Search

This study aimed to externally validate the Iwate scoring model and its prognostic value for predicting the risks of intra- and postoperative complications of laparoscopic liver resection. Consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic liver resection between 2008 and 2019 at a single tertiary center were included. The Iwate scores were calculated according to the original proposition (four difficulty levels based on six indices). Intra- and postoperative complications were compared across difficulty levels. Fitting the obtained data to the cumulative density function of the Weibull distribution and a linear function provided the mean risk curves for intra- and postoperative complications, respectively. The difficulty levels of 142 laparoscopic liver resections were scored as low, intermediate, advanced, and expert level in 41 (28.9%), 53 (37.3%), 32 (22.5%), and 16 (11.3%) patients, respectively. Intraoperative complications were detected in 26 (18.3%) patients and its rates (2.4%, 7.5%, 34.3%, and 62.5%) increased gradually with statistically significant values among difficulty levels (P ˂ 0.001). Major postoperative complications occurred in 21 (14.8%) patients and its rates (4.8%, 5.6%, 28.1%, 43.7%; P ˂ 0.001) showed the same trend as for intraoperative complications. Then, the mean risk curves of both complications were obtained. Due to outliers, a new threshold for a tumor size index was proposed at 38 mm. The repeated analysis showed improved results. The Iwate scoring model predicts the probability of complications across difficulty levels. Our proposed tumor size threshold (38 mm) improves the quality of the prediction. The model is upgraded by a probability of complications for every difficulty score.

The “Small-for-Size” syndrome is defined as a liver failure after a liver transplant with a reduced graft or after a major hepatectomy. The later coined “Small-for-Flow” syndrome describes the same situation in liver resections but based on hemodynamic intraoperative parameters (portal pressure > 20 mmHg and/or portal flow > 250 ml/min/100 g). This focuses on the damage caused by the portal hyperafflux related to the volume of the remnant. Relevant studies were reviewed using Medline, PubMed, and Springer databases. Portal hypertension after partial hepatectomies also leads to a higher morbidity and mortality. There are plenty of experimental studies focusing on flow rather than size. Some of them also perform different techniques to modulate the portal inflow. The deleterious effect of high posthepatectomy portal venous pressure is known, and that is why the idea of portal flow modulation during major hepatectomies in humans is increasing in everyday clinical practice. Considering the extensive knowledge obtained with the experimental models and good results in clinical studies that analyze the “Small-for-Flow” syndrome, we believe that measuring portal flow and portal pressure during major liver resections should be performed routinely in extended liver resections. Applying these techniques, the knowledge of hepatic hemodynamics would be improved in order to advance against posthepatectomy liver failure.

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the gold standard both for delimited hepatocellular carcinoma by selective anatomic liver segentectomy and for colorectal liver metastases by parenchymal sparing liver resection. Right anterior sector (RAS) (segments V-VIII; Couinaud) is the largest and most difficult sector to operate on. A better knowledge of its segmentation could prevent postoperative remnant liver ischemia and its impacts on patient's survival. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in PubMed for papers on anatomy and surgery of the right anterior sector. RESULTS: Segmentation of the RAS depended of the anatomic variations of the third-order portal branches. Cranio-caudal segmentation was the most commonly found (50-53%), followed by ventro-dorsal (23-26%), trifurcation (13-20%), and quadrifurcation types (5-11%). Ventral and dorsal partial or total subsegmentectomy seemed accessible in 47 to 50% of patients, including bifurcation, trifurcation, and quadrifurcation types, and could spare up to 22% of the total liver volume. The RAS hepatic vein was present in 85-100% of the patients and could be used as a landmark between RAS dorsal and ventral part in 63% of patients. Reported overall morbidity rate of RAS subsegmentectomy ranged from 33 to 59% among studies with a postoperative major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo ??III) ranging around 18% and a biliary leakage rate from 16 to 21%. In-hospital reported mortality rate was low (0-3%), and results were comparable to "classic" liver resections. RAS subsegmentectomy remains a complex procedure; median operating time ranged from 253 to 520 min and median intraoperative blood loss reached 1255 ml. CONCLUSION: Better knowledge of RAS anatomy could allow for parenchymal preservation by using subsegmentectomy of the RAS, selective or as a part of a major hepatectomy.

Optimal margin size when resecting colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remains unclear, particularly in the setting of perioperative chemotherapy. We evaluated the prognostic significance of margin size in patients who received neoadjuvant FOLFOX and/or FOLFIRI prior to resection of CRLM.Clinicopathologic factors were collected for patients who underwent curative liver resections for CRLM between 4/2004-1/2016 and received neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan and 5-FU (FOLFOX, FOLFIRI). Margins were categorized as 1, ≥ 1- 5, ≥ 5- 10, or ≥ 10 mm and evaluated for association with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) by Cox multiple regression analysis. Margin status was classified as positive ( 1 mm) or negative (≥ 1 mm) and similarly evaluated.Of 227 patients, the median age was 58 years and most had synchronous (80%) lesions. The majority had colon cancers (75%). Margin sizes were 13% 1 mm, 27% ≥ 1- 5 mm, 23% ≥ 5- 10 mm, 36% ≥ 10 mm. Most (63%) received chemotherapy post-liver resection. Five-year OS and DFS were 54% (95% CI 46-62%) and 22% (95% CI 16-28%), respectively. Positive margins significantly increased the risk of death without post-liver resection chemotherapy (HR = 3.32, p = 0.0077), but not with post-liver resection chemotherapy (HR = 1.00, p = 0.99). Negative margin sizes of ≥ 1- 5, ≥ 5- 10, and ≥ 10 mm were not significant predictors of OS (p 0.05).Patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM should receive post-resection chemotherapy if negative margins (≥ 1 mm) cannot be achieved. For patients receiving FOLFOX and/or FOLFIRI chemotherapy, wider margins did not improve OS.

Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been associated with improved postoperative clinical outcomes, the widespread use of MIS by procedure and hospital has been limited. We sought to report on national trends postoperative clinical outcomes for minimally invasive liver and pancreatic surgery. Patients undergoing an elective liver or pancreatic resection were identified using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2002 and 2012. Multivariable regression analysis was used to compare postoperative outcomes, and total hospital costs between patients who underwent a MIS versus an open resection over the study time period. A total of 47,685 patients were identified; 21,280 (44.6 %) patients underwent a hepatic resection while 26,405(55.4 %) patients underwent a pancreatic resection. MIS was performed in 2674 (5.6 %) patients and increased from 2.6 % in 2002 to 9.6 % in 2012 (p

Extended liver resection has increased during the last decades. However, hepatic hemodynamic changes after resection and the consequent complications like post hepatectomy liver failure are still a challenging issue. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the role of stepwise liver resection on hepatic hemodynamic changes. To evaluate this effect we performed 25, 50, and 75 % sequential liver resections in 10 pigs. Before and after each resection, the hepatic artery flow and portal vein flow in relation to the remnant liver volume (RLV) as well as hepatic vascular pressures were measured and compared between the groups. Following sequential liver resection, the hepatic artery flow /100 g decreases and the portal vein flow increases up to 17 and 167 % following extended liver resection (75 %), respectively. Also, during stepwise liver resection, the portal vein pressure increases gradually up to 33 % following extended hepatectomy (75 %). Sequential decrease in the RLV decreases the hepatic artery flow /100 g and increases the portal vein flow /100 g and portal vein pressure. As the consequence, the liver goes under more poor-oxygenated blood supply and higher pressure. This may be one of the most important mechanisms of the post hepatectomy liver failure in case of extended liver resection.

The optimal timing of primary and metastatic tumor management in patients with synchronous hepatic colorectal metastases remains controversial. We aimed to compare perioperative outcomes of simultaneous colorectal/liver resection (SCLR) with isolated resections utilizing a national clinical database. NSQIP data from 2005 to 2009 were examined to construct risk-adjusted generalized linear models and to calculate group-specific predicted estimates. These were used to compare 30-day perioperative outcomes among patients undergoing SCLR with colorectal (CR) and liver resections (LR) only in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. A total of 3,983 patients were identified, who underwent SCLR (192), LR (1,857), or CR (1,934). Rectal resection was performed in 45 (23.4 %) SCLR patients and 269 (13.9 %) CR patients (p

Advances in the surgical management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have expanded the indications for curative hepatectomy, including more extensive liver resections. The purpose of this study was to examine long-term survival trends for patients treated with major hepatectomy for HCC.Clinicopathologic data for 1,115 patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between 1981 and 2008 at five hepatobiliary centers in France, China, and the USA were assessed. In addition to other performance metrics, outcomes were evaluated using resection of ≥4 liver segments as a novel definition of major hepatectomy.Major hepatectomy was performed in 539 patients. In the major hepatectomy group, median tumor size was 10 cm (range: 1-27 cm) and 22 % of the patients had bilateral lesions. The TNM Stage distribution included 29 % Stage I, 31 % Stage II, 38 % Stage III, and 2 % Stage IV. The postoperative histologic examination indicated that chronic liver disease was present in 35 % of the patients and tumor microvascular invasion was identified in 60 % of the patients. The 90-day postoperative mortality rate was 4 %. After a median follow-up time of 63 months, the 5-year overall survival rate was 40 %. Patients treated with right hepatectomy (n = 332) and those requiring extended hepatectomy (n = 207) had similar 90-day postoperative mortality rates (4 % and 4 %, respectively, p = 0.976) and 5-year overall survival rates (42 % and 36 %, respectively, p = 0.523). Postoperative mortality and overall survival rates after major hepatectomy were similar among the participating countries (p 0.1) and improved over time with 5-year survival rates of 30 %, 40 %, and 51 % for the years 1981-1989, 1990-1999, and the most recent era of 2000-2008, respectively (p = 0.004). In multivariate analysis, factors that were significantly associated with worse survivals included AFP level1,000 ng/mL, tumor size5 cm, presence of major vascular invasion, presence of extrahepatic metastases, positive surgical margins, and earlier time period in which the major hepatectomy was performed.This multinational, long-term HCC survival analysis indicates that expansion of surgical indications to include major hepatectomy is justified by the significant improvement in outcomes over the past three decades observed in both the East and the West.

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become an increasingly popular operation; however, its theoretical benefits remain unproven. The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative outcome study between LLR and matched-pair open liver resections (OLR).Sixty five patients underwent attempted LLR from 1998 through 2008; 52 of which were completed laparoscopically. Patients who underwent OLR prior to 1998 were matched to laparoscopic cases for demographics, comorbidities, diagnosis, tumor characteristics, procedure, and background liver. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared between the two groups. Analyses were performed excluding and including conversion cases.Characteristics were comparable between both groups. LLR was associated with significant reductions in estimated blood loss, frequency of transfusion, frequency of Pringle maneuver, postoperative morbidity, time to recovery, length of hospital stay, and incidence of incisional hernia. For patients with malignant tumors, there were no positive surgical margins or local recurrence in either group and the overall pattern of recurrence was similar.For well-selected patients, LLR is a feasible operation that does not compromise operative or oncologic outcomes. While LLR was associated with some benefits, these can only be definitively proven in a randomized controlled trial.

Background Left lateral sectionectomy is one of the most commonly performed laparoscopic liver resections, but limited clinical data are actually available to support the advantage of laparoscopic versus open-liver surgery. The present study compared the short-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery in a case-matched analysis. Materials and Methods Surgical outcome of 20 patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy by laparoscopic approach (LHR group) from September 2005 to January 2007 were compared in a case-control analysis with those of 20 patients who underwent open left lateral sectionectomy (OHR group). Both groups were similar for: tumor size, preoperative laboratory data, presence of cirrhosis, and histology of the lesion. Surgical procedures were performed in both groups combining the ultrasonic dissector and the ultrasonic coagulating cutter without portal clamping. Results Compared with OHR, the LHR group had a decreased blood loss (165 mL versus 214 mL, P=0.001), and earlier postoperative recovery (4.5 versus 5.8 days, P=0.003). There were no significant differences in terms of surgical margin and operative time. Morbidity was comparable between the two groups, but two cases of postoperative ascites were recorded in two cirrhotic patients in the OHR. Major complications were not observed in either groups. Conclusions Laparoscopic resection results in reduced operative blood loss and earlier recovery with oncologic clearance and operative time comparable with open surgery. Laparoscopic liver surgery may be considered the approach of choice for tumors located in the left hepatic lobe.

Historically, major hepatic resections have been fraught with voluminous blood losses and, at times, high mortality rates. Improvements in patient selection and operative technique over the past 20 years have resulted in marked reduction in death and complications and have given the impression that liver surgery can be relatively effortless. Contrary to this belief, the present review illustrates some of the pitfalls and dangers of major hepatectomy and may serve to alert ordinary surgeons to approach this operation with a degree of trepidation and careful planning. Over a 22-year period, 147 liver resections were performed by one surgeon for solid liver tumors (range 0 to 21/yr). Of these, 101 were major hepatectomies comprising at least three anatomic segments (63 right, 24 left, 11 extended right, and 3 extended left) and form the basis for this report. The major resections were performed for benign disease in 16 patients and malignant tumors in 85 (24 primary and 61 metastatic lesions). All but one patient were noncirrhotic. Seventeen patients were more than 70 years and 84 were less than 70 years of age. There were five postoperative deaths among these 101 patients: two intraoperative (coagulopathy after venovenous bypass in 1 and air embolus in 1), two from postoperative liver failure, and one resulting from a myocardial infarction. Three deaths were in patients older than 70 (18%), and two were in patients younger than 70 (2%) (P = 0.03). Complications developed in 20 of 96 survivors, three patients required reoperation for postoperative bleeding, and nine patients had some duration of bile leakage. In contrast, among those undergoing "minor" hepatectomies (n = 46), there were no deaths and six (13%) patients had complications. In patients undergoing major hepatectomies, estimated blood loss was 3836 +/- 3346 ml. Estimated blood loss was unaffected by experience (first 50 patients vs. second 51 patients) or use of the ultrasonic surgical aspirator, but has been reduced by the use of the Harmonic scalpel (2650 +/- 2706.1 ml vs. 3997 +/- 3405.8 ml, P = 0.026). The use of rapid-infusion systems aided in preventing intraoperative hypotension and hypothermia. Estimated blood loss was significantly greater than with minor anterior or lateral segmentectomies (n = 24) (3836 +/- 3346 ml vs. 975 +/- 518.8 ml, P < 0.0001). Hospital length of stay has been shortened, primarily by the use of closed suction drainage compared to open drainage (7.5 2 +/-.4 days vs. 18.8 +/- 8.4 days, P < 0.0001). Major hepatectomies continue to be formidable operations with the potential for copious blood loss and intraoperative instability. Proper patient selection, anesthesia support and availability of rapid-infusion technology, and familiarity with liver anatomy are important in keeping operative mortality and postoperative morbidity at an acceptable level.

Most blood loss during liver resection occurs during parenchymal transection, and multiple approaches have been developed to limit blood loss. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new bipolar vessel-sealing device in hepatic surgery, particularly whether the device would permit safe transection without routine inflow occlusion. Twenty-seven hepatic procedures were performed using the device after preliminary studies to adapt its use to the liver. Inflow occlusion was used when necessary to control blood loss but not as a routine. The device worked well for transection through normal liver during common liver operations such as right hepatectomy. It worked less well for enucleations. Inflow occlusion was used in approximately 10% of resections, exclusive of enucleations, and about 25% of these patients were transfused during surgery or in the postoperative period. We conclude that the device is a useful tool in standard liver resections.

Although liver resection has been shown to prolong survival in selected patients with metastases from colorectal cancer, the benefit for other metastatic tumors is unproved. To determine whether hepatic resection has a role in the management of metastatic leiomyosarcoma, medical records from 11 consecutive patients who underwent resection of isolated metastases from leiomyosarcoma between 1984 and 1995 were reviewed. All liver resections were for leiomyosarcomas originating in the viscera (n = 6) or retroperitoneum (n = 5). The average disease-free interval was 16 months. Five of 11 primary tumors were classified as low grade, whereas six were high grade. Hepatic resections included lobectomy or extended lobectomy (n = 4), segmentectomy and/or wedge resection (n = 5), and complex resection (n = 2). There were no operative deaths. Median survival of all patients after liver resection was 39 months. Patients who underwent complete resection of hepatic metastases (n = 6) had a significantly longer survival than those who had incomplete resections (n = 5) (P = 0.03, log-rank test). Furthermore, five of six patients who underwent complete resection are alive after hepatectomy with a median follow-up of 53 months. Therefore, in selected patients with isolated liver metastases from visceral and retroperitoneal leiomyosarcomas, complete resection of hepatic metastases results in prolonged survival.

1. Stimpson REJ, Pellegrini CA, Way LW. Factors affecting the morbidity of elective liver resection. AmJ Surg 1987;153:189196. 2. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven AC. Should operations be regionalized: The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N EnglJ Med 1979;301:1364-1369. 3. Hannan EL, O'Donnell JF, Kilburn Iq Jr, et al. Investigation of the relationship between volume and mortality for surgical procedures performed in New York state hospitals. JAMA 1989;262:503 -510. 4. Flood AB, Scott WR, Ewy W. Does practice make perfect? Part I: The relation between hospital volume and outcomes for selected diagnostic categories. Med Care 1984;22:98-114. 5. Flood AB, Scott WR, Ewy W. Does practice make perfect? Part II: The relation between volume and outcomes and other hospital characteristics. Med Care 1984;22:115-125. 6. Luft H. The relation between surgical volume and mortality: An exploration of casual factors and alternative models. Meal Care 1980;18:940-959. 7. Choti MA, Bowman HNI, Pitt HA, Sosa JA, Sitzmann JV, Cameron JL, Gordon TA. Should hepatic resections be performed at high-volume referral centers? J GASTROINTEST SURG 1998;2:11-20. 8. Choi TK, Lai Edward CS, Fan ST, et al. Results of surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 1990;37:172-175. 9. Haratake J, Takeda S, Kasai T, et al. Predictable factors for estimating prognosis for patients after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 1993 ;72:172-175. 10. Startzl TE, Bell RH, Beast RW, Pulnam CW. Hepatic trisegmentectomy and other liver resection. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1975;141:429-437. 11. Thompson HH, Tompkins RK, Longmire WP. Major hepatic resection: A 25 year experience. Ann Surg 1983;197:375-387. 12. Petrelli NJ, Nambisan RN, Herrera L, Mittelman A. Hepatic resection for isolated metastases from colorectal carcinoma. AmJ Surg 1985;149:205-209. 13. Butler J, Attiyeh FF, DalyJM. Hepatic resection for metastases of the colon rectum. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1986;162:109-113. 14. Iwatsuki S, Shaw BW, Startzl TE. Experience with 150 liver resections. Ann Surg 1983;197:2474253. 15. Adson MA, Van Heerden JA. Major hepatic resections for metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 1980;191:576-583. 16. Nordlinger B, Quilichini MA, Parc R, et al. Hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases: Influence on survival of preoperative factors and surgery for recurrences in 80 patients. Ann Surg 1987;205:256-263. 17. Sitzmann JV,, Greene PS. Perioperative predictors of morbidity following hepatic resection for neoplasm. A multivariate analysis of a single surgeon experience with 105 patients. Ann Surg 1994;219:13-17. 18. Takenaka K, Kawaahara N, Yamamoto K, et al. Results of 280 liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 1996; 131:71-76.

This video will discuss the main steps necessary to perform a totally laparoscopic extended left hepatectomy including partial or complete resection of the middle hepatic vein and resection of segment I. Although totally laparoscopic extended liver resections are currently only being performed in several centers with experience in both minimally invasive and hepatobiliary surgery, it will likely become more common, as more surgeons gain expertise in both of these disciplines.

The objective of this study is to assess the outcome of liver resections in the elderly in a matched control analysis.From a prospective single center database of 628 patients, 132 patients were aged 60 years or over and underwent a primary major liver resection. Of these patients, 93 could be matched one-to-one with a control patient, aged less than 60 years, with the same diagnosis and the same type of liver resection. The mean age difference was 16.7 years.Patients over 60 years of age had a significantly higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade. All other demographics and operative characteristics were not different. In-hospital mortality and morbidity were higher in the patients over 60 years of age (11% versus 2%, p=0.017 and 47% versus 31%, p=0.024). One-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates in the patients over 60 years of age were 81%, 58%, and 42%, respectively, compared to 90%, 59%, and 42% in the control patients (p=0.558). Unified model Cox regression analysis showed that resection margin status (hazard ratio 2.51) and ASA grade (hazard ratio 2.26), and not age, were determining factors for survival.This finding underlines the important fact that in patient selection for major liver resections, ASA grade is more important than patient age.