Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty. METHODS: From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion. RESULTS: Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f2 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f2 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f2 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85). CONCLUSION: The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.

Probability of Postoperative Complication after Liver Resection: Stratification of Patient Factors,Operative Complexity, and Use of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The current study aimed to assess the performance of the 3-level complexity classification that stratified liver resection procedures into 3 complexity grades (grade I, low; grade II, intermediate; and grade III, high complexity) and to evaluate whether the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol improves postoperative outcomes for each complexity grade. STUDY DESIGN: Consecutive patients undergoing open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection at Lausanne University Hospital during 2010 to 2020 were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 437 patients were included. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay increased significantly, with a stepwise increase of the grades from I to III in open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection (all, p < 0.05). The same trend for Comprehensive Complication Index was found in open liver resection (p < 0.005). Age (p = 0.004), 3-level complexity classification (grade II vs I; p = 0.001; grade III vs I; p < 0.001), no use of the ERAS protocol (p = 0.016), and biliary reconstruction (p < 0.001) were significant predictors for postoperative complication, defined as Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 26.2 in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The prediction model incorporating the 4 factors had a calculated Concordance Index of 0.735 and 0.742 based on the bootstrapping method. The use of ERAS protocol was associated with lower probability of postoperative complication for each complexity grade and age. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ERAS protocol can decrease the probability of postoperative complication for each surgical complexity of liver resection and patient age. This finding emphasized the importance of tailoring perioperative management according to surgical complexity and patient age to improve outcomes after liver resection.

Performance of a modified three-level classification in stratifying open liver resection procedures in terms of complexity and postoperative morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Traditional classifications for open liver resection are not always associated with surgical complexity and postoperative morbidity. The aim of this study was to test whether a three-level classification for stratifying surgical complexity based on surgical and postoperative outcomes, originally devised for laparoscopic liver resection, is superior to classifications based on a previously reported survey for stratifying surgical complexity of open liver resections, minor/major nomenclature or number of resected segments. METHODS: Patients undergoing a first open liver resection without simultaneous procedures at MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston cohort) or the University of Tokyo (Tokyo cohort) were studied. Surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared among three grades: I (wedge resection for anterolateral or posterosuperior segment and left lateral sectionectomy); II (anterolateral segmentectomy and left hepatectomy); III (posterosuperior segmentectomy, right posterior sectionectomy, right hepatectomy, central hepatectomy and extended left/right hepatectomy). RESULTS: In both the Houston (1878 patients) and Tokyo (1202) cohorts, duration of operation, estimated blood loss and comprehensive complication index score differed between the three grades (all P < 0·050) and increased in stepwise fashion from grades I to III (all P < 0·001). Left hepatectomy was associated with better surgical and postoperative outcomes than right hepatectomy, extended right hepatectomy and right posterior sectionectomy, although these four procedures were categorized as being of medium complexity in the survey-based classification. Surgical outcomes of minor open liver resections also differed between the three grades (all P < 0·050). For duration of operation and blood loss, the area under the curve was higher for the three-level classification than for the minor/major or segment-based classification. CONCLUSION: The three-level classification may be useful in studies analysing open liver resection at Western and Eastern centres.

ANTECEDENTES: Las clasificaciones tradicionales de la resección hepática abierta (open liver resection, OLR) por número de segmentos resecados, no siempre se asocian con la complejidad quirúrgica y la morbilidad postoperatoria. El objetivo de este estudio fue comprobar si una clasificación de 3 niveles para estratificar la complejidad quirúrgica en función de los resultados quirúrgicos y postoperatorios, ideada originalmente para la resección hepática laparoscópica, es superior a las clasificaciones basadas en una encuesta descrita previamente para estratificar la complejidad quirúrgica de los procedimientos de OLR, nomenclatura menor/mayor, o número de segmentos resecados. MÉTODOS: Se estudiaron pacientes sometidos a una primera OLR sin otros procedimientos quirúrgicos concomitantes en el hospital MD Anderson (cohorte de Houston) o en la Universidad de Tokio (cohorte de Tokio). Se compararon los resultados quirúrgicos y postoperatorios entre 3 grados: I (resección limitada para el segmento anterolateral o posterosuperior y seccionectomía izquierda); II (segmentectomía anterolateral y hepatectomía izquierda); III (segmentectomía posterosuperior, seccionectomía posterior derecha, hepatectomía derecha, hepatectomía central y hepatectomía ampliada izquierda/derecha). RESULTADOS: En ambas cohortes de Houston (n = 1.878) y Tokio (n = 1.202), el tiempo operatorio, las pérdidas estimadas de sangre, y el índice de complejidad integral (comprehensive complication index) variaba en los 3 grados (todos P < 0,05) y aumentaba paso a paso desde los grados I a III (todos P < 0,05). La hepatectomía izquierda se asociaba con mejores resultados quirúrgicos y postoperatorios que la hepatectomía derecha, hepatectomía derecha ampliada, y seccionectomía posterior derecha, aunque estos cuatro procedimientos fueron categorizados como de complejidad intermedia en la clasificación basada en la encuesta. Los resultados quirúrgicos de las OLRs menores también variaron en los 3 grados (todos P < 0,05). Para el tiempo operatorio y la pérdida sanguínea, el área bajo la curva fue mayor para la clasificación de 3 niveles en el estudio actual, que para la clasificación menor/mayor o la clasificación basada en los segmentos. CONCLUSIÓN: La clasificación en 3 niveles puede ser útil en estudios que analizan las resecciones hepáticas abiertas en centros occidentales y orientales.

Outcomes of anatomical versus non-anatomical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma according to circulating tumour-cell status.

Background and aims: Hepatic resection is the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether to perform anatomical (AR) or non-anatomical resection (NAR) remains controversial. This retrospective study compares the outcomes according to the number and type of circulating tumour cells (CTCs).Methods: The cohort included 136 patients with HCC treated with R0 resection between 2014 and 2017. CanPatrol CTC-enrichment technique was used to enrich and classify CTCs according to epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition phenotype.Results: 91.91% of total patients were CTC-positive, with 91.23% in the AR group and 92.41% in the NAR group. Tumour-free survival (TFS) did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, TFS was significantly higher in patients with low CTCs count and mesenchymal- and epithelial/mesenchymal-negative phenotypes. As for the incidence and types of recurrence, high pre-resection CTC count and mesenchymal- and epithelial/mesenchymal-positivity were significantly associated with extrahepatic and multi-intrahepatic recurrence. Higher morbidities for hepatic failure and ascites were observed in patients treated by AR.Conclusion: AR may be more beneficial than NAR only in patients with low CTC count and mesenchymal- and epithelial/mesenchymal-negative phenotypes. For patients with a high CTC count, the balance between operative risk and prognostic benefit is more important than the resection method performed.Key messagesAnatomic resection may improve the survival of HCC patients, but only those with low CTC count and negative M- and E/M-CTC phenotypes.CTC analysis before surgery can be used to better guide the choice of resection method for HCC.

The financial impact of postoperative complications following liver resection.

The aim of the study was to determine the financial burden of complications and examine the cost differentials between complicated and uncomplicated hospital stays, including the differences in cost due to extent of resection and operative technique.Liver resection carries a high financial cost. Despite improvements in perioperative care, postoperative morbidity remains high. The contribution of postoperative complications to the cost of liver resection is poorly quantified, and there is little data to help guide cost containment strategies.Complications for 317 consecutive adult patients undergoing liver resection were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Patients were stratified based on the grade of their worst complication to assess the contribution of morbidity to resource use of specific cost centers. Costs were calculated using an activity-based costing methodology.Complications dramatically increased median hospital cost ($22,954 vs $15,593, P < .001). Major resection cost over $10,000 more than minor resection and carried greater morbidity (82% vs 59%, P < .001). Similarly, open resection cost more than laparoscopic resection ($21,548 vs $15,235, P < .001) and carried higher rates of complications (72% vs 41.5%, P < .001). Hospital cost increased with increasing incidence and severity of complications. Complications increased costs across all cost centers. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade I and II) were shown to significantly increase costs compared with uncomplicated patients.Liver resection continues to carry a high incidence of complications, and these result in a substantial financial burden. Hospital cost and length of stay increase with greater severity and number of complications. Our findings provide an in-depth analysis by stratifying total costs by cost centers, therefore guiding future economic studies and strategies aimed at cost containment for liver resection.

Comparison of the Extent Classification and the New Complexity Classification of Hepatectomy for Prediction of Surgical Outcomes: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: In predicting the risk for posthepatectomy complications, hepatectomy is traditionally classified into minor or major resection based on the number of resected segments. Recently, a new hepatectomy complexity classification was proposed. This study aimed to compare the value of the traditional and that of the new classification in perioperative outcomes prediction. METHODS: Demographics, perioperative laboratory tests, intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, and follow-up data of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent liver resection were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients were included in our study. Multivariable analysis of intraoperative variables showed that the complexity classification could independently predict the occurrence of blood loss > 800 mL, operation time > 4 h, intraoperative transfusion, and the use of Pringle's maneuver (all p < 0.05). For postoperative outcomes, the high-complexity group was independently associated with severe complications, and hepatic-related complications (all p < 0.05); the traditional classification was independently associated only with posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Complexity classification could be used to assess the difficulty of surgery and was independently associated with postoperative complications. The traditional classification did not reflect operation complexity and was associated only with PHLF.

Comparative Performance of the Complexity Classification and the Conventional Major/Minor Classification for Predicting the Difficulty of Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare performances for predicting surgical difficulty and postoperative complications. BACKGROUND: An expert panel recently proposed a complexity classification for liver resection with 3 categories of complexity (low, medium, or high). We compared this new classification with the conventional major/minor classification. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 469 hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent liver resection between 1 January 1, 2004 and June 30, 2015. We used receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis to compare the performances of both classifications for predicting perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Both classifications effectively differentiated subgroups of patients in terms of their intraoperative findings and short-term outcomes, including blood loss, transfusion rate, operation time, and postoperative hospital stay (all P < 0.05). The ability to predict complications was not significantly different between the major/minor classification and the complexity classification [area under the curve (AUC) 0.625 vs 0.617, respectively; P= 0.754). However, the complexity classification showed stronger correlations with blood loss (AUC 0.690 vs 0.617, respectively; P = 0.001) and operation time (AUC 0.727 vs 0.619, respectively; P < 0.001) compared with the major/minor classification. To check heterogeneity, the minor resection group was further divided into low (n = 184), medium (n = 149), and high complexity (n = 13) groups. Operation time and blood loss were significantly different among these 3 subgroups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity classification outperformed the major/minor classification for predicting the surgical difficulty of liver resection.

Difficulty of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Proposal for a New Classification.

OBJECTIVE: We propose an objective and practical classification system to predict difficulty of different laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs). BACKGROUND: Surgical difficulty is highly subjective and is not influenced only by surgical factors. Consequently, few series have described the degree of difficulty of LLR or attempted to objectively assess the surgical difficulty. METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database between 1995 and 2015, patients undergoing LLR without simultaneous procedures were selected, and LLR procedures were divided into 3 groups according to scores based on operative time (< or ≥190 minutes), blood loss (< or ≥100 mL), and conversion rate (< or ≥4.2%). RESULTS: Altogether, 452 LLRs were divided into 3 groups based on their scores. Group I (0 point) included wedge resection and left lateral sectionectomy. Group II (2 points) included anterolateral segmentectomy and left hepatectomy. Group III (3 points) included posterosuperior segmentectomy, right posterior sectionectomy, right hepatectomy, central hepatectomy, and extended left/right hepatectomy. The rates of overall morbidity (groups I, II, and III: 8.4%, 17.3% and 45.7%, respectively, P < 0.001) and major complications (1.1%, 4.0%, and 20.4%, respectively, P < 0.001) increased significantly with a stepwise increase of groups from I to III (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This objective and practical classification system allows the stratification of LLR comprising the low (group I), the intermediate (group II), and the high (group III) grades.

Completion of a Liver Surgery Complexity Score and Classification Based on an International Survey of Experts.

BACKGROUND: Liver resections have classically been distinguished as "minor" or "major," based on number of segments removed. This is flawed because the number of segments resected alone does not convey the complexity of a resection. We recently developed a 3-tiered classification for the complexity of liver resections based on utility weighting by experts. This study aims to complete the earlier classification and to illustrate its application. STUDY DESIGN: Two surveys were administered to expert liver surgeons. Experts were asked to rate the difficulty of various open liver resections on a scale of 1 to 10. Statistical methods were then used to develop a complexity score for each procedure. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 135 (48.9%) surgeons responded to the earlier survey, and 66 of 122 (54.1%) responded to the current survey. In all, 19 procedures were rated. The lowest mean score of 1.36 (indicating least difficult) was given to peripheral wedge resection. Right hepatectomy with IVC reconstruction was deemed most difficult, with a score of 9.35. Complexity scores were similar for 9 procedures present in both surveys. Caudate resection, hepaticojejunostomy, and vascular reconstruction all increased the complexity of standard resections significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These data permit quantitative assessment of the difficulty of a variety of liver resections. The complexity scores generated allow for separation of liver resections into 3 categories of complexity (low complexity, medium complexity, and high complexity) on a quantitative basis. This provides a more accurate representation of the complexity of procedures in comparative studies.

Redefining major hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: Analysis of 1111 liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: A major hepatic resection is currently defined as resection of 3 or more segments. The aim of this study was to analyse the post-operative morbidity and mortality of hepatic resections in relation to the number of segments excised. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2010, 1111 liver resections were performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Data were collected from a prospectively maintained database and analysed according to the extent of resection performed. RESULTS: 457 patients had 1-2, 362 had 3-4 and 292 had 5-6 segments resected respectively. In comparing 1-4 vs. 5-6 segments, overall morbidity (16.7% vs 40.7%; p < 0.001), hepatic failure (0.6% vs 10.6%; p < 0.001); mean hospital stay (8 vs 13.5 days; p = 0.000), mean ICU stay (4.4 vs 6.5 days; p = 0.01), 60-day mortality (0.7% vs 3.4%; p = 0.002), and 90-day mortality (0.7% vs 3.4%; p = 0.002) were significantly different. When analysing the 3-4 vs 5-6 segment resections, morbidity (21.8% vs 40.7%; p < 0.001), hepatic failure (1.4% vs 10.6%; p = 0.000), 60-day mortality (0.7% vs 3.4%; p = 0.002), and 90-days mortality (0.8% vs 3.4%; p = 0.023) remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in outcome would suggest a revision of the current classification. Only when 5 or more segments are excised for CRLM should a liver resection be considered "major".

Perceived complexity of various liver resections: results of a survey of experts with development of a complexity score and classification.

BACKGROUND: Liver resections have classically been distinguished as "minor" or "major" based on the number of segments removed. However, it is clear that the number of segments alone does not convey the complexity of a resection. To date, no study has formally assessed the complexity of various anatomic liver resections. STUDY DESIGN: A 4-question survey was administered to 135 expert liver surgeons in 14 countries. The first 3 questions related to the country in which the surgeon was practicing and the surgeon's experience. In the fourth question, the experts were asked to rate the difficulty of various open, anatomic liver resections on a scale of 1 to 10. RESULTS: Sixty-six of 135 (48.9%) surgeons responded to the survey. Twelve procedures were rated. The lowest mean score of 1.37-indicating least difficulty-was given to peripheral wedge resection. Left trisectionectomy with caudate resection was deemed most difficult, with a score of 8.28. The mean scores for the 2 procedures perceived as least difficult-peripheral wedge resection and left lateral sectionectomy-were lower than the mean scores of all the rest of the procedures at a highly statistically significant level (p < 0.0001). The 4 procedures with the highest scores shared the common attribute that they involved the right intersectional plane. CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the first quantitative assessment of the perceived difficulty of a variety of liver resections. The complexity scores generated allow for separation of liver resections into 3 categories of complexity (low complexity, medium complexity, and high complexity) on a quantitative basis.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification.

BACKGROUND: According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision. METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic "posterosuperior" major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

Revisiting the role of nonanatomic resection of small (< or = 4 cm) and single hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with well-preserved liver function.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic resection of the liver in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is generally recommended. Several previous reports have described the potential superiority of anatomic resection. However, no clear evidence of long-term survival or other advantages compared with those achieved with limited resection exist. We evaluated the oncologic outcomes of nonanatomic resection performed as a primary treatment for small (

Left lateral segmentectomy for pediatric live-donor liver transplantation: special attention to segment IV complications.

BACKGROUND: During left lateral segmentectomy for live-donor liver transplant, the vascular inflow to segment IV can be compromised. An area of ischemia can be seen intraoperatively and further segment IV resection may be needed to prevent necrosis and abscess formation. METHODS: From July 1995 to February 2007, 324 consecutive living donor liver transplantations were performed at Hospital A. C. Camargo and Hospital Sirio-Libanes, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Two hundred eleven left lateral segments were transplanted in this period. Data on 204 left lateral segments donors were available for this analysis. RESULTS: There were 108 female and 96 male donors. Median age was 29 years (range, 16-48 years). Median follow-up time was 2.2 years (range, 2 months-11.8 years). Median intensive care unit stay was 1 day (range, 1-3 days), and median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 4-47 days). Postoperative complications were encountered in 39 donors (19.1%). Partial segment IV resection on the course of the primary surgery due to parenchyma discoloration was required in 107 cases (52.5%). Ten patients (4.9%) developed segment IV necrosis or abscesses, although four of them had had segment IVB resection intraoperatively. Segment IV necrosis or abscess significantly increased hospital stay and the number of readmissions, from 5.5+/-3.5 days to 8.4+/-3.7 days (P=0.012) and from 6 of 194 (3%) to 5 of 10 (50%) (P=0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Middle hepatic segment abscess or necrosis was the most frequent complication after left lateral segmentectomy (4.9%). Objective intraoperative strategies need to be developed to evaluate middle hepatic segment ischemia to identify and treat patients at higher risk.

Treatment of tumour recurrence after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Analysis of 97 consecutive patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term results of aggressive treatment of HCC recurrence. METHODS: Two hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent hepatic resection for HCC in our hospital. Tumour recurrence was diagnosed in 97 (51%) of the 190 patients with curative resection. Sixteen underwent hepatic resection: two right hepatectomies, one three-segmentectomy, one left hepatectomy, five two-segmentectomies, six segmental resections and one subsegmentectomy. Two patients with metastasis in the spine were submitted to a vertebral body resection. Twenty-five patients were treated with percutaneous ethanol injection or intra-arterial chemoembolization. Fifty-four patients with a poor performance status and liver function or multiple extra hepatic recurrences did not receive any treatment. RESULTS: There were no operative deaths. The postoperative mortality rate was 5.5% (one patient). The cumulative overall survival after the second resection was respectively 89%, 46% and 31% at 1, 3 and 5 years. There was a significant difference in survival between patients treated with repeat resection and those submitted to a non-surgical or conservative treatment (p<0.0001). There were no differences in operative deaths, postoperative mortality and morbidity between the first and second hepatic resection. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive management with combined resection or loco regional therapy for intrahepatic recurrence and resection of isolated extra-hepatic recurrence may offer long-term survival in selected patients. Second liver resection for recurrence of HCC can be safely performed.

Anterior approach versus conventional approach right hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether major right hepatectomy using the anterior approach technique for large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) results in better operative and long-term survival outcomes when compared with the conventional approach technique. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The anterior approach technique has been advocated recently for large right liver tumors. However, its beneficial effects on the operative and survival outcomes of the patients have not been evaluated prospectively. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was performed on 120 patients who had large (> or =5 cm) right liver HCC and underwent curative major right hepatic resection during a 57-month period. The patients were randomized to undergo resection of the tumor using the anterior approach technique (AA group, n = 60) or the conventional approach technique (CA group, n = 60). The anterior approach technique involved initial vascular inflow control, completion of parenchymal transection, and complete venous outflow control before the right liver was mobilized. Operative and long-term survival outcomes of the two groups were analyzed. Quantitative assessments of markers of circulating tumor cells at various stages of surgery of the two techniques were also assessed by plasma albumin-mRNA. RESULTS: The overall operative blood loss, morbidity, and duration of hospital stay were comparable in both groups. Major operative blood loss of > or =2 L occurred less frequently in the AA group (8.3% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.005). As a result, blood transfusion requirement and number of patients requiring blood transfusion were significantly lower in the AA group. Hospital mortality occurred in 1 patient in the AA group and 6 patients in the CA group (P = 0.114). Median disease-free survival was 15.5 months in the AA group and 13.9 months in the CA group (P = 0.882). Overall survival was significantly better in the AA group (median >68.1 months) than in the CA group (median = 22.6 months, P = 0.006). The survival benefit appeared more obvious in patients with stage II disease and patients with lymphovascular permeation of the tumor. The anterior approach was also found to associate with significantly lower plasma albumin-mRNA levels at various stages of surgery compared with the CA technique. On multivariate analysis, tumor staging, anterior approach hepatic resection, and resection margin involved by the tumor were independent factors affecting overall survival. CONCLUSION: The anterior approach results in better operative and survival outcomes compared with the conventional approach. It is the preferred technique for major right hepatic resection for large HCC.

Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system.

The Brisbane 2000 system of nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections was introduced to provide a universal terminology in an area that was plagued by confusing and inappropriate terminology. The article describes historical developments central to the emergence of the new terminology and describes the terminology, its attributes, and rules of application.