Have we really understood when the efforts of laparoscopic liver resection are justified?-a complexity-based appraisal of the differential benefit.

Background: The implementation of minimally invasive liver resection surgery (MILS) programs starts from procedures with a low degree of technical difficulty. Data regarding the real short-term advantage of laparoscopy according to technical difficulty are still lacking. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the differential benefit of laparoscopic over open technique according to the technical difficulty of the procedures and to investigate if efforts associated with laparoscopic approach are always justified. Methods: Nine hundred and thirty-six MILS resections performed between 2005 and 2018 were stratified according to technical complexity (low, intermediate and high difficulty) and to approach (MILS or open) and matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores to obtain three pairs of groups (Pair 1: Low-MILS and Low-Open, including 274 cases respectively; Pair 2: Int-MILS and Int-Open, including 237 patients respectively; Pair 3: High-MILS and High-Open, including 226 patients respectively). Results: MILS approach resulted in a statistically significant lower blood loss, reduced morbidity, reduced and shorter time for functional recover and length of stay within all pairs. The evaluation of the differential benefit showed a greater advantage of laparoscopic approach in high degree procedures compared with intermediate and low degree, both in terms of blood loss (-250 and -200 mL respectively) and morbidity rate (-5.7% and -4.1% respectively). Conclusions: The favorable biological scenario associated with laparoscopic approach allows to obtain significant benefits in the setting of technically complex procedures. The commitment towards MILS approach should be therefore stronger in this setting, where the advantage of laparoscopy seems to be enhanced.

Correlation Between Type of Retrieval Incision and Postoperative Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: A Critical Assessment.

Background: At the end of a laparoscopic major hepatectomy, an incision wide enough for specimen retrieval is required. Classically, Pfannenstiel (PF) incision is the type of access favored as service incision in laparoscopy. However, in specific settings the use of a midline (ML) incision can be favorable, with doubtful impaction on the outcomes of a purely laparoscopic operation. The aim of this study was to investigate on clinical outcomes after laparoscopic hemihepatectomies using PF/ML incisions in comparison with open. Methods: The institutional clinical database of the Hepatobiliary Division at San Raffaele Hospital (Milan, Italy) was retrospectively reviewed identifying cases of laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies. Three analyses were performed: whole laparoscopic versus open; ML versus open; PF versus ML. Clinical outcomes such as intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative morbidity, motility resumption, perceived pain, and length of stay (LOS) were used for comparisons. Results: Laparoscopy was confirmed to be superior to open approach also in the present series in terms of lower blood loss (300 versus 400 mL, P = .041), fewer complications (14.2% versus 25.9%, P = .024), shorter hospitalization (5 versus 7 days, P = .033), and enhanced recovery in terms of better pain control (P = .035) and mobility resumption (P = .047). Similar outcomes were observed comparing ML alone with open (estimated blood loss 300 mL versus 400 mL, P = .039; complications 13.1% versus 25.9%, P = .037; LOS 5 days versus 7 days, P = .04; lower pain perception, P = .048 and faster mobility resumption, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in postoperative outcomes of PF versus ML. Conclusions: Suprapubic and ML incisions at the end of a pure laparoscopic case lead to comparable outcomes between each other. The adoption of ML incision for specimen retrieval does not affect outcomes of minimal invasiveness.

Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open radical nephrectomy and inferior vena cava thrombectomy with liver mobilization and Pringle maneuver for Mayo III level tumor thrombus: single institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available regarding the technique and outcomes for patients with RCC and Mayo III caval thrombi. The aim of this study was to report surgical and oncological outcomes of RCC patients with Mayo III thrombi treated with radical nephrectomy and thrombectomy after liver mobilization (LM) and Pringle maneuver (PM). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of surgical technique, outcomes and cancer control in 19 patients undergoing LM and PM in a single tertiary care institution were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 78% of the patients had performance status ECOG 1 and 58% had a Comorbidity Index >2. Median surgical time was 305 minutes (IQR 264-440). Intraoperative complications were reported for 39% of patients and postoperative complications for 58% (only grade 1 and 2). Intensive Care Unit support was necessary in 16% of the cases. Median length of hospital stay was 9 days (IQR: 7-11). Thirty- and 90-day mortality were 5% and 15%. Two-year overall survival and cancer-specific survival were 60% and 62%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We reported surgical techniques, intra- and perioperative complications and follow-up in the largest cohort of RCC patients requiring LM and PM.

Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy: A risk score for conversion for the paradigm of difficult laparoscopic liver resections. A single centre case series.

BACKGROUND: Converted laparoscopic hepatectomies are known to lose some advantages of the minimally-invasiveness, and factors are identified to predict patients at risk. Specific evidence for laparoscopic right hepatectomy is expected of usefulness in clinical practice, given its technical peculiarities. The purpose of the study was the identification of risk factors and the development of a risk score for conversion of laparoscopic right hepatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Laparoscopic right hepatectomy performed at a single hepatobiliary surgical center were analyzed. The cohort was split in half to obtain a derivation and a validation set. Risk factors for conversion were identified by uni- and multivariable analysis. A "conversion risk score" was built assigning each factor 1 point and comparing the score with the conversion status for each patient. The accuracy was assessed by the area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve. RESULTS: Among 130 operations, 22 were converted (16.9%). Reasons were: 45.5% oncologic inadequacy, 31.8% bleeding, 9.1% adhesions, 9.1% biliostasis, 4.5% anaesthesiological problems. Independent risk factors for conversion were: previous laparoscopic liver surgery (Hazard Ratio 4.9, p 0.011), preoperative chemotherapy ( Hazard Ratio 6.2, p 0.031), malignant diagnosis (Hazard Ratio 3.3, p 0.037), closeness to hepatocaval confluence or inferior vena cava (Hazard Ratio 4.1, p 0.029), tumor volume (Hazard Ratio 2.9, p 0.024). Conversion rates correlated positively with the score, raising from 0 to 100% when the score increased from 0 to 5 (Spearman: p 0.032 in the derivation set, p 0.020 in the validation set). The risk of conversion showed a sharp increase passing from class 3 to 4, reaching a probability estimated between 60 and 71.4%. The score showed good accuracy (area-under-the-receiver-operator-characteristic-curve 0.82). CONCLUSION: Specific risk factors for conversion are identified for laparoscopic right hepatectomy. This score may help in standardizing the choice of a pure laparoscopic or open approach for such challenging resections.

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: are we ready to step towards minimally invasiveness?

The primary endpoint of this study is to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the laparoscopic approach in selected types of PeriHilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). Secondary endpoint is to evaluate the potential advantages of laparoscopic approach over the open counterpart. From 2018, an MILS program for PHC was undertaken in selected patients: 16 patients constituted the study group (out of 261 operated between 2004 and 2019) and was compared with a group of patients operated by open technique (control group) in the previous period through a propensity score matching with a 1:2 ratio. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were evaluated and compared, focusing on blood loss, length of surgery, conversion to open approach, and complications. Laparoscopic resections resulted in statistically significant longer procedures (360 vs 275 min, p = 0.048). Conversion rate was 18.8%, being oncological concerns the most frequent reason for conversion (3/3 cases). A lower blood loss (380 vs 470, p = 0.048) and minor intraoperative blood transfusions (12.5% vs 21.9%, p = 0.032) were recorded in the study group. A number of retrieved nodes and rate of R0 resections were similar between the two groups. Patients in the MILS group had shorter length of stay (median 10) compared with open group (median 14), p = 0.048. The laparoscopic approach in PHC, so far maintained in an exploratory phase with the biliary-enteric anastomosis performed through the service incision, demonstrates adequate feasibility and safety standards when conducted in carefully selected patients and in centers with expertise.

Reappraisal of the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection for intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma within a stage migration perspective: Propensity score analysis of the differential benefit.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to analyze the outcome of laparoscopic approach specifically in patients with Intermediate-stage disease and to define the differential benefit with Early-stage patients. METHODS: Six hundred twenty-two resections for HCC were dichotomized according to staging (Early and Intermediate) and to approach and then matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores to obtain four groups (E-MILS and E-Open, including 104 patients respectively; Int-MILS and Int-Open, including 142 patients, respectively). The differential benefit associated with the minimally invasive technique was evaluated between intermediate-stage and early-stage patients taking into account blood loss and morbidity rate as outcome indicators. RESULTS: Laparoscopic approach resulted in a statistically significant lower blood loss, reduced morbidity, reduced incidence of hepatic decompensation and shorter time for functional recover and length of stay. The evaluation of the differential benefit showed a greater advantage of laparoscopic approach in Intermediate-stage patients compared with Early-stage patients, both in terms of blood loss and morbidity rate. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable biological scenario associated with laparoscopic approach allows to obtain enhanced benefits in the setting of more advanced liver disease. The push towards minimal invasiveness and the incremental benefit associated with it could potentially promote stage migration in suitable patients.

Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage.

BACKGROUND: Benefits over the open technique are demonstrated for laparoscopic liver resections. Whether the degree of advantage is different for anterolateral and posterosuperior resections is investigated in this retrospective study. METHODS: Laparoscopic anterolateral and posterosuperior resections (Lap-AL/Lap-PS) were compared with open (Open-AL/Open-PS) after propensity score matching. Mean/median differences of relevant parameters were calculated after bootstrap sampling. The degree of advantage was compared between anterolateral and posterosuperior resections and expressed as delta of differences (Δ-difference). RESULTS: 239 Lap-AL were compared with 239 matched Open-AL, and 176 Lap-PS with 176 matched Open-PS. Lap-AL showed reduced blood loss, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization and total stay; Lap-PS showed reduced blood loss, transfusions, morbidity, time to orally-controlled pain, mobilization, functional recovery and total stay. The degree of advantage of Lap-PS resulted significantly greater than Lap-AL blood loss (Δ-difference: 101 mL, p 0.017), transfusions (Δ-difference: 6.3%, p 0.008), morbidity (Δ-difference: 7.6%, p 0.034), time to orally-controlled pain (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.020) and functional recovery (Δ-difference: 1 day, p 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: While both resulting in benefit, the advantage of laparoscopy is greater for posterosuperior than anterolateral resections. Despite their technical difficulty, these should be considered among the most worthwhile laparoscopic liver resections.

A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures.

The objective of this study is to define the learning curve in a series of procedures grouped according to their complexity calculated by difficulty index to define a standard for technical improvement. 1032 laparoscopic liver resections performed in a single tertiary referral center were stratified by difficulty scores: low difficulty (LD, n = 362); intermediate difficulty (ID, n = 332), and high difficulty (HD, n = 338). The learning curve effect was analyzed using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method taking into consideration the expected risk of conversion. The ratio of laparoscopic/total liver resections increased from 5.8% (2005) to 71.1% (2018). The CUSUM analysis per group showed that the average value of the conversion rate was reached at the 60th case in the LD Group and at the 15th in the ID and HD groups. The evolution from LD to ID and HD procedures occurred only when learning curve in LD resections was concluded. Reflecting different degree of complexity, procedures showed significantly different blood loss, morbidity, and conversions among groups. A standard educational model-stepwise and progressive-is mandatory to allow surgeons to define the technical and technological backgrounds to deal with a specific degree of difficulty, providing a help in the definition of indications to laparoscopic approach in each phase of training.

Totally Laparoscopic Radical Cholecystectomy for Gallbladder Cancer: A Single Center Experience.

Background: Primary laparoscopic approach for the treatment of cancers of the biliary tract is not popular in the surgical community. The aim of this study is to report the short-term data of patients who underwent total laparoscopic radical cholecystectomy for gallbladder cancer (GBC) at a single center of specialized hepatobiliary surgery. Methods: From November 2016 to January 2019, we routinely performed a laparoscopic approach for two groups of patients: (1) patients with primary GBC (diagnosed preoperatively) and (2) patients with incidental GBC (IGBC) discovered after cholecystectomy. Results: Our retrospective study included 18 patients (7 primary GBCs, 11 IGBCs). Conversion rate from laparoscopy to laparotomy was 28.6% and 9.1%, respectively, for the two groups, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .28). Only 3 patients had liver recurrence (27.3%) and 1 had liver invasion (14.3%). A more advanced T category and TNM stage were presented in the preoperative suspicion cases (T3-T4 18.2% versus 57.1%, P = .06, stage IVA-B 9.1% versus 71.4%, P = .017). Regional lymphadenectomy was performed in 15 patients, in 73.3% the total number of lymph nodes (total LNs) retrieved was more than 7 (7-12 LNs in 66.7% of patients and >12 LNs in 6.6% of patients). The mean postoperative long stay was 8 days excluding for cases who developed complication. Conclusions: Laparoscopy can be considered a safe treatment for IGBC or primary GBC. The T3 stage with only liver involvement was not a contraindication. The real reasons that lead to convert the laparoscopic procedure were due to oncological concerns, unrelated to the liver infiltration.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Major Hepatectomy: Analysis of Clinical Outcomes and Cost Effectiveness in a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Considering the increasing evidence on the feasibility of laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH), their clinical outcomes and associated costs were herein evaluated compared to open (OMH). METHODS: Major contributors of perioperative expenses were considered. With respect to the occurrence of conversion, a primary intention-to-treat analysis including conversions in the LMH group (ITT-A) was performed. An additional per-protocol analysis excluding conversions (PP-A) was undertaken, with calculation of additional costs of conversion analysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five LMH and 61 OMH were included (14.5% conversion rate). At the ITT-A, LMH showed lower blood loss (p < 0.001) and morbidity (global p 0.037, moderate p 0.037), shorter hospital stay (p 0.035), and a lower need for intra- and postoperative red blood cells transfusions (p < 0.001), investigations (p 0.004), and antibiotics (p 0.002). The higher intraoperative expenses (+ 32.1%, p < 0.001) were offset by postoperative savings (- 27.2%, p 0.030), resulting in a global cost-neutrality of LMH (- 7.2%, p 0.807). At the PP-A, completed LMH showed also lower severe complications (p 0.042), interventional procedures (p 0.027), and readmission rates (p 0.031), and postoperative savings increased to - 71.3% (p 0.003) resulting in a 29.9% cost advantage of completed LMH (p 0.020). However, the mean additional cost of conversion was significant. CONCLUSIONS: Completed LMH exhibit a high potential treatment effect compared to OMH and are associated to significant cost savings. Despite some of these benefits may be jeopardized by conversion, a program of LMH can still provide considerable clinical benefits without cost disadvantage and appears worth to be implemented in high-volume centers.

Management of hilum infiltrating tumors of the liver: The impact of experience and standardization on outcome.

BACKGROUND: The primary endpoint of this study was to evaluate the outcome of surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a high-volume tertiary referral center. METHODS: The study population consisted of 196 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed perihilar cholangiocarcinoma-PHC-who were candidates to surgical treatment. Factors affecting postoperative morbidity were evaluated in the whole series (primary endpoint) and after stratification of patients according to the following criteria: (a) perioperative management protocol implementation; (b) monocentric management (secondary endpoint). RESULTS: The postoperative morbidity rate was 51.5% and mortality 4.1%. The most frequent cause of death was postoperative liver failure. At multivariate analysis, factors affecting the risk of morbidity were: side of hepatectomy, liver volume, intraoperative blood loss, preoperative optimization and single-center management. Patients treated according to preoperative optimization protocol, as well as patients with monocentric management experienced a significant reduction of postoperative morbidity. Preoperative optimization and single-center management significantly affected even long term outcome of patients. CONCLUSION: Despite continuous improvement in the surgical field, hilum-infiltrating tumors still remain associated with therapeutic and management challenges: a correct preoperative management in a tertiary referral center provides a benefit in terms of morbidity and mortality, thus improving long term results.

Challenges and Technical Innovations for an Effective Laparoscopic Lymphadenectomy in Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and gallbladder cancer (GC) are relatively uncommon indications for minimal invasiveness, mainly due to the technical complexity required for a laparoscopic loco-regional lymphadenectomy. The aim of this presentation is to provide a step-by-step overview for the technical approach to laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of the hepatic pedicle and parenchymal transection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two cases of an ICC and a GC are shown. Patients were placed supine in the modified French position. One optic port was inserted through open access and four more operative trocars were placed under direct vision in a standardized fashion. Lymphadenectomy of the common hepatic artery (station 8) and of the hepato-duodenal ligament for proper hepatic artery, common bile duct, and portal vein (stations 12A, 12B, and 12P, respectively) is shown. Parenchymal transection is depicted using alternation of an energy device with an ultrasonic aspirator, while intrahepatic vascular structures are sealed with bypolar forceps, clips, or stapled according to dimension. RESULTS: In the first case operative time was 210 minutes, lymphadenectomy time (LT) 40 minutes, and estimated blood loss (EBL) 200 mL. Final pathology was consistent with ICC pT2N1(1/7)M0. In the second case, operative time was 180 minutes, LT 35 minutes, and EBL 150 mL. Final pathology reported gallbladder adenocarcinoma pT2N0(0/7)M0. Postoperative courses were uneventful; drains were removed on postoperative day (POD) 2. Patients were discharged on POD 3. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming the technical limitation embodied by the need of performing an appropriate lymphadenectomy represents the milestone for having patients affected by primary biliary tumors of the liver enrolled to laparoscopy; therefore, this subgroup of patients can benefit from the advantages offered by minimal invasiveness. The leading assumption, however, remains the requirement of performing an oncologically adequate lymph nodal dissection.

Safety of minimally invasive liver resections during live surgery: a propensity score based assessment.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding safety and outcomes of procedures performed during live events have been raised in the literature. Aim of the present investigation was to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections performed during live events and conventional elective procedures. METHODS: 60 laparoscopic liver resections performed during live events (Live group) were compared with 180 performed during conventional elective procedures (Control group) after propensity scores matching. The main endpoints were intraoperative and short-term postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Live and Control group had comparable blood loss (300 vs 350 mL, p NS) and conversion rate (13.3% vs 14.4%, p NS), despite longer operation time for patients in the Live Group (280 ± 30 vs 210 ± 20 min, p = 0.032). There were no differences in perioperative morbidity and mortality: severe complications respectively occurred in 2 patients of the Live and in 7 patients of the Control group (p NS) with none directly related to intraoperative accidents. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of laparoscopic liver resections, live surgery does not negatively affect intra- and postoperative outcomes of patients if performed by expert surgeons: the creation of a specific expertise for the new generations of laparoscopic liver surgeons can be therefore pursued maintaining the primary endpoint of safety and oncological adequacy of procedures.

Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Versus Open Lymphadenectomy for Biliary Tumors: A Propensity-Score-Based, Case-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare patients undergoing MILS and open liver resections with associated lymphadenectomy for biliary tumors (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer) in a case-matched analysis using propensity scores. METHODS: A total of 104 consecutive patients underwent liver resection with associated locoregional lymphadenectomy by laparoscopic approach constituted the study group (MILS group). The MILS group was matched in a ratio of 1:2 with patients who had undergone open resection for primary biliary cancers (Open group). Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated and compared, with specific focus on specific details of lymphadenectomy. RESULTS: Laparoscopic series resulted in a statistically significant lower blood loss (200 vs. 350, p = 0.03), minor intraoperative blood transfusions (3.2% vs. 7.9%, p = 0.04), and postoperative blood transfusions (10.5% vs. 15.8%), other than shorter length of stay (4 vs. 6 days, p = 0.04). Number of retrieved nodes was 8 versus 7 (p = not significant); particularly, percentage of patients who achieved the recommended AJCC cutoff of six lymph nodes harvested were 93.7% versus 85.8% (p = 0.05). Both overall and lymphadenectomy-related morbidity (bleeding, pancreatitis, lymphatic fistula, vascular, and biliary injuries) were lower in MILS group (respectively 16.3% and 3.2% vs. 22.1% and 5.3%, p = 0.03). Median disease-free survival was 33 versus 36 months and disease recurrence occurred in 45.3% versus 55.3% of patients in MILS and Open groups respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic approach for lymphadenectomy is a valid option in patients with biliary cancers, because it allows to maintain the advantages of minimally invasive approach, without compromising the accuracy and the outcomes of nodal dissection.

Laparoscopic vs Open Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

Importance: Surgery represents the mainstay treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Indications for the laparoscopic approach in this setting have been widened and there is a need to confirm the benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in patients with complex disease states. Objective: To compare outcomes of laparoscopic surgery with those of open surgery for liver metastases from colorectal cancer, focusing on the characteristics of modern MILS and therefore overcoming possible selection bias related to different policies for patients' eligibility for MILS over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cohort study of 885 resections performed for liver metastases from colorectal cancer between January 1, 2004, and June 30, 2017, at the Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit of San Raffaele Hospital, Milano, Italy, comprising 187 laparoscopic and 698 open resections. Procedures performed using the MILS approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of more than 30% were considered and were matched by propensity scores (ratio of 1:4) to procedures performed using the open approach with a ratio of MILS to total resections per year of less than 30%. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was short-term outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, functional recovery, and interval between surgery and adjuvant treatments; the secondary end point was long-term outcomes. Results: Among this cohort (104 patients in the MILS group; 46 women and 58 men; median age, 62 years [range, 35-81 years]; and 412 patients in the open group; 181 women and 231 men; median age, 60 years [range, 37-80 years]), primary end-point data showed a significantly higher incidence of postoperative morbidity in patients who underwent open resections compared with those who underwent MILS (94 [22.8%] vs 21 [20.2%]; P = .04). Patients in the MILS group had fewer major complications (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V) compared with patients in the open group (Dindo-Clavien grades III-V; 7 [6.7%] vs 35 [8.5%]; P = .03) as well as shorter lengths of stay (median [range] duration, 3 [2-35] vs 5 [4-37] days; P = .02). Oncologic results were not compromised by the laparoscopic approach. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the results of the propensity score matching analysis between modern laparoscopic surgery and previous open surgery appear to confer more comparable cohorts for complexity, further supporting the advantages of laparoscopy in the surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. The increase in use that laparoscopy has experienced appears to be based on increased feasibility, widening of eligibility criteria for patients, enhanced clinical effectiveness, and oncologic outcomes. All these elements together suggest that up to 70% of patients appear to be candidates for this minimally invasive surgical approach in high-volume centers.

The clinical and biological impacts of the implementation of fast-track perioperative programs in complex liver resections: A propensity score-based analysis between the open and laparoscopic approaches.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the fast-track approach in patients undergoing complex liver procedures and to analyse factors that influence morbidity and functional recovery. METHODS: Hepatic resections (2014-2016) were stratified according to difficulty score, obtaining a group of 215 complex resections (102 laparoscopic, 163 open). The laparoscopic group was matched by propensity score with open patients to obtain the minimally invasive liver surgery group (n = 102) and the open group (n = 102). RESULTS: Groups were similar in terms of patient and disease characteristics. The postoperative morbidity was 31.4% in the minimally invasive liver surgery and 38.2% in the open group (P = .05), and functional recovery was shorter in the minimally invasive liver surgery (respectively 4 versus 6 days, P = .041). The adherence to fast-track was high in both groups, with several items with higher penetrance in the minimally invasive liver surgery group. Among factors associated with morbidity and functional recovery, a laparoscopic approach and strict adherence to a fast-track protocol resulted in protective factors. CONCLUSION: The combination of minimally invasive approaches and fast-track protocols allows a reduced rate of postoperative morbidity and satisfactory functional recovery even in the setting of complex liver resections. When the laparoscopic approach is not feasible, strict adherence to a fast-track program is associated with the achievement of adequate results and should be implemented.

Effect of Previous Abdominal Surgery on Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Analysis of Feasibility and Risk Factors for Conversion.

INTRODUCTION: Previous abdominal surgery has traditionally been considered an additional element of difficulty to later laparoscopic procedures. The aim of the study is to analyze the effect of previous surgery on the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), and its role as a risk factor for conversion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After matching, 349 LLR in patients known for previous abdominal surgery (PS group) were compared with 349 LLR on patients with a virgin abdomen (NPS group). Subgroup analysis included 161 patients with previous upper abdominal surgery (UPS subgroup). Feasibility and safety were evaluated in terms of conversion rate, reasons for conversion and outcomes, and risk factors for conversion assessed via uni/multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Conversion rate was 9.4%, and higher for PS patients compared with NPS patients (13.7% versus 5.1%, P = .021). Difficult adhesiolysis resulted the commonest reason for conversion in PS group (5.7%). However, operative time (P = .840), blood loss (P = .270), transfusion (P = .650), morbidity rate (P = .578), hospital stay (P = .780), and R1 rate (P = .130) were comparable between PS and NPS group. Subgroup analysis confirmed higher conversion rates for UPS patients (23%) compared with both NPS (P = .015) and PS patients (P = .041). Previous surgery emerged as independent risk factor for conversion (P = .033), alongside the postero-superior location and major hepatectomy. CONCLUSION: LLR are feasible in case of previous surgery and proved to be safe and maintain the benefits of LLR carried out in standard settings. However, a history of surgery should be considered a risk factor for conversion.

Approach to hepatocaval confluence during laparoscopic right hepatectomy: three variations on a theme.

INTRODUCTION: Due to technical challenges and reduced pool of candidates, laparoscopic major hepatectomies remain relatively limited: In particular, right hepatectomy is technically more challenging than left since it requires liver mobilization, dissection of inferior vena cava (IVC) and hepatocaval confluence (HepCC), and section of right hepatic vein (RHV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 53 laparoscopic right hepatectomies (San Raffaele Hospital; 2013-2015), the approach to HepCC was standardized by three techniques: (1) primary approach to IVC and RHV with complete mobilization of right hemiliver; (2) anterior approach with hanging maneuver without liver mobilization (partial anterior approach-PAA); and (3) anterior approach without hanging maneuver without liver mobilization of right hemiliver (total anterior approach-TAA). The technique was defined preoperatively based on tumor size/position, IVC/RHV compression, and HepCC dislodgement. Type of parenchyma and risk of lesion rupture were also evaluated. RESULTS: Primary approach to IVC and RHV Before liver transection and after liver mobilization, IVC dissection is performed, and RHV is isolated and suspended on a vessel loop. RHV is sectioned after parenchymal transection. INDICATIONS: no compression by tumor of IVC/RHV, no HepCC dislodgement, soft parenchyma, no risk of lesion rupture. PAA IVC and HepCC are dissected free before transection, without previous liver mobilization; a tape is positioned in front of the anterior aspect of IVC, to perform the hanging maneuver. RHV section is performed after parenchymal transection. INDICATIONS: huge masses without compression of IVC/RHV, no HepCC dislodgement, liver stiffness, risk of lesion/parenchyma rupture. TAA Both IVC and RHV dissections are performed at the end of parenchymal transection, without previous mobilization of right lobe. INDICATIONS: huge masses with compression of IVC/RHV, HepCC dislodgement. CONCLUSION: Different approaches are available for HepCC dissection during laparoscopic right hepatectomy: Liver parenchyma characteristics, tumor size, and relationship with HepCC should be considered in surgical planning, to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Intraoperative monitoring of stroke volume variation versus central venous pressure in laparoscopic liver surgery: a randomized prospective comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Central venous pressure (CVP) is used as a marker of cardiac preload to control intraoperative blood loss in open hepatectomies, while its reliability in laparoscopy is less certain. The aim of this randomized prospective trial was to evaluate the outcome of laparoscopic resections performed with stroke volume variation (SVV) or CVP monitoring. METHODS: All candidates for laparoscopic liver resection were assigned randomly to SVV or to CVP groups. Outcome was evaluated included conversion rate, cause of conversion, intraoperative blood loss, need for transfusions, length of surgery and postoperative results. RESULTS: Ninety consecutive patients were enrolled: both SVV and CVP groups included 45 patients each and were comparable in terms of patient and disease characteristics. A reduced rate of conversion was recorded in the SVV compared to the CVP group (6.7% and 17.8% respectively, p = 0.02). Blood loss was lower in the SVV group (150 mL), compared to the CVP group (300 mL, p = 0.04). Morbidity, mortality, length of stay and functional recovery were comparable. On multivariate analysis, lesion location, extent of hepatectomy and type of cardiac preload monitoring were associated significantly to risk of conversion. CONCLUSION: SVV monitoring in laparoscopic liver surgery improves intraoperative outcome, thus enhancing the benefits of the minimally-invasive approach and fast-track protocols.