Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundWe compared surgical outcomes, with a focus on tumor characteristics, of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) and open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) to identify recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases where the LRH procedure would be more favorable than ORH.MethodsEighty-one HCC patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy in our hospital from 2008 to 2019 were retrospectively analyzed in this study. Of these patients, 30 and 51 patients underwent LRH and ORH, respectively. We analyzed surgical outcomes of LRH and ORH, focusing on tumor characteristics such as tumor size, location, distance from major vessels, and contralateral or ipsilateral tumor recurrence to determine what factors could affect surgical outcomes. Subsequently, using a propensity-matched cohort, we compared the impact of those factors on LRH and ORH outcomes.ResultsIn the entire cohort, the LRH operation time was significantly shorter in contralateral recurrent HCC cases than in ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (252 vs. 398 min, P = 0.008); however, such a difference was not observed in the ORH operation time. We subsequently compared the surgical outcomes, in terms of the location of tumor recurrence, between the LRH and ORH groups in a propensity-matched cohort. In total, 23 patients were included in each of these groups. We found that the LRH procedure had significantly shorter operative time than the ORH procedure in the contralateral recurrent HCC cases (253 vs. 391 min, P = 0.018); however, we did not observe such a difference in the ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases (372 vs. 333 min, P = 0.669). LRH had lower blood loss, similar postoperative complications and shorter hospital stay than ORH in both contralateral and ipsilateral recurrent HCC cases.ConclusionsLRH is likely considered a more favorable approach than ORH in treating patients with contralateral recurrent HCC.

Background Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has increased, but appropriate indications for LRH are unclear. This study aimed to clarify appropriate indications for LRH. Methods We retrospectively compared surgical outcomes between open RH (ORH) (n = 57) and LRH (n = 40) groups. To detect difficult cases of complete pure LRH, we examined patients with unplanned intraoperative hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS)/open conversion (n = 6). Results In the LRH versus ORH group, as previous hepatectomy, laparoscopic (75% vs. 12%, p < 0.001) and partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (73% vs. 37%, p = 0.002) were more frequently performed, and as RH procedure, partial hepatectomy (Hr0) (88% vs. 47%, p = 0.0002) was more frequently performed. S1 tumor cases were higher in ORH group (11% vs. 0%), but S2-6 cases were higher in LRH group (73% vs. 49%) (p = 0.02). In LRH group, compared to the pure LRH patients, HALS/open conversion patients underwent significantly more previous hepatectomy with more than lobectomy (Hr2-3) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.033) and more RH procedures with segmentectomy (HrS) (33% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.03). All LRH requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach were HALS conversions. Conclusion Appropriate indications for LRH were previous hepatectomy was laparoscopic partial hepatectomy (Hr0), and RH procedure was partial hepatectomy (Hr0) for S2-6 tumor location. When RH is more than segmentectomy (HrS) requiring a repeat hepatic hilar approach, planned HALS or ORH may be a better approach than pure LRH.

Repeat hepatectomy is increasingly performed for the management of recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term functional liver volume (FLV) after a second hepatic procedure and to measure survival outcome. In this retrospective cohort study, patients treated for recurrent CRLM in the years 2005-2015 at two liver centers were included. Total FLV was calculated before the first procedure and before and after the second procedure. Overall survival was calculated. Eighty-two patients were identified. The median follow-up was 53 (40-71) months from the first procedure. The median interval between first and second procedure was 13 (8-22) months. The initial FLV was 1584 (1313-1927) mL. The FLV was 1438 (1204-1896) mL after the first procedure and 1470 (1172-1699) mL after the second procedure ( <0.001). After the second procedure, a total of ten patients (12%) had a residual liver volume of less than 75% of the initial liver volume. The 5-year overall survival was 37 (26-54)% after the second procedure. Small changes in FLV were found after two hepatic procedures but with considerable inter-individual variation. Patients selected for a repeated hepatic procedure for recurrent CRLM had an acceptable survival.

BackgroundRepeat hepatectomy is often required for hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic tumors. However, this procedure is technically challenging, so laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) has not been widely adopted. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of LRH compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy (LPH).MethodsWe introduced laparoscopic hepatectomy at our institution in April 2014. We performed 127 LPH (LPH group) and 33 LRH procedures (LRH group) from April 2014 to April 2017; 37 patients underwent ORH from January 2010 to April 2017 (ORH group). This study retrospectively compared the patient characteristics and short-term outcomes of the LRH and ORH groups as well as the LRH and LPH groups.ResultsThere were no conversions to open surgery in the LRH group. In comparing the LRH and ORH groups, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics except for the type of approach to the previous hepatectomy (p = 0.004) and indocyanine green retention rate at 15 min (median 12.5 vs. 8.75%, p = 0.026). The LRH group had less blood loss (median 30 mL vs. 652 mL; p < 0.001), less intraoperative transfusion (6.1 vs. 32.4%; p = 0.006), and shorter postoperative hospital stays (median 6.5 days vs. 9.0 days; p < 0.001). There were no differences with regard to operation time, severe postoperative complications, and mortality. In comparing the LRH and LPH groups, there was a significant difference only in past history of abdominal surgery (100 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.001). In the short-term outcomes, the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median 6.5 days vs. 7 days; p = 0.033), and the other results were comparable between the two groups.ConclusionsLRH is feasible and useful for repeat hepatectomy, achieving good short-term outcomes.

Resected colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) frequently recur intrahepatically. Selection criteria for repeat hepatectomy of recurrent CRLM are ill-defined. We performed an institutional review of patients with recurrent CRLM undergoing repeat hepatectomy from 2003 to 19. Post-recurrence overall (rOS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. n = 147 experienced recurrent CRLM; 11% (n = 38) received repeat hepatectomy of which there was one Clavien-Dindo IIIa complication. Median rOS was 41 months; median RFS was 9 months. Improved rOS and RFS were independently associated with additional post-operative chemotherapy after repeat hepatectomy (HR 0.35 and 0.34, respectively); poor rOS with recurrent CRLM >3 cm (HR 4.4) and <12 months from first hepatectomy to recurrence (HR 4.8); poor RFS with ≥3 recurrence liver metastases (HR 2.8) (All P < 0.05). Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM can be performed safely. Worse survival following repeat hepatectomy is independently associated with >3 cm and ≥3 liver lesions at recurrence, and <12 months to recurrence. Additional post-operative chemotherapy after repeat hepatectomy is associated with improved outcomes. •Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM can be performed with low morbidity.•Post repeat resection chemotherapy should be considered to lower risk of recurrence.•Poor outcomes after repeat hepatectomy with >3 cm or ≥3 liver lesions at recurrence.•Poor outcomes after repeat hepatectomy with <12mos from 1st resection to recurrence.

It has been known that repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (RLH) after open hepatectomy is technically challenging because of adhesions around the hilum. It is quite often that conventional tourniquet technique for the Pringle maneuver is difficult in RLH, and we introduced Laparoscopic Satinsky Vascular Clamp (LSVC) for inflow control in RLH. The Spiegel lobe is the anatomical landmark in LSVC technique. If a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament and the Spiegel lobe was obtained, LSVC was applied laterally from the left side of the hepatoduodenal ligament, whereas LSVC was vertically applied for those with obstruction of a space behind the hepatoduodenal ligament. We performed 14 cases of RLH for those with histories of open hepatectomies by lateral (n = 6) and vertical (n = 8) LSVC technique with successful inflow control, confirmed by intraoperative Doppler ultrasound. Five patients underwent 2 or more previous histories of hepatectomies. The RLH included segmentectomy (n = 1), subsegmentectomy (n = 2) and partial hepatectomy (n = 11). The median time for the Pringle maneuver, operative time, and blood loss was 47 min, 237.5 min, and 160 mL. All the patients completed pure laparoscopic hepatectomy. In conclusion, LSVC technique is a safe and reliable technique for the Pringle maneuver in RLH.

BackgroundLaparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons especially in case with previous open liver surgery. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current literature to investigate the feasibility of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) for liver diseases.MethodsA computerized search was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the short-term outcomes in comparative studies between LRLR with previous laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and OLR.ResultsFrom the initial 55 manuscripts, 8 studies including 3 comparative studies between LRLR after OLR and LLR were investigated. There was a total of 108 patients. Considering initial surgery, the extent of initial liver resection was major liver resection in 20% of patients in whom it was reported. In all the patients, the most frequent primary histology was hepatocellular carcinoma, followed by colorectal liver metastasis. A half of reported patients had severe adhesions at the time of LRLR. The median operative time for LRLR was ranged from 120 to 413 min and the median blood loss ranged from 100 to 400 mL. There were 11% of the patients conversions to open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, or tumor ablation. The overall postoperative morbidity was 15% of all the patients, and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was ranged from 3.5 to 10 days. The meta-analysis shows that LRLR after OLR is associated with a longer operative time and a more important blood loss compared to LRLR after LLR. However, no difference between LRLR after OLR and LLR was shown as far as hospital stay and morbidity rate are concerned.ConclusionsLRLR after OLR has been described in eight articles with favorable short-term outcomes in highly selected patients.

Objective This study assessed predictors of survival after repeat hepatectomy and the feasibility of a repeat hepatectomy after a major hepatectomy in the patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Background More than half of all patients who receive a curative initial hepatectomy for CLM develop hepatic recurrence, and aggressive indications for a repeat hepatectomy can improve the outcome in selected patients. However, the feasibility of repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy remains uncertain, and optimal selection criteria for repeat hepatectomy have not yet been established. Methods Data were collected retrospectively on 296 CLM patients who underwent an initial curative hepatectomy between 2007 and 2017 at our institution. The postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing a repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy were assessed, and independent predictors of survival were investigated. Results After a median follow-up period of 32 months, 247 patients (83%) developed disease recurrence and 122 patients (49%) underwent repeat hepatectomy. The 5-year overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in patients who underwent a repeat hepatectomy than in those who did not receive repeat hepatectomy (51% vs. 19%, respectively; P  < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, an extrahepatic lesion at the time of the repeat hepatectomy (HR, 2.49; P  = 0.001) and 5 or more liver tumors at the time of recurrence (HR, 1.88; P  = 0.04) remained as independent factors negatively affecting OS after repeat hepatectomy. The type of operative procedure and the intraoperative and postoperative factors at the time of the initial hepatectomy did not have any significant influence on the OS after repeat hepatectomy. No significant difference in OS was found between patients who received repeat hepatectomy after major hepatectomy ( n  = 43) and those after non-major hepatectomy ( n  = 79). Conclusions The operative procedure and the liver tumor status at the time of the initial hepatectomy have little impact on the indications for a repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CLM. Repeat hepatectomy is feasible even if major hepatectomy was initially performed.

Purpose Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) patients with early recurrence usually suffer a poorer prognosis than those with late recurrence. We aimed to compare the treatment efficacy of repeat hepatectomy (RH) and percutaneous ablation (PA) in early-stage rHCC patients with early or late recurrence. Methods This retrospective study enrolled 268 patients diagnosed with early-stage rHCC who received RH and PA. Overall survival (OS) and repeat recurrence-free survival (rRFS) were compared using log-rank analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the confounding bias. Results Among the 268 patients with early-stage rHCC, 79 underwent RH and 189 underwent PA. Early (n = 174) and late (n = 94) recurrence was defined as recurrence within and after 2 years following initial hepatectomy, respectively. For patients with early recurrence, RH and PA provided similar 5-year OS (71.5% versus 74.4%, P = 0.87) and rRFS rates (24.7% versus 24.9%, P = 0.73). For patients with late recurrence, RH resulted in comparable 5-year OS (73.1% versus 86.1%, P = 0.62) and rRFS rates (36.6% versus 27.8%, P = 0.34) as PA. After PSM, RH continued to share similar 5-year OS and rRFS rates with PA in patients with early recurrence, and comparable efficacy of RH and PA was also observed in patients with late recurrence. Conclusion RH can offer comparable OS and rRFS rates as PA for early-stage rHCC patients, regardless of whether they experience early or late recurrence. Therefore, both RH and PA are feasible treatment options for early-stage rHCC patients.