Robotic and laparoscopic right lobe living donation compared to the open approach: A multicenter study on 1194 donor hepatectomies.

Due to the success of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive donor hepatectomies (MIDH) are increasingly performed worldwide. We conducted a retrospective, multicentre, propensity score-matched analysis on right lobe MIDH by comparing the robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches to assess the feasibility, safety, and early outcomes of MIDHs. From January 2016 until December 2020, 1194 donors underwent a right donor hepatectomy performed with a robotic (n = 92), laparoscopic (n = 306), and open approach (n = 796) at 6 high-volume centers. Donor and recipients were matched for different variables using propensity score matching (1:1:2). Donor outcomes were recorded, and postoperative pain was measured through a visual analog scale. Recipients' outcomes were also analyzed. Ninety-two donors undergoing robotic surgery were matched and compared to 92 and 184 donors undergoing laparoscopic and open surgery, respectively. Conversions to open surgery occurred during 1 (1.1%) robotic and 2 (2.2%) laparoscopic procedures. Robotic procedures had a longer operative time (493 ± 96 min) compared to laparoscopic and open procedures (347 ± 120 and 358 ± 95 min; p < 0.001) but were associated with reduced donor blood losses ( p < 0.001). No differences were observed in overall and major complications (≥ IIIa). Robotic hepatectomy donors had significantly less pain compared to the 2 other groups ( p < 0.001). Fifty recipients of robotic-procured grafts were matched to 50 and 100 recipients of laparoscopic and open surgery procured grafts, respectively. No differences were observed in terms of postoperative complications, and recipients' survival was similar ( p =0.455). In very few high-volume centers, robotic right lobe procurement has shown to be a safe procedure. Despite an increased operative and the first warm ischemia times, this approach is associated with reduced intraoperative blood losses and pain compared to the laparoscopic and open approaches. Further data are needed to confirm it as a valuable option for the laparoscopic approach in MIDH.

Multiregional analysis of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma reveals histologic diversity and molecular clonality.

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) is a rare type of liver tumour that exhibits both hepatocytic and biliary differentiation within the same tumour. The histology and genomic alterations of recurrent/metastatic cHCC-CC are poorly understood. We selected six patients with cHCC-CC whose recurrent or metastatic tumours were histologically confirmed. Four patients with classic cHCC-CCs and two with intermediate cell carcinomas (ICs) were included. The clinicopathological features were evaluated, and next-generation sequencing was performed in 17 multiregional and longitudinal tumour samples. The histology of recurrent/metastatic lesions of classic cHCC-CCs was variable: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in one (25.0%) patient, cHCC-CC in one (25.0%) patient, and cholangiocarcinoma (CC) in two (50.0%) patients. Among 13 samples from four classic cHCC-CC patients, the most frequent pathological variants were TP53 (46.2%), TERT promoter (38.5%), ARID1A mutations (23.1%), and MET amplification (30.8%). In the sequencing analysis of each HCC and CC component, three (75.0%) of the four classic cHCC-CCs shared pathogenic variants. A large proportion of mutations, both pathogenic and those of undetermined significance, were shared by each HCC and CC component. Regarding ICs, the ATM mutation was detected in one patient. In conclusion, the histology of recurrent/metastatic cHCC-CCs was heterogeneous. Genomic profiling of classic cHCC-CCs revealed similar genomic alterations to those of HCC. Considerable overlapping genomic alterations in each HCC and CC component were observed, suggesting a monoclonal origin. Genetic alterations in ICs were different from those in either HCC or CC, suggesting the distinct nature of this tumour.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for huge hepatocellular carcinoma (≥ than 10 cm): a retrospective analysis from a high-volume referral center.

BACKGROUND: There is still poor evidence about the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for huge (> 10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). The aim of this study was to assess the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus open liver resection (OLR) for patients with huge HCC from real-life data from consecutive patients. METHODS: Data regarding all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for huge HCC were retrospectively collected from a Korean referral HPB center. Primary outcomes were the postoperative results, while secondary outcomes were the oncologic survivals. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were included in the study: 46 undergoing OLR and 17 LLR. Regarding postoperative outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in estimated blood loss, operation time, transfusions, postoperative bile leak, ascites, severe complications, and R1 resection rates. After a median follow-up of 48.4 (95% CI 8.9-86.8) months, there were no statistically significant differences in 3 years OS (59.3 ± 8.7 months vs. 85.2 ± 9.8 months) and 5 years OS (31.1 ± 9 months vs. 73.1 ± 14.1 months), after OLR and LLR, respectively (p = 0.10). Similarly, there was not a statistically significant difference in both 3 years DFS (23.5% ± 8.1 months vs. 51.6 ± months) and 5 years DFS (15.7 ± 7.1 months vs. 38.7 ± 15.3 months), respectively (p = 0.13), despite a potential clinically significant difference. CONCLUSION: LLR for huge HCC may be safe and effective in selected cases. Further studies with larger sample size and more appropriate design are needed to confirm these results.

Evolution of laparoscopic liver resection in the last two decades: lessons from 2000 cases at a referral Korean center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved to become the standard surgical approach in many referral centers worldwide. The aim of this study was to analyze how LLR evolved at a single high-volume referral center since its introduction, more than two decades ago. METHODS: Data from all consecutive LLR between January 2003 and September 2022 at the Seoul National University Bundang Hospital were analyzed. Perioperative outcomes were compared between three time periods, with major technological innovations considered as landmarks: before introduction of laparoscopic-US and CUSA (2003-2006), before (2006-2015) and after (2015-2022) introduction of high-definition scope. RESULTS: During the analyzed time periods the number of technically challenging procedures increased from 39.2 to 61.1% (p < 0.001). The most recent period showed shorter median operation time (from 267.5' to 175', p < 0.001), lower median estimated blood loss (EBL) (from 500 to 300 ml, p < 0.001), lower intraoperative transfusions (from 33.8 to 9.3%, p < 0.001), shorter median postoperative hospital stay (from 12 to 6 days, p < 0.001). The time period, a technical major resection and an underlying liver cirrhosis were found to be the associated with longer operation time (p < 0.001) in the multivariable linear regression analysis, while tumor size, technically major surgeries and liver cirrhosis were associated with higher EBL (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During the last two decades, the indications for patients undergoing LLR have expanded significantly, including more and more challenging procedures and frail patients. Despite such challenges, perioperative outcomes improved, although technically major procedures, cirrhotic patients and huge tumors have still to be considered challenging situations.

The Cross-Sectional Area Ratio of Right-to-Left Portal Vein Predicts the Effect of Preoperative Right Portal Vein Embolization.

Background and Objectives: Preoperative right portal vein embolization (RPVE) is often attempted before right hepatectomy for liver tumors to increase the future remnant liver volume (FRLV). Although many factors affecting FRLV have been discussed, few studies have focused on the ratio of the cross-sectional area of the right portal vein to that of the left portal vein (RPVA/LPVA). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of RPVA/LPVA on predicting FRLV increase after RPVE. Materials and Methods: The data of 65 patients who had undergone RPVE to increase FRLV between 2004 and 2021 were investigated retrospectively. Using computed tomography scans, we measured the total liver volume (TLV), FRLV, the proportion of FRLV relative to TLV (FRLV%), the increase in FRLV% (ΔFRLV%), and RPVA/LPVA twice, immediately before and 2-3 weeks after RPVE; we analyzed the correlations among those variables, and determined prognostic factors for sufficient ΔFRLV%. Results: Fifty-four patients underwent hepatectomy. Based on the cut-off value of RPVA/LPVA, the patients were divided into low (RPVA/LPVA ≤ 1.20, N = 30) and high groups (RPVA/LPVA > 1.20, N = 35). The ΔFRLV% was significantly greater in the high group than in the low group (9.52% and 15.34%, respectively, p < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, RPVA/LPVA (HR = 20.368, p < 0.001) was the most significant prognostic factor for sufficient ΔFRLV%. Conclusions: RPVE was more effective in patients with higher RPVA/LPVA, which is an easily accessible predictive factor for sufficient ΔFRLV%.

A Prospective Analysis of the Effects of a Powder-Type Hemostatic Agent on the Short-Term Outcomes after Liver Resection.

Background and Objectives: Postoperative bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality following liver resection. Therefore, it is crucial to minimize bleeding during liver resection and effectively manage it when it occurs. Arista® AH (Becton, Dickinson and Company, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) is a microporous polysaccharide hemosphere (MPH), a new plant-derived polysaccharide powder hemostat that can be applied to the entire surgical field. This study prospectively assessed the effectiveness of Arista for bleeding control when applied intraoperatively to the liver resection surface. Materials and Methods: Data were collected at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital for patients who underwent liver resection owing to malignant hepatocellular carcinoma or benign liver diseases. We compared the outcomes between 45 patients managed with Arista® AH (data were prospectively collected between September 2022 and May 2023) and 156 patients managed without the use of Arista® AH (data were retrospectively collected between January 2021 and December 2021). Results: There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. The estimated blood loss (EBL) was significantly lower in the Arista® AH group compared with the control group (495.56 ± 672.7 mL vs. 691.9 ± 777.5 mL, p = 0.049). The mean postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the Arista® AH group (5.93 ± 1.88 days vs. 6.94 ± 4.17 days, p = 0.024). The time to Jackson-Pratt drain removal was also significantly shorter in the Arista® AH group (4.64 ± 1.31 days vs. 5.30 ± 2.87 days, p = 0.030). The patient subgroup was divided into four categories based on the type of resection and the presence or absence of cirrhosis. Within the subgroup of major resections in non-cirrhotic patients, the Arista® AH group demonstrated significantly better outcomes compared to the control group, showed lower EBL, reduced need for blood transfusions, decreased volume of drain fluid collected within 48 h, earlier removal of drains, and shorter hospital stays. In contrast, for the other subgroups such as minor resection (both non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic) and major resection with cirrhosis, the differences between the Arista® AH and control groups in various parameters like EBL, blood transfusion rates, drain fluid volume, time to drain removal, and duration of hospital stay were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Arista® AH significantly improved intraoperative blood management and postoperative recovery in patients undergoing liver resection, particularly in non-cirrhotic patients who underwent major resection.

Donor Safety and Risk Factors of Pure Laparoscopic Living Donor Right Hepatectomy: A Korean Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify safety and risk factors of living donor after pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy in a Korean multicenter cohort study. BACKGROUND: Pure laparoscopic donor right hepatectomy is not yet a standardized surgical procedure due to lack of data. METHODS: This retrospective study included 543 patients undergoing PLRDH between 2010 and 2018 in 5 Korean transplantation centers. Complication rates were assessed and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors of open conversion, overall complications, major complications, and biliary complications. RESULTS: Regarding open conversion, the incidence was 1.7% and the risk factor was body mass index >30 kg/m 2 [ P =0.001, odds ratio (OR)=22.72, 95% CI=3.56-146.39]. Rates of overall, major (Clavien-Dindo classification III-IV), and biliary complications were 9.2%, 4.4%, and 3.5%, respectively. For overall complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.007, OR=2.66, 95% CI=1.31-5.41), estimated blood loss ( P <0.001, OR=4.84, 95% CI=2.50-9.38), and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=2.46, 95% CI=1.25-4.88). For major complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.002, OR=4.01, 95% CI=1.67-9.62) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.003, OR=3.84, 95% CI=1.60-9.21). For biliary complications, risk factors were graft weight >700 g ( P =0.01, OR=4.34, 95% CI=1.40-13.45) and operation time >400 minutes ( P =0.01, OR=4.16, 95% CI=1.34-12.88). CONCLUSION: Careful donor selection for PLRDH considering body mass index, graft weight, estimated blood loss, and operation time combined with skilled procedure can improve donor safety.

Outcomes and Risk Factors for Liver Transplantation Using graft-to-Recipient Weight Ratio Less than 0.8 Graft from Living Donors: Multicentric Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare graft survival after LDLT in patients receiving GRWR<0.8 versus GRWR≥0.8 grafts and identify risk factors for graft loss using GRWR<0.8 grafts. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Favorable outcomes after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) using graft-to-recipient weight ratio (GRWR)<0.8 grafts were recently reported; however, these results have not been validated using multicenter data. METHODS: This multicentric cohort study included 3450 LDLT patients. Graft survival was compared between 1:3 propensity score-matched groups and evaluated using various Cox models in the entire population. Risk factors for graft loss with GRWR<0.8 versus GRWR≥0.8 grafts were explored within various subgroups using interaction analyses, and outcomes were stratified according to the number of risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 368 patients (10.7%) received GRWR<0.8 grafts (GRWR<0.8 group), whereas 3082 (89.3%) received GRWR≥0.8 grafts (GRWR≥0.8 group). The 5-y graft survival rate was significantly lower with GRWR<0.8 grafts than with GRWR≥0.8 grafts (85.2% vs. 90.1%, P=0.013). Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for graft loss using GRWR<0.8 grafts in the entire population was 1.66 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-2.35, P=0.004). Risk factors exhibiting significant interactions with GRWR<0.8 for graft survival were age ≥60 y, MELD score ≥15, and male donor. When ≥2 risk factors were present, GRWR<0.8 grafts showed higher risk of graft loss compared to GRWR≥0.8 graft in LDLT (HR 2.98, 95% CI 1.79-4.88, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GRWR<0.8 graft showed inferior graft survival than controls (85.2% vs. 90.1%), especially when ≥2 risk factors for graft loss (among age ≥60 y, MELD score ≥15, or male donor) were present.

Entecavir versus tenofovir on the recurrence of hepatitis B-related HCC after liver transplantation: A multicenter observational study.

Considerable controversy exists regarding the superiority of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) over entecavir (ETV) for reducing the risk of HCC. This study aimed to compare outcomes of ETV versus TDF after liver transplantation (LT) in patients with HBV-related HCC. We performed a multicenter observational study using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry. A total of 845 patients who underwent LT for HBV-related HCC were divided into 2 groups according to oral nucleos(t)ide analogue used for HBV prophylaxis post-LT: ETV group (n = 393) and TDF group (n = 452). HCC recurrence and overall death were compared in naïve and propensity score (PS)-weighted populations, and the likelihood of these outcomes according to the use of ETV or TDF were analyzed with various Cox models. At 1, 3, and 5 years, the ETV and TDF groups had similar HCC recurrence-free survival (90.7%, 85.6%, and 84.1% vs. 90.9%, 84.6%, and 84.2%, respectively, p = 0.98) and overall survival (98.4%, 94.7%, and 93.5% vs. 99.3%, 95.8%, and 94.9%, respectively, p = 0.48). The propensity score-weighted population showed similar results. In Cox models involving covariates adjustment, propensity score-weighting, competing risk regression, and time-dependent covariates adjustment, both groups showed a similar risk of HCC recurrence and overall death. In subgroup analyses stratified according to HCC burden (Milan criteria, Up-to-7 criteria, French alpha-fetoprotein risk score), pretransplantation locoregional therapy, and salvage LT, neither ETV nor TDF was superior. In conclusion, ETV and TDF showed mutual noninferiority for HCC outcomes when used for HBV prophylaxis after LT.

Validation of the Anatomical and Biological Definitions of Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer According to the 2017 International Consensus for Survival and Recurrence in Patients with Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Undergoing Upfront Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The International Consensus Criteria (ICC) (2017) redefined patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR-PDAC) according to anatomical, biological, and conditional aspects. However, these new criteria have not been validated comprehensively. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to validate the anatomical and biological definitions of BR-PDAC for oncological outcomes in patients with resectable (R) and BR-PDAC undergoing upfront surgery. METHODS: A total of 404 patients who underwent upfront surgery for R- and BR-PDAC from 2004 to 2020 were included. The patients were classified according to the ICC as follows: resectable (R) (n = 259), anatomical borderline (BR-A) (n = 43), biological borderline (BR-B) (n = 81), and anatomical and biologic borderline (BR-AB) (n = 21). RESULTS: Compared with the R and BR-B groups, the BR-A and BR-AB groups had higher postoperative complication rates (16.5% and 27.2% vs 32.5% and 33.4%; P < 0.001) and significantly lower R0 resection rates (85.7% and 80.2% vs 65.1% and 61.9%; P = 0.003). In contrast, compared with the R and BR-A groups, the BR-B (32.1%) and BR-AB (57.1%) groups had higher early recurrence rates (within postoperative 6 months) (16.5% and 25.6% vs 32.1% and 57.1%; P < 0.001) and significantly lower 3-year recurrence-free survival rates (36.1% and 20.7% vs 12.1% and 7.8%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Anatomically defined BR-PDAC was associated with a higher risk of margin-positive resection and postoperative complication rates, while biologically defined BR-PDAC was associated with higher early recurrence rates and lower survival rates. Thus, the anatomical and biological definitions are useful in predicting the prognosis and determining the usefulness of neoadjuvant therapy.

Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a single center propensity-score-matching comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes and long-term survival.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in most circumstances are evident, the benefits for large HCC are contentious. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes and survival after LH versus open hepatectomy (OH) in large HCC patients. METHODS: An analysis of prospectively maintained database included 215 hepatectomies for large HCC (diameter ≥ 5 cm). The operative and survival outcomes were compared between the LH group (n = 109) and the OH group (n = 106). Propensity score matching (PSM) 1:1 included 70 patients in each group. The entire cohort multivariable analyses were performed to identify the factors associated with surgical complications and suboptimal recurrence-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: After PSM, baseline characteristics and the extent of liver resection were similar in both groups. The LH group had a shorter hospital stay than the OH group (7 vs 9.5 days, p = 0.001). The R0 resection rate, complication rate, overall survival, and RFS were similar between the groups. The multivariate analyses revealed two independent factors predicting surgical complication (major resection; p < 0.001 and large volume blood loss; p = 0.042), and 3 independent factors predicting suboptimal RFS including R1 resection (p = 0.011), multifocal HCC (p = 0.005), and microvascular invasion (p = 0.001). LH was not associated with surgical complication and suboptimal RFS. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the benefits of LH by improving the perioperative outcomes, without long-term survival inferiority in selected large HCC patients compared with conventional OH. LH can be an attractive option for large HCC treatment.

Validation of original, alternative, and updated alternative fistula risk scores after open and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in an Asian patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to validate and compare the performance of the original fistula risk scores (o-FRS), alternative (a-FRS), and updated alternative FRS (ua-FRS) after open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in an Asian patient cohort. METHODS: Data of 597 consecutive patients who underwent PD (305 OPD, 274 LPD) were collected from two tertiary centers. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). RESULTS: The overall AUC values of o-FRS, a-FRS, and ua-FRS were 0.67, 0.69, and 0.68, respectively, which were lower than those of the Western validation. Three FRS systems had similar AUC values in the overall and OPD groups, whereas ua-FRS had a higher AUC than o-FRS in the LPD group. The accuracy of ua-FRS (47.2%) was higher than that of o-FRS (39.0%) and a-FRS (19.5%) overall, but low specificity and low positive predictive value were observed regardless of the operative type across the three FRS systems. In the multivariate analysis, pathology, estimated blood loss, and body mass index were not independent risk factors for CR-POPF in the OPD and LPD groups. CONCLUSIONS: Current FRS systems have some limitations, including a relatively lower performance in an Asian cohort, low positive predictive values, and inclusion of insignificant risk factors.

Impact of Drain Position on Drain Fluid Amylase, Fluid Collection and Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Distal Pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The current definition for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is based on the drain fluid amylase (DFA), and drains must be positioned adequately. We investigated the impact of DFA level, drain position and fluid collection after distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 516 patients who underwent DP between June 2004 and December 2018. Patients were excluded if DP was not main procedure, DFA was not measured, postoperative computed tomography (CT) was not performed, or drains were removed before CT. Demographic and perioperative data were analyzed in 422 eligible patients. RESULTS: Of 422 patients, 49(11.6%) had clinically relevant (CR)-POPF and 102(24.2%) had a malpositioned drain. There was no difference in CR-POPF rate between the high and low DFA groups (12.6% vs 10.7%, P = 0.649). Drain malposition was more frequently associated with symptomatic fluid collection and CR-POPF than well-positioned drains. Male sex, high body mass index, transfusion, and drain malposition were CR-POPF risk factors. In subgroup analysis, drain malposition was also an independent risk factor for CR-POPF in the low DFA group. CONCLUSIONS: After DP, the incidence of CR-POPF in the high and low DFA groups was similar and drain malposition increased the risk of CR-POPF. Thus, the ISGPS definition of POPF based on DFA levels is limited in DP, and DFA levels should be interpreted together with the drain position.

Comparison of Open versus Laparoscopic Approaches in Salvage Hepatectomy for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Radiofrequency Ablation.

Background and Objectives: Although radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is widely used as an effective local treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), evidence on salvage hepatectomy for local recurrence after RFA is limited. This study aims to compare open and laparoscopic approaches in salvage hepatectomy for recurrent HCC after RFA. Materials and Methods: Among patients who underwent hepatectomy between January 2004 and August 2022 at a single tertiary referral center, 55 patients who underwent salvage hepatectomy for marginal recurrence after RFA were selected. An open approach was used in 23 (41.8%) patients, while 32 (58.2%) patients underwent laparoscopic surgery. Short-term and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Major hepatectomy was more often performed in the open group (9 [39.1%] vs. 4 [12.5%], p = 0.022). Intraoperative blood loss was also greater in the open group (450 (325-750) vs. 300 (200-600), p = 0.034). Operation time (p = 0.144) and postoperative morbidity rates (p = 0.639) were similar, and there was no postoperative mortality in either group. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the open group compared to the laparoscopy group (8 (6-11) days vs. 5 (4-7) days, p = 0.028). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates showed no difference between the two groups (44.6% vs. 62.5%, 16.5% vs. 13.5%, and 8.3% vs. 13.5%, respectively; p = 0.154). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates between the two groups were also similar (85.7% vs. 96.8%, 79.6% vs. 86.0%, and 79.6% vs. 79.4%, respectively; p = 0.480). Conclusions: Laparoscopic salvage hepatectomy shows oncologic outcomes comparable to the open approach with faster postoperative recovery rates. Considering that recurrence rates are high after RFA, the laparoscopic approach should be considered as a first-line option in selected patients.

Comparative Study of Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Single Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma Located in Left Lateral Segments of the Liver.

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely recognized as the primary surgical option for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) smaller than 3 cm located in the left lateral segment of the liver. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of studies comparing laparoscopic liver resection with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in these cases. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively compared the short- and long-term outcomes of Child-Pugh class A patients who underwent LLR (n = 36) or RFA (n = 40) for a newly diagnosed single small (≤3 cm) HCC located in the left lateral segment of the liver. Results: Overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between the LLR and RFA groups (94.4% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.075). However, disease-free survival (DFS) was better in the LLR group than in the RFA group (p < 0.001), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS rates of 100%, 84.5%, and 74.4%, respectively, in the LLR group vs. 86.9%, 40.2%, and 33.4%, respectively, in the RFA group. The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RFA group than in the LLR (2.4 vs. 4.9 days, p < 0.001). The overall complication rate was higher in the RFA group than in the LLR group (15% vs. 5.6%). In patients with an α-fetoprotein level of ≥20 ng/mL, the 5-year OS (93.8% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.031) and DFS (68.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.002) rates were greater in the LLR group. Conclusions: LLR showed superior OS and DFS compared to RFA in patients with a single small HCC situated in the left lateral segment of the liver. LLR can be considered for patients with an α-fetoprotein level of ≥20 ng/mL.

Propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes including quality of life after multi-port vs. single port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a nationwide prospective multicenter study in Korea.

INTRODUCTION: The usefulness of single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) as compared to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy (MPLC) remains controversial. Between SPLC and MPLC, we compared outcomes, especially subjective aspects, such as quality of life (QoL). MATERIAL AND METHODS: This multi-center study, involving 20 institutions from 2016 to 2017, enrolled 2507 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various perioperative outcomes, pain assessed by the numeric rating scale (NRS) score, and QoL evaluated by the gastrointestinal QoL index (GIQLI) questionnaire, were compared between the two procedures. We generated balanced groups after propensity score matching (PSM) using preoperative factors that influence the decision to perform MPLC or SPLC. RESULTS: MPLC and SPLC were performed in 2176 and 331 patients, respectively. Nine hundred and twelve and 329 patients, respectively, were selected from the two groups by PSM. Operation time was longer and surgical difficulty was lower in SPLC. There were no significant differences in most outcomes, including biliary complications. Significant superiority of SPLC over MPLC was shorter hospitalization, lower NRS score, and favorable GIQLI. CONCLUSIONS: From nationwide prospective data, SPLC showed outcomes comparable to MPLC. In SPLC, morbidity was not high and postoperative QoL was favorable. In the future, more implementations and studies are needed to ensure the safety and feasibility of SPLC.

Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation: An International, Multi-institutional Evaluation of Safety, Efficacy and Early Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluating the perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive (MIV) donor hepatectomy for adult live donor liver transplants in a large multi-institutional series from both Eastern and Western centers. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection has become standard practice for minor resections in selected patients in whom it provides reduced postoperative morbidity and faster rehabilitation. Laparoscopic approaches in living donor hepatectomy for transplantation, however, remain controversial because of safety concerns. Following the recommendation of the Jury of the Morioka consensus conference to address this, a retrospective study was designed to assess the early postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic donor hepatectomy. The collective experience of 10 mature transplant teams from Eastern and Western countries was reviewed. METHODS: All centers provided data from prospectively maintained databases. Only left and right hepatectomies performed using a MIV technique were included in this study. Primary outcome was the occurrence of complications using the Clavien-Dindo graded classification and the Comprehensive Complication Index during the first 3 months. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for complications. RESULTS: In all, 412 MIV donor hepatectomies were recorded including 164 left and 248 right hepatectomies. Surgical technique was either pure laparoscopy in 175 cases or hybrid approach in 237. Conversion into standard laparotomy was necessary in 17 donors (4.1%). None of the donors died. Also, 108 experienced 121 complications including 9.4% of severe (Clavien-Dindo 3-4) complications. Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 5.2. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows favorable early postoperative outcomes in more than 400 MIV donor hepatectomy from 10 experienced centers. These results are comparable to those of benchmarking series of open standard donor hepatectomy.

A scoring system to predict the risk of major complications after laparoscopic liver resection in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The safety of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in elderly patients is a matter of concern because the reduced physiologic reserve increases the risk of postoperative complications. However, there are few score systems for predicting complications after LLR in elderly patients. The aim of this study is to propose a new simplified scoring system based on the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) to predict major complications after LLR in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 257 consecutive patients aged ≥ 65 years who underwent LLR for HCC between 2004 and 2019. The GNRI formula was 1.489 × serum albumin (g/L) + 41.7 × present weight/ideal weight (kg). A scoring system to predict the risk of major complications was developed by assigning points to each risk factor equal to its regression coefficient determined in the multivariable analysis. Major complications were defined as complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher. RESULTS: Of the 257 patients, 219 patients were finally included in this study. Major complications occurred after LLR in 24 patients (10.9%). Multivariable analysis showed that the GNRI (hazard ratio [HR] 3.396, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.242-9.288, P = 0.017), Child-Turcotte-Pugh score (HR 2.191, 95% CI 1.400-8.999, P = 0.036), major liver resection (HR 2.683, 95% CI 1.082-7.328, P = 0.050), and intraoperative transfusion (HR 1.802, 95% CI 1.428-7.591, P = 0.022) were independent predictors of major postoperative complications. These variables were assigned points based on their HRs, and the resulting 10-point model showed good discrimination (area under the curve 0.756, 95% CI 0.649-0.836, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The scoring system outperformed the GNRI for predicting major complications after LLR in elderly patients with HCC.

A Case-Matched Analysis of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Located in Posterosuperior Segments of the Liver According to Adaption of Developed Techniques.

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in posterosuperior (PS) segment is technically demanding, but has been overcome by accumulated experiences and technological improvements. We analyzed peri-and post-operative results before and after the adaptation of the enhanced techniques. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 246 patients who underwent LLR for HCC in PS segments from September 2003 to December 2019. According to the introduction of advanced techniques including intercostal trocars, Pringle maneuver, and semi-lateral French position, the patients were divided into Group 1 (n = 43), who underwent LLR from September 2003 to December 2011, and Group 2 (n = 203), who underwent LLR from January 2012 to December 2019. Among these cases, 136 patients (Group 1 = 34, Group 2 = 102) were selected by case-matched analysis using perioperative variables. Results: Mean operation time (362 min vs. 291 min) and hospital stay (11 days vs. 8 days, p = 0.023) were significantly longer in Group 1 than Group 2. Otherwise, disease-free survival (DFS) rate was shorter and resection margin (1.3 mm vs. 0.7 mm, p = 0.034) were smaller in Group 2 than Group 1. However, there was no difference in type of complication (p = 0.084), severity of complication graded by the Clavien-Dindo grade system (p = 0.394), and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates (p = 0.986). In case-matched analysis, operation time (359 min vs. 266 min p = 0.002) and hospital stay (11.5 days vs. 8.0 days, p = 0.032) were significantly different, but there was no significant difference in resection margin, DFS, and OS. Conclusions: The adaptation of improved techniques has reduced the complexity of LLR in PS segments.

Long-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background and Objectives: The feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (cHCC 1 cm of the hilum, major hepatic veins, and inferior vena cava) is still controversial. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LLR for cHCC and compare the perioperative outcomes with those of open liver resection (OLR). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 110 patients who underwent LLR (n = 59) or open liver resection (OLR) (n = 51) for cHCC between January 2004 and September 2018. LLR group was divided into the following two subgroups according to the date of operation: Group 1 (n = 19) and Group 2 (n = 40), to account for the advancement in the laparoscopic techniques. Results: No mortality within 3 months was observed. There were no significant differences in operation time (285 vs. 280 min; p = 0.938) and postoperative complication rate (22.0% vs. 27.5%; p = 0.510) between both groups. However, intraoperative blood loss (500 vs. 700 mL; p < 0.001), transfusion rate (10.2% vs. 31.4%; p = 0.006), and hospital stay (6 vs. 10 days; p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the LLR group than in the OLR group. In the LLR group, Group 2, showed a shorter hospital stay than Group 1 (6 vs. 8 days; p = 0.006). There were improvements in the operation time (280 vs. 360 min; p = 0.036) and less intraoperative blood loss (455 vs. 500 mL; p = 0.075) in Group 2. Conclusions: We demonstrated that LLR can be safely performed in highly selected patients with cHCC.