Luca Viganò

The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility.

Objective:To evaluate the “learning curve” effect on feasibility and reproducibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Summary Background Data:LLR is currently limited to few centers and to few procedures. Its reproducibility is still debated. Methods:Patients undergoing LLR between 1996 and 2008 were included. Indications and type of hepatectomies were compared with those of open resections performed in the same period, considering 3 periods (1996–1999, 2000–2003, and 2004–2008). LLRs were divided into 3 equal groups of 58 cases and technical data and outcomes were compared. Risk-adjusted Cumulative Sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion. Results:Of 782, 174 (22.3%) patients underwent LLR. Proportion of LLR progressively increased (17.5%, 22.4%, and 24.2%), such as hepatocellular carcinoma (17.6%, 25.6%, and 39.4%, P < 0.05), colorectal metastases (0%, 6.5%, and 13.1%, P < 0.05), major hepatectomies (1.1%, 9.1%, 8.5%, P < 0.05), and right hepatectomies (0%, 13.2%, and 13.1%, P < 0.05). Comparing groups, results of LLR significantly improved in terms of conversion rate (15.5%, 10.3%, and 3.4%, P < 0.05), operative time (210, 180, and 150 minutes, P < 0.05), blood loss (300, 200, and 200 mL, P < 0.05), and morbidity (17.2%, 22.4%, and 3.4%, P < 0.05). Pedicle clamping was less used over time (77.6%, 62.1%, and 17.2%, P < 0.05) and for shorter durations (45, 30, and 20 minutes, P < 0.05). Having adjusted for case-mix, the Cumulative Sum analysis demonstrated a learning curve for laparoscopic hepatectomies of 60 cases. Conclusion:A slow but constant evolution of LLR occurred: indications and magnitude of procedures increased and technical outcomes improved. The learning curve demonstrated in this study suggests that LLR is reproducible in liver units but specific training to advanced laparoscopy is required.

Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are not clarified. The objective of this article is to depict the state of the art of LLR by means of a systematic review of the literature. METHODS Studies about LLR published before September 2008 were identified and their results summarized. RESULTS Indications for laparoscopic hepatectomy do not differ from those for open surgery. Technical feasibility is the only limiting factor. Bleeding is the major intraoperative concern, but, if managed by an expert surgeon, do not worsen outcomes. Hand assistance can be useful in selected cases to avoid conversion. Patient selection must take both tumor location and size into consideration. Potentially good candidates are patients with peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy; their outcomes, including reduced blood loss, morbidity, and hospital stay, are better than those of their laparotomic counterparts. The same advantages have been observed in cirrhotics. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies and resections of postero-superior segments need further evaluation. The results of LLR in cancer patients seem to be similar to those obtained with the laparotomic approach, especially in cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, but further analysis is required. CONCLUSIONS Laparoscopic liver resection is safe and feasible. The laparoscopic approach can be recommended for peripheral lesions requiring limited hepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy. Preliminary oncological results suggest non-inferiority of laparoscopic to laparotomic procedures.

Portal hypertension: contraindication to liver surgery?

IntroductionIn recent decades liver resection has become a safe procedure, mainly because of better patient selection. Despite this progress, however, outcomes of hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension are still uncertain. The aim of this study was to elucidate early and long-term outcomes of liver resection in these patients.MethodsBetween 1985 and 2003, a total of 245 cirrhotic patients underwent hepatectomy for HCC. Altogether, 217 patients were eligible for this analysis and were divided into two groups according to the presence of portal hypertension at the time of surgery: 99 patients with portal hypertension and 118 without it.ResultsPatients with portal hypertension had worse preoperative liver function (Child-Pugh A class patients: 66.7% vs. 94.9%; P < 0.0001). No differences were encountered in terms of intraoperative and pathology data. Operative mortality was similar (11.1% vs. 5.1%; P = 0.100), but patients with portal hypertension had higher morbidity (43.4% vs. 30.5%; P = 0.049) and received a higher rate of blood and plasma transfusions (51.5% vs. 32.2%, P = 0.004; 77.8% vs. 57.6%, P = 0.0017). Considering only Child-Pugh A patients, short-term results were similar in the two groups in terms of mortality, morbidity, and transfusion rates. The 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in patients without portal hypertension (39.8% vs. 28.9%; P = 0.020), although when considering only Child-Pugh A patients no difference of survival was encountered. Multivariate analysis identified Child-Pugh classification, tumor diameter, and vascular invasion as independent predicting factors for survival.ConclusionsPortal hypertension should not be considered an absolute contraindication to hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients. Child-Pugh A patients with portal hypertension have short- and long-term results similar to patients with normal portal pressure.

Liver resection for colorectal metastases after chemotherapy: impact of chemotherapy-related liver injuries, pathological tumor response, and micrometastases on long-term survival.

Objectives:We analyzed the impact of chemotherapy-related liver injuries (CALI), pathological tumor regression grade (TRG), and micrometastases on long-term prognosis in patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal metastases after preoperative chemotherapy. Background:CALI worsen the short-term outcomes of liver resection, but their impact on long-term prognosis is unknown. Recently, a prognostic role of TRG has been suggested. Micrometastases (microscopic vascular or biliary invasion) are reduced by preoperative chemotherapy, but their impact on survival is unclear. Methods:Patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal metastases between 1998 and 2011 and treated with oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan-based preoperative chemotherapy were eligible for the study. Patients with operative mortality or incomplete resection (R2) were excluded. All specimens were reviewed to assess CALI, TRG, and micrometastases. Results:A total of 323 patients were included. Grade 2–3 sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) was present in 124 patients (38.4%), grade 2–3 steatosis in 73 (22.6%), and steatohepatitis in 30 (9.3%). Among all patients, 22.9% had TRG 1–2 (major response), whereas 55.7% had TRG 4–5 (no response). Microvascular invasion was detected in 37.8% of patients and microscopic biliary infiltration in 5.6%.The higher the SOS grade the lower the pathological response: TRG 1–2 occurred in 16.9% of patients with grade 2–3 SOS versus 26.6% of patients with grade 0–1 SOS (P = 0.032).After a median follow-up of 36.9 months, 5-year survival was 38.6%. CALI did not negatively impact survival. Multivariate analysis showed that grade 2–3 steatosis was associated with better survival than grade 0–1 steatosis (5-year survival rate of 52.5% vs 35.2%, P = 0.002). TRG better than the percentage of viable cells stratified patient prognosis: 5-year survival rate of 60.4% in TRG 1–2, 40.2% in TRG 3, and 29.8% in TRG 4–5 (P = 0.0001). Microscopic vascular and biliary invasion negatively impacted outcome (5-year survival rate of 23.3% vs 45.7% if absent, P = 0.017; 0% vs 42.3%, P = 0.032, respectively). Conclusions:TRG was confirmed to be a crucial prognostic determinant. CALI do not negatively impact long-term prognosis, but the tumor response is reduced in patients with grade 2–3 SOS. Steatosis was found to have a protective effect on survival. Micrometastases significantly impacted prognosis assessment.

Hepatectomy as treatment of choice for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly cirrhotic patients.

In recent decades liver resection has become a safe procedure; however, the outcome of hepatectomies in aged cirrhotic patients is often uncertain. To elucidate early and long-term outcomes of hepatectomy for HCC in the elderly, we studied 241 cirrhotic patients who underwent liver resection for HCC between 1985 and 2003. According to their age at the time of surgery, patients were divided into two groups: aged > 70 years (64 patients) and aged ≤ 70 years (177 patients). Operative mortality was 3.1% in the elderly and 9.6% in the younger group (p = 0.113). Postoperative morbidity and liver failure rates were higher in the younger group (42.4% versus 23.4%, p = 0.0073; 12.9% versus l.6%, p = 0.0065). Five-year survival rates are 48.6% in the elderly group and 32.3% in the younger group (p = 0.081). Considering only radical resections in Child-Pugh A patients, survival remains similar in the two groups (p = 0.072). Disease-free survival is not different in the two groups. A survival analysis performed according to the tumor diameter shows a better survival for elderly Child-Pugh A patients with HCC larger than 5 cm radically resected (50.8% versus 16.1% 5-year survival, p = 0.034). In univariate analysis, tumor size is not a prognostic factor in the elderly, whereas younger patients with large tumors have a worse outcome. Age by itself is not a contraindication for surgery, and selected cirrhotic patients with HCC who are 70 years of age or older could benefit from resection, even in the presence of large tumors. Long-term results of liver resections for HCC in the elderly may be even better than in younger patients.

The learning curve in laparoscopic major liver resection

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a relatively rare operation because it is a difficult and technically demanding procedure, and a standard, safe, reproducible technique has not been widely adopted. This is compounded by “major hepatectomy” encompassing multiple different operations each with their own anatomic and procedural considerations. In 2010, we investigated our learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection. We found a significant increase in the number of major hepatectomies performed over a 12-year period, with concurrent reductions in the use of hand-assistance, pedicle clamping, median clamping time, median operative time, blood loss and morbidity. This learning curve was confirmed by a subsequent multinational study. Both hospital and surgeon volume have been shown to affect outcomes, and defining a sufficient number of repetitions before the learning curve plateaus is not easy for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. We recommend that laparoscopic competencies be developed upon a foundation of open liver surgery and that laparoscopic major hepatectomy should only be attempted after competency with less technically complex laparoscopic resections. A center advanced along its institutional learning curve provides the collective expertise necessary for safe patient selection and management. An environment with colleagues willing to share their acquired proficiency allows the surgeon to observe and critique his or her performance against colleagues. Also, the guidance of like-minded surgeons supports technical development and improved outcomes. In conclusion, steady progress can be made along the learning curve through committed practice of increasingly complex tasks and with proper coaching in a high-volume environment.

Combined first‐stage hepatectomy and colorectal resection in a two‐stage hepatectomy strategy for bilobar synchronous liver metastases

This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of combined colorectal and hepatic resection as the first step of two‐stage hepatectomy in patients with bilobar synchronous colorectal liver metastases.

Liver dysfunction and sepsis determine operative mortality after liver resection

Liver failure is the principal cause of death after hepatectomy. Its progression towards death and its relationship with sepsis are unclear. This study analysed predictors of mortality in patients with liver dysfunction and the role of sepsis in the death of these patients.

Indication of the Extent of Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis by a Simple Algorithm Based on Preoperative Variables

OBJECTIVE To produce a model indicating the extent of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis based on easily available preoperative data. DESIGN Retrospective study based on multicenter prospectively updated databases. SETTING Two tertiary referral centers specializing in hepatobiliary surgery. PATIENTS A total of 466 patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis between 1995 and 2006. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES To create a decision tree for safe liver resection based on factors affecting irreversible postoperative liver failure (IPLF). RESULTS A total of 23 patients (4.9%) developed IPLF. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (categorized as <9, 9-10, and >10; P < .05 for all comparisons) and extent of hepatectomy were independent predictors of IPLF. In patients with a MELD score of less than 9, the IPLF rate was 0.4%. In patients with a MELD score of 9 or 10, the IPLF rate was 1.2% for resections of less than 1 segment, 5.1% for segmentectomies or bisegmentectomies, and 11.1% for major hepatectomies. In this category of MELD, serum sodium levels identified a low-risk group (sodium > or =140 mEq/L; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 1.0) not experiencing IPLF and a high-risk group (sodium <140 mEq/L) in which resections of less than 1 segment led to an IPLF rate of 2.5% and resections of 1 segment or more led to an IPLF rate of more than 5% (P < .05). In patients with a MELD score of more than 10, the IPLF rate was more than 15% in all types of hepatectomies. CONCLUSION A simple algorithm based on the MELD score and serum sodium level can indicate the maximum tolerable extent of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open intraoperative ultrasonography for staging liver tumours

Laparoscopic liver surgery must reproduce open surgical steps. Intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) is mandatory, but reliability of laparoscopic IOUS has been poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic versus open IOUS in staging liver tumours.