Alexis Laurent

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS: On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. RESULTS: The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The most important surgical complication following rectal resection with anastomosis is symptomatic anastomotic leakage, which is associated with a 6-22 per cent mortality rate. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the risk factors for clinical anastomotic leakage after anterior resection for cancer of the rectum. METHODS: From 1980 to 1995, 272 consecutive anterior resections for rectal cancer were performed by the same surgical team; 131 anastomoses were situated 5 cm or less from the anal verge. The associations between clinical anastomotic leakage and 19 patient-, tumour-, surgical-, and treatment-related variables were studied by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The rate of clinical anastomotic leakage was 12 per cent (32 of 272). Multivariate analysis of the overall population showed that only male sex and level of anastomosis were independent factors for development of anastomotic leakage. The risk of leakage was 6.5 times higher for anastomoses situated less than 5 cm from the anal verge than for those situated above 5 cm; it was 2.7 times higher for men than for women. In a second analysis of low anastomoses (5 cm or less from the anal verge; n = 131), obesity was statistically associated with leakage. CONCLUSION: A protective stoma is suitable after sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer for anastomoses situated at or less than 5 cm from the anal verge, particularly for men and obese patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess feasibility, risks, and patient outcomes in the treatment of colorectal metastases with two-stage hepatectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Some patients with multiple hepatic colorectal metastases are not candidates for a complete resection by a single hepatectomy, even when downstaged by chemotherapy, after portal embolization, or combined with a locally destructive technique. In two-stage hepatectomy, the highest possible number of tumors is resected in a first, noncurative intervention, and the remaining tumors are resected after a period of liver regeneration. In selected patients with irresectable multiple metastases not amenable to a single hepatectomy procedure, two-stage hepatectomy might offer a chance of long-term remission. METHODS: Of consecutive patients with conventionally irresectable colorectal metastases treated by chemotherapy, 16 of 398 (4%) became eligible for curative two-stage hepatectomy combined with chemotherapy and adjuvant nonsurgical interventions as indicated. RESULTS: Two-stage hepatectomy was feasible in 13 of 16 patients (81%). There were no surgical deaths. The postoperative death rate (2 months or less) was 0% for the first-stage procedure and 15% for the second-stage one. Postoperative complication rates were 31% and 45%, respectively, with only one complication leading to reoperation. The 3-year survival rate was 35%, with four patients (31%) disease-free at 7, 22, 36, and 54 months. Median survival was 31 months from the second hepatectomy and 44 months from the diagnosis of metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Two-stage hepatectomy combined with chemotherapy may allow a long-term remission in selected patients with irresectable multiple metastases and increases the proportion of patients with resectable disease.