Laparoscopic posterior segmental resections: How I do it: Tips and pitfalls

Achieving Textbook Outcomes after Laparoscopic Resection in Posterosuperior Segments of the Liver: The Impact of the Learning Curve

Achieving textbook outcomes (TOs) improves the short-term and long-term performance of a hospital. Our objective was to assess TOs in the laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of tumors in the PS (posterosuperior) section of the liver and identify the impact of the learning curve. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing patients who underwent LLR for lesions located in the PS segments. Patients were divided into a TO and no-TO group. TOs were defined as negative margins, no transfusion, no readmission, no major complications, no 30-day mortality, and a length of stay ≤ 50th percentile. Patients' outcomes were assessed in two study periods before and after 2015. TOs were achieved in 47.6% (n = 117). In multivariable analysis, obesity (p = 0.001), shorter operation time (p < 0.001), less blood loss (p < 0.001), normal albumin (p = 0.003), and minor resection (p = 0.046) were significantly associated with achieving TOs. Although the 5-year recurrence-free survival rate (p = 0.096) was not significantly different, the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly greater in the TO group (p = 0.001). Body mass index > 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.020), age > 65 years (p = 0.049), and achievement of TOs (p = 0.024) were independently associated with survival. The proportion of patients who achieved a TO was higher after 2015 than before 2015 (52.3% vs. 36.1%; p = 0.022). TOs are important markers not only for assessing hospital and surgeon performance but also as predictors of overall survival. As the number of surgeons who achieve the learning curve increases, the number of patients with TOs will gradually increase with a subsequent improvement in overall survival.

[Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]

Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH.

METHODS

All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure.

CONCLUSION

L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hepatic caudate lobectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy (LHCL) for treating liver tumor by comparing with the open hepatic caudate lobectomy (OHCL).

METHODS

In the LHCL group, we included 24 patients with liver tumor received LHCL in Qilu Hospital of the Shandong University from January 2014 to January 2019. Meanwhile, 24 matched liver tumor patients underwent OHCL in our hospital served as control. Then we compared the patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes between LHCL group and OHCL group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, age, degree of cirrhosis, tumor size, preoperative liver function, Child-Pugh grading, proportion of liver cirrhosis, and tumor size between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). No death was reported in both groups. The length of incision in LHCL group was significantly lower than that in OHCL group (4.22 ± 1.14 cm vs. 22.46 ± 4.40 cm, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in LHCL group was significantly lower than that of OHCL group (116.82 ± 71.61 ml vs. 371.74 ± 579.35 ml, P = 0.047). The total operation time, Pringle maneuver occlusion time, and blocking rate in LHCL group showed no statistical difference compared with those of the OHCL group (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 24 and 48 h showed no statistical differences between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). Compared with the OHCL group, significant decrease was noticed in the proportion of patients with severe pain 48 h after surgery (0 vs. 4.25 ± 0.46, P < 0.001) and dezocine consumption (90.45 ± 45.77 mg vs. 131.6 ± 81.30 mg, P = 0.0448) in the LHCL group.

CONCLUSION

LHCL is effective and feasible for treating liver tumor, which is featured by reducing intraoperative blood loss and serious pain.

Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Background

Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII).

Methods

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed.

Results

Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40–200) versus 200 (100–500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P &lt; 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20–46) versus 40 (25–58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130–255) versus 224 (155–300); P &lt; 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 min (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 min (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Bile Leakage after Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Study of 13,379 Patients

BACKGROUND

Despite many developments, postoperative bile leakage (POBL) remains a relatively common postoperative complication after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR). This study aimed to assess the incidence and clinical impact of POBL in patients undergoing LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter cohort using a propensity score-matched analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all indications between January 2000 and October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed using a large, international, multicenter liver database including data from 15 tertiary referral centers. Primary outcome was clinically relevant POBL (CR-POBL), defined as Grade B/C POBL.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,379 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (6,369 LLR and 7,010 OLR), with 6.0% POBL. After propensity score matching, a total of 3,563 LLR patients were matched to 3,563 OLR patients. In both groups, propensity score matching accounted for similar extent and types of resections. The incidence of CR-POBL was significantly lower in patients after LLR as compared with patients after OLR (2.6% vs 6.0%; p < 0.001). Among the subgroup of patients with CR-POBL, patients after LLR experienced less severe (non-POBL) postoperative complications (10.1% vs 20.9%; p = 0.028), a shorter hospital stay (12.5 vs 17 days; p = 0.001), and a lower 90-day/in-hospital mortality (0% vs 5.4%; p = 0.027) as compared with patients after OLR with CR-POBL.

CONCLUSION

Patients after LLR seem to experience a lower rate of CR-POBL as compared with the open approach. Our findings suggest that in patients after LLR, the clinical impact of CR-POBL is less than after OLR.

Liver resection vs radiofrequency ablation in single hepatocellular carcinoma of posterosuperior segments in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Liver resection and radiofrequency ablation are considered curative options for hepatocellular carcinoma. The choice between these techniques is still controversial especially in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma affecting posterosuperior segments in elderly patients.

AIM

To compare post-operative outcomes between liver resection and radiofrequency ablation in elderly with single hepatocellular carcinoma located in posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

A retrospective multicentric study was performed enrolling 77 patients age ≥ 70-years-old with single hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 30 mm), located in posterosuperior segments (4a, 7, 8). Patients were divided into liver resection and radiofrequency ablation groups and preoperative, peri-operative and long-term outcomes were retrospectively analyzed and compared using a 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, twenty-six patients were included in each group. Operative time and overall postoperative complications were higher in the resection group compared to the ablation group (165 min vs 20 min, P < 0.01; 54% vs 19% P = 0.02 respectively). A median hospital stay was significantly longer in the resection group than in the ablation group (7.5 d vs 3 d, P < 0.01). Ninety-day mortality was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between resection and ablation group in terms of overall survival and disease free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Radiofrequency ablation in posterosuperior segments in elderly is safe and feasible and ensures a short hospital stay, better quality of life and does not modify the overall and disease-free survival.

One-Stage Total Laparoscopic Treatment for Colorectal Cancer With Synchronous Metastasis. Is It Safe and Feasible?

Liver is the main target organ for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases. It is estimated that ~25% of CRC patients have synchronous metastases at diagnosis, and about 60% of CRC patients will develop metastases during the follow up. Although several teams have performed simultaneous laparoscopic resections (SLR) of liver and colorectal lesions, the feasibility and safety of this approach is still widely debated and few studies on this topic are present in the literature. The purpose of this literature review is to understand the state of the art of SLR and to clarify the potential benefits and limitations of this approach. Several studies have shown that SLR can be performed safely and with short-term outcomes similarly to the separated procedures. Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resections combine the advantages of one stage surgery with those of laparoscopic surgery. Several reports compared the short-term outcomes of one stage laparoscopic resection with open resections and showed a similar or inferior amount of blood loss, a similar or lower complication rate, and a significant reduction of hospital stay for laparoscopic surgery respect to open surgery but much longer operating times for the laparoscopic technique. Few retrospective studies compared long term outcomes of laparoscopic one stage surgery with the outcomes of open one stage surgery and did not identify any differences about disease free survival and the overall survival. In conclusion, hepatic and colorectal SLR are a safe and effective approach characterized by less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery of intestinal function, and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay. Moreover, laparoscopic approach is associated to lower rates of surgical complications without significant differences in the long-term outcomes compared to the open surgery.

Assessment of Textbook Outcome in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery

Importance

Textbook outcome (TO) is a composite measure that captures the most desirable surgical outcomes as a single indicator, yet to date TO has not been defined and assessed in the field of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR).

Objective

To obtain international agreement on the definition of TO in liver surgery (TOLS) and to assess the incidence of TO in LLR and OLR in a large international multicenter database using a propensity-score matched analysis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for all liver diseases between January 2011 and October 2019 were analyzed using a large international multicenter liver surgical database. An international survey was conducted among all members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) to reach agreement on the definition of TOLS. The rate of TOLS was assessed for LLR and OLR before and after propensity-score matching. Factors associated with achieving TOLS were investigated.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Textbook outcome, with TOLS defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents of grade 2 or higher, postoperative bile leak grade B or C, severe postoperative complications, readmission within 30 days after discharge, in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin.

Results

A total of 8188 patients (4559 LLR; median age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-73 years]; 2529 were male [55.8%] and 3629 OLR; median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 56-71 years]; 2204 were male [60.7%]) were included in the analysis of whom 69.1% achieved TOLS; 74.8% for LLR and 61.9% for OLR (P < .001). On multivariable analysis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III, previous abdominal surgery, histological diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases (odds ratio [OR], 0.656 [95% CI, 0.457-0.940]; P = .02), cholangiocarcinoma, non-CRLM, a tumor size of 30 mm or more, minor resection of posterior/superior segments (OR, 0.716 [95% CI, 0.577-0.887]; P = .002), anatomically major resection (OR, 0.579 [95% CI, 0.418-0.803]; P = .001), and nonanatomical resection (OR, 0.612 [95% CI, 0.476-0.788]; P < .001) were associated with a worse TOLS rate after LLR. For OLR, only histological diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (OR, 0.360 [95% CI, 0.214-0.607]; P < .001) and a tumor size of 30 mm or more (30-50 mm = OR, 0.718 [95% CI, 0.565-0.911]; P = .01; 50.1-100 mm = OR, 0.729 [95% CI, 0.554-0.960]; P = .02; >10 cm = OR, 0.550 [95% CI, 0.366-0.826]; P = .004) were associated with a worse TOLS rate.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multicenter study, TOLS was found to be a useful tool for assessing patient-level hospital performance and may have utility in optimizing patient outcomes after LLR and OLR.

Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres

BACKGROUND

Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands.

METHOD

An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups.

RESULTS

A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004).

CONCLUSION

High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

Challenge and future of liver and pancreatic robotic surgery. Analysis of 64 cases in a specialized unit

INTRODUCTION

Robotic surgery has proven effective in certain surgical procedures. However, in liver and pancreatic surgery (HBP) its use is still rare. The initial experience in HBP robotic surgery of a specialized unit of a tertiary hospital is presented.

METHOD

The results of patients undergoing robotic HBP surgery between April 2018 and October 2020 have been prospectively studied. The data analyzed correspond to demographic data, surgical techniques performed, associated morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

64 patients were operated, corresponding to 35 hepatectomies (major [6.7%], anatomic [52.9%], limited [34.4%], cystectomies [3%] and marsupialization [3%]), 29 pancreatectomies (distal [48.2%], central [6.9%], cephalic [13.8%], enucleations [24.1%], ampullectomies [3.5%] and duodenal resections [3.5%]). In liver surgery the mean operative time was 204.4 minutes (100-265 min), the median postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo scale was one (1-4), the mean blood losses 166.7 mL (100-300 mL), there was no conversion and the mean postoperative stay was four days (2-14 days). In pancreatic surgery, the mean operative time was 243.8 minutes (125-460 min), the median of postoperative complications was two (1-4), blood loss of 202.3 mL (100-500 mL) associated to a conversion rate 17.8% and an average stay of seven days (3-23 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic HBP surgery is safe and feasible. It is suggested that its use facilitates parenchymal sparing surgery, access to posterior liver segments and anastomosis in pancreatic reconstruction compared to laparoscopic surgery.