Surgical management of colorectal disease and liver metastatectomy can be staged or synchronous. A minimally invasive approach in synchronous resection in the selected group of patients may improve postoperative outcomes. The present study aimed to explore the safety and feasibility of simultaneous liver and colorectal resection for synchronous metastasis by a minimally invasive approach in terms of major morbidity and R0 resection rates. The present study is a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. All patients who underwent minimally invasive simultaneous resection of colorectal malignancy and liver metastases between January 2020 and April 2023 were included. A total of 39 patients were included in the study. The median age was 54 (23-79) years with 28 male (72%) and 11 female (28%) patients. Rectum (n = 21, 54%) was the most common primary location. The most commonly performed procedures were low anterior resection (n = 12) and parenchymal sparing non-anatomical resection (n = 23, 59%). The median surgery duration was 280 (150-520) min, and the median blood loss was 400 (50-2100) ml. The median hospital stay was 7 (5-18) days. Five (12.6%) patients had major complications. With a median follow-up of 12 months, the 2-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 84.6% and 37%, respectively. Simultaneous liver and colorectal resection by minimal access approach is feasible in selected groups of patients depending on the extent of hepatectomy, the patient's general condition, and surgical team experience. A minimal access approach leads to faster recovery without compromising on the oncological radicality.

Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) are rare tumors with a recent growing incidence. In the 2017 WHO classification, p-NETs are classified into well-differentiated (i.e., p-NETs grade 1 to 3) and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (i.e., p-NECs). P-NETs G1 and G2 are often non-functioning tumors, of which the prognosis depends on the metastatic status. In the localized setting, p-NETs should be surgically managed, as no benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy has been demonstrated. Parenchymal sparing resection, including both duodenum and pancreas, are safe procedures in selected patients with reduced endocrine and exocrine long-term dysfunction. When the p-NET is benign or borderline malignant, this surgical option is associated with low rates of severe postoperative morbidity and in-hospital mortality. This narrative review offers comments, tips, and tricks from reviewing the available literature on these different options in order to clarify their indications. We also sum up the overall current data on p-NETs G1 and G2 management.

Compared to open surgery, minimally invasive liver resection has improved short term outcomes. It is however technically more challenging. Navigated image guidance systems (IGS) are being developed to overcome these challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of their current capabilities and limitations.

Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched using free text terms and corresponding controlled vocabulary. Titles and abstracts of retrieved articles were screened for inclusion criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of the retrieved data it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Therefore results are presented in tabulated and narrative format.

Out of 2015 articles, 17 pre-clinical and 33 clinical papers met inclusion criteria. Data from 24 articles that reported on accuracy indicates that in recent years navigation accuracy has been in the range of 8-15 mm. Due to discrepancies in evaluation methods it is difficult to compare accuracy metrics between different systems. Surgeon feedback suggests that current state of the art IGS may be useful as a supplementary navigation tool, especially in small liver lesions that are difficult to locate. They are however not able to reliably localise all relevant anatomical structures. Only one article investigated IGS impact on clinical outcomes.

Further improvements in navigation accuracy are needed to enable reliable visualisation of tumour margins with the precision required for oncological resections. To enhance comparability between different IGS it is crucial to find a consensus on the assessment of navigation accuracy as a minimum reporting standard.

For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM.

To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM.

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis.

Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM.

In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery.

Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups.

Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.

To assess long-term oncologic outcomes of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases as compared to a propensity-matched cohort of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). Although safety and short-term outcomes of RLR have been described and previously compared to LLR, long-term and oncologic data are lacking.

A retrospective study was performed of all patients who underwent RLR and LLR for CRC metastases at six high-volume centers in the USA and Europe between 2002 and 2017. Propensity matching was used to match baseline characteristics between the two groups. Data were analyzed with a focus on postoperative and oncologic outcomes, as well as long-term recurrence and survival.

RLR was performed in 115 patients, and 514 patients underwent LLR. Following propensity matching 115 patients in each cohort were compared. Perioperative outcomes including mortality, morbidity, reoperation, readmission, intensive care requirement, length-of-stay and margin status were not statistically different. Both prematching and postmatching analyses demonstrated similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) between RLR and LLR at 5 years (61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.87, and 38 vs. 31% DFS, p = 0.25, prematching; 61 vs. 60% OS, p = 0.78, and 38 vs. 44% DFS, p = 0.62, postmatching).

Propensity score matching with a large, multicenter database demonstrates that RLR for colorectal metastases is feasible and safe, with perioperative and long-term oncologic outcomes and survival that are largely comparable to LLR.

The present study aimed to evaluate the short- and mid-term outcomes of laparoscopic colon-first staged resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM).

This study included patients with metastatic CRC who underwent laparoscopic surgical staged resection for the primary tumor and CRCLM between June 2013 and December 2018. Data collection included the baseline patient's and tumor features, the perioperative and histopathologic outcomes from both surgical procedures, and the oncologic follow-up.

Twenty-five patients were eligible for the study. Three major and 22 minor laparoscopic liver resections were performed following laparoscopic CRC surgery. Five patients required conversion to laparotomy during CRCLM resection, but no conversion was needed for the colorectal procedures. The rate of severe intraoperative complications (CLASSIC grade III-IV) was 8% and 16% during CRC and CRCLM resection, respectively. Three patients (12%) developed major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade > III) after both interventions, including one death due to intraoperative bleeding. During a median follow-up of 30 months, 15 patients were diagnosed with disease recurrence. The 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival were 33.3% and 73.9%, respectively.

Laparoscopic staged resection for CRC and CRCLM is safe, feasible, and offers acceptable midterm oncological outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

To improve patient safety, we standardized our surgical technique and implemented a stepwise strategy for surgeons learning to perform laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). The aim of the study is to describe how the stepwise training approach and standardized LLR affects surgical outcomes.

Data from 272 consecutive patients who underwent LLR from January 2009 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) of surgical failures (conversion to laparotomy, blood transfusion, or Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and the CUSUM of operative time were used to determine optimal number of operations needed to achieve the best surgical outcome.

As the surgeon moved from simple to complex procedures, the complication rates, need for transfusions, and conversion rates did not increase over time. After 53 cases of minor LLR, a learning curve of 21 cases was achieved for right hepatectomy. Blood loss and operative time significantly improved thereafter. For minor anterolateral and posterosuperior segment resections, blood loss, and operative time significantly improved at the 37th and 31st case, respectively, given that the anterolateral segments had more complex surgeries performed.

Standardization of the operative technique and the implementation of a stepwise approach to training surgeons to perform LLRs could considerably improve surgical outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been increasingly performed in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from specialized centers in Asia, Europe and USA. Data from South America are limited and based on single-center experiences. To date, no multicenter studies evaluated the results of LLR in South America. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience and results with LLR in South American centers.

From February to November 2019, a survey about LLR was conducted in 61 hepatobiliary centers in South America, composed by 20 questions concerning demographic characteristics, surgical data, and perioperative results.

Fifty-one (83.6%) centers from seven different countries answered the survey. A total of 2887 LLR were performed, as follows: Argentina (928), Brazil (1326), Chile (322), Colombia (210), Paraguay (9), Peru (75), and Uruguay (8). The first program began in 1997; however, the majority (60.7%) started after 2010. The percentage of LLR over open resections was 28.4% (4.4-84%). Of the total, 76.5% were minor hepatectomies and 23.5% major, including 266 right hepatectomies and 343 left hepatectomies. The conversion rate was 9.7%, overall morbidity 13%, and mortality 0.7%.

This is the largest study assessing the dissemination and results of LLR in South America. It showed an increasing number of centers performing LLR with the promising perioperative results, aligned with other worldwide excellence centers.

Despite the fact laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for cholangiocarcinoma is still limited, this systematic review addressed surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR to treat both perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). Five comparative and 20 noncomparative studies were found. Regarding iCCA, LLR had lower blood loss and less need for Pringle maneuver. However, open liver resections (OLR) were performed more for major hepatectomies, with better lymphadenectomy rates and higher number of harvested lymph nodes. High heterogeneity and selection bias were suggested for iCCA studies.

Robotic surgery is thought to have a role in widening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Nonetheless, data concerning surgical results for liver malignancies are presently still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncological outcomes of ultrasound guided robotic liver resections for hepatic malignancies.

All consecutive patients who received robotic resection of primary and secondary liver malignancies from September 2008 to January 2017 were analyzed. The same surgical team performed all procedures following the principle of parenchymal-sparing surgery.

From a total of 51 patients, 13 patients (25%) underwent major and 38 (75%) minor hepatectomy. No mortality occurred. Two procedures were converted to open surgery. Five patients experienced major complications, with a reintervention rate of 6%. Median hospital stay was 5 days.

Robotic surgery is a safe and feasible procedure for liver resection even when dealing with malignancies. Our data show that robotic surgery can be considered a valid option to treat patients with liver malignancies in a minimally invasive manner, without compromise the oncological results.

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years. However, evidence-based guidelines are needed for its safe future progression. The main aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

To identify all the comparative manuscripts between laparoscopic and open liver resections for CRLM, all published English language studies with more than ten cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, 3 specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients undergoing minor-only, major-only and synchronous resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and Newcastle-Ottawa Score.

From the initial 194 manuscripts identified, 21 were meta-analysed, including results from the first randomized trial comparing open and laparoscopic resections of CRLM. Five of these were specific to patients undergoing a synchronous resection (399 cases), while six focused on minor (3 series including 226 cases) and major (3 series including 135 cases) resections, respectively. Thirteen manuscripts compared 2543 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above sub-analyses, so were analysed independently. The majority of short-term outcomes were favourable to the laparoscopic approach with equivalent rates of negative resection margins. No differences were observed between the approaches in overall or disease-free survival at 1, 3 or 5 years.

Laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM offers improved short-term outcomes with comparable long-term outcomes when compared to open approach.

In this study, we aim to assess the impact of tumor size on clinical and oncological outcomes in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

LLR has been shown to be feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient. However, it has been slow to develop in patients with HCC who often suffer from chronic liver disease which represents an additional challenge for the surgeon. The experience with large HCCs is even more limited.

Between 2003 and 2016, 172 patients from two high-volume liver surgery centers underwent LLR for HCC. Prospectively collected data were analyzed after stratification in 3 groups according to tumor major diameter (group 1: < 3 cm; group 2: between 3 and 5 cm; group 3: ≥ 5 cm). Perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the three groups and sub-analyses were carried out on the extent and location of the resections.

Groups 1, 2, and 3 consisted of 82, 52, and 38 patients, respectively. Minor and major resections were performed in 98.8% and 1.2% in group 1, in 90.4% and 9.6% in group 2, and in 68.4% and 31.6% in group 3, respectively. Postero-superior "technically major" resections were performed in 15.8% patients in group 1, in 19.2% in group 2, and in 15.8% in group 3, respectively. Group 3 had higher conversion rates (p < 0.001), more frequent (p = 0.056) and more prolonged (p = 0,075) pedicle clamping and longer operative time (p < 0.001), higher blood losses (p = 0.025), and longer total hospital and intensive care unit stays. These differences ceased after removing the major resections from the study population, except for the postoperative length of stay. There were no differences in morbidity, mortality, completeness of resection rates, and long-term outcomes between the three groups.

LLR for HCC appears to be safe and oncologically efficient when performed in high-volume HPB and laparoscopic centers. Tumor size does not appear to impact negatively on the outcomes except for postoperative hospital stay.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and gallbladder cancer (GC) are relatively uncommon indications for minimal invasiveness, mainly due to the technical complexity required for a laparoscopic loco-regional lymphadenectomy. The aim of this presentation is to provide a step-by-step overview for the technical approach to laparoscopic lymphadenectomy of the hepatic pedicle and parenchymal transection.

Two cases of an ICC and a GC are shown. Patients were placed supine in the modified French position. One optic port was inserted through open access and four more operative trocars were placed under direct vision in a standardized fashion. Lymphadenectomy of the common hepatic artery (station 8) and of the hepato-duodenal ligament for proper hepatic artery, common bile duct, and portal vein (stations 12A, 12B, and 12P, respectively) is shown. Parenchymal transection is depicted using alternation of an energy device with an ultrasonic aspirator, while intrahepatic vascular structures are sealed with bypolar forceps, clips, or stapled according to dimension.

In the first case operative time was 210 minutes, lymphadenectomy time (LT) 40 minutes, and estimated blood loss (EBL) 200 mL. Final pathology was consistent with ICC pT2N1(1/7)M0. In the second case, operative time was 180 minutes, LT 35 minutes, and EBL 150 mL. Final pathology reported gallbladder adenocarcinoma pT2N0(0/7)M0. Postoperative courses were uneventful; drains were removed on postoperative day (POD) 2. Patients were discharged on POD 3.

Overcoming the technical limitation embodied by the need of performing an appropriate lymphadenectomy represents the milestone for having patients affected by primary biliary tumors of the liver enrolled to laparoscopy; therefore, this subgroup of patients can benefit from the advantages offered by minimal invasiveness. The leading assumption, however, remains the requirement of performing an oncologically adequate lymph nodal dissection.

To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) by the means of meta-analytical techniques. We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science databases, collecting randomized or non-randomized studies about robotic-assisted and laparoscopic liver resections. The searching cutoff date was 2017/6/30, all the data obtained were statistically analyzed using RevMan5.3 software recommended by Cochrane Collaboration. A total of thirteen articles, involving 938 patients were enrolled in meta-analysis. Among them, 435 cases underwent RLR, and 503 cases underwent LLR. Compared with LLR, the RLR had longer operative time [MD=65.49, 95%CI (42.00, 88.98) P＜0.00001＝more intraoperative blood loss [MD=69.88, 95%CI (27.11, 112.65) P=0.001] and a higher cost [MD=4.24, 95%CI (3.08, 5.39) P＜0.00001＝. There were no significant differences between the two groups in transfusion rate, complication rate, conversion rate, the R1 resection rate and hospital stay. In the subgroup analysis of surgery after 2010, a lower conversion rate was observed in RLR, other clinical outcomes are comparable between RLR and LLR. In the subgroup analysis of minor hepatectomy, RLR is still associated with longer operative time, but there is no difference in other outcomes. In the subgroup analysis of left hemihepatectomy or left lateral hepatectomy, RLR is associated with more blood loss. Although RLR associated with Longer operative time and more intraoperative blood loss, it displays the same safety and effectiveness as LLR for hepatectomies. And the high cost is still a major hindrance for the widely application of robotic surgery.

Presently, the adoption of laparoscopic hepatectomy is rapidly increasingly worldwide. However, the application of robotic hepatectomy (RH) remains limited and its role remains undefined today.

A retrospective review of 43 consecutive patients who underwent RH at two institutions in the Singapore Health Services Group.

Forty-three consecutive patients underwent 48 resections during the study period. Seven (16.3%) patients underwent major resections and seven (16.3%) underwent right posterior sectionectomies. Nineteen (44.2%) patients had tumours located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, five had multiple resections and three underwent repeat resections for recurrent tumours. RH was performed for malignant tumours in 32 (74%) patients and 16 (37.2%) had cirrhosis. Seven RH was performed with other concomitant procedures including three colectomies, three hilar lymphadenectomies and one portal vein ligation. The median operation time was 360 min (range 75-825) and the median blood loss was 300 mL (range 25-4500). There was one (2.3%) open conversion for bleeding. The median post-operative stay was 4 days (range 2-33) and there was one (2.3%) readmission. There was one (2.3%) major (>grade 2 morbidity) in a patient with concomitant anterior resection who underwent reoperation for anastomotic leak. There was no 90 day/in-hospital mortality. Comparison between RH for tumours in the anterolateral segments versus posterosuperior segments demonstrated no significant difference in perioperative outcomes.

Our initial experience demonstrated that RH is safe, feasible and associated with excellent post-operative outcomes. It can be performed successfully with low morbidity even for complex resections such as major hepatectomies, posterior sectionectomies, tumours in difficult posterosuperior segments and repeat liver resections.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) represent the variability of almost benign lesions either secreting hormones occurring as a single lesion up to malignant lesions with metastatic potential. Treatment of NET is usually performed by surgical resection. Due to the rarity of NET, surgical treatment is mainly based on the experience and recommendations of experts and less on the basis of prospective randomized studies. In addition, the development and establishment of new surgical procedures is made more difficult by their rarity. The development of laparoscopic-assisted surgery has significantly improved the treatment of many diseases. Due to the well-known advantages of laparoscopic surgery, this method has also been increasingly used to treat NET. However, due to limited comparative data, the assumed superiority of laparoscopic surgery in the area NET remains often unclear or not yet proven. This review focuses on the present usage of laparoscopic techniques in the area of NET. Relating to the current literature, this review presents the evidence of various laparoscopic procedures for treatment of adrenal, pancreatic and intestine NET as well as extraadrenal pheochromocytoma and neuroendocrine liver metastases. Further, this review focuses on recent new developments of minimally invasive surgery in the area of NET. Here, robotic-assisted surgery and single-port surgery are promising approaches.

Right posterior sectionectomy is one of the most technically challenging laparoscopic liver resections. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility.

To report our experience, results and techniques, highlighting a variety of tips and tricks to facilitate this resection. A video is attached for technical demonstration.

Retrospective review of prospectively maintained databases from June 2006 to June 2016. Three different techniques were used: resection following hilar inflow control, inflow control at Rouviere's sulcus and resection with intra parenchymal control.

29 LRPS were performed over a 10-year period. Median operative time was 240 min (150-480). Pringle's manoeuvre was performed in 19 (65.5%) with a median total duration of 35 (20-75) min. Median perioperative blood loss was 600 (100-2500) ml. Additional liver resections were performed in 16 (55.1%). There were two(6.9%) laparoscopic to open conversions. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 (2-30) days. The median size of the tumour resected was 25 (10-54) mm with median number of resected lesions were 2 (1-4), median free resection margin was 9.5 (1-45) mm, margins were infiltrated (R1) in two (6.7%) cases. There was one death within 30-days (3.4%).

LRPS is feasible, efficient and safe. However, it is a technically challenging procedure and requires advance skills in liver and laparoscopic surgery. Surgeons should be familiar with a variety of approaches as each offers different advantages depending on the location and nature of the lesion, surgical preference and intraoperative findings.

Laparoscopic liver resections for lesions in the postero-superior segments are technically demanding due their deep location and relation with the vena cava. However, previous reports have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of these resections in centres with advanced experience in laparoscopic liver surgery. In this case series, we present our results and experience of laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resections of lesions in segment 8.

All patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resections of segment 8 lesions, alone or combined with other liver resections, between August 2003 and July 2016 were included. Analysis of baseline characteristics and perioperative results was performed for the whole cohort. A separate subgroup analysis was performed for isolated segment 8 resections. Long-term results were analyzed in patients with colorectal liver metastases. A video is attached for thorough explanation of surgical technique.

A total of 30 patients were included. Among them, 13 patients had isolated segment 8 resections. Operative time for the whole cohort and isolated segment 8 resections were 210 min (range 180-247 min) and 200 min (range 90-300 min), respectively. The conversion rate was 3.4% for the entire cohort and 0 for isolated segment 8 resections. Major morbidity was 7 and 0%, respectively. R0 rates were 96% for the entire cohort and 92% for isolated segment 8 resections. Recurrence free survival in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup was 82, 71 and 54% at 1, 3 and 5 years. Overall survival was 94, 82 and 65% at 1, 3 and 5 years.

Laparoscopic resection of lesions in segment 8 is feasible and offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery with parenchyma sparing resections. However, advanced experience in LLR is essential to ensure safety and oncological results.

Evidence on the value of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and severe cirrhosis is still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic HCC patients.

The analysis included 403 LLR for HCC from seven European centres. 333 cirrhotic and 70 non-cirrhotic patients were compared. A matched comparison was performed between 100 Child-Pugh A and 25 Child-Pugh B patients.

There was no difference in blood loss (250 vs. 250 mL, p 0.465) and morbidity (28.6 vs. 26.4%, p 0.473) between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics, and liver-specific complications were similar (12.8 vs. 12%, p 0.924). The sub-analysis revealed similar perioperative outcomes in either Child-Pugh A or B patients. Noteworthy, ascitis (11 vs. 12%, p 0.562) and liver failure (3 vs. 4%, p 0.595) were not different. ASA score (OR 1.76, p 0.034) and conversion (OR 2.99, p 0.019) were risk factors for major morbidity. Despite lower recurrence-free survival in cirrhotics (43 vs. 55 months, p 0.034), overall survival was similar to non-cirrhotic patients (84 vs. 76.5, p 0.598).

LLR for HCC appear equally safe in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, and the advantages can be witnessed in those with advanced cirrhosis. Severe comorbidities and conversion should be considered risk factors for complications-rather than the severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension-when liver resection is performed laparoscopically. Such results may be of great interest to liver surgeons and hepatologists when deciding on the management of HCC within cirrhosis.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy has presented great importance for treating malignant hepatic lesions.

To evaluate its impact in relation to overall survival or disease free of the patients operated due different hepatic malignant tumors.

Thirty-four laparoscopic hepatectomies were performed in 31 patients with malignant neoplasm. Patients were distributed as: Group 1 - colorectal metastases (n=14); Group 2 - hepatocellular carcinoma (n=8); and Group 3 - non-colorectal metastases and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n=9). The conversion rate, morbidity, mortality and tumor recurrence were also evaluated.

Conversion to open surgery was 6%; morbidity 22%; postoperative mortality 3%. There was tumor recurrence in 11 cases. Medians of overall survival and disease free survival were respectively 60 and 46 m; however, there was no difference among studied groups (p>0,05).

Long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy for treating hepatic malignant tumors are satisfactory. There is no statistical difference in relation of both overall and disease free survival among different groups of hepatic neoplasms.

Compared to other surgical areas, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has not been widely implemented and currently less than 20% of hepatectomies are performed laparoscopically worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, and the ratio of implementation of LLR in our department.

We analyzed a prospectively maintained database of 749 liver resections performed during the last 10-year period in a single centre.

A total of 150 (20%) consecutive pure LLR were performed between 2005 and 2015. In 87% of patients the indication was the presence ofprimary or metastatic liver malignancy. We performed 30 major hepatectomies (20%) and (80%) were minor resections, performed in all liver segments. Twelve patients were operated twice and 2 patients underwent a third LLR. The proportion of LLR increased from 12% in 2011 to 62% in the last year. Conversion rate was 9%. Overall morbidity rate was 36% but only one third were classified as severe. The 90-day mortality rate was 1%. Median hospital stay was 4 days and the rate of readmissions was 6%.

The implementation of LLR has been fast with morbidity and mortality comparable to other published series. In the last 2 years more than half of the hepatectomies are performed laparoscopically in our centre.

This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly.

Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients.

Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups.

A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age.

In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

There is a need for high-level evidence regarding the added value of laparoscopic (LLR) compared with open (OLR) liver resection. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) undergoing LLR and OLR using propensity score matching to minimize bias.

This was a single-centre retrospective study using a prospective database of patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM between August 2004 and April 2015. Co-variates selected for matching included: number and size of lesions, tumour location, extent and number of resections, phase of surgical experience, location and lymph node status of primary tumour, perioperative chemotherapy, unilobar or bilobar disease, synchronous or metachronous disease. Prematching and postmatching analyses were compared. Surgical and oncological outcomes were analysed.

Some 176 patients undergoing LLR and 191 having OLR were enrolled. After matching, 133 patients from each group were compared. At prematching analysis, patients in the LLR group showed a longer overall survival (OS) and higher R0 rate than those in the OLR group (P = 0·047 and P = 0·030 respectively). Postmatching analyses failed to confirm these results, showing similar OS and R0 rate between the LLR and OLR group (median OS: 55·2 versus 65·3 months respectively, hazard ratio 0·70 (95 per cent c.i. 0·42 to 1·05; P = 0·082); R0 rate: 92·5 versus 86·5 per cent, P = 0·186). The 5-year OS rate was 62·5 (95 per cent c.i. 45·5 to 71·5) per cent) for OLR and 64·3 (48·2 to 69·5) per cent for LLR. Longer duration of surgery, lower blood loss and morbidity, and shorter postoperative stay were found for LLR on postmatching analysis.

Propensity score matching showed that LLR for CRLM may provide R0 resection rates and long-term OS comparable to those for OLR, with lower blood loss and morbidity, and shorter postoperative hospital stay.

Recent advances in minimally invasive surgery include laparoscopic and robotic surgery. These surgical techniques have changed the paradigm of surgical treatment for hepatobiliary diseases. Minimally invasive surgery has the advantages of minimal wound extension for cosmetic effect, early postoperative recovery, and few postoperative complications in patients. For laparoscopic liver resection, the indications have been expanded and oncological outcome was proven to be similar with open surgery in the malignant disease. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a classical operation for benign gallbladder diseases and the effort to decrease the surgical wound resulted to perform single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy. For choledochal cyst, laparoscopic surgery is applied gradually despite of the difficulties associated with anastomosis, and robotic surgery for hepatobiliary disease is also performed for more minimally invasive surgery; however, while admitting the advantage of robotic surgery, robotic technology should be improved for development of more convenient and cheaper instrument and continuous efforts to enhance surgical technique to overcome long operation is necessary. In this review, the status and future perspectives of minimally invasive surgery for hepatobiliary diseases are summarized and discussed.

In this study, we report our initial experience with robotic hepatectomy.

Consecutive patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, from February 2013 to February 2015 were enrolled in this study. The difficulty level of operations was graded using a novel scoring system for laparoscopic hepatectomies.

During the two-year period, five consecutive robotic hepatectomies were performed (one left lateral sectionectomy, one non-anatomical segment II/III resection, one anatomical segment V resection with cholecystectomy, one extended right posterior sectionectomy and one non-anatomical segment V/VI resection). Two hepatectomies were performed for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, two for solitary liver metastases and one for a large symptomatic haemangioma. The median age of the patients was 53 (range 38-66) years and the median tumour size was 2.5 (range 2.1-7.3) cm. The median total operation time was 340 (range 155-825) minutes and the median volume of blood loss was 300 (range 50-1,200) mL. There were no open conversions and no mortalities or major morbidities (> Clavien-Dindo Grade II). The difficulty level of the operations was graded as low in one case (Score 2), intermediate in three cases (Score 5, 6 and 6) and high in one case (Score 10). There was one minor morbidity, where the patient experienced Grade A bile leakage, which resolved spontaneously. The median length of postoperative hospital stay was 5 (range 4-7) days.

Our initial experience confirmed the feasibility and safety of robotic hepatectomy.

Encouraging results have been reported in terms of feasibility, safety, and oncologic, outcomes even for major (≥ 3 segments) or complex for location-specific (right posterior segments) laparoscopic liver resections. Despite this, technically challenging issues and advanced laparoscopic skills required to perform it have limited its use in few highly specialized centers. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curve for major-complex totally laparoscopic liver resections (TLLR) performed by a single HPB surgeon.

From October 2008 to February 2012, a total of 70 TLLR were performed; 24 (33.3%) were major-complex resections. This series was divided in 2 groups according to time of operation: group A (12 cases early series) and group B (12 cases late series); perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed and compared.

Comparing the 2 groups, a statistically significant improvement was found in terms of operative time (P=0.017), blood loss (P=0.004), number of cases requiring a Pringle maneuver (P=0.006), and blood transfusion (P=0.001) from case number ten onward.

This study shows that a minimum of 10 cases are required to obtain a significant improvement in perioperative outcome for surgeons with specific training on hepatobiliary surgery and advanced laparoscopic surgical procedures. More studies are required to clarify the minimum standard of training to perform safely this kind of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery on a large scale.

Operations on the liver have been undertaken for centuries for numerous indications including trauma, infections, and even for malignancy, but it was not until the past few decades that rates dramatically increased. This expanse in liver operations is due to a multitude of factors, including broader indications as well as improved safety. Our understanding of metastatic disease to the liver, especially colorectal cancer metastases, has vastly amplified the number of patients who would be candidates for hepatic resections and liver-directed therapies. We will focus our discussion here on planned minimally invasive operations for benign and malignant tumors as the majority of the literature relates to this setting.

Application of minimally invasive surgery for oncologic liver resection is still limited to expert centers. We describe our experience in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

Between February 2010 and February 2015, 174 patients underwent resection of CLM. LLR was chosen according to surgeon's preferences. Data was retrieved from the institutes' electronic charts and retrospectively analyzed.

LLR was performed in 42 patients (24.5%) and OLR in 132. Increased number of metastases were found in OLR (2.82 ± 2.81 versus 1.78 ± 1.16, P = 0.02), with no difference in maximal lesion size (33.1 ± 22 versus 34.9 ± 27.5 cm, P = 0.7). Altogether 55 patients underwent major hepatectomy, and 50 of the OLR group (37.8%, 37 right hepatectomy and 7 left hepatectomy) (P = 0.02). In 5 patients (11.6%) a conversion to open surgery was indicated. Operative time was longer in LLR. Estimated blood loss was decreased in laparoscopic minor resections. One OLR patient died during the postoperative period (0.7%). Eight patients in the OLR group had major complications, versus 1 in the LLR group (P = 0.0016). Reoperation within 30 days was performed in 4 OLR patients and none in the LLR group. Patients in the LLR group had shorter length of stay (LOS) (6.78 ± 2.75 versus 8.39 ± 5.64 days, P = 0.038). R0 resection was 88% in both groups.

In selected patients with CLM, LLR is feasible, safe and may achieve shorter LOS without inferior oncologic outcome.

Owing to the anatomic complexity of the liver and the risk of hemorrhage, most liver resections are still performed using an open procedure. We evaluated the outcomes of introducing a laparoscopic liver program to a community teaching hospital.

We retrospectively reviewed laparoscopic liver resections performed between August 2010 and July 2013 at St. Joseph's Health Centre in Toronto. The primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity and negative margins. Secondary outcomes included other perioperative outcomes. We used nonparametric tests to compare the outcomes during the first (group A) and second (group B) halves of the study period.

Group A included 19 patients and group B had 25 patients; 9 and 4 patients, respectively, had major resections. Group A had the only death due to liver failure. There was no difference in major complications (10.6% v. 16%) or length of stay (4.5 v. 4.6 d) between the groups. One patient in group B had a positive margin. There was a significant decrease in duration of surgery (from 237 to 170 min, p = 0.007), with a trend toward shorter duration for major resections (from 318 to 238 min, p = 0.07). Furthermore, more procedures were performed for malignancy in group B than group A (36.8% v. 84.0%, p = 0.001).

Laparoscopic liver resection can be safely introduced into a Canadian community teaching hospital. Average duration of surgery decreased by 67 minutes despite a 2-fold increase in the number of cases performed for malignancy.

Surgical management of liver lesions has moved toward "parenchymal-sparing" strategies. Although open parenchymal-sparing liver resections are supported by encouraging results, the applicability of the laparoscopic approach for nonperipheral tumors is still questionable. Our aim was to assess the feasibility, safety, and oncologic adequacy of laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resection for nonperipheral lesions with a description of the technique adopted in this setting.

A prospectively collected single-center database of 517 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed. Laparoscopic nonperipheral parenchymal-sparing liver resections (LapPSLRs), that is, entirely intraparenchymal limited resections performed on nonperipheral lesions, were selected. Intra- and perioperative outcomes were analyzed along with 3-year actuarial survival for patients with colorectal liver metastases.

The group comprised 49 LapPSLRs. Colorectal liver metastases were the most frequent diagnosis (n = 24 patients). Lesions were located in segments 8, 7, 4a, and 3 in 51%, 8.2%, 36.7%, and 4.1% of cases, respectively. Conversion occurred in 4 patients (8%). Intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes were calculated for the 24 isolated LapPSLR (not associated with any concurrent liver resection). Median operative time and blood loss were 215 minutes and 225 mL, respectively. Pringle maneuver was used in 75% of cases. Postoperative 90-day mortality was nil and morbidity rate was 12.5%. Median postoperative stay was 3 days. Median tumor-free margin was 4 mm and 100% R0 rate was achieved for all LapPSLRs with curative intent. Three-year overall, recurrence-free, and disease-free survival rates were 100%, 65.2%, and 69.6%, respectively.

Laparoscopic parenchymal-sparing liver resections for nonperipheral liver lesions are feasible and can be performed safely without compromising perioperative and oncological outcomes.

Nowadays, the respective approach to hepatic resections (for malignant or benign liver lesions) is oriented toward minimal parenchymal resection. This surgical behavior is sustained by several observations that surgical margin width is not correlated with recurrence of malignancies. Parenchymal-sparing resection reduces morbidity without changing long-term results and allows the possibility of re-do liver resection in case of recurrence. Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is performed worldwide and is considered a standard of care for many surgical procedures. MILS is associated with less blood loss, less analgesic requirements, and shorter length of hospital with a better quality of life. One of the more frequent criticisms to MILS is that it represents a more challenging approach for anatomical segmentectomies and that in most cases a non-anatomical resection could be performed with thinner resection margins compared with open surgery. But even in the presence of reduced surgical margins, oncological results in the short- and long-term follow-up seem to be the same such as open surgery. The purpose of this review is to try to understand whether chasing at any cost laparoscopic anatomical segmentectomies is still necessary whereas non-anatomical resections, with a parenchymal-sparing behavior, are feasible and overall recommended also in a laparoscopic approach. The message coming from this review is that MILS is opening more and more new frontiers that are still need to be supported by further experience.

In the era of multimodal management of liver metastases, surgical resection remains the only curative option, with open approach still being referred to as the standard of care. Currently, the feasibility and benefits of the laparoscopic approach for liver resection have been largely demonstrated. However, its oncologic adequacy remains to be confirmed. The aim of this study is to report the oncological results of laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic disease in a single-centre experience. A single-centre database of 413 laparoscopic liver resections was reviewed and procedures for liver metastases were selected. The assessment of oncologic outcomes included analysis of minimal tumour-free margin, R1 resection rate and 3-year survival. The feasibility and safety of the procedures were also evaluated through analysis of perioperative outcomes. The study comprised 209 patients (294 procedures). Colorectal liver metastases were the commonest indication (67.9%). Fourteen patients had conversion (6.7%) and oncological concern was the commonest reason for conversion (42.8%). Median tumour-free margin was 10 mm and complete radical resections were achieved in 211 of 218 curative-intent procedures (96.7%). For patients affected by colorectal liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 85.9 and 66.7%. For patients affected by neuroendocrine liver metastases, 1- and 3-year OS resulted 93 and 77.8%. Among the patients with metastases from other primaries, 1- and 3-year OS were 83.3 and 70.5%. The laparoscopic approach is a safe and valid option in the treatment of patients with metastatic liver disease undergoing curative resection. It does offer significant perioperative benefits without compromise of oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resections are frequently performed for peripheral lesions located in the antero-inferior segments. Resection of postero-superior segments is more demanding and dangerous than other segmentectomies, resulting in a longer operation time and increased blood loss. To reduce technical challenges, some authors advocated a modified surgical approach for these segments with the patient placed in the left lateral decubitus with the right arm suspended and suggested technical variations like the use of an additional intercostal trocar, the placement of one or two additional trans-thoracic trocars, a hand-assisted approach or a hybrid method with a median laparotomy. In the present series of 88 patients from four hepatobiliary centers with high volume of activity in Italy, a standard lithotomic position has been routinely used without the need for left lateral decubitus or semi-prone position and through abdominal wall without use of trans-thoracic trocars. This approach allows a more comfortable use of the Pringle maneuver that we used routinely in hepatic resection for PS segments; and, a very short time is needed for conversion, whenever it is required. In our series, laparoscopic resection of liver tumors located in the postero-superior segments of the liver with a total abdominal approach is technically feasible and safe with short-term results similar to other laparoscopic liver resections.

According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision.

We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic "posterosuperior" major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes.

LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026).

The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large malignant tumors can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce, and many question its feasibility, safety, and oncologic efficiency. This study aimed to assess outcomes of LLR for large (≥ 5 cm) and giant (≥ 10 cm) malignant liver tumors.

A prospectively collected database of 422 LLRs was reviewed from August 2003 to August 2013. The data for 52 patients undergoing LLR for large malignant tumors were analyzed. A subgroup analysis of giant tumors also is reported.

During the period studied, 52 LLRs were performed (males, 53.8 %; mean age, 64.6 years) for large malignant tumors. Colorectal liver metastasis was the most common indication (42.3 %). The 52 LLRs included 32 major (61.5 %) and 20 minor (38.5 %) LLRs for tumors with a mean diameter of 83 mm. The median operative time was 240 min [interquartile range (IQR), 150-330 min], and the blood loss was 500 ml (IQR, 200-1,373 ml). Eight conversions (15.4 %) were performed. Six patients experienced complications (11.5 %). Among the 44 patients with successful LLRs, two patients (4.5 %) had an R1 resection. The median hospital stay was 5 days (range, 1-21 days), and no mortality occurred during a 90-day period. A subgroup analysis of patients with giant tumors showed greater blood loss (p = 0.002) and a longer operative time (p = 0.052) but no difference in terms of conversions (p = 0.64) or complications (p = 0.32).

The findings showed that LLR is feasible and safe for large malignant tumors and can be performed with acceptable morbidity and oncologic efficiency. When used for giant malignant tumors, LLR is associated with greater blood loss and a longer operative time but no increase in complications.

Laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature can be challenging, and many would consider it a contraindication. Recently, however, laparoscopic liver surgeons have been pushing boundaries and approached some of these lesions laparoscopically. We assessed feasibility, safety and oncological efficiency of this laparoscopic approach for these lesions.

This is a monocenter study (2003-2013) describing technique and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for lesions adjacent to major vasculature: <2 cm from the portal vein (main trunk and first division), hepatic arteries or inferior vena cava.

Thirty-seven patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for a lesion adjacent to major vasculature. Twenty-four (65%) resections were for malignant disease and 92% R0 resections. Conversion occurred in three patients (8%). Mean operative time was 313 min (standard deviation (SD) ± 101) and intraoperative blood loss 400 ml (IQR 213-700). Clavien-Dindo complications > II occurred in two cases (5%), with no mortality. Lesions at <1 cm were larger (7.2 cm (2.7-14) vs. 3 cm (2.5-5), p = 0.03) and operation time was longer (344 ± 94 vs. 262 ± 92 min, p = 0.01) than lesions at 1-2 cm from major vasculature.

Lesions <2 cm from major hepatic vasculature do not represent an absolute contraindication for LLR when performed by experienced laparoscopic liver surgeons in selected patients.

Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.

Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009).

Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRLM) is performed in a relatively small number of institutions. Its operative results have been reported to be comparable with that of open laparotomy; however, information on its oncologic outcomes is scarce. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) and open hepatectomy (OH) to treat CRLM at a single institution.

We retrospectively reviewed data from 168 consecutive patients who underwent LH (n = 100) or OH (n = 68) for CRLM. The tumor characteristics, operative results, overall survival (OS) rate, recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate, and recurrence patterns were analyzed and compared. A previously published survival-predicting nomogram was applied to compare OS and RFS between the 2 patient groups.

The largest tumor diameter and the number of tumors were significantly larger in the OH group than in the LH group; however, no differences in other tumor factors were observed between the 2 groups. When matched by the nomogram, OS and RFS remained comparable between the 2 groups in every examined stratum, not only for low-risk patients but also for those with high risk. The recurrence patterns also were similar (liver: 30.2% vs 26.8%, P = .72; lung: 22.6% vs 34.1%, P = .22; peritoneum: 7.6% vs 4.9%, P = .45).

The long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for CRLM were comparable with those of the open procedure in not only low-risk but also high-risk patients.

The simultaneous management of primary colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases has been reported extensively in open surgery. Data regarding feasibility, safety, and outcomes of the laparoscopic procedure is emerging from the experience of a few surgical centers. This paper aims at discussing the technique and results of a one-step laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer and liver metastases resection on a series of 35 patients.

Between January 2008 and December 2013, 18 males and 17 females (median age 71 years) underwent colorectal and hepatic laparoscopic resection for colorectal metastatic cancer.

Thirty-five colorectal resections and 66 liver resections were performed; no conversion to open surgery has been indicated. Median blood loss was 200 ml, median operative time 240 min, and median hospital stay was 8 days (range 4-30). According to Clavien-Dindo classification, two class II complications, two class IIIb complications, and one class IV complication were recorded. Two high-risk patients died within 30 days from surgery.

This series confirms the feasibility of synchronous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resections. To ensure the best outcomes, a careful selection of patients is needed. However, most patients can benefit from this surgical approach.

Repeat laparoscopic liver resection (R-LLR) can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce and many investigators would question its feasibility and outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, oncological efficiency and outcomes of R-LLR.

We reviewed a prospectively collected database of 403 patients undergoing 422 laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) from August 2003 to August 2013. Data of 19 patients undergoing R-LLR were analyzed and compared to the primary resection (P-LLR) in these patients. Demographic and clinical data were studied. A subgroup analysis was done for minor resections.

Twenty R-LLRs were performed in 19 patients (female 58 %; mean age: 57.5 years; age range: 23-79 years). Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) were the commonest indication for R-LLR (60 %), followed by neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NETLM) (20 %) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (10 %). The majority (90 %) of resections were for malignant disease (18/20). There were three conversions (15 %), and two patients developed complications (10 %). The operative time (p = 0.005) and blood loss (p = 0.03) were both significantly greater in R-LLR compared to P-LLR, whereas length of stay (median 4 days; p = 0.30) and complications (p = 0.58) did not differ between the groups. R0 resection rates for P-LLR and R-LLR were 95 and 90 %, respectively (p = 0.73).

Repeat LLR is safe, feasible, and can be performed with minimal morbidity. It appears to be technically more challenging than P-LLR, but without any increase in complications or length of hospital stay.