Search

Introduction: Minimally invasive major hepatic resection (MIMHR) is increasingly being performed in tertiary centers using either hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) or totally laparoscopic surgery (TLS). The outcomes data of MIMHR are scarce, especially in comparison to open major hepatic resection (OMHR). Our aim was to compare 90-day outcomes in major hepatic resections when minimally invasive approaches are attempted. Methods and Procedures: At our institution, minimally invasive liver resection was formally introduced in January 2007, initially using the HALS approach. Since then, the use of TLS approach has increased. We collected data on all patients who underwent major liver resection between January 2007 and December 2017 at our institution. In an intention to treat fashion, we then compared MIMHR to OMHR. Results: From January 2007 to December 2017, 669 patients underwent liver resection. Of these, 203 patients (30%) underwent major hepatic resection and MIMHR and OMHR were performed in 68 (33%) and 135 (67%) patients, respectively. The rate of conversion from minimally invasive to open was 30.9%. Overall, there were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (2.9% versus 1.5%; P  = .499) or major complications (14.7% versus 14.8%; P  = .985). MIMHR was associated with a shorter average postoperative hospital stay (6.2 days versus 7.9 days; P  = .0110) and shorter average ICU stay (0.66 days versus 0.90 days; P  = .0299) compared with OMHR. Conclusions: The minimally invasive approach to major liver resection is a safe and reasonable alternative to an open approach when performed by a surgeon experienced with the relevant surgical techniques. MIMHR may be associated with similar outcomes and a shorter postoperative hospital stay with no increase in 90-day postoperative complications to OMHR.

Background: Although minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary (MIS HPB) surgery can be performed with good outcomes, there are currently no standardized requirements for centers or surgeons who wish to implement MIS HPB surgery. The aim of this study was to create a consensus statement regarding safe dissemination and implementation of MIS HPB surgical programs. Methods: Sixteen key questions regarding safety in MIS HPB surgery were generated after a focused literature search and iterative review by three field experts. Participants for the working group were then selected using sequential purposive sampling and snowball techniques. Review of the 16 questions took place over a single 2-h meeting. The senior author facilitated the session, and a modified nominal group technique was used. Results: Twenty three surgeons were in attendance. All participants agreed or strongly agreed that formal guidelines should exist for both institutions and individual surgeons interested in implementing MIS HPB surgery and that routine monitoring and reporting of institutional and surgeon technical outcomes should be performed. Regarding volume cutoffs, most participants (91%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual institutional volume cutoff for complex MIS HPB surgery, such as major hepatectomy or pancreaticoduodenectomy, should exist. A smaller proportion (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that a minimum annual surgeon volume requirement should exist. The majority of participants agreed or strongly agreed that surgeons were responsible for defining (100%) and enforcing (78%) guidelines to ensure the overall safety of MIS HPB programs. Finally, formal MIS HPB training, minimum case volume requirements, institutional support and infrastructure, and mandatory collection of outcomes data were all recognized as important aspects of safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery. Conclusions: Safe implementation of MIS HPB surgery requires a thoughtful process that incorporates structured training, sufficient volume and expertise, a proper institutional ecosystem, and monitoring of outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]