Combining Laparoscopic Liver Partitioning and Simultaneous Portohepatic Venous Deprivation for Rapid Liver Hypertrophy

Single-Center Retrospective Study Comparing Double Vein Embolization via a Trans-Jugular Approach with Liver Venous Deprivation via a Trans-Hepatic Approach

PURPOSE

To compare safety, technical and clinical outcomes of double vein embolization (DVE) via a trans-jugular approach with liver venous deprivation (LVD) via a trans-hepatic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing simultaneous portal and hepatic veins embolization in view of a major hepatectomy (June 2019-November 2022). Hepatic vein embolization was performed either by transjugular plug (DVE) or by transhepatic plug followed by glue injection (LVD). Inclusion criteria were availability of pre-procedural CT scan, and availability of CT scans acquired 10 days and 25 days post-procedure. Comparative data included complication rate, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), Future Liver Remnant volume and function increase (FLR-V and FLR-F increase, respectively) and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (n = 14 DVE; n = 22 LVD) were included. No baseline significant differences were observed among the two groups. One grade-3 complication (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group; one case of technical failure (2.8%) was observed in the DVE group. Fluoroscopy time and DAP were similar between DVE and LVD (29 ± 17.7 vs. 25 ± 8.2 min, p = 0.97; 105.1 ± 63.5 vs. 143.4 ± 79.5 Gy·cm2, p = 0.15). No differences arose at either time-point in FLR-V increase (46.7 ± 23.1% vs. 48.2 ± 28.2%, 52.9 ± 30.9% vs. 53.2 ± 29%, respectively, p = 0.9). FLR-F increase also did not differ significantly (62.8 ± 55.2 vs. 67.4 ± 57.5, p = 0.9). No differences in drop-out rate from surgery were observed. (28.6% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.93). One case of grade-B post-hepatectomy liver failure (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group.

CONCLUSION

LVD via transhepatic approach and DVE via transjugular approach seem equally safe and effective. Level of Evidence Level 3, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Minimally invasive vs. open approach to the simultaneous treatment of colorectal tumors with synchronous liver metastasis: a single center, propensity-score matched analysis from Mayo clinic

BACKGROUND

Open combined resections of colorectal primary tumors and synchronous liver metastases have become common in selected cases. However, evidences favoring a minimally invasive (MIS) approach are still limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of MIS vs. open synchronous liver and colorectal resections.

METHODS

384 cases of synchronous colorectal and liver resections performed at one institution were identified during the study period. MIS vs open approach were compared after a propensity score matching; surgical outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

MIS cases featured longer operative time (399 vs 300 min, p < 0.001), fewer blood loss (200 vs 500 ml, p = 0.003), and shorter hospitalization (median LOS 4 vs 6 days, p = 0.001). No difference was observed between the two groups for use of Pringle maneuver (p = 0.083), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.061), achievement of negative colorectal (p = 0.176) and liver margins (p = 1.000), postoperative complications (p = 1.000) and significant (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a) complications (p = 0.817), delay of adjuvant therapy due to complications (p = 0.555), 30- and 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

Synchronous colorectal and liver metastases resections via a minimally-invasive approach in high-volume centers with appropriate expertise result in significantly lower blood loss and length of stay despite longer operative time in comparison to open, with no oncological inferiority.

A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections.

METHODS

All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series).

RESULTS

The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss - 150 and - 350, respectively; differential benefit: 200 mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity - 11.3% and - 18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS - 1 day and - 3 days, respectively; differential benefit: 2 days, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.