Multicenter Propensity Score-Based Study of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Cases with Tumors Far from Major Vessels

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional, propensity score-based study of emerging laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove this advantage. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex LRLR cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the indicator of complex cases. Among 1582 LRLR cases from 42 international high-volume liver surgery centers, 620 cases without the proximity to major vessels (more than 1 cm far from both first–second branches of Glissonian pedicles and major hepatic veins) were selected for this subgroup analysis. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed based on their patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumor characteristics and surgical procedures. One hundred and fifteen of each patient groups of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were earned, and the outcomes were compared. Backgrounds were well-balanced between LRLR and ORLR groups after matching. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss (283.3±823.0 vs. 603.5±664.9 mL, p = 0.001) and less morbidity (8.7 vs. 18.3 %, p = 0.034) were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

Safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection and re-operation for liver tumor

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been reported as a safe, minimally invasive, and effective surgery for the management of liver tumor. However, the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent liver tumor are unclear. Here, we analyzed the surgical results of LRLR. From June 2010 to May 2019, we performed 575 LLR surgeries in our department, and 454 of them underwent pure LLR for the single tumor. We classified the patients who received pure LLR for the single tumor into three groups: LRLR (n = 80), laparoscopic re-operation after previous abdominal surgery (LReOp; n = 136), and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR; n = 238). We compared patient characteristics and surgical results between patients undergoing LRLR, LReOp and LPLR. We found no significant differences between LRLR and LPLR in the conversion rate to laparotomy (p = 0.8033), intraoperative bleeding (63.0 vs. 152.4 ml; p = 0.0911), or postoperative bile leakage rate (2.50 vs. 3.78%; p = 0.7367). We also found no significant difference in the surgical results between LReOp and LPLR. However, the number of patients undergoing the Pringle maneuver was lower in the LRLR group than the LPLR group (61.3 vs. 81.5%; p = 0.0004). This finding was more pronounced after open liver resection than laparoscopic liver resection (38.9 vs. 67.7%; p = 0.0270). The operative time was significantly longer in patients with proximity to previous cut surface than patients with no proximity to previous cut surface (307.4 vs. 235.7 min; p = 0.0201). LRLR can safely be performed with useful surgical results compared to LPLR.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma

Background Optimal treatment for patients with hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (HEHE) remains unclear. Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LR) is a minimally invasive and potentially effective surgical option for multiple HEHEs. Case presentation A 42-year-old woman with no relevant history was admitted for multiple liver tumors. Six tumors were observed on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including one in S2, two in S3, two in S7, and one in S8. Pathological evaluation of percutaneous tumor biopsy tissue suggested a diagnosis of HEHE and laparoscopic LR was planned. The procedure began with partial resection of S7 and partial resection of S8 and left lateral sectionectomy were performed. Another tumor was found intraoperatively on the surface of S6, necessitating removal by partial resection. Pathological evaluation of the resected tumor tissue from all seven tumors concurred with that of the preoperative biopsy. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 6 without any complications. A follow-up MRI 15 months after the primary surgery revealed one tumor each in S4, S6, and S8. Laparoscopic repeat LR was performed. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without any complications. All three recurrent tumors were pathologically confirmed as HEHEs. Conclusions We successfully treated primary and recurrent HEHEs with laparoscopic LR, which is a reasonable minimally invasive procedure considering the possibility of multiple courses of liver surgery in patients with HEHE.