Minor Liver Resection Research Articles

Combined Liver and Colon Resection of Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases at a Quaternary Center

IntroductionExisting literature on the safety of combined liver and colorectal resections for synchronous colorectal liver metastases is mixed. Using a retrospective review of our institutional data, we aimed to show that combined colorectal and liver resections for synchronous metastases is both feasible and safe in a quaternary center. MethodsA retrospective review of combined resections for synchronous colorectal liver metastases at a quaternary referral center from 2015 to 2020 was completed. Clinicopathologic and perioperative data was collected. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify risk factors for major postoperative complications. ResultsOne hundred one patients were identified, with 35 undergoing major liver resections ( ≥ 3 segments) and 66 undergoing minor liver resections. The vast majority of patients (94%) received neoadjuvant therapy. There was no difference in postoperative major complications (Clavien–Dindo grade 3+) between major and minor liver resections (23.9% versus 12.1%, P = 0.16). On univariate analysis, Albumin–Bilirubin (ALBI) score >1 (P < 0.05) was predictive of major complication. However, on multivariable regression analysis, no factor was associated with significantly increased odds of major complication. ConclusionsThis work demonstrates that with thoughtful patient selection, combined resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases can be safely performed at a quaternary referral center.

Population based study on practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

Population based study on practice variation and outcomes of minimally invasive minor liver resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases.

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center 10-year experience.

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has increased. However, the long-term outcomes of LLR for HCCs should be validated further. Besides, the validity of laparoscopic minor liver resection in difficult segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) (LMLR-DS) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for HCCs need to be studied. A total of 1773 HCC patients were collected: 683 received LLR and 1090 received OLR. Propensity score matching (PSM) with 1:1 ratio was used to eliminate the selection bias. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared. In subgroup analyses, the validity of LMLR-DS or LMH for HCCs was studied. After PSM, 567 patients were in LLR or OLR group. LLR had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OLR. The postoperative complications were lower in LLR group (23.8% vs. 32.8%, P=0.001). The Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) had no significant difference between LLR and OLR groups (P=0.973, P=0.812). The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year OR rates were 87.9%, 68.9%, and 57.7% for LLR group, and 85.9%, 68.8%, 58.8% for OLR group. The cumulative 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates were 73.0%, 51.5%, 40.6% for LLR group, and 70.3%, 49.0%, 42.4% for OLR group. In subgroup analyses, 178 patients were in LMLR-DS or open surgery (OMLR-DS) group after PSM. LMLR-DS had lower intraoperative blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMLR-DS. The postoperative complications were lower in LMLR-DS group. The OS and DFS had no difference between LMLR-DS and OMLR-DS groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 61.6%, 43.9% for LMLR-DS group, and 66.5%, 47.7% for OMLR-DS group. In another subgroup analyses, 115 patients were in LMH or open major hepatectomy (OMH) group. LMH had lower blood-loss and shorter postoperative hospital-stays than OMH. The complications, OS and DFS had no significantly differences between two groups. The cumulative 5-year OR and DFS rates were 44.3%, 29.9% for LMH group, and 44.7%, 33.2% for OMH group. LLR for HCCs showed better short-term outcomes and comparable long-term outcomes with OLR, even for patients who received LMLR-DS or LMH. LLR could be reliable and recommended for HCC treatment.

Resecting liver segments VII–VIII without reconstructing the right hepatic vein

Aim. To improve outcomes of treatment for neoplasms in segments VII-VIII of the liver adjacent to the main stem of the right hepatic vein and/or to its forming large branches.Materials and methods. In the period of 2016–2022, the resection of segments VII and/or VIII of the liver and the right hepatic vein, as well as its forming branches without reconstruction was performed in 24 patients. Surgical indications were liver metastases of colorectal cancer in 15 cases, hepatocellular cancer (cholangiocarcinoma) in six cases, angiomyolipoma in one case, uterine cancer metastases in one case and primary retroperitoneal tumor metastases in one case. Minor liver resections were additionally performed in 11 cases. Results. There were no intraoperative signs of impaired venous drainage. After surgery bile in the drains was detected in three patients, and a biliary fistula was formed in one case. No other complications were identified. No fatalities were registered after surgery. The late postoperative period revealed no specific complications related to a disturbance of venous drainage through the right hepatic vein.Conclusion. Existing and emerging collaterals can provide adequate venous drainage to the middle hepatic vein, short hepatic veins after resection of liver segments VII and VIII with resection of the right hepatic vein stem and its forming branches without reconstruction, even if the lower right hepatic vein is missing, and without complete obstruction of the right hepatic vein before surgery.

HPB P48 Minimally invasive HPB surgery in the UK from consultant and trainee perspectives

Abstract Background This survey took a ‘'snapshot’’ of prevailing attitudes towards minimally invasive HPB surgery from a consultant and trainee perspective. Methods Between November 2020 and January 2021, two google surveys were emailed to all HPB tertiary centres in the UK. The questionnaire contained 33 and 31 questions respectively regarding minimally invasive practice and training. Results Thirty-five HPB consultants completed the survey. The most common indications for conversion were failure to progress (91.4%), excessive blood loss (85.7%), access issues (85.7%). The majority (78.8%) of HPB surgeons undertook minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). One consultant undertook minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD), 48.4% declared not performing MIPDs due to uncertainty of its superiority. Eighty-five-point seven percent performed minimally invasive minor liver resection and segementectomy (MImLRS), 70.6% reported better outcomes with this approach; 28.6% of consultants performed minimally invasive major liver resection (MIMLR), 23.3% reported better outcomes with MIMLR. Half of HPB trainees did not have access to complex laparoscopic HPB procedures; 72.2% desired fellowship training. Conclusions MImLRS and MIDP are accepted approaches by most HPB consultants correlating with a perception that outcomes are better/comparable to open approaches, in contrast to MIPD and MIMLR. HPB trainees lack laparoscopic HPB exposure leading them to seek further experience with fellowships.

Simultaneous versus staged resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases: The win ratio approach

IntroductionIn order to investigate the optimal approach for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM), we sought to use the “win ratio” (WR), a novel statistical approach, to assess the relative benefit of simultaneous versus staged surgical treatment. MethodsPatients who underwent hepatectomy for sCRLM between 2008 and 2020 were identified from a multi-institutional database. The WR approach was utilized to compare composite outcomes of patients undergoing simultaneous versus staged resection. ResultsAmong 1116 patients, 642 (57.5%) presented with sCRLM; 290 (45.2%) underwent simultaneous resection, while 352 (54.8%) underwent staged resection. In assessing the composite outcome, staged resection yielded a WR of 1.59 (95%CI 1.47–1.71) over the simultaneous approach for sCRLM. The highest WR occurred among patients requiring major hepatectomy (WR = 1.93, 95%CI 1.77–2.10) compared with patients who required minor liver resection (WR = 1.55, 95%CI 1.44–1.70). ConclusionsStaged resection was superior to simultaneous resection for sCRLM based on a WR assessment.

Laparoscopic resection of hepatic alveolar echinococcosis: A single-center experience.

IntroductionAlveolar echinococcosis (AE) remains a very rare disease requiring complete radical resection for curative treatment. While open approaches are common, safety and efficacy of laparoscopic resections remain unknown.MethodsThis is a single-center, retrospective cohort study with patients undergoing liver resection for hepatic AE at the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital from December 2002 to December 2020. Postoperative outcomes of patients following laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatic AE were compared with those of patients undergoing open hepatectomy (OH).ResultsA total of 93 patients underwent liver resection for hepatic AE. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was performed in 23 patients and open hepatectomy in 70 patients. While there were no significant differences in terms of gender, age and diagnostic tools, the majority of patients of the LH cohort were PNM stage 1 (78%) in contrast to only 39% in the OH cohort (p = 0.002). Patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy were treated by minor liver resections in 91% and in 9% by major liver resections in comparison to the open hepatectomy cohort with 61% major liver resections and 39% minor resections. Laparoscopic hepatectomy was associated with shorter mean operation time (127 minutes vs. 242 minutes, p <0.001), lower major complication rate (0% vs. 11%, p = 0.322) and shorter mean length of hospital stay (4 days vs. 13 days, p <0.001). Patients with LH had a distinct, but not significant lower recurrence rate (0% vs. 4%, p = 0.210) during a mean follow-up of 55 months compared with a follow-up of 76 months in the OH cohort. After subgroup analysis of PNM stage 1 patients, similar results are seen with persistent shorter mean operation time (120 minutes vs. 223 minutes, p <0.001), lower major complication rate (0% vs. 8%, p = 0.759) and shorter length of hospital stay (4 days vs. 12 days, p <0.001).ConclusionLaparoscopy appears as a feasible and safe approach for patients with PNM stage 1 alveolar echinococcosis without impact on early disease recurrence.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery to treat hepatopancreatobiliary cancer: A technical review.

Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), or laparoendoscopic single-site surgery, was launched to minimize incisional traumatic effects in the 1990s. Minor SILS, such as cholecystectomies, have been gaining in popularity over the past few decades. Its application in complicated hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeries, however, has made slow progress due to instrumental and technical limitations, costs, and safety concerns. While minimally invasive abdominal surgery is pushing the boundaries, advanced laparoscopic HPB surgeries have been shown to be comparable to open operations in terms of patient and oncologic safety, including hepatectomies, distal pancreatectomies (DP), and pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD). In contrast, advanced SILS for HPB malignancy has only been reported in a few small case series. Most of the procedures involved minor liver resections and DP; major hepatectomies were rarely described. Single-incision laparoscopic PD has not yet been reported. We herein review the published SILS for HPB cancer in the literature and our three-year experience focusing on the technical aspects.

Liver drains after surgery: what is the real practice? An international snapshot from the Li.DR.A.S. survey.

Despite current evidence, the use of drains in liver surgery is still controversial. We conducted an international survey to investigate the clinical use of drains in the E-AHPBA, A-HPBA and A-PHPBA communities. An open survey of 30 questions was prepared on Google-Form and distributed by email to all members. One hundred and ninety-one HPB surgeons responded to the survey. One hundred and twelve surgeons (58.6%) reported routine use of abdominal drains after liver resections. Eighty-eight (46.1%) responded that removal was driven by low volume and low bilirubin levels in the drains. For minor liver resection, 97 (50.8%) surgeons reported using drains selectively; in contrast, 134 (70.2%) surgeons prefer to use a drain always after major procedures. Among patients with cirrhosis, 87 (45.5%) surgeons reported routine drains placement, while 84 (44.0%) considered drains selectively. A no-drain policy was most prevalent among surgeons from North America (80%) versus Asian-Pacific (70.0%), European and African (60.8%), and South American (61.5%) surgeons. Among minimally invasive surgeons, 74.2% reported drain use only in selected cases versus 35.0% among surgeons who performed open surgery. The practice of draining after liver surgery is still highly variable among centers and surgeons around the world, with a high variability according to the underlying liver condition and planned surgical approach.

The LiMAx Test as Selection Criteria in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery.

Background: Liver failure is a crucial predictor for relevant morbidity and mortality after hepatic surgery. Hence, a good patient selection is mandatory. We use the LiMAx test for patient selection for major or minor liver resections in robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery and share our experience here. Patients and methods: We identified patients in the Magdeburg registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) who underwent robotic or laparoscopic minor or major liver surgery and received a LiMAx test for preoperative evaluation of the liver function. This cohort was divided in two groups: patients with normal (LiMAx normal) and decreased (LiMAx decreased) liver function measured by the LiMAx test. Results: Forty patients were selected from the MD-MILS regarding the selection criteria (LiMAx normal, n = 22 and LiMAx decreased, n = 18). Significantly more major liver resections were performed in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (13 vs. 2; p = 0.003). Hence, the mean operation time was significantly longer in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (356.6 vs. 228.1 min; p = 0.003) and the intraoperative blood transfusion significantly higher in the LiMAx normal vs. the LiMAx decreased group (8 vs. 1; p = 0.027). There was no significant difference between the LiMAx groups regarding the length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, liver surgery related morbidity or mortality, and resection margin status. Conclusion: The LiMAx test is a helpful and reliable tool to precisely determine the liver function capacity. It aids in accurate patient selection for major or minor liver resections in minimally invasive liver surgery, which consequently serves to improve patients’ safety. In this way, liver resections can be performed safely, even in patients with reduced liver function, without negatively affecting morbidity, mortality and the resection margin status, which is an important predictive oncological factor.

Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery.

Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process. We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches." This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well. Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.

Laparoscopic Minor Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Posterosuperior Segments Using the Rubber Band Technique.

Although laparoscopic minor liver resections (LLR) of posterosuperior (PS) segments are technically challenging, several expert centers are increasingly performing this procedure. In the present study, we introduced novel techniques, including the rubber band traction method and positional changes, and compared surgical outcomes of LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in PS segments with open minor liver resection (OLR). From January 2008 to August 2019, 113 patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 55) or open (n = 58) minor liver resections for single small HCCs (<5cm) located in PS segments. Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio was conducted to minimize preoperative selection bias, and surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. There was no intraoperative mortality or reoperation in either group. One conversion to open surgery was necessary due to severe post-operative adhesions. The matched LLR group compared to OLR had significantly shorter operative time (215.16 vs. 251.41min, P = 0.025), lesser blood loss (218.11 vs. 358.92mL, P = 0.046), lower complication rate (8.1% vs. 29.7%, P = 0.018), and shorter hospital stay (7.03 vs. 11.78days, P = 0.001). Intraoperative transfusion, R0 resection, resection margin, 5-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival were comparable. Our standardized LLR provided improved short-term outcomes and similar long-term outcomes, when compared with OLR. With advanced techniques and accumulated surgical experience, LLR can be the first option for HCC in PS segments at expert centers.

Two decades of liver resection with a multidisciplinary approach in a single institution: What has changed? Analysis of 1409 cases

ObjectivesTo evaluate results of patients undergoing liver resection in a single center over the past two decades with a particular look at Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM) and Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). MethodPatients were divided into two eras, from 2000 to 2010 (Era 1) and 2011 to 2020 (Era 2). The most frequent diagnosis was CRLM and HCC, with 738 (52.4%) and 227 (16.1%) cases respectively. An evaluation of all liver resection cases and a subgroup analysis of both CRLM and HCC were performed. Preoperative and per operative variables and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Results1409 liver resections were performed. In Era 2 the authors observed higher BMI, more: minimally invasive surgeries, Pringle maneuvers, and minor liver resections; and less transfusion, less ICU necessity, and shorter length of hospital stay. Severe complications were observed in 14.7% of patients, and 90-day mortality was 4.2%. Morbidity and mortality between eras were not different. From 738 CRLM resections, in Era 2 there were significantly more patients submitted to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bilateral metastases, and smaller sizes with significantly less transfusion, the necessity of ICU, and shorter length of hospital stay. More pedicle clamping, minimally invasive surgeries, and minor resections were also observed. From 227 HCC resections, in Era 2 significantly more minimally invasive surgeries, fewer transfusions, less necessity of ICU, and shorter length of hospital stay were observed. OS was not different between eras for CRLM and HCC. ConclusionsSurgical resection in a multidisciplinary environment remains the cornerstone for the curative treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors.

Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes in Patients with BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer Following Targeted Therapy and Hepatic Resection with Curative Intent

Background: BRAF V600E mutations are present in up to 10% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and portend poor prognosis. Recently, a new class of drugs acting along the BRAF signaling pathway became available as an adjunctive treatment option. Aim: To describe the surgical short-term and the oncologic outcomes in patients with mCRC following BRAF targeted therapy with the RAF inhibitor encorafenib and subsequent liver resection. Methods: Using retrospective clinical and molecular data, patients with BRAF V600E mCRC who received systemic treatment with encorafenib and after liver resection. Results: Four patients were identified. Patients characteristics included median age 66 years, 75% female, 75% with right-sided tumors. All patients underwent primary tumor resection, followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Among second- and third- line treatments, all patients had received BRAF targeted therapy and subsequent liver resections: 75% and 25% underwent minor and major liver resections, respectively. Median EBL was 75 mL, minor/major complications occurred in 50% and 0% of cases, median LOS was 4 days. Median overall survival (OS) was 47 months and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 17 months. All were alive at follow-up with active disease. Conclusion: BRAF targeted therapy constitutes a novel treatment option in a subset of patients with colorectal cancer. In a small cohort of patients treated with targeted therapy and curative intent liver resection for metastatic disease, the oncologic outcomes were superior to prior published results with no obvious impact on surgical complication rate.

Safe and Successful Implementation of a Robot-Assisted Liver Surgery Program in Denmark

Introduction: Minimally invasive liver surgery is evolving worldwide and robot-assisted liver surgery may have obvious benefits for patients. Safe and proper implementation of a robot-assisted liver surgery program is of utmost importance. Here, we present the steps of establishing a robot-assisted liver surgery program against the background of the initial experience at our institution in Denmark. Methods: A robot-assisted liver surgery program was started at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark in June 2019. After formal theoretical training and practical simulation training of surgeons and personnel, the program using the Da Vinci Surgical System® (RALS) was initiated and implemented. As time passed, robot-assisted liver surgical procedures have increased in number and difficulty. As of June 2021, 50 cases have been performed. Results: We will in detail discuss the training program, and implementation of the robot-assisted liver surgery program. We will present safety considerations with regard to proper patient selection and how we gradually increased the complexity of the procedures from minor liver resections to extended hemi-hepatectomies. We will present the results of the first 50 consecutive cases who underwent robotic-assisted liver surgery from June 2019 to June 2021 with no mortality, a very low conversion rate and a low rate of adverse events Conclusion: Safe and successful implementation of a robot-assisted liver surgery program is feasible when applying systematic theoretical and practical training, proper patient selection, and a gradual increase in complexity of the procedures.

O-L07 Role of liver resection for metastases from uveal melanoma: Experience from a supra-regional centre, current evidence, and future prospects

Abstract Background Management of liver metastases from uveal melanoma (LMUM) requires a ‘multi-modal’ approach including surgical resection. This study aimed to evaluate the role, safety, and oncological effectiveness of liver surgery for patients with LMUM in the context multidisciplinary management. A comprehensive treatment pathway developed upon current published evidence, prevalent national guidelines and novel treatment options is presented (Figure 2) Methods Retrospective review of prospectively maintained database between February 2005 to August 2018 was performed using the institutional electronic patient record system from oncology and surgical department. Demographic data, MDT outcome letters, operative records, clinic letters, letters from referring hospitals, discharge summaries, radiology reports, and histology findings were reviewed. Focused literature review was conducted to identify all relevant publications. All advanced statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). A p-value of &amp;lt; 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The work was approved by the institutional clinical governance department (Audit ID 6661). Results 31 patients underwent diagnostic laparoscopy and 17 patients received 19 liver resections locally (Figure 1). 7 major (≥ 3 seg) and 12 minor liver resections (14 laparoscopic) were done without any mortality or major complications. 10/19 (52.6%) were R0 resections. Overall survival positively correlated with the time from UM to LMUM (rs = 0.859, p&amp;lt;0.0001). R0 or R1 resection margin status did not significantly influence survival outcomes (OS 25 Vs 28, p = 0.404; RFS 13 Vs 6 months, p = 0.596), though R1 cohort had longer lead time (100 Vs 24 months, p = 0.0408). Conclusions Liver resection for LMUM is safe, effective and complements multimodal management. Lead time from development of UM to LMUM remains a key factor affecting survival outcomes. As novel treatment modalities for regional and systemic disease control for metastatic uveal melanoma continue to develop, surgical intervention will also continue to evolve as part of the multi-disciplinary management. We emphasise the need for developing a collaborative database at a national and international level. We present an evidence-based, multi-disciplinary management pathway for LMUM patients (Figure 2).

Influence of Probiotics Administration Before Liver Resection in Patients with Liver Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

By inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria and modulating the local intestinal immune system, probiotics may reduce bacterial translocation and systemic endotoxaemia, factors partially responsible for post-operative complications following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma developed in the setting of chronic liver disease were prospectively divided into two equal-sized groups: one receiving probiotic treatment 14days prior to surgery and the other receiving placebo. The primary endpoint was the level of circulating endotoxins after hepatectomy. Secondary endpoints were systemic inflammation (inflammatory cytokine levels), post-operative liver function and overall post-operative complication rate. From May 2013 to December 2018, 64 patients were randomized, and 54 patients were included in the analysis, 27 in each arm. No significant change in endotoxin levels was observed over time in either group (P = 0.299). No difference between the groups in terms of post-operative liver function and overall complication rates was observed. The only differences observed were significant increases in the levels of TNFalpha (P = 0.019) and interleukin 1-b (P = 0.028) in the probiotic group in the post-operative period. Contrary to the modest data reported in the literature, the administration of probiotics before minor liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma developed in the setting of compensated chronic liver disease does not seem to have an impact on circulating endotoxin levels or post-operative complication rates. Trial registration: NCT02021253.

Three-Device (3D) Technique for Liver Parenchyma Dissection in Robotic Liver Surgery.

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

Laparoscopic minor liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma in the posterosuperior segments using the rubber band technique: Outcomes compared with open liver resections

Laparoscopic minor liver resections (LLR) of the posterosuperior (PS) segments have been increasingly performed at our institution. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of LLR and open minor liver resection (OLR) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in the PS segments. We included 113 patients: 55 who underwent LLR, and 58 OLR for HCC in the PS segments from January 2008 to August 2019. Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio was conducted. The perioperative and long-term outcomes of 37 matched patients were retrospectively analyzed. There was no intra-operative mortality or reoperation in either group. One conversion to open surgery was necessary due to severe post-operative adhesions. The LLR group compared to OLR had statistically significantly shorter operative time (215.16 vs. 251.41 min, p = 0.025), lesser blood loss (218.11 vs. 358.92 mL, p = 0.046), lower complication rate (8.1% vs. 29.7%, p = 0.018), and shorter hospital stay (7.03 vs. 11.78 days, p = 0.001). Intraoperative transfusion, R0 resection, resection margin, 5-year disease-free survival and 5-year overall survival were comparable. Our standardized LLR for HCC in the PS segments provided improved short-term outcomes and similar long-term outcomes compared with OLR.

P102 Reporting of innovations in surgery: a systematic review of robotic liver resections

IntroductionLiver resections are most commonly performed for either primary or secondary cancers. Consensus guidelines recommend that minor liver resections should be attempted laparoscopically, however this technique has limitations. These include difficulties with surgical access, ergonomics and visualization. Consequently, there has been increasing interest in innovative solutions such as robotic surgery. The IDEAL Collaboration has provided guidance for the reporting of surgical innovations, but it is not known how robotic liver resections have been reported. The aim of this study is to summarize technique descriptions and governance procedures, and understand which clinical outcomes have been reported.MethodsA systematic review is being conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guideline. A search of Embase, Ovid Medline, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed, using search concepts of “robotic” and “liver resection”. Articles will be screened to select primary research reporting outcomes of robotic liver resections. Data will be extracted on the reporting of study characteristics, governance and ethical arrangements, mitigations of harm, techniques and modifications, and outcomes. A descriptive summary of the data will be produced. The results will be critiqued in relation to guidance from the IDEAL Collaboration.ResultsThe search returned 3063 articles, with 2385 remaining after de-duplication. An interim descriptive analysis of the data will be presented, summarizing how robotic liver resections have been reported. A critique of the available results in the context of IDEAL guidance will be provided.ConclusionThis systematic review will describe how robotic liver resections have been reported as surgical innovations.