Advantages of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A meta-analysis

Comparative analysis of the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and open approaches for right anterior sectionectomy

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has minimally invasive advantages, but reports on laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy (LRAS) are rare. Herein, we try to explore the benefits and drawbacks of LRAS by comparing it with open right anterior sectionectomy (ORAS). Between January 2015 and September 2023, 39 patients who underwent LRAS (n = 18) or ORAS (n = 21) were enrolled in the study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. No significant differences in the preoperative data were observed between the two groups. The LRAS group had significantly lesser blood loss (P = 0.019), a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.045), and a higher rate of bile leak (P = 0.039) than the ORAS group. There was no significant difference in the operative time (P = 0.156), transfusion rate (P = 0.385), hospital expenses (P = 0.511), rate of other complications, postoperative white blood cell count, and alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels between the two groups (P > 0.05). Beside, there was no significant difference in disease-free survival (P = 0.351) or overall survival (P = 0.613) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between the two groups. LRAS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure. It may be preferred for lesions in the right anterior lobe of the liver.

Comparative Analysis of the Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Versus Open Segment 7 Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been widely accepted owing to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery; however, laparoscopic segment 7 (S7) hepatectomy (LSH) has been rarely reported. We aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of LSH by comparing it with open surgical approaches.

METHODS

Twenty-nine patients who underwent S7 hepatectomy between January 2016 and January 2023 were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the preoperative data. The patients who underwent LSH had significantly shorter hospital stays ( P =0.016) but longer operative times ( P =0.034) than those who underwent open S7 hepatectomy. No significant differences in blood loss ( P =0.614), transfusion ( P =0.316), hospital expenses ( P =0.391), surgical margin ( P =0.442), rate of other complications, postoperative white blood cell count, and alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase levels were noted between the 2 groups ( P >0.05). For hepatocellular carcinoma, the results showed no differences in either disease-free survival ( P =0.432) or overall survival ( P =0.923) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH is a safe and feasible surgical procedure that is efficient from an oncological point of view. It may be the preferred technique for lesions in the S7 of the liver.

The safety and feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical left hemihepatectomy along the middle hepatic vein from the head side approach

Background

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LLH) is commonly used for benign and malignant left liver lesions. We compared the benefits and drawbacks of LLH from the head side approach (LLHH) with those of conventional laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (CLLH). This study was conducted to investigate the safety and feasibility of LLHH by comparing it with CLLH.

Methods

In this study, 94 patients with tumor or hepatolithiasis who underwent LLHH (n = 39) and CLLH (n = 55) between January 2016 and January 2023 were included. The preoperative features, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

For hepatolithiasis, patients who underwent LLHH exhibited shorter operative time (p = 0.035) and less blood loss (p = 0.023) than those who underwent CLLH. However, for tumors, patients undergoing LLHH only showed shorter operative time (p = 0.046) than those undergoing CLLH. Moreover, no statistically significant differences in hospital stay, transfusion, hospital expenses, postoperative white blood cell (WBC) count, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) were observed between the two groups (p > 0.05) for tumor or hepatolithiasis. For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), no differences in both overall survival (p = 0.532) and disease-free survival (p = 0.274) were observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

LLHH is a safe and feasible surgical procedure for tumors or hepatolithiasis of the left liver.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy versus laparoscopic central pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck

AIMS

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic central pancreatectomy (LCP) are two surgical methods that can remove pancreatic neck lesions. However, their benefits remain controversial. We aimed to compare the benefits and limitations of LDP and LCP.

METHODS

In total, 50 patients who underwent LDP (n = 34) or LCP (n =16) between January 2014 and November 2019 were retrospectively reviewed using our database. We analyzed their preoperative characteristics, operative data, pathological features, and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline features of patients did not differ significantly between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the LDP group, the LCP group showed significantly prolonged operation time (392 ± 144 vs. 269 ± 130 min, P = 0.007), time to oral intake (3.8 ± 1.3 vs. 2.8 ± 0.9 days, P = 0.017), and hospital stay (19.6 ± 5.1 vs. 15.4 ± 4.1 days, P = 0.008) as well as increased hospital expenses (10.1 ± 6.2 vs. 6.6 ± 1.5 WanRMB, P = 0.023). However, no significant differences were observed in conversion rate (0/16 vs. 0/34), blood loss (154 ± 93 vs. 211 ± 170 mL, P = 0.224), postoperative white blood cell count (10.3 ± 2.7 vs. 11.1 ± 3.1, P = 0.432), first random blood glucose level after operation (8.2 ± 2.1 vs. 8.6 ± 2.6 mmol/L, P = 0.696), and ascites amylase level on day 3 after operation (5212 [3110-14,176] vs. 3142 [604-13,761] U/L, P = 0.167) between the two groups. Moreover, no significant differences were noted in the incidence of postoperative diabetes (1/16 vs. 5/34) between the two groups. However, LCP was associated with significantly higher incidences of pancreatic fistula grades B and C (P = 0.005) and postoperative hemorrhage (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the LCP, LDP is a useful and safer technique for benign or low-grade malignant tumors in the pancreatic neck.

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.

Magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation in swine

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic technology has achieved rapid development in the surgical field, it has not been applied to liver transplantation, primarily because of difficulties associated with laparoscopic vascular anastomosis. In this study, we introduced a new magnetic-assisted vascular anastomosis technique and explored its application in laparoscopic liver transplantation in pigs.

METHODS

Two sets of magnetic vascular anastomosis rings (MVARs) with different diameters were developed. One set was used for anastomosis of the suprahepatic vena cava (SHVC) and the other set was used for anastomosis of the infrahepatic vena cava (IHVC) and portal vein (PV). Six laparoscopic orthotopic liver transplantations were performed in pigs. Donor liver was obtained via open surgery. Hepatectomy was performed in the recipients through laparoscopic surgery. Anastomosis of the SHVC was performed using hand-assisted magnetic anastomosis, and the anastomosis of the IHVC and PV was performed by magnetic anastomosis with or without hand assistance.

RESULTS

Liver transplants were successfully performed in five of the six cases. Postoperative ultrasonographic examination showed that the portal inflow was smooth. However, PV bending and blood flow obstruction occurred in one case because the MVARs were attached to each other. The durations of loading of MVAR in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 13 ± 5 vs. 5 ± 1 min (P < 0.01) and 10 ± 2 vs. 4 ± 1 min (P < 0.05), respectively. The durations of MVAR anastomosis in the laparoscope group and manual assistance group for IHVC and PV were 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), and 5 ± 1 vs. 1 ± 1 min (P < 0.01), respectively. The anhepatic phase was 43 ± 4 min in the laparoscope group and 23 ± 2 min in the manual assistance group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that magnetic-assisted laparoscopic liver transplantation can be successfully carried out in pigs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Safety and Feasibility of Laparoscopic Technology in Right Posterior Sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has been accepted widely due to its advantages as a minimally invasive surgery, but laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of LRPS by comparing it with open surgical approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2014 and July 2019, 51 patients who underwent right posterior sectionectomy were enrolled in this study. The patients' characteristics, intraoperative details, and postoperative outcomes were compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in the preoperative data. LRPS showed significantly less blood loss (P=0.001) and shorter hospital stay (P=0.002) than open right posterior sectionectomy, but hospital expenses (P=0.382), operative time (P=0.196), surgical margin (P=0.311), the rate of other complications, and the postoperative white blood cell count, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and total bilirubin showed no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups (P>0.05). For hepatocellular carcinoma, the results showed there were no differences in both disease-free survival (P=0.220) and overall survival (P=0.417) between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our research suggests that LRPS is a safe and feasible surgical procedure that is efficient from an oncological point of view. It may be the preferred choice for lesions in the right posterior hepatic lobe.

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.

Application of Laparoscopic Technique in the Treatment of Hepatolithiasis

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

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.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopy technology in right hemihepatectomy

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