Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Tumors in the Posterosuperior Segments: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Low versus standard central venous pressure during laparoscopic liver resection: A systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

To compare the outcomes of low central venous pressure (CVP) to standard CVP during laparoscopic liver resection. The study design was a systematic review following the PRISMA statement standards. The available literature was searched to identify all studies comparing low CVP with standard CVP in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. The outcomes included intraoperative blood loss (primary outcome), need for blood transfusion, mean arterial pressure, operative time, Pringle time, and total complications. Random- effects modelling was applied for analyses. Type I and type II errors were assessed by trial sequential analysis (TSA). A total of 8 studies including 682 patients were included (low CVP group, 342; standard CVP group, 340). Low CVP reduced intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (mean difference [MD], -193.49 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], -339.86 to -47.12; p = 0.01). However, low CVP did not have any effect on blood transfusion requirement (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.28-1.03; p = 0.06), mean arterial pressure (MD, -1.55 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.85-0.75; p = 0.19), Pringle time (MD, -0.99 minutes; 95% CI, -5.82-3.84; p = 0.69), operative time (MD, -16.38 minutes; 95% CI, -36.68-3.39; p = 0.11), or total complications (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.97-3.80; p = 0.06). TSA suggested that the meta-analysis for the primary outcome was not subject to type I or II errors. Low CVP may reduce intraoperative blood loss during laparoscopic liver resection (moderate certainty); however, this may not translate into shorter operative time, shorter Pringle time, or less need for blood transfusion. Randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes will provide more robust evidence.

Efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection for small hepatocellular carcinoma located in the posterosuperior segments: A multi-institutional study using propensity score matching by the Kyushu Study Group of Liver Surgery

AIM

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in the posterosuperior segments (PS) have generally been considered more difficult than those for HCC in anterolateral segments (AL), but may be safe and feasible for selected patients with accumulated experience. In the present study, we investigated the effectiveness of LLR for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm located in PS.

METHODS

In total, 473 patients who underwent partial liver resection for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm at the 18 institutions belonging to the Kyusyu Study Group of Liver Surgery from January 2010 to December 2018 were enrolled. The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic partial liver resection and open liver resection (OLR) for HCCs ≤3 cm, with subgroup analysis of PS and AL, were compared using propensity score-matching analysis. Furthermore, results were also compared between LLR-PS and LLR-AL.

RESULTS

The original cohort of patients with HCC ≤3 cm included 328 patients with LLR and 145 with OLR. After matching, 140 patients with LLR and 140 with OLR were analyzed. Significant differences were found between groups in terms of volume of blood loss (median, 55 vs. 287 ml, p < 0.001), postoperative complications (0.71 vs. 8.57%, p = 0.003), and postoperative hospital stay (median, 9 vs. 14 days, p < 0.001). The results of subgroup analysis of PS were similar. Short-term outcomes did not differ significantly between LLR-PS and LLR-AL after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic partial resection could be the preferred option for single nodular HCCs ≤3 cm located in PS.

Procedural outcomes of laparoscopic caudate lobe resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review was conducted in compliance with PRISMA statement standards to identify all studies reporting outcomes of laparoscopic resection of benign or malignant lesions located in caudate lobe of liver. Pooled outcome data were calculated using random-effects models. A total of 196 patients from 12 studies were included. Mean operative time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, and length of hospital stay were 225 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], 181-269 minutes), 134 mL (95% CI, 85-184 mL), and 7 days (95% CI, 5-9 days), respectively. The pooled risk of need for intraoperative transfusion was 2% (95% CI, 0%-5%). It was 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) for conversion to open surgery, 6% (95% CI, 0%-19%) for need for intra-abdominal drain, 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%) for postoperative mortality, 2% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for biliary leakage, 2% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for intra-abdominal abscess, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for biliary stenosis, 1% (95% CI, 0%-3%) for postoperative bleeding, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for pancreatic fistula, 2% (95% CI, 1%-5%) for pulmonary complications, 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for paralytic ileus, and 1% (95% CI, 0%-4%) for need for reoperation. Although the available evidence is limited, the findings of the current study might be utilized for hypothesis synthesis in future studies. They can be used to inform surgeons and patients about estimated risks of perioperative complications until a higher level of evidence is available.

Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted versus laparoscopic liver resection for cavernous hemangioma: a propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive techniques have increasingly been adopted for liver resection. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for liver cavernous hemangioma and to evaluate the treatment feasibility and safety.

METHODS

A retrospective study of prospectively collected data was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent RALR (n = 43) and LLR (n = 244) for liver cavernous hemangioma between February 2015 and June 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter (P = 0.016) in the RALR group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in overall operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rates, conversion to open surgery or complication rates. There was no perioperative mortality. Multivariate analysis showed that hemangiomas located in posterosuperior liver segments and those in close proximity to major vascular structures were independent predictors of increased intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.013 and P = 0.001, respectively). For patients with hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes between the two groups, with the exception that intraoperative blood loss in the RALR group was significantly less than that in the LLR group (350 ml vs. 450 ml, P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Both RALR and LLR were safe and feasible for treating liver hemangioma in well-selected patients. For patients with liver hemangioma in close proximity to major vascular structures, RALR was better than conventional laparoscopic surgery in reducing intraoperative blood loss.

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.

The application of magnetic anchoring traction device in assisting donor liver bench surgery in classic orthotopic liver transplantation

Objective

To explore the clinical application of a newly developed magnetic anchoring traction (MAT) system in the liver bench trimming and transplantation surgery.

Background

The conventionally limited space, vision, and exposure have always been a challenge for the quality of surgery in the liver bench trimming due to the fact that the exposure depends largely on the experience of surgeon. To deal with this problem, a MAT system is developed as an alternative support to enhance exposure. The preliminarily experiments on animals verified its feasibility and reliability in the practical use, and its clinical application and effects were examined in the present research.

Methods

A total of 20 DCD (donation of cardiac death) donor livers were collected and divided evenly between the magnetic anchor traction (MAT) assisted group (n = 10) and the manual assisted group (n = 10). The results and quality assessment from experts about the liver bench surgery performed by two groups were examined and compared.

Results

The MAT system can be employed effectively to compete and replace the manual assistance to achieve a better exposure in the liver bench trimming. No statistical difference was found regarding the baseline data between the MAT and the manual groups. In the inferior vena cava and hepatic artery trimming, the MAT group outperformed the manual group remarkably in many aspects. The surgery time for liver bench shortened considerably after a quick grasp of MAT skills by surgeons.

Conclusion

The MAT system provides a more stable, reliable and qualified local exposure in the liver bench surgery, and can preferably be employed to replace the manual assistance in the procedures of liver transplantation.

Pulmonary infection after hepatic resection: Associated factors and impact on outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Postoperative pulmonary complications are frequent after hepatectomy. The aim of this retrospective study was to use preoperative and intraoperative data to establish specific factors associated with post-hepatectomy pneumonia (PHPN).

METHODS

Patients underwent minor or major hepatectomy for cancer or non-cancer treatment. Surgical procedure was performed by laparoscopy or laparotomy. PHPN was defined as a new radiologic finding associated with fever, leucocytosis and purulent bronchial secretions. The incidence, associated factors and prognosis of PHPN were investigated.

RESULTS

In 399 patients undergoing planned hepatectomy, 49 (12.3%) developed pneumonia. Of 81 patients (20.3%) with cirrhosis, 77 were Child-Pugh A and 4 were Child-Pugh B. Hepatectomy indication was cancer in 331 patients (of which metastasis in 213). Laparoscopy rate was 31.3%. In multivariate analysis, the main factors statistically associated with PHPN were: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (odds ratio [OR] = 4.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-10.84; P = 0.003), intraoperative blood transfusion (OR = 2.46; 95% CI 1.01-5.70; P = 0.001), laparotomy (OR = 3.01; 95% CI 1.09-8.27; P = 0.03), and nasogastric tube maintained at day 1 (OR = 2.09; 95% CI 1.03-4.22; P = 0.04). Length of stay was significantly different between groups without PHPN (10.2 days) versus with PHPN (26.4 days; P < 0.001). Intra-hospital and one-year mortality were greater in the PHPN group than the pneumonia-free group (8.16 vs 0% and 18.4 vs 3.4%, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

COPD, transfusion and laparotomy (versus laparoscopy) are factors associated with PHPN and impaired survival.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Is Superior to Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Posterosuperior Segments

Introduction: Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of colorectal metastasis located in posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7 and 8) are challenging and highly demanding. The aim of our study is to determine the safety and feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the resections of the posterosuperior lesions and to compare the peri-operative, short-term and long-term outcomes with the open liver resection (OLR) approach.

Methods and Results: A retrospective study of patients who underwent either HALS or OLR for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver between 2008 and 2018 in two university affiliated medical centers.

Results: A total of 187 patients were identified, of whom 78 underwent HALS and 109 underwent OLR. There was no difference between the HALS and OLR with regard to preoperative factors (age, primary CRC tumor location, number and anatomical distribution of liver metastasis, pre-operative neo-adjuvant treatment, operative time, blood transfusion rate, and resection margins positivity). On the other hand, HALS compared to OLR had a significantly shorter mean hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days; P = 0.003), and a lower total complications rate (25 vs. 47% P = 0.006). Both groups had no 30-day mortality. Also, patients who underwent HALS vs. OLR had similar liver metastases recurrence (55 vs. 51%. P = 0.65) and 5-year survival (47 vs. 45%. P = 0.72).

Conclusions: HALS for mCRC located in posterosuperior liver segments is safe and feasible and it is a preferable approach due to its lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay while not compromising survival and disease recurrence.