Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis: an umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

This study comprehensively compared laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to open liver resection (OLR) in treating colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM).

METHODS

A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

Findings indicate that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) did not significantly prolong the duration of surgery compared to open liver resection and notably demonstrated lower blood transfusion rates and reduced intraoperative blood loss. While some studies favored MIS for its lower complication rates, others did not establish a statistically significant difference. One study identified a lower post-operative mortality rate in the MIS group. Furthermore, MIS consistently correlated with shorter hospital stays, indicative of expedited post-operative recovery. Concerning oncological outcomes, while certain meta-analyses reported a lower rate of cancer recurrence in the MIS group, others found no significant disparity. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the MIS and open liver resection groups.

CONCLUSION

The analysis emphasizes the potential advantages of LLR in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[website], identifier [registration number].

Laparoscopic liver resections: What have we learned after more than 20 years of experience?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to describe our experience in the last 8 years of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for benign and malignant tumors, to evaluate indications and results, and to compare the results with our previous experience and with other reference centers worldwide.

METHODS

Based on a prospective database of the Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit of the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, patients who underwent LLR between September 2014 and June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed (period B) and where compared to our own experience from 2000 to 2014 previously published (period A).

RESULTS

Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery (26.4%). Major hepatectomies accounted for 15.7% of resections and the most frequently performed procedure was typical and atypical hepatectomies (58.4%) followed by left lateral hepatectomy (20.3%). The total postoperative major complications rate was 10.1% and the 90-day postoperative mortality was 1%. The median postoperative stay was four (IQR: 3-6) days. The overall survival rate estimated at 1, 3 and 5 years was 94%, 84% and 70%, respectively, with a median follow-up of 22.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

LLRs in the hands of trained surgeons continue to grow safely, and we have seen an increase in the indication of LLR for malignant pathologies and major resections, a trend that follows the rest of the major centers in the world and has become the method of choice for surgical treatment of most liver tumors.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed.

RESULTS

In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Is Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Safe for Giant Liver Tumors? Proposal from a Single Institution for Totally Laparoscopic Hemihepatectomy Using an Anterior Approach for Giant Liver Tumors Larger Than 10 cm in Diameter

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of laparoscopic liver resections for liver tumors that are larger than 10 cm remain unclear. We developed a safe laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for giant liver tumors using an anterior approach.

METHODS

Eighty patients who underwent laparoscopic hemihepatectomy between January 2011 and December 2021 were divided into a nongiant tumor group (n = 65) and a giant tumor group (n = 15) for comparison.

RESULTS

The median operating time, amount of blood loss, and length of postoperative hospital stay did not differ significantly between the nongiant and giant tumor groups. The sizes of the tumors and weights of the resected liver were significantly larger in the giant tumor group. A comparison between a nongiant group (n = 23) and a giant group (n = 12) treated with laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy, especially that performed on the right side, for giant tumors larger than 10 cm can be performed safely. Surgical techniques for giant liver tumors have been standardized, and their application is expected to spread widely in the future.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

AIM

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Minimal-Invasive Versus Open Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Bicentric Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Minimal-invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly performed for benign and malignant liver lesions with most promising short-term results. However, the oncological role of MIH in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) needs further investigation. Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Inselspital Bern were assessed. Postoperative outcomes und long-term survivals of patients following MIH were compared with those after conventional open hepatectomy (OH) after 1:1 propensity score matching. During the study period, 229 and 91 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM at the Charité Berlin and the Inselspital Bern, respectively. Patients who underwent MIH in one of the two centers (n = 69) were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent OH. MIH was associated with lower complication rates (23% vs. 44%, p = 0.011), shorter length of intensive care unit stay (ICU, 1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.043), shorter length of hospital stay (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001), and a reduced need for intraoperative transfusions (12% vs. 25%, p = 0.047) compared to OH. R0 status was achieved in 93% and 75% of patients after MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.005). After a median follow-up of 31 months, MIH resulted in similar five-year overall survival (OS) rate (56% vs. 48%, p = 0.116) in comparison to OH. MIH for CRLM is associated with lower postoperative morbidity, shorter length of ICU and hospital stay, reduced need for transfusions, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to the established OH. Our findings suggest that MIH should be considered as the preferred method for the treatment of curatively resectable CRLM.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A South American Experience with 2887 Cases

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

METHODS

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

RESULTS

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Open versus minimally invasive liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (LapOpHuva): a prospective randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To present surgical and oncological outcomes using a prospective and randomized trial (LapOpHuva, NCT02727179) comparing minimally invasive liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

Between February 2005 and March 2016, 204 selected patients with CRLM were randomized and 193 were included: LLR (n = 96) and OLR (n = 97). The primary endpoint was to compare postoperative morbidity. Other secondary endpoints were oncological outcomes, use of the Pringle maneuver, surgical time, blood losses, transfusions, hospital stay, mortality and OS, and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3, 5, and 7 years.

RESULTS

LLR presented with lower global morbidity (11.5% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.025) but with similar severe complications. Long-term survival outcomes were similar in both groups. The cumulative 1-, 3-, 5-, 7-year OS for LLR and OLR were 92.5%, 71.5%, 49.3%, 35.6% versus 93.6%, 69.7%, 47.4%, 35.5%, respectively (log-rank = 0.047, p = 0.82). DFS for LLR and OLR was 72.7%, 33.5%, 22.7%, and 20.8% versus 61.6%, 27.2%, 23.9%, and 17.9%, respectively (log-rank = 1.427, p = 0.23). LLR involved more use of the Pringle maneuver (15.5% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.025) and a shorter hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). There were no differences regarding surgical time, blood losses, transfusion, and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with CRLM, LLR presents similar oncological outcomes with the advantages of the short-term results associated with LLR.

Comparison of Outcomes Between Open Major Hepatectomy Using CUSA and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy Using "Lotus" Liver Blade. A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Introduction: Evolution in laparoscopic liver surgery during the past two decades is an indisputable fact. According to the second international consensus conference for laparoscopic liver resection held in Morioka, Japan in 2014 major resections are still regarded as innovative procedures in the exploration phase. On this basis, our study aims to explore the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vs. open major liver resection and therefore increase the existing evidence on major laparoscopic liver surgery. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent major liver resection, open and laparoscopic from January 2016 to May 2018 were identified from our prospectively maintained database. Propensity score matching analysis was performed using R statistical tool in SPSS to isolate matched open and laparoscopic cases which were compared for intraoperative and postoperative short-term outcomes. Lotus ultrasonic energy device was used for parenchymal transection in laparoscopic cases vs. CUSA in open procedures. Results: Propensity score matching analysis was performed on 82 consecutive patients (61 open and 21 laparoscopic major hepatectomies) resulting in 40 matched patients, 20 in each group. The mean total duration of surgery and duration of parenchymal transection were slightly longer in the laparoscopic group (p = 0.419, p = 0.348). There was no difference in the intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates. Patients after laparoscopic surgery were discharged 2 days earlier on average (p = 0.310). No difference was observed in complication rates and mortality. Conclusion: Our data did not reveal inferiority of the laparoscopic major hepatectomy vs. the open approach in any parameter compared. The use of the Lotus ultrasonic energy device appeared to be efficient and safe for parenchymal transection in the laparoscopic procedures.

Anterior Approach to Major Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastasis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the merits of the anterior approach, if any, in colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) resection.

METHODS

Data of patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for CRLM were reviewed. Patients treated by the anterior approach were compared with patients treated by the conventional approach.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients had right hepatectomy, extended right hepatectomy, or right trisectionectomy. Among them, 71 patients underwent the conventional approach (CA group) and 27 underwent the anterior approach (AA group). The two groups were comparable in demographic, pathological, and perioperative characteristics except that the AA group had higher levels of aspartate transaminase (median, 41 vs. 31 U/L; p = 0.006) and alanine transaminase (median, 27 vs. 22 U/L; p = 0.009), larger tumors (median, 7 vs. 4 cm; p = 0.000), and more extensive resections (p < 0.001). The median overall survival was 40 months (range, 0.69-168.6 months) in the CA group and 33.7 months (range, 0.95-99.8 months) in the AA group (p = 0.22), and the median disease-free survival was 9.7 months (range, 0.62-168.6 months) in the CA group and 6.2 months (range, 0.72-99.8 months) in the AA group (p = 0.464). Univariate and multivariate analyses identified 4 independent prognostic factors for overall survival: lymph node status of primary tumor (HR 1.352, 95% CI 0.639-2.862, p = 0.034), intraoperative blood loss (HR 1.253, 95% CI 1.039-1.510, p = 0.018), multiple liver tumor nodules (HR 1.775, 95% CI 1.029-3.061, p = 0.039), and microvascular invasion (HR 2.058, 95% CI 1.053-4.024, p = 0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

The two approaches resulted in comparable survival outcomes even though the AA group had larger tumors and more extensive resections. The anterior approach allows better mobilization and easier removal of large tumors once the liver is opened up.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been proposed as a safe and feasible treatment option for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the short-term and oncologic outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for CRLM have not been adequately assessed. Thus, we herein provide an updated systematic review comparing short-term and oncologic outcomes of CRLM patients undergoing LLR versus OLR.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases (until November 2, 2016) with a limitation to the publications in English. Quality assessment was performed based on the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies enrolling 4591 patients with CRLM were included. With respect to short-term outcomes, patients in LLR group showed significantly reduced blood loss (WMD: -143.64; 95% CI: -180.56 to -106.73; I2 = 86%; P < 0.001), lower operative transfusion requirement (OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.30-0.53; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI: -2.99 to -1.94; I2 = 82%; P < 0.001), reduced overall postoperative morbidity (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42-0.66; I2 = 38%; P < 0.001) and reduced severe morbidity (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.32-0.60; I2 = 35%; P < 0.001). Regarding oncologic outcomes, there were no significant differences between the two surgical procedures in recurrence and 1-, 3-, and 5-overall survival and disease-free survival except for slightly higher R0 resection rate in LLR group was slightly higher than that of OLR group (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.03-1.97; I2 = 37%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR should be the standard approach for selected patients with CRLM, and further research should focus on determining which patients would benefit most from LLR.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effects of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) on oncological outcomes for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) remain inconclusive. Major databases were searched from January 1992 to October 2016. Effects of LLR vs OLR were determined. The primary endpoints were oncological outcomes. In total, 32 eligible non-randomized studies with 4697 patients (LLR: 1809, OLR: 2888) were analyzed. There were higher rates of clear surgical margins (OR: 1.64, 95%CI: 1.32 to 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-year overall survival(OS) and disease free survival(DFS) between the two approaches. LLR was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD: −147.46 [−195.78 to −99.15] mL, P < 0.00001) and fewer blood transfusions (OR: 0.41 [0.30–0.58], P < 0.00001), but with longer operation time (WMD:14.44 [1.01 to 27.88] min, P < 0.00001) compared to OLR. Less overall morbidity (OR: 0.64 [0.55 to 0.75], p < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (WMD: −2.36 [−3.06 to −1.66] d, p < 0.00001) were observed for patients undergoing LLR, while there was no statistical difference in mortality. LLR appears to be a safe and feasible alternative to OLR in the treatment of CCLM in selected patients.

Laparoscopic detection and resection of occult liver tumors of multiple cancer types using real-time near-infrared fluorescence guidance

BACKGROUND

Tumor recurrence after radical resection of hepatic tumors is not uncommon, suggesting that malignant lesions are missed during surgery. Intraoperative navigation using fluorescence guidance is an innovative technique enabling real-time identification of (sub)capsular liver tumors. The objective of the current study was to compare fluorescence imaging (FI) and conventional imaging modalities for laparoscopic detection of both primary and metastatic tumors in the liver.

METHODS

Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of a malignant hepatic tumor were eligible for inclusion. Patients received standard of care, including preoperative CT and/or MRI. In addition, 10 mg indocyanine green was intravenously administered 1 day prior to surgery. After introduction of the laparoscope, inspection, FI, and laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) were performed. Histopathological examination of resected suspect tissue was considered the gold standard.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients suspected of having hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 4), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 2) or liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma (n = 12), uveal melanoma (n = 2), and breast cancer (n = 2) were included. Two patients were excluded because their surgery was unexpectedly postponed several days. Twenty-six malignancies were resected in the remaining 20 patients. Sensitivity for various modalities was 80 % (CT), 84 % (MRI), 62 % (inspection), 86 % (LUS), and 92 % (FI), respectively. Three metastases (12 %) were identified solely by FI. All 26 malignancies could be detected by combining LUS and FI (100 % sensitivity).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates added value of FI during laparoscopic resections of several hepatic tumors. Although larger series will be needed to confirm long-term patient outcome, the technology already aids the surgeon by providing real-time fluorescence guidance.

Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

Minimally invasive surgery has been cautiously introduced in surgical oncology over the last two decades due to a concern of compromised oncological outcomes. Recently, it has been adopted in liver surgery for colorectal metastases. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death in the USA. In addition, liver metastasis is the most common site of distant disease and its resection improves survival. While open resection was the standard of care, laparoscopic liver surgery has become the standard of care for minor liver resections. Laparoscopic liver surgery provides equivalent oncological outcomes with better perioperative results compared to open liver surgery. Robotic liver surgery has been introduced as it is believed to overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopy. Finally, laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation and microwave coagulation can be used as adjuncts in minimally invasive surgery to complement or replace surgical resection when not possible.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

Laparoscopic surgery: A qualified systematic review

AIM: To review current applications of the laparoscopic surgery while highlighting the standard procedures across different fields.

METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken using the PubMed Advanced Search Builder. A total of 321 articles were found in this search. The following criteria had to be met for the publication to be selected: Review article, randomized controlled trials, or meta-analyses discussing the subject of laparoscopic surgery. In addition, publications were hand-searched in the Cochrane database and the high-impact journals. A total of 82 of the findings were included according to matching the inclusion criteria. Overall, 403 full-text articles were reviewed. Of these, 218 were excluded due to not matching the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: A total of 185 relevant articles were identified matching the search criteria for an overview of the current literature on the laparoscopic surgery. Articles covered the period from the first laparoscopic application through its tremendous advancement over the last several years. Overall, the biggest advantage of the procedure has been minimizing trauma to the abdominal wall compared with open surgery. In the case of cholecystectomy, fundoplication, and adrenalectomy, the procedure has become the gold standard without being proven as a superior technique over the open surgery in randomized controlled trials. Faster recovery, reduced hospital stay, and a quicker return to normal activities are the most evident advantages of the laparoscopic surgery. Positive outcomes, efficiency, a lower rate of wound infections, and reduction in the perioperative morbidity of minimally invasive procedures have been shown in most indications.

CONCLUSION: Improvements in surgical training and developments in instruments, imaging, and surgical techniques have greatly increased safety and feasibility of the laparoscopic surgical procedures.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Application of minimally invasive surgery for oncologic liver resection is still limited to expert centers. We describe our experience in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between February 2010 and February 2015, 174 patients underwent resection of CLM. LLR was chosen according to surgeon's preferences. Data was retrieved from the institutes' electronic charts and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

LLR was performed in 42 patients (24.5%) and OLR in 132. Increased number of metastases were found in OLR (2.82 ± 2.81 versus 1.78 ± 1.16, P = 0.02), with no difference in maximal lesion size (33.1 ± 22 versus 34.9 ± 27.5 cm, P = 0.7). Altogether 55 patients underwent major hepatectomy, and 50 of the OLR group (37.8%, 37 right hepatectomy and 7 left hepatectomy) (P = 0.02). In 5 patients (11.6%) a conversion to open surgery was indicated. Operative time was longer in LLR. Estimated blood loss was decreased in laparoscopic minor resections. One OLR patient died during the postoperative period (0.7%). Eight patients in the OLR group had major complications, versus 1 in the LLR group (P = 0.0016). Reoperation within 30 days was performed in 4 OLR patients and none in the LLR group. Patients in the LLR group had shorter length of stay (LOS) (6.78 ± 2.75 versus 8.39 ± 5.64 days, P = 0.038). R0 resection was 88% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients with CLM, LLR is feasible, safe and may achieve shorter LOS without inferior oncologic outcome.

The Surgeon's Contribution to Image-Guided Oncology

Background

Advances in surgical and in imaging technology permit the performance of complex tumour resections in a safe and oncologically correct manner. To date, this has mainly implicated refined preoperative imaging methods, such as three-dimensional computer-assisted planning (3D-CASP). With the advent of modern hybrid operating rooms, intraoperative imaging has spread and various techniques of intraoperative image guidance have been developed.

Methods

We review recent advances in intraoperative image guidance. We also delineate the role of intraoperative imaging techniques such as intraoperative ultrasound and computed tomography for real-time image guidance in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Results

Our review shows that advances in intraoperative imaging accompany the increasing use of laparoscopic approaches in visceral surgery. For the liver surgeon working laparoscopically, the loss of tactile sensation and the complex three-dimensional anatomy of the human liver make 3D-imaging techniques and intraoperative image guidance indispensable. We describe the role of 3D-CASP in preoperative surgical planning in liver surgery.

Conclusion

An innovative imaging strategy for identifying liver segments during laparoscopic liver surgery by applying a fluorescent imaging method is proposed.

A propensity score-matched case-control comparative study of laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in case-controlled patient groups using the propensity score.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2005 and February 2013, 292 patients underwent surgical resection for HCC. Of these, 202 patients who underwent surgical resection for initial treatment for a single mass were enrolled. These patients were divided into two groups according to the method of operation: the Lap group (patients who underwent LLR) and the Open group (patients who underwent OLR). To correct different demographic and clinical factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio, and, finally, 102 patients were enrolled in this study, 51 patients in each group. Preoperative characteristics, perioperative results, and long-term results were retrospectively analyzed based on the prospectively recorded database.

RESULTS

Preoperative baseline variables were well balanced in both groups. There were no differences of extent of surgery and rate of anatomical resection between the two groups. With the exception of a shorter postoperative hospital stay in the Lap group than that of the Open group (8.2 days versus 12.3 days; P=.004), there were no significant differences in perioperative, pathological, and long-term outcomes. The 5-year overall survival rates were 80.1% in the Lap group and 85.7% in the Open group, respectively (P=.173). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 67.8% in the Lap group and 54.8% in the Open group, respectively (P=.519).

CONCLUSIONS

LLR for HCC is safe, and long-term oncologic outcomes in selected patients were comparable to those who underwent OLR.

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.