Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches

  • Hepatobiliary Tumors
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions.

Methods

Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors.

Results

Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH.

Conclusions

Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fretland AA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjornelv GMW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;267(2):199–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Briceno J, Wakabayashi G. Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: cases and Climbin. Ann Surg. 2016;263(4):761–77.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheung TT, Han HS, She WH, et al. 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. 2018;7(1):28–39.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ciria R, Berardi G, Nishino H, Chan AC, Chanwat R, Chen KH, Tsuchida A. A snapshot of the 2020 conception of anatomic liver resections and their applicability on minimally invasive liver surgery A preparatory survey for the expert consensus meeting on precision anatomy for minimally invasive HBP surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29(1):41–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chin KM, Linn YL, Cheong CK, et al. Minimally invasive vs open major Hepatectomies for liver malignancies: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26(5):1041–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Troisi RI, Montalti R, Van Limmen JG, et al. Risk factors and management of conversions to an open approach in laparoscopic liver resection: analysis of 265 consecutive cases. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(1):75–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Halls MC, Cipriani F, Berardi G, et al. Conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events results in significantly worse outcomes during laparoscopic liver resection: lessons learned from a multicenter review of 2861 cases. Ann Surg. 2018;268(6):1051–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hasegawa Y, Wakabayashi G, Nitta H, et al. A novel model for prediction of pure laparoscopic liver resection surgical difficulty. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):5356–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kawaguchi Y, Fuks D, Kokudo N, et al. Difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection: proposal for a new classification. Ann Surg. 2018;267(1):13–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Halls MC, Berardi G, Cipriani F, et al. Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg. 2018;105(9):1182–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ban D, Tanabe M, Ito H, et al. A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(10):745–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wakabayashi G. What has changed after the Morioka consensus conference 2014 on laparoscopic liver resection? Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016;5(4):281–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Goh BK, Chan CY, Wong JS, et al. Factors associated with and outcomes of open conversion after laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: initial experience at a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(9):2636–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Goh BK, Teo RY. Current status of laparoscopic and robotic pancreatic surgery and its adoption in Singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020;49(6):377–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Troisi RI, Pegoraro F, Giglio MC, et al. Robotic approach to the liver: open surgery in a closed abdomen or laparoscopic surgery with technical constraints? Surg Oncol. 2020;33:239–48.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chua D, Syn N, Koh YX, et al. Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108(4):351–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen PD, Wu CY, Hu RH, et al. Robotic major hepatectomy: is there a learning curve? Surgery. 2017;161(3):642–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Nomi T, Fuks D, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Learning curve for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):796–804.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kadam P, Sutcliffe RP, Scatton O, et al. An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29(8):843–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ciria R, Berardi G, Alconchel F, et al. The impact of robotics in liver surgery: a worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29(2):181–97.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(4):344–9.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12(5):351–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goh BKP, Lee SY, Koh YX, et al. Minimally invasive major hepatectomies: a Southeast Asian single institution contemporary experience with its first 120 consecutive cases. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90(4):553–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Di Fabio F, Samim M, Di Gioia P, et al. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification. World J Surg. 2014;38(12):3169–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cauchy F, Fuks D, Nomi T, et al. Risk factors and consequences of conversion in laparoscopic major liver resection. Br J Surg. 2015;102(7):785–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dagher I, Gayet B, Tzanis D, et al. International experience for laparoscopic major liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21(10):732–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Berardi G, Van Cleven S, Fretland AA, et al. Evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery from innovation to implementation to mastery: perioperative and oncologic outcomes of 2,238 patients from 4 European Specialized Centers. J Am Coll Surg. 2017;225(5):639–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Taylor MG, et al. Bleeding and hemostasis in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(3):572–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ban D, Kudo A, Ito H, et al. The difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection. Updates Surg. 2015;67(2):123–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kabir T, Tan ZZ, Syn NL, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;109(1):21–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Troisi RI, Berardi G, Morise Z, et al. Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study. Br J Surg. 2021;108(2):196–204.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Goh BKP, Syn N, Lee SY, et al. Impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimally-invasive liver resections: a 1:1 coarsened exact-matched controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(9):5231–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scuderi V, Barkhatov L, Montalti R, et al. Outcome after laparoscopic and open resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver. Br J Surg. 2017;104(6):751–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Silva JP, Berger NG, Yin Z, et al. Minimally invasive hepatectomy conversions: an analysis of risk factors and outcomes. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20(2):132–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Levi Sandri GB, Spoletini G, Vennarecci G, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection for large HCC: short- and long-term outcomes in relation to tumor size. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(12):4772–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cheung TT, Wang X, Efanov M, et al. Minimally invasive liver resection for huge (>/=10 cm) tumors: an international multicenter matched cohort study with regression discontinuity analyses. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2021;10(5):587–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kabir T, Syn N, Koh YX, et al. Impact of tumor size on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48(1):169–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang HP, Yong CC, Wu AGR, et al. Factors associated with and impact of open conversion on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies: an international multicenter study. Surgery. 2022;172(2):617–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chouker A, Martignoni A, Dugas M, et al. Estimation of liver size for liver transplantation: the impact of age and gender. Liver Transpl. 2004;10(5):678–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Guy J, Peters MG. Liver disease in women: the influence of gender on epidemiology, natural history, and patient outcomes. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013;9(10):633–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, et al. Feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for tumors located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, with a special reference to overcoming current limitations on tumor location. Surgery. 2008;144(1):32–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M, et al. Safe and feasible inflow occlusion in laparoscopic liver resection. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(1):246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Linn YL, Wu AG, Han HS, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic and robotic liver resections. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2023;30(1):36–59.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg. 2014;259(3):549–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chong CCN, Lok HT, Fung AKY, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(5):2000–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Chiow AKH, Fuks D, Choi GH, et al. International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy. Br J Surg. 2021;108(12):1513–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. D’Silva M, Han HS, Liu R, Kingham TP, Choi GH, Syn NLX. Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Br J Surg. 2022;109(11):1140–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Costi R, Scatton O, Haddad L, et al. Lessons learned from the first 100 laparoscopic liver resections: not delaying conversion may allow reduced blood loss and operative time. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2012;22(5):425–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chong CC, Fuks D, Lee KF, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic right and extended right Hepatectomy. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(5):436–44.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Yang HY, Choi GH, Chin KM, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy: multicentre propensity score-matched analysis. Br J Surg. 2022;109(4):311–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

International robotic and laparoscopic liver resection study group investigators: Nicholas L. Syn (Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore and Ministry of Health Holdings, Singapore). Mikel Gastaca (Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain). Juul Meurs (Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium). Celine De Meyere (Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium. Eric C.H. Lai (Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China). Felix Krenzien (Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany). Prashant Kadam (Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK). Kit-Fai Lee (Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China). Diana Salimgereeva (Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia). Ruslan Alikhanov (Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia. Lip-Seng Lee (Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore). Jae Young Jang (Department of General Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea). Kevin P. Labadie (Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center. Seattle, WA, USA). Masayuki Kojima (Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan). Asmund Avdem Fretland (Interventional Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Jacob Ghotbi (Interventional Centre and Department of HPB Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway). Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger (Liver Surgery Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Victor Lopez-Lopez (Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, Clinic and University Hospital Virgen de la Arrixaca, IMIB-ARRIXACA, El Palmar, Murcia, Spain). Paolo Magistri (HPB Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy). Marco Colasanti (Division of General Surgery and Liver Transplantation, San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy). Margarida Casellas I Robert (Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Department of Surgery, Dr. Josep Trueta Hospital, IdIBGi, Girona, Spain). Mansour Saleh (Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Centre Hepato-Biliaire, Paul-Brousse Hospital, Villejuif, France). Edoardo Poletto (General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Gynecology and Pediatrics University of Verona, GB Rossi Hospital, Verona, Italy).

Funding

For this study, T. Peter Kingham was partially supported by the US National Cancer Institute MSKCC Core Grant number P30 CA008747.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

All authors confirm they are accountable for all aspects of this work and report the following disclosures: BKPG has received travel grants and honorarium from Johnson and Johnson, Olympus and Transmedic, the local distributor for the Da Vinci Robot, outside the submitted work. MVM is a consultant for CAVA Robotics LLC. AAF reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer. JP reports a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH, and personal fees or non-financial support from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, AFS Medical, Astellas, CHG Meridian, Chiesi, Falk Foundation, La Fource Group, Merck, Neovii, NOGGO, pharma-consult Peterson, and Promedicis. FR reports speaker fees and support from Integra, Medtronic, Olympus, Corza, Sirtex and Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work. MS reports personal fees or other support from Merck, Bayer, ERBE, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Olympus, Medtronic, and Intuitive, outside the submitted work. RIT reports speaker fees and support from Integra, Stryker, Medtronic, Medistim, and MSD, outside the submitted work. CF declares research fund from Guangdong Shunde Innovation Design Institute.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Roberto I. Troisi MSc, MD, PhD, FEBS or Brian K. P. Goh MBBS, MMed, FRCS.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 139 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Montalti, R., Giglio, M.C., Wu, A.G.R. et al. Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches. Ann Surg Oncol 30, 4783–4796 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-023-13525-0

Keywords

Navigation