Comparative study and systematic review of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To compare the surgical outcomes between laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) as a curative treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).METHODS: A PubMed database search was performed systematically to identify comparative studies of LLR vs OLR for HCC from 2000 to 2014. An extensive text word search was conducted, using combinations of search headings such as “laparoscopy”, “hepatectomy”, and “hepatocellular carcinoma”. A comparative study was also performed in our institution where we analysed surgical outcomes of 152 patients who underwent liver resection between January 2005 to December 2012, of which 42 underwent laparoscopic or hand-assisted laparoscopic resection and 110 underwent open resection.RESULTS: Analysis of our own series and a review of 17 high-quality studies showed that LLR was superior to OLR in terms of short-term outcomes, as patients in the laparoscopic arm were found to have less intraoperative blood loss, less blood transfusions, and a shorter length of hospital stay. In our own series, both LLR and OLR groups were found to have similar overall survival (OS) rates, but disease-free survival (DFS) rates were higher in the laparoscopic arm.CONCLUSION: LLR is associated with better short-term outcomes compared to OLR as a curative treatment for HCC. Long-term oncologic outcomes with regards to OS and DFS rates were found to be comparable in both groups. LLR is hence a safe and viable option for curative resection of HCC.     

Meta-analysis of laparoscopic vs open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).METHODS: PubMed (Medline), EMBASE and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library were searched systematically to identify relevant comparative studies reporting outcomes for both LLR and OLR for HCC between January 1992 and February 2012. Two authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and extracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.0 software (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). Pooled odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95%CI were calculated using either fixed effects (Mantel-Haenszel method) or random effects models (DerSimonian and Laird method). Evaluated endpoints were operative outcomes (operation time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion requirement), postoperative outcomes (liver failure, cirrhotic decompensation/ascites, bile leakage, postoperative bleeding, pulmonary complications, intraabdominal abscess, mortality, hospital stay and oncologic outcomes (positive resection margins and tumor recurrence).RESULTS: Fifteen eligible non-randomized studies were identified, out of which, 9 high-quality studies involving 550 patients were included, with 234 patients in the LLR group and 316 patients in the OLR group. LLR was associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss, based on six studies with 333 patients [WMD: -129.48 mL; 95%CI: -224.76-(-34.21) mL; P = 0.008]. Seven studies involving 416 patients were included to assess blood transfusion requirement between the two groups. The LLR group had lower blood transfusion requirement (OR: 0.49; 95%CI: 0.26-0.91; P = 0.02). While analyzing hospital stay, six studies with 333 patients were included. Patients in the LLR group were found to have shorter hospital stay [WMD: -3.19 d; 95%CI: -4.09-(-2.28) d; P < 0.00001] than their OLR counterpart. Seven studies including 416 patients were pooled together to estimate the odds of developing postoperative ascites in the patient groups. The LLR group appeared to have a lower incidence of postoperative ascites (OR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.16-0.61; P = 0.0006) as compared with OLR patients. Similarly, fewer patients had liver failure in the LLR group than in the OLR group (OR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.95; P = 0.04). However, no significant differences were found between the two approaches with regards to operation time [WMD: 4.69 min; 95%CI: -22.62-32 min; P = 0.74], bile leakage (OR: 0.55; 95%CI: 0.10-3.12; P = 0.50), postoperative bleeding (OR: 0.54; 95%CI: 0.20-1.45; P = 0.22), pulmonary complications (OR: 0.43; 95%CI: 0.18-1.04; P = 0.06), intra-abdominal abscesses (OR: 0.21; 95%CI: 0.01-4.53; P = 0.32), mortality (OR: 0.46; 95%CI: 0.14-1.51; P = 0.20), presence of positive resection margins (OR: 0.59; 95%CI: 0.21-1.62; P = 0.31) and tumor recurrence (OR: 0.95; 95%CI: 0.62-1.46; P = 0.81).CONCLUSION: LLR appears to be a safe and feasible option for resection of HCC in selected patients based on current evidence. However, further appropriately designed randomized controlled trials should be undertaken to ascertain these findings.     

Laparoscopic liver resection facilitates salvage liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

Background/Purpose

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a previous liver resection (LR) may compromise subsequent liver transplantation (LT) by creating adhesions and increasing surgical difficulty. Initial laparoscopic LR (LLR) may reduce such technical consequences, but its effect on subsequent LT has not been reported. We report the operative results of LT after laparoscopic or open liver resection (OLR).

Methods

Twenty-four LT were performed, 12 following prior LLR and 12 following prior OLR. The LT was performed using preservation of the inferior vein cava. Indication for the LT was recurrent HCC in 19 cases (salvage LT), while five patients were listed for LT and underwent resection as a neoadjuvant procedure (bridge resection).

Results

In the LLR group, absence of adhesions was associated with straightforward access to the liver in all cases. In the OLR group, 11 patients required long and hemorrhagic dissection. Median durations of the hepatectomy phase and whole LT were 2.5 and 6.2 h, and 4.5 and 8.3 h in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Median blood loss was 1200 ml and 2300 ml in the LLR and OLR groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Median transfusions of hepatectomy phase and whole LT were 0 and 3 U, and 2 and 6 U, respectively (P < 0.05). There were no postoperative deaths.

Conclusions

In our study, LLR facilitated the LT procedure as compared with OLR in terms of reduced operative time, blood loss and transfusion requirements. We conclude that LLR should be preferred over OLR when feasible in potential transplant candidates.     

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma at a North-American Centre: a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis

IntroductionOncological implications of laparoscopic resection in primary hepatic malignancy are not well defined. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in comparison to an open liver resection (OLR) in peri-operative and long-term oncological outcomes are described from a single North American institution.MethodsFrom 2006 to 2013, all forty-three LLR patients for HCC were evaluated. Each patient was matched to two OLR patients for age at operation, maximal tumour size and tumour number.ResultsWhen compared with OLR, LLR had a lower severity of complication (0% versus 27%, P = 0.050) and lower 30-day readmission rate (2.3% versus 18.6%, P = 0.010). The length of stay (LOS) was shorter in LLR patients (5 versus 7 days, P < 0.001) and the estimated blood loss was also lower in LLR (300 versus 700 ml, P = 0.004). Admission to intensive care unit (ICU), emergency room (ER) visits and complication rates were similar. Overall, recurrence-free and intra-hepatic recurrence-free survival were comparable between LLR and OLR.DiscussionLLR confers the widely-accepted benefits of laparoscopic surgery, namely severity of complication, 30-day readmission rate, LOS and blood loss. Further studies are required to examine intra- and extra-hepatic recurrence after LLR. LLR for HCC should be considered for appropriately selected patients in centres with requisite volume and expertise.     

Benefit of laparoscopic liver resection in high body mass index patients

AIM: To explore the impact of body mass index(BMI) on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection(LLR).METHODS: From January 2010 to February 2015, sixty-eight patients who underwent primary partial liver resection in our institute were retrospectively reviewed. Surgical outcomes of LLR were compared with those of open liver resection(OLR). In addition, we analyzed associations with BMI and surgical outcomes.RESULTS: Among 68 patients, thirty-nine patients underwent LLR and 29 were performed OLR. Significant difference in operation time, blood loss, and postoperative hospital stay was observed. There were no signi ficant di fferences in mortali ty and morbidity in two groups. Twenty-two patients(32.4%) were classified as obese(BMI ≥ 25). A statistically significant correlation was observed between BMI and operation time, between BMI and blood loss in OLR, but not in LLR. The operation time and blood loss of OLR were significantly higher than that of LLR in obese patients. Open liver resection and BMI were independent predictors for prolonged operation time and increased blood loss in multivariate analysis.CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that BMI had influenced to surgical outcomes of OLR. LLR was less influenced by BMI and had great benefit in obese patients.     

腹腔镜与开腹肝切除术治疗肝内胆管细胞癌患者疗效与安全性研究

目的 比较腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)与开腹肝切除术(OLR)治疗肝内胆管细胞癌(ICC)患者的疗效与安全性。方法 2015年1月～2018年6月我院诊治的ICC患者74例,其中32例接受LLR手术,另42例接受OLR手术。随访3年。结果 两组年龄、性别、腹部手术史、血清CA19-9和CEA水平、神经侵犯、微血管侵犯、肿瘤低分化、肿瘤直径和淋巴结肿大等差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);LLR组术中失血量、手术切口长度、肝门阻断、术后住院日、输血和胃肠道功能恢复时间分别为325(250,475)ml、5(3.5,6.5)cm、9例(28.1%)、7(5,12)d、2例(6.2%)和2(2,4)d,与OLR组【分别为500(375,750)ml、20.5(17.0,25.0)cm、31例(73.8%)、10(7,15)d、7例(16.7%)和4(3,6)d】比,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),而两组1 a生存率(81.2%对76.2%)和3 a生存率(46.8%对33.3%)无显著性差异(P>0.05);术后,两组均未发生严重并发症。结论 在当前情况下,采取OLR或LLR...     

Assessment for the minimal invasiveness of laparoscopic liver resection by interleukin-6 and thrombospondin-1

BACKGROUNDLaparoscopic surgery has been introduced as a minimally invasive technique for the treatment of various field. However, there are few reports that have scientifically investigated the minimally invasive nature of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).AIMTo investigate whether LLR is scientifically less invasive than open liver resection.METHODSDuring December 2011 to April 2015, blood samples were obtained from 30 patients who treated with laparoscopic (n = 10, 33%) or open (n = 20, 67%) partial liver resection for liver tumor. The levels of serum interleukin-6 (IL-6) and plasma thrombospondin-1 (TSP-1) were measured using ELISA kit at four time points including preoperative, immediate after operation, postoperative day 1 (POD1) and POD3. Then, we investigated the impact of the operative approaches during partial hepatectomy on the clinical time course including IL-6 and TSP-1.RESULTSSerum level of IL-6 on POD1 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly lower than those in open hepatectomy (8.7 vs 30.3 pg/mL, respectively) (P = 0.003). Plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 in laparoscopic hepatectomy was significantly higher than those in open hepatectomy (1704.0 vs 548.3 ng/mL, respectively) (P = 0.009), and have already recovered to preoperative level in laparoscopic approach. In patients with higher IL-6 Levels on POD1, plasma level of TSP-1 on POD3 was significantly lower than those in patients with lower IL-6 Levels on POD1. Multivariate analysis showed that open approach was the only independent factor related to higher level of IL-6 on POD1 [odds ratio (OR), 7.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.28-63.3; P = 0.02]. Furthermore, the higher level of serum IL-6 on POD1 was significantly associated with lower level of plasm TSP-1 on POD3 (OR, 5.32; 95%CI: 1.08-32.2; P = 0.04) in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONIn partial hepatectomy, laparoscopic approach might be minimally invasive surgery with less IL-6 production compared to open approach.     

Surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of benign liver tumours in the Netherlands: a nationwide analysis

BackgroundData on surgical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) of benign liver tumour (BLT) are scarce. This study aimed to provide a nationwide overview of postoperative outcomes after LLR and OLR of BLT.MethodsThis was a nationwide retrospective study including all patients who underwent liver resection for hepatocellular adenoma, haemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia in the Netherlands from 2014 to 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare 30-day overall and major morbidity and 30-day mortality after OLR and LLR.ResultsIn total, 415 patients underwent BLT resection of whom 230 (55.4%) underwent LLR. PSM for OLR and LLR resulted in 250 matched patients. Median (IQR) length of stay was shorter after LLR than OLR (4 versus 6 days, 5.0–8.0, p < 0.001). Postoperative 30-day overall morbidity was lower after LLR than OLR (12.0% vs. 22.4%, p = 0.043). LLR was associated with reduced 30-day overall morbidity in multivariable analysis (aOR:0.46, CI:0.22–0.95, p = 0.043). Both 30-day major morbidity and 30-day mortality were not different.ConclusionsLLR for BLT is associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity and is preferred if technically feasible.     

Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection

Liver resection(LR) is now actively applied to intrahepatic recurrence of liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Although indications of laparoscopic LR(LLR) have been expanded, there are increased risks of intraoperative complications and conversion in repeat LLR. Controversy still exists for the indication. There are 16 reports of small series to date. These studies generally reported that repeat LLR has better short-term outcomes than open(reduced bleedings, less or similar morbidity and shorter hospital stay) without compromising the long-term outcomes. The fact that complete adhesiolysis can be avoided in repeat LLR is also reported. In the comparison of previous procedures, it is reported that the operation time for repeat LLR was shorter for the patients previously treated with LLR than open. Furthermore, it is speculated that LLR for minor repeat LR of cirrhotic liver can be minimized the deterioration of liver function by LR. However, further experience and evaluation of anatomical resection or resections exposing major vessels as repeat LLR, especially after previous anatomical resection, are needed. There should be a chance to prolong the overall survival of the patients by using LLR as a powerful local therapy which can be applied repeatedly with minimal deterioration of liver function.     

Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a feasible alternative to open liver resection (OLR) in selected patients. Nevertheless studies comparing LLR and OLR are few and concerns remain about long-term oncological equivalence. The present study compares outcomes with LLR vs. OLR using meta-analytical methods.

Methods

Electronic literature searches were conducted to identify studies comparing LLR and OLR. Short-term outcomes evaluated included operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative morbidity and resection margin status. Longer-term outcomes included local and distant recurrence, and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel–Haenszel method and Cohen''s d method, with results expressed as odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria with a population of 1678 patients. LLR resulted in longer operating time, but reduced blood loss, portal clamp time, overall and liver-specific complications, ileus and length of stay. No difference was found between LLR and OLR for oncological outcomes.

Discussion

LLR has short-term advantages and seemingly equivalent long-term outcomes and can be considered a feasible alternative to open surgery in experienced hands.     

Cost‐effectiveness of minimally invasive pancreatic resection

While clinical outcomes of minimally invasive pancreatic resection (MIPR) compared to open surgery are well examined, only few studies focus on its associated cost. The aim of this study is to evaluate cost analyses comparing MIPR to open pancreatic resection (OPR). A systematic review of the literature using PubMed of all published studies between 2000 and 2017 was performed. Studies reporting on cost of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) compared to open surgery were identified. Fourteen studies were included, eight that reported a cost comparison between LDP and open surgery and six that compared costs between LPD and open surgery. For both, LDP and LPD, operative costs were higher due to higher costs for surgical equipment. Reports suggest that lower postoperative costs for LDP and LPD could balance out the operative costs resulting in overall decreased costs for the laparoscopic compared to the open approach. Recent results show a positive trend towards cost savings for MIPR. To assess the overall benefit of MIPR compared to OPR comprehensive cost analyses and long‐term quality outcomes need to be investigated.     

Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To review the currently available literature comparing laparoscopic to open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with known liver cirrhosis.METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted. The search terms used included (laparoscopic OR laparoscopy) AND (hepatic or liver) AND (surgery or resection) AND “hepatocellular carcinoma” AND (cirrhosis or cirrhotic). Furthermore, to widen the search, we also used the “related articles” section. Studies reporting a comparison of outcomes and methods of open vs laparoscopic hepatic resection for HCC in patients with liver cirrhosis were included. Meta-analysis of results was performed using a random effects model to compute relative risk (RR) and for dichotomous variables and standard mean differences (SMD) for continuous variables.RESULTS: A total of 420 patients from 4 cohort studies were included in final analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic procedures had statistically less blood loss compared to the open cohort, SMD of -1.01 (95%CI: -1.23-0.79), P < 0.001, with a reduced risk of transfusion, RR = 0.19 (95%CI: 0.09-0.38), P < 0.001. A wider clearance at tumour resection margins was achieved following a laparoscopic approach, SMD of 0.34 (95%CI: 0.08-0.60), P = 0.011. No significant difference was noted between laparoscopic and open resection operative times, SMD of -0.15 (95%CI: 0.35-0.05), P = 0.142. The overall RR of suffering from postoperative morbidity is 0.25 in favour of the open surgery cohort (95%CI: 0.17-0.37), P < 0.001. Patients under-going laparoscopic surgery had significantly shorter length of stays in hospital compared to the open cohort, SMD of -0.53 (95%CI: -0.73 to -0.32), P < 0.001.CONCLUSION: This review suggests that laparoscopic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis is safe and may provide improved patient outcomes when compared to the open technique.     

Simultaneous laparoscopic multi-organ resection combined with colorectal cancer: comparison with non-combined surgery

AIM: To access the short-term outcomes of simultaneous laparoscopic surgery combined with resection for synchronous lesions in patients with colorectal cancer.METHODS: Between March 1996 and April 2010 prospectively collected data were reviewed from 93 consecutive patients who had colorectal cancer and underwent simultaneous multiple organ resection (combined group) and 1090 patients who underwent conventional laparoscopic right hemicolectomy or laparoscopic low/anterior resection for colorectal cancer (non-combined group). In the combined group, there were nine gastric resections, three nephrectomies, nine adrenalectomies, 56 cholecystectomies, and 21 gynecologic resections. In addition, five patients underwent simultaneous laparoscopic resection for three organs. The patient demographics, intra-operative outcomes, surgical morbidity, and short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups (the combined and non-combined groups).RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the clinicopathological variables between the two groups. The operating time was significantly longer in the combined group than in the non-combined group, regardless of tumor location (laparoscopic right hemicolectomy and laparoscopic low/anterior resection groups; P = 0.048 and P < 0.001, respectively). The other intra-operative outcomes, such as the complications and open conversion rate, were similar in both groups. The rate of post-operative morbidity in the combined group was similar to the non-combined group (combined vs non-combined, 15.1% vs 13.5%, P = 0.667). Oncological safety for the colon and synchronous lesions were obtained in the combined group.CONCLUSION: Simultaneous laparoscopic multiple organ resection combined with colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible option in selected patients.     

Laparoscopic liver resection: Wedge resections to living donor hepatectomy,are we heading in the right direction?

Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection(OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have dividedthis review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection(LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy(LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.     

International Survey on Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Liver resection: a web‐based study on the global diffusion of laparoscopic liver surgery prior to the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Iwate,Japan

The technique of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been greatly improved since the first international consensus conference. Our aim was to evaluate the worldwide spread of LLR prior to the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Iwate, Japan (4–6 October 2014). The International Survey on Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Liver resection was designed to assess dissemination of LLR, indications, and the surgical techniques. The anonymous questionnaire was e‐mailed to liver surgeons worldwide. A total of 448 liver surgeons responded to the survey. The peak age range of surgeons performing LLR was 41–50 years. Japan had by far the largest number of respondents (n = 223), followed by the US (n = 38) and France (n = 20). In Japan, the majority of surgeons performing LLR belonged to community hospitals, where LLR has been increasingly used since its implementation in 2009 or later, comprising up to 40% of all liver resection cases. In contrast, in North America and Europe, LLR was mostly performed at academic medical centers. LLR has undergone global dissemination after the first international consensus conference in 2008. Japan has experienced unparalleled, explosive diffusion characterized by the adoption of LLR at middle‐tier, regional institutions.     

Evidence supporting laparoscopic major hepatectomy

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasing in frequency with over 9,000 cases done worldwide. Benefits of laparoscopic resection include less blood loss, smaller incisions, decreased postoperative morbidity, and shorter length of stay compared to open liver resection. With increased experience, several centers have reported series of laparoscopic major hepatectomy, although this represents only about 25% of total LLR performed. Evidence is accumulating to support laparoscopic major hepatectomy with the understanding that there is a steep learning curve, and surgeons should begin with minor LLR before moving on to laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Controversy still remains concerning indications, techniques, learning curve, risks, and long‐term cancer outcomes with laparoscopic major hepatectomy.     

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. © Japanese Society of     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection

Background/purposeThe dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been based on non-randomized studies and reviews of these. Aim of this study was to evaluate if the randomized evidence comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) supports these findings.MethodsA prospectively registered (reviewregistry866) systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines comparing LLR to OLR for benign and malignant diseases was performed via Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL up to 31.12.2020. The main outcome was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0, certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.ResultsThe search yielded 2080 results. 13 RCTs assessing mostly minor liver resections with 1457 patients were included. There were reduced odds of experiencing any complication (Odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0·42 [0·30, 0·58]) and severe complications (OR[CI]: 0·51 [0·31, 0·84]) for patients undergoing LLR. LOS was shorter (Mean difference (MD) [CI]: −2·90 [-3·88, −1·92] days), blood loss was lower (MD: [CI]: −115·41 [-146·08, −84·75] ml), and functional recovery was better for LLR. All other outcomes showed no significant differences.ConclusionsLLR shows significant postoperative benefits. RCTs assessing long-term outcomes and major resections are needed.     

A new technique for hepatic parenchymal transection using an articulating bipolar 5 cm radiofrequency device: results from the first 100 procedures

BackgroundParenchymal transection(PT) still remains a challenge in liver resection. The outcomes of the first experience of a novel vessel-sealer for hepatic transection were assessed.MethodsA bipolar articulating vessel-sealer (Caiman^®, Aesculap Inc., Center Valley, PA) was used in 100 liver resections through both open (OLR) and laparoscopic (LLR) approaches. All data were prospectively collected into an IRB-approved department database, and clinical, surgical and perioperative parameters were analyzed.ResultsFifty patients underwent OLR and 50 patients underwent LLR. Eighty hepatectomies were performed for malignancy. Median number of tumors was 1, with the largest focus measuring an average of 5.1 cm. Forty-nine of the procedures were major liver resections. Parenchymal transection time was 29.9 ± 3.1 min in OLR and 29.9 ± 3.6 min in LLR. Median estimated blood loss was 300 cc (Inter-quartile range (IQR) 100–575 cc). Median hospital stay was 6 days for open and 3 days for laparoscopic procedures. Ninety-day complication rate was 8% without any mortality. Bile leak rate was 4%. Staplers were used for parenchymal transection in 16 cases.ConclusionThis study introduces a new multifunctional device into the armamentarium of the liver surgeon. In our experience, this device facilitated the parenchymal transection by adding speed and consolidating the amount of instrumentation used in liver resection without increasing complications.     

Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections.METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates.RESULTS: A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay.CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.