Search

Abstract There is a strong demand for efficient rescue techniques and devices in preparation for large-scale earthquakes. In this study we aim to develop a robot that focuses on the [...]

Background: The main aim of this survey was to analyze how liver surgeons perform liver resections and to define their conception of anatomic procedures within the incorporation of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). Methods: The survey was distributed among liver surgeons. It mainly focused on personal experience on open and MILS, methods and landmarks, and experience on anatomic resections and Glissonean approach. Results: A total of 445 valid answers from 54 countries was obtained. Surgeons performing MILS mainly have below 10 years of experience (81.8% of responders) and one third has never done complex MILS. New techniques, including indocyanine green demarcation are marginally used (<25%). More than 60% of surgeons do not make a full exposure of hepatic veins during MILS, mainly due to the risk of injury or not considering it to be of utility. Although 88% of responders agreed with the concept of anatomic resection as the "resection along the border/watersheds of each order division identified by the portal vein flow", only 55% of surgeons have ever performed MILS Glissonean approaches. Conclusions: Liver anatomy is not a static concept. Anatomic resections need training and precision. Standardization of complex anatomic resections by a minimally invasive approach should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Glissonean approach has been widely validated for both open and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR). However, the possible advantages compared to the conventional hilar approach are still under debate. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the application of the Glissonean approach in MIALR. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted on PubMed and Ichushi databases. Articles written in English or Japanese were included. From 2,390 English manuscripts evaluated by title and abstract, 43 were included. Additionally, 23 out of 463 Japanese manuscripts were selected. Duplicates were removed, including the most recent manuscript. Results: The Glissonean approach is reported for both major and minor MIALR. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd order divisions of both right and left portal pedicles can be reached following defined anatomical landmarks. Compared to the conventional hilar approach, the Glissonean approach is associated with shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and better peri‐operative outcomes. Conclusions: Glissonean approach is safe and feasible for MIALR with several reported advantages compared to the conventional hilar approach. Clear knowledge of Laennec's capsule anatomy is necessary and serves as a guide for the dissection. However, the best surgical approach to be performed depends on surgeon experience and patients' characteristics. Standardization of the Glissonean approach for MIALR is important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In preparation for the upcoming consensus meeting in Tokyo in 2021, this systematic review aimed to analyze the current available evidence regarding surgical anatomy of the liver, focusing on useful landmarks, strategies and technical tools to perform precise anatomic liver resection (ALR). Methods: A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed for English articles and on Ichushi database for Japanese articles until September 2020. The quality assessment of the articles was performed in accordance with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Results: A total of 3169 manuscripts were obtained, 1993 in English and 1176 in Japanese literature. Subsequently, 63 English and 20 Japanese articles were selected and reviewed. The quality assessment of comparative series and case series was revealed to be usually low; only six articles were qualified as high quality. Forty‐two articles focused on analyzing intersegmental/sectional planes and their relationship with specific hepatic landmark veins. In 12 articles, the authors aimed to investigate liver surface anatomic structures, while 36 articles aimed to study technological tools and contrast agents for surgical segmentation during ALR. Although Couinaud's classification has remained the cornerstone in daily diagnostic/surgical practices, it does not always portray the realistic liver segmentation and there has been no standardization on which a single strategy should be followed to perform precise ALR. Conclusions: A global consensus should be pursued in order to establish clear guidelines and proper recommendations to perform ALR in the era of minimally invasive surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Brisbane 2000 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections, based on Couinaud's segments, did not address how to identify segmental borders and anatomic territories of less than one segment. Smaller anatomic resections including segmentectomies and subsegmentectomies, have not been well defined. The advent of minimally invasive liver resection has enhanced the possibilities of more precise resection due to a magnified view and reduced bleeding, and minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) is becoming popular gradually. Therefore, there is a need for updating the Brisbane 2000 system, including anatomic segmentectomy or less. An online "Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus)" was hosted on February 23, 2021. Methods: The Steering Committee invited 34 international experts from around the world. The Expert Committee (EC) selected 12 questions and two future research topics in the terminology session. The EC created seven tentative definitions and five recommendations based on the experts' opinions and the literature review performed by the Research Committee. Two Delphi Rounds finalized those definitions and recommendations. Results: This paper presents seven definitions and five recommendations regarding anatomic segmentectomy or less. In addition, two future research topics are discussed. Conclusions: The PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus has presented the Tokyo 2020 Terminology for Liver Anatomy and Resections. The terminology has added definitions of liver anatomy and resections that were not defined in the Brisbane 2000 system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The concept of minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) is gaining popularity. However, specific technical skills need to be acquired to safely perform MIALR. The "Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (PAM‐HBP Surgery Consensus)" was developed as a special program during the 32nd meeting of the Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery (JSHBPS). Methods: Thirty‐four international experts gathered online for the consensus. A Research Committee performed a comprehensive literature review, classifying studies according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Based on the literature review and experts' opinions, tentative recommendations were drafted and circulated among experts using online Delphi Rounds. Finally, formulated recommendations were presented online in the Expert Consensus Meeting of the JSHBPS on February 23rd, 2021. The final recommendations were validated and finalized by the 2nd Delphi Round in May 2021. Results: Seven clinical questions were selected, and 22 recommendations were formulated. All recommendations reached more than 85% consensus among experts at the final Delphi Round. Conclusions: The Expert Consensus Meeting for safely performing MIALR has presented a set of clinical guidelines based on available literature and experts' opinions. We expect these guidelines to have a favorable effect on the safe implementation and development of MIALR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the number of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) has been steadily increasing in many institutions, minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) remains a complicated procedure that has not been standardized. We present the results of a survey among expert liver surgeons as a benchmark for standardizing MIALR. Method: We administered this survey to 34 expert liver surgeons who routinely perform MIALR. The survey contained questions on personal experience with liver resection, inflow/outflow control methods, and identification techniques of intersegmental/sectional planes (IPs). Results: All 34 participants completed the survey; 24 experts (70%) had more than 11 years of experience with MILR, and over 80% of experts had performed over 100 open resections and MILRs each. Regarding the methods used for laparoscopic or robotic anatomic resection, the Glissonean approach (GA) was a more frequent procedure than the hilar approach (HA). Although hepatic veins were considered essential landmarks, the exposure methods varied. The top three techniques that the experts recommended for identifying IPs were creating a demarcation line, indocyanine green negative staining method, and intraoperative ultrasound. Conclusion: Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection remains a challenging procedure; however, a certain degree of consensus exists among expert liver surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]