Laparoscopic versus open left hemihepatectomy for hepatolithiasis. J Surg Res. 2015;199:402-406. [PMID: 26169034 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.06.021]

Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value.

RESULTS

A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

A nomogram to predict conversion of laparoscopic surgery to laparotomy for Choledocholithiasis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery is effective for treating common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, it has high requirements for surgeons and the risk of conversion to laparotomy cannot be ignored. However, when conditions during surgery are not favorable, persisting with laparoscopic procedures blindly can lead to serious complications. Our study aimed to establish a nomogram model for predicting conversion of laparoscopic to laparotomy for choledocholithiasis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 867 patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis and underwent laparoscopic surgery were randomly divided into a training group (70%, n = 607) and a validation group (30%, n = 260). A nomogram was constructed based on the results of logistic regression analysis. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calibration curve, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to assess the predictive performance of the nomogram.

RESULTS

Previous upper abdominal surgery, maximum diameter of stone ≥12 mm, medial wall of the duodenum stone, thickening of the gallbladder wall, thickening of CBD wall, stone size/CBD size ≥0.75, and simultaneous laparoscopic hepatectomy were included in the nomogram. The AUC values were 0.813 (95% CI: 0.766-0.861) and 0.804 (95% CI: 0.737-0.871) in the training and validation groups, respectively. The calibration curve showed excellent consistency between the nomogram predictions and actual observations. DCA showed a positive net benefit for the nomogram.

CONCLUSIONS

We constructed a nomogram with a good ability to predict conversion to open surgery in laparoscopic surgery for choledocholithiasis, which can help surgeons to make a reasonable operation plan before surgery and timely convert to laparotomy during operation to reduce potential harm to the patient.

Impact of sarcopenia on the surgical outcomes in patients with hepatolithiasis: A multicenter 10-year experience

BACKGROUND

The impact of sarcopenia on the surgical outcomes of hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis has not been investigated. The present study elucidated the effect of sarcopenia on short-term outcomes after hemihepatectomy for hepatolithiasis and investigated the benefit of different surgical approaches to hepatectomy in patients with sarcopenia.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hemihepatectomy for hepatolithiasis at Fujian Provincial Hospital and 5 other medical centers from 2010 to 2020 were enrolled. The sarcopenic obesity subgroup had sarcopenia coexisting with obesity, and the sarcopenic nonobesity subgroup had sarcopenia without obesity. We analyzed the postoperative outcomes of the sarcopenia group, sarcopenic obesity subgroup and sarcopenic nonobesity subgroup and the corresponding benefits of different surgical approaches.

RESULTS

Patients with sarcopenia (n = 481) had worse surgical outcomes than nonsarcopenia, such as longer postoperative hospital duration of stay, longer time to oral intake, longer time to bowel movement, and longer time to off-bed activities. In postoperative short-term outcomes, we also found that sarcopenia had higher rates of major complications, bile leakage, and intensive care unit occupancy than the nonsarcopenic group. Subgroup analysis showed that sarcopenic obesity subgroup (n = 182) had the worst results in intraoperative outcomes and postoperative short-term outcomes. Multivariate analysis identified sarcopenic obesity as a significant risk factor for postoperative hospital duration of stay (hazard ratio = 2.994, P < .001). Furthermore, the sarcopenic obesity and sarcopenic nonobesity (n = 299) subgroups benefited from laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery, including postoperative recovery and major complications (all P < .05). However, sarcopenic nonobesity subgroup had more significant benefits of laparoscopy than the sarcopenic obesity subgroup. The learning curve for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy for the sarcopenic obesity subgroup had a plateau, and the surgical outcomes of the sarcopenic obesity subgroup were closer to the sarcopenic nonobesity subgroup after the plateau.

CONCLUSION

Sarcopenia is associated with more adverse events after hepatectomy and patients with sarcopenic obesity have a higher incidence of adverse events. Patients with sarcopenia could benefit from laparoscopy. Compared with the sarcopenic obesity patients, the sarcopenic nonobesity patients benefited more from laparoscopy. Although the sarcopenic obesity patients had more complications and slower postoperative recovery than the sarcopenic nonobesity patients, laparoscopic also could improve their short-term outcomes, but a longer learning curve was required.

Clinical Value Analysis of Hepatectomy Based on Minimally Invasive Surgical Imaging for Hepatolithiasis

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of hepatectomy based on minimally invasive surgical images in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

Methods

The clinical data of 87 patients with hepatolithiasis who received treatment in the Department of General Surgery of our hospital from February 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. According to different surgical methods, the patients were divided into minimally invasive group (n = 43) and laparotomy group (n = 44). Perioperative conditions and stone clearance rate were compared.

Results

The preoperative conditions of patients in the two groups were comparable, and the average operation time in the minimally invasive group was significantly longer than that in the laparotomy group (t = 18.783,P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in intraoperative bleeding, postoperative fasting time, postoperative complications, and stone clearance between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative hospital stay was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group than that in the laparotomy group (t = −0.486,P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Hepatectomy based on minimally invasive surgical imaging for hepatolithiasis is safe and feasible, has high clinical value, and can achieve similar short-term clinical efficacy to laparotomy and reduce the postoperative hospital stay of patients, reflecting its minimally invasive advantages, and it is worthy of clinical application.

Biliary Tract Exploration After Laparoscopic Left-sided Hepatectomy: A Comparative Study of Left Hepatic Duct Orifice Versus Common Bile Duct Approach

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) and additional biliary tract exploration are effective methods to treat left-sided hepatolithiasis (LSH) combined with extrahepatic bile duct stones. Although biliary tract exploration through common bile duct (CBD) incision has been widely accepted, the safety and effectiveness of the left hepatic duct (LHD) orifice approach after LLH is still in debate.

METHODS

One hundred and forty-four patients with LSH who underwent LLH and biliary tract exploration in our institution from April 2014 to September 2021 were enrolled in the retrospectively study. They were divided into 3 groups: LHD group (n=67), CBD/T-tube group (n=58), and CBD/PC group (n=19). Patients' demographic characteristics, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

LHD group exhibited a shorter operative time (202.8±42.2 vs. 232.7±47.5 min, P=0.000), time to first bowel movement (2.3±0.5 vs. 2.9±0.7 d, P=0.000) and postoperative hospital stay (7.5±2.1 vs. 9.8±5.2 d, P=0.001) compared with the CBD/T-tube group. The lithotomy time in the LHD group was significantly longer than that in the CBD/T-tube group (33.6±7.3 vs. 29.0±6.3 min, P=0.000) and CBD/PC group (33.6±7.3 vs. 28.7±3.7, P=0.006). Intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, initial stone clearance rate, and stone recurrence rate all had no significant differences between the 3 groups (all P>0.05). LHD group showed less rate of electrolyte imbalance than that of the CBD/T-tube group (3.0% vs. 19.0%, P=0.004) but it was equivalent to the CBD/PC group (P>0.05). The type of biliary tract exploration (odds ratio: 5.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.95, P=0.032) as independent predictors of electrolyte imbalance. No reoperation and mortality occurred in the 3 groups. The conversion rate was comparable among 3 groups (1.5% vs. 1.7% vs. 0, all P>0.05). No significant difference in stone recurrence rate was seen (1.5% vs. 3.4% vs. 0, all P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Biliary tract exploration through LHD orifice after LLH is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with LSH, with an advantage over the T-tube drainage in the field of operative time, the incidence of electrolyte imbalance, recovery of gastrointestinal function, and postoperative hospital stay.

A propensity score matching study between conventional and soft fiber-optic choledochoscope guided percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy for treatment of cholelithiasis

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy (PTCSL) provides an alternative method for cholelithiasis treatment. Since conventional rigid choledochoscope applied in PTCSL lacks high flexibility and high-resolution vision, we developed a new, soft fiber-optic choledochoscope (SFCS) to solve these problems.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to verify the safety and efficacy of PTCSL guided by the newly developed choledochoscope, SCFS.

METHODS

In this study, a total of 58 patients undergoing PTCSL from November, 2020 to December, 2020 in Zhuhai People's Hospital were enrolled, including 32 patients undergoing conventional PTCSL and 26 patients undergoing SFCS-guided PTCSL. A method of propensity score matching was used in order to balance the pre-operative indexes of the two groups. As a result, a total of 21 pairs (1:1) were created. SFCS-guided PTCSL was performed on patients in the SFCS group for the treatment of cholelithiasis. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, immediate clearance rate, final clearance rate, postoperative hospitalization time, postoperative complication rate, and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups. A 6-month follow-up was performed for the two groups.

RESULTS

SFCS-guided PTCSL represents safe and effective treatment outcomes. The immediate clearance rate and final clearance rate in the SFCS group were significantly higher than that of the conventional group. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days, and recurrence rate in the SFCS group were significantly lower than that of the conventional group.

CONCLUSIONS

SFCS applied in PTCSL appears to be a safe and effective method for the treatment of cholelithiasis. This study has been registered in Chinese Clinical Trial Registry as required by legislation (Registration number: ChiCTR1800016864, Registration time: 2018/02/08).

A new strategy of laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotomy for complex hemihepatolithiasis: A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

There have been no studies on laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotripsy for the treatment of complex hemihepatolithiasis. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotomy to treat complex hemihepatolithiasis.

METHODS

The clinical data for patients who underwent laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy for complex intrahepatic bile duct stones with or without common bile duct stones from January 2016 to June 2020 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to surgical approach: laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein (middle hepatic vein group) or laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy not guided by the middle hepatic vein (nonmiddle hepatic vein group). The safety and short-term and long-term efficacy outcomes of the 2 groups were compared with 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

With only a slightly longer operative time (P = .006), the initial and final stone residual rates in the middle hepatic vein group (n = 70) were significantly lower than those in the nonmiddle hepatic vein group (n = 70) (P = .002, P = .009). The bile leakage rate and stone recurrence rate were also significantly lower (P = .001, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein is safe and effective for treating intrahepatic bile duct stones and can decrease the stone residual rate, reduce the bile leakage rate and stone recurrence rate, and accelerate early recovery. However, owing to the complicated technical requirements for surgeons and anesthesiologists, use of the procedure is limited to large and experienced medical centers.

Application of Laparoscopic Technique in the Treatment of Hepatolithiasis

Hepatolithiasis is commonly encountered in Southeastern and East Asian countries, and its incidence is increasing in Western countries. For symptomatic hepatolithiasis or asymptomatic hepatolithiasis with signs of liver atrophy or malignancy, surgical intervention is needed, especially when peroral cholangioscopy and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotomy are not suitable or fail to be performed. Currently, laparoscopic surgery is gradually replacing traditional open surgery and becoming a better option. Various types of laparoscopic surgeries, including laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic biliary exploration through the common bile duct or the hepatic duct stump, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, have been developed for the treatment of simple hepatolithiasis, hepatolithiasis concomitant with choledocholithiasis, recurrent hepatolithiasis, and complicated hepatolithiasis. The related clinical experience is gradually accumulating. In this review, the laparoscopic applications and their advantages will be summarized. In most cases, the laparoscopic technique could provide the advantages of less trauma, reduced blood loss, and faster postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic major liver resections: Current standards

Laparoscopic liver resection was slow to be adopted in the surgical arena at the beginning as there were major barriers including the fear of gas embolism, risk of excessive blood loss from the inability to control bleeding vessels effectively, suboptimal surgical instruments to perform major liver resection and the concerns about oncological safety of the procedure. However, it has come a long way since the early 1990s when the first successful laparoscopic liver resection was performed, spurring liver surgeons worldwide to start exploring the roles of laparoscopy in major liver resections. Till date, more than 9000 cases have been reported in the literature and the numbers continue to soar as the hepatobiliary surgical communities quickly learn and apply this technique in performing major liver resection. Large bodies of evidence are available in the literature showing that laparoscopic major liver resection can confer improved short-term outcomes in terms of lesser operative morbidities, lesser operative blood loss, lesser post-operative pain and faster recovery with shorter length of hospitalization. On the other hand, there is no compromise in the long-term and oncological outcomes in terms of comparable R₀ resection rate and survival rates of this approach. Many innovations in laparoscopic major hepatectomies for complex operations have also been reported. In this article, we highlight the journey of laparoscopic major hepatectomies, summarize the technical advancement and lessons learnt as well as review the current standards of outcomes for this procedure.

Solo single-incision laparoscopic liver resection: a cohort series

BACKGROUND

Single-incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILLR) is still challenging due to the unstable surgical view, the crowding instruments and its crossover. In this study, we present a new option of solo SILLR for various liver tumours in order to overcome those difficulties.

METHODS

Solo SILLR is indicated for liver tumours located in the left liver or in the superficial right liver. Data for 54 consecutive patients, who underwent solo SILLR between October 2015 and October 2018, were collected and analysed prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients (55.5%) underwent non-anatomical resection. Left hemi-hepatectomy was performed in 11 patients (20.4%) and left lateral was performed in 13 patients (24.1%). The median operative time was 114 (range 30-335) min with median blood loss of 400 (50-750) mL with no need of blood transfusion and no intraoperative complications. The median length of hospital stay was 3 (range 1-19) days. There was one case of post-operative intra-abdominal fluid collection and one case of incisional hernia during the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Solo SILLR is more feasible and safer for liver tumours located in the superficial right liver or in the left one. Therefore, solo surgery can be an option in SILLR.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been accepted widely owing to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (LRH) has rarely been reported. We aimed to compare the benefits and drawbacks of LRH and open approaches. Between January 2014 and October 2017, 85 patients with tumor and hepatolithiasis who underwent LRH (n = 30) and open right hemihepatectomy (ORH) (n = 55) were enrolled in this study. For tumors, LRH showed significantly better results with respect to blood loss (P = 0.024) and duration of hospital stay (P = 0.008) than ORH, while hospital expenses (P = 0.031) and bile leakage rate (P = 0.012) were higher with LRH. However, the operative time and rate of other complications were not significantly different between the two groups. However, for hepatolithiasis, there was less blood loss (P = 0.015) and longer operative time (P = 0.036) with LRH than with ORH. There were no significant difference between LRH and ORH in terms of hospital stay, hospital expenses, and complication rate (P > 0.05). Moreover, the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase level, aspartate aminotransferase level, and total bilirubin were not significantly different in both types of patients (P > 0.05). Our results suggest the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology for right hemihepatectomy in both tumor and hepatolithiasis patients.

Advantages of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) has been widely accepted as a minimally invasive alternative to open liver surgery. We assessed the benefits and drawbacks of LLH compared with open left hemihepatectomy (OLH) using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid Medline databases. Multiple parameters of efficacy and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 13 trials involving 1163 patients. Compared with OLH, LLH significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (MD, -91.01; 95% CI, -139.12 to -42.89; P = .0002), transfusion requirement (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.54; P = .0004), time to oral intake (MD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.27 to -0.33; P = .0008), and hospital stay (MD, -3.94; 95% CI, -4.85 to -3.03; P < .0001). However, operative time; complications rate; and postoperative alanine transferase, albumin, and total bilirubin levels did not differ significantly between the 2 surgical groups (P > .05). For hepatolithiasis treatment, there were no significant differences in operative time, residual stones, stone recurrence, and complications rate between the groups (P > .05), but LLH resulted in lower incisional infection rate (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.89; P = .02) than OLH. The LLH group demonstrated higher bile leakage rate (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.14-2.81; P = .01) and incurred greater hospital costs (MD, 618.56; 95% CI, 154.47-1082.64; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

LLH has multiple advantages over OLH and should thus be considered as the first choice for left hemihepatectomy.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation

OBJECTIVE

The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery.

BACKGROUND

The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination.

METHODS

A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements.

RESULTS

Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee.

CONCLUSION

The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Major hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a comparative study of laparoscopic versus open treatment

Background

Due to higher technical requirements, laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for primary hepatolithiasis have been limited to a few institutions. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the therapeutic safety, and perioperative and long-term outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH) for hepatolithiasis.

Methods

From January 2012 to December 2016, 61 patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent major hepatectomy were enrolled, including 29 LMH and 32 OMH. The perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications, as well as long-term outcomes, including the stone clearance and recurrence rate, were evaluated.

Results

There was no difference of surgical procedures between the two groups. The mean operation time was (262 ± 83) min in the LMH group and (214 ± 66) min in the OMH group (p = 0.05). There is no difference of intra-operative bleeding (310 ± 233) ml versus (421 ± 359) ml (p = 0.05). In the LMH group, there were shorter time to postoperative oral intake ((1.1 ± 0.6) days versus (3.1 ± 1.8) days, p = 0.01) and shorter hospital stay [(7.2 ± 2.3) days versus (11.8 ± 5.5) days, p = 0.03] than the open group. The LMH group had comparable stone clearance rate with the OMH group during the initial surgery (82.8% vs. 84.4%, p = 0.86).

Conclusions

LMH could be an effective and safe treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OMH in the field of less intra-operative blood loss, less intra-operative transfusion, less overall complications, and faster postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy produces better outcomes for hepatolithiasis than open hepatectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present meta-analysis focused on comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatolithiasis. In detail, short-term outcomes including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative time to oral intake, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, and stone recurrence were analyzed systematically.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for eligible studies up to Jun. 30. 2017. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNoteX7) was applied to literature management. Quality assessment was carried out according to the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Stata SE12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Sensitivity analysis was conducted by deleting single study step by step. Odds ratio (OR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated continuous data.

RESULTS

= 0%; P = 0.22). In addition, our stratified analysis according to types of LH indicated that the laparoscopic approach still produced more favorable outcomes whatever patients underwent left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) or left hemihepatectomy (LHH).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic hepatectomy is a better alternative to open approach in patients with hepatolithiasis, providing less overall complication rate, shorter postoperative stay of hospital stay, less blood loss, and shorter time to oral intake. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are badly needed to provide higher-level evidence due to unavoidable bias from non-randomized trials.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: A propensity, long-term follow-up analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

This trial was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy and open left-sided hepatectomy. Left-sided hepatectomy is a novel, minimally invasive operative technique for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis, but it has not been accepted widely due to the limited information about short- and long-term outcomes, effectiveness, and safety compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent left-sided hepatectomy between January 2007 and December 2016 were reviewed and grouped into the open left-sided hepatectomy and left-sided hepatectomy groups, according to propensity score matching in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function, location of stone, hepatitis serology, and comorbidity on a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics of the 200 patients included in the study. For the left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients) when compared to the open left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients, the duration of hospital stay was less (10.3 vs 14.7 days, P< .001), the incidence of postoperative biliary fistulas (5% vs 14%, P = .003) and overall morbidity were less (25% vs 45%, P = .003), out of bed return to activity was expedited (2.0 vs 2.7 days, P< .001), and the rate of stone recurrence in the long-term follow-up was les (5.1% vs 17%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Left-sided hepatectomy was associated with significantly lesser rate of stone recurrence, a shorter hospital stay, decreased morbidity and clinical biliary fistula rate, and expedited postoperative recovery compared with open left-sided hepatectomy.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The role of laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains uncertain in current liver surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of LMH versus open major hepatectomy (OMH).

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library database to identify all relevant publications. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Continuous variables were calculated by standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), whereas dichotomous variables were calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95%CI.

RESULTS

A total of 10 eligible studies with 1130 patients were identified, of which 455 (40.3%) patients in the LMH group and 675 (59.7%) patients in the OMH group. LMH was associated with less blood loss (SMD = -0.30, 95%CI: -0.43 to -0.18, p < .00001), less transfusion requirement (OR = 0.49, 95%CI: 0.29-0.82, p = .007), decreased postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.76, p = .0001), and shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.46, 95%CI: -0.69 to -0.24, p < .0001) when compared with the OMH group. But the operative time was significantly longer in LMH group (SMD = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.79-1.86, p = .01). Both the two groups achieved similar surgical margin and R0 resection rate for malignant lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis demonstrated that LMH appeared to be feasible and safe in current liver surgery. LMH is associated with less blood loss, decreased postoperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and comparable oncological outcomes compared with OMH.

Robotic Liver Resection For Primary Hepatolithiasis: Is It Beneficial?

BACKGROUND

Primary hepatolithiasis is a disease characterized by primary biliary ductal abnormality with stone formation predominantly within the intrahepatic bile ducts. Its management is difficult, but liver resection has emerged as a promising treatment option.

METHODS

Robotic liver resection (RLR) has been adopted in our center for the management of patients with hepatolithiasis. The operative and short-term outcomes of this cohort of patients were compared with a historical cohort of patients using open approach (OLR). A subgroup analysis was performed for left lateral sectionectomy.

RESULTS

Between September 2010 and April 2015, 15 RLRs were performed on patients with primary hepatolithiasis. The historical cohort consisted of 42 OLRs with operation done between January 2005 and January 2014. No differences were found in patient demographics, disease characteristics, or types of resection. No operative deaths occurred, and no difference was seen in complication rates. RLR had significantly less blood loss (100 vs. 235 ml; p = 0.011) and shorter hospital stays (6 vs. 8 days; p = 0.003). After a median follow-up of 19.4 months for RLRs and 79.2 months for OLRs (p < 0.001), there were no differences in residual stone rate, recurrent stone rate, or rate of recurrent cholangitis. Subgroup analysis of lateral sectionectomy (10 RLRs vs. 27 OLRs) revealed similar outcomes, i.e., less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in RLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic liver resection reduces blood loss and shortens hospital stays compared with OLR. A longer follow-up is needed to assess the long-term outcomes of RLR regarding prevention of recurrent stones and cholangitis.

Surgical management of hepatolithiasis: A minireview

Hepatolithiasis is highly prevalent in Asia but rare in Western countries. However, the incidence of hepatolithiasis may be increasing in Western countries due to the increased rate of immigration from areas where hepatolithiasis is prevalent. There are many non-surgical treatments for hepatolithiasis, but surgical management remains the best curative treatment for some cases of hepatolithiasis. Surgical treatments can remove biliary stones and relieve stricture of the bile ducts. This review describes the indications for and the outcomes of surgical treatment of hepatolithiasis, including liver resection and liver transplantation.

Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: A comparative study with open approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis is a prevalent disease in some regions of China. Left-sided hepatectomy is an effective treatment for left intrahepatic bile duct stones with irreversible disease, such as biliary strictures, severe parenchymal fibrosis or atrophy. However, the advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) over open approach (OLH) are still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH to those of OLH in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and October 2016, 75 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis undergoing left-sided hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Among these 75 patients, 36 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 39 underwent OLH (OLH group). The LLH group exhibited a lower intraoperative blood loss (215.8 ± 75.8 vs 298.7 ± 158.9 mL, p = 0.005), intraoperative transfusion (5.6% vs 23.1%, p = 0.032), overall complication rate (13.9% vs 35.9%, p = 0.029), and shorter recovery of bowel movement (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.0 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.004), time of off-bed activities (3.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.4 d, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (7.7 ± 2.2 vs 10.9 ± 3.3 d, p < 0.001) compared to the OLH group. Similar results were also observed in left lateral sectionectomy and hemihepatectomy subgroups. There was no significant difference in the operative time, initial stone clearance rate, final stone clearance rate, stone recurrence rate and overall cost (All p > 0.05). No perioperative mortality was observed. The conversion rate was 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

LLH is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OLH in the field of intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, overall complication and postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left-Sided Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis had been successfully performed in a series of cases, its advantages over open left hepatectomy (OLH) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH with those of OLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on LLH versus OLH for hepatolithiasis from January 1991 to May 2016. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rate were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and seven nonrandomized observational clinical studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 739 patients in this meta-analysis, including 316 LLHs and 423 OLHs. The volume of intraoperative blood loss favored LLH (P = .015). Intraoperative transfusion (P < .001), overall complication (P < .001), and hospital stay (P = .001) were significantly low in LLH. There was no obvious difference in operation time, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. The mean conversion rate was 9.5% (range, 2.2%-15.6%).

CONCLUSION

LLH seems to be more effective and safer for selected patients with hepatolithiasis than OLH. As only one RCT was included, the evidence of which is still limited. More prospective, multicenter, and RCTs are needed to further define the real role of the laparoscopic technique in hepatolithiasis.

Strategy of minimally invasive surgery for patients with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a common, frequently occurring disease. In recent years, traditional laparotomy is challenged by minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review combined with our practical experience based on the present situation of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, a strategy for improving the effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment is discussed as follows: (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy can be chosen according to the indications; (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), LC + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), LC + LCBDE + T tube drainage or primary suture can be chosen according to the indications; (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross-section, LCBDE, EST, or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be chosen according to the indications. Reasonable selection of minimally invasive treatments according to this strategy is of great significance to improve the therapeutic effect for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) - a systematic review

Background: Today, minimally invasive liver resections for both benign and malignant tumors are routinely performed. Recently, some authors have described single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) procedures. Since SILL is a relatively young branch of laparoscopy, we performed a systematic review of the current literature to collect data on feasibility, perioperative results and oncological outcome.

Methods: A literature research was performed on Medline for all studies that met the eligibility criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently. A study was included for review if consensus was obtained by discussion between the authors on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria. A thorough quality assessment of all included studies was performed. Data were analyzed and tabulated according to predefined outcome measures. Synthesis of the results was achieved by narrative review.

Results: A total of 15 eligible studies were identified among which there was one prospective cohort study and one randomized controlled trial comparing SILL to multi incision laparoscopic liver resection (MILL). The rest were retrospective case series with a maximum of 24 patients. All studies demonstrated convincing results with regards to feasibility, morbidity and mortality. The rate of wound complications and incisional hernia was low. The cosmetic results were good.

Conclusions: This is the first systematic review on SILL including prospective trials. The results of the existing studies reporting on SILL are favorable. However, a large body of scientific evidence on the field of SILL is missing, further randomized controlled studies are urgently needed.

Incidence, risk factors and consequences of bile leakage following laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage (BL) remains a common cause of major morbidity after open major liver resection but has only been poorly described in patients undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH). The present study aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of BL following LMH.

METHODS

All 223 patients undergoing LMH between 2000 and 2013 at two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively analysed. BL was defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery, and its incidence and consequences were assessed. Risk factors for BL were determined on multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

BL occurred in 30 (13.5 %) patients, and its incidence remained stable over time (p = 0.200). BL was diagnosed following the presence of bile into the abdominal drain in 14 (46.7 %) patients and after drainage of symptomatic abdominal collections in 16 (53.3 %) patients without intra-operative drain placement. Grade A, B and C BL occurred in 3 (10.0 %), 23 (76.6 %) and 4 (13.4 %) cases, respectively. Interventional procedures for BL included endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, percutaneous and surgical drainage in 10 (33.3 %), 23 (76.7 %) and 4 (13.3 %) patients, respectively. BL was associated with significantly increased rates of symptomatic pleural effusion (30.0 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.006), multiorgan failure (13.3 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.022), postoperative death (10.0 vs. 1.6 %, p = 0.008) and prolonged hospital stay (18 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BMI > 28 kg/m(2) (OR 2.439, 95 % CI 1.878-2.771, p = 0.036), history of hepatectomy (OR 1.675, 95 % CI 1.256-2.035, p = 0.044) and biliary reconstruction (OR 1.975, 95 % CI 1.452-2.371, p = 0.039) were significantly associated with increased risk of BL.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

After LMH, BL occurred in 13.5 % of the patients and was associated with significant morbidity. Patients with one or several risk factors for BL should benefit intra-operative drain placement.