Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers' practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

for the International Robotic and Laparoscopic Liver Resection study group investigators IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). OBJECTIVETo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. INTERVENTIONS Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.

No abstract

This is the first study demonstrating PDC as a prognostic factor in CLM. TB was also a prognostic factor, but it was not an independent predictor of survival.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. The liver is the most common site of distant metastases, and surgery is the only potentially curative treatment, although the recurrence rate following surgery is high. In order to define prognosis after surgery, many histopathological features have been identified in the primary tumour. In turn, pathologists routinely report specific findings to guide oncologists on the decision to recommend adjuvant therapy. In general, the pathological report of resected colorectal liver metastases is limited to confirmation of the malignancy and details regarding the margin status. Most pathological reports of a liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis lack information on other important features that have been reported to be independent prognostic factors. We herein review the evidence to support a more detailed pathological report of the resected liver specimen, with attention to: the number and size of liver metastases; margin size; the presence of lymphatic, vascular, perineural and biliary invasion; mucinous pattern; tumour growth pattern; the presence of a tumour pseudocapsule; and the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, we propose a new protocol for the evaluation of colorectal liver metastasis resection specimens.