Search

Background: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands., Method: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups., Results: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004)., Conclusion: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Laparoscopic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe (LRCL) requires a high level of expertise due to its challenging anatomical area. Only case reports, case series, and single-center cohort studies have been published. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of this laparoscopic procedure., Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent LRCL in 4 high-volume hepatobiliary units between January 2000 and May 2018 was performed. Perioperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes were assessed. Postoperative morbidity was stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification with severe complications defined by grade III or more. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis., Results: A total of 32 patients were included, including 22 (68.8%) with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM), one (3.1%) with cholangiocarcinoma, four (12.5%) with other malignancies, and five (15.6%) with symptomatic benign lesions. Simultaneous colorectal and/or additional liver resection was performed in 20 (62.5%) patients. The median (IQR) operative time was 155 (121-280) minutes, blood loss was 100 (50-275) ml, conversion rate was 9.4% (n = 3), severe complications were observed in 2 patients (6.3%), and median (range) length of hospital stay was 3 [1-39] days. No 90-day postoperative mortality was noticed. The median (IQR) follow-up for the CRLM group was 14 [10-23] months. Five-year overall survival rate was 82% in this subgroup. Small interinstitutional differences were observed without major impact on surgical outcomes., Conclusion: LRCL is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers. Profound anatomical knowledge, advanced laparoscopic skills, and mastering intraoperative ultrasound are essential. No major interinstitutional differences were ascertained.

Introduction: A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies., Methods: Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses)., Results: Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001)., Conclusion: This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated., (© 2019 Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery.)

Background: Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection., Methods: A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests., Results: Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR., Conclusion: LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach., (© 2019 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Combined laparoscopic resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer (LLCR) may hold benefits for selected patients but could increase complication rates. Previous studies have compared LLCR with liver resection alone. Propensity score-matched studies comparing LLCR with laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (LCR) alone have not been performed., Methods: A multicenter, case-matched study was performed comparing LLCR (2009-2016, 4 centers) with LCR alone (2009-2016, 2 centers). Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated with the following preoperative variables: age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, type of colorectal resection and T and N stage of the primary tumor. Outcomes were compared using paired tests., Results: Out of 1020 LCR and 64 LLCR procedures, 122 (2 × 61) patients could be matched. All 61 laparoscopic liver resections were minor hepatectomies, mostly because of a solitary liver metastasis (n = 44, 69%) of small size (≤ 3 cm) (n = 50, 78%). LLCR was associated with a modest increase in operative time [206 (166-308) vs. 197 (148-231) min, p = 0.057] and blood loss [200 (100-700) vs. 75 (5-200) ml, p = 0.011]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications [9 (15%) vs. 13 (21%), p = 0.418], anastomotic leakage [5 (8%) vs. 4 (7%), p = 1.0], conversion rate [3 (5%) vs. 5 (8%), p = 0.687] and 30-day mortality [0 vs. 1 (2%), p = 1.0] did not differ between LLCR and LCR., Conclusion: In selected patients requiring minor hepatectomy, LLCR can be safely performed without increasing the risk of postoperative morbidity compared to LCR alone.

Objective: To compare the learning curves of the self-taught "pioneers" of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) with those of the trained "early adopters" in terms of short- and medium-term patient outcomes to establish if the learning curve can be reduced with specific training., Summary of Background Data: It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in the next few years. Current guidelines stress the need for an incremental, stepwise progression through the learning curve in order to minimize harm to patients. Previous studies have examined the learning curve in Stage 2 of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation; however, LLS is now in stage 3 with specific training being provided to surgeons., Methods: Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis, the learning curves and short- and medium-term outcomes of 4 "pioneering" surgeons from stage 2 were compared with 4 "early adapting" surgeons from stage 3 who had received specific training for LLS., Results: After 46 procedures, the short- and medium-term outcomes of the "early adopters" were comparable to those achieved by the "pioneers" following 150 procedures in similar cases., Conclusions: With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the learning curve for minor and major liver resections faster than the "pioneers" who were self-taught in LLS. The findings of this study are applicable to all surgical specialties and highlight the importance of specific training in the safe expansion of novel surgical practice.

Objective: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery., Background: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination., Methods: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements., Results: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee., Conclusion: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Background: Combined laparoscopic resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer (LLCR) may hold benefits for selected patients but could increase complication rates. Previous studies have compared LLCR with liver resection alone. Propensity score-matched studies comparing LLCR with laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (LCR) alone have not been performed.Methods: A multicenter, case-matched study was performed comparing LLCR (2009-2016, 4 centers) with LCR alone (2009-2016, 2 centers). Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated with the following preoperative variables: age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, type of colorectal resection and T and N stage of the primary tumor. Outcomes were compared using paired tests.Results: Out of 1020 LCR and 64 LLCR procedures, 122 (2 × 61) patients could be matched. All 61 laparoscopic liver resections were minor hepatectomies, mostly because of a solitary liver metastasis (n = 44, 69%) of small size (≤ 3 cm) (n = 50, 78%). LLCR was associated with a modest increase in operative time [206 (166-308) vs. 197 (148-231) min, p = 0.057] and blood loss [200 (100-700) vs. 75 (5-200) ml, p = 0.011]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications [9 (15%) vs. 13 (21%), p = 0.418], anastomotic leakage [5 (8%) vs. 4 (7%), p = 1.0], conversion rate [3 (5%) vs. 5 (8%), p = 0.687] and 30-day mortality [0 vs. 1 (2%), p = 1.0] did not differ between LLCR and LCR.Conclusion: In selected patients requiring minor hepatectomy, LLCR can be safely performed without increasing the risk of postoperative morbidity compared to LCR alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]