Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: A comparative study

Clinical feasibility of laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection with magnetic anchor technique: The first clinical study from China

BACKGROUND

Magnetic anchor technique (MAT) has been applied in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic appendectomy, but has not been reported in laparoscopic partial hepatectomy.

AIM

To evaluate the feasibility of the MAT in laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of eight patients who underwent laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection assisted by MAT in our department from July 2020 to November 2021. The Y-Z magnetic anchor devices (Y-Z MADs) was independently designed and developed by the author of this paper, which consists of the anchor magnet and magnetic grasping apparatus. Surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative accidents, operator experience, postoperative incision pain score, postoperative complications, and other indicators were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

All eight patients underwent a MAT-assisted laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection, including three patients undertaking conventional 5-port and five patients having a transumbilical single-port operation. The mean operation time was 138 ± 34.32 min (range 95-185 min) and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 123 ± 88.60 mL (range 20-300 mL). No adverse events occurred during the operation. The Y-Z MADs showed good workability and maneuverability in both tissue and organ exposure. In particular, the operators did not experience either a “chopstick” or “sword-fight” effect in the single-port laparoscopic operation.

CONCLUSION

The results show that the MAT is safe and feasible for laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection, especially, exhibits its unique abettance for transumbilical single-port laparoscopic left lateral segment liver resection.

Surgical Stress Evaluation of Left Lateral Sectionectomy Based on Skeletal Muscle Catabolism

BACKGROUND

By examining skeletal muscle catabolism, we aimed to investigate whether laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is less invasive compared with the open approach.

METHODS

The psoas muscle index (PMI) was measured using computed tomography images before and after surgery. We assessed the relationship between the perioperative PMI reduction rate and the estimation of physiologic ability and surgical stress (E-PASS) score and then compared the PMI reduction rates associated with different approaches.

RESULTS

Of the 31 patients, 13 and 18 underwent the open and laparoscopic approaches, respectively. A strong correlation was observed between the PMI reduction rates and surgical stress scores (SSS) (r=0.561, P<0.01). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significantly lower PMI reduction rate (P<0.01) and SSS (P<0.01) than the open approach.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic LLS should be less invasive than the open approach from the perspective of not only perioperative outcomes but also skeletal muscle catabolism.

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

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

Achievement of textbook outcomes and comparisons with benchmark values after laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) is considered a standard approach for patients. Textbook outcomes (TOs) with benchmark values have been developed to help centers assess their outcomes of LLLS. The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with achieving TOs after LLLS. This is a retrospective cohort study including 195 patients undergoing LLLS between January 2004 and December 2018. Our outcomes were compared to benchmark values and graded as similar, better, or worse. A TO was achieved in 106 patients (54.4%). The main determinant for achieving a TO was prolonged hospital stay. Year of surgery [P = 0.002; odds ratio (OR) 3.913, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.666-9.188], American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (P = 0.015; OR 0.104, 95% CI 0.017-0.650), body mass index (BMI) score (P = 0.075; OR 1.135, 95% CI 0.988-1.304), inflow clamping > 40 min (P = 0.037; OR 0.090, 95% CI 0.009-0.867) and operation time (P = 0.002; OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.985-0.997) were the factors associated with achieving a TO. Our outcomes were similar to the benchmark values for all criteria, except for the transfusion rate (our study vs benchmark values; 6.2% vs 3.8%), which was worse in our patients. We achieved better outcomes with a lower conversion rate (4.6% vs 7.2%), fewer patients requiring massive transfusion (4.1% vs 8.3%), lower rate of prolonged inflow clamping (3.9% vs 6.3%), lower overall complication rate (11.9% vs 19.8%), lower reoperation rate (0% vs 3.4%), and fewer patients with a positive margin (1.5% vs 10.8%). Year of surgery, ASA score, inflow clamping > 40 min and operation time were independently associated with failure to achieve a TO. TOs are useful tools to measure the surgical outcomes and compare surgical performance with benchmark values. TOs also offer a new method to retrospectively compare outcomes.

International multicenter propensity score matched study on laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of high-level evidence, current guidelines recommend laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) as the routine approach over open LLS (OLLS). Randomized studies and propensity score matched studies on LLLS vs OLLS for all indications, including malignancy, are lacking.

METHODS

This international multicenter propensity score matched retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing LLLS or OLLS in six centers from three European countries (January 2000-December 2016). Propensity scores were calculated based on nine preoperative variables and LLLS and OLLS were matched in a 1:1 ratio. Short-term operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included. Out of 200 LLLS, 139 could be matched to 139 OLLS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. LLLS was associated with shorter operative time (144 (110-200) vs 199 (138-283) minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 (50-300) vs 350 (100-750) mL, P = 0.005) and a 3-day shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 (3-7) vs 7 (5-9) days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter propensity score matched study confirms the superiority of LLLS over OLLS based on shorter postoperative hospital stay, operative time, and less blood loss thus validating current guideline advice.

Learning Curve Under Proctorship of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Pediatric Transplantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the learning curve of an expert liver transplantation surgeon approaching fully laparoscopic living donor left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) under proctorship.

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections necessitate a long learning curve trough a stepwise fulfillment of difficulties. L-LLS requires expertise in both living donor liver transplantation and advanced laparoscopic liver surgery. There is currently no data about the learning curve of L-LLS.

METHODS

A total of 72 pure L-LLS were included in this study. A Broken line model was used to identify the periods of the learning curve. A CUSUM analysis of the operative time was performed to evaluate improvements of outcomes with time. To evaluate the relationship between operative time and progressive number of procedures, a linear regression model was applied. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

Operative time decreased with the progressive increase of procedures. Two cutoffs and 3 different periods were identified: cases 1 to 22, cases 23 to 55, and cases 56 to 72. A significant decrease in blood loss and operative time was noted. The CUSUM analysis showed an increase in operative time in the first period, a stable duration in the second period, and a decrease in the last. Blood loss was significantly associated with an increase in operative time (P = 0.003). According to the ROC curve, the learning curve was completed after 25 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

L-LLS is a safe procedure that can be standardized and successfully taught to surgeons with large experience in donor hepatectomy through a proctored learning curve.

Surgical technique and clinical results of one- or two-stage laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after portal vein embolization in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A case series

BACKGROUND

The use of the laparoscopic approach in one-stage or second-step of two-stage right hemihepatectomy (RHH) after portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) is technically demanding. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. This paper reports our experience, results, techniques and variety of tips and tricks (highlighted in the attached video), to facilitate this resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of laparoscopic liver surgery within our unit at a tertiary referral centre between August 2003 and March 2019 was reviewed. Patients with initially unresectable CRLMs who underwent laparoscopic RHH or extended RHH after PVE in the context of a one or two-stage procedure were included.

RESULTS

Between August 2003 and March 2019, 19 patients with initially unresectable CRLMs underwent laparoscopic RHH after PVE. Twelve patients (63.2%) had RHH in the context of a two-stage hepatectomy and 7 as a one-stage procedure. Median time interval between PVE and surgery was 42.5 days (IQR, 34.5-60.0 days). Mean operating time was 351.8 ± 80.5 minutes. Median blood loss was 850 mL (IQR, 475-1350 mL). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2 of 19 cases (10.5%). Severe postoperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients. The mortality rate was 5.3%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR, 4-7 days). Radical resection was obtained in eighteen patients (94.7%).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic RHH after PVE in the context of a one- or two-stage resection in patients with initially unresectable CRLMs is a safe and feasible procedure with favourable oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage

BACKGROUND

Benefits over the open technique are demonstrated for laparoscopic liver resections. Whether the degree of advantage is different for anterolateral and posterosuperior resections is investigated in this retrospective study.

METHODS

Laparoscopic anterolateral and posterosuperior resections (Lap-AL/Lap-PS) were compared with open (Open-AL/Open-PS) after propensity score matching. Mean/median differences of relevant parameters were calculated after bootstrap sampling. The degree of advantage was compared between anterolateral and posterosuperior resections and expressed as delta of differences (Δ-difference).

RESULTS

239 Lap-AL were compared with 239 matched Open-AL, and 176 Lap-PS with 176 matched Open-PS. Lap-AL showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization and total stay; Lap-PS showed reduced blood loss, transfusions, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization, functional recovery and total stay. The degree of advantage of Lap-PS resulted significantly greater than Lap-AL blood loss (Δ-difference: 101 mL, p 0.017), transfusions (Δ-difference: 6.3%, p 0.008), morbidity (Δ-difference: 7.6%, p 0.034), time to orally-controlled pain (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.020) and functional recovery (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.042).

CONCLUSIONS

While both resulting in benefit, the advantage of laparoscopy is greater for posterosuperior than anterolateral resections. Despite their technical difficulty, these should be considered among the most worthwhile laparoscopic liver resections.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: A single-center comparative study

BACKGROUND

With growing popularity and experience in laparoscopic liver surgery, the options for more difficult procedures increase. Only small case series have been published regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumours in proximity to major vessels (MVs). The aim was to compare outcomes of LLR for tumours located less or more than 15 mm from MVs.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive LLR (October 2011-August 2017). Proximity to MVs (PMV) was defined as lesions located within 15 mm to the caval vein, hepatic veins and portal vein (main trunk and first branches). The control group were all lesions located more than 15 mm from MVs.

RESULTS

Some 60/235 LLR were performed for lesions in proximity to major vasculature (24%). In the PMV group, median IWATE Difficulty Score was higher (8.5 (IQR: 6.0-9.0) VS 5.0 (IQR: 3.0-6.0), p < 0.001) as was the use of CUSA® (45.0% VS 8.6%, p < 0.001) and Pringle manoeuvre (8.3% VS 1.7%; p = 0.028). Operative time was longer (180min (IQR: 140-210) VS 120min (IQR: 75-150), p < 0.001) and blood loss was higher (190 ml (IQR: 100-325) VS 75 ml (IQR: 50-220), p < 0.001) in the PMV group. There was no difference in perioperative blood transfusion (3.3% VS 1.7%, p = 0.60) or postoperative morbidity (15.0% VS 14.3%, p = 0.89). There was no mortality in both groups. On mean follow-up of 21 months, no significant differences could be found in disease free (p = 0.77) and overall survival (p = 0.12).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR of lesions in proximity to MVs is safe and feasible with acceptable short and long-term results.

Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers

INTRODUCTION

A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies.

METHODS

Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses).

RESULTS

Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is recommended as the standard operation for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS). Robotic liver resection is theoretically better than laparoscopic liver resection in complex cases of liver resection. However, in a complex case of LLS, whether robotic LLS (R-LLS) is still better than laparoscopic LLS (L-LLS) is unclear. This study aims to assess the perioperative outcomes of R-LLS and L-LLS in the overall and in the subgroup of complex cases of LLS.

METHODS

From January 2015 to June 2017, the data on consecutive patients who underwent R-LLS were retrospectively compared with those who underwent L-LLS. Based on defined criteria for complex cases, the subgroup of such patients who underwent R-LLS were compared with the subgroup of patients who underwent L-LLS. The patient characteristics and surgical outcomes in the whole groups and subgroups of patients were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall R-LLS and L-LLS groups showed no significance differences in operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, blood transfusion and morbidity rates. The overall medical costs were significantly higher in the R-LLS group than in the L-LLS group (12786.4 vs. 7974.3 USD; p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis of the complex cases, the estimated blood loss was significantly less in the R-LLS subgroup than the L-LLS subgroup (131.9 vs. 320.8 ml, p = 0.003). The two subgroups showed no significant differences in postoperative hospital stay (4.7 vs. 5.3 days; p = 0.054) and operative times (126.4 vs. 110.8 min; p = 0.379). The R-LLS subgroup had significantly higher overall medical costs than the L-LLS subgroup (13536.9 vs. 9186.7 USD, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

The overall R-LLS group was comparable to the overall L-LLS group in perioperative outcomes. Although the overall medical costs in the robotic subgroup was higher, R-LLS might be a better choice for the subgroup of patients with complex cases when compared to L-LLS.

Comparison study between open and laparoscopic liver resection in a Saudi tertiary center

Objectives:

To compare King Saud University Medical City experience in laparoscopic liver resection with our previously established database for open resections.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted at King Saud University Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. All adult patients who underwent liver resection from 2006 to 2017 were included. Patients who had their procedure converted to open were excluded.

Results:

Among the 111 liver resections included, 22 (19.8%) were performed laparoscopically and 89 (80.1%) were performed using the open technique. Malignancy was the most common indication in both groups (78.5%). The mean operative time was 275 min (SD 92.2) in the laparoscopic group versus 315 min (SD 104.3) in the open group. Intraoperative blood transfusion was required in the laparoscopic (9%) and open groups (31.4%). The morbidity rate was 13.6% in the laparoscopic group and 31.4% in the open group, and the mortality rate was 0% in the laparoscopic group and 5.6% in the open group.

Conclusion:

Laparoscopic liver resection appears to be a safe technique and can be performed in various benign and malignant cases.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) approach.

METHOD

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane library, in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The Odds Ratio (ORs), the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were evaluated, by means of Random-Effects model.

RESULTS

Ten articles met the inclusion criteria and incorporated 2640 patients. This study reveals comparable mean operative time, mean operative margin size and rate of R1 resection between LLLS and OLLS. The intraoperative mean blood loss, mean length of ICU stay, mean hospital stay were significantly increased in the OLLS group (p < 0.05). Complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. The incidence of grade I-II complications was similar between the two groups. The incidence of grade III-V complications was increased in the OLLS group (p = 0.008). The mean perioperative cost was similar between the two techniques.

CONCLUSION

These outcomes for left lateral sectionectomy suggest that both approaches are feasible and safe. However, the results should be treated with caution given the small number of the included randomized controlled studies and potential for selection bias between the two techniques.

Laparoscopic hand-assisted liver resection for tumours in the left lateral section

Context:

The role of the laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) is debatable, and Level-1 data are lacking.

Aims:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of this approach.

Settings and Design:

This was a retrospective study.

Subjects and Methods:

From 2007 to 2014, patients undergoing LLLS were identified from two institutions.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Continuous variables were compared between groups with Student's t-test or Mann–Whitney test, as appropriate by type of distribution. Categorical variables were compared with Chi-square or Fisher's exact test, depending on the number of observations.

Results:

Thirty-eight patients were included in the study. The mean age was 63.5 + 13 years (range, 31–89), and the mean number of tumours was 1.7 + 1.5. Eleven (29%) patients underwent LLS combined with an additional liver resection (combined resections group). The mean duration of the operation and the mean estimated blood loss were significantly decreased in the LLS group compared to the combined resection group (101 + 71 min vs. 208 + 98 min and 216 + 217 ml vs. 450 + 223 ml; P < 0.05 for both, respectively). The major complications rate was 8% and no mortality occurred.

Conclusions:

In a subset of carefully selected cases, LLLS may provide the benefits of laparoscopy. This does not appear to compromise perioperative morbidity rates. We believe that this approach may serve as a training platform for surgical trainees.

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: A three-port method

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection has become popular recent years. Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is now a standard operation with sufficient safety and feasibility. To improve the benefits of minimally invasive surgery, we invented and have been performing a reduced port LLS procedure using 3 ports since 2009.

Materials and Methods

All patients who underwent LLS at Toranomon Hospital (Tokyo, Japan) were included, except for patients with a previous history of upper abdominal surgery or those who had undergone the simultaneous resection of another organ. An essential point of this procedure was the extracorporeal traction of the divided round ligament using a ligature. As a result, the operator was able to perform the parenchymal transection within a good operative field.

Results

Twelve patients were enrolled in the study. All the patients had a Child-Pugh classification of Class A. The median indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min was 9.5%. Compared with previously reported results for conventional LLS, the median operation time (82.5 min), blood loss (0 mL) and rate of blood transfusion (0%) were lower for the 3-port LLS procedure. The rates of complications (9%) and a positive surgical margin (0%) were similar to those reported for the conventional approach.

Conclusion

Three-port LLS appears to be a safe and feasible procedure.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data

BACKGROUND

The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies.

METHODS

All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined.

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

Background

To compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

Results

A total of 14 retrospective studies with 1679 colorectal liver metastases patients were analyzed: 683 patients treated with laparoscopic liver resection and 996 patients with open liver resection. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss (MD, -216.7, 95% CI, -309.4 to -124.1; P < 0.00001), less requiring blood transfusion (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.55; P < 0.00001), lower postoperative complication morbidity (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization time (MD, -3.85, 95% CI, -5.00 to -2.71; P < 0.00001). However, operation time and postoperative mortality were no significant difference between the two approaches. With respect to oncological outcomes, laparoscopic liver resection group was prone to lower recurrence rate (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61−0.99; P = 0.04), but surgical margins R0, overall survival and disease-free survival were no significant difference.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for all relevant studies. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases have the same effect on oncological outcomes, but laparoscopic liver resection achieves better surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy was expected to be the standard for the treatment of left hepatic lobe lesions: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy (LLLHS) has been widely accepted because of the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. We aimed to assess the benefits and drawbacks of left lateral sectionectomy (of segments II/III) compared with laparoscopic and open approaches.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. We calculated odds ratios or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 14 trials involving 685 patients. There were no statistically significant differences between LLLHS and open LLHS (OLLHS) regarding analgesia (P = .31), pedicle clamping (P = .70), operative time (P = .54), hospital expenses (P = .64), postoperative alanine aminotransferase levels (P = .57), resection margin (95% CI -3.02-4.28; P = .73), or tumor recurrence (95% CI 0.51-3.05; P = .62). However, the LLLHS group showed significantly better results regarding blood transfusion (95% CI 0.14-0.73; P = .007), blood loss (95% CI -140.95 to -67.23; P <.001), total morbidity (95% CI 0.24-0.56; P <.01), and hospital stay (95% CI -3.84 to -2.31; P <.001) than the OLLHS group.

CONCLUSION

LLLHS has an advantage in the hospital stay, blood loss, and total morbidity. It is an ideal method for LLHS surgery.

Comparison of Single-Port Versus Standard Multiport Left Lateral Liver Sectionectomy

It remains unclear if single incision laparoscopic liver surgery is superior to standard multiport resections and in what regard patients might benefit from this approach. We retrospectively analyzed the course of all patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy at our center between 2009 and 2017. In total, 11 single incision and 31 multiport left lateral sectionectomies were performed at our center between July 2009 and May 2017. Six patients were excluded due to multivisceral resections. Indications included adenoma (n = 7 vs n = 2), focal nodular hyperplasia (n = 4 vs n = 3), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4 vs n = 4), colorectal liver metastasis (n = 4 vs n = 0), noncolorectal metastasis (n = 2 vs n = 1), hemangioma (n = 3 vs n = 0), abscess (n = 1 vs n = 0), and cysts (n = 1 vs n = 0). Length of operation was significantly shorter in the single incision group (206 vs 137 minutes, P = .003). One complication was observed in the single incision group (grade IIIb, n = 1) while 3 patients in the multiport group suffered from postoperative complications (grade II, n = 1; grade IIIa, n = 2), resulting in a morbidity rate of 12.5% and 11.5%, respectively. No mortality was observed in both groups. Length of hospital stay did not significantly differ in both groups (median 7 vs 7 days, P = .513). The single incision approach is safe and has become the standard approach for the left lateral sectionectomy at our center. Shorter operation times technique might well be due to the easy retrieval of the liver specimen via the umbilical incision with no need for a Pfannenstiel incision.

Stepwise introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery: validation of guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND

Uncontrolled introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) could compromise postoperative outcomes. A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training is advised. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of such a stepwise introduction.

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center case series assessing short term outcomes of all consecutive LLS in the period November 2006-January 2017. The technique was implemented in a stepwise fashion. To evaluate the impact of this stepwise approach combined with structured training, outcomes of LLS before and after a laparoscopic HPB fellowship were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 135 laparoscopic resections were performed. Overall conversion rate was 4% (n = 5), clinically relevant complication rate 13% (n = 18) and mortality 0.7% (n = 1). A significant increase in patients with major LLS, multiple liver resections, previous abdominal surgery, malignancies and lesions located in posterior segments was observed after the fellowship as well as a decrease in the use of hand-assistance. Increasing complexity in the post fellowship period was reflected by an increase in operating times, but without comprising other surgical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training reduced the clinical impact of the learning curve, thereby confirming guideline recommendations.

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

METHODS

In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m2 and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery.

RESULTS

Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Is Laparoscopic Hepatectomy a Safe, Feasible Procedure in Patients with a Previous Upper Abdominal Surgery?

Background:

Laparoscopic liver resection has become an accepted treatment for liver tumors or intrahepatic bile duct stones, but its application in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in these patients.

Methods:

Three hundred and thirty-six patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy at our hospital from March 2012 to June 2015 were enrolled in the retrospective study. They were divided into two groups: Those with previous upper abdominal surgery (PS group, n = 42) and a control group with no previous upper abdominal surgery (NS group, n = 294). Short-term outcomes including operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality were compared among the groups.

Results:

There was no significant difference in median operative duration between the PS group and the NS group (180 min vs. 160 min, P = 0.869). Median intraoperative blood loss was same between the PS group and the control group (200 ml vs. 200 ml, P = 0.907). The overall complication rate was significantly lower in the NS group than in the PS group (17.0% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.030). Mortality and other short-term outcomes did not differ significantly between groups.

Conclusions:

Our study showed no significant difference between the PS group and NS group in term of short-term outcomes. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a feasible and safe procedure for patients with previous upper abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) has now become standard practice. However, published series are small and retrospective. The aim was to compare at a national level the use and short-term outcome of laparoscopic and open LLS.

METHODS

National hospital discharge databases were screened to identify all adult patients who had undergone elective LLS in France between 2007 and 2012. Outcome measurements included blood transfusion, severe morbidity, mortality and length of hospital stay. The independent influence of the laparoscopic approach on these outcomes was tested overall and after stratifying for the indication (benign condition, primary malignancy, liver metastasis).

RESULTS

Over the 6-year study period, 2198 patients underwent LLS, accounting for 6.9% of all elective liver resections. Some 28.5% of LLS procedures were performed laparoscopically. Among hospitals in which LLS was carried out, 33.2% of procedures were done laparoscopically (median 2 laparoscopic LLS resections per year). The laparoscopic approach was independently associated with a shorter length of hospital stay irrespective of the indication, and a lower transfusion rate in patients with benign condition or primary malignancy.

CONCLUSION

LLS is seldom performed and the laparoscopic approach has not been adopted widely. The potential benefit of laparoscopic LLS varies according to the indication.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Tumors in the Left Lateral Liver Section

Background:

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly adopted for liver resections today especially for lesions located in the left lateral liver section. This study was conducted to determine the impact of the introduction of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) as a surgical option for suspected small- to medium-sized (<8 cm) tumors located in the left lateral section (LLS).

Methods:

This is a retrospective review of 156 consecutive patients who underwent LLR or open liver resection (OLR) of tumors located in the LLS. The study was divided into 2 consecutive periods (period 1, January 2003 through September 2006, and period 2, October 2006 through April 2014); LLR was available as a surgical option only in the latter period. Comparisons made were LLR versus OLR, LLR versus OLR (in period 2 only), and resections performed in period 1 versus period 2.

Results:

Forty-two patients underwent LLR with 4 conversions. LLR was significantly associated with a longer median operative time [167.5 minutes (range, 60–525) vs 105 minutes (range, 40–235); P < .001], decreased need for the Pringle maneuver [n = 1 (2%) vs 22 (19%); P = .008], and shorter postoperative stay [n = 4 (range, 1–10) days vs 5 days (range, 2–47); P < .001] compared with open resection. Comparison of the 42 patients who underwent LLR with the 64 contemporaneous patients who underwent OLR demonstrated similar outcomes. Again, LLR was associated with a significantly longer operation, decreased need for the Pringle maneuver, and shorter hospital stay.

Conclusions:

LLR can be safely adopted to treat lesions in the LLS. The procedure is associated with a shorter postoperative stay and a decreased need for the Pringle maneuver, but longer operative time compared with that required for OLR.

An Improved Surgical Technique for Pure Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy: Ten Years Experience in a Tertiary Center

Background: This study details our experience with an improved surgical technique involving the hepatic pedicle during laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH).

Methods: We describe an improved laparoscopic technique to extraparenchymally divide the left hepatic pedicle. A retrospective analysis of all of the patients who underwent laparoscopic liver procedures between 2002 and 2012 was conducted. The patients were divided into two groups, an early LLH group (ELLH group) and a recent LLH group (RLLH group), based on the surgical approach used for the left hepatic pedicle.

Results: A total of 72 cases of LLH (26 ELLH and 46 RLLH) were identified. The RLLH group exhibited a shorter median operative time, median length of hospital stay, and lower median blood loss compared to the ELLH group (182, 162.5–223.7 versus 232.5, 200–357.5 minutes, P < .01; 5, 4.2–7 versus 7, 6–8.7 days, P < .05; 150, 100–257.5 versus 300, 200–337.5 mL, P < .05, respectively). No perioperative mortality was observed.

Conclusions: This study confirms that our improved surgical technique for LLH is practical, safe, and effective. The main advantage of this method compared to other techniques is the possibility of attaining rapid and precise control of vascular inflow, thus facilitating LLH.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The safety and efficacy of approaches to liver resection: a meta-analysis

Background:

The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy.

Database:

Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3–200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78–2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42–0.57).

Conclusion:

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.

Robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy of liver

BACKGROUND

A few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9).

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Less cost by using hanging maneuver and Pringle maneuver in left lateral hepatectomy through small laparotomy wound--experience of Southern Taiwan

Background

Laparoscopic segmentectomy for liver tumor located in the left lateral segment (LLS) is thought to be a standard protocol nowadays with several advantages, such as small wound, few blood loss, and short hospital stay. However, there are still many disadvantages during executing laparoscopic LLS segmentectomy. This manuscript aims to present the technique to execute LLS segmentectomy with small incision, hanging maneuver without Pringle maneuver in patients with tumor at LLS of the liver.

Material and methods

Between November 2010 and July 2011, hepatectomies through small incision for nine patients with benign and malignant tumors were performed at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan. Perioperative and postoperative results, such as operation time, blood loss, incisional width, and postoperative stay were used to determine consequents for this technique.

Result

Results demonstrated that modified LLS segmentectomy by the author’s team was performed successfully in patient with liver tumor with fewer blood loss, smaller incisional width, and lower hospital cost than traditional open surgery. In addition, the instrument cost and blood loss in our series were less than that in laparoscopic LLS segmentectomy in published literature.

Conclusion

Authors concluded that minimally incisional segmentectomy, with less cost and technical demanding, could be an alternative choice in patient with liver tumor at LLS.

Learning curve of self-taught laparoscopic liver surgeons in left lateral sectionectomy: results from an international multi-institutional analysis on 245 cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was suggested as gold standard for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), thanks to recognized benefits compared to open approach. Aim of this study was to define learning curve (LC) of laparoscopic LLS (LLLS) using operative time (OT) as tool to analyze outcome of procedures performed by four experienced surgeons. Reproducibility and safety of LC in LLLS among independent surgeons were also analyzed as essential features of "standard procedure" concept.

METHODS

LLLS performed by four experienced surgeons was collected. Multivariate analysis was carried out to screen factors affecting OT. A cumulative LC was created calculating median OT. Skewness of OT was analyzed, and ROC curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for LC. The impact of LC on outcomes (morbidity and mortality, blood loss, conversions, surgical margins and length of stay) was determined.

RESULTS

A total of 245 LLLSs were collected. Conversion rate was 1.2 %. Median OT was 141 min, blood loss 100 mL, morbidity 11.4 % and mortality 0.4 %. "Associated procedures" was the only independent factor affecting OT. The skewness of the OT was calculated, and the cutoff point for LC was determined after 15 LLLSs. LLLS performed during and after LC period had similar outcomes.

CONCLUSION

LLLS is feasible with low morbidity, mortality and conversion rate. LC in LLLS is shorter compared to minor liver resections. Furthermore, it is reproducible and safe since it does not negatively affect clinical outcome. A reproducible, safe and short LC contributes to considering laparoscopy as the gold standard approach to perform LLS.

Laparoscopic anterior approach of major hepatectomy combined with colorectal resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and operative outcomes of the anterior approach technique for a simultaneous colorectal and liver laparoscopic procedure given its demonstrated benefits and discuss the advantages of this strategy.

PATIENT AND METHODS

In the presented case, a total laparoscopic anterior approach was used for a left hemihepatectomy in combination with laparoscopic colorectal resections for synchronous liver metastases, which emphasizes the technical aspects of this procedure. The duration of surgery, blood loss, and postoperative outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic anterior approach for a left hepatectomy with simultaneous colon resection for liver metastases was feasible and safe without postoperative complications. The duration of surgery was 190 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 200 mL. The postoperative course was uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

The laparoscopic anterior approach for a major hepatectomy for unilobular synchronous metastases can be safely performed simultaneously with colorectal surgery in select patients.

Single-port and multi-port laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy for treating benign liver diseases: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

The use of single-port laparoscopy for left-lateral liver sectionectomy (LLLS) has been reported in the literature, but the effectiveness and safety of LLLS has not been validated in randomized, controlled trials. This prospective randomized controlled trial compared the effectiveness and safety of single-port and multi-port laparoscopic LLLS for the surgical treatment of benign liver disease.

METHODS

Altogether, 38 patients aged 17-65 years (16 men, 22 women) with benign liver diseases were hospitalized for elective laparoscopic LLLS between January 2010 and December 2012. Patients were randomly assigned to either single-port (n = 19) or multi-port (n = 19) laparoscopic LLLS. Main outcome measures were operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, complication rates, and postoperative hospitalization.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Single-port and multi-port laparoscopies were successfully completed in all but one patient (1/19, 5.3 %) who required conversion from a single-port to a multi-port procedure. The two groups had similar mean operative times and volumes of intraoperative blood loss. There were no clinically significant postoperative complications or deaths. The single-port group had a significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than the multi-port group (2.5 ± 1.7 vs. 4.0 ± 2.1 days; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Single-port laparoscopic LLLS is a technically feasible, effective, safe alternative to multi-port laparoscopy for the treatment of benign liver diseases in cautiously selected patients.

Segmentectomy: is minimally invasive surgery going to change a liver dogma?

Nowadays, the respective approach to hepatic resections (for malignant or benign liver lesions) is oriented toward minimal parenchymal resection. This surgical behavior is sustained by several observations that surgical margin width is not correlated with recurrence of malignancies. Parenchymal-sparing resection reduces morbidity without changing long-term results and allows the possibility of re-do liver resection in case of recurrence. Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is performed worldwide and is considered a standard of care for many surgical procedures. MILS is associated with less blood loss, less analgesic requirements, and shorter length of hospital with a better quality of life. One of the more frequent criticisms to MILS is that it represents a more challenging approach for anatomical segmentectomies and that in most cases a non-anatomical resection could be performed with thinner resection margins compared with open surgery. But even in the presence of reduced surgical margins, oncological results in the short- and long-term follow-up seem to be the same such as open surgery. The purpose of this review is to try to understand whether chasing at any cost laparoscopic anatomical segmentectomies is still necessary whereas non-anatomical resections, with a parenchymal-sparing behavior, are feasible and overall recommended also in a laparoscopic approach. The message coming from this review is that MILS is opening more and more new frontiers that are still need to be supported by further experience.

Open versus laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (the Oslo-CoMet Study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection is used in specialized centers all over the world. However, laparoscopic liver resection has never been compared with open liver resection in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Oslo-CoMet Study is a randomized trial into laparoscopic versus open liver resection for the surgical management of hepatic colorectal metastases. The primary outcome is 30-day perioperative morbidity. Secondary outcomes include 5-year survival (overall, disease-free and recurrence-free), resection margins, recurrence pattern, postoperative pain, health-related quality of life, and evaluation of the inflammatory response. A cost-utility analysis of replacing open surgery with laparoscopic surgery will also be performed. The study includes all resections for colorectal liver metastases, except formal hemihepatectomies, resections where reconstruction of vessels/bile ducts is necessary and resections that need to be combined with ablation. All patients will participate in an enhanced recovery after surgery program. A biobank of liver and tumor tissue will be established and molecular analysis will be performed.

DISCUSSION

After 35 months of recruitment, 200 patients have been included in the trial. Molecular and immunology data are being analyzed. Results for primary and secondary outcome measures will be presented following the conclusion of the study (late 2015). The Oslo-CoMet Study will provide the first level 1 evidence on the benefits of laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in ClinicalTrals.gov (NCT01516710) on 19 January 2012.

Synchronous totally laparoscopic management of colorectal cancer and resectable liver metastases: a single center experience

PURPOSE

The simultaneous management of primary colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases has been reported extensively in open surgery. Data regarding feasibility, safety, and outcomes of the laparoscopic procedure is emerging from the experience of a few surgical centers. This paper aims at discussing the technique and results of a one-step laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer and liver metastases resection on a series of 35 patients.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2013, 18 males and 17 females (median age 71 years) underwent colorectal and hepatic laparoscopic resection for colorectal metastatic cancer.

RESULTS

Thirty-five colorectal resections and 66 liver resections were performed; no conversion to open surgery has been indicated. Median blood loss was 200 ml, median operative time 240 min, and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 4-30). According to Clavien-Dindo classification, two class II complications, two class IIIb complications, and one class IV complication were recorded. Two high-risk patients died within 30 days from surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This series confirms the feasibility of synchronous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resections. To ensure the best outcomes, a careful selection of patients is needed. However, most patients can benefit from this surgical approach.

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

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

Laparoscopic left hepatectomy in swine: a safe and feasible technique

A purely laparoscopic four-port approach was created for left hepatectomy in pigs. A polyethylene loop was placed on the left two hepatic lobes for traction and lift. Next, penetrating ligation of the lobes using of a double row of silk sutures was performed to control bleeding. A direct hepatic transection was completed using a monopolar hook electrode without meticulous dissection of the left hepatic vein. The raw surface of the liver was coagulated and sealed with fibrin glue. Lobes were retrieved through an enlarged portal. Laparoscopic hepatic lobectomy was completed in all pigs without the use of specialized instruments and with a mean operative time of 179 ± 9 min. No significant perioperative complications were observed. The average weight of each resected lobe was 180 ± 51 g. Complete blood count as well as serum organics and enzyme levels normalized after about 2 weeks. During necropsy, adhesion of the hepatic raw surface to the gastric wall and omentum were observed. No other abnormalities were identified. This minimally invasive left hepatectomy technique in swine could serve as a useful model for investigating liver diseases and regeneration, and offer preclinical information to improve hepatobiliary surgical procedures.

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy as a training procedure for surgeons learning laparoscopic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection remains limited to a relatively small number of institutions because of insufficient hepatic and laparoscopic surgical experience and few training opportunities. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of an improved laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy technique as a training procedure for new surgeons.

METHODS

Twenty-four laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomies (LLLSs) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 3 groups with 8 patients in each: those undergoing surgery by expert surgeons prior to 2008 (Group A); those undergoing surgery by expert surgeons after 2008, when a standardized LLLS technique was adopted (Group B); and those undergoing LLLS by junior surgeons being trained (Group C).

RESULTS

The median operative time was significantly shorter for Group B (103 min; range, 99-109 min) and C (107 min; range, 85-135 min) patients than for Group A (153 min; range, 95-210 min) patients. There were no significant differences in blood loss or hospital stay. In Groups B and C, no conversions to open laparotomy or complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

The standardized LLLS procedure was both safe and feasible as a technique for training surgeons in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic left lateral resection is the gold standard for benign liver lesions: a case-control study

INTRODUCTION

A left lateral section is the first choice for a laparoscopic anatomic liver resection. The objective of this case-control study was to assess the surgical outcome after a laparoscopic left lateral resection for benign liver lesions compared with the open approach.

METHODS

From January 2004 to April 2011, 31 laparoscopic left lateral resections were matched with 31 open left lateral resections by selection based on pathology of the lesion, size of the lesion, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), age and gender of the patient.

RESULTS

Duration of the operation (laparoscopic: 182 ± 71 versus open: 244 ± 105 min; P = 0.04), blood loss (223 ± 281 versus 455 ± 593 ml; P = 0.03), duration of hospital stay (4.1 ± 1.7 versus 8.1 ± 4.4 days; P < 0.001) and total cost of hospitalization (7475 ± 2679 versus 11504 ± 7776 Euros; P < 0.001) were significantly lower in the laparoscopic group.

CONCLUSIONS

This matched case-control study demonstrated procedural safety, excellent post-operative outcomes and economic benefits for a laparoscopic liver resection. A laparoscopic left lateral liver sectionectomy is recommended as a gold standard for benign liver lesions.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: An overview of the literature and experiences of a single centre

In the past two decades there has been an enormous increase in laparoscopic liver surgery. There is a trend from limited to laparoscopic major resections and more centres are adopting laparoscopic liver surgery as a standard of care. Although no randomized clinical trials are published, different reports on minor and major hepatectomies and meta-analyses suggest (at least) equal outcomes and cost-effectiveness compared to open procedures.