Minimally invasive versus open right hepatectomy: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

A Decade of Experience Between Open and Minimally Invasive Hepatectomies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background and Objectives: Hepatic resection offers promising outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but can be constrained by factors like patient suitability. Continuous advancements in laparoscopic and robotic technologies have made minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs) a viable alternative to open hepatectomies with benefits in terms of recovery and complications. Materials and Methods: We completed a retrospective review on 138 HCC patients who underwent OH or MIH between 2010 and 2020 at the Hume-Lee Transplant Center. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed on demographic, clinical, and tumor-specific data to assess the impact of these variables on overall and disease-free survival at 1, 3, and 5 years. Preoperative metrics like length of hospital stay (LOS) and operation duration were also evaluated. Results: Of the 109 OH and 29 MIH patients, MIH patients demonstrated shorter LOS and operative times. However, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were similar between groups, with no significant variations in 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates. Age > 60 years and a lack of preoperative transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) were significant predictors of inferior OS and DFS in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: MIH is an efficient substitute for OH with comparable survival, even in older patients. The reduced LOS and operation time enhance its feasibility, and older patients previously denied for curative resection may qualify for MIH. Preoperative TACE also enhances survival outcomes, emphasizing its general role in managing resectable HCCs. Both robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies offer acceptable short- and long-term clinical outcomes, highlighting MIH as the standard choice for HCC patients.

Impact of Minimally Invasive Surgery on Anatomic Liver Segmentectomy Using the Extrahepatic Glissonean Approach

Accurate minimally invasive anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (MIAS) is technically demanding and not yet standardized, and its surgical outcomes are undefined. To study the impact of the minimally invasive approach on perioperative outcomes of anatomic liver (sub)segmentectomy (AS), we retrospectively studied and compared perioperative outcomes of 99 open AS (OAS) and 112 MIAS (laparoscopic 77, robotic 35) cases using the extrahepatic Glissonean approach, based on the 1:1 propensity score matched analyses. After matching (71:71), MIAS was superior to OAS in terms of blood loss (p < 0.0001), maximum postoperative serum total bilirubin (p < 0.0001), C-reactive protein (p = 0.034) levels, R0 resection rate (p = 0.021), bile leak (p = 0.049), and length of hospital stay (p < 0.0001). The matched robotic and laparoscopic AS groups (30:30) had comparable outcomes in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion, open conversion, postoperative morbidity and mortality, R0 resection, and hospital stay, although the rate of Pringle maneuver application (p = 0.0002) and the postoperative aspartate aminotransferase level (p = 0.002) were higher in the robotic group. Comparing the matched posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy cases or unmatched repeat hepatectomy cases between MIAS and OAS, we observed significantly less blood loss and shorter hospital stays in MIAS. Robotic AS yielded comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS in the posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy settings, despite the worse tumor and procedural backgrounds in robotic AS. In conclusion, various types of MIAS standardized by the extrahepatic Glissonean approach were feasible and safe with more favorable perioperative outcomes than those of OAS. Although robotic AS had almost comparable outcomes with laparoscopic AS, robotics may serve to decrease the surgical difficulty of MIAS in selected patients undergoing posterosuperior (sub)segmentectomy and repeat hepatectomy.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Sequential TACE-PVE: A Multicentric Comparative Study

BACKGROUND

Right hepatectomy (RH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is ideally preceded by transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and portal vein embolization (PVE). Laparoscopic approach improves short-term outcome and textbook outcome (TO), which reflects the "ideal" surgical outcome, after RH. However, laparoscopic RH on an underlying diseased liver and after TACE/PVE remains a challenging procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or open liver resection (OLR) following TACE/PVE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with HCC who underwent RH after TACE/PVE in five French centers were retrospectively included. Outcomes were compared between the LLR group and the OLR group using propensity score matching (PSM). Quality of surgical care was defined by TO.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2019, 117 patients were included (41 in LLR group, 76 in OLR group). Overall morbidity was comparable (51% versus 53%, p = 0.24). In LLR group, TO was completed in 66% versus 37% in OLR group (p = 0.02). LLR and absence of clamping were the only factors associated with TO completion [hazard ratio (HR) 4.27, [1.77-10.28], p = 0.001]. After PSM, 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 55% in matched LLR versus 77% in matched OLR, p = 0.35, and 13% in matched LLR versus 17% in matched OLR, p = 0.97. TO completion was independently associated with a better 5-year OS (65.2% versus 42.5%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Major LLR after TACE/PVE should be considered as a valuable option in expert centers to increase the chance of TO, the latter being associated with a better 5-year OS.

Facility Volume Thresholds for Optimization of Short- and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy for Primary Liver Tumors

BACKGROUND

Volume-outcome relationships have been described for a variety of surgical procedures. We aimed to define the facility volume threshold at which postoperative mortality after hepatectomy was optimal.

METHODS

We determined volume percentiles for institutions performing hepatectomy for any primary liver tumor within the National Cancer Database (2004-2017). Marginal structural logistic regression defined the volume percentile (Vmin) at which the odds of 90-day mortality were optimally reduced in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). Short-term postoperative and survival outcomes were compared between patients treated at facilities above and below Vmin.

RESULTS

Thresholds for the 10^th/25^th/50^th/75^th/90^th percentiles were 2/7/26/46/59 hepatectomies/year. A total of 17,833 patients underwent resection of HCC or ICC. The 90-day postoperative mortality was optimized at the 75^th percentile for all hepatectomies (IP-weighted OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.52-0.87) and major hepatectomy (IP-weighted OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.49-0.80). Seven of 446 facilities met the Vmin threshold. The odds of 30-day mortality were also reduced for all hepatectomies (IP-weighted OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.42-0.73) and major hepatectomy (IP-weighted OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.41-0.75). There were no differences in length of stay or 30-day readmission rate. Patients with HCC or ICC treated at facilities ≥ 10^th percentile had an associated improvement in overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Resection of HCC and ICC is performed at a large number of facilities. Postoperative mortality is optimally reduced at facilities performing at least 46 liver operations annually. Regionalization of surgical care among patients with primary liver malignancies to high-volume centers may result in improved outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open in right posterior sectionectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

METHODS

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots' abilities.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

Robotic donor hepatectomy: Are we there yet?

In living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) the safety of the live donor (LD) is of paramount importance. Despite all efforts, the morbidity rates approach 25%-40% with conventional open donor hepatectomy (DH) operations. However, most of these complications are related to the operative wound and despite increased self- esteem and satisfaction in various quality of life analyses on LD, the most common grievance is that of the scar. Performing safe and precise DH through a conventional laparoscopic approach is a formidable task with a precipitous learning curve for the whole team. Due to the ramifications the donor operation carries for the donor, the recipient, the transplant team and for the LDLT program in general, the development and acceptance of minimally invasive DH (MIDH) has been slow. The robotic surgical system overcomes the reduced visualization, restricted range of motion and physiological tremor associated with laparoscopic surgery and allows for a comparatively easier transition from technical feasibility to reproducibility. However, many questions especially with regards to standardization of surgical technique, comparison of outcomes, understanding of the learning curve, etc. remain unanswered. The aim of this review is to provide insights into the evolution of MIDH and highlight the current status of robotic DH, appreciating the existing challenges and its future role.

RESSECÇÃO LAPAROSCÓPICA DE TUMORES BENIGNOS DO FÍGADO: POSIÇÃO ATUAL

The main indications of the use of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), in the early days, were benign liver lesions. As LLS became more popular, indications for malignant diseases outnumbered those for benign ones. This study aims to rule out the indications and results of LLS for the treatment of benign liver tumors.