Laparoscopic liver surgery following previous resections poses significant challenges due to adhesions and altered anatomy. Hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection (HALR) combines the tactile advantages of open surgery with minimally invasive techniques, potentially benefitting patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of HALR for repeat hepatectomy and compare these outcomes with those of an open liver resection (OR).

A retrospective study included patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy via HALR or OR from January 2013 to December 2022. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching. The primary outcome was 90-day morbidity. Surgical difficulty was stratified using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification into grade I (low), grade II (intermediate), and grade III (high).

The study included 248 patients: 112 in the HALR group and 136 in the OR group. Conversion to open occurred in 2 cases (1.8%). After matching, 76 HALR patients were compared with 76 OR patients. HALR patients had a longer operative time (median: 402 vs. 277 min and p < 0.001), shorter postoperative hospital stay (median: 8.0 vs. 9.0 days and p < 0.001), and higher hospital cost (median: $10,607 vs. $6260 and p < 0.001). No significant differences in 90-day morbidity or readmission rates. Risk factors for 90-day morbidity included the ASA score ≥ 2, diabetes, IMM grade 3, and portal hypertension.

HALR for repeat hepatectomy is feasible and safe, with perioperative outcomes comparable to OR. HALR may be a viable alternative for selected patients.

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is superior to open surgery when considering decreased blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospital stay, and similar or improved oncologic outcomes. However, operative limitations in laparoscopic hepatectomy have curved its applicability and momentum of complex minimally invasive liver surgery. Transitioning to robotic hepatectomy may bridge this complexity gap.

Retrospective cohort study conducted on comparable hepatectomies (open, laparoscopic, robotic) for benign or malignant diseases at Weill Cornell by three surgeons from 2017 to 2023. Case volume and Iwate difficulty scoring were examined over time by surgical approach. Outcome associations (operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, 90-day complications, open conversion, and resection margin) were analyzed using generalized estimating equations to account for the hierarchical data structure of different surgeons and controlled for clinical covariates.

Among 353 hepatectomies, 112 were open (OH), 107 were laparoscopic (LH), and 134 were robotic (RH). OH patients were more likely to have malignant pathology (83% vs. LH 69%, RH 57%) and less likely to have cirrhosis (6% vs. LH 6%, RH 14%). OH and RH had similar case complexity (Median Iwate: OH 7 vs. RH 7). After adjustments, LH and RH had 39% and 43% shorter median lengths of stay, respectively, and 89% and 62% lower odds of complications compared to OH. RH had 87% lower odds of conversion to OH compared to LH. The odds of R0 resection were similar between LH, RH, and OH. These results remained consistent in high difficulty cases (Iwate 7-12). Over the study period, RH usage increased from 36 to 68%, while LH decreased from 39 to 9%. By 2023, RH was predominantly used over OH (74% vs.26%).

The transition from laparoscopic to all-robotic approach resulted in increased case volume and complexity in MILS, largely improving perioperative outcomes in hepatectomy.

Unfavorable intraoperative findings or incidents during minimally invasive liver surgery may necessitate conversion to open surgery. This study aimed to identify predictors for conversion in minimally invasive liver surgery and gain insight into outcomes following conversions.

This nationwide, retrospective cohort study compared converted and non-converted minimally invasive liver surgery procedures using data from 20 centers in the Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit (2014-2022). Propensity score matching was applied. Subgroup analyses of converted robotic liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection and emergency versus non-emergency conversions were performed. Predictors for conversions were identified using backward stepwise multivariable logistic regression.

Of 3,530 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (792 robotic liver resection, 2,738 laparoscopic liver resection), 408 (11.6%) were converted (4.9% robotic liver resection, 13.5% laparoscopic liver resection). Conversion was associated with increased blood loss (580 mL [interquartile range 250-1,200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 50-500], P < .001), major blood loss (≥500 mL, 58.8% vs 26.7%, P < .001), intensive care admission (19.0% vs 8.4%, P = .005), overall morbidity (38.9% vs 21.0%, P < .001), severe morbidity (17.9% vs 9.6%, P = .002), and a longer hospital stay (6 days [interquartile range 5-8] vs 4 days [interquartile range 2-5], P < .001) but not mortality (2.2% vs 1.2%, P = .387). Emergency conversions had increased intraoperative blood loss (1,500 mL [interquartile range 700-2,800] vs 525 mL [interquartile range 208-1,000], P < .001), major blood loss (87.5% vs 59.3%, P = .005), and intensive care admission (27.9% vs 10.6%, P = .029), compared with non-emergency conversions. Robotic liver resection was linked to lower conversion risk, whereas American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥3, larger lesion size, concurrent ablation, technically major, and anatomically major resections were risk factors.

Both emergency and non-emergency conversions negatively impact perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive liver surgery. Robotic liver resection reduces conversion risk compared to laparoscopic liver resection.

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of robotic gastrectomy (RG) and laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) in treating gastric cancer (GC).

A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science identified 86 eligible studies, including 68,755 patients (20,894 in the RG group and 47,861 in the LG group).

The analysis revealed that RG was associated with superior outcomes in several areas: more lymph nodes were harvested, intraoperative blood loss was reduced, postoperative hospital stays were shorter, and the time to first flatus and oral intake was shortened (all p < 0.001). Additionally, RG resulted in lower incidences of conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.62, p = 0.004), reoperation (OR = 0.68, p = 0.010), overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.82, p < 0.001), severe complications (OR = 0.65, p < 0.001), and pancreatic complications (OR = 0.60, p = 0.004). However, RG had longer operative times and higher costs (both p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between RG and LG in terms of resection margin distance, mortality, anastomotic leakage, or recurrence rates.

RG is a safe and effective surgical option for patients of GC, but further improvements in operative duration and costs are needed.

The outcomes of minimally invasive liver surgery for posterosuperior segments (PS) are still debated. Since the results of ongoing trials focusing on the results of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR) in this setting are still awaited, the best evidence currently comes from retrospective propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the outcomes of RLR for difficult located lesions and to provide evidence for its use in clinical practice.

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LLR and RLR for PS segments. The Medline, Embase and Web of Science Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to June 2024.

Five studies with a total of 2907 patients (RLR: n = 1084; LLR: n = 1823) were included in the meta-analysis. The RLR group had less estimated blood loss (EBL) (MD: - 88.3, 95% CI - 144.2-- 32.3; p = 0.012), fewer blood transfusions (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.39-0.80, p = 0.033), and a shorter operative time (MD - 27.3, 95% CI - 49.4-- 5.1; p = 0.027). No differences in postoperative morbidity, mortality and R1 resection rates were observed.

RLR for lesions in the PS segments are safe and effective, and may have superior surgical outcomes than LLR.

The evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery, originating in the 1990s, has been marked by significant advancements and milestones, overcoming initial technical hurdles and gaining widespread acceptance within the surgical community as a precise and safe alternative to open procedures. Along this journey, numerous challenges emerged, leading to the accumulation of evidence and the development of guidelines aimed at assisting surgeons in determining the safety, suitability, and complexity of laparoscopic liver resection. This chapter provides a thorough examination of key aspects of laparoscopic liver resection, including difficulty scoring systems, criteria for patient selection, technical considerations, outcomes across different types of liver lesions, and the innovative solutions developed to address challenges, thus offering a comprehensive overview of laparoscopic liver resection, and highlighting its evolving significance in modern hepatobiliary surgery.

Minimally invasive hepatectomy for difficult lesions located in posterosuperior segments (segments I, IVa, VII and VIII) remains challenging. The value of robotic liver resection (RLR) compared with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for posterosuperior segments is controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to validate the safety and efficacy of RLR in posterosuperior segments.

The Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to identify available research published up to October 2023. Statistical analysis was performed with RevMan software version 5.3.

Six studies with a total of 2289 patients (RLR: n = 749; LLR: n = 1540) were included in this meta-analysis. The RLR group had less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -119.54 ml, 95% CI: -178.89 to -60.19, P < 0.0001), fewer blood transfusions (OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.80, P = 0.001), a lower conversion rate (OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.61, P < 0.0001), and a shorter operative time (WMD = -27.16 min, 95% CI: -35.95 to -18.36, P < 0.00001).

Compared with LLR, RLR for lesions in the posterosuperior segments could be safe and effective, and it has superior surgical outcomes.

Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes.

This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates.

Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver surgery has advanced significantly, offering benefits, such as reduced intraoperative complications and quicker recovery. However, complex laparoscopic hepatectomy (CLH) is technically demanding, requiring skilled surgeons. This study aims to share technical aspects, insightful tips, and outcomes of CLH at our center, focusing on the safety and learning curve.

We reviewed all patients undergoing liver resection at our center from July 2017 to December 2023, focusing on those who underwent CLH. Of 135 laparoscopic liver resections, 63 (46.7%) were CLH. The learning curve of CLH was also assessed through linear and piecewise regression analyses considering the operation time and intraoperative blood loss.

Postoperative complications occurred only in 4.8% of patients, with a 90-day mortality rate of 3.2%. The mean operation time and blood loss significantly decreased after the first 20 operations, marking the learning curve's optimal cut-off. Significant improvements in R0 resection (p = 0.024) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.035) were noted beyond the learning curve threshold.

CLH is a safe and effective approach, with a relatively short learning curve of 20 operations. Future large-scale studies should further investigate the impact of surgical experience on CLH outcomes to establish guidelines for training programs.

Although various difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), details remain uncertain regarding distance between the tumor and vessels as a factor of difficulty. We aimed to examine the risk factors for conversion to open hepatectomy in LLR, including distance between tumor and vessels.

Between January 2012 and December 2022, 118 patients who underwent LLR were retrospectively enrolled and their perioperative characteristics were evaluated.

A total of 10 cases (8.5%) were converted to open hepatectomy during LLR. The conversion group had lower platelet count, shorter distance between the tumor and a medium vessel (defined as diameter of 5-10 mm), and greater tumor depth compared with the pure LLR group. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified 10 mm as the optimal cutoff value of tumor proximity to a medium vessel (sensitivity, 80.0%, specificity, 78.7%, AUC 0.817) for predicting conversion. In multivariate analysis, lower platelet count (p = .028) and tumor proximity within 10 mm to a medium vessel (p = .001) were independent risk factors for conversion in LLR.

Our study suggests tumor proximity within 10 mm to a medium vessel and lower platelet count as predictors of unfavorable intraoperative conversion in LLR.

There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality.

A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915).

Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.

Resection of hepatic metastasis from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) improves quality of life and prolongs 5-year survival. Ablation can be utilized with surgery to achieve complete resection. Although several studies report long-term outcomes for patients undergoing ablation, none have explored perioperative effects of ablation in patients with metastatic NETs.

To determine if intra-operative ablation during hepatectomy increases risk of adverse outcomes such as surgical site infections (SSIs), bleeding, and bile leak.

A retrospective analysis of the hepatectomy National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2015-2019 was performed to determine the odds of SSIs, bile leaks, or bleeding in patients undergoing intraoperative ablation when compared to hepatectomy alone.

Of the 966 patients included in the study, 298 (30.9%) underwent ablation during hepatectomy. There were 78 (11.7%) patients with SSIs in the hepatectomy alone group and 39 (13.1%) patients with a SSIs in the hepatectomy with ablation group. Bile leak occurred in 41 (6.2%) and 14 (4.8%) patients in the two groups, respectively; bleeding occurred in 117 (17.5%) and 33 (11.1%), respectively. After controlling for confounding variables, ablation did not increase risk of SSI (P = 0.63), bile leak (P = 0.34) or bleeding (P = 0.07) when compared to patients undergoing resection alone on multivariate analysis.

Intraoperative ablation with hepatic resection for NETs is safe in the perioperative period without significant increased risk of infection, bleeding, or bile leak. Surgeons should utilize this modality when appropriate to achieve optimal disease control and outcomes.

The risk factors of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) requiring conversion to open surgery have not been adequately studied. This study aimed to determine the risk factors and postoperative outcomes of conversion in patients with ICC.

From May 2014 to September 2022, Unplanned conversions were compared with successful LLRs.

153 patients with ICC initially underwent LLR, of which 41 (26.8%) required conversion to open surgery. Multivariate analysis for those factors that were statistically significant or confirmed by clinical studies, tumor proximity to the major vessels (OR 6.643, P < 0.001), and previous upper abdominal surgery (OR 3.140, P = 0.040) were independent predictors of unplanned conversions. Compared to successful LLRs, unplanned conversions showed longer operative times (300.0 vs. 225.0 min, P < 0.001), more blood loss (500.0 vs. 200.0 mL, P < 0.001), higher transfusion rates (46.3% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001), longer length of stays (13.0 vs. 8.0 days, P < 0.001), and higher rates of major morbidity (39.0% vs. 11.6%, P < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day or 90-day mortality between the conversion group and the laparoscopic group.

Conversion during LLR should be anticipated in ICC patients with prior upper abdominal surgery or tumor proximity to major vessels as features.

Achieving textbook outcomes (TOs) improves the short-term and long-term performance of a hospital. Our objective was to assess TOs in the laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of tumors in the PS (posterosuperior) section of the liver and identify the impact of the learning curve. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analyzing patients who underwent LLR for lesions located in the PS segments. Patients were divided into a TO and no-TO group. TOs were defined as negative margins, no transfusion, no readmission, no major complications, no 30-day mortality, and a length of stay ≤ 50th percentile. Patients' outcomes were assessed in two study periods before and after 2015. TOs were achieved in 47.6% (n = 117). In multivariable analysis, obesity (p = 0.001), shorter operation time (p < 0.001), less blood loss (p < 0.001), normal albumin (p = 0.003), and minor resection (p = 0.046) were significantly associated with achieving TOs. Although the 5-year recurrence-free survival rate (p = 0.096) was not significantly different, the 5-year overall survival rate was significantly greater in the TO group (p = 0.001). Body mass index > 25 kg/m2 (p = 0.020), age > 65 years (p = 0.049), and achievement of TOs (p = 0.024) were independently associated with survival. The proportion of patients who achieved a TO was higher after 2015 than before 2015 (52.3% vs. 36.1%; p = 0.022). TOs are important markers not only for assessing hospital and surgeon performance but also as predictors of overall survival. As the number of surgeons who achieve the learning curve increases, the number of patients with TOs will gradually increase with a subsequent improvement in overall survival.

Unplanned conversion (UPC) is considered to be a predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. However, the effects of UPC on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes between patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and those who underwent UPC for HCC. Among 1029 patients with HCC who underwent hepatectomy between 2004 and 2021, 251 were eligible for the study. Of 251 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC in PS segments, 29 (26.0%) required UPC, and 222 underwent LLR. After 1:5 PSM, 25 patients were selected for the UPC group and 125 for the LLR group. Blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, and postoperative complication were higher in the UPC group. Regarding oncologic outcomes, although the 5-year overall survival rate was similar in both groups (p = 0.544), the recurrence-free survival rate was lower in the UPC group (p < 0.001). UPC was associated with poor short-term as well as inferior long-term outcomes compared with LLR for HCC in PS segments. Therefore, surgeons must carefully select patients and consider early conversion if unexpected bleeding occurs to maintain safety and oncologic outcomes.

The outcomes of liver surgery worldwide remain unknown. The true population-based outcomes are likely different to those vastly reported that reflect the activity of highly specialized academic centers. The aim of this study was to measure the true worldwide practice of liver surgery and associated outcomes by recruiting from centers across the globe. The geographic distribution of liver surgery activity and complexity was also evaluated to further understand variations in outcomes.

LiverGroup.org was an international, prospective, multicenter, cross-sectional study following the Global Surgery Collaborative Snapshot Research approach with a 3-month prospective, consecutive patient enrollment within January-December 2019. Each patient was followed up for 90 days postoperatively. All patients undergoing liver surgery at their respective centers were eligible for study inclusion. Basic demographics, patient and operation characteristics were collected. Morbidity was recorded according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications. Country-based and hospital-based data were collected, including the Human Development Index (HDI). (NCT03768141).

A total of 2159 patients were included from six continents. Surgery was performed for cancer in 1785 (83%) patients. Of all patients, 912 (42%) experienced a postoperative complication of any severity, while the major complication rate was 16% (341/2159). The overall 90-day mortality rate after liver surgery was 3.8% (82/2,159). The overall failure to rescue rate was 11% (82/ 722) ranging from 5 to 35% among the higher and lower HDI groups, respectively.

This is the first to our knowledge global surgery study specifically designed and conducted for specialized liver surgery. The authors identified failure to rescue as a significant potentially modifiable factor for mortality after liver surgery, mostly related to lower Human Development Index countries. Members of the LiverGroup.org network could now work together to develop quality improvement collaboratives.

Since laparoscopic anatomical resection (LAR) for tumors, especially located in the posterosuperior (PS) segments of the liver remains difficult, laparoscopic non-anatomical resection (LNAR) are generally preferred. To compare the clinical outcomes between LAR and LNAR for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in the PS segments.

We retrospectively reviewed the data for 1,029 patients who underwent hepatectomy for HCC between 2004 and 2019. Of 167 patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC in PS segments, 64 underwent LNAR and 103 underwent LAR. Patients were matched one-to-one using propensity score matching (46:46).

LNAR was associated with significantly shorter operation time (P=0.001), lower estimated blood loss (P=0.001), lower transfusion rate (P=0.006) and shorter hospital stay (P=0.012) than LAR. The respective 1- ,3-, and 5-year overall survival rates (LAR: 95.3%, 87.1%, and 77.8%; LNAR: 96.7%, 91.6%, and 85.0%; P=0.262) and recurrence-free survival rates (LAR: 75.7%, 70.3%, and 68.9%; LNAR: 81.8%, 58.3%, and 55.3%; P=0.879) were similar. The intrahepatic recurrence rate was significantly higher in LNAR group than in LAR group (78.6% vs. 57.1%, P=0.023), but the post-recurrence treatments differed significantly between the two groups (P=0.016); the re-resection rate was much greater in the LNAR group (45.0% vs. 0%) group. The respective 1-, 3-, and 5-year post-recurrence survival rates were similar in the LAR and LNAR groups (P=0.212). After recurrence, survival in re-resection group was significantly greater than not (P=0.026).

LNAR is safe and feasible for HCC located in PS segments, and provided acceptable oncologic outcomes that are comparable to those of LAR. LNAR can be considered for patient with tumor located in PS segment when LAR is not feasible.

To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).

Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.

A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].

This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection (MILR) are associated with favorable outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the implications of conversion to an open procedure on perioperative outcomes.

Patients who underwent MILR at 10 North American institutions were identified from the Americas Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) database. Outcomes of patients who required conversion were compared to those who did not. Additionally, outcomes after conversion due to unfavorable findings (poor visualization/access, lack of progress, disease extent) versus intraoperative events (bleeding, injury, cardiopulmonary instability) were compared.

Of 1675 patients who underwent MILR, 102 (6.1%) required conversion. Conversion rate ranged from 4.4% for left lateral sectionectomy to 10% for right hepatectomy. The primary reason for conversion was unfavorable findings in 67 patients (66%) and intraoperative adverse events in 35 patients (34%). By multivariable analysis, major resection, cirrhosis, prior liver surgery, and tumor proximity to major vessels were identified as risk factors for conversion (p < 0.05). Patients who required conversion had higher blood loss, transfusion requirements, operative time, and length of stay, (p < 0.05). They also had higher major complication rates (23% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (8.8% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.001). When compared to those who required conversion due to unfavorable findings, patients who required conversion due to intraoperative adverse events had significantly higher major complication rates (43% vs. 14%, p = 0.012) and 30-day mortality (20% vs. 3.0%, p = 0.007).

Conversion from MILR to open surgery is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Conversion due to intraoperative adverse events is rare but associated with significantly higher complication and mortality rates, while conversion due to unfavorable findings is associated with similar outcomes as planned open resection. High-risk patients may benefit from early conversion in a controlled fashion if difficulties are encountered or anticipated.

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become a widely used standardized operation for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the field of hepatic surgery. However, the risk factors and long-term implications associated with unplanned conversion to an open procedure during the LLR have not been adequately studied. Methods: The study incorporated 96 patients with HCC. Risk factors of conversion and their prognosis were analyzed by comparing patients who successfully underwent LLR with those who required unplanned conversion. Results: In this study, the unplanned conversion rate for laparoscopic hepatectomy was 42.7%. Patients who underwent conversion had longer length of stay (8 versus 7 days, P < .001), longer operation time (297.73 versus 194.03 minutes, P = .000), a higher transfusion rate (29.3% versus 5.5%, P < .001), and more postoperative complications compared with patients who successfully underwent LLR. The two surgical maneuvers did not show substantial disparities in terms of total survival and disease-free survival rates. Risk factors of unplanned conversion contained tumor location (odds ratio [OR], 3.129; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.214-8.066; P = 0.018) and tumor size (OR, 2.652; 95% CI: 1.039-6.767; P = 0.041). Conclusions: The unplanned conversion during LLR for HCC was linked to unfavorable short-term prognosis, yet it did not influence long-term oncologic outcomes. Moreover, preoperative evaluation of tumor size and location may effectively reduce the probability of unplanned conversion during LLR.

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) is known as a useful option. However, the outcome and predictor of conversion to HALS in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear.

Data from consecutive patients who planned pure LLR between 2011 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed and compared pure LLR, HALS, and converted open liver resection (OLR).

Among the 169 LLRs, conversion to HALS was performed in 19 (11.2%) and conversion to OLR in 16 (9.5%). The most frequent reasons for conversion to HALS were failure to progress (11 cases). Subsequently, bleeding (3 cases), severe adhesion (2 cases), and oncological factors (2 cases) were the reasons. In the multivariable analysis, the tumor located in segments 7 or 8 (p = 0.002) was evaluated as a predictor of conversion to HALS. Pure LLR and HALS were associated with less blood loss than conversion to OLR (p = 0.005 and p = 0.014, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in operation time, hospital stay, or severe complications.

The predictor of conversion to HALS was a tumor located in segments 7 or 8. The outcome of conversion to HALS was not inferior to pure LLR in terms of bleeding, operation time, hospital stay, or severe complication.

Many centers worldwide are shifting from laparoscopic to robotic minimally invasive hepato-pancreato-biliary resections (MIS-HPB) but large single center series assessing this process are lacking. We hypothesized that the introduction of robot-assisted surgery was safe and feasible in a high-volume center.

Single center, post-hoc assessment of prospectively collected data including all consecutive MIS-HPB resections (January 2010-February 2022). As of December 2018, all MIS pancreatoduodenectomy and liver resections were robot-assisted. All surgeons had participated in dedicated training programs for laparoscopic and robotic MIS-HPB. Primary outcomes were in-hospital/30-day mortality and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications.

Among 1875 pancreatic and liver resections, 600 (32%) were MIS-HPB resections. The overall rate of conversion was 4.3%, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3 complications 25.7%, and in-hospital/30-day mortality 1.8% (n = 11). When comparing the period before and after the introduction of robotic MIS-HPB (Dec 2018), the overall use of MIS-HPB increased from 25.3 to 43.8% (P < 0.001) and blood loss decreased from 250 ml [IQR 100-500] to 150 ml [IQR 50-300] (P < 0.001). The 291 MIS pancreatic resections included 163 MIS pancreatoduodenectomies (52 laparoscopic, 111 robotic) with 4.3% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with reduced operation time (450 vs 361 min; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (350 vs 200 ml; P < 0.001), and a decreased rate of delayed gastric emptying (28.8% vs 9.9%; P = 0.009). The 309 MIS liver resections included 198 laparoscopic and 111 robotic procedures with a 3.6% conversion rate. The implementation of robotic liver resection was associated with less overall complications (24.7% vs 10.8%; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (4 vs 3 days; P < 0.001).

The introduction of robotic surgery was associated with greater implementation of MIS-HPB in up to nearly half of all pancreatic and liver resections. Although mortality and major morbidity were not affected, robotic surgery was associated with improvements in some selected outcomes. Ultimately, randomized studies and high-quality registries should determine its added value.

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now widely adopted for the treatment of liver tumors due to its minimally invasive advantages. However, multicenter, large-sample population-based laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) has rarely been reported. We aimed to assess the advantages and drawbacks of right posterior sectionectomy compared with laparoscopic and open surgery by meta-analysis.

Relevant literature was searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science databases up to September 12, 2021. Quality assessment was performed based on a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The data were analyzed by Review Manager 5.3. The data were calculated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for fixed-effects and random-effects models.

The meta-analysis included seven studies involving 739 patients. Compared with open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS), the LRPS group had lower intraoperative blood loss (MD - 135.45; 95%CI - 170.61 to - 100.30; P < 0.00001) and shorter postoperative hospital stays (MD - 2.17; 95% CI - 3.03 to - 1.31; P < 0.00001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between LRPS and ORPS regarding operative time (MD 44.97; P = 0.11), pedicle clamping (OR 0.65; P = 0.44), clamping time (MD 2.72; P = 0.31), transfusion rate (OR 1.95; P = 0.25), tumor size (MD - 0.16; P = 0.13), resection margin (MD 0.08; P = 0.63), R0 resection (OR 1.49; P = 0.35), recurrence rate (OR 2.06; P = 0.20), 5-year overall survival (OR 1.44; P = 0.45), and 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.07; P = 0.88). Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative complications (P = 0.08), bile leakage (P = 0.60), ascites (P = 0.08), incisional infection (P = 0.09), postoperative bleeding (P = 0.56), and pleural effusion (P = 0.77).

LRPS has an advantage in the length of hospital stay and blood loss. LRPS is a very useful technology and feasible choice in patients with the right posterior hepatic lobe tumor.

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are among the most common complications after liver resection. Although the application of laparoscopy has reduced the incidence of PPCs, the rate of PPCs after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) remains high and the risk factors for the same are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the risk factors for PPCs after LLR.

In this multicenter study, 296 patients underwent LLR from January 2019 to December 2020. Demographic data, pathological variables, and perioperative variables were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the independent risk factors for PPCs.

Of the 296 patients, 80 (27.0%) developed PPCs. Patients with PPCs had significantly increased total costs, operation costs, length of stays, and postoperative hospital stays. Multivariate analysis identified three independent risk factors for PPCs after LLR: smoking [Odds ratio (OR): 5.413, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.446-11.978, P =  < 0.001], location of lesion in segment 7 or 8 (OR 3.134, 95% CI 1.593-6.166, P = 0.001), duration of liver ischemia (OR 1.038, 95% CI 1.022-1.054, P < 0.001), and presence of intraoperative hypothermia (OR 3.134, 95% CI 1.593-6.166, P < 0.001).

Smoking, location of lesion in segment 7 or 8, duration of liver ischemia and intraoperative hypothermia were independent risk factors for PPCs which significantly increased the length of stays and burden of healthcare costs.

Since the introduction of laparoscopy for liver resection in the 1990s, the performance of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been steadily increasing. However, there is currently no data on the extent to which laparoscopy is used for liver resection. Herein, we investigated the extent to which laparoscopy is performed in liver resection and sought to determine whether surgeons prefer laparoscopy or laparotomy in the posterosuperior (PS) segment.

For this retrospective observational study, we enrolled patients who had undergone liver resection at the Samsung Medical Center between January 2020 and December 2021. The proportion of LLR in liver resection was calculated, and the incidence and causes of open conversion were investigated.

A total of 1,095 patients were included in this study. LLR accounted for 79% of the total liver resections. The percentage of previous hepatectomy (16.2% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001) and maximum tumor size (median 4.8 vs. 2.8, P<0.001) were higher in the open liver resection (OLR) group. Subgroup analysis revealed that tumor size (median 6.3 vs. 2.9, P<0.001) and surgical extent (P<0.001) in the OLR group were larger than those in the LLR group. The most common cause of open conversion (OC) was adhesion (57%), and all OC patients had tumors in the PS.

We investigated the recent preference of practical surgeons in liver resection, and found that surgeons preferred OLR to LLR when treating a large tumor located in the PS.