Optimal introduction of laparoscopic liver resection for Child-Pugh B

Short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive liver resection for single small hepatocellular carcinoma: An analysis of 714 patients from the IGoMILS (Italian group of minimally invasive liver surgery) registry

BACKGROUND

Widespread use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) contributed to the reduction of surgical risk of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent MILS for single ≤3 cm HCC (November 2014 - December 2019) were identified from the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) Registry.

RESULTS

Of 714 patients included, 641 (93.0%) were Child-Pugh A; 65.7% were limited resections and 2.2% major resections, with a conversion rate of 5.2%. Ninety-day mortality rate was 0.3%. Overall morbidity rate was 22.4% (3.8% major complications). Mean postoperative stay was 5 days. Robotic resection showed longer operative time (p = 0.004) and a higher overall morbidity rate (p < 0.001), with similar major complications (p = 0.431). Child-Pugh B patients showed worse mortality (p = 0.017) and overall morbidity (p = 0.021), and longer postoperative stay (p = 0.005). Five-year overall survival was 79.5%; cirrhosis, satellite micronodules, and microvascular invasion were independently associated with survival.

CONCLUSIONS

MILS for ≤3 cm HCC was associated with low morbidity and mortality rates, showing high safety, and supporting the increasing indications for surgical resection in these patients.

Laparoscopic dorsal subsegmentectomy 8: Exploit the 3d technology to plan liver resection, and predict intraparenchymal pedicles. A case report. (With video explanation)

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic liver surgery is spreading, encouraged by technical and technological improvement. Both the obligated narrow space and the difficulty to modify it lead to a more complex approach to the lesions located in the posterosuperior portion of the liver. Surgical strategies such as the Caudal approach or the Diamond technique could ameliorate surgical procedure, but these areas remain a challenge and are still classified as complex.

CLINICAL CASE

We discuss the case of a 68 year old man with metachronous liver metastasis in the dorsal part of segment 8. We used portal phase CT-scan Dicom data to create Three-dimensional reconstruction, which was able to show the more distal branches of intraparenchymal structures. The reconstructed images were subsequently used to plan laparoscopic liver resection.

DISCUSSION

The capability of three-dimensional reconstruction to create a realistic image allows us to use ultrasound as a navigation tool. Exploiting these two technologies together, we arrived to regulate the resection stages by recognizing previously marked structures and searching them at every intervention phase. The strategy performed demonstrates both a high level of precision and the capability to predict intraparenchymal structures.

CONCLUSION

The advantages obtained from three-dimensional reconstruction are numerous in terms of either anatomical comprehension and technical precision, suggesting a potential improvement in surgical skill. Three-dimensional technology should be encouraged and spread to understand, in every single aspect, the potential of its use.

Learning process of laparoscopic liver resection and postoperative outcomes: chronological analysis of single-center 15-years' experience

BACKGROUND

Limited studies have reported the actual learning process of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). This study aimed to chronologically evaluate our 15 years' experience of LLR.

METHODS

All consecutive LLRs between 2006 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The time period was divided into three groups; first (2006-2010), second (2011-2015), and third (2016-2020) period. The primary endpoint of this study was a composite of overall (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ II) or major (grade ≥ IIIa) postoperative complications within 30 days. Using the IWATE criteria (four difficulty levels based on six indices), LLR was categorized as basic (< 7 points) and advanced (≥ 7 points) one. All analyses were performed based on the intention-to-treat principles.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 382 LLRs were gradually performed (first period, n = 54; second period, n = 114, and third period, n = 214). Low incidences of overall and major complications were maintained (9.3, 10.5, and 7.0%, p = 0.514, and 1.9, 2.6, and 2.3%, p = 1.000). Meanwhile, pure LLRs (i.e., LLRs without hand-assisted or hybrid approach) and advanced LLRs were increasingly performed in 25 (46.3%), 71 (62.3%), and 205 (95.8%) patients (p < 0.001) and 3 (5.6%), 18 (15.8%), and 58 (27.1%) patients (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that stepwise approach from basic to advanced procedures and use of hand-assisted or hybrid approach during the early phases for starting LLR practice may allow for maintaining low morbidity in specialized center.

Rethinking the Barcelona clinic liver cancer guidelines: Intermediate stage and Child-Pugh B patients are suitable for surgery?

According to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer recommendations, intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinomas (stage B) are excluded from liver resection and are referred to palliative treatment. Moreover, Child-Pugh B patients are not usually candidates for liver resection. However, many hepatobiliary centers in the world manage patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma or Child-Pugh B cirrhosis with liver resection, maintaining that hepatic resection is not contraindicated in selected patients with non–early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and without normal liver function. Several studies demonstrate that resection provides the best survival benefit for selected patients in very early/early and even in intermediate stages of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification, and this treatment gives good results in the setting of multinodular, large tumors in patients with portal hypertension and/or Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. In this review we explore this controversial topic, and we show through the literature analysis how liver resection may improve the short- and long-term survival rate of carefully selected Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer B and Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma patients. However, other large clinical studies are needed to clarify which patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma are most likely to benefit from liver resection.

Laparoscopic liver resection versus percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) play central roles to treat early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC, ≤3 cm, 1-3 nodules, and no macrovascular involvement), although data are lacking regarding whether LLR or RFA is preferable. This study aimed to compare outcomes of both treatments for small HCCs.

METHODS

Treatment outcomes of small HCCs were compared between all the minor LLRs performed between 2005 and 2016 and RFAs performed between 2011 and 2016 at Kyoto University.

RESULTS

A total of 85 and 136 patients underwent LLR and RFA, respectively. Patients that underwent LLR had higher incidence of blood transfusions, complications, and longer hospital stay. Overall and disease-specific survival rates were similar between LLR and RFA; however, recurrence-free (49.2% vs. 22.1% at 3-year) and local recurrence-free survival rates (94.9% vs. 63.6% at 3-year) were higher after LLR. Multivariate analyses identified that multiple nodules and 65-year-old and above are predictors of disease-specific survival, and that RFA is a predictor of recurrence and local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

RFA is less invasive, although both LLR and RFA are safe and effective. LLR provides better local control with superior recurrence-free and local-recurrence free survival. These results help optimize treatment selection based on patient-specific factors.

Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been demonstrated as beneficial. However, the role of laparoscopy in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis is undetermined. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare open and laparoscopic resection for HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.

METHODS

Data on liver resections were gathered from 17 centres. A 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed according to 17 predefined variables.

RESULTS

Of 382 available liver resections, 100 laparoscopic and 100 open resections were matched and analysed. The 90-day postoperative mortality rate was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (4.0 versus 2.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.687). Laparoscopy was associated with lower blood loss (median 110 ml versus 400 ml in the open group; P = 0.004), less morbidity (38.0 versus 51.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.041) and fewer major complications (7.0 versus 21.0 per cent; P = 0.010), and ascites was lower on postoperative days 1, 3 and 5. For laparoscopic resections, patients with portal hypertension developed more complications than those without (26 versus 12 per cent respectively; P = 0.002), and patients with a Child-Pugh B9 score had higher morbidity rates than those with B8 and B7 (7 of 8, 10 of 16 and 21 of 76 respectively; P < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 7.5 (range 2-243) days for laparoscopic liver resection and 18 (3-104) days for the open approach (P = 0.058). The 5-year overall survival rate was 47 per cent for open and 65 per cent for laparoscopic resection (P = 0.142). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 32 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.742).

CONCLUSION

Patients without preoperative portal hypertension and Child-Pugh B7 cirrhosis may benefit most from laparoscopic liver surgery.

Structure and surgical dissection layers of the bare area of the liver

BACKGROUND

The bare area was reportedly formed by direct adhesion between the liver and diaphragm, meaning that the bare area lacked serosal components. This study aimed to analyze the structure of the bare area by an integrated study of surgical and laparoscopic images and pathological studies and describe surgical procedures focusing on the multilayered structure.

METHODS

Several surgical specimens of hepatectomy were analyzed histologically to evaluate the macroscopic structure of the bare area. Laparoscopic images and cadaver anatomy of the bare area were also examined.

RESULTS

The multilayered structure of the bare area comprised the liver, sub-serosal connective tissue, liver serosa, parietal peritoneum, retroperitoneal connective tissue, epimysium of the diaphragm, and diaphragm, in order from the liver to the diaphragm. The liver serosa and the parietal peritoneum fused with each other. This multilayered structure of the bare area is observed almost constantly. There are two layers in the dissection of the bare area in surgical procedures, an outer layer of the fused peritoneum (near the diaphragm) and an inner layer of the fused peritoneum (near the liver). Laparoscopic images enabled us to recognize the multilayered structure of the bare area.

CONCLUSIONS

Histopathological findings showed the bare area to be a multilayered structure. In cases where tumors are located underneath the bare area, it could be important to dissect the bare area, with careful attention to its multilayered structure. Surgical dissection of the bare area in the outer layer of the fused peritoneum could allow a sufficient safety margin.

Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: What Are the Advantages in Patients with Cirrhosis and Portal Hypertension? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Personal Experience

Background: Laparoscopic surgery is a choice of treatment for liver diseases; it can decrease postoperative morbidity and length of hospital stay (LOS). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension may benefit from minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) instead of open liver resections (OLRs). Whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional ones is still a matter of debate. We thus aimed to gather the available literature on this specific topic to achieve greater clarity. Materials and Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Sciences databases were assessed for studies comparing OLRs versus MILRs for HCC in cirrhotic patients up to February 2020. Data from our surgical experience from June 2010 to February 2020 were also included. Demographic characteristics, liver function, the presence of portal hypertension, tumor number, and tumor size and location were assessed; operative time, need for Pringle maneuver, estimated blood loss (EBL), major or minor hepatectomy performance, and conversion rate were evaluated for operative findings. Postoperative outcomes and liver-related complications, surgical site infection (SSI) rate, blood transfusion (BT) rate, need for reintervention, LOS, in-hospital or 30-day mortality, and radicality of resection were also considered. Meta-analysis was performed employing Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: One thousand three hundred twenty-one patients from 13 studies and our own series were considered in the meta-analysis. At preoperative settings, the OLR and MILR groups differed significantly only by tumor size (4.4 versus 3.0, P = .006). Laparoscopic procedures resulted significantly faster (120.32-330 minutes versus 146.8-342.75 minutes, P = .002) and with lower EBL than open ones (88-483 mL versus 200-580 mL, P < .00001), thus requiring less BTs (7.9% versus 13.2%, P = .02). In terms of overall morbidity, minimally invasive surgeries resulted significantly favorable (19.32% versus 38.04%, P < .00001), as well as for ascites (2.7% versus 12.9% P < .00001), postoperative liver failure (7.51% versus 13.61% P = .009), and SSI (1.8% versus 5.42%, P = .002). Accordingly, patients who had undergone MILRs had significantly shorter postoperative hospitalization than patients who underwent conventional open surgery (2.4-36 days versus 4.2-19 days P < .00001). Both groups did not differ in terms of mortality rate and radicality of resection (OLR 93.8% versus 96.1% laparoscopic liver resection, P = .12). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence in the literature, laparoscopic resections rather than open liver ones for HCC surgery in cirrhotic patients seem to reduce postoperative overall morbidity, liver-specific complications, and LOS. The lack of randomized studies on this topic precludes the possibility of achieving defining statements.

The safety of omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic liver resection: Retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive cases

Introduction

Whether prophylactic abdominal drainage after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is necessary remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of omitting prophylactic abdominal drainage after LLR.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 100 consecutive patients who underwent LLR at Osaka Rosai Hospital from April 2011 to November 2018 was performed. During this period, prophylactic abdominal drainage was routinely omitted during LLR without biliary anastomosis. The primary endpoint was the frequency of additional abdominal drainage. The secondary endpoint was the rate of postoperative complications.

Results

Ninety-six patients (96%) underwent partial resection or lateral segmentectomy, and 89 patients (89%) were Child-Pugh grade A. The median operative time was 102 (range, 31-274) minutes. The median blood loss was minimal (range, 0-280 ml), and blood transfusion was performed for one patient (1%). One case (1%) was converted to open surgery. Additional abdominal drainage was required for one patient (1%) with an intraabdominal abscess. Postoperative complications were seen in 5 patients (5%). High-grade complications (≥grade III according to the Clavien-Dindo classification) were seen in two patients (2%). There were no cases of reoperation or perioperative death. The median postoperative hospital stay was 8 (range, 4-65) days.

Conclusions

Prophylactic abdominal drainage could be safely omitted for selected patients and operative procedures.