Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma of Cirrhotic Liver: A Case–Control Study

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection is considered a safe and feasible alternative to open surgery for malignant liver lesions. However, laparoscopic surgery in cirrhotic patients remains challenging. The aim of this retrospective case–control study was to compare morbidity, mortality, and long-term patient survival between laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) and open liver resections (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis.

Methods

A total of 45 patients treated with LLR were matched by cause of cirrhosis, Child-Pugh score, type of surgical resection (subsegmentectomy, segmentectomy, and bisegmentectomy), tumor number, tumor size, and alpha-fetoprotein value with 45 patients treated with OLR. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative variables were compared between groups.

Results

Compared with OLR, the LLR group displayed a significantly shorter operative time (140 vs. 180 min; p = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7 vs. 12 days; p < 0.0001), and lower morbidity rate (20 vs. 45 % of patients; p = 0.01). A higher rate of R0 resection was observed in the LLR group than in the OLR group (95 vs. 85 %; p = 0.03). Postoperative ascites was more frequently observed in the OLR group (18 vs. 2 %; p = 0.01). Mortality, patient, and disease-free survival rates were similar between groups. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 88, 59, and 12 %, respectively, in the LLR group and 63, 44, and 22 % in the OLR group (p = 0.27).

Conclusions

Significantly shorter operative times, better resection margins, lower postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay were observed in the LLR group compared with the OLR group. LLR and OLR have similar overall and disease-free survival rates in cirrhotic HCC patients.     

Robot‐assisted laparoscopic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for left clinical stage I non‐seminomatous germ cell testicular cancer: Focus on port placement and surgical technique

The aim of our report was to describe the feasibility of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the contemporary era. We suggest the linear port location and 90° robotic docking as the main key to minimizing instrument clashing and improving the range of surgical accessibility.     

Laparoscopic robotic liver surgery: the Henri Mondor initial experience of 20 cases

Laparoscopic liver surgery is now an established practice in many institutions. It is a safe and feasible approach in the hands of trained surgeons. The introduction of robotics into surgery represents progression in the field of minimally invasive surgery but has seen a slow uptake in the hepatopancreaticobiliary subspeciality. We report our initial experience in 20 cases of laparoscopic robotic liver resection (LRLR). From March 2011 to April 2013 patients with lesions within the liver were assessed and consented for laparoscopic robotic liver surgery. This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively kept database on preoperative details and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. During the time period there were 20 LRLRs. The median age was 62 years (range 39–80 years) with a male to female ratio of 14:6. Ten patients had left lateral sectionectomies, 10 patients had atypical segmental resections; 14 patients had resections for malignancies, 6 patients had resections for benign disease. One case was converted to open resection. The mean operating time was 176.4 ± 74.6 min (range 60–300 min), the mean blood loss was 107 ± 106 ml (range 50–700 ml) and the mean hospital stay was 6.5 ± 3.7 days (range 2–16 days). Two patients required blood transfusions. The incidence of postoperative complications was 10 % (n = 2). LRLR overcomes some of the disadvantages of conventional laparoscopic surgery. It is a technically feasible and safe approach for wedge resections and left lateral sectionectomy of the liver without oncological compromise. However, this surgical technique requires advanced laparoscopic skills and there is an associated steep learning curve. Further studies are needed to determine the potential advantages of this technique for the patient compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach.     

Tumor size as a prognostic factor in patients with stage IIa colon cancer

Background

The aim of this study was to identify stage II colon cancer patients with a high risk of recurrence.

Screening of HLA sensitization during acute burn care

Background

Since the inception of clinical VCA almost two decades ago, burn victims have been identified as immunologically complex patients owing to preformed HLA antibodies. However, it remains unclear whether the detected HLA antibodies are the result of former alloantigenic events or if their de novo formation occurs during primary burn care.

Development and validation of 3D printed virtual models for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and partial nephrectomy: urologists’ and patients’ perception

Purpose

To test the face and content validity of 3D virtual-rendered printed models used before robot-assisted prostate cancer and nephron-sparing surgery.

Methods

Patients who underwent live surgery during an international urological meeting organized in January 2017 were enrolled. Those with organ-confined prostate cancer underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Patients with a single renal tumor underwent minimally invasive nephron-sparing surgery. High-resolution (HR) imaging was obtained for all patients. Those with kidney tumors received contrast-enhanced CT scan with angiography; those with prostate cancer underwent mp-MRI. Images in DICOM format were processed by dedicated software. The first step was the rendering of a 3D virtual model. The models were then printed. They were presented during the live surgery of the urological meeting. All the participants and the operated patients were asked to fill a questionnaire about their opinion expressed in Likert scale (1–10) about the use and application of the 3D printed models.

Results

18 patients were enrolled, including 8 undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy and 10 undergoing minimally invasive partial nephrectomy. For each patient, a virtual 3D printed model was created. The attendants rated the utility of printed models in surgical planning, anatomical representation and the role of technology in surgical training as 8/10, 10/10 and 9/10, respectively. All patients reported favorable feedbacks (from 9 to 10/10) about the use of the technology during the case discussion with the surgeon.

Conclusions

In our experience, 3D printing technology has been perceived as a useful tool for the purpose of surgical planning, physician education/training and patient counseling. Further researches are expected to increase the level of evidence.