Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic versus Open Formal Anatomical Hepatectomy: A Case Matched Control Study

A Literature Review to Assess Blood Loss in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery Versus in Open Liver Resection

Aim and objectives The aim of the study was to assess the amount of blood loss in minimally invasive hepatectomy and open liver resection for both benign and neoplastic conditions. Introduction Minimally invasive surgery has progressively developed to a stage where once-novel and highly specialized surgical techniques are now common practice. Colorectal surgery is the key example that has shown minimally invasive surgery as highly beneficial. Successes in the colorectal laparoscopic approach have now been integrated into the speciality of hepatopancreaticobiiary (HPB) surgery. In this review, we will compare the amount of blood loss in minimally invasive liver resection with the more traditional approach of open liver resection. Methods A literature review was conducted which included the length of patient mobilization as a postoperative complication following laparoscopic and open liver resections. Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane were accessed to review previously published studies. Twelve studies were selected, and all of them were in English, ranged from the year 2000 to 2020. Results Eleven out of the 12 included studies indicated that minimally invasive liver resection is associated with reduced blood loss. Conclusion In comparing both minimally invasive liver resection and classic open surgery, minimally invasive liver resection was shown to have reduced blood loss; this was seen in both malignant and benign tumours. Therefore, laparoscopic liver resection could be favoured over the classical open approach to avoid excessive blood loss intra-operatively.

Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Major Hepatic Resection

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The evidence of pairwise meta-analysis of Robotic Hepatectomy (RH) vs Laparoscopic Hepatectomy (LH) and RH vs Open Hepatectomy (OH) is inconclusive. Therefore, the aim of this study, was to compare the outcomes of RH, LH and OH by performing a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the following databases: Pubmed, Google scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane library. Cost-effectiveness and survival benefits were selected as primary outcomes.

RESULTS

The cost was less in OH compared to both minimally invasive procedures, LH demonstrated lower cost compared to RH, but the differences were not statistically significant. Both the RH and LH cohorts demonstrated significantly lower estimated blood loss, reduced major morbidity rate and shorter length of stay compared to OH cohort. The LH and OH cohorts demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and duration of clamping compared to the RH cohort. The LH cohort included significantly smaller tumours compared to the OH cohort.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis, demonstrated that both RH and LH in malignant and benign conditions were associated with lower morbidity rates, shorter hospital stay and the procedure related costs were statistically nonsignificant between RH, LH and OH.

Intention to Treat Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemi-Hepatectomy: A Paired Case-Matched Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

The benefits of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to open hemi-hepatectomy are not clear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to share our experience with the laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to an open approach.

METHODS

A total of 40 consecutive laparoscopically started hemi-hepatectomy (intention-to-treat analysis) cases between August 2012 and October 2015 were matched against open cases using the following criteria: laterality of surgery and pathology (essential criteria); American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, pre-operative bilirubin, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, additional procedures, portal vein embolization, and presence of cirrhosis/fibrosis on histology (secondary criteria); age and gender (tertiary criteria). Hand-assisted and extended hemi-hepatectomy cases were excluded from the study. The two groups were compared for blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes. All complications were quantified using the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

Two groups were well matched (p = 1.00). In the two groups, 10 patients had left and 30 had right hemi-hepatectomy. Overall conversion rate was 15%. Median length of hospital and high dependency unit stay was less in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.025 and 1 versus 2 days, p = 0.07. Median operative time was longer in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 420 min (range: 389.5-480) versus 305 min (range: 238.8-348.8; p = 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss was equivalent, but the overall blood transfusions were higher in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy (50 vs 29 units, p = 0.36). The overall morbidity (18 vs 20 patients, p = 0.65), mortality (2.5%), and the positive resection margin status were similar (18% vs 21%, p = 0.76). The 1- (87.5% vs 92.5%, p = 0.71) and 3-year survival (70% vs 72.5%, p = 1.00) was also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed lower hospital and high dependency unit stay in the laparoscopic group. However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating time and a non-significant increase in blood transfusion requirements. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, re-admission rate, and oncological outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of High-Quality Case-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To present a meta-analysis of high-quality case-matched studies comparing laparoscopic (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2017 comparing LH and OH for HCC were identified. Selection of high-quality, nonrandomized comparative studies (NRCTs) with case-matched design was based on a validated tool (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) since no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published. Morbidity, mortality, operation time, blood loss, hospital stay, margin distance, recurrence, and survival outcomes were compared. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to the surgical extension (minor or major hepatectomy).

RESULTS

Twenty studies with a total of 830 patients (388 in LH and 442 in OH) were identified. For short-term surgical outcomes, LH showed less morbidity (RR = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47~0.65; P < 0.01), less mortality (RR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.18~1.00; P = 0.05), less blood loss (WMD = -93.21 ml, 95% CI, -157.33~-29.09 ml; P < 0.01), shorter hospital stay (WMD = -2.86, 95% CI, -3.63~-2.08; P < 0.01), and comparable operation time (WMD = 9.15 min; 95% CI: -7.61~25.90, P = 0.28). As to oncological outcomes, 5-year overall survival rate was slightly better in LH than OH (HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.52~0.84, P < 0.01), whereas the 5-year disease-free survival rate was comparable between two groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74~1.06, P = 0.18).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis has highlighted that LH can be safely performed in selective patients and improves surgical outcomes as compared to OH. Given the limitations of study design, especially the limited cases of major hepatectomy, methodologically high-quality comparative studies are needed for further evaluation.

Single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) - a systematic review

Background: Today, minimally invasive liver resections for both benign and malignant tumors are routinely performed. Recently, some authors have described single incision laparoscopic liver resection (SILL) procedures. Since SILL is a relatively young branch of laparoscopy, we performed a systematic review of the current literature to collect data on feasibility, perioperative results and oncological outcome.

Methods: A literature research was performed on Medline for all studies that met the eligibility criteria. Titles and abstracts were screened by two authors independently. A study was included for review if consensus was obtained by discussion between the authors on the basis of predefined inclusion criteria. A thorough quality assessment of all included studies was performed. Data were analyzed and tabulated according to predefined outcome measures. Synthesis of the results was achieved by narrative review.

Results: A total of 15 eligible studies were identified among which there was one prospective cohort study and one randomized controlled trial comparing SILL to multi incision laparoscopic liver resection (MILL). The rest were retrospective case series with a maximum of 24 patients. All studies demonstrated convincing results with regards to feasibility, morbidity and mortality. The rate of wound complications and incisional hernia was low. The cosmetic results were good.

Conclusions: This is the first systematic review on SILL including prospective trials. The results of the existing studies reporting on SILL are favorable. However, a large body of scientific evidence on the field of SILL is missing, further randomized controlled studies are urgently needed.