Next Article in Journal
Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction
Next Article in Special Issue
Conversion of Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for HCC in Advanced Cirrhosis: Clinical Impact and Role of Difficulty Scoring Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Developing and Validating a Lung Cancer Risk Prediction Model: A Nationwide Population-Based Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/cancers15020488
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

by
Shogo Tanaka
*,
Shoji Kubo
and
Takeaki Ishizawa
Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 545-8585, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(2), 488; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020488
Submission received: 8 December 2022 / Revised: 9 January 2023 / Accepted: 11 January 2023 / Published: 12 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Cancer Therapies)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Laparoscopic liver resection is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Laparoscopic liver resection has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma even under several situations such as the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, elderly, hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection that led to better intra- and post-operative outcomes than open liver resection. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for hepatocellular carcinoma are reported to be not different from those of laparoscopic liver resection. Robot-assisted liver resection is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Abstract

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

1. Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver tumor and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1,2]. Liver resection is a valuable treatment modality in patients with HCC with preserved liver function [3,4]. The first laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was reported in 1992, whereas the first LLR for HCC was in 1995 [5]. The LLR application was considered controversial for many years. Progress in laparoscopic techniques and expertise in combination with technological advances have led to more widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches for HCC resection over the last 15 years [6]. Subsequently, the number of LLR cases increased due to the roadmap advocacy for the widespread use of safe LLR at numerous international consensus conferences [7,8,9,10] and the development of a difficulty scale classification [11,12,13,14]. Additionally, in Japan, the number and the proportion of LLR for the total number of liver resections increased from 1848 cases (9.9%) in 2011 to 5648 (24.8%) in 2017 [15]. At present, solitary lesions (≤5 cm) located in segments 2 through 6, which was the most acceptable LLR indication, as well as laparoscopic major liver resection, have been performed [7,8,14,16,17,18,19,20]. With these LLR developments, perioperative outcomes are better in patients with HCC who underwent LLR than those who underwent OLR, with no difference in long-term outcomes [16,17,21,22,23], whereas a recent systematic review and meta-analysis study indicated better long-term outcomes after minimal invasive liver resection (MILR), including LLR (48 articles) and robot-assisted liver resection (RALR, 2 articles) for HCC than OLR among the recently published data [24]. The pooled analysis revealed an 18% decrease in disease-specific 3-year mortality after MILR (almost, LLR) compared with OLR (Figure 1), and the sensitivity analysis of contemporary studies from 2010 to 2019 revealed a significantly lower 5-year all-cause mortality and 3-year disease-specific mortality in MILR compared to OLR. Thus, the overall picture is important in the surgical HCC treatment; however, factors such as cirrhosis due to background liver disease, repeat liver resection for HCC recurrence, advanced age, and obesity must be considered.
We reviewed the short- and long-term results of LLR usefulness (vs. OLR) with a special focus on these factors. Additionally, the usefulness of RALR, which has become increasingly popular in recent years, is discussed.

2. Liver Cirrhosis

Most patients with HCC commonly have chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis. Liver resection for patients with cirrhosis is challenging due to elevated portal pressure and impaired coagulation function. One systematic review and meta-analysis [59], one systematic review [60], and two meta-analyses [61,62] compared LLR with OLR for patients with cirrhosis with HCC. These reports revealed no difference in operation time among patients who underwent LLR and OLR; however, LLR reports decreased blood loss, transfusion rate, postoperative complications (including postoperative ascites and liver failure), and length of hospital stay. Moreover, LLR gains better 1-year overall survival (OS) [61,62] and 5-year OS [60,61,62]. Only one report revealed better 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) in LLR than in OLR [61]. However, among patients with cirrhosis, patients with Child-Pugh class B were reported to have more complications and deaths in the hospital and poorer long-term outcomes than patients with Child-Pugh class A [63,64,65,66,67], but the effect of LLR remains controversial because of the small number of patients [68,69]. Recently, Berardi et al. [70] reported an international multicenter study of 253 patients with Child-Pugh class B regarding short- and long-term outcomes. The comorbidity prevalence, increased Child-Pugh score (7 to 9), decreased preoperative hemoglobin and platelet count, and preoperative ascites and portal hypertension prevalence, increased the risk for postoperative complication within 90 days postoperatively (Figure 2). Moreover, minimally invasive surgery, including LLR and minor liver resection, decreased the risk for postoperative complications. Additionally, LLR did not affect DFS or OS rates. Liver cirrhosis is a well-known risk factor for postoperative liver failure-related mortality [71]. However, the development of devices, hemostasis techniques, and pneumoperitoneum and minimization of delamination in the LLR has controlled the bleeding and prevented postoperative ascites [25,72], which might lead to postoperative early recovery even for patients with Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis. Some better LLR prognoses might be caused by less compression during laparoscopic manipulation, which prevented tumor cell metastasis [62]. However, several reports revealed that LLR has no effect on long-term prognosis (no difference from OLR) [25,73], and only tumor factors were found to determine DFS in a study of Child-Pugh class B, while tumor factors and systemic status, including cirrhosis, determine OS [70]. LLR may be a useful treatment for patients who may not have previously been candidates for open surgery and may even prolong survival. However, further study is needed on the efficacy of LLR on long-term outcomes after cirrhotic liver resection.

3. Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection (LRLR) for Recurrent HCC

High recurrence even after curative liver resection for the initial HCC is a significant oncologic feature of HCC [74,75,76,77]. Additionally, hepatic resection is recommended for HCC recurrences (HCCR), as well as primary cases, if HCC has ≤3 nodules [4]. However, adhesions after initial hepatectomy are not only seen on the liver dissection surface, but also on the dissection surface and hepatoduodenal mesentery at a certain frequency, which makes repeat liver resection difficult, leading to unexpected blood loss and vascular or biliary structure intraoperative injury [78,79,80]. Conversely, some reported the remits of LRLR, such as minimalization of dissection of the adhesion under high magnification directly from the caudal direction [13,81] and small targeted area without damages to the surrounding area in the LRLR [79]. Some highly experienced centers reported feasible and safe LRLR for HCCR in the single-arm study [81,82,83,84]. A meta-analysis revealed that LRLR (n = 145) had a lower rate of in-hospital complication, much less blood loss, and a shorter hospital stay than open repeat liver resection (ORLR, n = 190) [85]. However, these studies were very small in number. Recently, an international collaborative study by Morise et al. [86] examined the usefulness of LRLR (n = 648) for HCCR and compared ORLR (n = 934) using propensity score matching (PSM, each, n = 238). The operation time was longer in the PSM cohort (mean, 273 min vs. 232 min, p = 0.007), but blood loss was lower (mean, 268 mL vs. 497 mL, p = 0.001) in patients who underwent LRLR than in those who did ORLR. No differences were found in the incidence of postoperative 90-day complications, 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, or long-term survival. Therefore, case selection that would benefit from LRLR would be important. Kinoshita, et al. [87] reported the difficulty of LRLR in 60 patients with HCCR. Additionally, (1) an open approach during previous liver resection, (2) two or more previous liver resections, (3) a history of previous liver resection with not less than a sectionectomy, (4) a tumor near the resected site of the previous liver resection, and (5) intermediate or high difficulty in the difficulty scoring system [11] were independent risk factors for prolonged operative time and/or severe adhesion of LRLR. Thereafter, they validated less blood loss and lower postoperative complication incidence in LRLR than in ORLR among patients with ≤3 applicable risk factors; however, the operation time was longer in LRLR than in ORLR, and no difference was observed in other intra- and postoperative outcomes among LRLR and ORLR in patients with ≥4 of these 5 variables, suggesting that LRLR has no advantage in these patients [88]. On the basis of these findings, LRLR may have better short-term results than ORLR, but preoperative evaluation, such as details of prior surgeries, will be needed to determine whether it can be safely applied.

4. Elderly

The geriatric population has dramatically increased, and the number of elderly patients who undergo liver resection has even more rapidly increased [89]. Some reports revealed that the incidences of postoperative complication and mortality were comparable between elderly and non-elderly patients in OLR [90,91], but others have revealed an increased mortality incidence in elderly patients [92]. The reported incidence of overall postoperative complications in the elderly (aged 65–75 years) ranged from 29% to 59%, that of major complications (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) ranged from 16% to 41%, and that of mortality ranged from 0% to 9% [90,91,92,93]. Large-scale data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, a national administrative database in Japan (2007–2012, n = 27,094), indicated the incidence of postoperative complication and mortality after liver resection increased up until the 70 s; however, no differences were found among patients aged in their 70 s, 80–84 years, and ≥85 years [94]. These results may be attributed to the fact that the adaptation is strictly handled for the elderly. Nomi et al. [95] reported a lower incidence of overall postoperative and major complications in elderly patients (aged ≥75 years) with HCC who underwent LLR than in those who underwent OLR, but others reported no difference among LLR and OLR [96,97]. However, LLR shortened the length of hospital stay [95,96,97]. One systematic review and meta-analysis using 12 studies (LLR: n = 831 and OLR; n = 931) indicated that LLR decreased the intraoperative blood loss, incidence of overall postoperative complications, including liver failure, ascites, and surgical site infection, major complication, and length of hospital stay although it includes all diseases, not just HCC [98]. Therefore, age would not be a determining factor for surgery. However, the high incidence of “elderly-related events”, including respiratory complications (pneumonia and respiratory failure requiring reintubation) [91], cardiac events [90], delirium [90,99], and discharge to rehabilitation facilities [99] are a major problem for liver resection in the elderly. LLR was reported to decrease the incidence of elderly-related events such as cardiopulmonary complications [95,96,100]. Moreover, maintenance of independence after liver resection is very important for elderly patients who underwent liver resection. Our previous study indicated that LLR decreased the incidence of postoperative loss of independence during the early postoperative period, including transfer to rehabilitation facilities, readmission within 30 days, discharge with any health care supports, and/or death within 90 days except cancer-related death, and at 1 year after liver resection, including the need of any healthcare supports and/or death due to deterioration of physical function [101,102]. A few studies reported regarding long-term survival; however, no differences were found in DFS or OS rate among elderly patients with HCC who underwent LLR or OLR [97]. LLR for the elderly has better intraoperative outcomes and fewer postoperative complications than OLR. In addition, LLR may have advantages to reduce elderly-related events and maintain independent living.

5. Obesity

The prevalence of obesity and its associated diseases has remained increasing worldwide. The prevalence of obesity (body mass index [BMI] of ≥30 kg/m2) is 40% in the United States [103] and approximately 20% in Europe [104]. In Japan, obesity is defined by a BMI of ≥25 kg/m2 [105]. As of 2018, 32.2% of males and 21.9% of females aged ≥20 years were classified as obese [106]. Furthermore, several reports revealed that patients with obesity are at high risk of developing HCC [107,108]. Thus, a higher prevalence of obesity and expansion of liver resection indications could increase the number of liver resections among patients with obesity with HCC in the future. Obesity is correlated with comorbidities and technical difficulties in open surgery and is considered a risk factor for postoperative complications in several surgical fields [109,110]. Countermeasures for the depth of the surgical field and large volume of intraperitoneal fat are important in abdominal surgery, including liver resection, in patients who are overweight and obese [111,112]. These situations are associated with increased operation time, blood loss, and postoperative complications in the OLR [113,114,115]. Liver parenchyma dissection and hepatic hilum treatment are sometimes challenging despite a large skin incision and gastrointestinal tract and greater momentum compression in OLR [116,117,118]. In contrast, pneumoperitoneum, head-up position, and high magnification—even at deep portions in the caudal view—can provide sufficient free space to control the forceps in LLR, even in patients who are overweight and obese (Caudal approach, Figure 3) [119,120,121]. There is some disagreement as to whether obesity increases the risk of conversion [12,111,113,122,123], but the LLR is reported to decrease intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications compared with OLR even in obesity [113,118,121,124]. Moreover, obesity did not affect conversion rate, operation time, or blood loss in the LLR compared with non-obesity [113,122,123]. There is some disagreement regarding conversion to open surgery, but LLR has better short-term outcomes than OLR. Therefore, LLR for obesity would be feasible and safe.

6. Robot-Assisted Liver Resection (RALR)

RALRs are slowly spreading, although at a slower speed than LLRs [125,126]. In 2018, an international expert panel published a consensus guideline on the use of robotics in liver surgery, concluding that “RALR is as safe and feasible as LLR and OLR” for both major and minor liver resection [127]. Advantages of RALR include stability and magnification of a three-dimensional view, the best possible ergonomics, enhanced suturing capacity, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, integrated fluorescence guidance, and a shortened learning curve. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, a complete lack of hepatic feedback, and an additional operation time associated with docking and instrument exchange [128,129].
Some reported learning curves for LLR in 35 to 75 cases regarding operation time and incidence of liver injury (liver ischemia, congestion, or portal vein thrombosis) [130,131,132,133]. Conversely, early proponents of the robotic platform felt that robotic operations would be easier to learn than their laparoscopic counterparts due to the intentionally intuitive nature of robotic instrument us even for novice surgeons [134,135,136]. Some studies indicated shortened learning curves of 15 to 52 cases in RALR [137,138,139]. Additionally, the best possible ergonomics would increase the number of major hepatectomies and/or highly difficult cases [140,141,142]. However, RALR may become mainstream in the future. Some meta-analyses indicated less blood loss and a lower proportion of transfusion and incidence of postoperative complications in patients who underwent RALR than OLR [143,144,145]. Moreover, Kamarajah et al. [146] reported a systematic review and meta-analysis that included 26 articles and 2630 patients (RARL: 950 patients and LLR: 1680 patients) and revealed that blood loss was less (median, 286 mL vs. 301 mL, p < 0.001) and operation time was longer (median, 281 min vs. 221 min, p < 0.001) in patients who underwent RALR than in those who underwent LLR. Additionally, no difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications, mortality, or length of hospital stay among patients who underwent RALR and LLR although readmission was lower in patients who underwent RALR than in those who underwent LLR. Moreover, a meta-analysis for major hepatectomy revealed an association between RALR and lower blood loss and conversion rate but with a slightly longer hospital stay compared to LLR [147]. Zhu et al. [148] revealed intra- and postoperative outcomes among patients who underwent RALR (n = 71), LLR (n = 141), and OLR (n = 157) for HCC; operation time was shortest and the length of hospital stay was longest in patients who underwent OLR, and similar results were demonstrated between those who did RALR and LLR. Conversely, some studies reported a higher incidence of postoperative bile leakage after RALR [149,150,151]. RALR is easy to manipulate in the hepatic hilum, but the lack of tactile sensation may cause inadvertent bile duct injury. In contrast, careful infraphrenic dissection was reported to reduce the incidence of postoperative pleural effusions [150]. Therefore, RALR does not significantly differ from LLR and is considered less invasive than OLR in terms of short-term results. Few studies reported on long-term outcomes after RALR; however, Zhu et al. [148] revealed no difference in DFS or OS among patients who underwent RALR, LLR, and OLR. Hence, RALR is as good as LLR as MIS. RALR may provide better perioperative results than LLR with further equipment development.

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, liver resection for HCC requires consideration of various situations, such as liver cirrhosis, repeat liver resection, obesity, and the elderly, but LLR overcomes these situations and has equal or better outcomes compared to OLR. In the future, RALR is expected to develop as an MIS alongside LLR.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization S.T. and T.I.; methodology S.T. and S.K.; validation S.T. and T.I.; investigation S.T.; writing—original draft preparation S.T. and S.K.; writing—review and editing, S.T., S.K. and T.I.; supervision S.T. and T.I.; funding acquisition S.T; final revision S.T., S.K. and T.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI (Grant Number 19K09152).

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Dikshit, R.; Eser, S.; Mathers, C.; Rebelo, M.; Parkin, D.M.; Forman, D.; Bray, F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136, E359–E386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kokudo, N.; Takemura, N.; Hasegawa, K.; Takayama, T.; Kubo, S.; Shimada, M.; Nagano, H.; Hatano, E.; Izumi, N.; Kaneko, S.; et al. Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma: The Japan Society of Hepatology 2017 (4th JSH-HCC guidelines) 2019 update. Hepatol. Res. 2019, 49, 1109–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2018, 69, 182–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Hashizume, M.; Takenaka, K.; Yanaga, K.; Ohta, M.; Kajiyama, K.; Shirabe, K.; Itasaka, H.; Nishizaki, T.; Sugimachi, K. Laparoscopic hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg. Endosc. 1995, 9, 1289–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Laurent, A. Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Subcapsular Hepatocellular Carcinoma Complicating Chronic Liver Disease. Arch. Surg. 2003, 138, 763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Buell, J.F.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; O’Rourke, N.; Iannitti, D.; Dagher, I.; Koffron, A.J.; Thomas, M.; Gayet, B.; Han, H.S.; et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann. Surg. 2009, 250, 825–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wakabayashi, G.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; Buell, J.F.; Kaneko, H.; Han, H.S.; Asbun, H.; O’rourke, N.; Tanabe, M.; Koffron, A.J.; et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: A report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cheung, T.T.; Han, H.-S.; She, W.H.; Chen, K.-H.; Chow, P.; Yoong, B.K.; Lee, K.F.; Kubo, S.; Tang, C.N.; Wakabayashi, G. The Asia Pacific Consensus Statement on Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Report from the 7th Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Meeting Held in Hong Kong. Liver Cancer 2017, 7, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abu Hilal, M.; Aldrighetti, L.; Dagher, I.; Edwin, B.; Troisi, R.I.; Alikhanov, R.; Aroori, S.; Belli, G.; Besselink, M.; Briceno, J.; et al. The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2018, 268, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ban, D.; Tanabe, M.; Ito, H.; Otsuka, Y.; Nitta, H.; Abe, Y.; Hasegawa, Y.; Katagiri, T.; Takagi, C.; Itano, O.; et al. A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2014, 21, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hasegawa, Y.; Wakabayashi, G.; Nitta, H.; Takahara, T.; Katagiri, H.; Umemura, A.; Makabe, K.; Sasaki, A. A novel model for prediction of pure laparoscopic liver resection surgical difficulty. Surg. Endosc. 2017, 31, 5356–5363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Wakabayashi, G.; Cherqui, D.; Geller, D.A.; Han, H.-S.; Kaneko, H.; Buell, J.F. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically better than open hepatectomy: Preparing for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2014, 21, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kawaguchi, Y.; Fuks, D.; Kokudo, N.; Gayet, B. Difficulty of Laparoscopic Liver Resection. Ann. Surg. 2018, 267, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ban, D.; Tanabe, M.; Kumamaru, H.; Nitta, H.; Otsuka, Y.; Miyata, H.; Kakeji, Y.; Kitagawa, Y.; Kaneko, H.; Wakabayashi, G.; et al. Safe Dissemination of Laparoscopic Liver Resection in 27,146 Cases Between 2011 and 2017 From the National Clinical Database of Japan. Ann. Surg. 2020, 274, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Han, H.-S.; Shehta, A.; Ahn, S.; Yoon, Y.-S.; Cho, J.Y.; Choi, Y. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case-matched study with propensity score matching. J. Hepatol. 2015, 63, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Takahara, T.; Wakabayashi, G.; Beppu, T.; Aihara, A.; Hasegawa, K.; Gotohda, N.; Hatano, E.; Tanahashi, Y.; Mizuguchi, T.; Kamiyama, T.; 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. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2015, 22, 721–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Takahara, T.; Wakabayashi, G.; Konno, H.; Gotoh, M.; Yamaue, H.; Yanaga, K.; Fujimoto, J.; Kaneko, H.; Unno, M.; Endo, I.; et al. Comparison of laparoscopic major hepatectomy with propensity score matched open cases from the National Clinical Database in Japan. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2016, 23, 721–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Tanaka, S.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Kubo, S.; Kanazawa, A.; Takeda, Y.; Hirokawa, F.; Nitta, H.; Nakajima, T.; Kaizu, T.; Kaibori, M.; et al. Validation of index-based IWATE criteria as an improved difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. Surgery 2019, 165, 731–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tanaka, S.; Kubo, S.; Kanazawa, A.; Takeda, Y.; Hirokawa, F.; Nitta, H.; Nakajima, T.; Kaizu, T.; Kaneko, H.; Wakabayashi, G. Validation of a Difficulty Scoring System for Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Multicenter Analysis by the Endoscopic Liver Surgery Study Group in Japan. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2017, 225, 249–258e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Li, W.; Han, J.; Xie, G.; Xiao, Y.; Sun, K.; Yuan, K.; Wu, H. Laparoscopic versus open mesohepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matched analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 33, 2916–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meguro, M.; Mizuguchi, T.; Kawamoto, M.; Ota, S.; Ishii, M.; Nishidate, T.; Okita, K.; Kimura, Y.; Hirata, K. Clinical comparison of laparoscopic and open liver resection after propensity matching selection. Surgery 2015, 158, 573–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xiang, L.; Li, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Guo, P.; Fan, Y.; Zheng, S. Prospective cohort study of laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2016, 103, 1895–1901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Kamarajah, S.K.; Gujjuri, R.R.; Hilal, M.A.; Manas, D.M.; White, S.A. Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Surg. 2021, 111, 14574969211042455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tanaka, S.; Takemura, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Nishioka, T.; Hamano, G.; Kinoshita, M.; Ito, T.; Kubo, S. Outcomes of Pure Laparoscopic versus Open Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhotic Patients: A Case-Control Study with Propensity Score Matching. Eur. Surg. Res. 2015, 55, 291–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Komatsu, S.; Brustia, R.; Goumard, C.; Perdigao, F.; Soubrane, O.; Scatton, O. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A matched pair analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 30, 1965–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lai, C.; Jin, R.-A.; Liang, X.; Cai, X.-J. Comparison of laparoscopic hepatectomy, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation and open hepatectomy in the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Zhejiang Univ. B 2016, 17, 236–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Chen, K.; Pan, Y.; Wang, Y.-F.; Zheng, X.-Y.; Liang, X.; Yu, H.; Cai, X.-J. Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis of Outcomes Compared with Conventional Open Surgery. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2019, 29, 503–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shimada, M.; Hashizume, M.; Maehara, S.; Tsujita, E.; Rikimaru, T.; Yamashita, Y.; Tanaka, S.; Adachi, E.; Sugimachi, K. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg. Endosc. 2001, 15, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Endo, Y.; Ohta, M.; Sasaki, A.; Kai, S.; Eguchi, H.; Iwaki, K.; Shibata, K.; Kitano, S. A Comparative Study of the Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopy-assisted and Open Left Lateral Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutaneous Tech. 2009, 19, e171–e174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, K.F.; Chong, C.N.; Wong, J.; Cheung, Y.S.; Wong, J.; Lai, P. Long-Term Results of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Case-Matched Analysis. World J. Surg. 2011, 35, 2268–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Truant, S.; Bouras, A.F.; Hebbar, M.; Boleslawski, E.; Fromont, G.; Dharancy, S.; Leteurtre, E.; Zerbib, P.; Pruvot, F.R. Laparoscopic resection vs. open liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: A case-matched study. Surg. Endosc. 2011, 25, 3668–3677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cheung, T.T.; Poon, R.T.P.; Yuen, W.K.; Chok, K.S.H.; Jenkins, C.R.; Chan, S.C.; Fan, S.T.; Lo, C.M. Long-Term Survival Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis. Ann. Surg. 2013, 257, 506–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Memeo, R.; De’Angelis, N.; Compagnon, P.; Salloum, C.; Cherqui, D.; Laurent, A.; Azoulay, D. Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma of Cirrhotic Liver: A Case–Control Study. World J. Surg. 2014, 38, 2919–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yamashita, Y.-I.; Ikeda, T.; Kurihara, T.; Yoshida, Y.; Takeishi, K.; Itoh, S.; Harimoto, N.; Kawanaka, H.; Shirabe, K.; Maehara, Y. Long-Term Favorable Surgical Results of Laparoscopic Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Single-Center Experience over a 10-Year Period. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2014, 219, 1117–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Beppu, T.; Wakabayashi, G.; Hasegawa, K.; Gotohda, N.; Mizuguchi, T.; Takahashi, Y.; Hirokawa, F.; Taniai, N.; Watanabe, M.; Katou, M.; 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. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2015, 22, 711–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cho, J.Y.; Han, H.-S.; Yoon, Y.-S.; Choi, Y.; Lee, W. Outcomes of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of laparoscopic surgery. Surgery 2015, 158, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Luo, L.; Zou, H.; Yao, Y.; Huang, X. Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Short- and long-term outcomes comparison. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 18772–18778. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ahn, S.; Cho, A.; Kim, E.K.; Paik, K.Y. Favorable Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Following Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2016, 26, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cheung, T.T.; Poon, R.T.P.; Dai, W.C.; Chok, K.S.H.; Chan, S.C.; Lo, C.M. Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Lateral Sectionectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single-Center Experience. World J. Surg. 2015, 40, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jiang, X.; Liu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, Y.; Huang, J.; Zhou, H.; Zeng, L. Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Long-term outcomes. J. BUON 2016, 21, 135–141. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Sposito, C.; Battiston, C.; Facciorusso, A.; Mazzola, M.; Muscarà, C.; Scotti, M.; Romito, R.; Mariani, L.; Mazzaferro, V. Propensity score analysis of outcomes following laparoscopic or open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br. J. Surg. 2016, 103, 871–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Kim, W.-J.; Kim, K.-H.; Kim, S.-H.; Kang, W.-H.; Lee, S.-G. Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Centrally Located Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Propensity Score-matching Analysis. Surg. Laparosc. Endosc. Percutaneous Tech. 2018, 28, 394–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Rhu, J.; Kim, S.J.; Choi, G.S.; Kim, J.M.; Joh, J.-W.; Kwon, C.H.D. Laparoscopic Versus Open Right Posterior Sectionectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a High-Volume Center: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis. World J. Surg. 2018, 42, 2930–2937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kaneko, H.; Takagi, S.; Otsuka, Y.; Tsuchiya, M.; Tamura, A.; Katagiri, T.; Maeda, T.; Shiba, T. Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. 2005, 189, 190–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Belli, G.; Limongelli, P.; Fantini, C.; D’Agostino, A.; Cioffi, L.; Belli, A.; Russo, G. Laparoscopic and open treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Br. J. Surg. 2009, 96, 1041–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tranchart, H.; Di Giuro, G.; Lainas, P.; Roudie, J.; Agostini, H.; Franco, D.; Dagher, I. Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A matched-pair comparative study. Surg. Endosc. 2009, 24, 1170–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kim, H.-H.; Park, E.K.; Seoung, J.S.; Hur, Y.H.; Koh, Y.S.; Kim, J.C.; Cho, C.K.; Kim, H.J. Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: Case-matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection. J. Korean Surg. Soc. 2011, 80, 412–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ai, J.-H.; Li, J.-W.; Chen, J.; Bie, P.; Wang, S.-G.; Zheng, S.-G. Feasibility and Safety of Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with a Tumor Size of 5–10 cm. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e72328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kim, S.-J.; Jung, H.-K.; Lee, D.-S.; Yun, S.-S.; Kim, H.-J. The comparison of oncologic and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Treat. Res. 2014, 86, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Yoon, S.-Y.; Kim, K.-H.; Jung, D.-H.; Yu, A.; Lee, S.-G. Oncological and surgical results of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC less than 5 cm: Case-matched analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2014, 29, 2628–2634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Ahn, K.S.; Kang, K.J.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, T.-S.; Lim, T.J. A Propensity Score-Matched Case-Control Comparative Study of Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2014, 24, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Martin, R.C.G.; Mbah, N.A.; Hill, R.S.; Kooby, D.; Weber, S.; Scoggins, C.R.; Maithel, S.K. Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Improvement in Outcomes and Similar Cost. World J. Surg. 2015, 39, 1519–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Xiao, L.; Xiang, L.-J.; Li, J.-W.; Chen, J.; Fan, Y.-D.; Zheng, S.-G. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in posterosuperior segments. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 29, 2994–3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Deng, Z.-C.; Jiang, W.-Z.; Tang, X.-D.; Liu, S.-H.; Qin, L.; Qian, H.-X. Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 157 patients: A case controlled study with propensity score matching at two Chinese centres. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 56, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, W.-H.; Kuo, K.-K.; Wang, S.-N.; Lee, K.-T. Oncological and surgical result of hepatoma after robot surgery. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 3918–3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, X.; Huang, Z.; Lau, W.Y.; Li, W.; Lin, P.; Zhang, L.; Chen, Y. Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with well-preserved liver function and cirrhotic background: A propensity score matching study. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 33, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. El-Gendi, A.; El-Shafei, M.; El-Gendi, S.; Shawky, A. Laparoscopic Versus Open Hepatic Resection for Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma Less Than 5 cm in Cirrhotic Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2018, 28, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Twaij, A. Laparoscopic vs open approach to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with known cirrhosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 8274–8281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chen, J.; Bai, T.; Zhang, Y.; Xie, Z.-B.; Wang, X.-B.; Wu, F.-X.; Li, L.-Q. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic and open hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with liver cirrhosis: A systematic review. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 20679–20689. [Google Scholar]
  61. Goh, E.L.; Chidambaram, S.; Ma, S. Laparoscopic vs open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: A meta-analysis of the long-term survival outcomes. Int. J. Surg. 2018, 50, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pan, Y.; Xia, S.; Cai, J.; Chen, K.; Cai, X. Efficacy of Laparoscopic Hepatectomy versus Open Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Cirrhosis: A Meta-analysis of Case-Matched Studies. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kusano, T.; Sasaki, A.; Kai, S.; Endo, Y.; Iwaki, K.; Shibata, K.; Ohta, M.; Kitano, S. Predictors and prognostic significance of operative complications in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatic resection. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2009, 35, 1179–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Giuliante, F.; Ardito, F.; Pinna, A.D.; Sarno, G.; Giulini, S.M.; Ercolani, G.; Portolani, N.; Torzilli, G.; Donadon, M.; Aldrighetti, L.; et al. Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma ≤3 cm: Results of an Italian Multicenter Study on 588 Patients. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2012, 215, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kabir, T.; Syn, N.L.; Tan, Z.Z.; Tan, H.-J.; Yen, C.; Koh, Y.-X.; Kam, J.H.; Teo, J.-Y.; Lee, S.-Y.; Cheow, P.-C.; et al. Predictors of post-operative complications after surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma and their prognostic effects on outcome and survival: A propensity-score matched and structural equation modelling study. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. (EJSO) 2020, 46, 1756–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Koh, Y.X.; Tan, H.J.; Liew, Y.X.; Syn, N.; Teo, J.Y.; Lee, S.Y.; Goh, B.K.; Goh, G.B.; Chan, C.Y. Liver Resection for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease-Associated Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2019, 229, 467–478e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, Y.-S.; Hsieh, P.-M.; Lin, H.-Y.; Hung, C.-M.; Lo, G.-H.; Hsu, Y.-C.; Lu, I.-C.; Lee, C.-Y.; Wu, T.-C.; Yeh, J.-H.; et al. Surgical resection significantly promotes the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2021, 21, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Brytska, N.; Han, H.-S.; Shehta, A.; Yoon, Y.-S.; Cho, J.Y.; Choi, Y. Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatitis B and C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child B or C cirrhosis. HepatoBiliary Surg. Nutr. 2015, 4, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cai, X.; Liang, X.; Yu, T.; Liang, Y.; Jing, R.; Jiang, W.; Li, J.; Ying, H. Liver cirrhosis grading Child-Pugh class B: A Goliath to challenge in laparoscopic liver resection?—Prior experience and matched comparisons. HepatoBiliary Surg. Nutr. 2015, 4, 391–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Berardi, G.; Morise, Z.; Sposito, C.; Igarashi, K.; Panetta, V.; Simonelli, I.; Kim, S.; Goh, B.K.; Kubo, S.; Tanaka, S.; et al. Development of a nomogram to predict outcome after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. J. Hepatol. 2019, 72, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kubo, S.; Tsukamoto, T.; Hirohashi, K.; Tanaka, H.; Shuto, T.; Takemura, S.; Yamamoto, T.; Uenishi, T.; Ogawa, M.; Kinoshita, H. Correlation Between Preoperative Serum Concentration of Type IV Collagen 7s Domain and Hepatic Failure Following Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2004, 239, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kanazawa, A.; Tsukamoto, T.; Shimizu, S.; Kodai, S.; Yamazoe, S.; Yamamoto, S.; Kubo, S. Impact of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with F4-liver cirrhosis. Surg. Endosc. 2013, 27, 2592–2597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Cheung, T.T.; Dai, W.C.; Tsang, S.H.Y.; Chan, A.C.Y.; Chok, K.S.H.; Chan, S.C.; Lo, C.M. Pure Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Versus Open Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 110 Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. Ann. Surg. 2016, 264, 612–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Koda, M.; Tanaka, S.; Takemura, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Kinoshita, M.; Hamano, G.; Ito, T.; Kawada, N.; Shibata, T.; Kubo, S. Long-Term Prognostic Factors after Hepatic Resection for Hepatitis C Virus-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma, with a Special Reference to Viral Status. Liver Cancer 2018, 7, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Tanaka, S.; Iimuro, Y.; Hirano, T.; Hai, S.; Suzumura, K.; Fujimoto, J. Outcomes of Hepatic Resection for Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Special Reference to Postoperative Recurrence. Am. Surg. 2015, 81, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tanaka, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Tamori, A.; Takemura, S.; Takahashi, S.; Amano, R.; Kimura, K.; Ohira, G.; Kawada, N.; Kubo, S. Surgical outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma detected after hepatitis C virus eradiation by direct-acting antivirals. J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 122, 1543–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tanaka, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Tamori, A.; Takemura, S.; Uchida-Kobayashi, S.; Amano, R.; Kimura, K.; Ohira, G.; Nishio, K.; Tauchi, J.; et al. Postoperative direct-acting antiviral treatment after liver resection in patients with hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. Res. 2021, 51, 1102–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kinoshita, M.; Tanaka, S.; Kodai, S.; Takemura, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Ohira, G.; Nishio, K.; Tauchi, J.; Kanazawa, A.; Kubo, S. Increasing incidence and severity of post-hepatectomy adhesion around the liver may be influenced by the hepatectomy-related operative procedures. Asian J. Surg. 2023, 46, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Morise, Z. Status and perspective of laparoscopic repeat liver resection. World J. Hepatol. 2018, 10, 479–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Szomstein, S.; Menzo, E.L.; Simpfendorfer, C.; Zundel, N.; Rosenthal, R.J. Laparoscopic Lysis of Adhesions. World J. Surg. 2006, 30, 535–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hu, M.; Zhao, G.; Xu, D.; Liu, R. Laparoscopic Repeat Resection of Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World J. Surg. 2010, 35, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Belli, G.; Cioffi, L.; Fantini, C.; D’Agostino, A.; Russo, G.; Limongelli, P.; Belli, A. Laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: Feasibility, safety, and results. Surg. Endosc. 2009, 23, 1807–1811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Goh, B.K.P.; Teo, J.; Chan, C.; Lee, S.; Cheow, P.; Chung, A.Y.F. Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. ANZ J. Surg. 2016, 87, E143–E146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Tsuchiya, M.; Otsuka, Y.; Maeda, T.; Ishii, J.; Tamura, A.; Kaneko, H. Efficacy of Laparoscopic Surgery for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 2012, 59, 1333–1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cai, W.; Liu, Z.; Xiao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Tang, D.; Cheng, B.; Li, Q. Comparison of clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 33, 3550–3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Morise, Z.; Aldrighetti, L.; Belli, G.; Ratti, F.; Belli, A.; Cherqui, D.; Tanabe, M.; Wakabayashi, G.; Cheung, T.T.; Lo, C.M.; et al. Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicentre propensity score-based study. Br. J. Surg. 2020, 107, 889–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kinoshita, M.; Kanazawa, A.; Kodai, S.; Shimizu, S.; Murata, A.; Nishio, K.; Hamano, G.; Shinkawa, H.; Tanaka, S.; Takemura, S.; et al. Difficulty classifications of laparoscopic repeated liver resection in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. Asian J. Endosc. Surg. 2019, 13, 366–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Kinoshita, M.; Kanazawa, A.; Tanaka, S.; Takemura, S.; Amano, R.; Kimura, K.; Shinkawa, H.; Ohira, G.; Nishio, K.; Kubo, S. Indications of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2021, 6, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nanashima, A.; Abo, T.; Nonaka, T.; Fukuoka, H.; Hidaka, S.; Takeshita, H.; Ichikawa, T.; Sawai, T.; Yasutake, T.; Nakao, K.; et al. Prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatic resection: Are elderly patients suitable for surgery? J. Surg. Oncol. 2011, 104, 284–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nozawa, A.; Kubo, S.; Takemura, S.; Sakata, C.; Urata, Y.; Nishioka, T.; Kinoshita, M.; Hamano, G.; Uenishi, T.; Suehiro, S. Hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in super-elderly patients aged 80 years and older in the first decade of the 21st century. Surg. Today 2014, 45, 851–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, W.-L.; Zhu, Y.; Cheng, J.-W.; Li, M.-X.; Xia, J.-M.; Hao, J.; Yu, L.; Lv, Y.; Wu, Z.; Wang, B. Major hepatectomy is safe for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients with cirrhosis. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 26, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Cook, E.J.; Welsh, F.K.S.; Chandrakumaran, K.; John, T.G.; Rees, M. Resection of colorectal liver metastases in the elderly: Does age matter? Color. Dis. 2012, 14, 1210–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Kishida, N.; Hibi, T.; Itano, O.; Okabayashi, K.; Shinoda, M.; Kitago, M.; Abe, Y.; Yagi, H.; Kitagawa, Y. Validation of Hepatectomy for Elderly Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 3094–3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Okinaga, H.; Yasunaga, H.; Hasegawa, K.; Fushimi, K.; Kokudo, N. Short-Term Outcomes following Hepatectomy in Elderly Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Analysis of 10,805 Septuagenarians and 2,381 Octo- and Nonagenarians in Japan. Liver Cancer 2017, 7, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nomi, T.; Hirokawa, F.; Kaibori, M.; Ueno, M.; Tanaka, S.; Hokuto, D.; Noda, T.; Nakai, T.; Ikoma, H.; Iida, H.; et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A multi-centre propensity score-based analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Goh, B.K.P.; Chua, D.; Syn, N.; Teo, J.-Y.; Chan, C.-Y.; Lee, S.-Y.; Jeyaraj, P.R.; Cheow, P.-C.; Chow, P.K.H.; Ooi, L.L.P.J.; et al. Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Minor Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Elderly. World J. Surg. 2018, 42, 4063–4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kim, J.M.; Kim, S.; Rhu, J.; Choi, G.-S.; Kwon, C.H.D.; Joh, J.-W. Elderly Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Open or Laparoscopic Approach? Cancers 2020, 12, 2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Mohamedahmed, A.Y.Y.; Zaman, S.; Albendary, M.; Wright, J.; Abdalla, H.; Patel, K.; Mankotia, R.; Sillah, A.K. Laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malignant liver tumours in the elderly: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Updat. Surg. 2021, 73, 1623–1641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Cho, S.W.; Steel, J.; Tsung, A.; Marsh, J.W.; Geller, D.A.; Gamblin, T.C. Safety of Liver Resection in the Elderly: How Important Is Age? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 18, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tanaka, S.; Ueno, M.; Iida, H.; Kaibori, M.; Nomi, T.; Hirokawa, F.; Ikoma, H.; Nakai, T.; Eguchi, H.; Kubo, S. Preoperative assessment of frailty predicts age-related events after hepatic resection: A prospective multicenter study. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Sci. 2018, 25, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tanaka, S.; Iida, H.; Ueno, M.; Hirokawa, F.; Nomi, T.; Nakai, T.; Kaibori, M.; Ikoma, H.; Eguchi, H.; Shinkawa, H.; et al. Preoperative Risk Assessment for Loss of Independence Following Hepatic Resection in Elderly Patients. Ann. Surg. 2019, 274, e253–e261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Tanaka, S.; Iida, H.; Ueno, M.; Hirokawa, F.; Yoshida, H.; Ishii, H.; Nomi, T.; Nakai, T.; Kaibori, M.; Ikoma, H.; et al. Postoperative loss of independence 1 year after liver resection: Prospective multicentre study. Br. J. Surg. 2022, 109, e54–e55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Hales, C.M.; Fryar, C.D.; Carroll, M.D.; Freedman, D.S.; Ogden, C.L. Trends in Obesity and Severe Obesity Prevalence in US Youth and Adults by Sex and Age, 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. JAMA 2018, 319, 1723–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 18 October 2022).
  105. McCurry, J. Japan battles with obesity. Lancet 2007, 369, 451–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan. Report of national health and nutrition 2018. Available online: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/000688863.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2020).
  107. Berentzen, T.L.; Gamborg, M.; Holst, C.; Sørensen, T.I.; Baker, J.L. Body mass index in childhood and adult risk of primary liver cancer. J. Hepatol. 2014, 60, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Larsson, S.C.; Wolk, A. Overweight, obesity and risk of liver cancer: A meta-analysis of cohort studies. Br. J. Cancer 2007, 97, 1005–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Mullen, J.T.; Davenport, D.L.; Hutter, M.M.; Hosokawa, P.W.; Henderson, W.G.; Khuri, S.F.; Moorman, D.W. Impact of Body Mass Index on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Major Intra-abdominal Cancer Surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 2164–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Dindo, D.; Muller, M.K.; Weber, M.; Clavien, P.-A. Obesity in general elective surgery. Lancet 2003, 361, 2032–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yu, X.; Yu, H.; Fang, X. The impact of body mass index on short-term surgical outcomes after laparoscopic hepatectomy, a retrospective study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2015, 16, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. WHO Expert Consultation. Appropriate body-mass index for Asian populations and its implications for policy and intervention strategies. Lancet 2004, 363, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Ishihara, A.; Tanaka, S.; Shinkawa, H.; Yoshida, H.; Takemura, S.; Amano, R.; Kimura, K.; Ohira, G.; Nishio, K.; Kubo, S. Superiority of laparoscopic liver resection to open liver resection in obese individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2021, 6, 135–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Cucchetti, A.; Cescon, M.; Ercolani, G.; Di Gioia, P.; Peri, E.; Pinna, A.D. Safety of hepatic resection in overweight and obese patients with cirrhosis. Br. J. Surg. 2011, 98, 1147–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Tanaka, S.; Iimuro, Y.; Hirano, T.; Hai, S.; Suzumura, K.; Nakamura, I.; Kondo, Y.; Fujimoto, J. Safety of hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in obese patients with cirrhosis. Surg. Today 2013, 43, 1290–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Gedaly, R.; McHugh, P.P.; Johnston, T.D.; Jeon, H.; Ranjan, D.; Davenport, D.L. Obesity, Diabetes, and Smoking are Important Determinants of Resource Utilization in Liver Resection: A Multicenter Analysis of 1029 Patients. Ann. Surg. 2009, 249, 414–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Balzan, S.; Nagarajan, G.; Farges, O.; Galleano, C.Z.; Dokmak, S.; Paugam-Burtz, C.; Belghiti, J. Safety of Liver Resections in Obese and Overweight Patients. World J. Surg. 2010, 34, 2960–2968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Uchida, H.; Iwashita, Y.; Saga, K.; Takayama, H.; Watanabe, K.; Endo, Y.; Yada, K.; Ohta, M.; Inomata, M. Benefit of laparoscopic liver resection in high body mass index patients. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 3015–3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Soubrane, O.; Schwarz, L.; Cauchy, F.; Perotto, L.O.; Brustia, R.; Bernard, D.; Scatton, O. A Conceptual Technique for Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy Based on Facts and Oncologic Principles. Ann. Surg. 2015, 261, 1226–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Tomishige, H.; Morise, Z.; Kawabe, N.; Nagata, H.; Ohshima, H.; Kawase, J.; Arakawa, S.; Yoshida, R.; Isetani, M. Caudal approach to pure laparoscopic posterior sectionectomy under the laparoscopy-specific view. World J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2013, 5, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Kwan, B.; Waters, P.S.; Keogh, C.; Cavallucci, D.J.; O’Rourke, N.; Bryant, R.D. Body mass index and surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review. ANZ J. Surg. 2021, 91, 2296–2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Nomi, T.; Fuks, D.; Ferraz, J.-M.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Nakajima, Y.; Gayet, B. Influence of body mass index on postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection. Surg. Endosc. 2015, 29, 3647–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ome, Y.; Hashida, K.; Yokota, M.; Nagahisa, Y.; Okabe, M.; Kawamoto, K. The safety and efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy in obese patients. Asian J. Surg. 2019, 42, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Toriguchi, K.; Hatano, E.; Sakurai, T.; Seo, S.; Taura, K.; Uemoto, S. Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Obese Patients. World J. Surg. 2015, 39, 1210–1215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Giulianotti, P.C. Robotics in General Surgery. Arch. Surg. 2003, 138, 777–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  126. Patriti, A.; Ceccarelli, G.; Bartoli, A.; Spaziani, A.; Lapalorcia, L.M.; Casciola, L. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: A pilot study. J. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Surg. 2009, 16, 450–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Liu, R.; Wakabayashi, G.; Kim, H.-J.; Choi, G.-H.; Yiengpruksawan, A.; Fong, Y.; He, J.; Boggi, U.; Troisi, R.I.; Efanov, M.; et al. International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018. World J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 25, 1432–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Ayabe, R.I.; Azimuddin, A.; Cao, H.S.T. Robot-assisted liver resection: The real benefit so far. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Troisi, R.I.; Pegoraro, F.; Giglio, M.C.; Rompianesi, G.; Berardi, G.; Tomassini, F.; De Simone, G.; Aprea, G.; Montalti, R.; De Palma, G.D. Robotic approach to the liver: Open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints? Surg. Oncol. 2019, 33, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vigano, L.; Laurent, A.; Tayar, C.; Tomatis, M.; Ponti, A.; Cherqui, D. The Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Liver Resection. Ann. Surg. 2009, 250, 772–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Nomi, T.; Fuks, D.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Mal, F.; Nakajima, Y.; Gayet, B. Learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 796–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Lee, W.; Woo, J.-W.; Lee, J.-K.; Park, J.-H.; Kim, J.-Y.; Kwag, S.-J.; Park, T.; Jeong, S.-H.; Ju, Y.-T.; Jeong, E.-J.; et al. Comparison of Learning Curves for Major and Minor Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. 2016, 26, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Navarro, J.G.; Kang, I.; Rho, S.Y.; Choi, G.H.; Han, D.H.; Kim, K.S.; Choi, J.S. Major Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Based on Surgeons’ Learning Curve. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 28, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Lanfranco, A.R.; Castellanos, A.E.; Desai, J.P.; Meyers, W.C. Robotic Surgery. Ann. Surg. 2004, 239, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Moore, L.; Wilson, M.; Waine, E.; Masters, R.S.W.; McGrath, J.S.; Vine, S.J. Robotic technology results in faster and more robust surgical skill acquisition than traditional laparoscopy. J. Robot. Surg. 2014, 9, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Stewart, C.L.; Fong, A.; Payyavula, G.; DiMaio, S.; Lafaro, K.; Tallmon, K.; Wren, S.; Sorger, J.; Fong, Y. Study on augmented reality for robotic surgery bedside assistants. J. Robot. Surg. 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chen, P.-D.; Wu, C.-Y.; Hu, R.-H.; Chen, C.-N.; Yuan, R.-H.; Liang, J.-T.; Lai, H.-S.; Wu, Y.-M. Robotic major hepatectomy: Is there a learning curve? Surgery 2017, 161, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Efanov, M.; Alikhanov, R.; Tsvirkun, V.; Kazakov, I.; Melekhina, O.; Kim, P.; Vankovich, A.; Grendal, K.; Berelavichus, S.; Khatkov, I. Comparative analysis of learning curve in complex robot-assisted and laparoscopic liver resection. HPB 2017, 19, 818–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  139. Zhu, P.; Liao, W.; Ding, Z.-Y.; Chen, L.; Zhang, W.-G.; Zhang, B.-X.; Chen, X.-P. Learning Curve in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2018, 23, 1778–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chong, C.C.; Fuks, D.; Lee, K.-F.; Zhao, J.J.; Choi, G.H.; Sucandy, I.; Chiow, A.K.H.; Marino, M.V.; Gastaca, M.; Wang, X.; et al. Propensity Score–Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy. JAMA Surg. 2022, 157, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Chong, C.C.N.; Lok, H.T.; Fung, A.K.Y.; Fong, A.K.W.; Cheung, Y.S.; Wong, J.; Lee, K.F.; Lai, P.B.S. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: Application of the difficulty scoring system. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 2000–2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Lorenz, E.; Arend, J.; Franz, M.; Rahimli, M.; Perrakis, A.; Negrini, V.; Gumbs, A.A.; Croner, R.S. Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection—Comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2021, 406, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jiang, B.; Yan, X.-F.; Zhang, J.-H. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. Res. 2018, 48, 635–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Machairas, N.; Papaconstantinou, D.; Tsilimigras, D.I.; Moris, D.; Prodromidou, A.; Paspala, A.; Spartalis, E.; Kostakis, I.D. Comparison between robotic and open liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes. Updat. Surg. 2019, 71, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Wong, D.J.; Wong, M.J.; Choi, G.H.; Wu, Y.M.; Lai, P.B.; Goh, B.K.P. Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy. ANZ J. Surg. 2018, 89, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Kamarajah, S.K.; Bundred, J.; Manas, D.; Jiao, L.R.; Abu Hilal, M.; White, S.A. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand. J. Surg. 2020, 110, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Coletta, D.; Sandri, G.B.L.; Giuliani, G.; Guerra, F. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Int. J. Med. Robot. Comput. Assist. Surg. 2020, 17, e2218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Zhu, P.; Liao, W.; Zhang, W.-G.; Chen, L.; Shu, C.; Zhang, Z.-W.; Huang, Z.-Y.; Chen, Y.-F.; Lau, W.Y.; Zhang, B.-X.M.; et al. A Prospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching to Compare Long-term Survival Outcomes After Robotic-assisted, Laparoscopic, or Open Liver Resection for Patients with BCLC Stage 0-A Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Ann. Surg. 2022, 277, e103–e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Lee, K.-F.; Chong, C.; Cheung, S.; Wong, J.; Fung, A.; Lok, H.-T.; Lo, E.; Lai, P. Robotic versus open hemihepatectomy: A propensity score-matched study. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 35, 2316–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Magistri, P.; Tarantino, G.; Guidetti, C.; Assirati, G.; Olivieri, T.; Ballarin, R.; Coratti, A.; Di Benedetto, F. Laparoscopic versus robotic surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: The first 46 consecutive cases. J. Surg. Res. 2017, 217, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Schmelzle, M.; Feldbrügge, L.; Galindo, S.A.O.; Moosburner, S.; Kästner, A.; Krenzien, F.; Benzing, C.; Biebl, M.; Öllinger, R.; Malinka, T.; et al. Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: A single-center analysis of 600 consecutive patients in 6 years. Surg. Endosc. 2022, 36, 5854–5862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 00488 g001 550
Figure 1. Forest plot of disease-specific 3-year mortality comparing minimally invasive and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The studies shown in this figure can be found as references [6,21,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Reprinted/adapted with permission from Ref. [24]. 2021, SAGE Publications.
Figure 1. Forest plot of disease-specific 3-year mortality comparing minimally invasive and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The studies shown in this figure can be found as references [6,21,23,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Reprinted/adapted with permission from Ref. [24]. 2021, SAGE Publications.
Cancers 15 00488 g001
Cancers 15 00488 g002 550
Figure 2. Nomogram for predicting 90-day morbidity after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh class B. Nomogram was drawn using the multivariable logistic model for 90-day morbidity. Reprinted/adapted with permission from Ref. [70]. 2019, Elsevier.
Figure 2. Nomogram for predicting 90-day morbidity after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh class B. Nomogram was drawn using the multivariable logistic model for 90-day morbidity. Reprinted/adapted with permission from Ref. [70]. 2019, Elsevier.
Cancers 15 00488 g002
Cancers 15 00488 g003 550
Figure 3. Laparoscopic liver resection for tumor located at segment I in a patient with obesity. Taking advantage of the Caudal approach of laparoscopic surgery, liver resection was performed with a good field of view despite the surgical depth.
Figure 3. Laparoscopic liver resection for tumor located at segment I in a patient with obesity. Taking advantage of the Caudal approach of laparoscopic surgery, liver resection was performed with a good field of view despite the surgical depth.
Cancers 15 00488 g003
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tanaka, S.; Kubo, S.; Ishizawa, T. Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection. Cancers 2023, 15, 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020488

AMA Style

Tanaka S, Kubo S, Ishizawa T. Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection. Cancers. 2023; 15(2):488. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020488

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tanaka, Shogo, Shoji Kubo, and Takeaki Ishizawa. 2023. "Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection" Cancers 15, no. 2: 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020488

APA Style

Tanaka, S., Kubo, S., & Ishizawa, T. (2023). Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection. Cancers, 15(2), 488. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15020488

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop