Repeat hepatectomy versus percutaneous ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: emphasis on the impact of early or late recurrence

PURPOSE

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) patients with early recurrence usually suffer a poorer prognosis than those with late recurrence. We aimed to compare the treatment efficacy of repeat hepatectomy (RH) and percutaneous ablation (PA) in early-stage rHCC patients with early or late recurrence.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 268 patients diagnosed with early-stage rHCC who received RH and PA. Overall survival (OS) and repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS) were compared using log-rank analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the confounding bias.

RESULTS

Among the 268 patients with early-stage rHCC, 79 underwent RH and 189 underwent PA. Early (n = 174) and late (n = 94) recurrence was defined as recurrence within and after 2 years following initial hepatectomy, respectively. For patients with early recurrence, RH and PA provided similar 5-year OS (71.5% versus 74.4%, P = 0.87) and rRFS rates (24.7% versus 24.9%, P = 0.73). For patients with late recurrence, RH resulted in comparable 5-year OS (73.1% versus 86.1%, P = 0.62) and rRFS rates (36.6% versus 27.8%, P = 0.34) as PA. After PSM, RH continued to share similar 5-year OS and rRFS rates with PA in patients with early recurrence, and comparable efficacy of RH and PA was also observed in patients with late recurrence.

CONCLUSION

RH can offer comparable OS and rRFS rates as PA for early-stage rHCC patients, regardless of whether they experience early or late recurrence. Therefore, both RH and PA are feasible treatment options for early-stage rHCC patients.

Appropriate indications for laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has increased, but appropriate indications for LRH are unclear. This study aimed to clarify appropriate indications for LRH.

METHODS

We retrospectively compared surgical outcomes between open RH (ORH) (n = 57) and LRH (n = 40) groups. To detect difficult cases of complete pure LRH, we examined patients with unplanned intraoperative hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)/open conversion (n = 6).

RESULTS

In the LRH versus ORH group, as previous hepatectomy, laparoscopic (75% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (73% vs. 37%, p = 0.002) were more frequently performed, and as RH procedure, partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (88% vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) was more frequently performed. S1 tumor cases were higher in ORH group (11% vs. 0%), but S2-6 cases were higher in LRH group (73% vs. 49%) (p = 0.02). In LRH group, compared to the pure LRH patients, HALS/open conversion patients underwent significantly more previous hepatectomy with more than lobectomy (Hr2-3) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.033) and more RH procedures with segmentectomy (HrS) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.03). All LRH requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach were HALS conversions.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate indications for LRH were previous hepatectomy was laparoscopic partial hepatectomy (Hr0), and RH procedure was partial hepatectomy (Hr0) for S2-6 tumor location. When RH is more than segmentectomy (HrS) requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach, planned HALS or ORH may be a better approach than pure LRH.

Optimal treatment strategy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma based on recurrence time and tumor size: A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) is commonly treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with microwave ablation (MWA) or repeated hepatectomy(RH), but the optimal treatment strategy is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TACE-MWA and RH in RHCC patients after initial radical hepatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 210 RHCC patients were included between June 2014 and January 2021, with 126 patients in the TACE-MWA group and 84 patients in the RH group. The primary endpoints were median repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS) and overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was complications. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to minimize bias. Subgroup analysis based on recurrence patterns (recurrence time and tumor size) was performed, and prognostic factors were studied.

RESULTS

Before PSM, the RH group had better median OS (37.0 vs 26.0 months, P<0.001) and rRFS (15.0 vs 14.0 months, P = 0.003). After PSM, the RH group also had a better median OS (33.5 vs 29.0 months, P = 0.038), but there was no significant difference in median rRFS between the two groups (14.0 vs 13.0 months, P = 0.099). Subgroup analysis showed that when RHCC diameter>5 cm, RH had a better median OS (33.5 vs 25.0 months, P = 0.013) and rRFS (14.0 vs 10.9 months, P = 0.030). When the RHCC diameter was≤5 cm, there was no significant difference in the median OS (37.0 vs 31.0 months, P = 0.338) and rRFS (15.0 vs 17.0 months, P = 0.758) between the two groups. When RHCC relapses in the early stage (≤2 years), there is no significant difference in the median OS (26.0 vs 26.0 months, P = 0.310) and rRFS (12.0 vs 10.5 months, P = 0.089) between the two groups. When RHCC relapses in the late stage (>2 years), the RH group has better median OS (41.0 vs 33.0 months, P<0.001) and rRFS (30.0 vs 20.0 months, P = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Individualized therapy is necessary for RHCC. TACE -MWA may be a good choice for RHCC with early recurrence or tumor diameter ≤5 cm. However, RH should be the first choice for RHCC with late recurrence or tumor diameter>5 cm.

Rivaroxaban combined with repeat hepatectomy for treatment of cirrhosis-related acute portal vein thrombosis with hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Acute portal vein thrombosis (PVT) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe complication of liver cirrhosis and its prognosis is affected by clinical decision to a large extent, while the order of management, the approaches of treatment, and the adjustment of the plan are all the key and difficult points.

CASE SUMMARY

This case was treated with low molecular weight heparin (4000 U/12 h) for 14 d, followed by rivaroxaban (10 mg/12 h) and then partial hepatectomy twice, of which the first was performed 1 mo after anticoagulation, and the second was performed 4 mo later, by which the primary lesion and postoperative new lesion were resected, respectively. Rivaroxaban was taken constantly except the perioperative period, while gingival bleeding occurred after 8 mo of anticoagulation, so suspension of rivaroxaban was carried out for 1 wk, after which the bleeding was relieved, and a half dose of rivaroxaban (10 mg/d) was used to continue anticoagulation from then on. The thrombus remained recanalized and there was no tumor recurrence during the following 2 years.

CONCLUSION

When there are indications for anticoagulation and partial hepatectomy in patients with cirrhosis-related acute PVT with HCC, anticoagulation followed by surgery is recommended, as anticoagulation may reduce thrombosis in a short time, which could not only decrease the risk of surgery, but also have little influence on the opportunity of tumor treatment. And when recurrence of HCC occurs, if possible, repeat hepatectomy should be considered to improve the prognosis. Anticoagulant strategy should be adjusted accordingly if rivaroxaban causes bleeding, and it should be stopped or reduced after the bleeding is stable.

Increasing incidence and severity of post-hepatectomy adhesion around the liver may be influenced by the hepatectomy-related operative procedures

BACKGROUND

The incidence of postoperative adhesions is directly correlated with the difficulty level of repeat hepatectomies. However, the incidence, location, and severity of postoperative adhesions in relation to hepatectomy-related operative procedures are yet unclear.

METHODS

First hepatectomy-induced hard dense adhesions were evaluated from the surgical records and/or videos of 168 patients who underwent second hepatectomies.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative hard dense adhesions around the liver was significantly associated with locations, such as the hepatic cut surface, dissected areas around the liver, and peri-incision peritoneum, and hepatectomy-related operative procedures, such as Pringle maneuver and cholecystectomy. The incidence of hard dense adhesions after dissection was higher around the right liver than in the left infraphrenic space. Further, the incidence of hard dense adhesions around the hepatoduodenal ligament or Morison pouch was greater than 30% even in patients who did not undergo Pringle maneuver, cholecystectomy, or hepatorenal ligament dissection. Although the incidence of hard dense adhesions of the peritoneum around the incision was higher after open hepatectomy than after laparoscopic hepatectomy, adhesion barrier use reduced the incidence of such adhesions in patients after open hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Hepatectomy-related operative procedures such as peri-hepatic dissection, Pringle maneuver and cholecystectomy are directly associated with postoperative hard dense adhesions. However, the incidence of postoperative hard dense adhesions around the hepatoduodenal ligament and Morison pouch was high even when the above-mentioned operative procedures were not performed. These findings may help inform clinical decisions regarding the indications and sites for adhesion barrier use during hepatectomies.

Laparoscopic vs open liver re-resection for cirrhotic patients with post-hepatectomy hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Repeated liver resection is an effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few studies have compared the outcome of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent HCC, and few of those have included cirrhotic patients.

AIM

To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of cirrhotic patients with LRH and ORH for recurrent HCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the clinical records retrieved from a prospectively collected database of all patients who underwent hepatectomy for post-hepatectomy recurrent HCC at our institute between May 2006 and June 2021. Cases of recurrent HCCs larger than 7 cm were excluded. Patient demographics, operative details, perioperative outcomes, pathologic details, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) data of LRH and ORH were compared.

RESULTS

Data from 29 patients with LRH and 22 with ORH were compared. The LRH group showed significantly better outcomes for blood loss (median 300 mL vs 750 mL, P = 0.013) and length of hospital stay (median 5 d vs 7 d, P = 0.003). The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the LRH group were 100.0%, 60.0% and 30.0%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 81.8%, 36.4% and 18.2% (P = 0.336). The 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS rates in the LRH group were 68.2%, 27.3% and 4.5%, respectively; the corresponding rates in the ORH group were 31.3%, 6.3% and 6.3% (P = 0.055). There were no significant differences in overall and DFS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic re-resection should be considered for patients presenting with recurrent HCC less than or equal to 7 cm after previous hepatectomy.

Radiofrequency ablation versus repeat hepatectomy in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in subcapsular location: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Repeat hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are widely used to treat early recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) located in the subcapsular region, but the optimal treatment strategy remains to be controversial.

Methods

A total of 126 RHCC patients in the subcapsular location after initial radical hepatectomy were included in this study between Dec 2014 and Jan 2018. These patients were divided into the RFA group (46 cases) and the repeat hepatectomy group (80 cases). The primary endpoints include repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS) and overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was complications. The propensity-score matching (PSM) was conducted to minimize the bias. Complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification, and severe complications were defined as classification of complications of ≥grade 3.

Results

There were no significant differences in the incidence of severe complications were observed between RFA group and repeat hepatectomy group in rRFS and OS both before (1-, 2-, and 3-year rRFS rates were 65.2%, 47.5%, and 33.3% vs 72.5%, 51.2%, and 39.2%, respectively, P = 0.48; 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 93.5%, 80.2%, and 67.9% vs 93.7%, 75.8%, and 64.2%, respectively, P = 0.92) and after PSM (1-, 2-, and 3-year rRFS rates were 68.6%, 51.0%, and 34.0% vs 71.4%, 42.9%, and 32.3%, respectively, P = 0.78; 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 94.3%, 82.9%, and 71.4% vs 88.6%, 73.8%, and 59.0%, respectively, P = 0.36). Moreover, no significant differences in the incidence of severe complications were observed between the RFA group and repeat hepatectomy group.

Conclusion

Both repeat hepatectomy and RFA are shown to be effective and safe for the treatment of RHCC located in the subcapsular region.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12957-021-02277-4.

Newly-revised Pringle maneuver using laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp for repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy

It has been known that repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after open hepatectomy is technically challenging because of adhesions around the hilum. It is quite often that conventional tourniquet technique for the Pringle maneuver is difficult in RLH, and we introduced Laparoscopic Satinsky Vascular Clamp (LSVC) for inflow control in RLH. The Spiegel lobe is the anatomical landmark in LSVC technique. If a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament and the Spiegel lobe was obtained, LSVC was applied laterally from the left side of the hepatoduodenal ligament, whereas LSVC was vertically applied for those with obstruction of a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament. We performed 14 cases of RLH for those with histories of open hepatectomies by lateral (n = 6) and vertical (n = 8) LSVC technique with successful inflow control, confirmed by intraoperative Doppler ultrasound. Five patients underwent 2 or more previous histories of hepatectomies. The RLH included segmentectomy (n = 1), subsegmentectomy (n = 2) and partial hepatectomy (n = 11). The median time for the Pringle maneuver, operative time, and blood loss was 47 min, 237.5 min, and 160 mL. All the patients completed pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. In conclusion, LSVC technique is a safe and reliable technique for the Pringle maneuver in RLH.

Feasible laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy using double intercostal ports and laparoscopic vascular clamp (with video)

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy is a technically challenging procedure owing to adhesions around the liver, causing difficulties in performing hepatic inflow control by conventional tourniquet method [1], and failure in hepatic mobilization [2].

METHOD

Thus, we introduce our technique using double intercostal ports to manipulate the fixed liver under the rib cage and using the laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp to perform hepatic inflow control to overcome the aforementioned concerns in ipsilateral laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy after previous open hepatectomy.

VIDEO

The patient, with histories of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and open Segment 7 subsegmentectomy, had recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in the dorsal region of Segment 8. After establishing pneumoperitoneum with five abdominal ports, adhesiolysis around the liver was then performed, followed by identification of the caudal part of Spiegel's lobe as the landmark for the space between the left-side of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the vena cava. Although the space between the right side of the hepatoduodenal ligament and the vena cava was obstructed, the laparoscopic blunt-tip Satinsky vascular clamp successfully was applied on the stiff hepatoduodenal ligament due to previous hepatectomy and made inflow control. Because the liver could not be mobilized at all, double intercostal ports with balloons were introduced [3] for parenchymal resection for exposing the parenchymal resection plane and also to apply the vessel sealing device. A 12-Fr chest tube (Aspiration Kit. Argyle™, Tokyo, Japan) was introduced in the right thoracic cavity as our routine.

RESULTS

The operative time was 243 minutes and the blood loss was 50g. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the day 8.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of intercostal ports and laparoscopic Satinsky vascular clamp could be significant aids for performing safe ipsilateral laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy, even after previous open hepatectomy.

Surgical and oncologic outcomes following repeat hepatic resection of colorectal liver metastasis: Who benefits?

BACKGROUND

Resected colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) frequently recur intrahepatically. Selection criteria for repeat hepatectomy of recurrent CRLM are ill-defined.

METHODS

We performed an institutional review of patients with recurrent CRLM undergoing repeat hepatectomy from 2003 to 19. Post-recurrence overall (rOS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards modeling.

RESULTS

n = 147 experienced recurrent CRLM; 11% (n = 38) received repeat hepatectomy of which there was one Clavien-Dindo IIIa complication. Median rOS was 41 months; median RFS was 9 months. Improved rOS and RFS were independently associated with additional post-operative chemotherapy after repeat hepatectomy (HR 0.35 and 0.34, respectively); poor rOS with recurrent CRLM >3 cm (HR 4.4) and <12 months from first hepatectomy to recurrence (HR 4.8); poor RFS with ≥3 recurrence liver metastases (HR 2.8) (All P < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM can be performed safely. Worse survival following repeat hepatectomy is independently associated with >3 cm and ≥3 liver lesions at recurrence, and <12 months to recurrence. Additional post-operative chemotherapy after repeat hepatectomy is associated with improved outcomes.

A case of repeat hepatectomy for liver metastasis from solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: a case report

Background

Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas is a rare tumor in young women, metastasizing in only 5–15% of cases, and most commonly to the liver. Although treatment guidelines have not been established, surgical resection is usually performed. We report a rare case of repeat hepatectomy for liver metastases after distal pancreatectomy with solid pseudopapillary neoplasm.

Case presentation

The patient was a 71-year-old woman who underwent distal pancreatectomy for solid pseudopapillary neoplasm, and liver metastasis occurred 4 years after the first surgery. Partial liver resection was performed for four liver metastases, and histopathological examination revealed a diagnosis of liver metastasis from solid pseudopapillary neoplasm. However, 18 months later, liver metastases were detected again; three tumors were identified, and partial resection was performed, which has provided 18 months’ recurrence-free survival.

Conclusions

Long-term prognosis can be expected following R0 resection for resectable liver metastasis from solid pseudopapillary neoplasm.

Repeat hepatectomy for liver metastases from bile duct neuroendocrine tumor: a case report

Background

Primary neuroendocrine tumor (NET) originating from the extrahepatic bile duct is rare, although liver metastasis from gastroenteropancreatic NET is frequently observed. We herein report a case who successfully underwent repeat hepatectomy for liver metastases from bile duct NET grade 2 (G2).

Case presentation

A 75-year-old man presented with jaundice and was suspected of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma by computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). He underwent extended left hepatectomy, extrahepatic bile duct resection, and hepaticojejunostomy. Pathological findings showed a NET G2 of the biliary tract arising from the common bile duct. Two years and 11 months after surgery, a liver metastasis was detected and hepatectomy was performed. During the surgery, another liver metastasis was detected, and limited liver resection for the two lesions was performed. Pathological findings showed four liver metastases of NET G2. Five years and 4 months after the first surgery (2 years and 5 months after the second hepatectomy), four liver metastases were detected. Thereafter, he received somatostatin analogues for 1 year. Although the size of tumors increased slightly, the number did not change. He underwent limited liver resections and was diagnosed with 7 liver metastases of NET G2. Finally, another hepatectomy (fourth hepatectomy) was performed and long-term survival without recurrence was obtained for as long as 8 years after the first surgery.

Conclusions

Repeat hepatectomy is a good option to obtain long-term survival for liver metastases from bile duct NET G2 in select patients.

Perioperative outcomes comparing laparoscopic with open repeat liver resection for post-hepatectomy recurrent liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Repeat Hepatectomy After Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed predictors of survival after repeat hepatectomy and the feasibility of a repeat hepatectomy after a major hepatectomy in the patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

More than half of all patients who receive a curative initial hepatectomy for CLM develop hepatic recurrence, and aggressive indications for a repeat hepatectomy can improve the outcome in selected patients. However, the feasibility of repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy remains uncertain, and optimal selection criteria for repeat hepatectomy have not yet been established.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively on 296 CLM patients who underwent an initial curative hepatectomy between 2007 and 2017 at our institution. The postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing a repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy were assessed, and independent predictors of survival were investigated.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up period of 32 months, 247 patients (83%) developed disease recurrence and 122 patients (49%) underwent repeat hepatectomy. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in patients who underwent a repeat hepatectomy than in those who did not receive repeat hepatectomy (51% vs. 19%, respectively; P < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, an extrahepatic lesion at the time of the repeat hepatectomy (HR, 2.49; P = 0.001) and 5 or more liver tumors at the time of recurrence (HR, 1.88; P = 0.04) remained as independent factors negatively affecting OS after repeat hepatectomy. The type of operative procedure and the intraoperative and postoperative factors at the time of the initial hepatectomy did not have any significant influence on the OS after repeat hepatectomy. No significant difference in OS was found between patients who received repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy (n = 43) and those after non-major hepatectomy (n = 79).

CONCLUSIONS

The operative procedure and the liver tumor status at the time of the initial hepatectomy have little impact on the indications for a repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CLM. Repeat hepatectomy is feasible even if major hepatectomy was initially performed.

Hepatic Epithelioid Hemangioendothelioma: Difficult Differential Diagnosis from Angiosarcoma

Hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is extremely rare, and preoperative diagnosis is difficult because hepatic EHE has clinicopathological features that are similar to those of angiosarcoma. However, it is important to differentiate hepatic EHE from angiosarcoma because the latter is an aggressive tumor with poor prognosis. We herein report a case of hepatic EHE that was difficult to distinguish from angiosarcoma by tumor biopsy. A 30-year-old man with Crohn's disease presented with multiple liver tumors. The tumors were preoperatively diagnosed as angiosarcoma by tumor biopsy. The patient underwent extended left hemihepatectomy with biliary reconstruction and partial resection of segments 6 and 8. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for CD34, factor VIII, and calmodulin binding transcription activator 1 (CAMTA1), and the pathological diagnosis was EHE. Two years after surgery, a recurrent tumor was found in liver segment 6, for which laparoscopic partial hepatectomy was performed. Pathological examination revealed recurrence of EHE. The patient remained well with no evidence of tumor recurrence as of 9 months after the second resection. In conclusion, we described a case of hepatic EHE that was initially diagnosed as angiosarcoma on biopsy. Immunohistochemical staining with CAMTA1 may help distinguish EHE from angiosarcoma.

Long-term survival after surgical resection for recurrent hepatic and pulmonary metastases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a case report

BACKGROUND

A few reports to date have described the effectiveness of surgical resection for recurrent intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). We report in this study a patient who achieved long-term survival after surgical resection for recurrent hepatic and pulmonary metastases of ICC.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old man was referred to our hospital for examination of a tumor in the left lobe of the liver. Computed tomography (CT) scans of the abdomen revealed a hypovascularized tumor, 30 mm in hepatic segment 2 (S2). The patient was diagnosed with a mass-forming type of ICC. A left lateral sectionectomy with regional lymph node dissection was performed. Histopathological examination showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma in the hepatic S2 with lymph node metastasis. There were two intrahepatic metastases around the main tumor. The pathological stage of the ICC was pT2pN1M0pStageIIIB. The patient did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. Twelve months after surgery, liver lesions in S4/S8 and S7 were detected on CT scans. A partial hepatectomy was performed. The histopathological features were similar to those of the previous ICC. The patient did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy after the repeat hepatectomy. Four years and four months after this repeat hepatectomy, CT scans showed multiple nodes in S4 and S10 of the left lung and in S1 of the right lung. Wedge resection of the left upper lobe and sectionectomy in S10 of the left lung were performed. Histopathological findings of the resected lung nodules were compatible with metastatic ICC. The nodule in S1 of the right lung was too small to be diagnosed as metastasis; therefore, it was not resected. After pulmonary resection, the patient was treated with gemcitabine and cisplatin for 6 months. After chemotherapy, the size of the nodule in S1 increased gradually. One year and ten months after the pulmonary resection, we performed wedge resection of S1 of the right lung, and the histopathological findings were compatible with metastatic ICC. The patient is alive without evidence of disease 8 years after the initial surgery and 8 months after the last pulmonary resection.

CONCLUSIONS

ICC with poor prognostic factors can frequently recur; however, surgical resection for recurrent ICC might, for selected patients, enable long-term survival.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons especially in case with previous open liver surgery. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current literature to investigate the feasibility of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) for liver diseases.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the short-term outcomes in comparative studies between LRLR with previous laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and OLR.

RESULTS

From the initial 55 manuscripts, 8 studies including 3 comparative studies between LRLR after OLR and LLR were investigated. There was a total of 108 patients. Considering initial surgery, the extent of initial liver resection was major liver resection in 20% of patients in whom it was reported. In all the patients, the most frequent primary histology was hepatocellular carcinoma, followed by colorectal liver metastasis. A half of reported patients had severe adhesions at the time of LRLR. The median operative time for LRLR was ranged from 120 to 413 min and the median blood loss ranged from 100 to 400 mL. There were 11% of the patients conversions to open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, or tumor ablation. The overall postoperative morbidity was 15% of all the patients, and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was ranged from 3.5 to 10 days. The meta-analysis shows that LRLR after OLR is associated with a longer operative time and a more important blood loss compared to LRLR after LLR. However, no difference between LRLR after OLR and LLR was shown as far as hospital stay and morbidity rate are concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR after OLR has been described in eight articles with favorable short-term outcomes in highly selected patients.

Repeat hepatectomy with systemic chemotherapy might improve survival of recurrent liver metastasis from colorectal cancer-a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Although hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) prolongs survival in up to 40% of people, recurrence rates approach 70%. We used a multidisciplinary approach to treat recurrent liver metastases, including chemotherapy, surgery, and palliative care. On the other hand, development of chemotherapeutic agents is remarkable and improves long-term survival. However, whether chemotherapy and repeat hepatectomy combination therapy improve survival or not is still unclear. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of repeat hepatectomy with systemic chemotherapy for mCRC.

METHODS

Following Institutional Review Board approval, we reviewed the records of all patients who underwent hepatectomy for mCRC between 1974 and 2015 at Fujita Health University Hospital. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate overall survival from the first and last hepatectomy in multi hepatectomy cases after 2005 and compared outcomes between groups using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

A total of 426 liver resections were performed for mCRC; of these, 236 cases were performed after 2005 (late group). In 118 (50%) cases, the site of recurrence was the liver, 59 (50%) underwent repeat hepatectomy, and 14 cases had ≥ 2 repeat hepatectomies. Overall survival (OS) before and after 2005 was 42.2 and 64.1 months, respectively, with the late group having better OS compared to the early (1974-2004) group. OS for single hepatectomy cases was 83.2 months, for two hepatectomies was 42.9 months, and for three hepatectomies was 35.3 months. In total, 59 patients did not undergo surgery after recurrence with an OS of 28.7 months. Mortality of the second and third repeat hepatectomy was 1.7% and 15.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Repeat hepatectomy with systemic chemotherapy for mCRC is feasible and might achieve improved survival in carefully selected patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy plays a key role in recurrent hepatic tumors. However, it is still unknown whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is suitable for recurrent liver cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH).

METHODS

Several databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Ovid, were retrieved from date of inception to 31st March 2018. All articles comparing LRH and ORH were identified. Tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes including resection type, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications and hospital stay were evaluated. Data were extracted and calculated using random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

A total of seven non-randomized observational clinical articles including 443 patients were analyzed. LRH was associated with significantly lower blood loss (WMD = -389.09, 95% CI -628.34 to -149.84, P = 0.001), transfusion (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.74, P = 0.019) as well as limited hospital stay (WMD = -4.00, 95% CI -6.58 to -1.42, P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in the field of tumor characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis of case-match studies, LRH was associated with significant limited hospital stay, but with significant longer operation time. There were 8 (1.8%, range 0-13.3%) cases of conversion in LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of these limited data, LRH is as feasible and efficient as ORH by expert surgeons in selected patients, whose cancer is resectable at the time of surgery and who have Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

Feasibility of "Watch-and-Wait" Management before Repeat Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

Whether repeat hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases should be performed after chemotherapy or observation is unclear.

METHODS

We selected patients with resectable hepatic recurrence after their first hepatectomies performed between 2000 and 2015. They were classified according to the further treatment: Group A, prompt repeat hepatectomy; Group B, observation; and Group C, ≤6 months of chemotherapy. In Group B/C, patients who later underwent hepatectomy and those who did not due to disease progression were classified as B1/C1 and B2/C2, respectively. Predictors of B2/C2 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Groups A, B, and C consisted of 81, 36, and 17 patients, respectively. Recurrence-free interval was longer in Group A (median months; Group A, 10.3; Group B, 5.7; Group C, 3.5; p < 0.01). Group B1/C1 and B2/C2 included 34 and 19 patients, respectively. Five-year survival after recurrence of Group B1/C1 was 56%, which was comparable with Group A (56%, p = 0.77) and better than Group B2/C2 (0%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed synchronous colorectal liver metastases (OR 7.23) and recurrent hepatic tumor number (OR 4.04) were predictors of tumor progression.

CONCLUSION

Selecting patients optimally either for prompt or delayed repeat hepatectomy following chemotherapy or observation is a feasible strategy.

The feasibility and efficacy of pure laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).

METHODS

We introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.

RESULTS

There were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

Left hepatectomy after right paramedian sectoriectomy

Repeat hepatectomy is beneficial for selected patients with recurrence of liver malignancies. However, the operative procedure becomes technically demanding when the previous hepatectomy was complex, with hepatic veins and stump of portal pedicles exposed on the liver transection surface. We performed left hepatectomy after right paramedian sectoriectomy (RPMS) for three patients. Here, we describe our surgical technique and the postoperative outcomes achieved. This procedure allowed for safe adhesiolysis between the middle and right hepatic veins by following a fibrous plane. The mean operative time was 8.7 h, including 4.9 h of adhesiolysis. The mean remnant liver volume (right lateral sector and the caudate lobe) was calculated as 704 ml, being 62% of total liver volume. There was no postoperative liver failure or mortality. In conclusion, left hepatectomy after RPMS is a feasible procedure for patients with sufficient remnant liver volume, even though the middle and right hepatic veins run side by side after liver regeneration.

Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid/Carboxymethyl Cellulose-Based Bioresorbable Membranes in Reducing Perihepatic Adhesion Formation: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Perihepatic adhesions induced by hepatectomy make the subsequent repeat hepatectomy technically demanding. The aim of this study was to verify the effect of hyaluronic acid/carboxymethyl cellulose-based bioresorbable membrane (HA membrane) in preventing posthepatectomy adhesion formation by focusing on the ease of the adhesiolysis in subsequent hepatectomy for recurrent tumors.

METHODS

A total of 201 patients who underwent hepatectomy using HA membrane were prospectively followed-up for 3 years. Thirty of the 201 patients underwent a repeat hepatectomy for recurrence. The operative data of 85 cases of repeat hepatectomy, the primary hepatectomy of which had been performed without the use of HA membrane, served as the historical control data. The primary endpoint was the time interval between the skin incision and the start of hepatic parenchymal transection (the preparation time) including adhesiolysis. Secondary endpoints were blood loss during the operation, incidence of postoperative complications, and the biochemical data.

RESULTS

The median preparation time (183 vs. 228 min; p = 0.027) and total operation time (374 vs. 439 min; p = 0.041) were significantly shorter in the HA membrane group than in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Use of HA membranes during hepatectomy enabled significant shortening of the adhesiolysis time during the sequential hepatectomy performed for recurrent tumors.

RAS Mutation Is Associated with Decreased Survival in Patients Undergoing Repeat Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases

BACKGROUND

The relationship between RAS mutation status and outcome for patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy (RH) for recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CLM) has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between RAS mutation status and outcome in patients undergoing RH for CLM.

METHODS

All patients who underwent RH for CLM with known RAS mutation status between January 2005 and November 2014 were identified, and the outcomes of patients with and without RAS mutations were compared.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight patients underwent RH, of whom 34 (35 %) harbored a RAS mutation. Wild-type (WT) and mutant RAS groups had similar clinicopathologic characteristics. Median recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with WT and mutant RAS was 12.2 and 6.1 months, respectively (p = 0.03). Median overall survival (OS) for the WT and mutant RAS patients were 42.5 and 26.6 months, respectively (p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, RAS mutations [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.69, p = 0.04] were associated with worse RFS, while multiple tumors (HR = 1.92, p = 0.045) and RAS mutations (HR = 2.11, p = 0.02) predicted worse OS.

CONCLUSION

Patients with recurrent CLM that harbor RAS mutations have worse RFS and OS than patients with WT RAS, and RAS mutations are independently associated with worse RFS and OS. RAS mutation status should be determined prior to RH, as it may impact treatment decisions.

Efficacy of repeat hepatectomy for recurrence following curative hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 128 patients

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in surgery and chemotherapy, most patients develop recurrence after initial hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Following initial hepatectomy for CRLM, patterns and surgical management of recurrence have not been widely reported.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 128 patients who underwent hepatic resection for CRLM between January 2000 and December 2012. Demographics, operative data, site of recurrence, and long-term survival data were collected and analyzed. Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on their site of recurrence as intrahepatic, intra- and extrahepatic, and extrahepatic. In addition, the influence of potential factors on overall survival (OS) in patients with only liver relapse was analyzed through univariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

After curative initial hepatectomy, 87 (68.0%) patients had a recurrence: 33 in the intrahepatic group, 11 in the intra- and extrahepatic group, and 43 in the extrahepatic group. The OS for the intra- and extrahepatic group was significantly lower than that for the intrahepatic group. In the intrahepatic group, disease-free interval (DFI) < 12 months and non-repeat hepatectomy were independent poor prognostic factors. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) at the time of hepatectomy was significantly higher in DFI < 12 group than in the DFI ≥ 12 group.

CONCLUSION

Patterns of recurrence following initial hepatectomy for CRLM have important implications for OS. In the intrahepatic recurrence group, short DFI was correlated with high CEA at hepatectomy, and was a poor prognostic factor.

Perspective of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) is associated with high risks of developing significant postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions, which can result in the need for repeated treatments. Studies comparing laparoscopic procedures to open LR consistently report reduced blood loss and transfusions requirements, lower postoperative morbidity, and shorter hospital stays, with no differences in oncologic outcomes. In addition, laparoscopic LR is associated with reduced postoperative ascites and a lower incidence of liver failure for HCC patients with CLD, due to the reduced surgery-induced parenchymal injury to the residual liver and limited destruction of the collateral blood/lymphatic flow around the liver. Finally, this procedure facilitates subsequent repeat LR due to minimal adhesion formation and improved vision/manipulation between adhesions. These characteristics of laparoscopic LR may lead to an expansion of the indications for LR. This editorial is based on the review and meta-analysis presented at the 2^nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Iwate, Japan, in October 2014 (Chairperson of the congress is Professor Go Wakabayashi from the Department of Surgery, Iwate Medical University School of Medicine), which is published in the Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences.

Laparoscopic liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Accumulation of experiences and technological advances after the first report of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are now revealing the characteristics and specific advantages of this approach, especially for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with chronic liver diseases (CLD). In laparoscopic approach, there are minimum needs for: (1) laparotomy and dissection of the attachments and adhesion which may cause destructions in the collateral blood and lymphatic flows; and (2) compression of the liver which may cause parenchymal damage for the liver resection (LR). These are especially beneficial for the patients with CLD. LLR results in minimal postoperative ascites and the other complications, which could potentially lead to lowering the risk of fatal liver failure. These characteristics of LLR facilitate surgical treatment application to the patients of HCC with background CLD. Laparoscopic approach also results in improved vision and manipulation in a small operative field under several conditions, including the cases where it is necessary to perform repeat LR between adhesions. These characteristics make LLR safer and more accessible to the repeat treatment, such as multicentric and metachronous lesions in the cirrhotic liver. These advantages of LLR indicate it is a superior method than open LR under certain conditions in patients of HCC with background CLD.

Can we expand the indications for laparoscopic liver resection? A systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic liver disease

Liver resection (LR) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and chronic liver disease (CLD) poses a high risk of serious postoperative complications and multicentric metachronous lesions requiring repeated treatment. The efficacy of laparoscopic LR (LLR) for such patients has yet to be established. The objective of this study is to test the outcomes of LLR for HCC with the aim of considering potential expansion of the indications for LLR. We performed a systematic review of the pertinent English-language literature. Our search yielded four meta-analyses and 23 comparative studies of LLR for HCC. On the basis of the findings from these studies and our newly conducted meta-analysis, the possibility for expanding the indications for LLR to HCC was examined. The studies show that LLR (vs open) for HCC generally yields better short-term outcomes without compromising long-term outcomes, and that incidences of postoperative ascites and liver failure are decreased with LLR. Several studies show the benefits of LLR for patients with severe CLD and for repeat surgery. Reductions of postoperative ascites and liver failure are among the advantages of LLR. These characteristics of LLR may allow us to expand the indications of LLR to HCC with CLD.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy as repeat surgery and repeat hepatectomy

AIM: To assess clinical outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery and repeat hepatectomy.

METHODS: This study compared the perioperative courses of patients receiving LH at our institution that had or had not previously undergone upper abdominal surgery. Of the 80 patients who underwent LH, 22 had prior abdominal surgeries, including hepatectomy (n = 12), pancreatectomy (n = 3), cholecystectomy and common bile duct excision (n = 1), splenectomy (n = 1), total gastrectomy (n = 1), colectomy with the involvement of transverse colon (n = 3), and extended hysterectomy with extensive lymph-node dissection up to the upper abdomen (n = 1). Clinical indicators including operating time, blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity were compared among the groups.

RESULTS: Eighteen of the 22 patients who had undergone previous surgery had severe adhesions in the area around the liver. However, there were no conversions to laparotomy in this group. In the 58 patients without a history of upper abdominal surgery, the median operative time was 301 min and blood loss was 150 mL. In patients with upper abdominal surgical history or repeat hepatectomy, the operative times were 351 and 301 min, and blood loss was 100 and 50 mL, respectively. The median postoperative stay was 17, 13 and 12 d for patients with no history of upper abdominal surgery, patients with a history, and patients with repeat hepatectomy, respectively. There were five cases with complications in the group with no surgical history, compared to only one case in the group with a prior history. There were no statistically significant differences in the perioperative results between the groups with and without upper abdominal surgical history, or with repeat hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION: LH is feasible and safe in patients with a history of upper abdominal surgery or repeat hepatectomy.

Role of hepatectomy for recurrent or initially unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

As a result of donor shortage and high postoperative morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation, hepatectomy is the most widely applicable and reliable option for curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because intrahepatic tumor recurrence is frequent after loco-regional therapy, repeated treatments are advocated provided background liver function is maintained. Among treatments including local ablation and transarterial chemoembolization, hepatectomy provides the best long-term outcomes, but studies comparing hepatectomy with other nonsurgical treatments require careful review for selection bias. In patients with initially unresectable HCC, transarterial chemo-or radio-embolization, and/or systemic chemotherapy can down-stage the tumor and conversion to resectable HCC is achieved in approximately 20% of patients. However, complete response is rare, and salvage hepatectomy is essential to help prolong patients’ survival. To counter the short recurrence-free survival, excellent overall survival is obtained by combining and repeating different treatments. It is important to recognize hepatectomy as a complement, rather than a contraindication, to other nonsurgical treatments in a multidisciplinary approach for patients with HCC, including recurrent or unresectable tumors.

Repeat hepatectomy with inferior vena cava re-resection for colorectal liver metastases: case report and review of the literature

Liver resection in patients with inferior vena cava (IVC) involvement is becoming more common with the adoption of vascular exclusion techniques and replacement of the IVC. Repeat hepatectomy and an aggressive surgical approach can offer satisfactory disease-free survival and a cure in selected patients. We herein describe a case of repeat hepatectomy with en bloc re-do IVC resection and reconstruction with Gore-Tex graft for recurrent colorectal liver disease. The patient had previously undergone non-anatomical right liver resection with IVC partial excision and reconstruction with a porcine pericardial patch. The patient is currently disease-free at 12 months' follow-up. Surgical treatment of liver tumors involving the IVC offers the only hope for prolonged survival. Re-do liver surgery with concomitant re-excision of the IVC is feasible and can be contemplated when macroscopic removal of the tumor is expected. Management of these complex cases by a specialist team with expertise in liver transplantation and vascular techniques is advised.

Selecting patients for a second hepatectomy for colorectal metastases: an systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Opinions on the suitability of repeat hepatectomy for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) vary among studies. We conducted a meta-analysis to establish the criteria for selecting the best candidates for a second hepatectomy.

METHODS

Database and manual searches were performed to identify comparative or prognostic studies published up to October 2013. Outcomes of interest included disease characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and long-term survival after initial and second hepatectomies for patients with CRLM. Study quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and a modified Hayden's score.

RESULTS

A total of 7226 patients from 27 studies were included. Recurrent CRLMs after initial hepatectomy were more likely to be solitary (RR = 0.86, P = 0.045), unilobar (RR = 0.60, P < 0.001), and smaller (WMD = -0.66, P < 0.001). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were comparable between initial and second hepatectomies (RR = 1.10, P = 0.191; RR = 0.78, P = 0.678, respectively). In high-quality studies, patients showed better survival after a second hepatectomy than those after a single hepatectomy (HR = 0.68, P = 0.022). Patients meeting the following six predictors survived longer after second hepatectomy: disease-free survival after initial hepatectomy >1 y (P = 0.034); solitary CRLM at second hepatectomy (P < 0.001); unilobar CRLM at second hepatectomy (P = 0.009); maximal size of CRLM at second hepatectomy ≤ 5 cm (P = 0.035); lack of extrahepatic metastases at second hepatectomy (P < 0.001); and R0 resection at second hepatectomy (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Second hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure for patients with recurrent CRLM. In fact, in well-selected patients it improves overall survival. The established criteria can help clinicians to select the best candidates for second hepatectomy and to achieve better long-term outcomes after resection.

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with chronic liver disease

Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy is a less invasive procedure than conventional open hepatectomy for the resection of hepatic lesions. Increases in experiences with the technique, in combination with advances in technology, have promoted the popularity of pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. However, indications for usage and potential contraindications of the procedure remain unresolved. The characteristics and specific advantages of the procedure, especially for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with chronic liver diseases, are reviewed and discussed in this paper. For cirrhotic patients with liver tumors, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy minimizes destruction of the collateral blood and lymphatic flow from laparotomy and mobilization, and mesenchymal injury from compression. Therefore, pure laparoscopic hepatectomy has the specific advantage of minimal postoperative ascites production that leads to lowering the risk of disturbance in water or electrolyte balance and hypoproteinemia. It minimizes complications that routinely trigger postoperative serious liver failure. Under adequate patient positioning and port arrangement, the partial resection of the liver in the area of subphrenic space, peri-inferior vena cava area or next to the attachment of retro-peritoneum is facilitated in pure laparoscopic surgery by providing good vision and manipulation in the small operative field. Furthermore, the features of reduced post-operative adhesion, good vision, and manipulation within the small area between the adhesions make this procedure safer in the context of repeat hepatectomy procedures. These improved features are especially advantageous for patients with liver cirrhosis and multicentric and/or metachronous HCCs.