The technique and outcomes of central hepatectomy by the Glissonian suprahilar approach

Laparoscopic central hepatectomy using a parenchymal-first approach: how we do it

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic central hepatectomy (LCH) is a difficult and challenging procedure. This study aimed to describe our experience with LCH using a parenchymal-first approach.

METHODS

Between July 2017 and June 2021, 19 consecutive patients underwent LCH using a parenchymal-first approach at our institution. Herein, the details of this procedural strategy are described, and the demographic and clinical data of the included patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 1 female and 18 male patients, all with hepatocellular carcinoma without major vascular invasion. The mean age was 57 ± 10 years. No patients underwent conversion to open surgery, and no blood transfusions were needed intraoperatively. The average operative duration and the average Pringle maneuver duration were 223 ± 65 min and 58 ± 11 min. respectively. The median blood loss was 200 ml (range: 100-800 ml). Postoperative morbidities occurred in 3 patients (15.8%), including 2 cases of bile leakage and 1 case of acquired pulmonary infection; there were no postoperative complications happened such as bleeding, hepatic failure, or mortality. The average postoperative hospital stay was 10 ± 3 days.

CONCLUSION

The optimized procedure of LCH using a parenchymal-first approach is not only feasible but also expected to provide an advantage in laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy.

Long-Term Outcomes of Mesohepatectomy for Centrally Located Liver Tumors: Two-Decade Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Mesohepatectomy is a viable treatment option for patients diagnosed with centrally located liver tumors (CLLTs). There are several reports from Eastern centers, but few data are available on this topic from Western centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Data of 128 consecutive patients who underwent mesohepatectomy between September 2000 and September 2020 in our center were analyzed from a prospectively collected database. Patient demographic data, liver tumor characteristics, and intraoperative data were collected. In addition, posthepatectomy bile leakage (PHBL), posthepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH), posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), and 90-day mortality after mesohepatectomy were assessed. Long-term outcomes were also reported, and factors that may influence disease-free survival were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 128 patients, 113 patients (88.3%) had malignant hepatic tumors (primary and metastatic tumors in 41 [32%] and 72 [56.3%] patients, respectively), and 15 patients suffered from benign lesions (11.7%). Among the relevant surgical complications (grade B or C), PHBL was the most common complication after mesohepatectomy and occurred in 11.7% of patients, followed by PHLF in 3.1% of patients and PHH in 2.3% of patients. Only four patients (3.1%) died within 90 days after mesohepatectomy. The 5-year overall survival and overall recurrence (for malignant lesion) rates were 76.5% and 45.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Mesohepatectomy is a safe and feasible surgical treatment with low morbidity and mortality for patients with CLLT. Long-term outcomes can be improved by increased surgical expertise.

Parenchyma-Sparing Central Hepatectomy Versus Extended Resections for Liver Tumors: a Value-Based Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Parenchyma-sparing (PS) liver resection is recommended for liver tumors. The value of PS-approaches as compared to more extended resections is unknown. We sought to examine value-based differences (quality/cost) of central hepatectomy (CH) versus more extended resections.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients having CH or right/extended hepatectomies (R/EH) at a high-volume cancer center was performed (2015-2019). The primary outcome was the value ratio, calculated as quality/cost. Quality was defined as the proportion of patients achieving a textbook outcome. Perioperative actual direct costs ($USD) for each patient were abstracted from institutional financial records spanning throughout the perioperative period. Value ratios were calculated and compared for each approach; sensitivity analysis was performed by modelling TO and cost thresholds.

RESULTS

Among 651 hepatobiliary operations (426 liver resections), 90 patients met inclusion criteria: 19 CH and 71 R/EH. TO occurred in 68% and 69% of CH and R/EH, respectively (P = 0.96). Mean direct costs were $21,826 for CH and $28,599 for R/EH (P = 0.008). CH provided a greater value (value ratio CH = 0.33 vs. R/EH = 0.26; P = 0.004) with a shift favoring R/EH only when the TO threshold for CH was below 51% (CH = 0.23 vs. R/EH = 0.24) or that of R/EH was over 90% (CH = 0.31 vs. R/EH = 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support a PS approach for central liver tumors (central hepatectomy) as it offers higher value than more extended resections. In the context of high-volume centers with outcomes within established national benchmarks, patients with central tumors should be considered for CH over more extended non-PS approaches.

Glissonean approach for hepatic inflow control in minimally invasive anatomic liver resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The Glissonean approach has been widely validated for both open and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR). However, the possible advantages compared to the conventional hilar approach are still under debate. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the application of the Glissonean approach in MIALR.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted on PubMed and Ichushi databases. Articles written in English or Japanese were included. From 2,390 English manuscripts evaluated by title and abstract, 43 were included. Additionally, 23 out of 463 Japanese manuscripts were selected. Duplicates were removed, including the most recent manuscript.

RESULTS

The Glissonean approach is reported for both major and minor MIALR. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd order divisions of both right and left portal pedicles can be reached following defined anatomical landmarks. Compared to the conventional hilar approach, the Glissonean approach is associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and better peri-operative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Glissonean approach is safe and feasible for MIALR with several reported advantages compared to the conventional hilar approach. Clear knowledge of Laennec's capsule anatomy is necessary and serves as a guide for the dissection. However, the best surgical approach to be performed depends on surgeon experience and patients' characteristics. Standardization of the Glissonean approach for MIALR is important.

Parenchymal preserving liver resection for centrally located liver tumors: how I do it?

Central liver tumors often require extended hepatectomy or a central hepatectomy with complex biliary reconstructions. Extended resections are prone to higher chances of post-operative liver failure, while the resections mandating reconstructions run a risk of biliary leaks. Non-anatomical liver resections for these centrally located tumors provide a benefit of functional parenchymal preservation but a higher perceived risk of oncological inadequacy. This manuscript is an attempt to showcase author's technique of parenchymal sparing liver resection for central located liver tumor without the need for any biliary reconstruction while ensuring oncological adequacy during the conduct of the procedure.

Hepatocellular carcinoma with right atrial tumor thrombus

BACKGROUND

 Hepatocellular carcinoma with right atrial tumor thrombus is uncommon but with a dismal prognosis.

METHODS

 By comprehensive retrieval of literature published between 2000 and 2019, 53 reports were obtained with 187 patients recruited into this study. The extracted data included patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, treatment, follow-up and outcomes. Statistical analyses applied were student t, Fisher exact and I² tests. Patients were devided into 6 groups according to treatment of choices: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, interventional treatment and supportive care.

RESULTS

 The overall survival rate of this cohort was 40.8 %. The survival rate of patients receiving TACE was 33.3 % and that of surgical patients was 41.9 %. The survival time of patients with TACE was longer than surgical patients, but lack of a statistical significance. Patients had a follow-up of 15.7 ± 16.6 (median 10) months. The patients receiving radiotherapy had the longest follow-up among all groups. Intra- and/or extrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma was the major morbidity. The mortality rates in a decremental sequence for patients receiving different treatments were supportive care > radiotherapy > surgery > TACE > interventional treatment. No difference was found in mortality between patients reported from case reports and those from non-case reports.

CONCLUSIONS

 Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with right atrial thrombus is an aggressive malignancy. Based on the results of median survival time, radiotherapy and TACE seemed to be associated with an improved prognosis and possible better survival.