Balancing safety and outcomes in minimally invasive liver resection: insights from the PRESSURE trial.

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is being widely utilized owing to recent advancements in laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery. There are two main types of liver resection: anatomical (minimally invasive anatomical liver resection (MIALR)) and nonanatomical. MIALR is defined as a minimally invasive liver resection along the respective portal territory. Optimization of the safety and precision of MIALR is the next challenge for hepatobiliary surgeons, and intraoperative indocyanine green (ICG) staining is considered to be of considerable importance in this field. In this article, we present the latest findings on MIALR and laparoscopic anatomical liver resection using ICG at our hospital.

Although the number of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) has been steadily increasing in many institutions, minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) remains a complicated procedure that has not been standardized. We present the results of a survey among expert liver surgeons as a benchmark for standardizing MIALR. We administered this survey to 34 expert liver surgeons who routinely perform MIALR. The survey contained questions on personal experience with liver resection, inflow/outflow control methods, and identification techniques of intersegmental/sectional planes (IPs). All 34 participants completed the survey; 24 experts (70%) had more than 11years of experience with MILR, and over 80% of experts had performed over 100 open resections and MILRs each. Regarding the methods used for laparoscopic or robotic anatomic resection, the Glissonean approach (GA) was a more frequent procedure than the hilar approach (HA). Although hepatic veins were considered essential landmarks, the exposure methods varied. The top three techniques that the experts recommended for identifying IPs were creating a demarcation line, indocyanine green negative staining method, and intraoperative ultrasound. Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection remains a challenging procedure; however, a certain degree of consensus exists among expert liver surgeons.

Simple SummaryThe type of surgical approach for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is unclear. This study compared minimally invasive to open liver resections using the National Cancer Database. The results showed a similar overall survival with improved perioperative outcomes, but higher rates of positive resection margins in patients with minimally invasive liver resections. The higher rate of residual tumors requires further investigation.Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is increasingly used as a surgical treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is no large scale data to compare the effectiveness of MILR in comparison to open liver resection (OLR). We identified patients with stage I or II HCC from the National Cancer Database using propensity score matching techniques. Overall, 1931 (66%) and 995 (34%) patients underwent OLR or MILR between 2010 and 2015. After propensity matching, 5-year OS was similar in the MILR and OLR group (51.7% vs. 52.8%, p = 0.766). MILR was associated with lower 90-day mortality (5% vs. 7%, p = 0.041) and shorter length of stay (4 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), but higher rates of positive margins (6% vs. 4%, p = 0.001). An operation at an academic institution was identified as an independent preventive factor for a positive resection margin (OR 0.64: 95% CI 0.43–0.97) and 90-day mortality (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41–0.91). MILR for HCC is associated with similar overall survival to OLR, with the benefit of improved short term postoperative outcomes. The increased rate of positive margins after MILR requires further investigation, as do the differences in perioperative outcomes between academic and nonacademic institutions.

Role of preoperative 3D rendering for minimally invasive parenchyma sparing liver resections

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal metastases: A case–control study of 130 patients

Beyond non-anatomical resections: Is minimally invasive parenchyma-sparing anatomical hepatectomy the next chapter?

Aim . To compare early and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections with open procedures. Material and Methods. Retrospective case-control study was performed. Pseudo-randomization was used to compare homogeneous data. We have assessed survival in patients with various forms of cholangiocellular carcinoma and colorectal cancer metastases after minimally invasive liver resections. Results. For the period 2013–2017 two hundred and fifteen minimally invasive liver resections were performed including 49 robot-assisted and 166 laparoscopic ones. Malignant tumors were in 45% of cases, benign tumors – in 42%, parasitic neoplasms – in 13%. Early results of minimally invasive resections and 70 comparable open liver resections were compared. All procedures were carried out within the same period at one institution. Immediate results were significantly better after minimally invasive liver resections both before pseudo-randomization and after that. There were 60 pairs of patients after pseudo-randomization. In groups of minimally invasive and open resections blood loss was 396 (0–3400) and 853 (20–6000) ml respectively, time of surgery – 319 (85–580) and 376 (180–775) min, incidence of severe (Clavien–Dindo II and over) complications – 10% (n = 6) and 23% (n = 14), length of postoperative hospital-stay – 9 (3–90) and 12 (2–39) days, respectively. 3-year survival after mini-invasive liver resections for colorectal cancer metastases was 70%, various forms of cholangiocellular carcinoma – 40%. Conclusion. Conventional liver resections can be successfully performed in laparoscopic or robot-assisted fashion in certain patients at specialized center of surgical hepatology with sufficient experience in open and laparoscopic liver surgery.

The Brisbane 2000 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections, based on Couinaud's segments, did not address how to identify segmental borders and anatomic territories of less than one segment. Smaller anatomic resections including segmentectomies and subsegmentectomies, have not been well defined. The advent of minimally invasive liver resection has enhanced the possibilities of more precise resection due to a magnified view and reduced bleeding, and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) is becoming popular gradually. Therefore, there is a need for updating the Brisbane 2000 system, including anatomic segmentectomy or less. An online "Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (PAM-HBP Surgery Consensus)" was hosted on February 23, 2021. The Steering Committee invited 34 international experts from around the world. The Expert Committee (EC) selected 12 questions and two future research topics in the terminology session. The EC created seven tentative definitions and five recommendations based on the experts' opinions and the literature review performed by the Research Committee. Two Delphi Rounds finalized those definitions and recommendations. This paper presents seven definitions and five recommendations regarding anatomic segmentectomy or less. In addition, two future research topics are discussed. The PAM-HBP Surgery Consensus has presented the Tokyo 2020 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections. The terminology has added definitions of liver anatomy and resections that were not defined in the Brisbane 2000 system.

Microvascular invasion (MVI) is one of the major risk factors for postoperative recurrence of HCC. For HCC patients with MVI, few studies have examined the differences in prognosis between minimally invasive and open liver resection. A total of 171 HCC patients with MVI who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy from September 2017 to October 2022 at Sir Run-Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, were enrolled in this study. Patients were categorized into minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) group (Robotic or laparoscopic) and open liver resection (OLR) group. In order to balance the baseline characteristics between the two groups, 1:4 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed on the two groups. The survival parameters and perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups before and after PSM, respectively. There was no significant difference in Recurrence Free Survival (RFS) and Overall Survival (OS) between the two groups before and after PSM. Subgroup analysis showed that there were no significant differences in OS and RFS between the two groups regarding anatomical resection, IWATE difficulty score, surgical margins, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. Perioperative parameters and the rate of major postoperative complications were comparable between the two groups. Minimally invasive approach can provide a comparable long-term survival result compared with conventional open approach for patients with HCC associated with MVI.

Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection

Although minimally invasive (MIS) liver resections are associated with improved outcomes, uptake remains slow. Using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) National Inpatient Sample (NIS), adults who underwent elective liver resections (2016-2020) were identified. Approach was classified as MIS (laparoscopic or robotic-assisted) or open. Annual utilization was characterized by approach and association between approach and patient and hospital variables was estimated. Among 63,280 adult liver resections, 22.5% were MIS. MIS resections increased from 21.3% in 2016 to 22.5% in 2020. Laparoscopy alone decreased from 18.4 to 14.9%, while robotic-assistance increased from 2.9 to 7.6%. In multivariable analysis, patients were less likely to undergo MIS resection if they were in a county with < 250,000 people (vs. > 250,000, OR [95% CI], 0.82 [0.73-0.93]). Patients were more likely to undergo a MIS resection if they had a benign indication (vs. malignancy, OR [95% CI], 2.9 [2.49-3.38]), or were undergoing a partial hepatectomy (vs. lobectomy, OR, [95% CI], 2.62 [2.24-3.07]). MIS liver resection increased between 2016 and 2020, driven by an increase in robotic-assisted surgery and despite a reduction in laparoscopic surgery. Rurality, indication, and resection type were contributors to a MIS vs. open approach.

To evaluate a multicenter, international series on minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal carcinoma (CRC) metastasis. Multiple single series have been reported on laparoscopic liver resection for CRC metastasis. We report the first collaborative multicenter, international series to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and oncologic integrity of laparoscopic liver resection for CRC metastasis. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent minimally invasive liver resection for CRC metastasis from February 2000 to September 2008 from multiple medical centers from the United States and Europe. The multicenter series of patients were accumulated into a single database. Patient demographics, preoperative, operative, and postoperative characteristics were analyzed. Actuarial overall survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. A total of 109 patients underwent minimally invasive liver resection for CRC metastasis. The median age was 63 years (range, 32-88 years) with 51% females. The most common sites of primary colon cancer were sigmoid/rectum (51%), right colon (25%), and left colon (13%). Synchronous liver lesions were present in 11% of patients. For those with metachronous lesions liver lesions, the median time interval from primary colon cancer surgery to liver metastasectomy was 12 months. Preoperative chemotherapy was administered in 68% of cases prior to liver resection. The majority of patients underwent prior abdominal operations (95%). Minimally invasive approaches included totally laparoscopic (56%) and hand-assisted laparoscopic (41%), the latter of which was employed more frequently in the US medical centers (85%) compared with European centers (13%) (P = 0.001). There were 4 conversions to open surgery (3.7%), all due to bleeding. Extents of resection include wedge/segmentectomy (34%), left lateral sectionectomy (27%), right hepatectomy (28%), left hepatectomy (9%), extended right hepatectomy (0.9%), and caudate lobectomy (0.9%). Major liver resections (> or =3 segments) were performed in 45% of patients. Median OR time was 234 minutes (range, 60-555 minutes) and blood loss was 200 mL (range, 20-2500 mL) with 10% receiving a blood transfusion. There were no reported perioperative deaths and a 12% complication rate. Median length of hospital stay for the entire series was 4 days (range, 1-22 days) with a shorter stay in medical centers in the United States (3 days) versus that seen in Europe (6 days) (P = 0.001). Negative margins were achieved in 94.4% of patients. Actuarial overall survivals at 1-, 3-, and 5-year for the entire series were 88%, 69%, and 50%, respectively. Disease-free survivals at 1-, 3-, and 5-year were 65%, 43%, and 43%, respectively. Minimally invasive liver resection for colorectal metastasis is safe, feasible, and oncologically comparable to open liver resection for both minor and major liver resections, even with prior intra-abdominal operations, in selected patients and when performed by experienced surgeons.

Liver surgery is the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Minimally invasive liver resection (MILS) has become an attractive option thanks to reduced intraoperative blood losses, shortened length of hospital stay, and similar oncological outcomes when compared to open liver resection. Nonetheless, the safety of MILS is still debated in challenging situations, such as in cirrhotic patients, difficult tumor locations, multiple or large tumors, and repeat resection. The aim of this review is to discuss current indications of laparoscopic liver resection for HCC treatment in the light of its outcomes, focusing on technical aspects of minimally invasive anatomic liver resection and state of the art of MILS in challenging situations.

BackgroundMinimally invasive liver resections for metastatic colorectal cancer have been increasingly performed all over the world with promising results. We planned the current study to review our experience on this matter and compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM).Materials and methodsThis is a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM who underwent laparoscopic (n=86) and open (n=96) surgical treatment for metastatic liver lesions between March 2016 and November 2022. Tumor characteristics, intra- and postoperative results, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed and compared.ResultsLLR was associated with significantly shorter surgery duration (180 minutes versus 295 minutes, p=0.03). There was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (100 mL versus 350 mL, p=0.061). Additionally, the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (6 days versus 9 days, p=0.004). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3) was lower in the LLR group (5.8% versus 16.6%, p=0.037). There was no mortality in the LLR group, and in the OLR group, one lethal case was induced by mesenteric thrombosis on the fifth postoperative day. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the OS rate between the two groups at one, three, and five years: 97.3%, 74.7%, and 43.4%, respectively, in the OLR group and 95.1%, 70.3%, and 49.5%, respectively, in the LLR group (p=0.53). DFS at one, three, and five years were 88.7%, 52.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the LLR group and 71.9%, 53.1%, and 19.3%, respectively, in the OLR group (p=0.66).ConclusionsThis study showed that laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective method of CRLM treatment in our center. LLR was associated with a decrease in major morbidity, shorter surgery duration, and reduced postoperative hospital stay. Minimally invasive liver resections showed similar oncological outcomes to the open approach in terms of overall and disease-free survival.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection and open liver resection: a propensity-score matched analysis