Search

Background: Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions., Methods: This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression., Results: Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors., Conclusion: Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest/Disclosure RJS, MGB, DL, HAM, MFG, and JH are proctors for Intuitive Surgical (Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). MGB received grants from Medtronic, Ethicon, and Intuitive Surgical for investigator-initiated randomized trials. The other authors have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Abu-Hilal served as consultants and received honorarium from AbbVie, Biojamp, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Medexus, Novartis, Pfizer, Recodrdati, Sanofi Regeneron, and Sun Pharma. Authors Huang and Branyiczky have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed.

Background: Robotic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasingly being implemented worldwide, with good results reported from individual expert centers. However, it is unclear to what extent outcomes will continue to improve during the learning curve, as large international studies are lacking., Methods: An international retrospective multicenter case series, including consecutive patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy from 18 centers in 8 countries in Europe, Asia, and South America until December 31, 2019, was conducted. A cumulative sum analysis was performed to determine the inflection points for the feasibility (operative time and blood loss) and proficiency (postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C and major morbidity) learning curves. Outcomes were compared in 3 groups on the basis of the learning curve inflection points., Results: Overall, 2,186 patients after robotic pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The feasibility learning curve was reached after 30-45 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures and the proficiency learning curve after 90 robotic pancreatoduodenectomy procedures. These inflection points created 3 phases, which were associated with major morbidity (24.7%, 23.4%, and 12.3%, P < .001) but not 30-day mortality (2.1%, 2.0%, and 1.5%, P = .670). Other outcomes mostly continued to improve, including median operative time 432, 390, and 300 minutes (P < .0001), conversion 6.0%, 4.7%, and 2.7% (P = .002), bile leakage 7.2%, 4.1%, and 2.4% (P < .001), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage 6.5%, 6.1%, and 1.8% (n = 21) but not R0 resection (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma only) 78.5%, 73.9%, and 82.8% (P = .35), and 90-day mortality rate 3.1%, 3.5%, and 2.1% (P = .191). Centers performing >20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually had lower rates of conversion, reoperation, and shorter median operative time as compared with centers performing 10-20 robotic pancreatoduodenectomies annually., Conclusion: This international multicenter study demonstrates that most outcomes of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy continued to improve during 3 learning curve phases without a negative effect on 90-day mortality. Randomized studies are needed in high-volume centers that have surpassed the first learning curves, to compare these outcomes with the open approach., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Samantha Keow declares no conflicts of interest. Mohannad Abu-Hilal received consulting fees and/or honorarium from AbbVie, Bausch, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hikma pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Leo, Medexus pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma.

Background: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort., Methods: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III)., Results: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001)., Conclusion: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension on perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies remains unclear. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients with preserved and compromised liver function (noncirrhotics versus Child-Pugh A) when undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies. In addition, we aimed to determine if the extent of cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A versus B) and the presence of portal hypertension had a significant impact on perioperative outcomes., Methods: This was an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,526 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies at 60 centers worldwide between 2004 and 2021. In the study, 1,370 patients met the inclusion criteria and formed the final study group. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. To minimize confounding factors, 1:1 propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching were performed., Results: The study group comprised 559, 753, and 58 patients who did not have cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A, and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, respectively. Six-hundred and thirty patients with cirrhosis had portal hypertension, and 170 did not. After propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching, Child-Pugh A patients with cirrhosis undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies had longer operative time, higher intraoperative blood loss, higher transfusion rate, and longer hospital stay than patients without cirrhosis. The extent of cirrhosis did not significantly impact perioperative outcomes except for a longer duration of hospital stay., Conclusion: Liver cirrhosis adversely affected the intraoperative technical difficulty and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the effect of body mass index on laparoscopic liver resections are conflicting. We performed this study to investigate the association between body mass index and postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic major hepatectomies., Methods: This is a retrospective review of 4,348 laparoscopic major hepatectomies at 58 centers between 2005 and 2021, of which 3,383 met the study inclusion criteria. Concomitant major operations, vascular resections, and previous liver resections were excluded. Associations between body mass index and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. Modeled effect sizes were visually rendered and summarized., Results: A total of 1,810 patients (53.5%) had normal weight, whereas 1,057 (31.2%) were overweight and 392 (11.6%) were obese. One hundred and twenty-four patients (3.6%) were underweight. Most perioperative outcomes showed a linear worsening trend with increasing body mass index. There was a statistically significant increase in open conversion rate (16.3%, 10.8%, 9.2%, and 5.6%, P < .001), longer operation time (320 vs 305 vs 300 and 266 minutes, P < .001), increasing blood loss (300 vs 300 vs 295 vs 250 mL, P = .022), and higher postoperative morbidity (33.4% vs 26.3% vs 25.0% vs 25.0%, P = .009) in obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight patients, respectively (P < .001). However, postoperative major morbidity demonstrated a "U"-shaped association with body mass index, whereby the highest major morbidity rates were observed in underweight and obese patients., Conclusion: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy was associated with poorer outcomes with increasing body mass index for most perioperative outcome measures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the rapid advances that minimally invasive liver resection has gained in recent decades, open conversion is still inevitable in some circumstances. In this study, we aimed to determine the risk factors for open conversion after minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy, and its impact on perioperative outcomes., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of 2,445 of 2,678 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy at 45 international centers between 2004 and 2020. Factors related to open conversion were analyzed via univariate and multivariate analyses. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to analyze outcomes after open conversion versus non-converted cases., Results: The open conversion rate was 69/2,445 (2.8%). On multivariate analyses, male gender (3.6% vs 1.8%, P = .011), presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (6.1% vs 2.6%, P = .009), and larger tumor size (50 mm vs 32 mm, P < .001) were identified as independent factors associated with open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was bleeding in 27/69 (39.1%) of cases. After propensity score matching (65 open conversion vs 65 completed via minimally invasive liver resection), the open conversion group was associated with increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, and postoperative stay compared with cases completed via the minimally invasive approach., Conclusion: Male sex, portal hypertension, and larger tumor size were predictive factors of open conversion after minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy. Open conversion was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared with non-converted cases., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pancreatic surgery is associated with considerable morbidity and, consequently, offers a large and complex field for research. To prioritize relevant future scientific projects, it is of utmost importance to identify existing evidence and uncover research gaps. Thus, the aim of this project was to create a systematic and living Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery., Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for all randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on pancreatic surgery. Outcomes from every existing randomized controlled trial were extracted, and trial quality was assessed. Systematic reviews were used to identify an absence of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on identical subjects were grouped according to research topics. A web-based evidence map modeled after a mind map was created to visualize existing evidence. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes of pancreatic surgery were performed for all research topics with more than 3 randomized controlled trials. For partial pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, pooled benchmarks for outcomes were calculated with a 99% confidence interval. The evidence map undergoes regular updates., Results: Out of 30,860 articles reviewed, 328 randomized controlled trials on 35,600 patients and 332 systematic reviews were included and grouped into 76 research topics. Most randomized controlled trials were from Europe (46%) and most systematic reviews were from Asia (51%). A living meta-analysis of 21 out of 76 research topics (28%) was performed and included in the web-based evidence map. Evidence gaps were identified in 11 out of 76 research topics (14%). The benchmark for mortality was 2% (99% confidence interval: 1%-2%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and <1% (99% confidence interval: 0%-1%) for distal pancreatectomy. The benchmark for overall complications was 53% (99%confidence interval: 46%-61%) for partial pancreatoduodenectomy and 59% (99% confidence interval: 44%-80%) for distal pancreatectomy., Conclusion: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery Evidence Map of Pancreatic Surgery, which is freely accessible via www.evidencemap.surgery and as a mobile phone app, provides a regularly updated overview of the available literature displayed in an intuitive fashion. Clinical decision making and evidence-based patient information are supported by the primary data provided, as well as by living meta-analyses. Researchers can use the systematic literature search and processed data for their own projects, and funding bodies can base their research priorities on evidence gaps that the map uncovers., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There has been increasing uptake of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy during the past decade, but it remains a highly specialized procedure as benefits over open pancreatoduodenectomy remain contentious. This study aimed to evaluate current evidence on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy in terms of impact of center volume on outcomes., Methods: A systematic review of articles on comparative cohort and registry studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy versus open pancreatoduodenectomy published until 31st December 2019 were identified, and meta-analyses were performed. Primary endpoints were International Study Group on Pancreatic Fistula grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula and 30-day mortality., Results: After screening 7,390 studies, 43 comparative cohort studies (8,755 patients) with moderate methodological quality and 3 original registry studies (43,735 patients) were included. For the cohort studies, the median annual hospital minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy volume was 10. No significant differences were found in grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.98, 95% confidence interval: 0.78-1.23) or 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.65-2.01) between minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy when compared with open. No publication biases were present and meta-regression identified no confounding for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, center volume or 30-day mortality. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy was only strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection, shorter length of stay, and significantly higher rates of R0 margin resections., Conclusion: Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy remains noninferior to open pancreatoduodenectomy for grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula but is strongly associated with significantly lower rates of postoperative pulmonary complications and surgical site infection. Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy can be adopted safely with good outcomes irrespective of annual center resection volume., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fluid and pain management during liver surgery (eg, low central venous pressure) is a classic topic of controversy between anesthesiologists and surgeons. Little is known about practices worldwide. The aim of this study was to assess perioperative practices in liver surgery among and between surgeons and anesthesiologists worldwide that could guide the design of future international studies., Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 22 societies, including 4 international hepatopancreatobiliary societies, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, and 17 other (inter-)national societies., Results: A total of 913 participants (495 surgeons and 418 anesthesiologists) from 66 countries were surveyed. A large heterogeneity in fluid management practices was identified, with 66% using low central venous pressure, 22% goal-directed fluid therapy, and 6% normovolemia. In addition, large heterogeneity was found regarding pain management practices, with 49% using epidural analgesia, 25% patient-controlled analgesia with opioids, and 12% regional techniques. Most participants assume that there is a relation between perioperative pain management and morbidity and mortality (78% of surgeons vs 89% of anesthesiologists; P < .001). Both surgeons and anesthesiologists have the highest expectations for minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery pathways for improving outcomes in liver surgery. No clear differences between continents were found., Conclusion: Worldwide there is a large heterogeneity in fluid and pain management practices in liver surgery. This survey identified several areas of interest for future international studies aiming to improve outcomes in liver surgery., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal nutritional therapy in the field of pancreatic surgery is still debated., Methods: An international panel of recognized pancreatic surgeons and pancreatologists decided that the topic of nutritional support was of importance in pancreatic surgery. Thus, they reviewed the best contemporary literature and worked to develop a position paper to provide evidence supporting the integration of appropriate nutritional support into the overall management of patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were based on the approach of the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation Working Group., Results: The measurement of nutritional status should be part of routine preoperative assessment because malnutrition is a recognized risk factor for surgery-related complications. In addition to patient's weight loss and body mass index, measurement of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity should be considered in the preoperative evaluation because they are strong predictors of poor short-term and long-term outcomes. The available data do not show any definitive nutritional advantages for one specific type of gastrointestinal reconstruction technique after pancreatoduodenectomy over the others. Postoperative early resumption of oral intake is safe and should be encouraged within enhanced recovery protocols, but in the case of severe postoperative complications or poor tolerance of oral food after the operation, supplementary artificial nutrition should be started at once. At present, there is not enough evidence to show the benefit of avoiding oral intake in clinically stable patients who are complicated by a clinically irrelevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (a so-called biochemical leak), while special caution should be given to feeding patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula orally. When an artificial nutritional support is needed, enteral nutrition is preferred whenever possible over parenteral nutrition. After the operation, regardless of the type of pancreatic resection or technique of reconstruction, patients should be monitored carefully to assess for the presence of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Although fecal elastase-1 is the most readily available clinical test for detection of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, its sensitivity and specificity are low. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy should be initiated routinely after pancreatoduodenectomy and in patients with locally advanced disease and continued for at least 6 months after surgery, because untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may result in severe nutritional derangement., Conclusion: The importance of this position paper is the consensus reached on the topic. Concentrating on nutritional support and therapy is of utmost value in pancreatic surgery for both short- and long-term outcomes., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of laparoscopy for major hepatectomies remains a matter of development to be further assessed. The purpose of this study is to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies meta-analyzing individual patient data from published comparative studies., Methods: All retrospective studies comparing between laparoscopic and open major hepatectomies published until March 2017 were identified independently by 2 reviewers by searching in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Individual patient data were sought from all selected studies. Postoperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, postoperative complications, mortality rates, and long-term survival were analyzed., Results: A total of 917 patients were divided into the laparoscopic (427) and open (490) groups from 8 selected studies. The hospital stay was significantly shorter, and the total morbidity was lower in the laparoscopic group. When classified by severity, the incidence of postoperative minor complications was lower; however, that of major complications was not significantly different. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group; however, intraoperative blood loss, perioperative mortality, and blood transfusions were comparable between the 2 groups. The overall survival in the patients with colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma was not significantly different between the 2 groups., Conclusion: Laparoscopic major hepatectomies offer some perioperative advantages, including fewer complications and shorter hospital stay, without increasing the blood loss volume and mortality. Whether these results can anticipate the outcomes in future randomized controlled trials has not been determined., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2005, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula developed a definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula that has been accepted universally. Eleven years later, because postoperative pancreatic fistula remains one of the most relevant and harmful complications of pancreatic operation, the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification has become the gold standard in defining postoperative pancreatic fistula in clinical practice. The aim of the present report is to verify the value of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula and to update the International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification in light of recent evidence that has emerged, as well as to address the lingering controversies about the original definition and grading of postoperative pancreatic fistula., Methods: The International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula reconvened as the International Study Group in Pancreatic Surgery in order to perform a review of the recent literature and consequently to update and revise the grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula., Results: Based on the literature since 2005 investigating the validity and clinical use of the original International Study Group of Pancreatic Fistula classification, a clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula is now redefined as a drain output of any measurable volume of fluid with an amylase level >3 times the upper limit of institutional normal serum amylase activity, associated with a clinically relevant development/condition related directly to the postoperative pancreatic fistula. Consequently, the former "grade A postoperative pancreatic fistula" is now redefined and called a "biochemical leak," because it has no clinical importance and is no longer referred to a true pancreatic fistula. Postoperative pancreatic fistula grades B and C are confirmed but defined more strictly. In particular, grade B requires a change in the postoperative management; drains are either left in place >3 weeks or repositioned through endoscopic or percutaneous procedures. Grade C postoperative pancreatic fistula refers to those postoperative pancreatic fistula that require reoperation or lead to single or multiple organ failure and/or mortality attributable to the pancreatic fistula., Conclusion: This new definition and grading system of postoperative pancreatic fistula should lead to a more universally consistent evaluation of operative outcomes after pancreatic operation and will allow for a better comparison of techniques used to mitigate the rate and clinical impact of a pancreatic fistula. Use of this updated classification will also allow for more precise comparisons of surgical quality between surgeons and units who perform pancreatic surgery., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery., Methods: This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery., Results: Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009)., Conclusion: Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)