Laparoscopic resection of hepatic colorectal metastases

Using the win ratio to compare laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases

Background

We sought to assess the overall benefit of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) using the win ratio, a novel methodological approach.

Methods

CRLM patients undergoing curative-intent resection in 2001-2018 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Patients were paired and matched based on age, number and size of lesions, lymph node status and receipt of preoperative chemotherapy. The win ratio was calculated based on margin status, severity of postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to recurrence, and time to death.

Results

Among 962 patients, the majority underwent open hepatectomy (n=832, 86.5%), while a minority underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (n=130, 13.5%). Among matched patient-to-patient pairs, the odds of the patient undergoing laparoscopic resection "winning" were 1.77 [WR: 1.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.42-2.34]. The win ratio favored laparoscopic hepatectomy independent of low (WR: 2.94, 95% CI: 1.20-6.39), medium (WR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.16-2.10) or high (WR: 7.25, 95% CI: 1.13-32.0) tumor burden, as well as unilobar (WR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.25-2.31) or bilobar (WR: 4.57, 95% CI: 2.36-8.64) disease. The odds of "winning" were particularly pronounced relative to short-term outcomes (i.e., 90-day mortality and severity of postoperative complications) (WR: 4.06, 95% CI: 2.33-7.78).

Conclusions

Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had 77% increased odds of "winning". Laparoscopic liver resection should be strongly considered as a preferred approach to resection in CRLM patients.

Local Recurrence Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer Oligometastases Treated With Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to report local failure (LF) outcomes and associated predictors in patients with oligometastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with CRC metastases to the brain, liver, spine, or lung treated with SABR between 2001 and 2016. Time to LF was summarized using cumulative incidence of LF curves with death as a competing risk.

RESULTS

The analysis included a total of 130 patients and 256 lesions. Of the metastases treated, 129 (50%) were brain, 50 (20%) liver, 49 (19%) spine, and 28 (11%) lung. Median gross tumor volume was 24 mL for liver metastases, 2 mL for brain metastases, 4 mL for spine metastases, and 1 mL for lung metastases. The overall 1, 2, and 3-year cumulative incidence of LF rates were 21.6% (16.5, 27.1), 28.2% (22.3, 34.4), and 31.5% (25.2, 38.0), respectively. LF was highest among the liver metastases (1 y: 26.0%, 2 y: 38.5%), followed by spine (1 y: 25.1%, 2 y: 31.1%), brain (1 y: 20%, 2 y: 25.2%), and lung (1 y: 13.7%, 2 y: insufficient data). Metastases from right-sided primary CRC were significantly more likely to have LF (P=0.0146, HR=2.23). Biologically effective dose>70 Gy, defined using a standard linear quadratic model using α/β ratio of 10 on the individual lesion level, and pre-SABR chemotherapy were also significant predictors of LF (P= 0.0009 and 0.018, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

CRC metastases treated with SABR had significantly higher rates of LF if they originated from right-sided primary CRC, compared with left-sided. Liver metastases had the highest rates of LF compared with other metastatic sites. Thus, CRC liver metastases and metastases from right-sided CRC may benefit from more aggressive radiotherapy.

Minimally Invasive Management of Secondary Liver Cancer

Laparoscopic liver surgery for secondary liver cancer is increasing. The most common indications are colorectal cancer liver metastases followed by adenocarcinoma metastases from other solid organs, such as breast, pancreatic neuroendocrine, and other gastrointestinal tract cancers. This article provides a comprehensive review of crucial concepts when managing secondary liver cancer minimally invasively, a summary of the up-to-date literature, and a discussion of the development of the application of this technique over time.

Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Importance

Surgery represents the mainstay treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Indications for the laparoscopic approach in this setting have been widened and there is a need to confirm the benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in patients with complex disease states.

Objective

To compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, focusing on the characteristics of modern MILS and therefore overcoming possible selection bias related to different policies for patients' eligibility for MILS over time.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A cohort study of 885 resections performed for liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2017, at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit of San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy, comprising 187 laparoscopic and 698 open resections. Procedures performed using the MILS approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of more than 30% were considered and were matched by propensity scores (ratio of 1:4) to procedures performed using the open approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of less than 30%.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was short-term outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, functional recovery, and interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes.

Results

Among this cohort (104 patients in the MILS group; 46 women and 58 men; median age, 62 years [range, 35-81 years]; and 412 patients in the open group; 181 women and 231 men; median age, 60 years [range, 37-80 years]), primary end-point data showed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent open resections compared with those who underwent MILS (94 [22.8%] vs 21 [20.2%]; P = .04). Patients in the MILS group had fewer major complications (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V) compared with patients in the open group (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V; 7 [6.7%] vs 35 [8.5%]; P = .03) as well as shorter lengths of stay (median [range] duration, 3 [2-35] vs 5 [4-37] days; P = .02). Oncologic results were not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, the results of the propensity score matching analysis between modern laparoscopic surgery and previous open surgery appear to confer more comparable cohorts for complexity, further supporting the advantages of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The increase in use that laparoscopy has experienced appears to be based on increased feasibility, widening of eligibility criteria for patients, enhanced clinical effectiveness, and oncologic outcomes. All these elements together suggest that up to 70% of patients appear to be candidates for this minimally invasive surgical approach in high-volume centers.

Long term outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Because of the advancements in the surgical techniques of liver resection and improvements in anesthesia and postoperative critical care, the simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis either by the laparoscopic procedure or by the open resection method has been considered as a safe and acceptable option. However, there is limited information on the comparison of postoperative outcomes between laparoscopic surgery and open surgery. This study investigated the clinical results and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis in comparison with those of open surgery.

METHODS

Patients with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastasis who underwent simultaneous resection at Shuang Ho Hospital from 2009 to 2017 were identified. The patient demographics, perioperative morbidity, and survival rates were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients underwent simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. Laparoscopic procedure was performed for 16 patients, and the remaining 22 patients underwent open surgery. No significant differences were observed in the patient characteristics between the two groups. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rates were 56% and 35% in the laparoscopic group and 70% and 15% in the open surgery group, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 100% and 84% in the laparoscopic group and 73% and 48% in the open surgery group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, laparoscopic surgery for simultaneous resection of synchronous colorectal cancer with liver metastasis seems to be safe and had a similar outcome to that of open surgery.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Long-term survival in laparoscopic vs open resection for colorectal liver metastases: inverse probability of treatment weighting using propensity scores

BACKGROUND

This study compares long-term outcomes between intention-to-treat laparoscopic and open approaches to colorectal liver metastases (CLM), using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores to control for selection bias.

METHOD

Patients undergoing liver resection for CLM by 5 surgeons at 3 institutions from 2000 to early 2014 were analysed. IPTW based on propensity scores were generated and used to assess the marginal treatment effect of the laparoscopic approach via a weighted Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

A total of 298 operations were performed in 256 patients. 7 patients with planned two-stage resections were excluded leaving 284 operations in 249 patients for analysis. After IPTW, the population was well balanced. With a median follow up of 36 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for the cohort were 59% and 38%. 146 laparoscopic procedures were performed in 140 patients, with weighted 5-year OS and RFS of 54% and 36% respectively. In the open group, 138 procedures were performed in 122 patients, with a weighted 5-year OS and RFS of 63% and 38% respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of OS or RFS.

CONCLUSION

In the Brisbane experience, after accounting for bias in treatment assignment, long term survival after LLR for CLM is equivalent to outcomes in open surgery.

Tissue management with tri-staple technology in major and minor laparoscopic liver resections

One of the most relevant technologic advancements in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is owing to the improved ability to safely secure and divide vascular and biliary structures and the liver parenchyma by the use of endostaplers. We compared, retrospectively, 35 LLRs with the Tri-Staple technology versus 57 LLRs without, during a 14-month period. Colorectal liver metastases were overall the main indication for LLR. Neither major hepatectomy nor left lateral sectionectomy was done in the nonstapled group. Mean surgical time and blood loss were similar, whereas the tumor number and size were significantly larger in the stapled group (P ≤ 0.01). The conversion rate was 0% and 3.5% (n = 2); and the morbidity rate was 9% (n = 3) and 12% (n = 7), respectively, in the stapled and nonstapled group (P = 0.8). No overall 3-month mortality was recorded. Endo GIA Reloads with Tri-Staple technology allow a proper division of the intrahepatic vessels and biliary structure. These devices in LLRs are safe and feasible, allowing major hepatectomy and complex cases as 2-staged procedures and laparoscopic living donor liver resections.

Learning curve in laparoscopic liver surgery: a fellow's perspective

The learning curve for laparoscopic liver surgery is infrequently addressed in current literature. In this paper, we explored the challenges faced in embarking on laparoscopic liver surgery in a unit that did predominantly open liver surgery. In setting up our laparoscopic liver surgery program, we adopted skills and practices learnt during fellowships at various high volume centers in North America and Australia, with modifications to suit our local patients' disease patterns. We started with simple minor resections in anterolateral segments to build confidence, which allowed us to train the surgical and nursing team before progressing to more difficult resections. Inter institutional collaboration and exchange of skills also enabled the synergistic development of techniques for safe progression to more complex surgeries. Multimedia resources and international guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery are increasingly accessible, which further guide the practice of this emerging field, as evidence continues to validate the laparoscopic approach in well selected cases.

Impact of energy devices during liver parenchymal transection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the benefit of energy devices such as ultrasonically activated device and bipolar vessel sealing device in liver surgeries.

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested the benefit of energy devices in liver transection, while a randomized trial has found no association between their use and surgical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo open liver resection were eligible for this multicenter non-blinded randomized study. They were randomized to receive an energy device (experimental group) or not (control group) during liver transection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL. The primary aim was to show non-inferiority of hepatectomy with energy device to that without energy device.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were randomized and 211 (105 and 106 in the respective groups) were analyzed. Intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL occurred in 15.0% patients with energy device and 20.2% patients without energy device. The experimental minus control group difference was -5.2% (95% confidence interval -13.8 to 3.3%; non-inferiority test, p = 0.0248). Hepatectomy with energy device resulted in a shorter median liver transection time (63 vs. 84 min; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of postoperative bile leakage (4 vs. 16%; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that hepatectomy with energy device is not inferior to that without energy device in terms of blood loss has been demonstrated. The use of energy devices during liver surgery is clinically meaningful as it shortens the liver transection time and reduces the incidence of postoperative bile leakage.

Modified hepatic vascular occlusion facilitates hepatectomy for malignant hepatic tumor in laparoscopy

PURPOSE

The parenchymal transection and bleeding are important problems in laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LH for a malignant hepatic tumor (MHT) with hepatic vascular occlusion (HVO) only using a monopolar electrocautery.

METHODS

A total of 31 patients' profiles, operative data, clinical outcomes, pathologic findings, and follow-up information were collected who underwent LH with HVO.

RESULTS

The median operative time was 176 minutes and the median postoperative hospital stay was 9 days. The median estimated blood loss was 310 mL. The median tumor size was 4.6 cm and the median surgical margin was 12 mm.The ischemia injury to the liver in patients subjected to selective HVO was less than that in patients subjected to the Pringle maneuver.

CONCLUSIONS

HVO facilitates LH in transecting liver parenchyma and reduces bleeding, making LH safe and feasible only using monopolar electrocautery in selected patients with malignancies. Moreover, the selective HVO have more advantages over the Pringle maneuver in decreasing ischemic injury.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with considerably less morbidity and a long-term survival similar to that of the open procedure in patients with hepatic colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) provides significant promising results when compared with open hepatectomy (OH). However, the oncologic outcome of LH for hepatic colorectal metastases (HCRM) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to review the results of LH retrospectively and to compare them with those obtained using the conventional OH procedure for HCRM patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Demographic details of 24 patients with pathologic determination of HCRM who underwent LH were reviewed retrospectively and weighed against the 25 HCRM patients chosen from the prospective OH database. Postsurgical benefits and 3-year outcomes of these 2 groups were compared.

RESULTS

The LH had a significantly less estimated blood loss (210 vs. 380 mL; P<0.01), less analgesic requirements (20.8% vs. 50.2%; P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (7.4 vs. 11.4 d; P<0.0001), and less postoperative complication rates (25% vs. 48%; P=0.02) compared with the OH approach. The operative time, positive surgical margin, and postoperative liver function changes were similar in the 2 groups. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in tumor recurrence and the 3-year overall survival rate (24% vs. 30%; P=0.83), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LH is a practicable replacement for OH with probable advantages within the short-term outcomes for elected HCRM patients. Nevertheless, it remains an approach in advancement; in addition, randomized controlled trails and prolonged follow-up are necessary to verify its oncologic benefits and long-term survival.

Oncological safety of ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastases: a case-control study

Laparoscopic liver surgery has gained widespread acceptance and nowadays it is suggested even for malignant disease. Although the benefits on short-term outcomes have been proven, data on oncological safety are still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess oncologic results after ultrasound-guided laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal metastases. 37 consecutive patients undergoing LLR between 01/2004 and 03/2014 were matched at a ratio of 1:1 with 37 OLR. Matching criteria were male sex, number and diameter of liver metastases, segment location, synchronous presentation, site and stage of primary tumor, positive lymph nodes of the primary, and concomitant extrahepatic disease. Demographic characteristics were similar among groups. Parenchymal transection time was longer in the LLR group (68 ± 38.2 SD vs 40 ± 33.7 SD, p = 0.01). Mortality was nil in LLR and OLR. Overall morbidity was significantly lower in LLR (13.5 vs 37.8%, p = 0.02), although severe complications were similar among the two groups. Patients undergoing LLR were discharged earlier (5 ± 2.3 SD vs 8 ± 6.6 SD days, p < 0.001). The median margin width was 5 (0-40) mm in LLR vs 8 (0-25) mm in OLR, p = 0.897. R1 resection was recorded in four LLR and three OLR (p = 1). Overall recurrences were similar among groups. Eight patients with hepatic or extrahepatic recurrence among LLR underwent surgery vs four of OLR (p = 0.03). After a median follow-up of 35.7 months in LLR and 47.9 months in OLR, 3-year overall survival was 91.8% LLR and 74.8% OLR (p = 0.14). 3-year disease-free survival was 69.1% LLR and 65.9% OLR (p = 0.53). Multivariate analysis showed that postoperative complications [HR 3.42 (95% CI 1.32-8.89)] and multiple metastases [HR 3.84 (95% CI 1.34-10.83)] were independent predictors of worse survival (p = 0.01). Ultrasound-LLR for colorectal hepatic metastases is safe, ensuring oncologic outcomes comparable to OLR.

Colorectal cancer liver metastases: laparoscopic and open radiofrequency-assisted surgery

INTRODUCTION

The liver is the most common site of colorectal metastases (colorectal liver metastases - CLM). Surgical treatment in combination with oncological therapy is the only potentially curative method. Unfortunately, only 10-25% of patients are suitable for surgery. Traditionally, open liver resection (OLR) is usually performed. However, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become popular worldwide in the last two decades.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and benefits of radiofrequency minor LLR of CLM in comparison with OLR.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The indication for surgery was CLM and the possibility to perform minor laparoscopic or OLR not exceeding two hepatic segments according to Couinaud's classification.

RESULTS

Sixty-six minor liver resections for CLM were performed. Twenty-five (37.9%) patients underwent a laparoscopic approach and 41 (62.1%) patients underwent OLR. The mean operative time was 166.4 min for LLR and 166.8 min for OLR. Average blood loss was 132.3 ±218.0 ml during LLR and 149.5 ±277.5 ml during OLR. Length of hospital stay was 8.4 ±2.0 days for LLR and 10.5 ±5.8 days for OLR. All resections were R0. There was no case of mortality. Postoperative complications were recognized in 9 (13.6%) patients: 8 in the group of OLR patients and 1 in the LLR group. The median survival time for LLR was 70.5 months and for OLR 61.9 months. The 5-year overall survival rate was higher for LLR vs. OLR - 82.1% vs. 69.8%. The average length of disease-free interval after LLR was greater (52.2 months) in comparison with OLR (49.4%). The 5-year disease-free interval was 63.2% for LLR and 58% for OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes and oncological radicality of minor laparoscopic liver resections of CLM are comparable to outcomes of OLR.

Intercostal and transthoracic trocars enable easier laparoscopic resection of dome liver lesions

BACKGROUND

Dome liver lesions (those in segments VII or VIII) pose a challenge to standard laparoscopic resection. The use of additional intercostal and transthoracic trocars (ITTs) potentially facilitates resection over standard subcostal laparoscopic (SSL) techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively collected liver resection database was performed, selecting all minor resections of segments VII and VIII using the ITT and SSL approaches. The techniques of intercostal transdiaphragmatic access are described and the surgical outcomes of the two groups compared.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were analysed. The ITT group included 8 patients and the SSL group included 11. The groups were comparable in median lesion size (20 mm in the ITT group and 26 mm in the SSL group). Blood loss, operative times, morbidity and conversion rates were similar. There was no lung injury or postoperative clinical pneumothorax in any patient undergoing transdiaphragmatic access. Median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the ITT group (2 days) than in the SSL group (6 days) (P = 0.032).

CONCLUSIONS

The ITT approach is safe, effective and complementary to standard laparoscopic techniques for the resection of small tumours in segments VII and VIII.

An update on laparoscopic liver resection: The French Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery Association statement

Laparoscopic liver resection has been recognized as a safe and efficient approach since the Louisville Conference in 2008, but its use still remains confined to experienced teams in specialized centers, and may lack some standardization. The 2013 Session of French Association for Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery (ACHBT) specifically focused on laparoscopic liver surgery and the particular aspects and issues arising since the 2008 conference. Our objective is to provide an update and summarize the current French position on laparoscopic liver surgery. An overview of the current practice of laparoscopic liver resections in France since 2008 is presented. The issues surrounding standardization for left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy, hybrid and hand-assisted techniques are raised and discussed. Finally, future technologies and technical perspectives are outlined.

Impact of energy devices during liver parenchymal transection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the benefit of energy devices such as ultrasonically activated device and bipolar vessel sealing device in liver surgeries.

BACKGROUND

Several studies have suggested the benefit of energy devices in liver transection, while a randomized trial has found no association between their use and surgical outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients scheduled to undergo open liver resection were eligible for this multicenter non-blinded randomized study. They were randomized to receive an energy device (experimental group) or not (control group) during liver transection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL. The primary aim was to show non-inferiority of hepatectomy with energy device to that without energy device.

RESULTS

A total of 212 patients were randomized and 211 (105 and 106 in the respective groups) were analyzed. Intraoperative blood loss >1,000 mL occurred in 15.0% patients with energy device and 20.2% patients without energy device. The experimental minus control group difference was -5.2% (95% confidence interval -13.8 to 3.3%; non-inferiority test, p = 0.0248). Hepatectomy with energy device resulted in a shorter median liver transection time (63 vs. 84 min; p < 0.001) and a lower rate of postoperative bile leakage (4 vs. 16%; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The hypothesis that hepatectomy with energy device is not inferior to that without energy device in terms of blood loss has been demonstrated. The use of energy devices during liver surgery is clinically meaningful as it shortens the liver transection time and reduces the incidence of postoperative bile leakage.

Laparoscopic liver resection for malignancy: A review of the literature

AIM: To review the published literature about laparoscopic liver resection for malignancy.

METHODS: A PubMed search was performed for original published studies until June 2013 and original series containing at least 30 patients were reviewed.

RESULTS: All forms of hepatic resections have been described ranging from simple wedge resections to extended right or left hepatectomies. The usual approach is pure laparoscopic, but hand-assisted, as well as robotic approaches have been described. Most studies showed comparable results to open resection in terms of operative blood loss, postoperative morbidity and mortality. Many of them showed decreased postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and even lower costs. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection.

CONCLUSION: In the hands of experienced surgeons, laparoscopic liver resection for malignant lesions is safe and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncologically, similar survival rates have been observed in patients treated with the laparoscopic approach when compared to their open resection counterparts.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a metaanalysis of 610 patients

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. The objective of this manuscript was to perform a metaanalysis comparing outcomes of LLR with open liver resection (OLR) in patients with hepatic mCRC, and to identify which patients were suitable candidates for LLR.

STUDY DESIGN

A PubMed search identified 2,122 articles. When filtered for case-matched articles comparing LLR with OLR for mCRC, 8 articles were identified consisting of 610 patients (242 LLR, 368 OLR). A random effects metaanalysis was performed.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were well-matched for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, tumor size, number of metastases, extent of major hepatectomy, and use of neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy. The mean number of metastases in the LLR and OLR groups were 1.4 and 1.5, respectively (P = .14). Estimated blood loss was less in LLR group (262 vs 385 mL; P = .049). Transfusion rate was significantly less in LLR group (9.9 vs 19.8%; P = .004). There was no difference in operative time (248.7 vs 262.8 min; P = .85). Length of stay (LOS) was less in the LLR group (6.5 vs 8.8 days; P = .007). The overall complication rate was less in LLR group (20.3% vs 33.2%; P = .03). Importantly, there was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) rates.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients with limited mCRC (1 or 2 tumors), LLR provides marked perioperative benefits without compromising oncologic outcomes or long-term survival. Specifically, LLR offers decreased blood loss, LOS, and overall complication rates with comparable 5-year OS and DFS.

A single centre experience of first "one hundred laparoscopic liver resections"

Background. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has emerged as an alternative procedure to open liver resection in selected patients. The purpose of this study was to describe our initial experience of 100 patients undergoing LLR. Methods. We analysed a prospectively maintained hepatobiliary database of 100 patients who underwent LLR between August 2007 and August 2012. Clinicopathological data were reviewed to evaluate surgical outcomes following LLR. Results. The median age was 64 and median BMI 27. Patients had a liver resection for either malignant lesions (n = 74) or benign lesions (n = 26). Commonly performed procedures were segmentectomy/metastectomy (n = 55), left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) (n = 26), or major hepatectomy (n = 19). Complete LLR was performed in 84 patients, 9 were converted to open and 7 hand-assisted. The most common indications were CRLM (n = 62), followed by hepatic adenoma (n = 9) or hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 7). The median operating time was 240 minutes and median blood loss was 250 mL. Major postoperative complications occurred in 9 patients. The median length of stay (LOS) was 5 days. One patient died within 30 days of liver resection. Conclusions. LLR is a safe and oncologically feasible procedure with comparable short-term perioperative outcomes to the open approach. However, further studies are necessary to determine long-term oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

Background

To compare short-term and long-term results of colorectal patients undergoing laparoscopic and open hepatectomy. Moreover, outcomes of laparoscopic versus open procedures for simultaneous primary colorectal tumor and liver metastasis resection were compared.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed and EmBase databases (until Oct. 22. 2013) with no limits. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNote X6) was used for extracted literature management. Quality assessment was performed according to a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The data were analyzed using Review Manager (Version 5.1), and sensitivity analysis was performed by sequentially omitting each study.

Results

Finally, 14 studies, including a total of 975 CLM (colorectal liver metastasis) patients, compared laparoscopic with open hepatectomy. 3 studies of them, including a total of 107 CLM patients, compared laparoscopic with open procedures for synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with a significantly less blood loss, shorter hospitalization time, and less operative transfusion rate. In addition, lower hospital morbidity rate (OR = 0.57, 95%CI:0.42–0.78, P = 0.0005) and better R0 resection (OR = 2.44, 95%CI:1.21–4.94, P = 0.01) were observed in laparoscopic hepatectomy. For long-term outcomes, there were no significant differences between two surgical procedures on recurrence and overall survival. In comparison of synchronous hepatectomy and colectomy, laparoscopic procedure displayed shorter hospitalization (MD = −3.40, 95%CI:−4.37–2.44, P<0.00001) than open procedure. Other outcomes, including surgical time, estimated blood loss, hospital morbidity, and overall survival did not differ significantly in the comparison.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with or without synchronous colectomy are acceptable for selective CLM patients. We suggest standard inclusion criteria of CLM patients be formulated.

[The surgical technique of laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy. Technical aspects and results]

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the technical aspects and results for two different techniques of total laparoscopic anatomical right hemihepatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From September 2010 to February 2013 a total of 16 patients underwent total laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy at the University Hospital of Freiburg. Of the patients 8 received an intraglissonian approach (IGA) and the other 8 patients an extraglissonian approach (EGA). In the patients of the IGA group, vascular inflow control of the right liver was accomplished by dissection and dividing the right hepatic artery, the right portal vein and the right bile duct separately before parenchymal dissection. In contrast, vascular control for patients in the EGA group was performed by enclosure and transsection of the whole right pedicle using a vascular linear stapler.

RESULTS

Indications for right hemihepatectomy were benign tumors in 2 and malignancies in 14 cases. The average maximum tumor diameter was 5.5 cm (range 1.5-10.0 cm). Adequate tumor-free surgical margins (R0) were confirmed in all patients with malignancies. The perioperative mortality rate was 0 %, surgical complications according to Clavien's classification were grade I (n = 1 trocar site superficial wound infection), grade II (n = 2 cholangitis) and grade IIIb (n = 1 wound dehiscence after conversion to open procedure). The median operating time was 366 min (range 265-422 min) and 313 min (range 247-417 min) in the IGA and EGA groups, respectively. Conversion from laparoscopic to open minimal access procedure was necessary in three patients in the IGA group and two patients in the EGA group. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 644 ml (200-1000 ml) and 518 ml (200-1500 ml) in the IGA and EGA groups, respectively. Transfusion of two units of packed red blood cells was necessary for one patient in group EGA. No patient in either group needed a Pringle maneuver. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 11 days (range 7-23 days) and 13 days (range 7-31 days) in the IGA and EGA groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Total laparoscopic anatomical right hemihepatectomy is a feasible procedure. The extraglissonian technique can provide shorter operating times by correctly facilitating vascular control of the right liver.

Risk factors and management of conversions to an open approach in laparoscopic liver resection: analysis of 265 consecutive cases

BACKGROUND

As a consequence of continuous technical developments in liver surgery, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly performed worldwide.

METHODS

Between January 2004 and December 2011, 265 LLR were performed in 242 patients for various diseases. The experience of LLR is reported focusing on risk factors of conversion and their management.

RESULTS

The overall conversion rate was 17/265 (6.4%), equally distributed over the period of the study. Statistically significant factors for conversion were found to be LLR of the postero-superior (P-S) segments (SI, SIVa; SVII; SVIII) (12.7% converted versus 2.5% non-converted groups, P = 0.01) and a major compared with a minor hepatectomy (15.2% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.02 respectively). A R0 resection was achieved in 93.2% of cases. According to Dindo's classification, complications were recorded as grade I (n = 20); grade II (6); grade III (11) and grade IV(1) events (total morbidity rate of 14%). Univariate analysis identified a major hepatectomy and resection involving P-S segments as prognostic factors for conversion whereas multivariate analysis identified the latter as an independent risk factor [P = 0.003, odds ratio (OR) = 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.8-18.8].

CONCLUSIONS

LLR can be safely performed with low overall morbidity. According to this experience and irrespective of the learning curve, resections of P-S segments were identified as an independent risk factor for conversion in LLR.

Laparoscopic liver resection as a safe and efficacious alternative to open resection for colorectal liver metastasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLM) remain to be established. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare LLR and open liver resection (OLR) for CLM with respect to surgical and oncologic outcomes.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed to retrieve all relevant articles published in the English language by the end of March 2013. Data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.0.

RESULTS

A total of 8 nonrandomized controlled studies with 695 subjects were analyzsed. Intra-operative blood loss, the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, morbidity and the length of hospital stay were all significantly reduced after LLR. Postoperative recurrence, 5-year overall and disease-free survivals were comparable between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for CLM is safe and efficacious. It improves surgical outcomes and uncompromises oncologic outcomes as compared with OLR.

Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LAPR) is safe and feasible with a better postoperative course as compared to open resections. Robot-assisted liver surgery (ROBR) is a potential alternative to LAPR. In this study we compare outcomes between ROBR and LAPR.

METHODS

Forty patients underwent ROBR and 223 LAPR for various indications. The surgical outcomes of two institutions, each with a specific advanced experience in laparoscopic and robotic surgery, were reviewed.

RESULTS

The major hepatectomy rate was significantly higher in LAPR (16.6% vs 0%, p = 0.011) while a parenchyma-preserving approach was favoured in ROBR (55% vs 34.1%, p = 0.019). More nodules were resected in the ROBR group (1.97 ± 1.4 vs 1.57 ± 1.1, p = 0.04). Overall conversion rate was 8/40 (20%) in the ROBR and 17/223 (7.6%) in the LAPR group (p = 0.034). Mean blood loss was 330 ± 303 ml and 174 ± 133 ml for the ROBR and LAPR groups, respectively (p = 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher conversion rates and blood loss, robot-assisted surgery may allow the resection of more liver lesions, especially those located in the postero-superior segments, facilitating parenchyma-saving surgery with a comparable complication rate with respect to LAPR.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases -- a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for management of hepatic colorectal metastases (HCRM) is commonly being performed; however, there are limited reports comparing LH outcomes with those of open hepatectomy (OH) procedure. The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative outcomes between the LH and OH procedures performed at a single medical center.

Methods

From Jan 2008 to May 2012, 30 patients with pathologically confirmed HCRM underwent LH, and 140 patients underwent OH at our hospital. Patients' demographics, perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

2 patients (6.7%) in the LH group underwent laparotomies for intraoperative hemorrhage. The LH group had an increased surgical duration (235 min vs. 365 min, (P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and fewer complications (26.2% vs. 55%, P<0.001) than the OH group. However, in a matched cohort comparison of 30 LH cases and 30 OH cases, no significant variations were observed in the following parameters: surgical duration (235 min vs. 255 min, P = 0.23), positive margin rates (6.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.27), or postoperative hematological changes. LH patients had less estimated blood loss (215 ml vs. 385 ml, P<0.001), less morbidity (26.2% vs. 50%, P = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and lower analgesic requests than with those in the OH group.

Conclusions

LH for metastatic colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible treatment, even in patients who underwent prior laparotomy surgeries and provides significantly less morbidity and shorter hospital stay than OH, without compromising curability or increasing morbidity.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of colorectal liver metastasis

BACKGROUND

Findings have shown laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to be feasible and safe, but the data in the literature regarding oncologic outcomes are scant. This study aimed to compare the perioperative and short-term oncologic outcomes between LLR and open resection of colorectal liver metastasis (CLM).

METHODS

Between January 2006 and April 2012, 40 patients underwent LLR of CLM. These patients were compared with a consecutive matched group of 40 patients who underwent open resection within the same period. Data were obtained from a prospective institutional review board (IRB)-approved database. Statistical analysis was performed using t test, Chi-square, and Kaplan-Meier survival.

RESULTS

The groups were similar in terms of age, gender, tumor size, number of tumors, and type of resections performed. The operative time was similar in the two groups, but the estimated blood loss was less in the LLR group than in the open resection group. The length of stay was shorter in the LLR group (3.7 vs 6.5 days; p < 0.001). The 2-year overall survival rate was 89 % for LLR and 81 % for open resection. The median disease-free survival time was 23 months in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings suggest that LLR is associated with less blood loss and a shorter hospital stay than open resection for CLM. According to our short-term results, LLR is equivalent to open resection in terms of oncologic outcomes.

Open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery ERAS® programme (ORANGE II-trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

The use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial.

Methods

Patients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)).

The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224.

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: a challenging, but feasible, safe and efficient procedure

BACKGROUND

Few centers are undertaking major laparoscopic liver resections, because of the well-recognized technical difficulties and lack of training opportunities.

METHODS

The authors describe their technique for laparoscopic right hepatectomy, highlighting relevant details for accomplishing a safe and efficient procedure. Patients were chronologically divided into 2 groups to evaluate the impact of increasing experience on the surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

Group I included 17 patients and group II 18 patients. The conversion rate to open or hybrid techniques significantly decreased from 36% in group I to 6% in group II (P = .03). The hospital stay decreased from a median of 6 days in group I to a median of 4 days in group II (P = .05). Complications occurred in 4 patients (11%), of whom 3 were in group I. The mortality was zero.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy is a safe and efficient procedure when performed at specialized centers with extensive experience in hepatic surgery. Long-term training is necessary to acquire adequate expertise.

Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous metastatic liver tumor

Laparoscopic colorectal resection has been applied to advanced colorectal cancer. Synchronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer would be treated safely and effectively by simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resection. Seven patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis treated by simultaneous laparoscopic resection were analyzed retrospectively. Three patients received a hybrid operation using a small skin incision, 2 patients underwent hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery using a small incision produced for colonic anastomosis, and 2 patients were treated with pure laparoscopic resection. The mean total operation duration was 407 minutes, and mean blood loss was 207 mL. Negative surgical margins were achieved in all cases. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 16.4 days. No recurrence at the surgical margin was observed in the liver. For selected patients with synchronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer, simultaneous laparoscopic resection is useful for minimizing operative invasiveness while maintaining safety and curability, with satisfying short- and long-term results.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers

Laparoscopic liver resection (LHR) has shown classical advantages of minimally invasive surgery over open counterpart. In spite of introduction in early 1990's only few centres worldwide adapted LHR to routine practice. It was due to considerable technical challenges and uncertainty about oncologic outcomes. Surgical instrumentation and accumulation of surgical experience has largely enabled to solve many technical considerations. Intraoperative navigation options have also been improved. Consequently indications have been drastically expanded nearly reaching criteria equal to open liver resection in expert centres. Recent studies have verified oncologic integrity of LHR. However, mastering of LHR is still a quite demanding task limiting expansion of this patient friendly technique. This emphasizes the necessity of systematic training for laparoscopic liver surgery. This article reviews the state of the art of laparoscopic liver surgery lightening burning issues of research and clinical practice.

Single-centre comparative study of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Expansion of laparoscopic major hepatectomy is still limited mainly due to the well-recognised technical difficulties compared to open surgery, and doubts regarding the oncological efficiency when major resections are required.

METHODS

Patients undergoing open right hepatectomy (ORH) were matched with patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and compared for perioperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were included: 36 patients underwent LRH and 34 ORH. Operative time was significantly longer for LRH (median, 300 min vs. 180 min for ORH; p < 0.0001). Intensive care unit (median, 2 days for LRH vs. 4 days for ORH; p < 0.0001) and postoperative length of stay (5 days for LRH vs. 9 days for ORH; p < 0.0001) were significantly shorter for LRH. Four laparoscopic cases were converted to open surgery. No significant difference in postoperative complications and mortality was observed between LRH and ORH. Among patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastases, R0 resection was obtained in 20/21 (95%) cases after LRH, and in 20/25 (80%) after ORH (p = 0.198). Mid-term overall survival did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic and the open group.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH can be a safe, effective, and oncologically efficient alternative to open resection in selected cases. Extensive experience in hepatic and laparoscopic surgery is required.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastases

The role of laparoscopic liver resection for cancer remains controversial. This review summarizes the expanding literature on outcomes of minimally invasive hepatic resection for colorectal cancer liver metastases. Four recent studies (in more than 300 patients) show 5-year overall-survival rates of 46-64%, which are comparable to results in modern open hepatic resection series. The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection include smaller incisions, less pain, less narcotic requirements, and shorter length of stay.

Treatment of liver colorectal metastases: role of laparoscopy, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave coagulation

Up to 50% of patients with colorectal cancer will develop metastatic disease in the liver. While surgical extirpation remains the best option for long-term survival, several complementary modalities such as laparoscopy, radiofrequency ablation, and microwave coagulation have gained wide acceptance as primary and adjunct therapies for both resectable and unresectable disease. This review will focus on the application and outcome of these techniques in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

Laparoscopic resection for liver tumors: initial experience in a single center

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections are 1 of the most complex procedures in hepatobiliary surgery. During the last 20 years, laparoscopic liver surgery has had an important development in specialized centers.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the initial experience in laparoscopic liver resection for benign and malignant tumors, to assess its indications and outcomes, and to describe technical aspects of these resections.

METHODS

Review of the records of 28 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between November 2000 and November 2007. Analysis of the data regarding preoperative management and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-six liver resections were performed laparoscopically (20 purely laparoscopic, 3 hand assisted, and 3 hybrid technique) and 2 were converted to open surgery. The laparoscopic approach was attempted in 6% (28 out of 459) of the liver resections carried out in the analyzed period. Indications for resection were: benign tumors in 22 patients (78%) and malignant tumors in 6 patients (22%). Resections were minor in 27 patients (96%) and major in 1 patient (4%). Pringle maneuver was performed in 14 patients (50%). Margins were negative in all the cases. Mean operative time was 170 minutes (range 70 to 350), and the mean length of stay was 3 days (range 1 to 6). Mortality rate was 0%. Only 2 patients (7%) had postoperative minor complications (self-limited bile leaks).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with benign and malignant liver tumors, laparoscopic liver resections can be safely performed. This procedure must be carried out by the surgeons trained in both the hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery.

Short- and medium-term results of totally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery for primary colorectal cancer is now commonplace but the uptake of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) has been slow, mainly owing to doubts regarding safety, feasibility and oncological efficiency.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of all patients treated for CRLM between 2004 and 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. The database was analysed for operative details, hospital stay, postoperative results and medium-term survival.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, 135 patients underwent liver surgery for CRLM. For laparoscopic procedures, the median duration of operation was 220 min and median blood loss was 363 ml; a mean tumour-free resection margin of 17.0 mm was achieved (more than 1 cm in 76 per cent), and no port-site metastasis or surgical-site recurrence was observed. The procedure was converted to open surgery in six patients (two for bleeding). Overall survival for the laparoscopic group approached 90 per cent with median follow-up of 22 months.

CONCLUSION

In this series totally laparoscopic CRLM resection had good short- and medium-term results in terms of mortality, morbidity, resection margins, local recurrence or port-site metastasis, and survival. Compared with contemporaneous open experience, the laparoscopic approach was safe and effective in a highly selected consecutive series.

Evolution of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy without the Pringle maneuver: through resection of benign and malignant tumors to living liver donation

Background

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) has gained popularity in its use for benign and malignant tumors. This report describes the evolution of the authors’ experience using laparoscopic LLS for different indications including living liver donation.

Methods

Between January 2004 and January 2009, 37 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic LLS for benign, primary, and metastatic liver diseases, and for one case of living liver donation. Resection of malignant tumors was indicated for 19 (51%) of the 37 patients.

Results

All but three patients (deceased due to metastatic cancer disease) are alive and well after a median follow-up period of 20 months (range, 8–46 months). Liver cell adenomas (72%) were the main indication among benign tumors, and colorectal liver metastases (84%) were the first indication of malignancy. One case of live liver donation was performed. Whereas 16 patients (43%) had undergone a previous abdominal surgery, 3 patients (8%) had LLS combined with bowel resection. The median operation time was of 195 min (range, 115–300 min), and the median blood loss was of 50 ml (range, 0–500 ml). Mild to severe steatosis was noted in 7 patients (19%) and aspecific portal inflammation in 11 patients (30%). A median free margin of 5 mm (range, 5–27 mm) was achieved for all cancer patients. The overall recurrence rate for colorectal liver metastases was of 44% (7 patients), but none recurred at the surgical margin. No conversion to laparotomy was recorded, and the overall morbidity rate was 8.1% (1 grade 1 and 2 grade 2 complications). The median hospital stay was 6 days (range, 2–10 days).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic LLS without portal clamping can be performed safely for cases of benign and malignant liver disease with minimal blood loss and overall morbidity, free resection margins, and a favorable outcome. As the ultimate step of the learning curve, laparoscopic LLS could be routinely proposed, potentially increasing the donor pool for living-related liver transplantation.

Open liver resection for colorectal metastases: better short- and long-term outcomes in patients potentially suitable for laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

There is no prospective randomized data comparing laparoscopic to open hepatectomy. This study compared short- and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal metastases (CRM), who were suitable for either laparoscopic or open surgery.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from consecutive patients undergoing hepatic resection of CRM at a single centre (1987-2007). Patients who were suitable for laparoscopic resection (Group 1) were compared with patients whose tumour characteristics would best be considered for open resection (Group 2).

RESULTS

Out of 1152 hepatectomies, 266 (23.1%) were deemed suitable for a laparoscopic approach. The median (IQR) number of metastases was greater in Group 2 [2(1-20) vs. 1(1-10), P < 0.001], as was the mean (SD) tumour size [5.3(3.6) cm vs. 3.3(1.2) cm, P < 0.001]. The median (IQR) operation time [210 (70) min vs. 240 (90) min, P < 0.001] and blood loss [270 (265) ml vs. 355 (320) ml, P < 0.001] were less in Group 1. There was no difference in length of stay, morbidity or mortality. Patients in Group 2 had a higher R1 resection rate (14.9%) compared with Group 1 (4.5%, P < 0.001) and lower 5-year survival (37.8% vs. 44.2%, P= 0.005).

DISCUSSION

Current criteria for laparoscopic hepatectomy selects patients who have more straight-forward surgery, with less risk of an involved resection margin and better long-term survival, compared with patients unsuited to a laparoscopic approach. Clearly defined criteria for laparoscopic hepatectomy are essential to allow meaningful analysis of outcomes and the results of unrandomized series of laparoscopic hepatectomies must be interpreted with caution.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: an evolution in standard of care

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the results of 6 international surgical centers performing laparoscopic major liver resections.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopy for minor liver resections has been previously demonstrated. Major anatomic liver resections, initially considered to be unsuitable for laparoscopy, are increasingly reported by several centers worldwide.

METHODS

Prospective databases of 3 European, 2 U.S., and 1 Australian centers were combined. Between 1997 and 2008, 210 major liver resections were performed: 136 right and 74 left hepatectomies. Results and differences in surgical techniques between the 6 centers are outlined.

RESULTS

Surgical duration was 250 minutes (range: 90-655 minutes). Operative blood loss was 300 mL (range: 20-2500 mL). Thirty patients (14.3%) received blood transfusion. Conversion to open surgery was required in 26 patients (12.4%). Portal triad clamping was performed in 24 patients (11.4%). Median tumor size was 5.4 cm (range: 1-25 cm) and surgical margin was 10.5 mm (range: 0-70 mm). Two patients died during the postoperative period from pulmonary embolism and urosepsis. Liver-specific and general complications occurred in 17 (8.1%) and 29 patients (13.8%), respectively. Hospital length of stay was 6 days (range: 1-34 days). A further analysis of early (n = 90) and late (n = 120) experience showed improved surgical and postoperative results in the latter group.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter study demonstrates that laparoscopic major liver resections are feasible in selected patients and results improve with experience. However, proficiency in both open liver surgery and advanced laparoscopy is compulsory and surgeons must begin with minor laparoscopic resections.

World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of the world literature on laparoscopic liver resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Initially described for peripheral, benign tumors resected by nonanatomic wedge resections, minimally invasive liver resections are now being performed more frequently, even for larger, malignant tumors located in challenging locations. Although a few small review articles have been reported, a comprehensive review on laparoscopic liver resection has not been published.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using Pubmed, screening all English publications on laparoscopic liver resections. All data were analyzed and apparent case duplications in updated series were excluded from the total number of patients. Tumor type, operative characteristics, perioperative morbidity, and oncologic outcomes were tabulated.

RESULTS

A total of 127 published articles of original series on laparoscopic liver resection were identified, and accounted for 2,804 reported minimally invasive liver resections. Fifty percent were for malignant tumors, 45% were for benign lesions, 1.7% were for live donor hepatectomies, and the rest were indeterminate. Of the resections, 75% were performed totally laparoscopically, 17% were hand-assisted, and 2% were laparoscopic-assisted open hepatic resection (hybrid) technique, with the remainder being other techniques or conversions to open hepatectomies. The most common laparoscopic liver resection was a wedge resection or segmentectomy (45%) followed by anatomic left lateral sectionectomy (20%), right hepatectomy (9%), and left hepatectomy (7%). Conversion from laparoscopy to open laparotomy and from laparoscopy to hand-assisted approach occurred in 4.1% and 0.7% of reported cases, respectively. Overall mortality was 9 of 2,804 patients (0.3%), and morbidity was 10.5%, with no intraoperative deaths reported. The most common cause of postoperative death was liver failure. Postoperative bile leak was observed in 1.5% of cases. For cancer resections, negative surgical margins were achieved in 82% to 100% of reported series. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma were 50% to 75% and 31% to 38.2%, respectively. The 3-year overall and disease-free survival rates after laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal metastasis to the liver were 80% to 87% and 51%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, laparoscopic liver resections are safe with acceptable morbidity and mortality for both minor and major hepatic resections. Oncologically, 3- and 5-year survival rates reported for hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases are comparable to open hepatic resection, albeit in a selected group of patients.

The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the "learning curve" effect on feasibility and reproducibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

LLR is currently limited to few centers and to few procedures. Its reproducibility is still debated.

METHODS

: Patients undergoing LLR between 1996 and 2008 were included. Indications and type of hepatectomies were compared with those of open resections performed in the same period, considering 3 periods (1996-1999, 2000-2003, and 2004-2008). LLRs were divided into 3 equal groups of 58 cases and technical data and outcomes were compared. Risk-adjusted Cumulative Sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion.

RESULTS

Of 782, 174 (22.3%) patients underwent LLR. Proportion of LLR progressively increased (17.5%, 22.4%, and 24.2%), such as hepatocellular carcinoma (17.6%, 25.6%, and 39.4%, P < 0.05), colorectal metastases (0%, 6.5%, and 13.1%, P < 0.05), major hepatectomies (1.1%, 9.1%, 8.5%, P < 0.05), and right hepatectomies (0%, 13.2%, and 13.1%, P < 0.05). Comparing groups, results of LLR significantly improved in terms of conversion rate (15.5%, 10.3%, and 3.4%, P < 0.05), operative time (210, 180, and 150 minutes, P < 0.05), blood loss (300, 200, and 200 mL, P < 0.05), and morbidity (17.2%, 22.4%, and 3.4%, P < 0.05). Pedicle clamping was less used over time (77.6%, 62.1%, and 17.2%, P < 0.05) and for shorter durations (45, 30, and 20 minutes, P < 0.05). Having adjusted for case-mix, the Cumulative Sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve for laparoscopic hepatectomies of 60 cases.

CONCLUSION

A slow but constant evolution of LLR occurred: indications and magnitude of procedures increased and technical outcomes improved. The learning curve demonstrated in this study suggests that LLR is reproducible in liver units but specific training to advanced laparoscopy is required.

The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training.

RESULTS

The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Ressecões hepáticas por videolaparoscopia

INTRODUÇÃO: As ressecções hepáticas representam umas das últimas fronteiras vencidas pela cirurgia videolaparoscópica. Apesar da complexidade do procedimento, da demanda de grande incorporação de tecnologia e necessidade de experiência em cirurgia hepática e laparoscópica, a indicação do método tem crescido de forma expressiva nos últimos anos. OBJETIVO: Realizar análise crítica do método, baseada nos trabalhos existentes na literatura, ressaltando o estado atual de suas indicações, exequibilidade, segurança, resultados e aspectos técnicos primordiais. MÉTODO: Foram identificados e analisados os trabalhos pertinentes nas bases de dados LILACS e PUBMED até dezembro de 2009, utilizando-se os descritores "liver resection", "laparoscopic" e "liver surgery". Não foram encontrados trabalhos prospectivos e randomizados sobre o tema, sendo os dados disponíveis provenientes de série de casos, estudos caso-controle e alguns estudos multicêntricos e metanálises. CONCLUSÃO: A hepatectomia por videolaparoscopia é hoje operação segura e factível, mesmo para as ressecções hepáticas maiores, com baixo índice de morbimortalidade. O método pode ser utilizado para lesões malignas sem prejuízo dos princípios oncológicos e com vantagens nos pacientes com cirrose ou disfunção hepática. A melhor indicação recai sobre as lesões benignas, em especial o adenoma hepatocelular. Em mãos experientes e casos selecionados, como as lesões benignas localizadas nos segmentos anterolaterais hepáticos, principalmente no segmento lateral esquerdo, a ressecção videolaparoscópica pode ser considerada hoje como tratamento padrão.

Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver surgery is becoming more popular, and many high-volume liver centers are now gaining expertise in this area. Laparoscopic left lateral hepatectomy (LLLH) is a standardized and anatomically well-defined resection and may transform into a primarily laparoscopic procedure for cancer surgery or living donor hepatectomy for transplantation. Five case-control series were identified comparing a total of 167 cases (86 cases of LLLH plus 81 cases of open left lateral hepatectomy). Groups were matched by age and sex, with broadly similar indications for surgery and resection techniques. LLLH is associated with shorter hospital stays and less blood loss without compromising the margin status or increasing complication rates. Donors of LLLH grafts did not have higher graft-related morbidity. Prospective studies are required to define the safety in terms of disease-free and overall survival in this new avenue in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are not clarified. The objective of this article is to depict the state of the art of LLR by means of a systematic review of the literature.

METHODS

Studies about LLR published before September 2008 were identified and their results summarized.

RESULTS

Indications for laparoscopic hepatectomy do not differ from those for open surgery. Technical feasibility is the only limiting factor. Bleeding is the major intraoperative concern, but, if managed by an expert surgeon, do not worsen outcomes. Hand assistance can be useful in selected cases to avoid conversion. Patient selection must take both tumor location and size into consideration. Potentially good candidates are patients with peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy; their outcomes, including reduced blood loss, morbidity, and hospital stay, are better than those of their laparotomic counterparts. The same advantages have been observed in cirrhotics. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies and resections of postero-superior segments need further evaluation. The results of LLR in cancer patients seem to be similar to those obtained with the laparotomic approach, especially in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, but further analysis is required.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible. The laparoscopic approach can be recommended for peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy. Preliminary oncological results suggest non-inferiority of laparoscopic to laparotomic procedures.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe procedure for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Utilizing laparoscopy for major surgeries such as hepatectomy is a relatively new concept. Initially, benign pathologies dominated indications for resection. Our experience in an Australian setting with primarily malignant diagnoses is described.

METHODS

A review of patients' profiles, pathology, surgery and outcome was performed on 35 patients between December 2005 and August 2008. Data were collected and analysed retrospectively from medical records on a pre-designed datasheet.

RESULTS

Commonest indication for resection was colorectal metastasis (54%), 71% of all resections were for malignancy. Average operating time was 2 h 31 min (range 30 min-7 h, 15 min). Major morbidity consisted of one bile leak, two subphrenic abscesses and one pulmonary embolus. There were no deaths. Conversion to open was required in 20% and two patients required intra-operative blood transfusions. Average length of stay overall was 6.1 days (range 1-27), but as low as 2 days for some left lateral sectionectomies. Cessation of parenteral analgesia, return to normal diet and full mobility were achieved on average at 2.4, 2.3 and 2.8 days. Significant post-operative liver dysfunction was seen in two patients, which returned to normal by discharge. One patient died of disease progression 4 months after surgery. There were two involved margins in 35 patients (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a developing and safe technique in a select group of patients including those with malignancies, resulting in short hospital stays, rapid return to normal diet, full mobility and minimal morbidity with acceptable oncological parameters. This study is not comparative in nature, but provides evidence to support further investigation and establishment of this new technique for liver resection.