Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience

Tijs J Hoogteijling; Jasper P Sijberden; John N Primrose; Victoria Morrison-Jones; Sachin Modi; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Marco Garatti; Claudio Sallemi; Mario Morone; Mohammad Abu Hilal

doi:10.3390/cancers15102851

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience

Cancers (Basel). 2023 May 21;15(10):2851. doi: 10.3390/cancers15102851.

Authors

Tijs J Hoogteijling^{1

2

3}, Jasper P Sijberden^{1

2

3}, John N Primrose⁴, Victoria Morrison-Jones⁴, Sachin Modi⁵, Giuseppe Zimmitti¹, Marco Garatti¹, Claudio Sallemi⁶, Mario Morone⁶, Mohammad Abu Hilal^{1

4}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, Italy.
² Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
⁴ Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
⁵ Department of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.
⁶ Department of Interventional Radiology, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, Italy.

Abstract

Background: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH.

Methods: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared.

Results: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure.

Conclusion: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.

Keywords: future liver remnant modulation; laparoscopic liver resection; liver neoplasms; right hemihepatectomy; treatment outcome.

Grants and funding

This research received no external funding.