A Single Institution’s Experience With Robotic Minor and Major Hepatectomy

Background Minimally invasive liver resection is gradually becoming the preferred technique to treat liver tumors due its salutary benefits when compared with traditional “open” method. While robotic technology improves surgeon dexterity to better perform complex operations, outcomes of robotic hepatectomy have not been adequately studied. We therefore describe our institutional experience with robotic minor and major hepatectomy. Materials and Methods We prospectively study all patients undergoing robotic hepatectomy from 2016 to 2020. Results A total of 220 patients underwent robotic hepatectomy. 138 (63%) were major hepatectomies while 82 (37%) were minor hepatectomies. Median age was 63 (62 ± 13) years, 118 (54%) were female. 168 patients had neoplastic disease and 52 patients had benign disease. Lesion size in patients who had undergone minor hepatectomy was 2 (3 ± 2.5) cm, compared to 5 (5 ± 3.0) cm in patients who undergone major hepatectomy ( P < .001). 97% of patients underwent R0 resections while none of the patients had R2 resection. Operative duration was 226 (260 ± 122.7) vs 282 (299 ± 118.7) minutes ( P ≤ .05); estimated blood loss was 100 (163 ± 259.2) vs 200 (251 ± 246.7) mL ( P ≤ .05) for minor and major hepatectomy, respectively. One patient had intraoperative bleeding requiring “open” conversion. Nine (4%) patients had experienced notable postoperative complications and 2 (1%) patients died postoperatively. Length of stay was 3 (5 ± 4.6) vs 4 (5 ± 2.8) days for minor vs major hepatectomy ( P = .84). Reoperation and readmission rate for minor vs major hepatectomy was 1% vs 3% ( P = .65) and 9% vs 10% ( P = .81), respectively. Discussion Robotic major hepatectomy is safe, feasible, and efficacious with excellent postoperative outcomes.

Standard Liver Volume-Predicting Formulae Derived From Normal Liver Volume in Children Under 18 Years of Age

Background: Standard liver volume (SLV) is important in risk assessment for major hepatectomy. We aimed to investigate the growth patterns of normal liver volume with age and body weight (BW) and summarize formulae for calculating SLV in children.Methods: Overall, 792 Chinese children (&lt;18 years of age) with normal liver were enrolled. Liver volumes were measured using computed tomography. Correlations between liver volume and BW, body height (BH), and body surface area (BSA) were analyzed. New SLV formulae were selected from different regression models; they were assessed by multicentral validations and were compared.Results: The growth patterns of liver volume with age (1 day−18 years) and BW (2–78 kg) were summarized. The volume grows from a median of 139 ml (111.5–153.6 in newborn) to 1180.5 ml (1043–1303.1 at 16–18 years). Liver volume was significantly correlated with BW (r = 0.95, P &lt; 0.001), BH (r = 0.92, P &lt; 0.001), and BSA (r = 0.96, P &lt; 0.001). The effect of sex on liver volume increases with BW, and BW of 20 kg was identified as the optimal cutoff value. The recommended SLV formulae were BW≤20 kg: SLV = 707.12 × BSA1.09; BW&gt;20 kg, males: SLV = 691.90 × BSA1.06; females: SLV = 663.19 × BSA1.04.Conclusions: We summarized the growth patterns of liver volume and provided formulae predicting SLV in Chinese children, which is useful in assessing the safety of major hepatectomies.

The Prevalence and Clinical Significance of Anaerobic Bacteria in Major Liver Resection

(1) Background: Anaerobic infections in hepatobiliary surgery have rarely been addressed. Whereas infectious complications during the perioperative phase of liver resections are common, there are very limited data on the prevalence and clinical role of anaerobes in this context. Given the risk of contaminated bile in liver resections, the goal of our study was to investigate the prevalence and outcome of anaerobic infections in major hepatectomies. (2) Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the charts of 245 consecutive major hepatectomies that were performed at the department of General, Visceral, and Transplantation Surgery of the University Hospital of Tuebingen between July 2017 and August 2020. All microbiological cultures were screened for the prevalence of anaerobic bacteria and the patients’ clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated. (3) Results: Of the 245 patients, 13 patients suffered from anaerobic infections. Seven had positive cultures from the biliary tract during the primary procedure, while six had positive culture results from samples obtained during the management of complications. Risk factors for anaerobic infections were preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.002) and bile leaks (p = 0.009). All of these infections had to be treated by intervention and adjunct antibiotic treatment with broad spectrum antibiotics. (4) Conclusions: Anaerobic infections are rare in liver resections. Certain risk factors trigger the antibiotic coverage of anaerobes.

The Shift from Multiport to Single Port Increases the Amount of Bleeding in Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy

Background: Bleeding is a negative outcome predictor in liver surgery. Reduction in the abdominal wall trauma in major hepatectomy is challenging but might offer possible benefits for the patient. This study was conducted to assess hemostasis techniques in single-port major hepatectomies (SP-MajH) as compared to multiport major hepatectomies (MP-MajH). Methods: The non-randomized study comprised 34 SP-MajH in selected patients; 14 MP-MajH served as the control group. Intraoperative blood loss and number of blood units transfused served as the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints were complications and oncologic five-year outcome. Results: All resections were completed without converting to open surgery. Time for hepatectomy did not differ between SP-MajH and MP-MajH. Blood loss and number of patients with blood loss > 25 mL were significantly larger in MP-MajH (p = 0.001). In contrast, bleeding control was more difficult in SP-MajH, resulting in more transfusions (p = 0.008). One intestinal laceration (SP-MajH) accounted for the only intraoperative complication; 90-day mortality was zero. Postoperative complications were noted in total in 20.6% and 21.4% of patients for SP-MajH and MP-MajH, respectively. No incisional hernia occurred. During a median oncologic follow-up at 61 and 56 months (SP-MajH and MP-MajH), no local tumor recurrence was observed. Conclusions: SP-MajH requires sophisticated techniques to ensure operative safety. Substantial blood loss requiring transfusion is more likely to occur in SP-MajH than in MP-MajH.