Search

Background: Less intra-abdominal adhesions are expected following laparoscopic surgery. Although an initial laparoscopic approach for primary liver tumors may have advantages in patients who require repeat hepatectomies for recurrent liver tumors, this has not been sufficiently investigated. Methods: Patients who underwent repeat hepatectomies for recurrent liver tumors at our hospital between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Of 127 patients, 76 underwent laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH), of whom 34 patients initially underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (L-LRH) and 42, open hepatectomy (O-LRH). Fifty-one patients underwent open hepatectomy as both the initial and second operation (O-ORH). We analyzed surgical outcomes between L-LRH and O-LRH groups and between L-LRH and O-ORH groups using propensity-matching analysis for each pattern. Results: Twenty-one patients each were included in L-LRH and O-LRH propensity-matched cohorts. The L-LRH group had a lower rate of postoperative complications than the O-LRH group (0 vs 19%, P = 0.036). When we compared surgical outcomes between L-LRH and O-ORH groups in another matched cohort with 18 patients in each group, in addition to the lower rate of postoperative complications, the L-LRH group had additional favorable surgical outcomes including shorter operation time and lower blood loss volume than the O-ORH group (291 vs 368 min, P = 0.037 and 10 vs 485 mL, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: An initial laparoscopic approach would be favorable for patients undergoing repeat hepatectomies, as it leads to lower risk of postoperative complications. Compared with O-ORH, the advantage of the laparoscopic approach may be enhanced when it is repeatedly adopted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Anatomic liver resection (ALR) has been established to eliminate the tumor-bearing hepatic region with preservation of the remnant liver volume for liver malignancies. Recently, laparoscopic ALR has been widely applied; however, there are few reports on laparoscopic segmentectomy 2. This study aimed to present the standardization of laparoscopic segmentectomy 2 with surgical outcomes. Methods: This study included seven patients who underwent pure laparoscopic segmentectomy 2 by the Glissonean approach from January 2020 to December 2021. Four of them had hepatocellular carcinoma, two had colorectal liver metastasis, and one had hepatic angiomyolipoma, which was preoperatively diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma. In all patients, preoperative three-dimensional (3D) simulation images from dynamic CT were reconstructed using a 3D workstation. The layer between the hepatic parenchyma and the Glissonean pedicle of segment 2 (G2) was dissected to encircle the root of G2. After clamping or ligation of the G2, 2.5 mg of indocyanine green was injected intravenously to identify the boundaries between segments 2 and 3 with a negative staining method under near-infrared light. Parenchymal transection was performed from the caudal side to the cranial side according to the demarcation on the liver surface, and the left hepatic vein was exposed on the cut surface if possible. Results: The mean operative time for all patients was 281 min. The mean blood loss was 37 mL, and no transfusion was necessary. Estimated liver resection volumes significantly correlated with actual liver resection volumes (r = 0.61, P = 0.035). After the operation, one patient presented with asymptomatic deep venous and pulmonary thrombosis, which was treated with anticoagulant therapy. The mean length of hospital stay was 8.9 days. Conclusion: Laparoscopic segmentectomy 2 by the Glissonean approach is a feasible and safe procedure with the preservation of the nontumor-bearing segment 3 for liver tumors in segment 2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Optimal treatment strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with macroscopic portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) remain controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the impact and predictive factors of hepatectomy for HCC with macroscopic PVTT. Methods: This study included 100 patients who presented with intraoperatively confirmed PVTT extending to the first portal branch (Vp3), main portal trunk, or opposite-side portal branch (Vp4) between June 2000 and December 2019. Their postoperative outcomes and predictive factors for survival were evaluated. Results: Of the 100 patients, 37 (37%) and 63 (63%) had Vp3 and Vp4 PVTTs, respectively. Moreover, 42 (42%) and 58 (58%) patients underwent R0/1 and R2 hepatectomies, respectively. The median survival time (MST) of all patients with Vp3/4 PVTT was 14.5 months; the 1- and 3-year overall survival rates were 59.6 and 16.8%, respectively. The MSTs of patients with Vp3 and Vp4 PVTTs were 16.1 and 14.3 months, respectively (P = 0.7098). The MSTs of patients who underwent R0/1 and R2 hepatectomies were 14.3 and 14.9 months, respectively (P = 0.3831). All assessed tumor factors (including the Vp status [Vp3 or Vp4], type of resection [R0/1 or R2], intrahepatic maximal tumor size, intrahepatic tumor number, and the existence of extrahepatic metastasis) did not influence the overall survival significantly. Conclusions: Tumor factors, such as the presence of a Vp3/4 PVTT, have a strong impact on survival; however, other multiple tumor factors have a limited impact. Hepatectomy can be an effective treatment option for HCC with Vp3/4 PVTT, and its indications should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We compared surgical outcomes, with a focus on tumor characteristics, of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) to identify recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases where the LRH procedure would be more favorable than ORH.Methods: Eighty-one HCC patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy in our hospital from 2008 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Of these patients, 30 and 51 patients underwent LRH and ORH, respectively. We analyzed surgical outcomes of LRH and ORH, focusing on tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from major vessels, and contralateral or ipsilateral tumor recurrence to determine what factors could affect surgical outcomes. Subsequently, using a propensity-matched cohort, we compared the impact of those factors on LRH and ORH outcomes.Results: In the entire cohort, the LRH operation time was significantly shorter in contralateral recurrent HCC cases than in ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (252 vs. 398 min, P = 0.008); however, such a difference was not observed in the ORH operation time. We subsequently compared the surgical outcomes, in terms of the location of tumor recurrence, between the LRH and ORH groups in a propensity-matched cohort. In total, 23 patients were included in each of these groups. We found that the LRH procedure had significantly shorter operative time than the ORH procedure in the contralateral recurrent HCC cases (253 vs. 391 min, P = 0.018); however, we did not observe such a difference in the ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (372 vs. 333 min, P = 0.669). LRH had lower blood loss, similar postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than ORH in both contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases.Conclusions: LRH is likely considered a more favorable approach than ORH in treating patients with contralateral recurrent HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study evaluated the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with extrahepatic metastases who can undergo hepatectomy. Methods: A total of 32 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC with extrahepatic metastases, including lymph node and/or distant metastases were recruited for this study. Results: Fourteen patients had lymph node metastasis only, 16 had distant metastasis only, and 2 had both metastasis types during preoperative diagnosis. The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate of all patients was 17.9%, and the median survival time (MST) was 11.8 months. Univariate analysis revealed that intrahepatic maximal tumor size, intrahepatic tumor number, and intrahepatic tumor control after hepatectomy were significant factors influencing OS (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that independent risk factors for OS were intrahepatic maximal tumor size and intrahepatic tumor number (p < 0.05). The MST and 3-year OS rate of patients with maximal tumor size <100 mm and intrahepatic tumor number ≤2 were 39.0 months and 51.9%, respectively. Conclusions: Hepatectomy is not recommended for HCC patients with extrahepatic metastasis with ≥3 intrahepatic tumors, even when all intrahepatic tumors can be eliminated via hepatectomy. Aggressive surgery may be justified for HCC patients with ≤2 intrahepatic tumors and maximal tumor size <100 mm, irrespective of vascular invasion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical relevance of hepatectomy for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages B and C advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A total of 314 patients (149 and 165 BCLC stages B and C, respectively) who underwent hepatectomy were included. Complete hepatectomy (without residual tumors after hepatectomy) and reductive hepatectomy (apparent residual tumors after hepatectomy) were performed for 212 and 102 patients, respectively. Short-term operative and postoperative outcomes, as well as long-term outcomes, were evaluated. Results: The median survival times of patients with stage B disease undergoing complete hepatectomy and reductive hepatectomy were 48.9 and 20.1 months, respectively (p = 0.0075), whereas those of patients with stage C disease were 19.5 and 17.6 months, respectively (p = 0.0140). The 3-year overall survival rates of patients with stage B disease undergoing reductive hepatectomy with and without subsequent local treatments after surgery were 47.5% and 0%, respectively, whereas those of patients with stage C diseases were 18.6% and 0%, respectively. Conclusions: Survival benefits are obvious for both BCLC stages B and C HCC when complete hepatectomy can be performed safely. Reductive hepatectomy is also acceptable for BCLC stages B and C when subsequent local treatment for remnant liver tumors can be performed safely after reductive hepatectomy. Without subsequent local treatment, reductive hepatectomy has little clinical relevance. Thus, a cautious approach to patient selection is required for this aggressive strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) invading the portal trunk (Vp4) are poor surgical candidates because of the technical difficulties involved. To overcome the limitations, we developed a technique of back-flow thrombectomy (BFT) based on the inherent portal hemodynamics and the macroscopic form of PVTT. Methods: Forty-six patients with multiple HCC and Vp4 PVTT underwent hepatectomy with tumor thrombectomy. We used the BFT to treat 24 patients, 18 of whom had PVTT in the contralateral second portal branch. The form of PVTT was classified macroscopically into the floating and expansive types. Results: The rate of complete removal by BFT of PVTT in the contralateral second portal branch was 89%. The patency rates at the thrombectomy site in all 46 patients and in the 24 BFT patients, 3 months after hepatectomy were 93 and 90%, respectively. The median OS of all 46 patients was 15 months, with 1- and 3-year OS rates of 58.5 and 17.1%, respectively. The median OS of the 24 patients treated with BFT vs. the 22 not treated with BFT was 14 and 15 months, respectively. Conclusions: BFT can expand the therapeutic time window for patients with HCC and deep-seated PVTT and may improve their survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]