. Local tumor recurrence developed in 21 of 238 tumors (8.8%). The major ablation complication rate was 10.7% (22 of 204). Twelve (55%) of 22 major complications could be successfully treated by the interventional radiologist in the same anesthesia session. There was no significant difference in adverse events or disease control rates between the subdiaphragmatic tumors and matched controls.

Conclusions

SRFA is a safe and feasible option in the management of difficult-to-treat tumors abutting the diaphragm in the hepatic dome, with similar safety profile compared with matched controls.

Key Points

• RFA was primarily successful for 232/238 (97.5%) subdiaphragmatic dome tumors. Local tumor recurrence developed in 21 of 238 tumors (8.8%).

• The major complication rate directly related to ablation of the hepatic dome tumors was 10.7% (22 of 204). 12/22 (55%) of major complications could be successfully treated in the same anesthesia session.

• There was no significant difference in adverse events or disease control rates between the subdiaphragmatic tumors and matched controls.

Validation and performance of three-level procedure-based classification for laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

A procedure-based laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) classification (IMM classification) stratified 11 different LLR procedures into 3 grades. IMM classification assessed the difficulty of LLR differently than an index-based LLR classification (IWATE criteria), which scored each procedure on an index scale of 12. We validated the difference of 3 IMM grades using an external cohort, evaluated the IMM classification using the scores of the IWATE criteria, and compared the performance of IMM classification with the IWATE criteria and the minor/major classification.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LLR without simultaneous procedures were selected from a prospectively maintained database at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM cohort) and from the database of 43 Japanese institutions (JMI cohort). Surgical and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to the 3 IMM grades using the JMI cohort. The 11 LLR procedures included in the IMM classification were scored according to the IWATE criteria. The area under the curves (AUCs) for surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

In the JMI (n = 1867) cohort, operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, and major complication rate were significantly associated with a stepwise increase in grades from I to III (all, P < 0.001). In the IMM (n = 433) and JMI cohorts, IMM grades I, II, and III corresponded to three low-scoring, two intermediate-scoring, and six high-scoring LLR procedures as per the IWATE criteria, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation among the IMM grades were significantly different: 3.7 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 7.5 ± 1.7 (grade II) versus 10.2 ± 1.0 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the IMM cohort and 3.6 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 6.7 ± 1.5 (grade II) versus 9.3 ± 1.4 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the JMI cohort. The AUCs for surgical and postoperative outcomes are higher for the 3-level IMM classification than for the minor/major classification.

CONCLUSIONS

The difference of 3 IMM grades with respect to surgical and postoperative outcomes was validated using an external cohort. The 3-level procedure-based IMM classification was in accordance with the index-based IWATE criteria. The IMM classification performed better than the minor/major classification for stratifying LLR procedures.

Early Morbidity and Mortality after Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Propensity-Score Matched Comparison with Open Resection

BACKGROUND

The impact of minimally invasive surgery on the short-term outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing liver resection remains poorly defined.

METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP-targeted hepatectomy database was used to identify patients who underwent liver resection for HCC during 2014-2016. A 1:1 propensity score matching was created between patients who underwent open (OLR) vs. minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) based on age, ASA score, liver resection type, liver texture, and stage of disease. The short-term outcomes of patients undergoing OLR vs. MILR were compared.

RESULTS

Among a total cohort of 1816 patients, propensity score matching resulted in 728 liver resections: 364 (50%) OLR and 364 (50%) MILR. Overall morbidity (29% vs. 23%, P = 0.04) was greater among patients undergoing OLR compared with MILR, whereas mortality did not differ between the two approaches (2% vs 1%, P = 0.57). MILR was associated with significant reductions in hospital LOS (6 vs. 4 days, P < 0.0001) but no difference in operative time (188 vs. 171 min, P = 0.13). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age ≥ 65 (OR:1.6, 95%CI: 1.1-2.3, P = 0.0065), ASA class ≥ 3 (OR:2.7, 95%CI: 1.5-4.7, P = 0.0003), preoperative blood transfusion (OR:9.7, 95%CI: 1.06-90.3, P = 0.04), T ≥ 3 (OR:1.9, 95%CI: 1.09-3.4, P = 0.02), operative time > 200 min (OR:1.8, 95%CI: 1.2-2.5, P = 0.0011), and OLR (OR:1.4, 95%CI: 1.002-2.03, P = 0.04) were associated with increased odds of overall morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

MILR for HCC is associated with a shorter hospital LOS and reduced postoperative complication rates, even after controlling for important patient and clinicopathologic confounders, compared to OLR. Efforts to expand the use of MILR for hepatobiliary surgery are warranted.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy in Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been reported as a safe and efficacious treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, in cirrhosis patients, LH may be more complex and challenging. So, the short- and long-term outcomes should be well evaluated between LH and open hepatectomy (OH) in HCC patients with cirrhosis. Objectives: To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LH with OH in HCC patients with cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify the clinical trials published until July 2018 on the comparison of LH and OH in HCC patients with cirrhosis. The statistical analysis was conducted by the Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Short-term outcomes included blood loss, operation time, blood transfusion, postoperative complications, mortality, postoperative hospital stay, tumor size, and surgical margin. Long-term outcomes included 1-, 3-, 5-year overall survival (OS) and 1-, 3-, 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Seventeen studies with 2004 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For short-term outcomes, LH suggested less blood loss, lower blood transfusion rates, reduced occurrence of postoperative complications, wider surgical margin, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and declined rate of mortality (all P < .05). However, there was no significant difference in operation time (P = .67) between the two groups, whereas tumor size was larger in OH (P = .004). As to long-term outcomes, 1-, 3-, 5-year OS and 1-year DFS were higher in LH group (all P < .05). Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in 3- and 5-year DFS (P = .23 and .83, respectively). Conclusions: For the HCC patients with cirrhosis, current evidence suggests that LH shows not only better outcomes in short term, but also a comparable and even improved long-term prognosis.

Feasibility Study of a Newly Developed Hybrid Energy Device Used During Laparoscopic Liver Resection in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

Although various devices have been clinically used for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), the best device for liver parenchymal transection remains unknown. Olympus Corp (Tokyo, Japan) developed a laparoscopic hybrid pencil (LHP) device, which is the first electric knife to combine ultrasound and electric energy with a monopolar output. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using the LHP device and to compare it with the laparoscopic monopolar pencil (LMP) and laparoscopic ultrasonic shears (LUS) devices for LLR in a porcine model.

METHODS

Nine male piglets underwent laparoscopic liver lobe transections using each device. The operative parameters were evaluated in the 3 groups (n = 24 lobes) during the acute study period. The imaging findings from contrast-enhanced computed tomography and histopathological findings of autopsy on postoperative day 7 were compared among groups (n = 6 piglets) during the long-term study.

RESULTS

The transection time was shorter ( P = .001); there was less blood loss ( P = .018); and tip cleaning ( P < .001) and instrument changes were less often required ( P < .001) in the LHP group than in the LMP group. The LHP group had fewer instances of bleeding ( P < .001) and coagulator usage ( P < .001) than did the LUS group. In the long-term study, no postoperative adverse events occurred in the 3 groups. The thermal spread and depth of the LHP device were equivalent to those of the LMP and LUS devices (vs LMP: P = .226 and .159; vs LUS: P = 1.000 and .574).

CONCLUSIONS

The LHP device may be an efficient device for LLR if it can be applied to human surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

Open Liver Resection, Laparoscopic Liver Resection, and Percutaneous Thermal Ablation for Patients with Solitary Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma (≤30 mm): Review of the Literature and Proposal for a Therapeutic Strategy

BACKGROUND

Patients with a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ≤3 cm and preserved liver function have the highest likelihood to be cured if treated. The most adequate treatment methods are yet a matter that is debated.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature about open anatomic resection (AR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), and percutaneous thermal ablation (PTA).

RESULTS

PTA is effective as resection for HCC < 2 cm, when they are neither subcapsular nor perivascular. PTA in HCC of 2-3 cm is under evaluation. AR with the removal of the tumor-bearing portal territory is recommended for HCC > 2 cm, except for subcapsular ones. In comparison with open surgery, LRR has better short-term outcomes and non-inferior long-term outcomes. LLR is standardized for superficial limited resections and for left-sided AR.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the available evidences, the following therapeutic proposal can be advanced. Laparoscopic limited resection is the standard for any subcapsular HCC. PTA is the first-line treatment for deep-located HCC < 2 cm, except for those in contact with Glissonean pedicles. Laparoscopic AR is the standard for deep-located HCC of 2-3 cm of the left liver, while open AR is the standard for deep-located HCC of 2-3 cm in the right liver. HCC in contact with Glissonean pedicles should be scheduled for resection (open or laparoscopic) independent of their size. Liver transplantation is reserved to otherwise untreatable patients or as a salvage procedure at recurrence.

Perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma introduced gradually in a single center

BACKGROUND

Anatomical hepatectomy is an ideal curative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We have standardized our laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy (LAH) procedure, gradually extending its indications. In the present study, we describe our experience and the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LAH for HCC compared to those of open anatomical hepatectomy (OAH) during the gradual introduction of LAH.

METHODS

Seventy patients with primary HCC underwent anatomical hepatectomy in our institution from November 2008 to April 2014. As we gained experience with LAH, our indications for choosing LAH over OAH gradually expanded. Ultimately, 40 and 30 patients underwent LAH and OAH, respectively. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in age, sex, background of liver disease, liver function, tumor size, tumor number, or type of liver resection between the two groups. Major complications and mortality rates were similar between the LAH and OAH groups (12.5% vs. 20%; p = 0.582, and 0% vs. 3.3%; p = 0.429, respectively). The median follow-up time after surgery was 40.5 months in the LAH group and 32.9 months in the OAH group (p = 0.835). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 89.9, 84.7, and 70.9%, in the LAH group, and 89.8, 68.0, and 63.1% in the OAH group, respectively (p = 0.255). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 79.5, 58.0, and 42.5%, in the LAH group, and 72.4, 56.1, and 50.4% in the OAH group, respectively (p = 0.980).

CONCLUSIONS

Through gradual introduction of LAH, we obtained comparable results to those achieved with OAH. LAH can be a feasible surgical treatment for primary HCC, with good oncological outcomes.

The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).

METHODS

We introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

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

Background:

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

Patients and Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusions:

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