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: Laparoscopic hepatectomy continues to be a challenging operation associated with a steep learning curve. This study aimed to evaluate the learning process during 15 years of experience with laparoscopic hepatectomy and to identify approaches to standardization of this procedure.Study Design: Prospectively collected data of 317 consecutive laparoscopic hepatectomies performed from January 2000 to December 2014 were reviewed retrospectively. The operative procedures were classified into 4 categories (minor hepatectomy, left lateral sectionectomy [LLS], left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy), and indications were classified into 5 categories (benign-borderline tumor, living donor, metastatic liver tumor, biliary malignancy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).Results: During the first 10 years, the procedures were limited mainly to minor hepatectomy and LLS, and the indications were limited to benign-borderline tumor and living donor. Implementation of major hepatectomy rapidly increased the proportion of malignant tumors, especially hepatocellular carcinoma, starting from 2011. Conversion rates decreased with experience for LLS (13.3% vs 3.4%; p = 0.054) and left hepatectomy (50.0% vs 15.0%; p = 0.012), but not for right hepatectomy (41.4% vs 35.7%; p = 0.661).Conclusions: Our 15-year experience clearly demonstrates the stepwise procedural evolution from LLS through left hepatectomy to right hepatectomy, as well as the trend in indications from benign-borderline tumor/living donor to malignant tumors. In contrast to LLS and left hepatectomy, a learning curve was not observed for right hepatectomy. The ongoing development process can contribute to faster standardization necessary for future advances in laparoscopic hepatectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently perceived a complex and challenging laparoscopic procedure and is limited to a few expert teams. This study analyzed the short- and long-term outcomes of LMH for HCC compared with open hepatectomy.Methods: From January 2006 to May 2014, 38 patients underwent LMH for HCC (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy). They were matched and compared to 38 patients (10 left and 28 right hepatectomy) who underwent a conventional open approach. Short-term operative and postoperative outcomes as well as long-term outcomes, including disease-free survival and overall survival rates, were evaluated.Results: Patients were well matched for several preoperative factors. Overall complication rates were significantly higher for the open group. No significant difference was seen in 3-year overall survival between the open and laparoscopic groups (69.2 vs. 73.4 %; p = 0.951). A trend toward better 3-year disease-free survival after laparoscopy was observed (29.7 vs. 50.3 %; p = 0.219), even though the difference did not reach statistical significance. The same trend was seen in subgroup analyses of right and left hepatectomy.Conclusions: This study shows the feasibility of LMH for HCC compared to open hepatectomy in regard to both short- and long-term outcomes. LMH offers many advantages commonly attributed to laparoscopy and is well suited for HCC with cirrhosis when performed by experienced surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drainage fluid amylase (DFA) is useful for predicting clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). However, difference in optimal cutoff value of DFA for predicting CR-POPF between open DP (ODP) and laparoscopic DP (LDP) has not been investigated. This study aimed to identify the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF after ODP and LDP. Methods: Data for 294 patients (ODP, n = 127; LDP, n = 167) undergoing DP at Kobe University Hospital between 2010 and 2021 were reviewed. Propensity score matching was performed to minimize treatment selection bias. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal cutoff values of DFA for predicting CR-POPF for ODP and LDP. Logistic regression analysis for CR-POPF was performed to investigate the diagnostic value of DFA on postoperative day (POD) three with identified cutoff value. Results: In the matched cohort, CR-POPF rates were 24.7% and 7.9% after ODP and LDP, respectively. DFA on POD one was significantly lower after ODP than after LDP (2263 U/L vs 4243 U/L, p < 0.001), while the difference was not significant on POD three (543 U/L vs 1221 U/L, p = 0.171). ROC analysis revealed that the optimal cutoff value of DFA on POD one and three for predicting CR-POPF were different between ODP and LDP (ODP, 3697 U/L on POD one, 1114 U/L on POD three; LDP, 10564 U/L on POD one, 6020 U/L on POD three). Multivariate analysis showed that DFA on POD three with identified cutoff value was the independent predictor for CR-POPF both for ODP and LDP. Conclusions: DFA on POD three is an independent predictor for CR-POPF after both ODP and LDP. However, the optimal cutoff value for it is significantly higher after LDP than after ODP. Optimal threshold of DFA for drain removal may be different between ODP and LDP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stapling is the standard method for pancreatic transection during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. Although most surgeons use a 60 mm cartridge stapler, space limitations created by laparoscopic surgery make the instrument difficult to handle, especially during pancreatic transection at the neck. Therefore, we currently use a 45 mm cartridge stapler for laparoscopic pancreatic transection at the neck. Between October 2019 and December 2020, we performed pancreatic transection using a 45 mm cartridge stapler in 27 patients. Fifteen patients experienced biochemical leakage, but no patients developed clinically relevant pancreatic fistula. The compactness of the 45 mm cartridge has several benefits: (1) less space is required for flexing, opening, and closing the device; (2) it enables easy insertion of the lower jaw behind the pancreas, even if the dissected space behind the pancreas is narrow; (3) less obstruction of the surgeons' view prevents accidental injury to the surrounding tissues and vessels. These benefits may enable safe pancreatic transection. [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]

Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Correction to: Surgery Today https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02540-5 In the original publication, the name of third author was incorrectly published as: Sadaki Asdari. [Extracted from the article]