Search

Minimal invasive liver resections are a safe alternative to open surgery. Different scoring systems considering different risks factors have been developed to predict the risks associated with these procedures, especially challenging major liver resections (MLR). However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) on the difficulty of minimally invasive MLRs remains poorly investigated. Patients who underwent laparoscopic and robotic MLRs for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) performed across 57 centers between January 2005 to December 2021 were included in this analysis. Patients who did or did not receive NAT were matched based on 1:1 coarsened exact and 1:2 propensity-score matching. Pre- and post-matching comparisons were performed. In total, the data of 5189 patients were reviewed. Of these, 1411 procedures were performed for CRLM, and 1061 cases met the inclusion criteria. After excluding 27 cases with missing data on NAT, 1034 patients (NAT: n = 641; non-NAT: n = 393) were included. Before matching, baseline characteristics were vastly different. Before matching, the morbidity rate was significantly higher in the NAT-group (33.2% vs. 27.2%, p-value = 0.043). No significant differences were seen in perioperative outcomes after the coarsened exact matching. After the propensity-score matching, statistically significant higher blood loss (mean, 300 (SD 128–596) vs. 250 (SD 100–400) ml, p-value = 0.047) but shorter hospital stay (mean, 6 [ 4-8] vs. 6 [ 5-9] days, p-value = 0.043) were found in the NAT-group. The current study demonstrated that NAT had minimal impact on the difficulty and outcomes of minimally-invasive MLR for CRLM. Abbreviated abstract: The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAT) on the difficulty of minimally invasive major liver resections (MLRs) remains poorly investigated. NAT had minimal impact on the difficulty and outcomes of minimally-invasive MLR for colorectal liver metastases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Colorectal liver metastases are multiple in 80% of cases, and surgical resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. Laparoscopic multiple liver resections are yet not recommended, and no dedicated comparative study has been published. This literature review aimed to assess feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for multiple colorectal liver metastases, whether by parenchymal-sparing multiple resections or two-stage resections. The purpose of this review is to guide the implementation of this minimal invasive technique for multiple colorectal liver metastases. Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decades, liver cancer’s minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and report the short-term outcomes. Background: Anatomical resections (ARs) have better oncological outcomes compared to partial resections in patients with HCC, and some suggest should be performed also for CRLM as micrometastasis occurs through the intrahepatic structures. Furthermore, remnant liver ischemia after partial resections has been associated with worse oncological outcomes. Few experiences on laparoscopic anatomical resections have been reported and no data on limited AR exist. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 86 patients undergoing full laparoscopic anatomical parenchymal sparing resections with preoperative surgical simulation and standardized procedures. Results: A total of 55 patients had HCC, whereas 31 had CRLM with a median of 1 lesion and a size of 30 mm. During preoperative three-dimensional (3D) simulation, a median resection volume of 120 mL was planned. Sixteen anatomical subsegmentectomies, 56 segmentectomies, and 14 sectionectomies were performed. Concordance between preoperative 3D simulation and intraoperative resection was 98.7%. Two patients were converted, and 7 patients experienced complications. Subsegmentectomies had comparable blood loss (166 mL, P = 0.59), but longer operative time (426 min, P = 0.01) than segmentectomies (blood loss 222 mL; operative time 355 min) and sectionectomies (blood loss 120 mL; operative time 295 min). R0 resection and margin width remained comparable among groups. Conclusions: A precise preoperative planning and a standardized surgical technique allow to pursue the oncological quality of AR enhancing the safety of the parenchyma sparing principle, reducing surgical stress through a laparoscopic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Laparoscopic liver resections have gained widespread popularity among hepatobiliary surgeons and is nowadays performed for both standard and more complex hepatectomies. Given the increased technical challenges, preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance is pivotal in laparoscopic surgery to safely carry out complex and oncologically safe hepatectomies. Modern tools can help both preoperatively and intraoperatively and allow surgeons to perform more precise hepatectomies. Preoperative 3D reconstructions and printing as well as augmented reality can increase the knowledge of the specific anatomy of the case and therefore plan the surgery accordingly and tailor the procedure on the patient. Furthermore, the indocyanine green retention dye is an increasingly used tool that can nowadays improve the precision during laparoscopic hepatectomies, especially when considering anatomical resection. The use of preoperative modern imaging and intraoperative indocyanine green dye are key to successfully perform complex hepatectomies such as laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections. In this narrative review, we discuss the aspects of preoperative and intraoperative tools that are nowadays increasingly used in experienced hepatobiliary centers.

Background: Open parenchymal-preserving resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the posterosuperior liver segments. Laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery are emergent surgical approaches for liver resections, even in posteriorly located lesions. The objective of this study was to compare robot-assisted to laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections for lesions located in segments 7, 8, 4a, and 1.Methods: Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection in two centers for lesions in the posterosuperior segments between June 2008 and February 2014 were reviewed. A 1:2 matched propensity score analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the laparoscopic cohort based on demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, location, and type of resection.Results: Thirty-six patients who underwent robot-assisted liver resection were matched with 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Matched patients displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, hospital stay, R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. The overall morbidity according to the comprehensive complication index was also similar (34.6 ± 33 vs. 18.4 ± 11.3, respectively, for robotic and laparoscopic approach, p = 0.11). Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer inflow occlusion time (77 vs. 25 min, p = 0.001) as compared with their laparoscopic counterparts.Conclusions: Although number and severity of complications in the robotic group appears to be higher, robotic and laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments display similar safety and feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Liver surgery in patients with underlying liver disease results in higher mortality and morbidity rates compared to patients without underlying liver disease. Laparoscopy seems to have good results in patients with normal liver in terms of postoperative outcomes, but is more challenging in cirrhotic patients. Aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection both in normal and cirrhotic livers, and secondary endpoint was to compare the surgical results. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 105 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between November 2001 and January 2012. Candidates for laparoscopic liver resection were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of an underlying liver disease. Results: 105 patients (52.4% males, median age 56.1 years) were enrolled, and 37.1% had liver cirrhosis. Hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis (89.7%) and liver metastases (57.6%) were the main indications for surgery in patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhotic livers, respectively. None of the patients died post-operatively. Cirrhotic patients had greater blood loss (100 vs 50ml; p <0.012) and longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days; p <0.031) compared to non-cirrhotics. Conclusions: Laparoscopic liver resections are safe and feasible procedures in both patients with cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic livers. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Laparoscopic liver resections have gained widespread popularity among hepatobiliary surgeons and is nowadays performed for both standard and more complex hepatectomies. Given the increased technical challenges, preoperative planning and intraoperative guidance is pivotal in laparoscopic surgery to safely carry out complex and oncologically safe hepatectomies. Modern tools can help both preoperatively and intraoperatively and allow surgeons to perform more precise hepatectomies. Preoperative 3D reconstructions and printing as well as augmented reality can increase the knowledge of the specific anatomy of the case and therefore plan the surgery accordingly and tailor the procedure on the patient. Furthermore, the indocyanine green retention dye is an increasingly used tool that can nowadays improve the precision during laparoscopic hepatectomies, especially when considering anatomical resection. The use of preoperative modern imaging and intraoperative indocyanine green dye are key to successfully perform complex hepatectomies such as laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections. In this narrative review, we discuss the aspects of preoperative and intraoperative tools that are nowadays increasingly used in experienced hepatobiliary centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates., Results: A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay., Conclusion: Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.