A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes for laparoscopic and open liver resections for liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score. RESULTS: From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

A Comparison of the Learning Curves of Laparoscopic Liver Surgeons in Differing Stages of the IDEAL Paradigm of Surgical Innovation: Standing on the Shoulders of Pioneers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the learning curves of the self-taught "pioneers" of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) with those of the trained "early adopters" in terms of short- and medium-term patient outcomes to establish if the learning curve can be reduced with specific training. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in the next few years. Current guidelines stress the need for an incremental, stepwise progression through the learning curve in order to minimize harm to patients. Previous studies have examined the learning curve in Stage 2 of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation; however, LLS is now in stage 3 with specific training being provided to surgeons. METHODS: Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis, the learning curves and short- and medium-term outcomes of 4 "pioneering" surgeons from stage 2 were compared with 4 "early adapting" surgeons from stage 3 who had received specific training for LLS. RESULTS: After 46 procedures, the short- and medium-term outcomes of the "early adopters" were comparable to those achieved by the "pioneers" following 150 procedures in similar cases. CONCLUSIONS: With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the learning curve for minor and major liver resections faster than the "pioneers" who were self-taught in LLS. The findings of this study are applicable to all surgical specialties and highlight the importance of specific training in the safe expansion of novel surgical practice.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017.

BACKGROUND: The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Conversion for Unfavorable Intraoperative Events Results in Significantly Worse Outcomes During Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Lessons Learned From a Multicenter Review of 2861 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk factors for conversion during laparoscopic liver resection and its effect on patient outcome in a large cohort of patients. Additional analysis of outcomes in patients who required conversion for unfavorable intraoperative findings and conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events will be performed to establish if the cause of conversion effects outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple previous studies demonstrate that laparoscopic liver surgery reduces intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity while maintaining comparable oncological and survival outcomes when compared with open liver resections. However, limited information is available regarding the possible sequelae of conversion to open surgery, especially with regards to cause of conversion. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2861 cases from prospectively maintained databases of 7 tertiary liver centers across Europe was performed. RESULTS: Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, previous liver resection(s), resections for malignant lesions, postero-superior location, and the extent of the resection are associated with an increased risk of conversion. Patients who require conversion have longer operations with higher blood loss; a longer HDU and total hospital stay, increased frequency and severity of complications and higher 30- and 90-day mortality. Patients who had an elective conversion for an unfavorable intraoperative finding had better outcomes than patients who had an emergency conversion secondary to an unfavorable intraoperative event in terms of HDU and total hospital stay, severity of complication, and 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the risk factors for conversion and suggests that conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events is associated with worse outcomes.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. BACKGROUND: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. METHODS: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. RESULTS: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. CONCLUSION: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Laparoscopic parenchymal sparing resections in segment 8: techniques for a demanding and infrequent procedure.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resections for lesions in the postero-superior segments are technically demanding due their deep location and relation with the vena cava. However, previous reports have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of these resections in centres with advanced experience in laparoscopic liver surgery. In this case series, we present our results and experience of laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections of lesions in segment 8. METHODS: All patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resections of segment 8 lesions, alone or combined with other liver resections, between August 2003 and July 2016 were included. Analysis of baseline characteristics and perioperative results was performed for the whole cohort. A separate subgroup analysis was performed for isolated segment 8 resections. Long-term results were analyzed in patients with colorectal liver metastases. A video is attached for thorough explanation of surgical technique. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were included. Among them, 13 patients had isolated segment 8 resections. Operative time for the whole cohort and isolated segment 8 resections were 210 min (range 180-247 min) and 200 min (range 90-300 min), respectively. The conversion rate was 3.4% for the entire cohort and 0 for isolated segment 8 resections. Major morbidity was 7 and 0%, respectively. R0 rates were 96% for the entire cohort and 92% for isolated segment 8 resections. Recurrence free survival in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup was 82, 71 and 54% at 1, 3 and 5 years. Overall survival was 94, 82 and 65% at 1, 3 and 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection of lesions in segment 8 is feasible and offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with parenchyma sparing resections. However, advanced experience in LLR is essential to ensure safety and oncological results.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS): surgical techniques and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Right posterior sectionectomy is one of the most technically challenging laparoscopic liver resections. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. AIM: To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a variety of tips and tricks to facilitate this resection. A video is attached for technical demonstration. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases from June 2006 to June 2016. Three different techniques were used: resection following hilar inflow control, inflow control at Rouviere's sulcus and resection with intra parenchymal control. RESULTS: 29 LRPS were performed over a 10-year period. Median operative time was 240 min (150-480). Pringle's manoeuvre was performed in 19 (65.5%) with a median total duration of 35 (20-75) min. Median perioperative blood loss was 600 (100-2500) ml. Additional liver resections were performed in 16 (55.1%). There were two(6.9%) laparoscopic to open conversions. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (2-30) days. The median size of the tumour resected was 25 (10-54) mm with median number of resected lesions were 2 (1-4), median free resection margin was 9.5 (1-45) mm, margins were infiltrated (R1) in two (6.7%) cases. There was one death within 30-days (3.4%). CONCLUSION: LRPS is feasible, efficient and safe. However, it is a technically challenging procedure and requires advance skills in liver and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons should be familiar with a variety of approaches as each offers different advantages depending on the location and nature of the lesion, surgical preference and intraoperative findings.

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can we extend the surgical indication in cirrhotic patients?

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and severe cirrhosis is still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic HCC patients. METHODS: The analysis included 403 LLR for HCC from seven European centres. 333 cirrhotic and 70 non-cirrhotic patients were compared. A matched comparison was performed between 100 Child-Pugh A and 25 Child-Pugh B patients. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood loss (250 vs. 250 mL, p 0.465) and morbidity (28.6 vs. 26.4%, p 0.473) between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics, and liver-specific complications were similar (12.8 vs. 12%, p 0.924). The sub-analysis revealed similar perioperative outcomes in either Child-Pugh A or B patients. Noteworthy, ascitis (11 vs. 12%, p 0.562) and liver failure (3 vs. 4%, p 0.595) were not different. ASA score (OR 1.76, p 0.034) and conversion (OR 2.99, p 0.019) were risk factors for major morbidity. Despite lower recurrence-free survival in cirrhotics (43 vs. 55 months, p 0.034), overall survival was similar to non-cirrhotic patients (84 vs. 76.5, p 0.598). CONCLUSION: LLR for HCC appear equally safe in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, and the advantages can be witnessed in those with advanced cirrhosis. Severe comorbidities and conversion should be considered risk factors for complications-rather than the severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension-when liver resection is performed laparoscopically. Such results may be of great interest to liver surgeons and hepatologists when deciding on the management of HCC within cirrhosis.

Are the current difficulty scores for laparoscopic liver surgery telling the whole story? An international survey and recommendations for the future.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections are related to both patient and tumour factors, however the available difficulty scoring systems only incorporate tumour factors. The aim of this study was to assess the opinion of laparoscopic liver surgeons regarding the factors that affect the perceived difficulty of laparoscopic liver resections. METHOD: Using a Visual Analogue Scale an international survey of laparoscopic liver surgeons was undertaken to assess the perceived difficulty of 26 factors previously demonstrated to affect the difficulty of a laparoscopic liver resection. RESULTS: 80 surgeons with a combined experience of over 7000 laparoscopic liver resections responded to the survey. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery was suggested to be increased by a BMI > 35 by 89% of respondents; neo-adjuvant chemotherapy by 79%; repeated liver resection by 99% and concurrent procedures by 59% however these factors have not been included in the previous difficulty scoring systems. CONCLUSION: The results suggests that the difficulty of laparoscopic liver surgery is not fully assessed by the available difficulty scoring systems and prompts the development of a new difficulty score that incorporates all factors believed to increase difficulty.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Based Analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients. METHOD: Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Liver Surgery from Innovation to Implementation to Mastery: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of 2,238 Patients from 4 European Specialized Centers.

BACKGROUND: First seen as an innovation for select patients, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved since its introduction, resulting in worldwide use. Despite this, it is still limited mainly to referral centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large cohort undergoing LLR from 2000 to 2015, focusing on the technical approaches, perioperative and oncologic outcomes, and evolution of practice over time. STUDY DESIGN: The demographics and indications, intraoperative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes of 2,238 patients were evaluated. Trends in practice and outcomes over time were assessed. RESULTS: The percentage of LLR performed yearly has increased from 5% in 2000 to 43% in 2015. Pure laparoscopy was used in 98.3% of cases. Wedge resections were the most common operation; they were predominant at the beginning of LLR and then decreased and remained steady at approximately 53%. Major hepatectomies were initially uncommon, then increased and reached a stable level at approximately 16%. Overall, 410 patients underwent resection in the posterosuperior segments; these were more frequent with time, and the highest percentage was in 2015 (26%). Blood loss, operative time, and conversion rate improved significantly with time. The 5-year overall survival rates were 73% and 54% for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), respectively. The 5-year, recurrence-free survival rates were 50% and 37% for HCC and CRLM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since laparoscopy was introduced, a long implementation process has been necessary to allow for standardization and improvement in surgical care, mastery of the technique, and the ability to obtain good perioperative results with safe oncologic outcomes.