Search

Background: The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) remains a relative contraindication to liver resection for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The goal of this study was to explore whether a laparoscopic approach could extend the indications for hepatectomy to patients with PH.Method: Patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) from February 2016 to September 2019 performed by a single medical team were included in this study. We analyzed the surgical and oncological outcomes between groups with and without CSPH before and after propensity score matching (PSM).Result: We enrolled 156 patients divided into two groups according to the presence (CSPH, n = 26) or absence (non-CSPH, n = 130) of CSPH. CSPH group was associated with more clinical signs of liver dysfunction (p < 0.05). After PSM (n = 48 patients), the CSPH group tended to have a longer postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.054); however, there was no difference in operation time (p = 0.329), blood loss volume (p = 0.392), transfusion rates (p = 0.701), rate of conversion to open surgery (p = 0.666), surgical margin (p = 0.306), surgical mortality (n = 0), or comprehensive complication index (p = 0.844) between the two groups. The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 19.6 months (range 0.2-40.6 months). The 3-year overall survival rate was 62.9% in the CSPH group and 84.3% in the non-CSPH group (p = 0.1090), and results were similar after PSM (p = 0.5734).Conclusions: LLR is safe and feasible for HCC with PH. The introduction of minimally invasive surgery, represented by LLR, can appropriately expand the indications for hepatectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hepatobiliary mucinous cystic neoplasms (H-MCNs) are relatively rare cystic neoplasms in the liver. The differential diagnosis of H-MCNs remains big challenging, and the management and prognosis between the hepatic simple cyst (HSC) and H-MCNs are quite different. This study aimed to present our experience in the management of H-MCNs and provide a preoperative H-MCNs risk prediction nomogram to differentiating H-MCNs from liver cystic lesions.Methods: 29 patients diagnosed with H-MCNs and 75 patients diagnosed with HSC between June 2011 and June 2019 at Zhejiang University School of medicine, Sir Run-Run Shaw Hospital were reviewed in this study. We analyzed the demographic and clinicopathological variables.Results: US, CT, and MRI could accurately diagnose only 3.4%, 46.1%, and 57.1% of H-MCNs, respectively. After univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis, the variables significantly associated with H-MCNs were enhancement after contrast (p = 0.009), tumour located in the left lobe (p = 0.02) and biliary ductal dilation (p = 0.027). An H-MCNs risk predictive nomogram was constructed, which showed excellent discrimination (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were 0.940) and consistent calibration between the predicted probability and actual probability.Conclusion: Among patients with H-MCNs, the location of the tumour, enhancement in CT scan, and biliary duct dilation are significantly independent risk factors. The appropriate treatment of H-MCNs is radical resection. Using our Nomogram could facilitate screening and identification of patients with liver cystic lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.Methods: A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.Results: 10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.Conclusion: Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To prevent and control hemorrhage is the key to successfully perform laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LHH). Pringle's maneuver (PM) is the standard hepatic inflow occlusion technique. Our study was to describe a novel simple way to perform totally intra-corporeal laparoscopic PM and to explore the feasibility of combining PM and selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion technique in LHH.Methods: We extracted and analyzed the data of patients who consecutively underwent LHH to validate this new surgery technique. Between January, 2016 and December, 2017, 34 patients were included. Data of pre-operation, operation and post-operation were collected, including some demographic data, operative time, operative blood loss, transfusion rate, hepatic hilum occlusion rate and time, pathologic results, short-term complication, and postoperative hospitalization days.Results: Only one patient (3.0%) in our series required conversion to laparotomy as a result of the severe adhesion. The average operative time was 216.9 ± 60.3 min. The mean hepatic inflow occlusion time was 25.3 ± 14.5 min. The average estimated blood loss was 192.9 ± 152.2 ml. All patients received R0 resection.Conclusion: The novel hepatic inflow occlusion device is a safe reliable and convenient technique for LHH that is associated with favorable perioperative outcomes and low risk of conversion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care.Methods: A randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia.Results: The study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000).Conclusion: ERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]