Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Resections for Nonperipheral Liver Lesions, the Diamond Technique: Technical Aspects, Clinical Outcomes, and Oncologic Efficiency

Laparoscopic versus open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma according to the procedure's complexity: real-world weighted data from a national register

BACKGROUND

Minimal access liver surgery (MALS) is considered superior to open liver resection (OLR) in reducing the perioperative risk in patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No national-level comparisons exist based on procedure complexity. This study aims to compare postoperative complications, postoperative ascites (POA), and major complications (MC) between MALS and OLR.

METHODS

Data were retrieved from the Italian HE. RC.O.LE.S. registry. Patients were categorized into OLR or MALS groups and stratified by complexity grade (CP1, CP2, CP3). An inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed to ensure balanced comparisons.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2021, 4738 patients were included: 1596 (33.7 %) underwent MALS, and 3142 (66.3 %) underwent OLR. CP1 procedures were conducted in 2522 cases (53.2 %), CP2 in 974 cases (20.5 %), and CP3 in 1242 cases (26.2 %). For CP1, MALS was associated with reduced POA (OR 0.356, 95%CI:0.29-0.43, p < 0.001), and MC (OR 0.738, 95%CI:0.59-0.91, p: 0.006). In CP2, MALS showed association with MC (OR 0.557, 95%CI:0.37-0.82, p:0.004), but not with POA. For CP3, MALS was associated with increased MC risk (OR 1.441, 95%CI:1.10-1.88, p:0.008). Low-volume centers had significantly higher MC risks after CP2 and CP3 procedures than medium or high-volume centers.

CONCLUSION

In CP1 and CP2 procedures, MALS was proven advantageous in reducing POA and MC. Among CP3, MALS increased the risk of MC, but not among high-volume centres.

van Dam R, Aldrighetti LA, Pugh S, Primrose JN, Abu Hilal M. Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments (ORANGE Segments): a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of liver resections are performed laparoscopically, while laparoscopic resection of lesions in the posterosuperior segments is technically challenging. We aimed to assess the outcomes of laparoscopic and open parenchymal preserving resection of lesions in the posterosuperior segments in a randomised controlled trial.

METHODS

In this multicentre, patient-blinded, superiority randomised controlled trial, patients requiring parenchymal preserving liver resection for tumours in segment 4a, 7, or 8 were enrolled at 17 centres and randomised 1:1 to laparoscopic or open surgery using a minimisation scheme stratifying for centre and lesion size. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery measured in postoperative days. To detect a difference in time to functional recovery of two days the sample size needed 250 patients, an interim analysis was planned with 125 patients. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03270917.

FINDINGS

Between November 2017 and November 2021, 251 patients were randomised to laparoscopic (n = 125) or open (n = 126) surgery. The majority of patients had a preoperative diagnosis of cancer (225/246 = 91.5%). Time to functional recovery was 3 days (IQR 3-5) in the laparoscopic group compared to 4 days (IQR 3-5) in the open group (difference -19.2%, 96% CI -28.8% to -8.4%; p < 0.001). Hospital stay was similarly shorter in the laparoscopic group (4 days, IQR 3-5 versus 5 days, IQR 4-7; p < 0.001). There were three deaths in the laparoscopic group (3/122 = 2.5%) and one in the open group (1/124 = 0.8%) within 90 days of resection (p = 0.336). Overall postoperative morbidity, severe morbidity, liver-specific morbidity, and readmission were not statistically significant different between the groups. The radical resection (R0) rate in patients with cancer was comparable (laparoscopic 93/106 = 87.7% versus open 97/113 = 85.8%, p = 0.539).

INTERPRETATION

For patients with lesions in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, laparoscopic surgery, as compared to open surgery, reduces time to functional recovery. However, this reduction in time to functional recovery did not meet the hypothesized difference in time to functional recovery of two days.

FUNDING

This investigator-initiated trial was funded by Ethicon (Johnson & Johnson), Cancer Research United Kingdom, and Maastricht University Medical Centre+.

Three-dimensional location approach with silk thread guided hepatectomy for liver tumor

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative determination of resection margin and adequate residual liver parenchyma are the key points of hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors. Intraoperative ultrasound and indocyanine green fluorescence navigation are the most commonly used methods at present, but the technical barriers limit their promotion.

AIM

To evaluate the value of the three-dimensional location approach with silk thread (3D-LAST) in precise resection of liver tumors.

METHODS

From September 2020 to January 2022, 8 patients with liver tumors including hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and gastric cancer liver metastasis were included in this study. All patients underwent 3D-LAST in precise resection of liver tumors.

RESULTS

All patients (8/8, 100%) underwent the operation successfully without any complications. During the mean follow-up of 8.7 months, all patients survived without tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the 3D-LAST is a safe and effective new method for liver intraoperative navigation, which is practical and easy to promote.

Validation of the Iwate scoring system for the stratification of laparoscopic liver resections: An international multicenter study

INTRODUCTION

The Iwate difficulty scoring system (DSS) is one of the most widely validated DSS for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). However, these studies only validated the 4 difficulty levels and did not validate the 12-point difficulty index of the system. To address current limitations in the studies validating the Iwate difficulty scoring system (DSS), we performed an international multicenter study to validate the Iwate DSS across both its four difficulty levels and 12-point difficulty index.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 22,252 patients undergoing LLR across 64 centers worldwide between 2005 and 2021 was performed. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were analyzed across the four difficulty levels and 12-point difficulty index of the Iwate DSS.

RESULTS

A total of 14,759 patients met the inclusion criteria. The main indications for LLR were hepatocellular carcinoma/intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (52.8 %), and metastatic tumors liver (26.5 %). In terms of underlying liver pathology, 5127 patients (34.8 %) had liver cirrhosis, and 1214 patients (8.3 %) had portal hypertension. Intraoperative outcomes (operation time, blood loss, blood transfusion, use of Pringles maneuver and open conversion) and postoperative outcomes (length of stay, morbidity, major complications, and 90-day mortality) significantly increased with stepwise increases across the four difficulty levels (P < 0.001) and 12-point difficulty index (P < 0.001). These trends remained significant following adjustment for baseline characteristics (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The Iwate DSS 12-point difficulty index and four difficulty levels correlated well with LLR difficulty as determined by key surrogate perioperative measures.

Current Status of Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

Laparoscopic caudate lobe resections: How I do it: tips and pitfalls (with video)

BACKGROUND

The caudate lobe (S1) of the liver, due to its deep central position, presents a formidable challenge for laparoscopic resection. Historical skepticism about laparoscopic approaches has been overshadowed by advancements in technology and technique, with recent studies showing comparable outcomes to open surgery.

METHODS

This paper introduces the "Easy First" technique and the Sextet strategies for laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy. The strategies include meticulous preoperative planning, optimal trocar placement, and team positioning, tailored to the anatomical complexities of the caudate lobe.

RESULTS

With a 0% conversion and mortality rate, our series demonstrates the safety of the "Easy First" technique. The Sextet strategies have been instrumental in navigating the technical challenges, emphasizing the importance of patient selection and surgeon expertise.

CONCLUSION

The "Easy First" technique, with its structured approach and the Sextet strategies, offers a replicable method for laparoscopic caudate lobectomy. It underscores the need for stringent patient selection, advanced technical skill, and high-volume center expertise to ensure procedural success and patient safety.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.

BACKGROUND

Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.

METHODS

In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.

RESULTS

Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Indocyanine green fluorescence image-guided laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection using the TICGL technique

BACKGROUND

Segment 2/3 (S2/3) resection, which can preserve more residual liver parenchyma, is a feasible alternative to left lateral sectionectomy. However, it is still challenging to perform anatomical S2/3 resection safely and precisely, especially laparoscopically. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and accuracy of the temporary inflow control of the Glissonean pedicle (TICGL) technique combined with indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging in laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 12 patients recruited at Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University from June 2021 to August 2022 were included in the study. All patients underwent ICG fluorescence imaging guided laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection. The TICGL technique was used to control the blood inflow of the target segment. The total time used to control the hepatic inflow of the target segment, the time of hemostasis, the amount of intraoperative blood loss, predicted resected liver volume (PRLV) and actual resected liver volume (ARLV) were used to evaluate the simplicity, safety, and accuracy of the TICGL technique combined ICG fluorescent imaging in guiding laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

RESULTS

Of the 12 included patients, 7 underwent S2 resection and 5 underwent S3 resection. The operation time was 76.92 ± 11.95 min, the intraoperative blood loss was 15.42 ± 5.82 ml, and the time of hepatic blood inflow control was 7.42 ± 2.43 min. There was a strong correlation between PRLV and ARLV (r = 0.903, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of the TICGL technique with ICG negative staining fluorescence imaging is a feasible approach for laparoscopic anatomical S2/3 resection.

Surgical Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Multicenter Competing-risk Analysis of Tumor-related Death Following Liver Resection and Transplantation Under an Intention-to-treat Perspective

BACKGROUND

Early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma could benefit from upfront liver resection (LR) or liver transplantation (LT), but the optimal strategy in terms of tumor-related outcomes is still debated. We compared the oncological outcomes of LR and LT for hepatocellular carcinoma, stratifying the study population into a low-, intermediate-, and high-risk class according to the risk of death at 5-y predicted by a previously developed prognostic model. The impact of tumor pathology on oncological outcomes of low- and intermediate-risk patients undergoing LR was investigated as a secondary outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicentric cohort study involving 2640 patients consecutively treated by LR or LT from 4 tertiary hepatobiliary and transplant centers between 2005 and 2015, focusing on patients amenable to both treatments upfront. Tumor-related survival and overall survival were compared under an intention-to-treat perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 468 LR and 579 LT candidates: 512 LT candidates underwent LT, whereas 68 (11.7%) dropped-out for tumor progression. Ninety-nine high-risk patients were selected from each treatment cohort after propensity score matching. Three and 5-y cumulative incidence of tumor-related death were 29.7% and 39.5% versus 17.2% and 18.3% for LR and LT group ( P = 0.039), respectively. Low-risk and intermediate-risk patients treated by LR and presenting satellite nodules and microvascular invasion had a significantly higher 5-y incidence of tumor-related death (29.2% versus 12.5%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk patients showed significantly better intention-to-treat tumor-related survival after upfront LT rather than LR. Cancer-specific survival of low- and intermediate-risk LR patients was significantly impaired by unfavorable pathology, suggesting the application of ab-initio salvage LT in such scenarios.

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.

Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy for Lesions with Proximity to Major Vessels in Posterosuperior Liver Segments 7 and 8

Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) for lesions with proximity to major vessels (PMV) in posterosuperior segments (PSS) has not yet been sufficiently examined. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic PSH for lesions with PMV in PSS 7 and 8. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for PSS lesions and focused on patients who underwent laparoscopic PSH for lesions with PMV in PSS. Blood loss was lower in the LLR group (n = 110) than the OLR group (n = 16) (p = 0.009), and no other short-term outcomes were significantly different. Compared to the pure LLR group (n = 93), there were no positive surgical margins or complications in hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n = 17), despite more tumors with PMV (p = 0.009). Regarding pure LLR for one tumor lesion, any short-term outcomes in addition to the operative time were not significantly different between the PMV (n = 23) and no-PMV (n = 48) groups. The present findings indicate that laparoscopic PSH for lesions with PMV in PSS is safe and feasible in a matured team, and the HALS technique still plays an important role.

Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores

BACKGROUND

The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty.

METHODS

The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison.

RESULTS

Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.

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

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.

Leaping the Boundaries in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) had a slower diffusion compared to other surgical fields, mainly due to inherent peculiarities regarding the risks of uncontrollable bleeding, oncological inadequacy, and the need for both laparoscopic and liver major skills. Recently, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been associated with an improved postoperative course, including reduced postoperative decompensation, intraoperative blood losses, length of hospitalization, and unaltered oncological outcomes, leading to its adoption within international guidelines. However, LLR for HCC still faces several limitations, mainly linked to the impaired function of underlying parenchyma, tumor size and numbers, and difficult tumor position. The aim of this review is to highlight the state of the art and future perspectives of LLR for HCC, focusing on key points for overcoming currents limitations and pushing the boundaries in minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS).

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised.

DISCUSSION

The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917 . Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion.

PROTOCOL VERSION

version 12, May 9, 2017.

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

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

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.

Risk Factors of Positive Resection Margin in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A New Perspective in the Perioperative Assessment: A European Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk factors associated with R1 resection in patients undergoing OLS and LLS for CRLMs.

BACKGROUND

The clinical impact of R1 resection in liver surgery for CRLMs has been continuously appraised, but R1 risk factors have not been clearly defined yet.

METHODS

A cohort study of patients who underwent OLS and LLS for CRLMs in 9 European high-volume referral centers was performed. A multivariate analysis and the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the risk factors for R1 resection. A model predicting the likelihood of R1 resection was developed.

RESULTS

Overall, 3387 consecutive liver resections for CRLMs were included. OLS was performed in 1792 cases whereas LLS in 1595; the R1 resection rate was 14% and 14.2%, respectively. The risk factors for R1 resection were: the type of resection (nonanatomic and anatomic/nonanatomic), the number of nodules and the size of tumor. In the LLS group only, blood loss was a risk factor, whereas the Pringle maneuver had a protective effect. The predictive size of tumor for R1 resection was >45 mm in OLS and >30 mm in LLS, > 2 lesions was significative in both groups and blood loss >350 cc in LLS. The model was able to predict R1 resection in OLS (area under curve 0.712; 95% confidence interval 0.665-0.739) and in LLS (area under curve 0.724; 95% confidence interval 0.671-0.745).

CONCLUSIONS

The study describes the risk factors for R1 resection after liver surgery for CRLMs, which may be used to plan better the perioperative strategies to reduce the incidence of R1 resection during OLS and LLS.

The Applications of 3D Imaging and Indocyanine Green Dye Fluorescence in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Laparoscopic liver resections have gained widespread popularity among hepatobiliary surgeons and is nowadays performed for both standard and more complex hepatectomies. Given the increased technical challenges, preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance is pivotal in laparoscopic surgery to safely carry out complex and oncologically safe hepatectomies. Modern tools can help both preoperatively and intraoperatively and allow surgeons to perform more precise hepatectomies. Preoperative 3D reconstructions and printing as well as augmented reality can increase the knowledge of the specific anatomy of the case and therefore plan the surgery accordingly and tailor the procedure on the patient. Furthermore, the indocyanine green retention dye is an increasingly used tool that can nowadays improve the precision during laparoscopic hepatectomies, especially when considering anatomical resection. The use of preoperative modern imaging and intraoperative indocyanine green dye are key to successfully perform complex hepatectomies such as laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections. In this narrative review, we discuss the aspects of preoperative and intraoperative tools that are nowadays increasingly used in experienced hepatobiliary centers.

Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).

METHODS

An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.

RESULTS

Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.

Minimally invasive liver surgery: the Charité experience

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) was established as last abdominal surgical specialty through the 1990s. With a shift from mainly benign to malignant indications, MILS was shown to be equal to open liver surgery in terms of oncological outcomes, with benefits in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay and quality of life. With colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma as the most common indications, most liver resection can be performed minimally invasive nowadays, including patients with liver cirrhosis. Initially perceived limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery were weakened by gaining experience, technical progress and pioneering of new resection approaches. Lately robotic liver surgery was adopted to the field of MILS to further push the limits. To simplify first resections, technical variations of the minimally invasive approach can be utilized, and difficulty scores help to select resections suitable to the level of experience. We hereby give an overview of the establishing of a minimally invasive liver surgery program at our center.

The initiation, standardization and proficiency (ISP) phases of the learning curve for minimally invasive liver resection: comparison of a fellowship-trained surgeon with the pioneers and early adopters

BACKGROUND

Using the Ideal Development Exploration Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) paradigm, Halls et al. created risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) curves concluding that Pioneers (P) and Early Adopters (EA) of minimally invasive (MI) liver resection obtained similar results after fewer cases. In this study, we applied this framework to a MI Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary fellowship-trained surgeon (FT) in order to assess where along the curves this generation fell.

METHODS

The term FT was used to designate surgeons without previous independent operative experience who went from surgical residency directly into fellowship. Three phases of the learning curve were defined using published data on EAs and Ps of MI Hepatectomy, including phase 1 (initiation) (i.e., the first 17 or 50), phase 2 (standardization) (i.e., cases 18-46 or 1-50) and phase 3 (proficiency) (i.e., cases after 46, 50 or 135). Data analysis was performed using the Social Science Statistics software ( www.socscistatistics.com ). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05.

RESULTS

From November 2007 until April 2018, 95 MI hepatectomies were performed by a FT. During phase 1, the FT approached larger tumors than the EA group (p = 0.002), that were more often malignant (94.1%) when compared to the P group (52.5%) (p < 0.001). During phase 2, the FT operated on larger tumors and more malignancies (93.1%) when compared to the Ps (p = 0.004 and p = 0.017, respectively). However, there was no difference when compared to the EA. In the phase 3, the EAs tended to perform more major hepatectomies (58.7) when compared to either the FT (30.6%) (p = 0.002) or the P's cases 51-135 and after 135 (35.3% and 44.3%, respectively) (both p values < 0.001). When compared to the Ps cases from 51-135, the FT operated on more malignancies (p = 0.012), but this was no longer the case after 135 cases by the Ps (p = 0.164). There were no statistically significant differences when conversions; major complications or 30- and 90-day mortality were compared among these 3 groups.

DISCUSSION

Using the IDEAL framework and RA-CUSUM curves, a FT surgeon was found to have curves similar to EAs despite having no previous independent experience operating on the liver. As in our study, FTs may tend to approach larger and more malignant tumors and do more concomitant procedures in patients with higher ASA classifications than either of their predecessors, without statistically significant increases in major morbidity or mortality.

CONCLUSION

It is possible that the ISP (i.e., initiation, standardization, proficiency) model could apply to other innovative surgical procedures, creating different learning curves depending on where along the IDEAL paradigm surgeons fall.

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.

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.

Parenchymal Sparing Anatomical Liver Resections With Full Laparoscopic Approach: Description of Technique and Short-term Results

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and report the short-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Anatomical resections (ARs) have better oncological outcomes compared to partial resections in patients with HCC, and some suggest should be performed also for CRLM as micrometastasis occurs through the intrahepatic structures. Furthermore, remnant liver ischemia after partial resections has been associated with worse oncological outcomes. Few experiences on laparoscopic anatomical resections have been reported and no data on limited AR exist.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 86 patients undergoing full laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing resections with preoperative surgical simulation and standardized procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients had HCC, whereas 31 had CRLM with a median of 1 lesion and a size of 30 mm. During preoperative three-dimensional (3D) simulation, a median resection volume of 120 mL was planned. Sixteen anatomical subsegmentectomies, 56 segmentectomies, and 14 sectionectomies were performed. Concordance between preoperative 3D simulation and intraoperative resection was 98.7%. Two patients were converted, and 7 patients experienced complications. Subsegmentectomies had comparable blood loss (166 mL, P = 0.59), but longer operative time (426 min, P = 0.01) than segmentectomies (blood loss 222 mL; operative time 355 min) and sectionectomies (blood loss 120 mL; operative time 295 min). R0 resection and margin width remained comparable among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A precise preoperative planning and a standardized surgical technique allow to pursue the oncological quality of AR enhancing the safety of the parenchyma sparing principle, reducing surgical stress through a laparoscopic approach.

[Possibilities and limits of robotic liver surgery - Current status 2020]

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver surgery is now the standard procedure at experienced centers, whereby the techniques and strategies are continuously evolving.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An analysis of English language literature on minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery was performed. The current scientific status was summarized and evaluated on the basis of experience at our own center.

RESULTS

The advantages of the minimally invasive technique compared to the conventional open technique are shown in liver surgery by improved perioperative results. Concerns about intraoperative complications and possible compromises in oncological radicality have been addressed in a number of publications. First reports on the robot-assisted technique seem to confirm the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery. The data available on robot-assisted liver surgery are still limited due to the short period of experience of a few centers and do not yet allow final conclusions; however, an increase in intraoperative safety and an expansion of the surgical spectrum towards highly complex liver resections seems likely.

CONCLUSION

Even during the learning curve the known advantages of laparoscopic liver surgery seem to be confirmed also for robot-assisted liver surgery. According to the center's own experience, minimally invasive liver surgery will in future be meaningfully supplemented by robotic technology. In particular, technically highly complex resections with reconstruction are made possible.

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.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Laparoscopic liver resection: indications, limitations, and economic aspects

Background

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly found their way into liver surgery in recent years. A multitude of mostly retrospective analyses suggests several advantages of laparoscopic over open liver surgery. Due to the speed and variety of simultaneous technical and strategic developments, it is difficult to maintain an overview of the current status and perspectives in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Purpose

This review highlights up-to-date aspects in laparoscopic liver surgery. We discuss established indications with regard to their development over time as well as continuing limitations of applied techniques. We give an assessment based on the current literature and according to our own center experiences, not least with regard to a highly topical cost discussion.

Conclusions

While in the beginning mainly benign tumors were laparoscopically operated on, liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma are now among the most frequent indications. Technical limitations remain and should be evaluated with the overall aim not to endanger quality standards in open surgery. Financial aspects cannot be neglected with the necessity of cost-covering reimbursement.

Surgical and oncological outcomes after laparoscopic vs. open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The short- and long-term prognoses are unclear following laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a meta-analysis to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH vs. open major hepatectomy (OMH) in patients with HCC.

METHODS

All studies comparing LMH with OMH for HCC published until April 2019 were identified independently by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We analyzed data for surgical and oncological outcomes, namely, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major complications, mortality, hospital stay, margin distance, negative margin rate, long-term overall survival, and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

We included 13 studies involving 1,225 patients with HCC (LMH: 534 patients; OMH: 691 patients) in the meta-analysis. Regarding short-term outcomes, the pooled data showed that LMH was associated with longer operative time [weighted mean difference (WMD): 72.14 min; 95% confidence interval (CI): 43.07-101.21; P<0.00001], less blood loss (WMD: -102.32 mL; 95% CI: -150.99 to -53.64; P<0.0001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -3.77 d; 95% CI: -4.95 to -2.60; P<0.00001), lower morbidity [risk difference (RD): -0.01; 95% CI: -0.16 to -0.06; P<0.00001], and lower major complication rates (RD: -0.08; 95% CI: -0.11 to -0.05; P<0.00001). However, the need for blood transfusion (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.06 to 0.05; P=0.78), mortality (RD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.01; P=0.57), margin distance (WMD: 0.05 mm; 95% CI: -0.1 to 0.19; P=0.52), and negative margin rate (RD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.05; P=0.65) were significantly comparable between the two groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, there was no difference in 3-year DFS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.99; 95% CI: 0.72-1.37; P=0.95], 3-year overall survival (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.70-2.21; P=0.45), 5-year DFS (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.64-1.38; P=0.76), and 5-year overall survival (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.45-1.99; P=0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

LMH can be performed as safely as OMH in select patients and provides improved short-term surgical outcomes without affecting long-term survival. However, confirming our results requires more evidence from high-quality and prospective randomized controlled trials.

Oncological Resection for Liver Malignancies: Can the Laparoscopic Approach Provide Benefits?

: Laparoscopic surgery has become an increasingly popular alternative approach to open surgery, resulting in a paradigm shift in liver surgery. Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was initially indicated for small benign and peripheral tumors, at present more than half of LLRs are performed in malignant tumors. Several studies have reported the feasibility of LLR in malignant disease and suggested various short-term benefits compared to open liver resection, including decreased blood loss and postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay. Although these benefits are important to surgeons, patients, and providers, the main goal of surgery for malignancies is to achieve a maximum oncologic benefit.The relevance of the laparoscopic approach must be assessed in relation to the possibility of respecting basic oncological rules and the expertise of the center. Easy LLRs can be safely performed by most surgeons with minimum expertise in liver surgery and laparoscopy, and can therefore probably provide an oncological benefit. On the other hand, intermediate or difficult LLRs require technical expertise and an oncological benefit can only be achieved in expert centers. Technical standardization is the only way to obtain an oncological benefit with this type of resection, and many problems must still be solved.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH).

METHODS

Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in the posterosuperior segments: a sub-group analysis from the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments is technically challenging. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal liver metastases located in the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

This was a subgroup analysis of the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial, where 280 patients were randomly assigned to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resections of colorectal metastases. Patients with tumors in the posterosuperior segments were identified, and perioperative outcomes and health related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 136 patients, 62 in the laparoscopic and 74 in the open group. The postoperative complication rate was 26% in the laparoscopic and 31% in the open group. The blood loss was less in the open group (500 vs. 250 ml, P = 0.006), but the perioperative transfusion rate was similar. The operative time was similar, while postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (2 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). HRQoL was significantly better after laparoscopy at 1 month.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing laparoscopic or open liver resection of colorectal liver metastases in the posterosuperior segments, laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay and comparable perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy for Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases Improves Outcomes and Salvageability: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) is regarded as the standard of care for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) in open surgery. However, the surgical and oncological benefits of laparoscopic PSH compared with laparoscopic major hepatectomy (MH) have not been fully documented.

METHODS

A total of 269 patients who underwent initial laparoscopic liver resections with curative intent for CRLMs between 2004 and 2017 were enrolled. Preoperative patient characteristics and tumor burden were adjusted with propensity score matching, and laparoscopic PSH was compared with laparoscopic MH after matching.

RESULTS

PSH was performed in 148 patients, while MH was performed in 121 patients. After propensity score matching, 82 PSH and 82 MH patients showed similar preoperative characteristics. PSH was associated with lower rates of major postoperative complications compared with MH (6.1 vs. 15.9%; p = 0.046). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and liver-specific RFS rates were comparable between both groups (p = 0.595 and 0.683). Repeat hepatectomy for liver recurrence was more frequently performed in the PSH group (63.9 vs. 36.4%; p = 0.022), and the PSH group also showed a trend toward a higher overall survival (OS) rate (5-year OS 79.4 vs. 64.3%; p = 0.067). Multivariate analyses revealed that initial MH was one of the risk factors to preclude repeat hepatectomy after liver recurrence (hazard ratio 2.39, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PSH provided surgical and oncological benefits for CRLMs, with less complications, similar recurrence rates, and increased salvageability through repeat hepatectomy, compared with laparoscopic MH. PSH should be the standard approach, even in laparoscopic procedures.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection.

RESULTS

Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692).

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection demands expertise and a long learning curve. Resection of the posterosuperior segments is challenging, and there are no data on the learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for laparoscopic resection of the posterosuperior segments.

METHODS

A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the difficulty score for resection was undertaken using patient data from four specialized centres. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis of duration of operation, blood loss and conversions was performed, adjusting for the difficulty score of the procedures. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the completion of the learning curve.

RESULTS

According to the CUSUM analysis of 464 patients, the learning curve showed an initial decrease in the difficulty score followed by an increase and, finally, stabilization. More patients with cirrhosis or previous surgery were operated in the latest phase of the learning curve. A smaller number of wedge resections and a larger number of anatomical resections were performed progressively. Dissection using a Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and the Pringle manoeuvre were used more frequently with time. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis showed a progressive decrease in operating time. Blood loss initially increased slightly, then stabilized and finally decreased over time. A similar trend was found for conversions. The learning curve was estimated to be 40 procedures for wedge and 65 for anatomical resections.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments consists of a stepwise process, during which accurate patient selection is key.

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.