Application of devices for safe laparoscopic hepatectomy

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Automated surgical workflow identification by artificial intelligence in laparoscopic hepatectomy: Experimental research

BACKGROUND

To perform accurate laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) without injury, novel intraoperative systems of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) for LH are expected. Automated surgical workflow identification is a key component for developing CAS systems. This study aimed to develop a deep-learning model for automated surgical step identification in LH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We constructed a dataset comprising 40 cases of pure LH videos; 30 and 10 cases were used for the training and testing datasets, respectively. Each video was divided into 30 frames per second as static images. LH was divided into nine surgical steps (Steps 0-8), and each frame was annotated as being within one of these steps in the training set. After extracorporeal actions (Step 0) were excluded from the video, two deep-learning models of automated surgical step identification for 8-step and 6-step models were developed using a convolutional neural network (Models 1 & 2). Each frame in the testing dataset was classified using the constructed model performed in real-time.

RESULTS

Above 8 million frames were annotated for surgical step identification from the pure LH videos. The overall accuracy of Model 1 was 0.891, which was increased to 0.947 in Model 2. Median and average accuracy for each case in Model 2 was 0.927 (range, 0.884-0.997) and 0.937 ± 0.04 (standardized difference), respectively. Real-time automated surgical step identification was performed at 21 frames per second.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a highly accurate deep-learning model for surgical step identification in pure LH. Our model could be applied to intraoperative systems of CAS.

Predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver in laparoscopic liver resection and evaluation of alternative procedures to assist bleeding control

PURPOSE

To evaluate the predictors of a difficult Pringle maneuver (PM) in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and to assess alternative procedures to PM.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing LLR between 2013 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and the outcomes of patients who underwent PM or alternative procedures were compared.

RESULTS

Among 106 patients who underwent LLR, PM could not be performed in 18 (17.0%) because of abdominal adhesions in 14 (77.8%) and/or collateral flow around the hepatoduodenal ligament in 5 (27.8%). Multivariate analysis revealed that Child-Pugh classification B (p = 0.034) and previous liver resection (p < 0.001) were independently associated with difficulty in performing PM in LLR. We evaluated pre-coagulation of liver tissue using microwave tissue coagulators, saline irrigation monopolar, clamping of the hepatoduodenal ligament using an intestinal clip, and hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery as alternatives procedures to PM. There were no significant differences in blood loss (p = 0.391) or transfusion (p = 0.518) between the PM and alternative procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Child-Pugh classification B and previous liver resection were identified as predictors of a difficult PM in LLR. The alternative procedures were found to be effective.

Safety and feasibility for laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, multicenter, large-scale, population-based laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) versus open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) has rarely been reported. We assessed the feasibility and safety of LCLR compared with OCLR using meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was retrieved using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Med databases up to July 30th, 2020. Multiple parameters of feasibility and safety were compared between the treatment groups. Quality of studies was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. Results are expressed as odds ratio (OD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for fixed- and random-effects models.

RESULTS

Seven studies with 237 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with OCLR, the LCLR group had a lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 180.84; 95% CI - 225.61 to - 136.07; P < 0.0001), shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 4.38; 95% CI - 7.07 to - 1.7; P = 0.001), shorter operative time (MD - 50.24; 95% CI - 78.57 to - 21.92; P = 0.0005), and lower rates in intraoperative blood transfusion (OR 0.12; P = 0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LCLR and OCLR regarding hospital expenses (MD 0.92; P = 0.12), pedicle clamping (OR 1.57; P = 0.32), postoperative complications (OR 0.58; P = 0.15), bile leak (P = 0.88), ascites (P = 0.34), and incisional infection (P = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

LCLR has multiple advantages over OCLR, especially intraoperative blood loss and hospital stays. LCLR is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with caudate lobe lesions.

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resection

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been used widely in liver disease due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery. However, laparoscopic caudate lobe resection (LCLR) has been reported rarely. We aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of LCLR by comparing it with open liver surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent LCLR and open caudate lobe resection (OCLR) between January 2015 and August 2019. Twenty-two patients were involved in this study and divided into LCLR (n = 10) and OCLR (n = 12) groups based on preoperative imaging, tumor characteristics, and blood and liver function test. Patient demographic data and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant inter-group differences between gender, age, preoperative liver function, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities (P > 0.05). The LCLR showed significantly less blood loss (50 vs. 300 ml, respectively; P = 0.004), shorter length of hospital stay (15 vs. 16 days, respectively; P = 0.034), and shorter operative time (216.50 vs. 372.78 min, respectively; P = 0.012) than OCLR, but hospital expenses (5.02 vs. 6.50 WanRMB, respectively; P = 0.208) showed no statistical difference between groups. There was no statistical difference in postoperative bile leakage (P = 0.54) and wound infection (P = 0.54) between LCLR and OCLR. Neither LCLR nor OCLR resulted in bleeding or liver failure after operation. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSION

LCLR is a very useful technology, and it is a feasible choice in selected patients with benign and malignant tumors in the caudate lobe.

Efficacy of a Laparoscopic Saline-Coupled Bipolar Sealer in Minimally Invasive Hepatobiliary Surgery

Hepatic resection presents unique surgical challenges to reduce blood loss during parenchymal division. The development of saline-coupled bipolar devices, in which hemostasis is achieved at lower temperatures than electrocautery or other bipolar sealing devices, have been employed for open hepatic resection. Saline-coupled bipolar devices have now become available for minimally invasive use. The goals of this study were to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a laparoscopic saline-coupled bipolar device for minimally invasive hepatectomy. Seventeen patients (median age 66 years, range 36-81) were consented for inclusion and enrolled. Patient demographics, intraoperative data, and surgeon feedback were collected. Seven robot-assisted partial hepatectomies, 9 laparoscopic partial hepatectomies, and 1 laparoscopic cholecystectomy with liver abscess resection were performed. Average operating time was 222 ± 33 minutes (median 188 minutes; range 61-564 minutes) with no difference between robotic versus laparoscopic time. Successful seals were achieved in all cases following application of 150 to 200 J energy (average 179 ± 3 J, average time to achieve a successful seal 9.3 ± 2.7 minutes). Estimated blood loss was 362 ± 74 mL (median 300 mL, range 5-1200 mL) and 3/17 patients received intraoperative blood transfusion. No bile leaks were detected in any of the patients. Median length of stay was 5 days (range 1-20 days), and there were no readmissions within 30 days. Postoperative morbidity occurred in 5/17 patients, all of which were Clavien Grade 1. There was no mortality within 90 days or complications requiring a return to the operating room, and there were no liver-specific morbidities. These data suggest the laparoscopic Aquamantys device represents a useful device for use in minimally invasive liver resection.

Developments and perspectives of laparoscopic liver resection in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was introduced in the early 1990s, initially for partial resection of the anterolateral segments, from where it has expanded in a stepwise fashion. Movement restriction makes bleeding control demanding. Managing pneumoperitoneum pressure with inflow control can inhibit venous bleeding and create a dry surgical field for easier hemostasis. Since the lack of overview leads to disorientation, simulation and navigation with imaging studies have become important. Improved direct access to the liver inside the rib cage can be obtained in LLR, reducing destruction of the associated structures and decreasing the risk of refractory ascites and liver failure, especially in patients with a cirrhotic liver. Although LLR can be performed as bridging therapy to transplantation for severe cirrhosis, its impact on expanding the indications of liver resection (LR) and the consequent survival benefits must be evaluated. For repeat LR, LLR is advantageous by producing fewer adhesions and reducing the need for adhesiolysis. The laparoscopic approach facilitates better access in a small operative field between adhesions. Further evaluations are needed for repeat anatomical resection, since alterations of the anatomy and surrounding scars and adhesions of major vessels have a larger impact.

Feasibility Study of a Newly Developed Hybrid Energy Device Used During Laparoscopic Liver Resection in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

Although various devices have been clinically used for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), the best device for liver parenchymal transection remains unknown. Olympus Corp (Tokyo, Japan) developed a laparoscopic hybrid pencil (LHP) device, which is the first electric knife to combine ultrasound and electric energy with a monopolar output. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using the LHP device and to compare it with the laparoscopic monopolar pencil (LMP) and laparoscopic ultrasonic shears (LUS) devices for LLR in a porcine model.

METHODS

Nine male piglets underwent laparoscopic liver lobe transections using each device. The operative parameters were evaluated in the 3 groups (n = 24 lobes) during the acute study period. The imaging findings from contrast-enhanced computed tomography and histopathological findings of autopsy on postoperative day 7 were compared among groups (n = 6 piglets) during the long-term study.

RESULTS

The transection time was shorter ( P = .001); there was less blood loss ( P = .018); and tip cleaning ( P < .001) and instrument changes were less often required ( P < .001) in the LHP group than in the LMP group. The LHP group had fewer instances of bleeding ( P < .001) and coagulator usage ( P < .001) than did the LUS group. In the long-term study, no postoperative adverse events occurred in the 3 groups. The thermal spread and depth of the LHP device were equivalent to those of the LMP and LUS devices (vs LMP: P = .226 and .159; vs LUS: P = 1.000 and .574).

CONCLUSIONS

The LHP device may be an efficient device for LLR if it can be applied to human surgery.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a review of current indications and surgical techniques

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been the most impressive development in the field of liver surgery in recent two decades. Technical innovations and experience accumulation have made LLR a safe and effective procedure with faster postoperative recovery. Despite the fast spreading of the procedure, details regarding the indications, oncological outcomes and technical essentials were still disputable. To address these issues, two international consensus conferences were hold to update the knowledge in this field. The statements of the both conferences were not conclusive and more high-quality researches are required. In this article, we reviewed the development and the current state of LLR. Indications, outcomes, surgical techniques and devices used in LLR were also discussed.

First quarter century of laparoscopic liver resection

The beginnings of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) were at the start of the 1990s, with the initial reports being published in 1991 and 1992. These were followed by reports of left lateral sectionectomy in 1996. In the years following, the procedures of LLR were expanded to hemi-hepatectomy, sectionectomy, segmentectomy and partial resection of posterosuperior segments, as well as the parenchymal preserving limited anatomical resection and modified anatomical (extended and/or combining limited) resection procedures. This expanded range of LLR procedures, mimicking the expansion of open liver resection in the past, was related to advances in both technology (instrumentation) and technical skill with conceptual changes. During this period of remarkable development, two international consensus conferences were held (2008 in Louisville, KY, United States, and 2014 in Morioka, Japan), providing up-to-date summarizations of the status and perspective of LLR. The advantages of LLR have become clear, and include reduced intraoperative bleeding, shorter hospital stay, and - especially for cirrhotic patients-lower incidence of complications (e.g., postoperative ascites and liver failure). In this paper, we review and discuss the developments of LLR in operative procedures (extent and style of liver resections) during the first quarter century since its inception, from the aspect of relationships with technological/technical developments with conceptual changes.

Meta-Analysis of Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatectomy for Live Liver Donors

Objective

To document the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy in comparison with open liver resection for living donor liver transplantation.

Methods

Medline database, EMASE and Cochrane library were searched for original studies comparing laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LLDH) and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) by January 2015. Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate donors’ perioperative outcomes.

Results

Nine studies met selection criteria, involving 1346 donors of whom 318 underwent LLDH and 1028 underwent OLDH. The Meta analysis demonstrated that LLDH group had less operative blood loss [patients 1346; WMD: -56.09 mL; 95%CI: -100.28-(-11.90) mL; P = 0.01], shorter hospital stay [patients 737; WMD: -1.75 d; 95%CI: -3.01-(-0.48) d; P = 0.007] but longer operative time (patients 1346; WMD: 41.05 min; 95%CI: 1.91–80.19 min; P = 0.04), compared with OLDH group. There were no significant difference in other outcomes between LLDH and OLDH groups, including overall complication, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complication, wound complication, time to dietary intake and period of analgesic use.

Conclusions

LLDH appears to be a safe and effective option for LDLT. It improves donors’ perioperative outcomes as compared with OLDH.

Harness Traction Technique (HARNESS): Novel Method for Controlling the Transection Plane During Laparoscopic Hepatectomy

We present our experience using a novel method for controlling the transection plane, which we termed as the Harness Traction Technique (HARNESS) and evaluate its usefulness. From May 2009 to March 2012, laparoscopic hepatectomies using HARNESS were performed on 35 patients. After the superficial hepatic parenchyma on the line was transected at 1 to 2 cm depth, 5 mm tape was placed along the groove of the line and tied to prevent it from slipping off. Tape was tied and pulled using a forceps toward the best direction for minimizing the bleeding, moving the transection point to the appropriate position and creating good tension for parenchymal transection at the transection point. There were no conversions to laparotomy or intraoperative complications. HARNESS is useful for controlling the dissection line during laparoscopic hepatectomy, leading to precise and safe laparoscopic liver parenchymal dissection.

Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Liver Cancer

This chapter covers a range of important topics of laparoscopic hepatectomy as a novel approach toward treatment of liver cancer. Although laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in a limited number of centers in the 1990s, technological innovations, improvements in surgical techniques and accumulation of experience by surgeons have led to more rapid progress in laparoscopic hepatectomy in the late 2000s for minimally invasive hepatic surgery. Currently, laparoscopic hepatectomy can be performed for all tumor locations and several diseases via several approaches. The laparoscopic approach can be applied to several types of resection, not only for tumors but also for liver transplantation, with equivalent or better results compared with those obtained with open surgery. Therefore, laparoscopic hepatectomy will become a standard procedure for treatment of liver cancer in the near future.

Efficacy of a half-grip technique using a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider, on liver dissection in swine model

BACKGROUND

Recently, a lot of energy devices in the surgical field, especially in the liver surgery, have been developed, and a fine tip LigaSure™, Dolphin Tip Sealer/Divider (DT-SD) also has been used frequently to dissect liver parenchyma as well as ultrasonically activated device (USAD). However, the utility of this instrument for liver dissection (LD) is still unknown. Moreover, to reduce bleeding during LD, a half-grip technique (HGT) was contrived. We herein report an experimental study in swine model to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of HGT using DT-SD for LD.

METHODS

The swine model experiment was carried out under general anesthesia by veterinarians. LD was performed repeatedly by DT-SD with the HGT (Group A, n = 6), or the conventional clamp-crush technique (CCT) (Group B, n = 6), and by variable mode USAD (Group C, n = 6). The dissection length and depth (cm) as well as bleeding volume (g) were measured carefully, and the dissection area (cm(2)) and speed (cm(2)/min) were calculated precisely. Histological examinations of the dissection surfaces were also executed. Mann-Whitney's U test was used for Statistical analyses with variance at a significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

Among the three groups, the three averages of dissection lengths were unexpectedly equalized to 8.3 cm. The dissection area (cm(2)) was 9.9 ± 5.1 in Group A, 9.8 ± 4.7 in Group B, and 9.9 ± 4.5 in Group C. The mean blood loss during LD was 10.6 ± 14.8 g in Group A, 41.4 ± 39.2 g in Group B, and 34.3 ± 39.2 g in Group C. For Group A, the bleeding rate was the least, 0.9 ± 1.0 g/cm(2), and the average depth of coagulation was the thickest, 1.47 ± 0.29 mm, among the three groups (p < 0.05). The dissection speed in Group A (1.3 ± 0.3 cm(2)/min) was slower, than that in Group C (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This report indicates firstly that the HGT using DT-SD bring the least blood loss when compared with CCT or USAD. Although the HGT is feasible and useful for LD, to popularize the HGT, further clinical studies will be needed.

Anatomical laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging

PURPOSE

It is important to minimize surgical invasiveness in the therapy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and consequently laparoscopic hepatic resection is widely performed. However, most anatomical resections, except left lateral sectionectomy, remain difficult technically, and laparoscopy-assisted procedures have been introduced as an alternative approach because of the safety and curative success of the operation. We reported previously pure laparoscopic subsegmentectomy of the liver using puncture of the portal branch under percutaneous ultrasound (US) with artificial ascites. Herein, we describe pure anatomical laparoscopic segmentectomy using the puncture method with indocyanine green (ICG) injection under laparoscopic US.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Pure laparoscopic segmentectomy was planned for 2 patients with HCC of the liver. Identification of the segment was performed by ICG injection for optical imaging using near-infrared fluorescence under laparoscopic US guidance.

RESULTS

The procedures were completed successfully, and the postoperative courses were uneventful.

CONCLUSIONS

Pure laparoscopic segmentectomy for HCC with a conventional puncture technique by ICG injection under laparoscopic US is considered to be a useful procedure featuring both low invasiveness and curative success.

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.

What is the best technique in parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection? Comprehensive review for the clinical question on the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection

The continuing evolution of technique and devices used in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has allowed successful application of this minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of liver disease. However, the type of instruments by energy sources and technique used vary among each institution. We reviewed the literature to seek the best technique for parenchymal transection, which was proposed as one of the important clinical question in the 2nd International Consensus Conference on LLR held on October 2014. While publications have described transection techniques used in LLR from 1991 to June 2014, it is difficult to specify the best technique and device for laparoscopic hepatic parenchymal transection, owing to a lack of randomized trials with only a small number of comparative studies. However, it is clear that instruments should be used in combination with others based on their functions and the depth of liver resection. Most authors have reported using staplers to secure and divide major vessels. Preparation for prevention of unexpected hemorrhaging particularly in liver cirrhosis, the Pringle's maneuver and prompt technique for hemostasis should be performed. We conclude that hepatobiliary surgeons should select techniques based on their familiarity with a concrete understanding of instruments and individualize to the procedure of LLR.

Efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection in colorectal liver metastases and the influence of preoperative chemotherapy

Background

Since 1993, we have performed minimally invasive laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to treat malignant liver cancer, including colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, further studies are needed to accumulate sufficient evidence on the oncological outcome of LLR for CLM.

Methods

To elucidate the efficacy of LLR for CLM, this study comparatively analyzed the invasiveness and short-term prognosis of LLR (n = 43 cases) and open liver resection (OR) (n = 62 cases) performed for CLM after 2006 and also investigated the safety of LLR following chemotherapy.

Results

Compared with the OR group, the LLR group had significantly less blood loss (P < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (P < 0.001). The E-PASS scoring system was used to compare surgical invasiveness, and although the preoperative risk score did not differ between the groups, the surgical stress score and comprehensive risk score were significantly lower in the LLR group (P < 0.001). Concerning the survival rate and disease-free survival rate, there were no significant differences between procedures. However, more clinical cases and longer follow-up periods are needed to reach a definitive conclusion.

Preoperative hemanalysis, intraoperative bleeding, complications, and postoperative length of stay did not differ significantly between LLR patients with preoperative chemotherapy and those with surgery alone, indicating no adverse effects of chemotherapy.

Conclusions

LLR can be an effective minimally invasive surgery in CLM patients receiving both perioperative chemotherapy and surgery. Because LLR is comparable with OR with regard to short-term oncological outcome, LLR may be a valuable option for CLM.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy, are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current role and limitations

Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently known to be a safer procedure than it was before because of technical advances and improvement in postoperative patient management and remains the first-line treatment for HCC in compensated cirrhosis. The aim of this review is to assess current indications, advantages and limits of laparoscopic surgery for HCC resections. We also discussed the possible evolution of this surgical approach in parallel with new technologies.

Laparoscopic robot-assisted major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

We herein present a systematic review of English literature on robot-assisted major hepatectomy (MH).

METHODS

Major hepatectomy was defined as resection of three or more liver segments. A literature search was performed using the Pubmed database. Articles containing more than five robotic MH were selected. In case of multiple publications from the same institution, only the most recent article was considered in order to avoid double counting of patients between series.

RESULTS

Five articles were included in this review. A total of 68 robotic MH were analyzed, including 38 right hepatectomies and 30 left hepatectomies. There were no deaths. Two right hepatectomies (5.2%) and one left hepatectomy (3.3%) were converted to open surgery. Weighted average of operative time and intraoperative blood loss were 418.6 min and 411.4 ml, respectively. Four patients received blood transfusions (6.3%) and 17 developed postoperative complications (26.9%). Information on tumor type were available for 57 patients of whom 42 were diagnosed with malignant tumors (73.6%) and 15 with benign diseases (26.3%). No port site metastasis, peritoneal carcinomatosis, or intrahepatic recurrence were reported. Three patients had microscopic margin positivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Major hepatectomy can be performed under robotic assistance. Further experience is needed before final conclusions can be drawn.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: an experience of 116 cases

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients with hepatolithiasis were diagnosed at an early stage in China. Laparoscopic surgery has introduced new methods of treating this condition.

AIM

To investigate the patient selection, operative technique, and efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 116 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (laparoscopic group) and 78 patients who underwent open hepatectomy (open group) for hepatolithiasis were retrospectively analyzed, and were compared with the recent reports.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had a longer duration of operation (323.3 ± 103.0 min vs. 272.8 ± 66.8 min, p<0.05) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (13.1 ± 5.6 days vs. 16.5 ± 8.4 days, p<0.05) than the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss or transfusion rate, postoperative complications, calculus clearance, calculus recurrence, or recurrent cholangitis (p>0.05 for all). Efficacy in the laparoscopic group was similar to that in other recently reported studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for early stage localized hepatolithiasis, with an efficacy similar to that of open surgery. Anatomic hepatectomy is important for achieving good therapeutic outcomes.

Mini-incision right hepatic lobectomy with or without laparoscopic assistance for living donor hepatectomy

Minimally invasive procedures are considered to be safe and effective approaches to the management of surgical liver disease. However, this indication remains controversial for living donor hepatectomy. Between 2000 and 2011, living donor right hepatectomy (LDRH) was performed 58 times. Standard right hepatectomy was performed in 30 patients via a subcostal incision with a midline extension. Minimally invasive procedures began to be used for LDRH in 2008. A hybrid technique (hand-assisted laparoscopic liver mobilization and minilaparotomy for parenchymal dissection) was developed and used in 19 patients. In 2010, an upper midline incision (10 cm) without laparoscopic assistance for LDRH was innovated, and this technique was used in 9 patients. The perioperative factors were compared, and the indications for minimally invasive LDRH were investigated. The operative blood loss was significantly less for the patients undergoing a minimally invasive procedure versus the patients undergoing the standard procedure (212 versus 316 mL, P = 0.001), and the operative times were comparable. The length of the hospital stay was significantly shorter for the minimally invasive technique group (5.9 versus 7.8 days, P < 0.001). The complication rates were 23% and 25% for the standard technique and minimally invasive technique groups, respectively (P = 0.88). Patients undergoing minilaparotomy LDRH had a body mass index (24.0 kg/m(2)) similar to that of the hybrid technique patients (25.8 kg/m(2), P = 0.36), but the graft size was smaller (780 versus 948 mL, P = 0.22). In conclusion, minimally invasive LDRH can be performed without safety being impaired. LDRH with a 10-cm upper midline incision and without laparoscopic assistance may be appropriate for donors with a smaller body mass. Laparoscopic assistance can be added as needed for larger donors. This type of LDRH with a 10-cm incision is innovative and is recommended for experienced centers.

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.

A single-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: initial experience in a Japanese patient

Minimally invasive approaches for small liver tumors are desirable. We describe a single-incision laparoscopic hepatectomy (SILH) using total laparoscopic surgery (TLS) technique. SILH was performed to remove a solitary 2-cm hepatocellular carcinoma located at segment 3. The technique included a one-inch skin incision with three ports (one 12 mm and two of 5 mm each). The liver was sealed and dissected by three different devices: Harmonic scalpel, TissueLink sealing dissector, and Endoclip. Operation time was 70 minutes and blood loss was trivial. The patient required no analgesia postoperatively and walked unaided the next day. Various aspects of the procedure were not different from TLS. SILH is a safe procedure with several advantages. The procedure is promising as minimally invasive liver surgery.

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.

Total laparoscopic liver resection in 78 patients

AIM: To summarize the clinical experience of laparoscopic hepatectomy at a single center.

METHODS: Between November 2003 and March 2009, 78 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 39), metastatic liver carcinoma (n = 10), and benign liver neoplasms (n = 29) underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy in our unit. A retrospective analysis was done on the clinical outcomes of the 78 patients.

RESULTS: The lesions were located in segments I (n = 3), II (n = 16), III (n = 24), IV (n = 11), V (n = 11), VI (n = 9), and VIII (n = 4). The lesion sizes ranged from 0.8 to 15 cm. The number of lesions was three (n = 4), two (n = 8) and one (n = 66) in the study cohort. The surgical procedures included left hemi-hepatectomy (n = 7), left lateral lobectomy (n = 14), segmentectomy (n = 11), local resection (n = 39), and resection of metastatic liver lesions during laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer (n = 7). Laparoscopic liver resection was successful in all patients, with no conversion to open procedures. Only four patients received blood transfusion (400-800 mL). There were no perioperative complications, such as bleeding and biliary leakage. The liver function of all patients recovered within 1 wk, and no liver failure occurred.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe and feasible operation with minimal surgical trauma. It should be performed by a surgeon with sufficient experience in open hepatic resection and who is proficient in laparoscopy.

Status of endoscopic liver surgery in Japan: a questionnaire survey conducted by the Japanese Endoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

In 2007, the First Annual Meeting of the Japanese Endoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group was convened. We report the results of a questionnaire survey conducted by this study group that attempted to assess the current status and safety of endoscopic liver surgery.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was conducted at 26 hospitals to determine the operative procedures, rates of conversion to open surgery, and morbidity rates in patients who had undergone laparoscopic hepatectomy and endoscopic ablation therapy.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in 471 patients by means of nonanatomical partial resection (57.7%), left lateral sectionectomy (24.6%), hemihepatectomy (12.5%), sectionectomy other than lateral sectionectomy (2.5%), and segmentectomy (2.5%). Hepatectomy was performed by a totally laparoscopic procedure in 47% of the patients and by a hybrid procedure in 53%. The rate of complications was 12.3%; there was no case of serious liver failure or operative mortality. Endoscopic ablation therapy was performed in 169 patients through a thoracoscopic (25.4%) or laparoscopic approach (74.6%), using radiowaves (55.6%), microwaves (40.2%), cryotherapy (1.8%), or ethanol (0.6%). The incidence of complications was 6.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

In properly selected patients, laparoscopic hepatectomy and endoscopic ablation therapy are safe treatments for liver tumors.