Unplanned conversion during minimally invasive liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: risk factors and surgical outcomes

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Objective

To compare nationwide outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

Background

Minimally invasive liver resection is increasingly performed using the robotic approach as this could help overcome inherent technical limitations of laparoscopy. It is unknown if this translates to improved patient outcomes.

Methods

Data from the mandatory Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit were used to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR and LLR in 20 centers in the Netherlands (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of the learning curve (≥50 procedures for LLR and ≥25 procedures for RLR), concurrent noncholecystectomy operations, high-volume centers, and conversion on outcomes.

Results

Overall, 792 RLR and 2738 LLR were included. After PSM (781 RLR vs 781 LLR), RLR was associated with less blood loss (median: 100 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 50-300] vs 200 mL [IQR: 50-500], P = 0.002), less major blood loss (≥500 mL,18.6% vs 25.2%, P = 0.011), less conversions (4.9% vs 12.8%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median: 3 days [IQR: 2-5] vs 4 days [IQR: 2-6], P < 0.001), compared with LLR. There were no significant differences in overall and severe morbidity, readmissions, mortality, and R0 resection rate. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. When excluding conversions, RLR was only associated with a reduction in reoperations (1.1% vs 2.7%, P = 0.038).

Conclusion

In this nationwide analysis, RLR was associated with a reduction in conversion, blood loss and length of hospital stay without compromising patient safety, also when excluding a learning curve effect. The benefits of RLR seem to be mostly related to a reduction in conversions.

Deep learning-based automatic bleeding recognition during liver resection in laparoscopic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative hemorrhage during laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is a risk factor for negative postoperative outcomes. Ensuring appropriate hemostasis enhances the safety of surgical procedures. An automatic bleeding recognition system based on deep learning can lead to safer surgeries; however, deep learning models that are useful for detecting and stopping bleeding in LH have not yet been reported. In this study, we aimed to develop a deep learning model to automatically recognize bleeding regions during liver transection in LH.

METHODS

In this retrospective feasibility study, bleeding scenes were randomly selected from LH videos, and the videos were divided into frames at 30 frames per second. Bleeding regions within the images were annotated by pixels, and subsequently, all images were assigned to the training, validation, and test datasets to develop the deep learning model. A convolutional neural network algorithm was used to perform semantic segmentation. After training and validation, the model was evaluated using images from the test dataset. Precision, recall, and Dice coefficients served as the evaluation metrics for the model.

RESULTS

In total, 2203 annotated images from 44 LH videos were utilized and divided into 1500, 400, and 303 frames for the training, validation, and test datasets, respectively. The precision, recall, and Dice coefficient values of the model were 0.76, 0.79, and 0.77, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an automatic bleeding recognition model based on semantic segmentation and verified its performance. The proposed model is potentially useful for intraoperative alerting or evaluating surgical skills in the future.

Association between Unplanned Conversion and Patient Survival after Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Unplanned conversion (UPC) is considered to be a predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. However, the effects of UPC on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and those who underwent UPC for HCC. Among 1029 patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between 2004 and 2021, 251 were eligible for the study. Of 251 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC in PS segments, 29 (26.0%) required UPC, and 222 underwent LLR. After 1:5 PSM, 25 patients were selected for the UPC group and 125 for the LLR group. Blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, and postoperative complication were higher in the UPC group. Regarding oncologic outcomes, although the 5-year overall survival rate was similar in both groups (p = 0.544), the recurrence-free survival rate was lower in the UPC group (p < 0.001). UPC was associated with poor short-term as well as inferior long-term outcomes compared with LLR for HCC in PS segments. Therefore, surgeons must carefully select patients and consider early conversion if unexpected bleeding occurs to maintain safety and oncologic outcomes.

Risk Factors and Long-Term Implications of Unplanned Conversion During Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become a widely used standardized operation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the field of hepatic surgery. However, the risk factors and long-term implications associated with unplanned conversion to an open procedure during the LLR have not been adequately studied. Methods: The study incorporated 96 patients with HCC. Risk factors of conversion and their prognosis were analyzed by comparing patients who successfully underwent LLR with those who required unplanned conversion. Results: In this study, the unplanned conversion rate for laparoscopic hepatectomy was 42.7%. Patients who underwent conversion had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days, P < .001), longer operation time (297.73 versus 194.03 minutes, P = .000), a higher transfusion rate (29.3% versus 5.5%, P < .001), and more postoperative complications compared with patients who successfully underwent LLR. The two surgical maneuvers did not show substantial disparities in terms of total survival and disease-free survival rates. Risk factors of unplanned conversion contained tumor location (odds ratio [OR], 3.129; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.214-8.066; P = 0.018) and tumor size (OR, 2.652; 95% CI: 1.039-6.767; P = 0.041). Conclusions: The unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC was linked to unfavorable short-term prognosis, yet it did not influence long-term oncologic outcomes. Moreover, preoperative evaluation of tumor size and location may effectively reduce the probability of unplanned conversion during LLR.

The Outcome of Conversion to Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery in Laparoscopic Liver Resection

BACKGROUND

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is known as a useful option. However, the outcome and predictor of conversion to HALS in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who planned pure LLR between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and compared pure LLR, HALS, and converted open liver resection (OLR).

RESULTS

Among the 169 LLRs, conversion to HALS was performed in 19 (11.2%) and conversion to OLR in 16 (9.5%). The most frequent reasons for conversion to HALS were failure to progress (11 cases). Subsequently, bleeding (3 cases), severe adhesion (2 cases), and oncological factors (2 cases) were the reasons. In the multivariable analysis, the tumor located in segments 7 or 8 (p = 0.002) was evaluated as a predictor of conversion to HALS. Pure LLR and HALS were associated with less blood loss than conversion to OLR (p = 0.005 and p = 0.014, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictor of conversion to HALS was a tumor located in segments 7 or 8. The outcome of conversion to HALS was not inferior to pure LLR in terms of bleeding, operation time, hospital stay, or severe complication.

Conversion of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for HCC in Advanced Cirrhosis: Clinical Impact and Role of Difficulty Scoring Systems

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) in cirrhosis are at risk of conversion since cirrhosis and complexity, which can be estimated by scoring systems, are both independent factors for. We aimed to investigate the consequence of conversion of MILR for hepatocellular carcinoma in advanced cirrhosis.

METHODS

After retrospective review, MILRs for HCC were divided into preserved liver function (Cohort-A) and advanced cirrhosis cohorts (Cohort-B). Completed and converted MILRs were compared (Compl-A vs. Conv-A and Compl-B vs. Conv-B); then, converted patients were compared (Conv-A vs. Conv-B) as whole cohorts and after stratification for MILR difficulty using Iwate criteria.

RESULTS

637 MILRs were studied (474 Cohort-A, 163 Cohort-B). Conv-A MILRs had worse outcomes than Compl-A: more blood loss; higher incidence of transfusions, morbidity, grade 2 complications, ascites, liver failure and longer hospitalization. Conv-B MILRs exhibited the same worse perioperative outcomes than Compl-B and also higher incidence of grade 1 complications. Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes of low difficulty MILRs resulted in similar perioperative outcomes, whereas the comparison of more difficult converted MILRs (intermediate/advanced/expert) resulted in several worse perioperative outcomes for patients with advanced cirrhosis. However, Conv-A and Conv-B outcomes were not significantly different in the whole cohort where "advanced/expert" MILRs were 33.1% and 5.5% in Cohort A and B.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion in the setting of advanced cirrhosis can be associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to compensated cirrhosis, provided careful patient selection is applied (patients elected to low difficulty MILRs). Difficulty scoring systems may help in identifying the most appropriate candidates.

The risk factors of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intraoperative conversion to laparotomy is a challenge during laparoscopic hepatectomy; however, the risk factors of conversion have been poorly elucidated.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each risk factor and evaluated heterogeneity using a L'Abbe plot, Galbraith radial plot, Cochran's Q test, and I². An extended funnel plot was used to evaluate the robustness of the results of meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were performed to determine sources of heterogeneity. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to assess publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 25 eligible studies were enrolled in the meta-analysis. Higher body mass index (OR 1.346, 95% CI 1.055-1.717), hypertension (OR 1.387, 95% CI 1.100-1.749), male sex (OR 1.278, 95% CI 1.072-1.523), cirrhosis (OR 1.378, 95% CI 1.062-1.788), major resection (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.748-2.382), posterosuperior tumor location (OR 2.420, 95% CI 1.923-3.044), and larger tumor diameter (OR 1.618, 95% CI 1.270-2.061) were found to be significantly related to intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Malignant tumor (OR 1.253, 95% CI 0.970-1.619), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists stage (OR 1.186, 95% CI 0.863-1.631), multiple tumors (OR 1.273, 95% CI 0.866-1.871), and abdominal surgery history (OR 1.236, 95% CI 0.589-2.597) were not associated with conversion. A history of abdominal surgery showed significant heterogeneity with an I² of 80.8% (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis indicated that heterogeneity was caused by the different number of patients among enrolled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified a number of factors associated with intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic hepatectomy. Our findings can help patient risk evaluation to reduce the laparotomy conversion rate in laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Risk factors and long-term implications of unplanned conversion during laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma located in anterolateral liver segments

Purpose

The impact of conversion on perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes is controversial. Thus, we compared these outcomes between laparoscopic (Lap), unplanned conversion (Conversion), and planned open (Open) liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in anterolateral (AL) liver segments and aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned conversion.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 374 patients (Lap, 299; Open, 62; Conversion, 13) who underwent liver resection for HCC located in AL segments between 2004 and 2018.

Results

Compared to the Lap group, the Conversion group showed greater values for operation time (p < 0.001), blood loss (p = 0.021), transfusion rate (p = 0.009), postoperative complication rate (p = 0.008), and hospital stay (p = 0.040), with a lower R0 resection rate (p < 0.001) and disease-free survival (p = 0.001). Compared with the Open group, the Conversion group had a longer operation time (p = 0.012) and greater blood loss (p = 0.024). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were large tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.74; p = 0.020), multiple tumors (OR, 5.95; 95% CI, 1.45-24.39; p = 0.013), and other organ invasion (OR, 15.32; 95% CI, 1.80-130.59; p = 0.013).

Conclusion

In conclusion, patients who experienced unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC located in AL segments showed poor perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to those who underwent planned laparoscopic and open liver resection. Therefore, open liver resection should be considered in patients with risk factors for unplanned conversion.

How to minimize conversion to open surgery during laparoscopic liver resection: the point of view of hemostasis

It has been 30 years since laparoscopic liver resection was first introduced, and, in the beginning, wedge resection or nonanatomical liver resection was mainly performed. With the development of surgical techniques and instruments, many centers are currently performing major liver resections and even difficult anatomical liver resections such as segment VI, VII, and VIII and caudate segment. However, laparoscopic surgery has limitations in instrument manipulation, and due to the nature of liver resection surgery, massive bleeding may occur. Therefore, it is necessary to make efforts to minimize the bleeding and reduce the conversion to laparotomy due to bleeding.