Robotic liver surgery

Robotic surgery is an evolving technology that has been successfully applied to a number of surgical specialties, but its use in liver surgery has so far been limited. In this review article we discuss the challenges of minimally invasive liver surgery, the pros and cons of robotics, the evolution of medical robots, and the potentials in applying this technology to liver surgery. The current data in the literature are also presented.     

The principles of liver resection

Liver resection is now a well-established and routine treatment for malignant and some benign liver diseases. However, its associated mortality and morbidity should not be underestimated, especially as increasingly complex procedures in patients with increasing degrees of comorbidity are now being undertaken. A number of fundamental principles are important to consider, in terms of patient selection and perioperative care, as well as technical and anatomical tenets that, if adhered to, aid achievement of the best possible clinical outcomes for patients undergoing liver surgery. The introduction of modern technologies such as minimally invasive surgery and other techniques has made sound understanding of such principles all the more vital. This article will discuss many of these key underlying principles, illustrated with relevant surgical anatomy and how they pertain to modern techniques in liver resection.     

Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: We have continued to develop laparoscopic hepatectomy as a means of surgical therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We evaluated the degree of invasiveness and analyzed the outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy compared with open hepatectomy for HCC. RESULTS: There were notable differences with respect to blood loss and operating time compared with open hepatectomy cases. Patients started walking and eating significantly earlier in the laparoscopic hepatectomy group, and these more rapid recoveries allowed shorter hospitalizations. On the Estimation of Physiologic Ability and Surgical Stress (E-PASS) scoring system, there was no difference in preoperative risk. However, a significant difference was seen in the surgical stress and comprehensive risk scores between the open hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy groups. Concerning the survival rate and disease-free survival rate, there were no significant differences between procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hepatectomy avoids some of the disadvantages of open hepatectomy and is beneficial for patient quality of life (QOL) as a minimally invasive procedure if the operative indications are appropriately based on preoperative liver function and the location and size of HCC.     

Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review

Background  Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are not clarified. The objective of this article is to depict the state of the art of LLR by means of a systematic review of the literature. Methods  Studies about LLR published before September 2008 were identified and their results summarized. Results  Indications for laparoscopic hepatectomy do not differ from those for open surgery. Technical feasibility is the only limiting factor. Bleeding is the major intraoperative concern, but, if managed by an expert surgeon, do not worsen outcomes. Hand assistance can be useful in selected cases to avoid conversion. Patient selection must take both tumor location and size into consideration. Potentially good candidates are patients with peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy; their outcomes, including reduced blood loss, morbidity, and hospital stay, are better than those of their laparotomic counterparts. The same advantages have been observed in cirrhotics. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies and resections of postero-superior segments need further evaluation. The results of LLR in cancer patients seem to be similar to those obtained with the laparotomic approach, especially in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, but further analysis is required. Conclusions  Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible. The laparoscopic approach can be recommended for peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy. Preliminary oncological results suggest non-inferiority of laparoscopic to laparotomic procedures.     

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis: short- and middle-term results

BACKGROUND: Liver surgery, especially for cirrhotic patients, is one of the last areas of resistance to progress in laparoscopic surgery. This study compares the postoperative results and the 2-year patient outcomes between laparoscopic and open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis. METHODS: From May 2000 to October 2004, 23 consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for HCC were compared in a retrospective analysis with a historic group of 23 patients who underwent open hepatectomy (OH). The two groups were well matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, tumor location and size, type of liver resection, and severity of cirrhosis. The selection criteria for both groups specified a small (size < 5 cm), exophytic, or subcapsular tumor located in the left or peripheral right segments of the liver (II-VI segments, Couinaud); a well-compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A); and an ASA score lower than 3. In the LH group, 15 subsegmentectomies, 3 segmentectomies, and 5 left lateral sectionectomies were performed, as compared with 12 subsegmentectomies, 5 segmentectomies, and 6 left lateral sectionectomies in the OH group. RESULTS: One patient in the LH group (4.3%) underwent conversion to laparotomy for inadequate exposition. The mean operative time was statistically longer for the LH group (LH, 148 min; OH, 125 min; p = 0.016), whereas blood transfusions (LH, 0%; OH, 17.3%; p = 0.036), Pringle maneuver (LH, 0%; OH, 21.73%; p = 0.017), mean hospital stay (LH, 8.3 days; OH, 12 days; p = 0.047), and postoperative complications (LH, 13%; OH, 47.8%; p = 0.010) were significantly greater in OH group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality and 2-year survival rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that LH for HCC in properly selected cirrhotic patients results in fewer early postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than the traditional OH. The 2-year survival rate was the same for LH and OH.     

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis

Liver resection for patients with cirrhosis remains a challenging operation. The presence of thrombocytopenia and portal hypertension could lead to severe bleeding during hepatectomy. The enthusiasm of laparoscopic hepatectomy has been growing and many studies have reported their initial favorable results for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The advancement in technology, better understanding of the use of pneumoperitoneum pressure and more experience accumulated make laparoscopic liver resection for patients with cirrhosis possible. Favorable outcome may be achieved if the patients are carefully selected and carried out in high volume centers.     

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a systematic review

BackgroundThe prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) is extremely poor. The clinical outcome of preoperative radiotherapy (RT) is still controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of combined neoadjuvant RT and hepatectomy with hepatectomy alone for HCC with PVTT.MethodsComprehensive database searches were performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and the Web of Science to retrieve studies published from the database creation to July 1, 2020. Only comparative studies that measured survival between neoadjuvant RT followed by hepatectomy and hepatectomy alone were included. The characteristics of the included studies and patients were extracted, and the included data are presented as relative ratio (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. The RRs of each study were pooled using a fixed or random effects model with Review Manager (the Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) version 5.3. The response rate to RT and the overall survival (OS) rate in neoadjuvant RT followed by hepatectomy and hepatectomy alone were measured.ResultsOne randomized and two non-randomized controlled trials with 302 patients were included. Most patients were classified as Child-Pugh A, and Type II and III PVTT were the most common types. After RT, 29 (22.8%) patients were evaluated as partial response (PR) and had a positive RT response, but nine (7.1%) had progressive disease (PD). Neoadjuvant RT followed by hepatectomy was received by 127 (42.1%) patients after excluding 15 (5.0%) patients with severe complications or PD after RT, and 160 (53.0%) patients received hepatectomy alone. In the randomized controlled trial (RCT), the 1-year OS rate in the neoadjuvant RT group and the surgery alone group was 75.2% and 43.1%, respectively (P<0.001). In the two non-randomized studies, a meta-analysis with a fixed effects model showed a longer OS in patients undergoing neoadjuvant RT followed by hepatectomy compared with hepatectomy alone at 1-year follow-up (RR =2.02; 95% CI: 1.45–2.80; P<0.0001).ConclusionsThis systematic review showed that neoadjuvant RT followed by hepatectomy in patients with resectable HCC and PVTT was associated with a longer OS than patients who received hepatectomy alone.