Right hemihepatectomy preserving the fluorescently visible paracaval portion of the caudate lobe

The paracaval portion (PC) of the caudate lobe is a small area of the liver located in front of the inferior vena cava. Conventional right hemihepatectomy (RH) along the Rex-Cantlie line involves resection of not only the anterior and posterior sections but also the PC behind the middle hepatic vein (MHV). However, to preserve the future liver remnant volume as much as possible, PC-preserving RH may be beneficial in selected patients. We injected an indocyanine green (ICG) solution in the PC portal branch under intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) guidance and performed an RH preserving the fluorescently visible PC in a patient with liver metastasis. The patient was a 47-year-old male with a 24 ×10 cm metastatic hepatic tumor from sigmoid colon cancer. CT volumetry revealed that the left hemiliver excluding the caudate lobe was 55%, and the caudate lobe was 5.3%. Before hepatic transection, the ICG solution was injected into the PC portal branch under IOUS guidance. During hepatic transection, the PC was identified as a fluorescent area behind the MHV using a near-infrared imaging system. Thus, the anatomical right-side boundary of the caudate lobe was clearly found. Following RH, the PC was preserved as a fluorescently visible area. The patient had an uneventful recovery. RH preserving the fluorescently visible PC of the liver is a feasible procedure.

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH.

METHODS

All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure.

CONCLUSION

L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy versus laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterior segments: Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:

This study was designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma located in the posterior segments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The study included patients who underwent either laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy or laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma located in segment 6 or 7 from January 2009 to December 2016 at Samsung Medical Center. After 1:1 propensity score matching, patient baseline characteristics and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Disease-free survival and overall survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test.

RESULTS:

Among 61 patients with laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy and 37 patients with laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, 30 patients from each group were analyzed after propensity score matching. After matching, baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar including tumor size (3.4 ± 1.2 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 3.7 ± 2.1 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.483); differences were significant before matching (3.1 ± 1.3 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 4.3 ± 2.7 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in operative and postoperative data except for free margin size (1.04 ± 0.71 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 2.95 ± 1.75 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P < 0.001). Disease-free survival (5-year survival: 38.0% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 47.0% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.510) and overall survival (5-year survival: 92.7% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 89.6% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.593) did not differ between the groups based on Kaplan-Meier log-rank test.

CONCLUSION:

For hepatocellular carcinoma in the posterior segments, laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy was feasible compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.

Laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft: Case report and literature review

RATIONALE

With the development of laparoscopic technique, the total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy (LLDRH) procurement surgery has been successfully performed in many liver transplant centers all over the world, and the number of cases is continuing to increase. We report our case of laparoscopic right graft resection with venous outflow reconstruction using cadaveric common iliac artery allograft in our center and review literatures about total LLDRH surgery.

PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSES

A 40-year-old male living donor for right hepatectomy was selected after pretransplant evaluation including laboratory tests, liver volume, anatomy of hepatic vein, artery, portal vein, and bile duct. Living donor liver transplantation surgery was approved by Sichuan Provincial Health Department and the ethics committee of the West China Hospital, Sichuan University.

INTERVENTIONS

Hepatic parenchyma transection was performed by ultrasonic scalpel and Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA). Right branch of portal vein, right hepatic artery, right hepatic duct, and right hepatic vein were meticulously dissected. The right hepatic duct was ligated and transected 2 mm far from the bifurcation of common hepatic duct, right hepatic artery, and portal vein were also ligated and transected, the right hepatic vein was transected by laparoscopic linear cutting stapler. The gap between short hepatic veins and right hepatic vein was bridged and reconstructed by cadaveric common iliac artery allograft.

OUTCOMES

The operation time was 480 minutes and warm ischemia time was 4 minutes. Blood loss was 300 mL without blood transfusion. The donor was discharged on postoperative day 7 uneventfully without complications. Literatures about laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy are compared and summarized in table.

LESSONS

The total laparoscopic living donor right hemihepatectomy is technically feasible and safe in some transplant centers which should have rich open living donor liver transplantation experience and skilled laparoscopic techniques. Venous outflow tract reconstruction is necessary if orifice diameter of short hepatic vein is greater than 0.5 cm on the graft cutting surface.