Skip to main content

Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery

  • 285 Accesses

Part of the Clinical Gastroenterology book series (CG)

Abstract

Minimally invasive surgery is associated with improved postoperative outcomes compared to open surgery for a variety of operations, which has led to its expansion to the field of liver surgery. Laparoscopic liver surgery has been increasingly used over the last two decades, and its safety and benefits in appropriately selected patients are being recognized. Robotic-assisted liver surgery maintains the benefits of faster recovery associated with minimally invasive surgery and provides superior visualization and ergonomics, however, at higher cost. At the same time, minimally invasive liver surgery poses unique challenges and entails a steep learning curve. The application of new technologies provides further capabilities in an exciting changing landscape. This chapter provides an overview of the evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery over the last two decades, its benefits over open liver surgery, the challenges encountered, and its future directions.

Keywords

  • Minimally invasive liver surgery
  • Laparoscopic liver surgery
  • Hand-assisted
  • Hybrid
  • Robotic liver surgery

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-96631-1_7
  • Chapter length: 7 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-319-96631-1
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  1. Clinical outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group, Nelsoh H, Sargent DJ, Wileand HS, Fleshman J, Anvari M, Stryker SJ, Beart RW Jr, Hwllinger M, Flanagan R Jr, Peters W, Ota D. A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(20):2050–9. Epub 2004/05/14. eng.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Biere SS, Cuesta MA, van der Peet DL. Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Chir. 2009;64(2):121–33. Epub 2009/04/15. eng.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vinuela EF, Gonen M, Brennan MF, Coit DG, Strong VE. Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and high-quality nonrandomized studies. Ann Surg. 2012;255(3):446–56. Epub 2012/02/15. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Gagner MRM, Dubuc J. Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor (abstract). Surg Endosc. 1992;6(99):99.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G. Comparative Short-term Benefits of Laparoscopic Liver Resection: 9000 Cases and Climbing. Ann Surg. 2016;263(4):761–77. Epub 2015/12/25. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA. World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804 patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):831–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Martin RC, Scoggins CR, McMasters KM. Laparoscopic hepatic lobectomy: advantages of a minimally invasive approach. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(5):627–34, 34–6.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Beppu T, Wakabayashi G, Hasegawa K, Gotohda N, Mizuguchi T, Takahashi Y, et al. Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22(10):711–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM, Duan WD, Lu F, Dong JH. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatectomy in China: initial experience. Ann Surg. 2011;253(2):342–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Ceribelli C, Spaziani A. Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(12):3815–24.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Yu HY, Friedlander DF, Patel S, Hu JC. The current status of robotic oncologic surgery. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63(1):45–56.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N, Iannitti D, Dagher I, et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):825–30.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Buell JF, Kaneko H, Han HS, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):619–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Spolverato G, Ejaz A, Kim Y, Hall BL, Bilimoria K, Cohen M, et al. Patterns of care among patients undergoing hepatic resection: a query of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-targeted hepatectomy database. J Surg Res. 2015;196(2):221–8.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I, Dankelman J, Forgione A, Lango T, et al. European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):253–88. Epub 2014/11/09. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Han HS, Kaneko H, Buell JF. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically better than open hepatectomy: preparing for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(10):723–31. Epub 2014/08/19. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Li N, Wu YR, Wu B, Lu MQ. Surgical and oncologic outcomes following laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Hepatol Res. 2012;42(1):51–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Parks KR, Kuo YH, Davis JM, O’Brien B, Hagopian EJ. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection: a meta-analysis of long-term outcome. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(2):109–18. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3921005.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Takahara T, Wakabayashi G, Beppu T, Aihara A, Hasegawa K, Gotohda N, et al. Long-term and perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with propensity score matching: a multi-institutional Japanese study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22(10):721–7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Qiu J, Chen S, Chengyou D. A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(3):862–75.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, Sabbaghian S, Tohme S, Steel J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg. 2014;259(3):549–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, Caniglia F, Laurenzi A, Puleo F, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(10):2973–9.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu YM, Hu RH, Lai HS, Lee PH. Robotic-assisted minimally invasive liver resection. Asian J Surg. 2014;37(2):53–7.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Vigano L, Laurent A, Tayar C, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Cherqui D. The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg. 2009;250(5):772–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chen CN, Yuan RH, Liang JT, et al. Robotic major hepatectomy: Is there a learning curve? Surgery. 2016. Epub 2016/11/26. eng.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fernandes E, Elli E, Giulianotti P. The role of the dual console in robotic surgical training. Surgery. 2014;155(1):1–4.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Inoue Y, Arita J, Sakamoto T, Ono Y, Takahashi M, Takahashi Y, et al. Anatomical liver resections guided by 3-dimensional parenchymal staining using fusion indocyanine green fluorescence imaging. Ann Surg. 2015;262(1):105–11. Epub 2014/06/03. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Wottawa CR, Genovese B, Nowroozi BN, Hart SD, Bisley JW, Grundfest WS, et al. Evaluating tactile feedback in robotic surgery for potential clinical application using an animal model. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3198–209. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4851934. Epub 2015/10/31. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Velayutham V, Fuks D, Nomi T, Kawaguchi Y, Gayet B. 3D visualization reduces operating time when compared to high-definition 2D in laparoscopic liver resection: a case-matched study. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(1):147–53. Epub 2015/03/26. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, Chou WH, Lai HS, Liang JT, et al. Robotic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched comparison. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;24:1021–8. Epub 2016/10/26. eng.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Indra Mahajan PhD for her critical editorial review of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laleh Melstrom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Konstantinidis, I., Melstrom, L. (2019). Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery. In: Rezac, C., Donohue, K. (eds) The Internist's Guide to Minimally Invasive Gastrointestinal Surgery . Clinical Gastroenterology. Humana Press, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96631-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96631-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96630-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96631-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)