Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for primary hepatolithiasis: a propensity score-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatolithiasis confers better clinical benefit and lower hospital costs than open hepatectomy (OH). This study aim to evaluate the clinical and economic value of LH versus OH.

METHODS

Patients undergoing OH or LH for primary hepatolithiasis at Yijishan Hospital of Wannan Medical College between 2015 and 2022 were divided into OH group and LH group. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline data. Deviation-based cost modelling and weighted average median cost (WAMC) were used to assess and compare the economic value.

RESULTS

A total of 853 patients were identified. After exclusions, 403 patients with primary hepatolithiasis underwent anatomical hepatectomy (OH n=143; LH n=260). PSM resulted in 2 groups of 100 patients each. Although LH required a longer median operation duration compared with OH (285.0 versus 240.0 min, respectively, P<0.001), LH patients had fewer wound infections, fewer pre-discharge overall complications (26 versus 43%, respectively, P=0.009), and shorter median postoperative hospital stays (8.0 versus 12.0 days, respectively, P<0.001). No differences were found in blood loss, major complications, stone clearance, and mortality between the two matched groups. However, the median overall hospital cost of LH was significantly higher than that of OH (CNY¥52,196.1 versus 45,349.5, respectively, P=0.007). Although LH patients had shorter median postoperative hospital stays and fewer complications than OH patients, the WAMC was still higher for the LH group than for the OH group with an increase of CNY¥9,755.2 per patient undergoing LH.

CONCLUSION

The overall clinical benefit of LH for hepatolithiasis is comparable or even superior to that of OH, but with an economic disadvantage. There is a need to effectively reduce the hospital costs of LH and the gap between costs and diagnosis-related group reimbursement to promote its adoption.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2021

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology first published evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis in 2010, followed by a revision in 2016. Currently, the revised third edition was published to reflect recent evidence on the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cholelithiasis conforming to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Following this revision, the present English version of the guidelines was updated and published herein. The clinical questions (CQ) in the previous version were reviewed and rearranged into three newly divided categories: background questions (BQ) dealing with basic background knowledge, CQ, and future research questions (FRQ), which refer to issues that require further accumulation of evidence. Finally, 52 questions (29 BQs, 19 CQs, and 4 FRQs) were adopted to cover the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis. Based on a literature search using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and August 2019, along with a manual search of new information reported over the past 5 years, the level of evidence was evaluated for each CQ. The strengths of recommendations were determined using the Delphi method by the committee members considering the body of evidence, including benefits and harms, patient preference, and cost-benefit balance. A comprehensive flowchart was prepared for the diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder stones, common bile duct stones, and intrahepatic stones, respectively. The current revised guidelines are expected to be of great assistance to gastroenterologists and general physicians in making decisions on contemporary clinical management for cholelithiasis patients.

Biliary tract exploration via left hepatic duct stump versus the common bile duct incision in left-sided hepatolithiasis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left lateral hepatic resection is the preferred surgical approach for treating left hepatolithiasis. However, it is not clear whether cholangioscopy via left hepatic duct (LHD) orifice can replace conventional common bile duct (CBD) approach during laparoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search by screening medical databases, then compared perioperative outcomes and occurrence of recurrent stones between LHD and CBD approaches.

RESULTS

A total of five studies, comprising 345 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. The reported operative times, intra-operative blood loss and incidence of post-operative complications were comparable between the approaches. Pooled results revealed a positive correlation between LHD approach with shorter length of hospital stay (standard mean difference = -1.36; 95% confidence interval: -2.10, -0.61; P < 0.001). Additionally, bile duct exploration via LHD orifice was associated with similar rate of recurrent stones and cholangitis across both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrated that biliary tract exploration via LHD stump can be safely performed in left-sided hepatolithiasis. Additionally, the LHD approach was associated with comparable intra-operative outcomes and shorter post-operative hospitalization relative to CBD approach, and does not increase incidence of stone recurrence.

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.

Surgical Techniques for the Laparoscopic Treatment of Bile Duct Stones in Patients With a History of Upper Abdominal Operations: Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Few authors have studied applying the laparoscopic approach in patients with previous upper abdominal operations, but no comparison has been made between laparoscopic and open approaches in patients with previous upper abdominal operations. This article aims to introduce surgical techniques and details in treatment to surgeons specialized in minimally invasive surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2018, 460 eligible patients were divided into 3 groups and analyzed retrospectively. Group A: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=124); group B: patients without a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent laparoscopy (n=140); and group C: patients with a history of upper abdominal operations who underwent an open operation (n=196). Group A was the experimental group; groups B and C served as the control groups.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found between groups A and B. Significant differences were found between groups A and C in estimated blood loss (258.3±67.2 vs. 424.7±103.7 mL, P<0.001), postoperative hospitalization (5.7±2.3 vs. 10.2±3.1 d, P<0.001), and postoperative complications (16.1% vs. 42.9%, P=0.013). The final rate of stones clearance was 100% in 3 groups. The total rate of stone recurrence was 7.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy with certain surgical techniques was feasible, effective, and advantageous for patients with previous upper abdominal operations by experienced surgeons. It is necessary for surgeons to have advanced skills and surgical techniques to achieve a successful laparoscopy.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy produces better outcomes for hepatolithiasis than open hepatectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The present meta-analysis focused on comparing the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) versus open hepatectomy (OH) for hepatolithiasis. In detail, short-term outcomes including operative time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative time to oral intake, length of hospital stay, overall postoperative complication rate, initial residual stone, and stone recurrence were analyzed systematically.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for eligible studies up to Jun. 30. 2017. Bibliographic citation management software (EndNoteX7) was applied to literature management. Quality assessment was carried out according to the modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Stata SE12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX). Sensitivity analysis was conducted by deleting single study step by step. Odds ratio (OR) were calculated for dichotomous data, and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated continuous data.

RESULTS

= 0%; P = 0.22). In addition, our stratified analysis according to types of LH indicated that the laparoscopic approach still produced more favorable outcomes whatever patients underwent left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) or left hemihepatectomy (LHH).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic hepatectomy is a better alternative to open approach in patients with hepatolithiasis, providing less overall complication rate, shorter postoperative stay of hospital stay, less blood loss, and shorter time to oral intake. However, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are badly needed to provide higher-level evidence due to unavoidable bias from non-randomized trials.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: A propensity, long-term follow-up analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

This trial was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy and open left-sided hepatectomy. Left-sided hepatectomy is a novel, minimally invasive operative technique for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis, but it has not been accepted widely due to the limited information about short- and long-term outcomes, effectiveness, and safety compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent left-sided hepatectomy between January 2007 and December 2016 were reviewed and grouped into the open left-sided hepatectomy and left-sided hepatectomy groups, according to propensity score matching in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function, location of stone, hepatitis serology, and comorbidity on a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics of the 200 patients included in the study. For the left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients) when compared to the open left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients, the duration of hospital stay was less (10.3 vs 14.7 days, P< .001), the incidence of postoperative biliary fistulas (5% vs 14%, P = .003) and overall morbidity were less (25% vs 45%, P = .003), out of bed return to activity was expedited (2.0 vs 2.7 days, P< .001), and the rate of stone recurrence in the long-term follow-up was les (5.1% vs 17%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Left-sided hepatectomy was associated with significantly lesser rate of stone recurrence, a shorter hospital stay, decreased morbidity and clinical biliary fistula rate, and expedited postoperative recovery compared with open left-sided hepatectomy.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis 2016

Cholelithiasis is one of the commonest diseases in gastroenterology. Remarkable improvements in therapeutic modalities for cholelithiasis and its complications are evident. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology has revised the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for cholelithiasis. Forty-three clinical questions, for four categories-epidemiology and pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatments, and prognosis and complications-were selected, and a literature search was performed for the clinical questions with use of the MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Igaku Chuo Zasshi databases for the period between 1983 and June 2012. The guidelines were developed with use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. This article preferentially describes the clinical management of cholelithiasis and its complications. Following description of the diagnosis performed stepwise through imaging modalities, treatments of cholecystolithiasis, choledocholithiasis, and hepatolithiasis are introduced along with a flowchart. Since there have been remarkable improvements in endoscopic treatments and surgical techniques, the guidelines ensure flexibility in choices according to the actual clinical environment. The revised clinical practice guidelines are appropriate for use by clinicians in their daily practice.

Laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: A comparative study with open approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis is a prevalent disease in some regions of China. Left-sided hepatectomy is an effective treatment for left intrahepatic bile duct stones with irreversible disease, such as biliary strictures, severe parenchymal fibrosis or atrophy. However, the advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) over open approach (OLH) are still controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH to those of OLH in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and October 2016, 75 consecutive patients with hepatolithiasis undergoing left-sided hepatectomy were enrolled in this study. The demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Among these 75 patients, 36 underwent LLH (LLH group) and 39 underwent OLH (OLH group). The LLH group exhibited a lower intraoperative blood loss (215.8 ± 75.8 vs 298.7 ± 158.9 mL, p = 0.005), intraoperative transfusion (5.6% vs 23.1%, p = 0.032), overall complication rate (13.9% vs 35.9%, p = 0.029), and shorter recovery of bowel movement (2.3 ± 0.8 vs 3.0 ± 1.0 d, p = 0.004), time of off-bed activities (3.2 ± 1.1 vs 5.8 ± 1.4 d, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (7.7 ± 2.2 vs 10.9 ± 3.3 d, p < 0.001) compared to the OLH group. Similar results were also observed in left lateral sectionectomy and hemihepatectomy subgroups. There was no significant difference in the operative time, initial stone clearance rate, final stone clearance rate, stone recurrence rate and overall cost (All p > 0.05). No perioperative mortality was observed. The conversion rate was 5.6%.

CONCLUSION

LLH is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients with hepatolithiasis, with an advantage over OLH in the field of intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative transfusion, overall complication and postoperative recovery.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left-Sided Hepatectomy for Hepatolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although laparoscopic left hepatectomy (LLH) for hepatolithiasis had been successfully performed in a series of cases, its advantages over open left hepatectomy (OLH) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis is to compare the clinical outcomes of LLH with those of OLH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature research was performed to identify comparative studies on LLH versus OLH for hepatolithiasis from January 1991 to May 2016. Operative outcomes, postoperative outcomes, and gallstone clearance rate were evaluated. Pooled odds ratios and weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models.

RESULTS

Eight studies, including one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and seven nonrandomized observational clinical studies, met the inclusion criteria. There were 739 patients in this meta-analysis, including 316 LLHs and 423 OLHs. The volume of intraoperative blood loss favored LLH (P = .015). Intraoperative transfusion (P < .001), overall complication (P < .001), and hospital stay (P = .001) were significantly low in LLH. There was no obvious difference in operation time, residual stone rate, and recurrent stone rate. The mean conversion rate was 9.5% (range, 2.2%-15.6%).

CONCLUSION

LLH seems to be more effective and safer for selected patients with hepatolithiasis than OLH. As only one RCT was included, the evidence of which is still limited. More prospective, multicenter, and RCTs are needed to further define the real role of the laparoscopic technique in hepatolithiasis.

Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review of worldwide literature on laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and compare short-term outcomes against open liver resections (OLR) by meta-analyses.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

There are no updated pooled data since 2009 about the current status and short-term outcomes of LLR worldwide.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All English language publications on LLR were screened. Descriptive worldwide data and short-term outcomes were obtained. Separate analyses were performed for minor-only and major-only resection series, and series in which minor/major resections were not differentiated. Apparent case duplications were excluded.

RESULTS

A set of 463 published manuscripts were reviewed. One hundred seventy-nine single-center series were identified that accounted for 9527 LLR cases worldwide. Minor-only, major-only, and combined major-minor series were 61, 18, and 100, respectively, including 32, 8, and 43 comparative series, respectively. Of the total 9527 LLR cases reported, 6190 (65%) were for malignancy and 3337 (35%) were for benign indications. There were 37 deaths reported (mortality rate = 0.4%). From the meta-analysis comparing case-matched LLR to OLR (N = 2900 cases), there was no increased mortality and significantly less complications, transfusions, blood loss, and hospital stay observed in LLR vs OLR.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest review of LLR available to date with over 9000 cases published. It confirms growing safety when performed in selected patients and by trained surgeons, and suggests that LLR may offer improved patient short-term outcomes compared with OLR. Improved levels of evidence, standardized reporting of outcomes, and assuring proper training are the next challenges of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Incidence, risk factors and consequences of bile leakage following laparoscopic major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage (BL) remains a common cause of major morbidity after open major liver resection but has only been poorly described in patients undergoing laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH). The present study aimed to determine the incidence, risk factors and consequences of BL following LMH.

METHODS

All 223 patients undergoing LMH between 2000 and 2013 at two tertiary referral centres were retrospectively analysed. BL was defined according to the International Study Group of Liver Surgery, and its incidence and consequences were assessed. Risk factors for BL were determined on multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

BL occurred in 30 (13.5 %) patients, and its incidence remained stable over time (p = 0.200). BL was diagnosed following the presence of bile into the abdominal drain in 14 (46.7 %) patients and after drainage of symptomatic abdominal collections in 16 (53.3 %) patients without intra-operative drain placement. Grade A, B and C BL occurred in 3 (10.0 %), 23 (76.6 %) and 4 (13.4 %) cases, respectively. Interventional procedures for BL included endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, percutaneous and surgical drainage in 10 (33.3 %), 23 (76.7 %) and 4 (13.3 %) patients, respectively. BL was associated with significantly increased rates of symptomatic pleural effusion (30.0 vs. 11.4 %, p = 0.006), multiorgan failure (13.3 vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.022), postoperative death (10.0 vs. 1.6 %, p = 0.008) and prolonged hospital stay (18 vs. 8 days, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, BMI > 28 kg/m(2) (OR 2.439, 95 % CI 1.878-2.771, p = 0.036), history of hepatectomy (OR 1.675, 95 % CI 1.256-2.035, p = 0.044) and biliary reconstruction (OR 1.975, 95 % CI 1.452-2.371, p = 0.039) were significantly associated with increased risk of BL.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

After LMH, BL occurred in 13.5 % of the patients and was associated with significant morbidity. Patients with one or several risk factors for BL should benefit intra-operative drain placement.

Lithotomy using cholangioscopy via the left hepatic duct orifice versus the common bile duct in laparoscopic treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis: a comparative study

OBJECTIVE

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is widely used in the surgical treatment of left-sided hepatolithiasis (LSH). Lithotomy using a cholangioscope usually is required for the treatment of concurrent right-sided hepatolithiasis or choledocholithiasis. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gallstone elimination using cholangioscopy through the left hepatic duct (LHD) orifice versus the common bile duct (CBD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible LSH patients (n=41) were scheduled for laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy or left hemihepatectomy with intraoperative biliary exploration using cholangioscopy through the LHD orifice (LHD group, n=23) or the CBD (CBD group, n=18) at the discretion of patients. Laparoscopic T-tube insertion was performed in selected patients. Patients were regularly followed up at monthly intervals or more frequently in the presence of any symptom. The primary outcome measures included overall operative time, duration of the cholangioscopy procedure, volume of blood loss, length of hospital stay, and frequency of procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

The two groups were comparable in sex, age, symptoms, site of lesion, and gallstone comorbidities (P>.05). Of the 18 patients in the CBD group, 12 (66.7%) patients had a T-tube inserted in contrast to 1 (4.5%) patient in the LHD group. The two groups were comparable in cholangioscopy duration and volume of blood loss (P>.05), whereas the LHD group had a significantly shorter operative time than the CBD group (221.4 ± 58.6 minutes versus 171.2 ± 63.5 minutes; P<.05). The postoperative duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the LHD group than in the CBD group (7.5 ± 2.2 days versus 4.2 ± 1.9 days; P<.05). No patient showed any recurrence of gallstones or cholangitis during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

As an effective and safe technique that is comparable to choledochotomy, LHD cholangioscopy is a preferred alternative to choledochotomy in the laparoscopic treatment of LSH because it offers patients shorter operative duration and length of hospitalization.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis: an experience of 116 cases

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients with hepatolithiasis were diagnosed at an early stage in China. Laparoscopic surgery has introduced new methods of treating this condition.

AIM

To investigate the patient selection, operative technique, and efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of 116 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (laparoscopic group) and 78 patients who underwent open hepatectomy (open group) for hepatolithiasis were retrospectively analyzed, and were compared with the recent reports.

RESULTS

The laparoscopic group had a longer duration of operation (323.3 ± 103.0 min vs. 272.8 ± 66.8 min, p<0.05) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (13.1 ± 5.6 days vs. 16.5 ± 8.4 days, p<0.05) than the open group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in intraoperative blood loss or transfusion rate, postoperative complications, calculus clearance, calculus recurrence, or recurrent cholangitis (p>0.05 for all). Efficacy in the laparoscopic group was similar to that in other recently reported studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy with bile duct exploration is safe and feasible for early stage localized hepatolithiasis, with an efficacy similar to that of open surgery. Anatomic hepatectomy is important for achieving good therapeutic outcomes.

The safety and feasibility of reoperation for the treatment of hepatolithiasis by laparoscopic approach

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis removal is associated with high rates of postoperative residual and recurrence, which in some cases may require multiple surgeries. The progress and development of laparoscopic techniques introduced a new way of treating hepatolithiasis. However, the selection criteria for laparoscopic hepatolithiasis surgery, particularly among patients with a history of biliary surgery, remain undetermined. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of reoperation for the treatment of hepatolithiasis via a laparoscopic approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the perioperative course and outcomes was performed on 90 patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures for hepatolithiasis between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012. Thirty-eight patients had previous biliary tract operative procedures (PB group) and 52 patients had no previous biliary tract procedures (NPB).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in operative time (342.3 ± 101.0 vs. 334.1 ± 102.7 min), intraoperative blood loss (561.2 ± 458.8 vs. 546.3 ± 570.5 ml), intraoperative transfusion (15.8 vs. 19.2 %), postoperative hospitalization (12.6 ± 4.2 vs. 13.4 % ± 6.3 days), postoperative complications (18.4 vs. 23.1 %), conversion to open laparotomy (10.5 vs. 9.6 %), or intraoperative stone clearance rate (94.7 vs. 90.4 %). There was also no significant difference in stone recurrence (7.9 vs. 11.5 %) and recurrent cholangitis (5.3 vs. 13.5 %) at a mean of 19 months of follow-up (range, 3-51 months) for PB patients compared to NPB patients. The final stone clearance rate was 100 % in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperation for hepatolithiasis by laparoscopic approach is safe and feasible for selected patients who have undergone previous biliary operations.

Treatment of hepatolithiasis with bile duct stenosis

Hepatolithiasis is a disease prevalent in Southeast Asian countries that is characterized by the presence of stones in the intrahepatic bile ducts proximal to the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts. The goals of management include efficient elimination of stones and stasis, relief of strictures, total biliary drainage, maximum protection of functional liver tissue, and reduction of surgical complications. The diagnosis can be best established by direct cholangiography such as percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Magnetic resonance cholangiography can delineate detailed information on the bile ducts, which is useful in the planning of treatment for hepatolithiasis. Though non-operative biliary decompression by endoscopy and interventional radiology is effective in controlling infection, surgery by multiple methods remains the mainstay for the treatment of stones and strictures. The bile duct stricture carries a high risk for postsurgical intrahepatic calculi; hence, permanent relief of stricture in hepatobiliary surgery is mandatory. The aggressive resection strategy is recommended for an atrophic segment resulting from hepatolithiasis to achieve complete clearance of the stones and relief of bile stasis. For therapeutic purposes, we recommend a combination of multimodal treatments to improve results. It is necessary to choose the most suitable and optimal therapeutic approaches in selective cases in the treatment of complicated hepatolithiasis.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher incident frequency in hepatolithiasis patients

PURPOSES

The primary concern regarding laparoscopic hepatectomy in hepatolithiasis patients is surgical safety, which may be high in current practice.

METHODS

Hepatolithiasis patients who underwent laparoscopic and laparotomic hepatectomies were retrospectively studies after being matched for age, location of gallstones, liver resection and underlying liver conditions at a ratio of 1:1 (n = 44 in each group). The rates of intraoperative incidents and postoperative complications were examined using validated classification and grading systems. The primary outcome measure was the procedure-related complication/mortality rate.

RESULTS

Laparoscopy was converted to open surgery in three patients (6.8 %). The length of the operation for laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly longer than that for laparotomic hepatectomy (277.5 min [range, 190-410 min] vs. 212.5 min [140-315 min], P < 0.001). The two groups had similar intraoperative blood loss (367.5 mL [150-1200 mL] vs. 392.5 mL [200-1400 mL], P > 0.05) and transfusion frequencies (13.6 vs. 18.2 %, P > 0.05). The laparoscopy group had a higher percentage of patients with at least one intraoperative incident compared with the laparotomy group (22.7 vs. 6.8 %; P < 0.05). Vascular events occurred in nine patients (20.5 %) undergoing laparoscopy and two patients (4.5 %) undergoing laparotomy (OR 5.4 [95 %CI, 1.1-26.7], P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a higher risk of intraoperative vascular incidents in hepatolithiasis patients compared wit laparotomy.

Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for left intrahepatic duct stones

Purpose

The feasibility of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for the management of intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones was evaluated.

Methods

The clinical data of 26 consecutive patients who underwent total laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for IHD stones at Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2009 and June 2011 were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

The mean operation time was 312.1 ± 63.4 minutes and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 11.8 ± 5.0 days. There were 2 cases of postoperative bile leakage and 3 cases of intra-abdominal fluid collection, which were successfully managed conservatively. Remnant stones were detected in 2 patients. The initial success rate of stone clearance was 92.3% (24 of 26). The remnant stones were located in the common bile duct in both cases and were removed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy. Therefore, the final success rate of stone clearance was 100% (26 of 26). During a mean follow-up of 22 months (range, 7 to 36 months), there was no patient with recurrent stone.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic surgery could be an effective treatment modality for the management of IHD stones in select patients.

Laparoscopic liver resection: Current role and limitations

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for the treatment of benign and malignant liver lesions is often performed at specialized centers. Technological advances, such as laparoscopic ultrasonography and electrosurgical tools, have afforded surgeons simultaneous improvements in surgical technique. The utilization of minimally invasive techniques for liver resection has been reported to reduce operative time, decrease blood loss, and shorten length of hospital stay with equivalent postoperative mortality and morbidity rates compared to open liver resection (OLR). Non-anatomic liver resection and left lateral sectionectomy are now routinely performed laparoscopically at many institutions. Furthermore, major hepatic resections are performed by pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted technique, and the hybrid method. In addition, robotic surgery and single port surgery are revealing early promising results. The consensus recommendation for the treatment of benign liver disease and malignant lesions remains unchanged when considering a laparoscopic approach, except when comorbidities and anatomic limitations of the liver lesion preclude this technique. Disease free and survival rates after LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic colon cancer correspond to OLR. Patient selection is a significant factor for these favorable outcomes. The limitations include LLR of superior and posterior liver lesions; however, adjustments in technique may now consider a laparoscopic approach as a viable option. As growing data continue to reveal the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery, this skill is increasingly being adopted by hepatobiliary surgeons. Although the full scope of laparoscopic liver surgery remains infrequently used by many general surgeons, this technique will become a standard in the treatment of liver diseases as studies continue to show favorable outcomes.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open surgery for pyogenic liver abscess with biliary pathology

AIM: To investigate the feasibility and therapeutic effect of laparoscopic surgery for pyogenic liver abscess (PLA) with biliary pathology.

METHODS: From January 2004 to October 2010, 31 patients with PLA combined with biliary pathology meeting entry criteria received surgical management in our hospital. Of the 31 patients, 13 underwent laparoscopic surgery (LS group) and 18 underwent open surgery (OS group). Clinical data including operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complication rate, length of postoperative hospital stay, and abscess recurrence rate were retrospectively analyzed and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: All patients received systemic antibiotic therapy. Four patients underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous catheter drainage before operation. Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients (16.1%, 5/31) including 2 in the LS group and 3 in the OS group. One patient had retained calculus in the common bile duct and another had liver abscess recurrence in the OS group. No retained calculus and liver abscess recurrence occurred in the LS group. In the two groups, there was no mortality during the perioperative period. There were no significant differences in operation time, intraoperative blood loss and transfusion, postoperative complication rate and abscess recurrence rate between the two groups. Oral intake was earlier (1.9 ± 0.4 d vs 3.1 ± 0.7 d, P < 0.05) and length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter (11.3 ± 2.9 d vs 14.5 ± 3.7 d, P < 0.05) in the LS group than in the OS group.

CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery for simultaneous treatment of PLA and biliary pathology is feasible in selected patients and the therapeutic effect is similar to that of open surgery.