Laparoscopic liver resection compared to open approach in patients with colorectal liver metastases improves further resectability: Oncological outcomes of a case-control matched-pairs analysis

Comparing Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic Liver Resection for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) can be surgically managed through open resections (OLR), laparoscopic resections (LLR), or robotic liver resections (RLR). However, there is ongoing uncertainty regarding the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive approaches like LLR and RLR. This study aims to clarify these issues by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare outcomes across OLR, LLR and RLR for patients with CRLM. Following the PRISMA-NMA guidelines, the meta-analysis included 13 studies with a combined total of 6582 patients. Of these, 50.6% underwent LLR, 45.3% underwent OLR, and 4.1% underwent RLR. The analysis found no significant differences in R0 resection rates between LLR (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-1.26) and RLR (OR 1.57, 95% CI: 0.98-2.51) when compared to OLR. Additionally, there were no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) at 1, 3, and 5 years. Despite these findings, both LLR and RLR were associated with reduced postoperative complication rates (RLR: OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.32-0.86; LLR: OR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37-0.68). However, patients undergoing LLR were more likely to require conversion to open surgery compared to those undergoing RLR (OR: 12.46, 95% CI: 2.64-58.67). Furthermore, RLR was associated with a reduced need for blood transfusions (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.05-0.32), and LLR resulted in shorter hospital stays (mean difference: -6.66 days, 95% CI: -11.6 to -1.88 days). This study demonstrates the oncological safety of LLR and RLR approaches for CRLM relative to OLR, with enhanced perioperative outcomes anticipated following minimally invasive resections of CRLM.

Initial laparoscopic liver resection is associated with reduced adhesions and transfusions at the time of salvage liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with improved patient recovery as well as reduced postoperative adhesions compared to open LR (OLR) and could therefore facilitate redo liver surgery. LLR prior to liver transplantation (LT) is increasingly performed, LT being saved for HCC recurrence. LT is still performed by open surgery due to vascular reconstructions and underlying liver chronic disease. We evaluated the impact of laparoscopic approach for LR prior to LT in terms of intraoperative transfusions, adhesions severity and outcome.

METHODS

Data from all patients who underwent a LT after LR in two French high-volume tertiary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The impact of LLR on per operative and postoperative outcome was assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

170 patients were included, 43 patients in the LLR group and 127 in the OLR group. Preoperative characteristics were comparable between both groups, except LLR group included more patients with "very early-stage" BCLC tumors than OLR group (51% vs. 33%, p = 0.02) and less anatomical resections (54% vs. 75%, p = 0.015). During LT, the transfusion rate was significantly higher in the OLR group (71.4% vs 44.2%, p = 0.002) as well as the proportion of type III adhesions according to OLSG classification (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis found LLR to be an independent protective factor for adhesions and transfusion (p = 0.001 and p = 0.03 respectively).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection was associated with reduced postoperative adhesions and transfusion requirements during subsequent liver transplantation.

Minimally Invasive Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review of the Short- and Long-Term Results

Surgery and postoperative systemic chemotherapy represent the standard treatment for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) for hepatobiliary procedures has spread worldwide in the last two decades. Since resections for PHC are technically demanding, the role of MIS in this field is yet to be established. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature on MIS for PHC, to evaluate its safety and its surgical and oncological outcomes. A systematic literature review on PubMed and SCOPUS was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Overall, a total of 18 studies reporting 372 MIS procedures for PHC were included in our analysis. A progressive increase in the available literature was observed over the years. A total of 310 laparoscopic and 62 robotic resections were performed. A pooled analysis showed an operative time ranging from 205.3 ± 23.9 and 840 (770-890) minutes, and intraoperative bleeding between 101.1 ± 13.6 and 1360 ± 809 mL. Minor and major morbidity rates were 43.9% and 12.7%, respectively, with a 5.6% mortality rate. R0 resections were achieved in 80.6% of patients and the number of retrieved lymph nodes ranged between 4 (3-12) and 12 (8-16). This systematic review shows that MIS for PHC is feasible, with safe postoperative and oncological outcomes. Recent data has shown encouraging results and more reports are being published. Future studies should address differences between robotic and laparoscopic approaches. Given the management and technical challenges, MIS for PHC should be performed by experienced surgeons, in high-volume centers, on selected patients.

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.

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD -285.69, 95% CI -481.72 to -89.65, P = 0.004, I 2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD -7.88, 95% CI -11.38 to -4.37, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI -6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I 2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.

Laparoscopic resection of hepatic alveolar echinococcosis: A single-center experience

Introduction

Alveolar echinococcosis (AE) remains a very rare disease requiring complete radical resection for curative treatment. While open approaches are common, safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resections remain unknown.

Methods

This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study with patients undergoing liver resection for hepatic AE at the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital from December 2002 to December 2020. Postoperative outcomes of patients following laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatic AE were compared with those of patients undergoing open hepatectomy (OH).

Results

A total of 93 patients underwent liver resection for hepatic AE. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in 23 patients and open hepatectomy in 70 patients. While there were no significant differences in terms of gender, age and diagnostic tools, the majority of patients of the LH cohort were PNM stage 1 (78%) in contrast to only 39% in the OH cohort (p = 0.002). Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy were treated by minor liver resections in 91% and in 9% by major liver resections in comparison to the open hepatectomy cohort with 61% major liver resections and 39% minor resections. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with shorter mean operation time (127 minutes vs. 242 minutes, p <0.001), lower major complication rate (0% vs. 11%, p = 0.322) and shorter mean length of hospital stay (4 days vs. 13 days, p <0.001). Patients with LH had a distinct, but not significant lower recurrence rate (0% vs. 4%, p = 0.210) during a mean follow-up of 55 months compared with a follow-up of 76 months in the OH cohort. After subgroup analysis of PNM stage 1 patients, similar results are seen with persistent shorter mean operation time (120 minutes vs. 223 minutes, p <0.001), lower major complication rate (0% vs. 8%, p = 0.759) and shorter length of hospital stay (4 days vs. 12 days, p <0.001).

Conclusion

Laparoscopy appears as a feasible and safe approach for patients with PNM stage 1 alveolar echinococcosis without impact on early disease recurrence.

In this retrospective cohort study laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic alveolar echinococcosis had no negative impact on perioperative outcomes, disease recurrence or survival compared with open hepatectomy. The importance of this finding is that the laparoscopic approach is feasible and safe for selected patients with hepatic alveolar echinococcosis, especially those with PNM stage 1.

Lymphadenectomy and margin-negative resection for biliary tract cancer surgery in the United States-Differential technical performance by approach

BACKGROUND

As minimally invasive surgery (MIS) approaches to biliary tract cancers become more commonplace, understanding the adequacy of their oncologic performance is key.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database 2010-2016 was queried for patients who underwent hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) and T1b or more advanced gallbladder cancer (GBC). Patients were grouped by approach: open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and robotic (RA). Margin status, rate of lymph node (LN) dissection, and yield of LN dissection were evaluated.

RESULTS

This cohort of 8612 patients, including 4034 patients with IHC (OA: 3281, LA: 675, RA: 78) and 4578 patients with GBC (OA: 1893, LA: 2588, RA: 97), MIS was used 40% of the time. R0 resection was achieved in 82% OA, 84% LA, and 91% RA, p = 0.004. Rate of LN dissection was 53% (OA: 60%, LA: 42%, RA: 51%, p < 0.001). Among patients who underwent lymphadenectomy, 6 + LN were retrieved less commonly with a LA (OA: 27%, LA: 20%, and RA: 30%, p < 0.001). High-volume MIS hepatectomy centers were more likely to perform a lymphadenectomy (odds ratio [OR]: 1.41) and a sampling of 6 + LN (OR: 1.18).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of approach, lymphadenectomy is underperformed nationwide for biliary tract tumors, particularly with LA. As the use of MIS grows for the treatment of biliary tract cancers, scrutiny of oncologic outcomes is required.

Laparoscopic vs open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of surgical margin status and survival

BACKGROUND

Liver resection represents the curative treatment of choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Laparoscopic hepatectomy in CRLM is considered a safe approach. However, the information on their oncological results in the different series is deficient. This study aimed to compare the surgical margin, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with oncological resections of CRLM according to the type of surgical approach performed.

METHODS

Between April 2007 and June 2017, 263 patients with CRLM underwent hepatic resection. Inclusion criteria were initial resectability, tumor size ≤ 50 mm, 3 or less metastases, no bilobar involvement, and absence of extrahepatic disease. A propensity score was performed to adjust the indication bias.

RESULTS

Eighty-two patients were included (56 open and 26 laparoscopic). Twenty-eight (50%) patients had synchronous presentation in the open approach and 6 (23%) in the laparoscopic approach (p = 0.021), with more frequent simultaneous open resections (p = 0.037). The resection margin was positive (R1) in 5 patients with an open approach and 2 with a laparoscopic approach (8.9% and 7.6% respectively; p = 0.852). Nine patients (16%) with conventional approach and 2 (7.7%) with laparoscopic approach had local complications (p = 0.3). There was one death in the open group and none in the laparoscopic. There were no significant differences in OS and DFS rate between both groups (1-3 years, OS: 92-77% and 96-75% respectively; 1-3 years, DFS: 63-20% and 73-36% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in terms of surgical margin, OS rate, and DFS rate between the laparoscopic and open approach in patients with CRLM.

Open versus laparoscopic liver resection of colorectal metastases: a meta-analysis of matched patient populations

In recent years, the management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has evolved significantly. Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being performed, despite a lack of major randomized controlled trial evidence or widespread international consensus. The objective of this review was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes following open and laparoscopic CRLM resection. A systematic review of comparative matched population studies was performed. Evaluated endpoints included surgical outcomes and survival outcomes. Twelve studies were included in this review, reporting on 3095 patients. R0 (negative margins) rates were higher in the laparoscopic CRLM group (89.3% versus 86.9%). In addition, laparoscopic resection was associated with less blood loss (486 mls versus 648 mls, p ≤ 0.0001*) and reduced blood transfusion rates (6.7% vs. 12.2%, OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.08-4.19, p = 0.03*). Major complication rates were higher in the open CRLM group (12.5% vs. 8.1%, OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.30-2.33, p = 0.03*), as was overall hospital length of stay (median 7 versus 5.5 days, p = 0.001*). Perioperative mortality was similar between both groups, and there was no significance in 5-year overall survival for open or laparoscopic CRLM resection groups (58% and 61% respectively). Laparoscopic CRLM resection is associated with less blood loss, lower transfusion rates, major complications, and overall hospital length of stay with comparable oncological outcome.

Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing redo liver resections for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a European multi-center study

Background

Laparoscopic redo resections for colorectal metastases are poorly investigated. This study aims to explore long-term results after second, third, and fourth resections.

Material and methods

Prospectively updated databases of primary and redo laparoscopic liver resections in six European HPB centers were analyzed. Procedure-related overall survival after first, second, third, and fourth resections were evaluated. Furthermore, patients without liver recurrence after first liver resection were compared to those with one redo, two or three redo, and patients with palliative treatment for liver recurrence after first laparoscopic liver surgery. Survival was calculated both from the date of the first liver resection and from the date of the actual liver resection. In total, 837 laparoscopic primary and redo liver resections performed in 762 patients were included (630 primary, 172 first redo, 29 second redo, and 6 third redo). Patients were bunched into four groups: Group 1—without hepatic recurrence after primary liver resection (n = 441); Group 2—with liver recurrence who underwent only one laparoscopic redo resection (n = 154); Group 3—with liver recurrence who underwent two laparoscopic redo resections (n = 29); Group 4—with liver recurrence who have not been found suitable for redo resections (n = 138).

Results

No significant difference has been found between the groups in terms of baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes. Rate of positive resection margin was higher in the group with palliative recurrence (group 4). Five-year survival calculated from the first liver resection was 67%, 62%, 84%, and 7% for group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Procedure-specific 5-year overall survival was 50% after primary laparoscopic liver resection, 52% after the 1st reoperation, 52% after the 2nd, and 40% after the 3rd reoperation made laparoscopic.

Conclusions

Multiple redo recurrences can be performed laparoscopically with good long-term results. Liver recurrence does not aggravate prognosis as long as the patient is suitable for reoperation.

Safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients with severe comorbidities - A propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is nowadays considered as the standard of care for various liver malignancies. However, studies focusing on perioperative outcome after LH in patients with severe comorbidities are still sparse.

METHODS

247 patients, who underwent LH between January 2016 and March 2020 at European surgical center Aachen Maastricht (ESCAM) were retrospectively analyzed regarding surgical outcome. All patients were categorized according to the ASA guidelines and a propensity score matched (PSM) analysis was performed to compare patients with severe comorbidities with patients with minor or no comorbidities.

RESULTS

After PSM, no statistically significant differences regarding clinical characteristics were observed. We performed major resections in 26.4% of h-ASA (ASA > 2) patients and 19.4% of l-ASA (ASA≤2) patients, respectively (P = .322). Overall morbidity (Clavien-Dindo≥1) was observed more frequently in the h-ASA group (h-ASA: 25.0% vs. l-ASA: 8.3%; P = .007) while analysis of major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo≥3b) showed a non-significant tendency for more complications in h-ASA patients (h-ASA: 8.3% vs. l-ASA: 1.4%; P = .053). A subgroup analysis identified major resection (HR = 5.05; P = .006) as an independent risk factor for the occurrence of any postoperative complication and chronic kidney disease (HR = 22.59; P = .030) and liver fibrosis (HR = 30.16; P = .031) as risk factors for the occurrence of major complications in h-ASA patients.

CONCLUSION

LH in patients with severe systemic comorbidities shows a strong tendency towards an increased rate of major complications. Careful patient selection with respect to the planned extent of resection and the presence of chronic kidney disease and liver fibrosis should be performed to improve perioperative results.

Hand-assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastasis: Analysis of Short-term and Long-term Results

BACKGROUND

There is scant data regarding the outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The aim of this study is to report our experience and analyze the short-term and long-term results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of patients undergoing HALS for CRLM in 2 university affiliated medical centers.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-eight liver procedures were performed on 145 patients including 205 parenchymal sparing resections and 33 anatomic resections. The median number of metastases was 1 (range: 1 to 8), 38 patients (26.2%) had 3 or more metastases, and 41 patients (28.3 had a bi-lobar disease. The tumor size was 20 (2 to 90) mm, and 52 patients (36.6%) had a tumor larger than 30 mm. Nighty-nine patients (67.8%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In 8 patients (5.5%) the laparoscopic liver resection was combined with ablation, and 16 patients (11%) underwent a synchronous resection of colorectal cancer. The median operative time, blood loss during surgery, and postoperative hospital stay were 163 minutes, 300 mL, and 4 days, respectively. The median modified Iwate complexity score was 4 (0 to 10) and the conversion rate to open surgery was 5.5%. The overall and major complication rates were 23.8% and 3.6%, respectively. The mortality rate was 0.7%. R0 resections were achieved in 91% of patients. Median overall survival for all the cohort (intend to treat) was 59 months, and the 8- and 10-year overall survival rates were 47.3% and 24.9%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that HALS is a safe and efficacious treatment for selected patients with CRLM.

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

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

Impact of resection margins for colorectal liver metastases in laparoscopic and open liver resection: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no clear consensus over the optimal width of resection margin for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), with evolving definitions alongside the advances on the management of the disease. In addition, data on the impact of resection margin after laparoscopic liver resection are still scarce.

METHODS

Prospectively maintained databases of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic CRLM resection in 7 European tertiary hepatobiliary referral centres were reviewed. After propensity score matching (PSM), the influence of 1 mm and wider margins on OS and DFS were evaluated in open and laparoscopic cohorts.

RESULTS

After PSM, 648 patients were comparable in each group. The incidence of positive margins (< 1 mm) was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (17% vs 13%, p = 0,142). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter RFS in open (12 vs 26 months, p = 0.042) and in laparoscopic group (13 vs 23, p = 0,002). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter OS in open (36 vs 57 months, p = 0.027), but not in laparoscopic group (49 vs 60, p = 0,177). Subgroups with margins ≥ 1 mm (1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) presented similar RFS in open (p = 0,251) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.117), as well as similar OS in open (p = 0.295) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.908). In the presence of liver recurrence, repeat liver resection was performed in 70 (30%) patients in the open group and 88 (48%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that a positive resection margin (less than 1 mm) width does not impact OS after laparoscopic resection of CRLMs as it does in open liver resection. However, a positive margin continues to affect RFS in open and laparoscopic resection. Wider margins than 1 mm do not seem to improve oncological results in open or laparoscopic surgery.

Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As an emerging technology, robot-assisted surgical system has some potential merits in many complicated endoscopic procedures compared with laparoscopic surgery. But robot-assisted liver resection is still a controversial problem on its advantages compared with laparoscopic liver resection. We aimed to perform the meta-analysis to assess and compare the clinical outcomes of robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase databases, Clinicaltrials, and Opengrey through March 24, 2020, including references of qualifying articles. English-language, original investigations in humans about robot-assisted and laparoscopic hepatectomy were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were reviewed by at least 2 independent readers. Continuous and dichotomous variables were compared by the weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio (OR), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 936 titles identified in our original search, 28 articles met our criteria, involving 3544 patients. Compared with laparoscopy, the robot-assisted groups had longer operative time (WMD: 36.93; 95% CI, 19.74-54.12; P < 0.001), lower conversion rate (OR: 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46-0.87; P = 0.005), higher transfusion rate (WMD: 2.39; 95% CI, 1.51-3.76; P < 0.001) and higher total cost (WMD:0.49; 95% CI, 0.42-0.55; P < 0.001). In addition, the baseline characteristics of patients about largest tumor size was larger (WMD: 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.56; P < 0.001) and malignant lesions rate was higher (WMD: 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P < 0.001) in the robot-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy. The subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time (WMD: 36.00; 95% CI, 12.59-59.41; P = 0.003), longer length of stay (WMD: 0.51; 95% CI, 0.02-1.01; p = 0.04) and higher total cost (WMD: 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72; P < 0.001) (Table 3); while the subgroup analysis of major hepatectomy showed robot-assisted was associated with lower estimated blood loss (WMD: -122.43; 95% CI, -151.78--93.08; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis revealed that robot-assisted was associated with longer operative time, lower conversion rate, higher transfusion rate and total cost, and robot-assisted has certain advantages in major hepatectomy compared with laparoscopic hepatectomy.

The actual management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent cancers in the world and between 50% and 60% of patients will develop colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the disease. There have been great improvements in the management of CRLM during the last decades. The combination of modern chemotherapeutic and biological systemic treatments with aggressive surgical resection strategies is currently the base for the treatment of patients considered unresectable until few years ago. Furthermore, several new treatments for the local control of CRLM have been developed and are now part of the arsenal of multidisciplinary teams for the treatment of these complex patients. The aim of this review was to summarize and update the management of CRLM, its controversies and relevant evidence.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints?

The application of the minimally invasive approach has shown to be safe and effective for liver surgery and is in constant growth. The indications for laparoscopic surgery are steadily increasing across the field. In the early 2000s, robotic surgery led to some additional improvements, such as tremor filtration, instrument stability, 3D view and more comfort for the surgeon. These techniques bring in some advantages compared to the traditional OLR: less blood loss, shorter admissions, fewer adhesions, and a faster postoperative recovery and better outcomes in case of further hepatectomy for tumor recurrence has been shown. Concerning which is the best minimally invasive approach between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, the evidence is still conflicting. The latter shows good potential, since the endo-wristed instruments work similarly to the surgeon's hands, even with an intact abdominal wall. However, the technique is still under development, burdened by important costs, and limited by the lack of some instruments available for the laparoscopic approach. The paucity of universally accepted and proven data, especially concerning long-term outcomes, hampers drawing univocal acceptance at present. Furthermore, the number of variables related both to the patient and the disease further complicates the decision leading to a treatment tailored to each patient with strict selection. This review aims to explore the main differences between laparoscopic and robotic surgery, focusing on indications, operative technique and current debated clinical issues in recent literature.

Robotic-assisted surgery for colorectal liver metastasis: A single-centre experience

BACKGROUND

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the liver is increasingly widespread, its role in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) remains uncertain. In this setting, the role of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has not been significantly evaluated yet. The aim of this study was to report our experience with RAS for treatment of CRLM.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospectively collected surgical and oncologic data on all of the robotic-assisted liver resections for CRLM performed at our centre were retrieved from the institutional database and retrospectively analysed. Intra-operative ultrasound (US) was obtained with a dedicated robotic probe using the TilePro™ function.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent robotic-assisted resection of CRLM between May 2012 and April 2018. Six patients (30%) had multiple synchronous CRLM resections (median = 2; range 2-4). The tumour size averaged 3.0 ± 1.8 cm. All of the lesions were removed using a parenchymal-sparing approach, with R0 resection margins. Mean hospital stay was 4.7 ± 1.8 days. The mean follow-up was 22.5 ± 19.5 months. During the study period, there were no local recurrences, while 9 patients (45%) developed new systemic metastasis. All patients are still alive as of September 2018 with 1- and 3-year disease-free survival of 89.5% and 35.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our experience, RAS for CRLM surgical treatment was feasible and played a positive role even in patients with multiple metastases and previous or synchronous surgery. RAS seemed to be oncologically effective in this setting, as no patients experienced local relapse in the treated area.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: A comparative study from a single-centre

Background:

Technological innovations have made it possible to use laparoscopic liver resection in cases with pre-existing adhesions or cicatricial changes. However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons, especially in case of previous open liver surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) in cases of recurrent liver cancer.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 62 patients who underwent laparoscopic minor liver resection at our institution between September 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively divided into an LRLR group (n = 13) and a laparoscopic primary liver resection group (LPLR; n = 49). The two groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, surgical procedures and short-term outcomes. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs).

Results:

There was a significant intergroup difference in the hepatitis virus background, although the two groups' primary histology and pre-operative liver function were comparable. The two groups had statistically similar values for extent of resection, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, conversion to laparotomy, post-operative complications, surgical margins, time to oral intake and hospital stay. No significant differences were detected when we stratified the cases according to low and intermediate difficulty. Furthermore, there were no intergroup differences in RFS or OS in the two groups for patients with HCC and CRLM.

Conclusions:

The findings suggest that minor LRLR after OLR is safe and comparable with minor LPLR in the present study.

Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To present surgical and oncological outcomes using a prospective and randomized trial (LapOpHuva, NCT02727179) comparing minimally invasive liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

Between February 2005 and March 2016, 204 selected patients with CRLM were randomized and 193 were included: LLR (n = 96) and OLR (n = 97). The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative morbidity. Other secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, use of the Pringle maneuver, surgical time, blood losses, transfusions, hospital stay, mortality and OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 7 years.

RESULTS

LLR presented with lower global morbidity (11.5% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.025) but with similar severe complications. Long-term survival outcomes were similar in both groups. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-, 7-year OS for LLR and OLR were 92.5%, 71.5%, 49.3%, 35.6% versus 93.6%, 69.7%, 47.4%, 35.5%, respectively (log-rank = 0.047, p = 0.82). DFS for LLR and OLR was 72.7%, 33.5%, 22.7%, and 20.8% versus 61.6%, 27.2%, 23.9%, and 17.9%, respectively (log-rank = 1.427, p = 0.23). LLR involved more use of the Pringle maneuver (15.5% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.025) and a shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding surgical time, blood losses, transfusion, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with CRLM, LLR presents similar oncological outcomes with the advantages of the short-term results associated with LLR.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Benign Tumors and Lesions: A Case Matched Study with Propensity Score Matching

Background and Aim: In recent years, minimally invasive surgical approaches have gained an increasingly important role in hepatobiliary surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and potential benefits of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) compared with open liver resection (OLR) for benign liver tumors and lesions. Patients and Methods: Between January 2009 and December 2017, 182 patients underwent liver resection for benign liver tumors and lesions at our center. After exclusion of 15 patients, the remaining 167 patients were divided into LLR group (n = 54) and OLR group (n = 113) and were compared with regard to perioperative outcomes. To overcome selection bias, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, patients undergoing major hepatectomy were divided into major-LLR and major-OLR groups and perioperative outcomes evaluated. Results: After PSM, 35 patients were included in the OLR group and 35 patients in the LLR group. The LLR group had a significantly shorter median intensive care unit (ICU) stay (LLR: 1 [0-4] days; OLR: 1 [0-3] days; P = .009) and median hospital stay (length of stay [LOS]) (LLR: 7 [4-14] days; OLR: 10 [5-16] days; P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications graded as Clavien-Dindo ≥III (LLR: 11.4%; OLR: 2.9%; P = .375) in both groups. Postoperative 90-day mortality was 0% in both groups. When comparing major-LLR (n = 8) with major-OLR (n = 59), patients in the major-LLR group had a significantly longer median operation time (major-LLR: 403 [240-501] minutes; major-OLR: 221.5 [111-529] minutes; P < .001), but a significantly shorter median LOS (major-LLR: 7 [5-14] days; major-OLR: 9 [7-129] days; P = .013). The rate of major complications (Dindo Classification ≥III) for major-LLR was 0% and for major-OLR it was 16.9% (P = .207). Conclusion: Our case-matched study demonstrates shorter ICU and hospital stay using laparoscopic techniques while maintaining high-quality perioperative outcomes. Based on our findings, we suggest preferring the LLR over OLR for benign liver tumors and lesions regardless of the resection extent.

Highlights, limitations and future challenges of laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

The liver is the most common site for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRLM). Despite advances in oncologic treatment, resection of metastases is still the only curative option. Although laparoscopic surgery for primary colorectal cancer is well documented and widely used, laparoscopic surgery for liver metastases has developed more slowly. However, in spite of some difficulties, laparoscopic approach demonstrated strong advantages including minimal parietal damage, decreased morbidity (reduced blood loss and need for transfusion, fewer pulmonary complications), and simplification of subsequent iterative hepatectomy. Up to now, more than 9 000 laparoscopic procedures have been reported worldwide and long-term results in colorectal liver metastases seem comparable to the open approach. Only one recent randomized controlled trial has compared the laparoscopic and the open approach. The purpose of the present update was to identify the barriers limiting widespread acceptance of laparoscopic approach, the benefits and the limits of laparoscopic hepatectomies in CRLM.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

RESULTS

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

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

BACKGROUND

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) are liver resections with preservation of as much liver parenchyma as possible. PSH can be performed laparoscopically (LPSH), but access to the posterosuperior segments is difficult and they are challenging when there are multiple bilobar lesions; the procedure may require repositioning and may be long and cumbersome. The objective of this systematic review is to analyze the feasibility and limitations of laparoscopic PSH in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. Resections were categorized by segment(s), and data regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, and R0 resection were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 351 studies screened for relevance, 48 studies were reviewed. Ten publications fulfilled inclusion criteria, reporting data from 579 patients undergoing LPSH. The most common indication was CRLM (58%) followed by hepatocellular carcinoma (16%). Only 92 patients were reported to have resections of more than one tumor; the maximum number of lesions resected was seven. Of resected lesions, 21.5% were located in the cranial segments. Mean operating time was 335.2 min, estimated blood loss was 462 cc, and hospital stay was 7.6 days. Conversion rate was 9.7%, and complications occurred in 19.4% of cases. No perioperative mortality was reported. R0 resections were achieved in 87.7% of cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic PSH is performed and reported, but the data quality is low so far. The main limitation of LPSH is the low number of lesions resected, especially for bilobar, metastatic disease. Prospective reports with tumor-specific oncological data are desirable.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The OSLO-COMET Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking.

METHODS

Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins.

RESULTS

The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67-21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

Current status of surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases

Liver metastasis (LM) is one of the major causes of death in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Approximately 60% of CRC patients develop LM during the course of their illness. About 85% of these patients have unresectable disease at the time of presentation. Surgical resection is currently the only curative treatment for patients with colorectal LM (CRLM). In recent years, with the help of modern multimodality therapy including systemic chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery, the outcomes of CRLM treatment have significantly improved. This article summarizes the current status of surgical treatment of CRLM including evaluation of resectability, treatment for resectable LM, conversion therapy and liver transplantation for unresectable cases, liver resection for recurrent CRLM and elderly patients, and surgery for concomitant hepatic and extra-hepatic metastatic disease (EHMD). We believe that with the help of modern multimodality therapy, an aggressive oncosurgical approach should be implemented as it has the possibility of achieving a cure, even when EHMD is present in patients with CRLM.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection (LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR (LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open (reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.

Radiologic and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts survival in patients undergoing the liver-first approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases

PURPOSE

To investigate the short- and long-term outcomes of liver first approach (LFA) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), evaluating the predictive factors of survival.

METHODS

Sixty-two out of 301 patients presenting with synchronous CRLM underwent LFA between 2007 and 2016. All patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy. After neoadjuvant treatment patients were re-evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Liver resection was scheduled after 4-6 weeks. Changes in non-tumoral parenchyma and the tumor response according to the Tumor Regression Grade score (TRG) were assessed on surgical specimens. Primary tumor resection was scheduled 4-8 weeks following hepatectomy.

RESULTS

Five patients out of 62 (8.1%) showed "Progressive Disease" at re-evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 22 (35.5%) showed "Stable Disease" and 35 (56.5%) "Partial Response"; of these latter, 29 (82%) showed histopathologic downstaging. The 5-year survival (OS) rate was 55%, while the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate was 16%. RECIST criteria, T-stage, N-stage and TRG were independently associated with OS. Bilobar presentation of disease, RECIST criteria, R1 margin and TRG were independently associated with DFS. Patients with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better survival than those with stable or progressive disease (radiological response 5-y OS: 65% vs. 50%; 5-y DFS: 20% vs. 10%; pathological response 5-y OS: 75% vs. 56%; 5-y DFS: 45% vs. 11%).

CONCLUSIONS

LFA is an oncologically safe strategy. Selection is a critical point, and the best results in terms of OS and DFS are observed in patients having radiological and pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Recurrence patterns after laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

The major issue after liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is the high incidence of recurrence. Unlike open liver resection (OLR), recurrence following laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is not well documented. The aim of this study was to analyze recurrence patterns and treatment following LLR for CRLM.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent LLR for CRLM from 2000 to 2016 were reviewed. Patients who presented with recurrence were compared to those who did not. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), and risk of recurrence and survival prognostic factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, 273 patients were included, of which 157 (57.5%) were treated for one liver metastasis (LM). Median follow-up was 41 (12-187) months and associated extrahepatic disease was present in 27% of patients (mainly pulmonary, 65%). After a median of 16 (3-151) months, 197 (72%) patients presented with recurrence. Recurrences were early (< 6 months) in 22.8% of cases, occured in a single site in 66% and were intrahepatic, extrahepatic, or both in 44, 30, and 26%, respectively. Recurrences were treated with surgery or chemotherapy only in 45 and 47%, respectively. 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS was 82, 71, and 43%, respectively. Independent risk factors for recurrence were node-positive primary tumor, extrahepatic disease before hepatectomy, and R1 resection.

CONCLUSION

LLR for CRLM does not seem to be associated with distinctive recurrence patterns. LLR for CRLM yielded satisfying RFS and OS and should therefore be considered whenever possible.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proposed as a safe and feasible treatment option for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the short-term and oncologic outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for CRLM have not been adequately assessed. Thus, we herein provide an updated systematic review comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of CRLM patients undergoing LLR versus OLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until November 2, 2016) with a limitation to the publications in English. Quality assessment was performed based on the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies enrolling 4591 patients with CRLM were included. With respect to short-term outcomes, patients in LLR group showed significantly reduced blood loss (WMD: -143.64; 95% CI: -180.56 to -106.73; I2 = 86%; P < 0.001), lower operative transfusion requirement (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.53; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.94; I2 = 82%; P < 0.001), reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42-0.66; I2 = 38%; P < 0.001) and reduced severe morbidity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; I2 = 35%; P < 0.001). Regarding oncologic outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two surgical procedures in recurrence and 1-, 3-, and 5-overall survival and disease-free survival except for slightly higher R0 resection rate in LLR group was slightly higher than that of OLR group (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03-1.97; I2 = 37%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR should be the standard approach for selected patients with CRLM, and further research should focus on determining which patients would benefit most from LLR.

Laparoscopic liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: comparison with long-term results using the conventional approach

Background

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) have been shown to be both feasible and safe. However, no randomised control studies have been performed to date comparing results with those of the open surgery approach.

Main aim

To analyse LLR long-term results and compare them with a similar group of open resections in patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis (CRCLM).

Methods

Retrospective study on a prospective database. All patients with anatomopathological diagnosis of CRCLM resected between July 2007 and July 2015.

Results

Twenty-two open resections and 18 laparoscopic resections which presented favourable lesions for laparoscopic approach were analysed. Postoperative grade III morbidity was similar in both groups (p = 0.323). Disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 8 years in the laparoscopy group (n =16) was 81%, 58%, and 58%, respectively, while in the open surgery group (n = 17) it was 64%, 37%, and 19% respectively; no differences were found (p = 0.388). Global survival in the laparoscopy group was 93%, 60%, and 40%, respectively, and 88%, 74.5%, and 58.7%, respectively, in the open surgery group; no differences were found (p = 0.893) with a 37 months average follow-up.

Conclusion

LLR in patients with technically favourable CRCLM had similar morbidity to open resections and resection margins were not compromised because of laparoscopy.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Liver Surgery from Innovation to Implementation to Mastery: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of 2,238 Patients from 4 European Specialized Centers

BACKGROUND

First seen as an innovation for select patients, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved since its introduction, resulting in worldwide use. Despite this, it is still limited mainly to referral centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large cohort undergoing LLR from 2000 to 2015, focusing on the technical approaches, perioperative and oncologic outcomes, and evolution of practice over time.

STUDY DESIGN

The demographics and indications, intraoperative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes of 2,238 patients were evaluated. Trends in practice and outcomes over time were assessed.

RESULTS

The percentage of LLR performed yearly has increased from 5% in 2000 to 43% in 2015. Pure laparoscopy was used in 98.3% of cases. Wedge resections were the most common operation; they were predominant at the beginning of LLR and then decreased and remained steady at approximately 53%. Major hepatectomies were initially uncommon, then increased and reached a stable level at approximately 16%. Overall, 410 patients underwent resection in the posterosuperior segments; these were more frequent with time, and the highest percentage was in 2015 (26%). Blood loss, operative time, and conversion rate improved significantly with time. The 5-year overall survival rates were 73% and 54% for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), respectively. The 5-year, recurrence-free survival rates were 50% and 37% for HCC and CRLM, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Since laparoscopy was introduced, a long implementation process has been necessary to allow for standardization and improvement in surgical care, mastery of the technique, and the ability to obtain good perioperative results with safe oncologic outcomes.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway developed to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress after major surgery. In colorectal surgery, ERAS pathways reduced perioperative morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Similar concept should be applied for liver surgery. This study presents the specific ERAS Society recommendations for liver surgery based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ERAS for liver surgery by searching EMBASE and Medline. Five independent reviewers selected relevant articles. Quality of randomized trials was assessed according to the Jadad score and CONSORT statement. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the GRADE system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 157 full texts were screened. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review, and 16 of the 23 standard ERAS items were studied specifically for liver surgery. Consensus was reached among experts after 3 rounds. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation and prophylactic abdominal drainage should be omitted. The use of postoperative oral laxatives and minimally invasive surgery results in a quicker bowel recovery and shorter hospital stay. Goal-directed fluid therapy with maintenance of a low intraoperative central venous pressure induces faster recovery. Early oral intake and mobilization are recommended. There is no evidence to prefer epidural to other types of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The current ERAS recommendations were elaborated based on the best available evidence and endorsed by the Delphi method. Nevertheless, prospective studies need to confirm the clinical use of the suggested protocol.

Effectiveness and safety of robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for liver neoplasms: A meta-analysis of retrospective studies

This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, Web of science, and China Biology Medicine disc up to July 2016 for studies that provided comparisons between the surgical outcomes of RAH and LLR for liver neoplasms. WMD, OR and 95% CI were calculated and data combined using the random-effect model. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. A total of 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis, in which 487 patients were in the RAH group and 902 patients were in the LLR group. The meta-analysis results indicated: compared to LLR, RAH was associated with more estimated blood loss, longer operative time, and longer time to first nutritional intake (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in length of hospital stay, conversion rate during operation, R0 resection rate, complications and mortality (p > 0.05). Three studies reported the total cost, and the result showed a higher cost in the RAH group when compared with the LLR group (p < 0.05). This meta-analysis indicated that RAH and LLR display similar effectiveness and safety in hepatectomy. Considering the lack of high quality original studies, prospective clinical trials should be conducted to provide strong evidence for clinical guidelines formation, and the insurance coverage policies should be established to promote the application of robotic surgery in the future.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF LONG-TERM RESULTS OF MALIGNANT HEPATIC TUMORS TREATED BY MEANS CURATIVE LAPAROSCOPIC HEPATECTOMY

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has presented great importance for treating malignant hepatic lesions.

AIM

To evaluate its impact in relation to overall survival or disease free of the patients operated due different hepatic malignant tumors.

METHODS

Thirty-four laparoscopic hepatectomies were performed in 31 patients with malignant neoplasm. Patients were distributed as: Group 1 - colorectal metastases (n=14); Group 2 - hepatocellular carcinoma (n=8); and Group 3 - non-colorectal metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n=9). The conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and tumor recurrence were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Conversion to open surgery was 6%; morbidity 22%; postoperative mortality 3%. There was tumor recurrence in 11 cases. Medians of overall survival and disease free survival were respectively 60 and 46 m; however, there was no difference among studied groups (p>0,05).

CONCLUSION

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy for treating hepatic malignant tumors are satisfactory. There is no statistical difference in relation of both overall and disease free survival among different groups of hepatic neoplasms.

Different techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on minimally vs conventional invasive techniques for harvesting grafts for living donor liver transplantation.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively for studies comparing MILDH with conventional living donor hepatectomy (CLDH). Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes (operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative liver function, length of hospital stay, analgesia use, complications, and survival rate) were analyzed in donors and recipients. Articles were included if they: (1) compared the outcomes of MILDH and CLDH; and (2) reported at least some of the above outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 937 articles identified, 13, containing 1592 patients, met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. For donors, operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = 20.68, 95%CI: -6.25-47.60, P = 0.13] and blood loss (WMD = -32.61, 95%CI: -80.44-5.21, P = 0.18) were comparable in the two groups. In contrast, analgesia use (WMD = -7.79, 95%CI: -14.06-1.87, P = 0.01), postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.44-0.89, P = 0.009], and length of hospital stay (WMD): -1.25, 95%CI: -2.35-0.14, P = 0.03) significantly favored MILDH. No differences were observed in recipient outcomes, including postoperative complications (OR = 0.93, 95%CI: 0.66-1.31, P = 0.68) and survival rate (HR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.27-3.47, P = 0.95). Funnel plot and statistical methods showed a low probability of publication bias.

CONCLUSION

MILDH is safe, effective, and feasible for living donor liver resection with fewer donor postoperative complications, reduced length of hospital stay and analgesia requirement than CLDH.