F.calise, L.casciola - Minimally Invasive Surgery of The Liver - 2013

Updates in Surgery
Fulvio Calise • Luciano Casciola

Editors
Minimally Invasive
Surgery of the Liver
In collaboration with Graziano Ceccarelli,

Antonio Giuliani, Alberto Patriti and Vincenzo Scuderi
Foreword by
Gianluigi Melotti
123
Editors
Fulvio Calise Luciano Casciola
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Department of Surgery
Transplant Center Division of General, Minimally Invasive
A. Cardarelli Hospital and Robotic Surgery, ASL3 Umbria
Naples, Italy San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital
Spoleto, Italy
In collaboration with:
Graziano Ceccarelli, Antonio Giuliani, Alberto Patriti and Vincenzo Scuderi
The publication and the distribution of this volume have been supported by the Italian
Society of Surgery
The volume Editors and the publisher gratefully acknowledge the educational contribution
kindly offered by Johnson & Johnson Medical S.p.A. and ab medica S.p.A., Baxter S.p.A.,
Covidien Italia S.p.A., Euro Hospitek S.r.l., M.D.H. Forniture Ospedaliere S.r.l., Nycomed:
a Takeda Company, Tecsud S.r.l., Tekmed Instruments S.p.A.
Additional material to this book can be downloaded from http://extras.springer.com.
ISSN 2280-9848
ISBN 978-88-470-2663-6 ISBN 978-88-470-2664-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-88-470-2664-3
Springer Milan Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York

Library of Congress Control Number: 2012944069
© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recita-
tion, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or infor-
mation storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief
excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the pur-
pose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the
work. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the
Copyright Law of the Publisher’s location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be
obtained from Springer. Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright
Clearance Center. Violations are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publica-
tion does not imply , even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the
relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publi-
cation, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for any
errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein.
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2013 2014 2015 2016

Cover design: Ikona S.r.l., Milan, Italy
Typesetting: Graphostudio, Milan, Italy
Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l. – Via Decembrio 28 – I-20137 Milan

Springer is a part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
Foreword
New technologies and a generation of surgeons mastering advanced minimal-

ly invasive surgery have greatly contributed to the development and growth of
laparoscopic hepatic surgery.
Skepticism related to technical and oncological concerns initially limited
the widespread acceptance and growth of this approach. However, the positive
results obtained by skilled surgeons using the laparoscopic technique clearly
demonstrate its advantages, as does the rate of oncologic clearance and dis-
ease-free interval for primary and secondary tumors, which is comparable with
that of open procedures. Now, both minor and major hepatectomies are per-
formed in specialized centers worldwide, and the slow diffusion rate of the
technique itself guarantees that safe procedures are implemented.
Robot-assisted surgery is also developing as an important contribution to
hepatic surgery: the more accurate and precise movements provided by robot-
ic instruments, coupled with a much greater dexterity, facilitate complex pos-
terior and superior resections and procedures involving biliary reconstruc-
tions.
This book meticulously describes the lights and shadows, indications and
contraindications, pros and cons, advantages and limitations of minimally
invasive surgery of the liver, analyzing its progression from technical evolu-
tion to highly delicate procedures and projecting into the future.
Fulvio Calise and Luciano Casciola, first-class leaders of the Italian surgi-
cal school and community, beyond their significant personal contributions,
engaged the most distinguished domestic and international experts in minimal-
ly invasive hepatic surgery in the creation of this highly practical and enjoy-
able manual. The significant experience and scientific excellence of the con-
tributing authors have culminated in an accurate description of laparoscopic
and robot-assisted procedures related to all types of hepatic resections, defin-
ing in detail the necessary learning curve and clarifying the technological
aspects of the procedures.
v
vi Foreword
Thank you, Fulvio and Luciano, for this remarkable effort, and I hereby
express my personal gratitude and that on behalf of the Italian Surgical
Society.
Rome, September 2012 Gianluigi Melotti

President, Italian Society of Surgery
Preface
This book is meant as a challenge to the usual.

Scientific books usually certify and codify what has already been acknowl-
edged and shared in clinical practice as they serve the purpose of improving
what the scientific community has already established in the treatment of
patients. In contrast, this book tries to indicate what could be safely done in
the near future in a wider surgical context due to the extensive and increasing
application of the laparoscopic approach to abdominal diseases.
We strongly believe that, thanks to the new technical modalities, the very
near future will witness rapid change in the way of approaching liver diseases
and, consequently, of learning how to carry out minimally invasive liver sur-
gery. Although the latter is a highly questionable point, we think that learning
will inevitably be modified by the swift advance of technology and that there
will be a compelling need to change the rules of surgical training. Robotics
will play a key role in forming young surgeons as soon as costs fall following
the expiry of the original patents. Robotic surgery will then be able to achieve
much wider and well-deserved diffusion.
We have therefore asked our colleagues to present what they consider to be
best practices in their current activity and also what today, in some cases, is
still regarded as somehow controversial in hepatobiliary and advanced gener-
al laparoscopic surgery. Thirty-one videos presenting all the techniques and
technicalities related to a mini-invasive approach complete this book, togeth-
er with a final survey of the last seven years of activity in this field in Italy.
We think that the survey shows interesting practices both in dedicated hepato-
biliary units and in general surgery units.
We sincerely thank all our co-authors for their work and for believing that
this effort might contribute to a better insight into the way ahead for new gen-
erations of surgeons.
Naples and Spoleto, September 2012 Fulvio Calise

Luciano Casciola
vii
Contents
1 Minimally Invasive Surgery: An Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Luciano Casciola
2 Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver: An Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Fulvio Calise and Carla Migliaccio
Part I
Requirements
3 The Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fulvio Calise, Marina Romano, Antonio Ceriello, Antonio Giuliani
and Santolo Cozzolino
4 The Learning Curve: Teaching in Robotic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Andrea Coratti and Mario Annecchiarico
5 The Laparoscopic Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Alberto Bartoli and Alberto Patriti
6 Technology in the Operating Room: the Robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Graziano Ceccarelli, Alberto Patriti, Alberto Bartoli,
Alessandro Spaziani and Luciano Casciola
Part II
Surgery: Principles and Management
7 Anesthesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Ada De Felice, Giuseppe De Simone, Marcella Marracino
and Ciro Esposito
ix
x Contents
8 Costs and Benefits. A Triad in Comparison: Open, Laparoscopic

and Robotic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Graziano Ceccarelli, Alberto Patriti, Raffaele Bellochi,
9 Transection Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Alberto Patriti
10 The Louisville Consensus Conference: Conclusions

and Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Giulio Belli, Luigi Cioffi, Andrea Belli and Corrado Fantini
11 Indications to Surgery: Laparoscopic or Robotic Approach . . . . . . . 79

Luciano Casciola and Alberto Patriti
12 Diagnostic Laparoscopy and Allied Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Roberto Santambrogio and Enrico Opocher
Part III
Surgery: General Aspects
13 Intraoperative Ultrasound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Viganò, Roberto Lo Tesoriere,
Nadia Russolillo and Lorenzo Capussotti
14 A New Anatomical Vision: Liver Surgery on the Screen . . . . . . . . . 105

Fulvio Calise, Giuseppe Surfaro, Antonio Giuliani, Carla Migliaccio
and Antonio Ceriello
15 Encircling the Pedicle for the Pringle Maneuver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Vincenzo Scuderi, Antonio Ceriello, Giuseppe Aragiusto,
Antonio Giuliani and Fulvio Calise
16 Minimally Invasive Combined Surgery:

Liver and Colon–Rectum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Mario Morino and Federico Famiglietti
17 Minimally Invasive Procedures for Liver Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Graziano Ceccarelli, Raffaella Niola, Alberto Patriti, Fulvio Calise
and Luciano Casciola
18 Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cirrhotic Patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

Giulio Belli, Paolo Limongelli, Andrea Belli, Gianluca Russo
and Alberto D’Agostino
Contents xi
19 Reoperative Laparoscopic Hepatectomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Joseph F. Buell, Alan Koffron, Bjørn Edwin,
Robert Cannon and Brice Gayet
20 Treating the Resected Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Vincenzo Scuderi, Antonio Ceriello, Giuseppe Surfaro,
Gianpaolo Marte and Fulvio Calise
21 Specimen Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli, Raffaele Bellochi
22 Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Antonio Giuliani, Carla Migliaccio, Giuseppe Surfaro,
Antonio Ceriello and Maurizio Defez
Part IV
Surgery: Techniques
23 Portal Vein Ligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Giuseppe Aragiusto, Antonio Ceriello, Antonio Giuliani,
Carla Migliaccio and Fulvio Calise
24 Tumorectomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Alberto Patriti, Giorgio Ercolani, Luciano Casciola
and Antonio Daniele Pinna
25 Segmentectomies (Chapters 26-34): A Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

Fulvio Calise
26 Segment 1: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Umberto Cillo, Riccardo Boetto, Alessandro Vitale and Daniele Neri
27 Segment 2: Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . 197

Alberto Patriti, Antonio Giuliani and Vincenzo Scuderi

Marco Filauro, Claudio Bagarolo, Giulio Angelini, Fiorenza Belli,
and Andrea Barberis

Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Giovanni Vennarecci, Pasquale Lepiane,
Andrea Laurenzi and Roberto Santoro
xii Contents
30 Segment 4b: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

Felice Giuliante, Francesco Ardito, Maria Vellone and Gennaro Nuzzo

Lorenzo Capussotti, Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Viganò
and Roberto Lo Tesoriere

Umberto Cillo, Marina Polacco, Francesco E. D’Amico,
and Enrico Gringeri
33 Segment 7: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli and Luciano Casciola
34 Segment 8: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli, Alessandro Spaziani
35 Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

Luca Aldrighetti, Francesca Ratti, Federica Cipriani, Michele Paganelli
and Gianfranco Ferla
36 Right Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Michael D. Kluger and Daniel Cherqui
37 Right Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

David Calatayud and Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti
38 Left Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

Fulvio Calise, Piero Atelli, Antonio Giuliani, Vincenzo Scuderi
and Aldo Rocca
39 Left Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Ugo Boggi, Stefano Signori, Fabio Caniglia, Mario Belluomini,
and Carla Cappelli
40 Left Sectionectomy for Living Donor: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . 281

Marco Spada, Ugo Boggi, Calogero Ricotta, Duilio Pagano
and Salvatore Gruttadauria
Part V
Surgery: Outcome
41 Complications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
Antonio Giuliani, Francesco Sicoli, Walter Santaniello,
Giangiacomo Nunzio Monti and Marcella Marracino
Contents xiii
42 The Italian Experience in Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver:

A National Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Luca Aldrighetti, Federica Cipriani, Francesca Ratti, Luciano Casciola
and Fulvio Calise, on behalf of the Italian National Survey Study Group
43 Perspectives: Where Shall We Be 20 Years from Now? . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Antonio Giuliani and Alberto Patriti
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
Contributors
Giulio Angelini General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Genoa, Italy
Luca Aldrighetti Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit,

San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
Mario Annecchiarico Department of Surgery, General Surgery Unit,

Misericordia Hospital Grosseto, Grosseto Italy
Giuseppe Aragiusto Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy
Francesco Ardito Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro

Cuore, Rome, Italy
Piero Atelli Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Claudio Bagarolo General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Genoa, Italy
Andrea Barberis General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Genoa, Italy
Alberto Bartoli Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally Invasive

and Robotic Surgery, ASL3 Umbria, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital,
Spoleto, Italy
Andrea Belli General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
Fiorenza Belli General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Genoa, Italy
xv
xvi Contributors
Giulio Belli General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Raffaele Bellochi Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally

Invasive and Robotic Surgery, ASL3 Umbria, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital,
Spoleto, Italy
Mario Belluomini Department of Oncology, Transplants, and New Technologies,

AOU Pisana, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Riccardo Boetto Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Ugo Boggi Department of Oncology, Transplants, and New Technologies,

University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Joseph F. Buell Tulane Transplant Institute, Department of Surgery,

Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
David Calatayud Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery,

Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA
Fulvio Calise Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Fabio Caniglia Department of Oncology, Transplants, and New Technologies,

Robert Cannon Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville,

Kentucky, USA
Carla Cappelli Department of Radiology, AOU Pisana, Pisa, Italy
Lorenzo Capussotti Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale

Mauriziano Umberto I, Turin, Italy
Luciano Casciola Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally

Spoleto, Italy
Graziano Ceccarelli Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally

Spoleto, Italy
Contributors xvii
Antonio Ceriello Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Daniel Cherqui Section of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation,

New York Presbyterian Hospital – Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, USA
Umberto Cillo Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

Luigi Cioffi General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
Federica Cipriani Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit,

Marco Colasanti General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital,

Rome, Italy
Andrea Coratti Department of Surgery, General Surgery Unit, Misericordia

Hospital Grosseto, Grosseto Italy
Santolo Cozzolino Center of Biotechnologies, A. Cardarelli Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Alberto D’Agostino General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Francesco D’Amico Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

Ada De Felice Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Transplants Department,

Maurizio Defez Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Giuseppe De Simone Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Transplants

Department, A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy
Bjørn Edwin The Interventional Center and Surgical Department, Oslo

University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway
Giorgio Ercolani Liver and Multiorgan Transplant Unit, S. Orsola-Malpighi

Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
xviii Contributors
Ciro Esposito Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Transplants Department,

Giuseppe Maria Ettorre General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo

Hospital, Rome, Italy
Federico Famiglietti Digestive and Colorectal Surgery, University of Turin,

Turin, Italy
Corrado Fantini General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Gianfranco Ferla Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit,

Alessandro Ferrero Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale

Marco Filauro General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Genoa, Italy
Brice Gayet Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris,

University Paris Descartes, Paris, France
Antonio Giuliani Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti Division of General, Minimally Invasive and

Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, USA
Felice Giuliante Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro

Cuore, Rome, Italy
Bruno Gridelli Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Istituto

Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad Alta Specializzazione (IsMeTT) -
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Italy, Palermo, Italy
Enrico Gringeri Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

Salvatore Gruttadauria Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery,

Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e Terapie ad Alta Specializzazione (IsMeTT)
- University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Italy, Palermo, Italy
Contributors xix
Michael D. Kluger Assistant Professor of Surgery, Section of Hepatobiliary

Surgery and Liver Transplantation, New York Presbyterian Hospital – Weill
Cornell Medical Center, New York, USA
Alan Koffron Department of Surgery, Oakland University William Beaumont

School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, USA
Pasquale Lepiane General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital,

Rome, Italy
Paolo Limongelli General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Roberto Lo Tesoriere Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale

Andrea Laurenzi General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital,

Rome, Italy
Marcella Marracino Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, National Cancer

Institute “Pascale”, Naples, Italy
Gianpaolo Marte Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Carla Migliaccio Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Giangiacomo Nunzio Monti Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Mario Morino Digestive and Colorectal Surgery, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Daniele Neri Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center, University
of Padua, Padua, Italy
Raffaella Niola Departement of Diagnostic Imaging, Section of Emergency

Radiology, A. Cardarelli Hospital, Naples, Italy
Gennaro Nuzzo Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro

Cuore, Rome, Italy
Enrico Opocher Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Digestive Surgery, San Paolo

Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
xx Contributors
Michele Paganelli Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, San

Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
Duilio Pagano Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Istituto

Alberto Patriti Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally Invasive

and Robotic Surgery, ASL3 Umbria, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital,
Spoleto, Italy
Antonio Daniele Pinna Liver and Multiorgan Transplant Unit, S. Orsola-

Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Marina Polacco Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

Francesca Ratti Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, San

Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
Calogero Ricotta Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Istituto

Aldo Rocca Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Marina Romano Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Gianluca Russo General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital,

Naples, Italy
Nadia Russolillo Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale

Bob Saggi Tulane Transplant Institute, Department of Surgery, Tulane University,

New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Roberto Santambrogio Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Digestive Surgery,

San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Walter Santaniello Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Contributors xxi
Roberto Santoro General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital,

Rome, Italy
Vincenzo Scuderi Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit,

Francesco Sicoli Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Stefano Signori Department of Oncology, Transplants, and New Technologies,

Marco Spada Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Istituto

Alessandro Spaziani Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally

Spoleto, Italy
Giuseppe Surfaro Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Maria Vellone Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
Rome, Italy
Giovanni Vennarecci General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo

Hospital, Rome, Italy
Luca Viganò Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano

Umberto I, Turin, Italy
Alessandro Vitale Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,

Minimally Invasive Surgery: An Update
1
Luciano Casciola
1.1 Lights and Shadows of Laparoscopic Surgery

More than quarter of a century of minimally invasive surgery has most cer-
tainly not passed in vain [1]. It has enabled us to reflect and make considera-
tions and assessments that are certainly more objective than those of the past.
An anecdote often circulated in those early days of laparoscopic surgery, even
in influential editorials, about the gynecologist carrying out a pelvic
laparoscopy who turned the optic upward to perform the first laparoscopic
cholecystectomy and how later he would curse that moment [2].
Actually, from the 1960s onward, the expert Philippe Mouret laid claim to
the technique of exploring upward and accused general surgeons of having
snubbed and underestimated the exploratory technique of laparoscopy simply
because it was designed for and practiced by gynecologists. His innovative
and philosophical thought highlights the idea that “if specialization presents
an advantage, it is that of adding specialist or ultra-specialist knowledge to
sound general knowledge and not deliberately ignoring everything that does
not pertain to one’s own privileged practice. The practice of laparoscopy strik-
ingly demonstrates the artificial nature of our classifications and the difficul-
ties pathologies will certainly have in adapting to them” [3].
It is difficult not to agree with Mouret about this. Laparoscopy, a surgery
performed in the abdomen facilitated by the use of a video camera, is a prac-
tice that has been gradually perfected by committed surgeons. Minimally
invasive colorectal surgery, unduly contested in the beginning, is now consid-
ered to be a kind of litmus test, an assessment of laparoscopy’s inexplicably
L. Casciola ()
Department of Surgery
Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery,
ASL3 Umbria, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital, Spoleto, Italy
e-mail: [email protected]
F. Calise and G. Casciola (eds.), Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver, 1

Updates in Surgery
DOI: 10.1007/978-88-470-2664-3_1, © Springer-Verlag Italia 2013
2 L. Casciola
limited growth, particularly considering its recognized feasibility, which is

evident from oncological results. If the obviously justified initial scruples con-
cerning oncological limits in some sense curbed the growth of colorectal
laparoscopic surgery, the same should not have applied for a benign patholo-
gy. However, other preclusions came into force – the same preclusions that
emphasized the limits more than the advantages; the contraindications more
than the indications. The experts contested cholecystectomy performed
through videolaparoscopy, which occurred as late as 1987, and the technique’s
mainly young supporters with their idea of calling into question something
like surgery of the biliary tract – an issue about which everything was consid-
ered to have been said. Nothing could have been further from the truth. For
various reasons, the delayed growth of this new surgical technique – essential-
ly, colorectal surgery – is interpreted today as failed growth.
The story repeats itself: Minimally invasive surgery of the colon has not
developed at the same rate as it has in other areas of pathology – appendix,
inguinal hernia, spleen, stomach, to mention but a few [4–6]. Attention is now
focused, above all, on colorectal surgery because, all of a sudden, it has
changed from being the most contested to the most legitimized form of mini-
mally invasive surgery [7]. However, there are probably many surgeons oper-
ating with insufficient experience in general laparoscopy, which Mouret held
so dear. The systematic adoption of laparoscopy as an ultimate diagnostic tool
should, in time, have led to the decrease in useless laparotomies. This did not
happen to a significant degree. This can partly be justified by growth in the
preoperative workup of diagnostic technologies, but routine practice remains
irreplaceable for the development of the minimally invasive discipline.
Routine practice has probably failed to be widespread.
However, it would be unjust not to recognize the significant role of mini-
mally invasive surgery in modern practice and its exponential growth with
regard to certain pathologies, for which it is now considered to be a gold stan-
dard, particularly regarding the esophagogastric junction, the left and right
adrenals, the distal pancreas, and the spleen [5, 8, 9]. Obviously, reservations
exist about the yet to be fully defined meaning of the gold standard.
1.2 Historical Limitations of Laparoscopic Surgery

Two almost absolute contraindications have always been considered with
regard to minimally invasive surgery: previous abdominal surgeries, and
parenchyma surgery. Surgery on the operated abdomen also means surgery on
the abdominal wall and its defects. Minimally invasive laparoscopic hernia
surgery, essentially initiated in Spain, has achieved a primary role in less than
a decade (thanks also to the growth in prosthetic materials), overcoming all
obstacles in a short time: myth or reality; cost–benefit; made-to-measure treat-
ment; extreme cases [10, 11]. Results of laparoscopic hernia surgery are good
and indisputable. Certainly, the minimally invasive approach has all the pre-
1 Minimally Invasive Surgery: An Update 3
requisites necessary to overturn the natural history of this illness. Damage to

the abdominal wall is primarily the result of a long-standing, incisional hernia
that has not been treated by traditional surgery, which is historically associat-
ed with a poor outcome [12]. Minimally invasive surgery, in itself less encum-
bered by wall complications and perfectly in keeping with prosthetic treatment
of the hernia, will allow treatment of initial lesions earlier and with better
results. However, hernia signifies an operated abdomen, and an operated
abdomen implies adhesions. There cannot be surgery on the abdominal-wall
defect without the viaticum of adhesiolysis. Treating adhesions, whether
symptomatic or not, represents a kind of “credit card” for the following wall-
defect treatment, which thus becomes a not always smooth, combined opera-
tion. Learning the technique is what makes the difference.
Acceptance of laparotomy once again renders justice to Mouret; others
debated whether or not videolaparoscopic cholecystectomy presented opportu-
nities, discussed its limitations and contraindications, researched its role in
adhesiolysis, catalogued it, and rendered it workable in an attempt to over-
come the initial limitation: the operated abdomen. It is through this process
that the incisional hernia is now approached laparoscopically. It is difficult to
leap beyond a generation; however, belief and application make things possi-
ble. Even if, in the beginning, minimally invasive surgery did not represent a
real, progressive model in its technological innovation, and even if it got off
the ground in minor, nonacademic centers, isolated learning curves have
developed around it that are respectful of the principles of traditional surgery.
It is true that the use of the Veress needle is still a topic of debate, but at the
same time, we are discussing minimally invasive surgery of the liver, which
once certainly was impossible. And we are now reporting large case series, as
this monograph demonstrates.
Perhaps we are still far from a unified perspective that defines laparoscopy
either as a choice or an obligation for the surgeon, but in the meantime, use of
this technique in every area of pathology has been investigated, and innova-
tion has closely followed. We are at the point of no return.
With its proactive potential, laparoscopy also entered the practice of major
vascular surgery, with the total respect for anatomical and conceptual rules
that we ourselves guarantee. However, its use in that pathology was aban-
doned when confronted by undisputed difficulties, because the ideal case of
aortic aneurism was also the ideal case for the emerging endovascular treat-
ment. The Marseille meeting in 1999, dedicated to improving use in this spe-
cific arena, is no more than a distant memory: laparoscopy had to give way to
other forces.
Had it not already existed, and although treated with contempt for a long
period, laparoscopic surgery of the hernia would have had to have been invent-
ed in certain clinical situations. Reference is made here to the recurrences or
plurirecurrences of open prosthesis surgery, which highlight the physiological
limitations of totipotency. In this case, the smoothest path is the posterior
approach. If the hernia is associated with bilaterality and concomitant patholo-
4 L. Casciola
gies, indications for a laparoscopic approach exceed 30%. For those of us who
have been advocates for so long, substantiating the technique with important
figures and experience dating back 20 years is like being recognized by evi-
dence-based medicine (EBM). Formal medicine always urges us to work on
the basis of evidence, but events are such that before useful case series are
available, new procedures quickly develop, other techniques take over from
previous ones, and one begins again with the same wariness of doing some-
thing without evidence: the dog chasing its own tail. On one hand, certainly
the opinion of the majority, we must modulate what we do on the basis of evi-
dence, On the other hand, we are witnesses to the development of new proce-
dures, such as Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) or
the single-port technique – the former being somewhat in line with the concept
of minimally invasive surgery; the latter risking making difficult what seems
by now to have become easy – both techniques without the support of evi-
dence. In the meantime, laparoscopic surgery of the hernia has not developed
as it should, even though indications for its use are, absurdly, agreed upon.
1.3 The Case of Robotic Surgery

Robotic surgery, with its claim through minimally invasive surgery to accom-
modate the needs of both patient and surgeon – the latter wishing to lay hands
on the patient’s abdomen without opening it up – from a purely theoretical
point of view should have facilitated the growth of a type of surgery that was
at that time relatively new. The amazing technology involved – from the high-
definition, three-dimensional vision and articulation of its instruments, to the
great stability of those same instruments guaranteeing the absence of tremors
– seemed to have the right credentials for a further leap forward in surgical
quality or even a definitive takeoff [13]. Even earlier, remote surgery could
have appeared as a change in gear for minimally invasive surgery, making
even smoother what was already consolidated and opening up new frontiers.
So far, this has not happened. Although devised for cardiothoracic surgery, the
technique has benefited the decidedly specialized branch of urology, particu-
larly with regard to prostate cancer. In fact, robotic technology does not per-
mit those with access to it to use it to make up for important deficiencies in
general minimally invasive surgery. Whereas one is the natural evolution of
the other, they share the same problems of the closed abdomen, of the pneu-
moperitoneum, of the port sites, of the orthogonality, of the instruments, all of
which are and remain common problems. Robotic surgery does not allow leaps
in procedure but increases contradictory elements. How else can its successes
in urology, achieved rapidly and without an extensive background experience,
be explained? Should it not have been the same scenario for endocrine sur-
geons, who saw the adrenal in the hands of general laparoscopy surgeons?
On one hand, encouraged by defensive medicine, there is an inescapable
movement toward surgery that is increasingly more specialized. On the other
hand, new demands emerge in specific areas of pathology. Our times have seen
the emerging possibility of surgical treatment for colorectal liver metastases,
thanks in part to the growing possibilities of chemotherapy together with the
emerging potential of operative endoscopy. What possibilities can a patient
have of being treated effectively with up-to-date approaches, regardless of a
hospital’s geographic location, while waiting for the strategic reorganization
of hospitals and clinics and specializations, which has always been talked
about but never defined? Without doubt, this is a period of change, but every
era undergoes its changes. It is deceptive to think that everything can be tied
to EBM, just as everyone should not shape their evidence and modulate their
gestures – because surgery is nothing more than a gesture. Literature, although
often late, is of great help, if not indispensable, in facilitating change.
This change is difficult to manage. However, the pioneering of the early
days is now contrasted by didactics, which is certainly in need of improvement
but extremely effective, like that of the historical, 20-year-old Associazione
Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (National Congress of Italian Hospital
Surgeons; ACOI) school and that of the more recent institution of the Società
Italiana di Chirurgia (International Society of Surgery; SIC) school. The
schools and specialist courses cannot only be the showcases for those who pro-
pose them; they must emphasize that everyone can and must decline, when
necessary, for the good of the patient.
There is no greater gap to fill than that of minimally invasive surgery,
which has failed to fully develop despite its now universally legitimized sta-
tus. We welcome the productive collaborations with their sharing of experi-
ences, from which we have all benefited. Thanks to his willingness and that of
his team, we have established a reciprocal project of collaboration with the
coeditor of this monograph, Fulvio Calise, director of Hepatobiliary and
Transplantation Surgery at the Cardarelli Hospital of Naples, Italy. We have
shared our experience in colorectal laparoscopic surgery and, thanks to them,
have been able to supplement it with knowledge regarding hepatic surgery,
making efforts to improve it further. The results are gratifying. Whenever pos-
sible, we deal with synchronous colorectal liver metastases, approaching
whenever possible both conditions at the same time. Similarly, the Naples
group has developed autonomy in their use of laparoscopic surgery in the large
intestine. Credit must be given to Calise, a renowned expert, for having recog-
nized the importance of integration with general surgery, an approach he has
always maintained achieves the best result for the patient.
Robotic surgery, which we have been practicing for a decade, has enabled
us to finely tune minimally invasive surgery of the liver, even for the postero-
lateral segments [14]. With regard to parenchyma surgery, always considered
taboo for minimally invasive surgery, robotic surgery has enabled us to per-
form a greater number of major pancreatic surgery, with results to be con-
firmed, but certainly, in our experience, no less significant than open surgery
[15]. It cannot be hypothesized that minimally invasive surgery can change the
natural course of pancreatic cancer, but the minimal approach could, in a short
6 L. Casciola
time, integrate with emerging alternative chemotherapy or locoregional thera-

pies. It is with regard to the latter that the current scenario could undergo
changes for certain diseases (rectum and cardia carcinoma) for which positive
results are usually difficult to achieve. Minimally invasive surgery, robotic and
nonrobotic, will effectively perform its role, as it is ready and waiting [14, 16,
17–20].
These major surgeries with a minimally invasive approach are limited thus
far to isolated groups, but they are developing into significant numbers. These
groups are certainly important for the overall growth of the techniques in that
they are proactive in the destiny of greater pathologies and offer stimulus for
those who still hesitate or who have yet to start – perhaps obstructed by the
problems of costs. This is another age-old problem, certainly real today,
against which the evolution of what is new has always had to struggle.
However, I am pleased to observe that in the long run, costs have never
stopped great innovation, although at times they may have slowed it down, and
for those who are less enlightened, costs can even constitute a sort of alibi in
the beginning.
It is not possible to deny the great results achieved by minimally invasive
surgery, despite its commonly considered insufficient growth relative to the
sum total of surgery that is carried out. Compared with procedures that have
been absolutely unsurpassable until now (the transplant, for example), an infi-
nite skepticism has held back progress in this field. The generational change
in surgery and the driving force of new technology will make the difference in
the evolution of minimally invasive surgery, which represents, above all, a cul-
tural leap forward in its rekindling of debate and its promise of new solutions
to illnesses in relation to the old and established surgical techniques.
References
1. Mouret P (1996) How I developed laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Ann Acad Med Singapore
25(5):744–747
2. Terblanche J (1991) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a new milestone or a dangerous innova-
tion? HPB Surg 3(3):177–180
3. Meinero M, Melotti G, Mouret P (1993) Chirurgia laparoscopica, Masson, Milano
4. Vettoretto N, Gobbi S, Corradi A et al (2011) Consensus conference on laparoscopic appen-
dectomy: development of guidelines. Colorectal Dis 13(7):748–754. doi:10.1111/j.1463-
1318.2011.02557.x
5. Casaccia M, Torelli P, Squarcia S et al (2006) The Italian Registry of Laparoscopic Surgery
of the Spleen (IRLSS). A retrospective review of 379 patients undergoing laparoscopic
splenectomy. Chir Ital 58(6):697–707
6. Bittner R, Arregui ME, Bisgaard T et al (2011) Guidelines for laparoscopic (TAPP) and en-
doscopic (TEP) treatment of inguinal hernia [International Endohernia Society (IEHS)]. Surg
Endosc 25(9):2773–2843. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1799-6
7. Hazebroek EJ (2002) COLOR: a randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open
resection for colon cancer. Surg Endosc 16(6):949–953. doi:10.1007/s00464-001-8165-z
8. Cavallini A, Butturini G, Daskalaki D et al (2011) Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for solid pseu-
do-papillary tumors of the pancreas is a suitable technique; our experience with long-term fol-
low-up and review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol 18(2):352–357. doi:10.1245/s10434-010-
1332-5
9. Salminen P, Hurme S, Ovaska J (2012) Fifteen-year outcome of laparoscopic and open Nis-
sen fundoplication: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Thorac Surg 93(1):228–233.
doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.08.066
10. Carbajo MA, Martp del Olmo JC, Blanco JI et al (2003) Laparoscopic approach to incision-
al hernia. Surg Endosc 17(1):118–122. doi:10.1007/s00464-002-9079-0
11. Carbajo MA, Martin del Olmo JC, Blanco JI et al (1999) Laparoscopic treatment vs open sur-
gery in the solution of major incisional and abdominal wall hernias with mesh. Surg Endosc
13(3):250–252
12. Cassar K, Munro A (2002) Surgical treatment of incisional hernia. Br J Surg 89(5):534–545.
doi:10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02083.x
13. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal ex-
perience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784. doi:10.1001/arch-
surg.138.7.777
14. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G et al (2011) Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver sur-
gery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824.
doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
15. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC, Ayloo SM, Bianco FM (2011) Robotic extended pancre-
atectomy with vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas
40(8):1264–1270. doi:10.1097/MPA.0b013e318220e3a4
16. Caruso S, Patriti A, Marrelli D et al (2011) Open vs robot-assisted laparoscopic gastric resec-
tion with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma: a case-control study. Int J Med Ro-
bot 7(4):452–458. doi:10.1002/rcs.416
17. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A et al (2009) Short- and medium-term outcome of robot-as-
sisted and traditional laparoscopic rectal resection. JSLS 13(2):176–183
18. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A et al (2009) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage re-
section of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a pilot study. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg 16(4):450–457. doi:10.1007/s00534-009-0073-y
19. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bellochi R et al (2008) Robot-assisted laparoscopic total and partial
gastric resection with D2 lymph node dissection for adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc
22(12):2753–2760. doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0129-0
20. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Ceribelli C et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of
cardia carcinoma according to Siewert recommendations. Int J Med Robot 7(2):170–177.
doi:10.1002/rcs.385
Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver:
An Update 2
Fulvio Calise and Carla Migliaccio
Your old road is rapidly agin’.

Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.
Bob Dylan, 1964
2.1 Introduction
These prophetic words, written and sung by Bob Dylan almost 50 years ago,
may well apply to the (relatively) new field of minimally invasive surgery of
the liver (MISL). Nowadays the open approach to liver surgery (OLS) quick-
ly falls behind in comparison with MISL. Older surgeons still have ringing in
their ears the repeated warnings concerning risks related to laparoscopic
cholecystectomy (LC). Prominent remarks included a possible increased risk
of bile duct injuries [1], a prolonged learning curve [2], and the need for
young surgeons to have well-established training in OLS before starting to
perform LC. None of these alarms has overcome the tide of LC diffusion, and
none of them proved to be effectively true. Thanks to many training modali-
ties, such as dry lab, wet lab, simulators, virtual realities, and practice in large
animals (pig), young surgeons directly enter into liver surgery using the
laparoscopic approach, and open cholecystectomy is almost always and every-
where an embarrassing memory.
So what is the future for MISL? The answer is bright if we take into
account the following considerations:
• In 1991, the first report of a hepatic resection appeared by Reich, fol-
lowed by Gagner [3], which was followed by the first multicenter report,
by Azagra, concerning resection of benign lesions [4]. From then on, in
PubMed, the number of recorded publications rose to more than 150 in
2011 as an increasing number of centers began practising MISL (Fig. 2.1).
F. Calise ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center, A. Cardarelli Hospital
Naples, Italy

Updates in Surgery
10 F. Calise and C. Migliaccio
Fig. 2.1 Minimally invasive liver surgery studies listed in PubMed
• In the report by Aldrighetti et al. in this volume (Chap. 35), more than 1600
minimally invasive liver resections (LR) have been performed in Italy in 39
centers in the last 7 years, with only one third of them in surgical units
thoroughly dedicated to hepatobiliary surgery.
• A national school of hepatic surgery in Italy was established by Lorenzo
Capussotti, and in some affiliated centers, such as ours, MISL is taught and
practiced by attending students.
• In a few centers scattered through the country, including ours, practical
teaching using pigs allows basic and advanced procedures to be performed.
• Industry strongly supports the development of new transection devices and
staplers that have, de facto, modified the technical approach to LR, facili-
tating accomplishment of the procedure
Since MISL was first introduced, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) has been
considered a promising technique due to fact that no reconstruction is demand-
ed for resections – with the exception of Klatskin tumors that are, thus far, not
considered among indications for LLS. Also, problems related to hypothetical
air embolism have been overcome by anesthesiological management using low
caval pressure and attention to appropriate indications. Hemorrhage in the
transection plane is consistently diminished due to the intra-abdominal pres-
sure induced by the gas, although we should consider that care for bleeding
sources must be taken for both resection surfaces.
• The Louisville Consensus Conference [5], held in 2008, clearly stated indi-
cations and safety limits for MISL codifying (Table 2.1):
• Liver segments: all segments but 7 and 8 can be approached because of the
inability to date of instruments to overcome axial projection on the surface
plane. In this regard, robot-assisted surgery may contribute to including
surgical indications to these two posterior segments also
• Lesion size
• Appropriate benign lesions
2 Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver: An Update 11
Table 2.1 The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery

The Louisville Statement, 2008
Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR): solitary lesions 5 cm
or less located in liver segments 2–6
LLR approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice
Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections
(e.g., right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons
Conversion should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure
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 laparo-
scopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins
and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns
• Conversion modalities
• Certain surgical cases to be appointed to expert surgeons/dedicated centers,
only for patient safety
• Left-lateral sectionectomy as a standard of care procedure. A definition of gold
standard for left sectionectomy has been proposed by some authors [6, 7], and
clinical results seem to confirm this definition.
A growing number of reports demonstrate that no difference exists between
OLS and MISL in terms of oncological results, resection margins, blood trans-
fusions, and complications, whereas MISL encompasses less postoperative
pain, shorter hospital stay [8, 14], and greater comfort and acceptance by the
patient in the first year after surgery (unpublished personal results). Also, the
combined one-stage laparoscopic surgery of colorectal tumors and liver metas-
tasis may avoid skin incisions, making resection easier in the case of metasta-
sis recurrence. As the ultimate step in the learning curve, laparoscopic left
lobectomy, without pedicle clamping, could be routinely proposed for imple-
mentation from a living donor for liver transplantation [15].
LLR is feasible and safe in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC) in cirrhotic liver disease and attains long-term outcomes similar to
those reported for the traditional open approach [16]. LLR will probably very
soon prove to be as effective as, or more effective than, OLS in HCC resection
as a bridge to transplantation.
Thus far, the real remaining limitation in MISL is the quality of laparoscop-
ic ultrasound (US), as devices do not yet provide easy and reliable use of open
probes. Progress continues, however, as discussed by Ferrero et al. in Chap. 13
of this volume. Remaining questions concerning the learning curve for either
general laparoscopic surgeons or surgeons already expert in OLS are treated
specifically in a dedicated chapter.
2.2 Robot-Assisted Liver Surgery

The introduction of robot-assisted liver surgery (RALS) into the field of MISL
began in 2001 with the first cholecystectomy [17] and continued in 2003 with
the first LR [18]. This new approach once more modifies the scenario. The 360°
rotational ability of robotic forceps allows trained surgeons to resect posterior
segments 7 and 8, with promising results regarding patient safety and security
[18]. Moreover, as in open liver surgery [19], RALS allows the surgeon to per-
form a multiple-wedge resection, especially for bilobar multiple colorectal
metastases, which is still debated for the pure laparoscopic approach.
Furthermore, the da Vinci Si HD© system may now provide a new technol-
ogy through a second console to facilitate the surgeon’s collaboration with the
trainee during surgery. The mentoring console provides two options: the
“swap” mode, allowing the mentor and the trainee to operate simultaneously;
and the “nudge” mode, allowing both to control two robotic arms at the same
time (see report by Coratti and Annecchiarico in Chap. 4 in this volume).
2.3 Two Questions Remain to Be Debated
2.3.1 Costs
In many reports, the higher expenses associated with LLR due to use of more
transection devices and staplers is largely overcome by a shorter postoperative
stay and fewer complications, particularly in case of repeated surgery [18, 20]
Questions still are raised, however, concerning RALS. Answers to this item
necessarily must take into account a suggested interdisciplinary use of the
robot system (by urologist, gynecologist, vascular surgeon, etc.) that may con-
tribute to a sharp decrease in the effective general cost of the instrument.
2.3.2 Where Should LLC Be Performed?
There is no doubt that in high-volume hepatobiliary units LLS is now a

requirement. Major hepatectomies are carried out in many centers around the
world with comparable results to those of OLS [21–25]. LS is increasingly
performed everywhere in the world, especially for colorectal and gastric dis-
eases. An interdisciplinary approach is strictly required to treat, in particular,
synchronous metastasis. Therefore, in a general hospital unit, the need for
MISL is increasingly required. With proper training, surgeons with a high
expertise in LS may safely approach simple procedures such as resection of
anterior segment metastasis in left and right lobes and, eventually, ligature of
a portal branch for preparing a two-stage resection, which is to be eventually
referred to tertiary centers for open procedures.
2 Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver: An Update 13
2.4 Conclusions
We believe that MISL is entering a new era in the surgical management of the
liver diseases. We even dare to say a new, democratic era, because at least
minor hepatic surgery is in the hands of a well-trained laparoscopic surgeon
working in a general surgery unit. Considering that robot-assisted surgery
costs in Europe are twice as much as in the United States and that costs will
probably decrease after patent expiration, there really will be no limits to the
development of MISL. What will happen is strictly related to the training abil-
ity of leading centers.
The secret to advancing these changes in the era of devolution, which the
Western world is facing at the present time, probably lies in the willingness of
centers to exchange experience and practice. Proctoring, second opinion, may
represent the key to saving money and increasing surgeon’s knowledge and
ability. More data are surely needed to confirm the safety and oncological
value of MISL. However, the trail is already broken, and an increasing num-
ber of surgeons will follow it, happily and safely, together with their patients.
References
1. Talamini MA, Gadacz TR (1992) Laparoscopic approach to cholecystectomy. Adv Surg
25:1–20
2. Marescaux J, Evrard S, Keller P, Miranda E, Mutter D, Van Haaften K (1992) Is cholecystec-
tomy by celiovideoscopy dangerous in the initial period? Prospective study of 100 initial cas-
es. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 16:875–878
3. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J (1992) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg
Endosc 6:99
4. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Gilbart E, Jacobs D (1996) Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lat-
eral segmentectomy-technical aspects. Surg Endosc 10:758-61
5. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N et al (2009) The international position on la-
paroscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250:825–830
6. Carswell KA, Sagias FG, Murgatroyd B, Rela M, Heaton N, Patel AG (2009) Laparoscopic
versus open left lateral segmentectomy. BMC Surg 7;9:14
7. Chang S, Laurent A, Tayar C, Karoui M, Cherqui D (2007) Laparoscopy as a routine approach
for left lateral sectionectomy, Br J Surg 94:58–63
8. Cherqui D, Husson E, Hammoud R, Malassagne B, Stephan F, Bensaid S et al (2000) Laparo-
scopic liver resections: a feasibility study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232:753–762
9. Gagner M, Rogula T, Selzer D (2004) Laparoscopic liver resection: benefits and controver-
sies. Surg Clin North Am 84:451–462
10. Cherqui D (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 90:644–646
11. Van Gulik T (2009) Open versus laparoscopic resection for liver. HBP (Oxford) 11:465–468
12. Edwin B, Nordin A, Kazaryan AM (2011) Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers. Scand
J Surg 100(1):54–65
13. Nguyen KT, Geller DA (2010) Laparoscopic liver resection-current update. Surg Clin North
Am 90(4):749–760
14. Hu BS, Chen K, Tan HM, Ding XM, Tan JW (2011) Comparison of laparoscopic vs open liv-
er lobectomy (segmentectomy) for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol
17(42):4725–4728
15. Troisi RI, Van Huysse J, Berrevoet F et al (2011) Evolution of laparoscopic left lateral sec-
tionectomy without the Pringle maneuver: through resection of benign and malignant tumors
to living liver donation. Surg Endosc 25(1):79–87
16. Belli G, Fantini C, Belli A, Limongelli P (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocel-
lular carcinoma in cirrhosis: long-term outcomes. Dig Surg 28(2):134–40. doi:
10.1159/000323824
17. Lomanto D, Cheah WK, So JB, Goh PM (2001) Robotically assisted laparoscopic cholecys-
tectomy: a pilot study. Arch Surg 136:1106–1108
18. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Ceribelli C, Spaziani A (2011) Robot-assisted
parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments.
Surg Endosc 25:3815–3824
19. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Botea F et al (2009) One-stage ultrasonographically guided hepatec-
tomy for multiple bilobar colorectal metastases: a feasible and effective alternative to the 2-
stage approach. Surgery 146:60-71
20. Vibert E, Denet C, Gayet B (2003) Major digestive surgery using a remote-controlled robot:
the next revolution. Arch Surg 138:1002–1006
21. Bhojani FD, Fox A et al (2012) Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open
liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience. J Am Coll
Surg 214:184–195
22. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT et al (2010) Comparing the clinical and economic impact
of laparoscopic versus open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol 17:998–1009
23. Topal H, Tiek J, Aerts R, Topal B (2012) Outcome of laparoscopic major liver resection for
colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print, February 23, PMID: 22358126]
24. Pearce NW, Di Fabio F et al (2011) Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: a challenging, but fea-
sible, safe and efficient procedure. Am J Surg 202:52–58
25. Dagher I, O’Rourke N, Geller DA et al (2009) Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: an evolu-
tion in standard of care. Ann Surg 250:856–860
Part I
Requirements
The Learning Curve in Laparoscopic
Liver Surgery 3
Fulvio Calise, Marina Romano, Antonio Ceriello,
Antonio Giuliani and Santolo Cozzolino
3.1 Introduction
The Shakespearian-like dilemma facing the general surgeon – to open or not
to open [the abdomen] – before being ready to perform a laparoscopic chole-
cystectomy (LC) was hotly debated at round tables and symposia in the early
days of the laparoscopic era. Reality, as often happens in life, quickly resolved
the many discussions and conflicting reports around this subject [1].
Although the aphorism “see one, do one, teach one” is a long-standing
phrase heard throughout a general surgeon’s education, never before has it
been taken so literally. In the early 1990s, general surgeons worldwide signed
up for 1- or 2-day courses to learn how to perform LC [2]. In many instances,
the closest the surgeon ever came to “seeing one” was in the porcine labora-
tory model. He or she subsequently walked into the operating room to “do
one” on a living human being (albeit while being proctored by the surgeon
whose job it was to “teach one.”) [3]. By 1999, these far-sighted words had
become reality – more or less.
Could we have ever foreseen this scenario for laparoscopic liver surgery
(LLS)? Evidently not, but the worldwide diffusion of laparoscopic surgery
(LS), the extraordinary technological progress in surgical devices, and the rel-
atively marginal role played by training programs raise questions that are still
being discussed. The main criticism to laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is
that it is a long and difficult procedure. It requires considerable expertise in
both hepatic and laparoscopic surgery, dedication, specific training, and the
availability of appropriate technology. Moreover, it seems unreasonable that
even an experienced laparoscopic surgeon should perform LLR outside a reg-
F. Calise ()
Naples, Italy

Updates in Surgery
18 F. Calise et al.
ular practice of open liver surgery [2]. Cherqui argues that the collaboration of
two surgeons, one expert in each field, seems desirable when initiating an LLR
program [4].
3.2 Surgeon Training
3.2.1 The Surgeon in a General Surgery Unit
LS is more than 25 years old. Most of the surgeons active nowadays were edu-
cated in the aftermath of this revolutionary approach, and surgical expertise in
LS is now virtually mandatory. Training in LS is therefore a prerequisite for
any surgeon wishing to perform LLS. The LS training program is based on tra-
ditional and well-established simulation and practice in the operating theater.
So the first conclusion we may draw is that no surgeon should recommend
LLS if he or she has not gained sufficient experience in advanced LS (colorec-
tal surgery, gastric surgery).
In fact, the primary need for LLS in a general surgical unit is for treating
synchronous metastases and/or ligating a portal branch to prepare the patient
for a two-stage hepatectomy, which will be performed in a liver unit.
Resections of lesions <2 cm located in the anterior liver segments require lit-
tle additional skill to that needed for a complex LC [4–6].
Chapter 35 by Aldrighetti et al. discusses the first Italian LLS survey,
reporting on more than 1,600 cases in the last 7 years and only one third of
these centers is thoroughly dedicated to hepatobiliary surgery. These numbers
strongly suggest that proper training in LS may allow the surgeon to perform
minor LLS – and in some cases major resections – without a significant back-
ground in open liver surgery (OLS).
3.2.2 The Surgeon in a Hepatobiliary Unit
Twenty years after the first report, major LLRs are still limited to a few expert
centers, and only a small percentage of patients are considered by the major-
ity of authors to be suitable for the laparoscopic approach. Some encouraging
data come from recently published large series, but reproducibility and rou-
tine feasibility of this technique remain questionable [7].
Adequate training during the learning curve in LLS results in improved
patient outcomes in terms of operative time, rate of pedicle clamping and con-
version, blood loss, morbidity, and hospital stay [4–8]. With the learning curve
completed, blood loss and operative time progressively decrease and pedicle
clamping is less commonly required, and if so, is required for a shorter dura-
tion. Simultaneously, reduced blood loss and need for pedicle clamping con-
firms the safety of LLR despite the increased complexity of the resection.
A further improvement attributable to LLR is in postoperative complica-
3 The Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery 19
tions. Many articles report lower morbidity rates than with the open approach
[8]. There are two reasons for these results: strict patient selection is common-
ly adopted, LLR is a more accurate technique, and magnification of by the
laparoscope may allow more precise hemostasis. Conversion rate is considered
a criterion of quality in LS. The literature reports that there are essentially two
factors influencing the conversion rate: bleeding, and technical problems such
as difficult exposure, insufficient or poor-quality view, a fragile tumor with risk
of rupture, and uncertainty regarding the distance between the tumor and the
transection plane [9]. With an appropriate learning curve and patient selection,
conversions due to technical problems are reduced. However, conversion
should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than LS failure [5].
The duration of the learning curve depends on the trainee surgeon’s previ-
ous training and types of resections performed. For major resections (right or
left hepatectomy), the bar is raised significantly, and these resections should
only be attempted by surgeons regarded as laparoscopic hepatobiliary and
pancreatic (HPB) specialists who regularly perform complex laparoscopic
procedures. The main limiting factor for these resections is technical difficul-
ty and surgical access. Some reports suggest that increased tumor size is not
a limiting factor, but this is not what is recommended in the Louisville
Statement [5]. Huge tumors have proven to be more difficult to manipulate
laparoscopically and require much larger incisions to remove, consequently
eliminating the benefits of a minimally invasive procedure [6].
Major LLR is anyway technically demanding and obviously requires
expertise in conventional OLS as well as in advanced laparoscopic techniques
[4–5]. A slow, but constant evolution of LLR is occurring: indications for and
the magnitude of such procedures have increased, and technical outcomes
have improved. The learning curve demonstrated in this study suggests that
LLR is reproducible in liver units, but specific training in advanced
laparoscopy is required [2, 7].
3.3 Training Modalities

Several training modalities can be used when constructing an LS training pro-
gram. Direct technical training is available either from virtual or animal mod-
els [11]. In general, a program starts with knowledge development, followed
by skills training using a combination of simulation modalities, which, in
turn, is followed by real-life case observation in the operating room. When
starting an LS training program, the trainee/surgeon needs to attain knowl-
edge of and understand laparoscopic technology, device functions, basic trou-
bleshooting, device parameters, and limitations of the system. The next step
is to develop knowledge for specific surgical procedures, which include
patient selection and indication, preoperative preparation, patient and system
positioning, port placement, procedural steps, and complications and their
management [12].
20 F. Calise et al.
3.4 Dry Lab

Training for LS can be scheduled in a skills laboratory. A dry laboratory (Dry
Lab) is specific to work with dry stored materials, electronic and/or large
instruments. Unlike wet laboratories, biological tissues (living or dead) are not
utilized. These dry labs are equipped with workstations for practicing endo-
scopic techniques, in a realistic setting, on phantoms and organ models [13].
3.4.1 Virtual Reality
Simulators offer standardized and reproducible laparoscopic tasks, ranging

from simple basic skills training to complex procedures. The development of
virtual reality (VR) laparoscopic simulators actually began in the early 1990s,
the first such simulator being introduced in the mid-1990s. Progress has been
rapid, and simulators and simulation technology have recently been the subject
of reviews and editorials in major surgical and medical journals. The notion is
to create “a realistic” operating environment that offers unlimited laparoscop-
ic practice without detrimental consequences when trainees make mistakes.
Two main contributions arise from this global aim: (1) specification of didac-
tic exercises that has developed into the creation of a new training environ-
ment; (2) appropriate use of simulation technologies that significantly improve
overall simulation [15].
The simulator comprises these didactic units: hand–eye coordination, cam-
era manipulation, grasping, pulling, cutting, dissecting, and suturing, with one
or more tasks required in each unit. With the development of optic virtual sim-
ulators based on the science of “the study of sensing through touch,” these new
simulators provide an immersive environment for surgeons to touch, feel, and
manipulate computer-generated 3D images of tissue and organs with tools
used in actual operating theaters. The LS simulator is developed for surgical
education with an expandable surgical platform that includes life-like surgical
anatomy and the ability to record the learner’s performance during each ses-
sion. It also offers an immediate review and critique of the performed laparo-
scopic task. This allows trainees to develop and test their technical, cognitive,
and medical decision-making skills in a safe virtual environment [16].
3.5 Wet Lab
3.5.1 Animal Models
Although not always replicable, models of actual surgical procedures are

increasingly important in the surgical environment. Such models have been
used for many purposes, ranging from a source of experience for students, res-
idents, and surgeons to the development of new surgical techniques [17].
These models reduce the learning curves for various procedures and make it
easier to reproduce the learned techniques and continue to develop them in the
operating room. Laparoscopic procedures are generally performed in the
porcine model in a manner comparable with actual surgery in humans [18].
The main limitations of using living animals are ethical considerations and the
relatively high cost to training centers of using large animals.
3.5.2 Cadaver Models
The human cadaver remains the gold standard for anatomic training and is
highly useful during minimally invasive surgery training programs. As a mat-
ter of fact, it may be used in a multidisciplinary cooperation. Many skills can
be learned through tissue manipulation and hemostasis exercises in animal
training courses, but the human anatomical material still provides the best
instruction for surgeons participating in robotic and laparoscopic training
courses [19].
However, a widespread use of human anatomical material for surgical
skills training is limited by a restricted supply of cadavers, by the fact that
there is a difference in tissue quality between cadaveric and blood-perfused
tissue, and the fact that cadavers may be only used once.
At the moment, in Italy the law allows to use only frozen cadavers. The
Center of Biotechnologies of Naples has hosted the Donor’s Surgeon course
since 2009. In this course the frozen cadavers are used to train young surgeons
for multi-organ procurement, liver resection and split liver, and transplant
techniques for living donor were taught.
3.6 Training Centers

Following the experience initiated in Strasbourg many training centers
throughout Europe have been created. These centers were advanced mainly by
private companies interested in the diffusion of laparoscopic techniques and
instruments. Although the government of such centers is the hands of the lead-
ing surgeons who promoted them, the company’s financial support is essential
to their survival. In some cases, national societies of surgeons, such as the
Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri Italiani (ACOI; National Congress of
Italian Hospital Surgeons and the Società Italiana di Chirurgia(Italian Society
of Surgery) and the Società Italiana di Chirurgia della Mano (Italian Society of
Surgery of the Hand) (SIC-SICM), encouraged the foundation of national
schools of surgery primarily devoted to the advancement of open and laparo-
scopic training.
In the Cardarelli Hospital in Naples, the Center of Biotechnologies has
been active since 1988. The center serves many purposes: experimental pre-
clinical research in small (mouse, rat, rabbit) and large (pig) animals, and
22 F. Calise et al.
engages in international cooperation and educational training in surgery, micro-

surgery, laparoscopy, and other specialties using either rats and pigs or frozen
cadavers. The center has run more than 207 courses in all fields of specialized
surgery, for a total of 583 educational days and 2,881 students. Since 2007, an
average of 50 courses/year have been presented, with nine of them providing
the opportunity for students to first practice on animals and subsequently on
human frozen specimens from the USA (trunk, head, spine). Moreover, in 2012,
a larger, three-story building will become the new location for all surgical,
microsurgical, and laparoscopic activities. The Center of Biotechnologies also
hosts the national ACOI school on microsurgery and experimental surgery and
an advanced course on microsurgery of the SIC-SICM.
Other solutions aiming at providing an appropriate learning curve have
been spontaneously devised to overcome budget restrictions for continuing
education:
• Proctoring by expert surgeons in centers willing to start or strengthen liver
surgery programs
• Exchange skills and know-how in LS, as done by the editors of this vol-
ume: colorectal (Casciola) versus hepatic (Calise). This free exchange of
surgical competence allows training centers to ultimately become
autonomous in both surgical fields.
3.7 Conclusions
The increasing use of LS and consequently of LLS is changing the character-
istics of the traditional learning curve. The axiom that surgery is a wise mix of
seeing much and practising much may not be so true in the near future.
Children learn to use a computer and explore the Internet at the age of 3 years,
or even younger. The new generation of surgeons, thanks to the astonishing
progresses in technology, will probably accelerate their learning curve and
jump many steps that older surgeons would never have imagined as possible.
Giacomo Leopardi wrote in his poem “L’infinito” 200 years ago: “Naufragar
m’è dolce in questo mar” – “And to wreck in this sea is sweet to me.”
The sea of the Internet, with all its delights and devilries, now surrounds us.
References
1. Miller TA (1990) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: passing fancy or legitimate treatment op-
tion? Gastroenterology 99:1527-9
3. Shayani V, Jacobs L, Jonathan M (2005) Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy II. In: Wetter PA,
Kavic MS et al (eds) Prevention and Management of Laparoendoscopic Surgical Complica-
tions, 2nd Edition. Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
4. Vigano L, Laurent A, Tayar C et al (2009) The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection:
improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250:772-82
5. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver
surgery: The Louisville Statement Ann Surg 250:825-30
6. Van Gulik T (2009) Open versus laparoscopic resection for liver tumours. HPB 11:465-468
7. Chang A, Laurent C et al (2007) Laparoscopy as a routine approach for left lateral sectionec-
tomy. Br J Surg 94:58–63
8. Robinson SM, Hui KY, Amer A, Manas DM et al (2012) Laparoscopic liver resection: is there
a learning curve? Dig Surg 29:62-9
9. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Coratti A et al (2011) Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical
technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146:844-50
10. Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery,
time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137-49
11. Rodríguez-Sanjuán JC, Manuel-Palazuelos C, Fernández-Díez MJ et al (2010) Spanish As-
sessment of resident training in laparoscopic surgery based on a digestive system anastomo-
sis model in the laboratory. Cir Esp 87:20-25
12. Brinkman WM, Havermans SY, Buzink SN et al (2012) Single versus multimodality train-
ing basic laparoscopic skills. Surg Endosc PMID: 22350237
13. Stelzer MK, Abdel MP, Sloan MP, Gould JC (2009) Dry lab practice leads to improved la-
paroscopic performance in the operating room. J Surg Res 154:163-6
14. Diesen DL, Erhunmwunsee L, Bennett KM et al (2011) Effectiveness of laparoscopic com-
puter simulator versus usage of box trainer for endoscopic surgery training of novices. J Surg
Educ 68:282-9
15. Oestergaard J, Bjerrum F, Maagaard M et al (2012) Instructor feedback versus no instructor
feedback on performance in a laparoscopic virtual reality simulator: a randomized education-
al trial. BMC Med Educ 28:7
16. Stefanidis D, Scerbo MW, Montero PN et al (2012) Simulator training to automaticity leads
to improved skill transfer compared with traditional proficiency-based training: a randomized
controlled trial. Ann Surg 255:30-7
17. Cruz JA, Passerotti CC, Frati RM et al (2012) Surgical performance during laparoscopic rad-
ical nephrectomy is improved with training in a porcine model. J Endourol 26:278-82
18. Valero RJ, Moanack J, Cruz G et al (2012) Animal model for training in laparoscopic pyelo-
plasty. Acta Urol Esp 36:54-9
19. Sharma M, Horgan A (2012) Comparison of Fresh-Frozen Cadaver and High-Fidelity Virtu-
al Reality Simulator as Methods of Laparoscopic Training. World J Surg 36:1732-7
The Learning Curve: Teaching in Robotic
Surgery 4
Andrea Coratti and Mario Annecchiarico
4.1 Introduction
The introduction of robot-assisted surgery has radically changed the approach
to minimally invasive surgery, and this new technique is growing rapidly in
various fields of surgery [1–3].
The rapid introduction of robotic procedures necessitates new training
methods. Next to the more traditional forms of surgical teaching, the robot-
ic system seems ideal for integrating various forms of simulation [4]. While
using simulation, surgeons can develop their skills and pass their basic
learning curve on a simulator, hence avoiding the medicolegal aspects of
surgical training. Implementing simulation has the potential to create high-
quality and competence-based robotic training programs. This could shorten
the learning curve and thereby ensure safety and surgical outcomes for the
patients [5]. Next, simulation allows experienced surgeons to develop or
familiarize themselves with new instruments in a virtual environment [6].
Many hospitals had insufficient criteria for the surgeon’s competence before
starting with robotic surgery. This is indicative for the growing need for
competence-based training and assessment criteria. In 2007, an internation-
al multidisciplinary consensus group published a consensus statement on
robotic surgery. Training and credentialing was one of the four main items
addressed in this statement [7].
In our opinion, the learning process of robotic surgery starts with training,
and it continues during the clinical practice as a learning curve that can be
variable depending on the type of procedure, previous surgeon exposure to
minimally invasive surgery, protocol availability, and caseload.
A. Coratti ()
Department of Surgery, General Surgery Unit, Misericordia Hospital Grosseto,
Grosseto, Italy

Updates in Surgery
26 A. Coratti and M. Annecchiarico
Several training modalities can be used to construct a training program for

robotic surgery. In general, a program starts with knowledge development, fol-
lowed by skills training using a combination of simulation modalities such as
dry lab, wet lab and virtual simulators, which are finally followed by real-life
case observation in the operating room. When starting with robotic surgery,
there is a role for bedside assisting, proctoring, and the mentoring console. In
this training program the role played by the training center is very important,
as with our International School of Robotic Surgery in Grosseto, Italy, which
provides the opportunity for surgeons to start their robotic program training
with specific courses.
4.2 Training
4.2.1 Surgeon Training
The robotic training program for the surgeon can be divided into steps: basic
training, advanced training, and learning curve.
4.2.1.1 Basic Training

When starting with robotic surgery, the trainee surgeon needs to gain knowl-
edge and understand the robotic technology, device functions, basic trou-
bleshooting, device parameters, and system limitations. The next is the devel-
opment of knowledge for specific surgical procedures. This includes patient
selection and indications, preoperative preparation, patient and system posi-
tioning, port placement, procedural steps, and complications and their man-
agement. To make sure every surgeon starting with robotic surgery has a basic
level of theoretical knowledge, a theoretical examination on these items could
be helpful. Just as in laparoscopy, training for robotic surgery can be sched-
uled in a skills laboratory. In such facilities, exercises on pelvic trainers and
other exercises can be performed. A skills laboratory usually has the advantage
of high accessibility, but a disadvantage is the need for an expensive robot for
dedicated use in the training facility. With this in mind, most hospitals could
probably not afford a separate robot for use in a skills laboratory only. In these
cases, the available robot at the operating room could be used for training after
working hours or at scheduled times when no surgery is planned. Conventional
exercises for laparoscopy can be used and can actually be performed faster and
more accurately with robotic surgery. The exercises have a shorter learning
curve and are performed more accurately with robot assistance. At our institu-
tion, residents without any laparoscopic experience demonstrated the capacity
to rapidly learn basic surgical maneuvers using the robot.
It is important that training exercises are validated and have a proper goal.
Several levels of validation can be distinguished. Exercises should at least have
face (the simulation resembles the real task) and construct (the ability to differ-
entiate between groups with different levels of competence) validity and trans-
4 The Learning Curve: Teaching in Robotic Surgery 27
late well to the clinical setting before they are used in a robotic training pro-
gram. However, there are only a few reports of validated exercises. During this
step of training, in a center with a robot dedicated to the laboratory, animal or
cadaver training can be highly useful for performing the same basic procedures,
such as dissecting the porcine ureter, followed by section and reconstruction,
dissection of the renal hilum and nephrectomy, cholecystectomy, Nissen fundo-
plication, and an entero-entheric anastomosis [8, 9]. In this phase of training,
didactic lectures given by expert robotic surgeons are important.
Another important aspect of skills laboratory training is the transferability
of basic skills acquisition to real surgical performance [10]. Surgeons tend to
move slower, make more curved movements, and use more grip force during
human surgery. During robotic training, it is possible to record objective meas-
ures of the robotic instruments. These parameters can be used to describe
aspects of robotic surgical performance. In addition, using real-time augment-
ed visual feedback during training can enhance the actual surgical performance.
Virtual reality (VR) training could play an important role in teaching and
learning robotic surgery [11]. Since 2006, several, mainly small, studies with
respect to VR systems for robotic surgery have been published. Depending on
budget and training purposes, several simulators are commercially available, all
yet to be validated. With the introduction of simulators for robotic surgery, the
problem of system laboratory availability and issues related to costs can be par-
tially overcome, even if the cost of simulators is also expensive. Two systems
are in the advanced stage of development and validation: Mimic (Seattle, WA,
USA), with the dV TrainerTM, and Simulated Surgical System (Williamsville,
NY, USA) with the RoSSTM. Surgical-skills training in a virtual environment
provides a significant learning effect, and the learned skills are consistent with
and transferable to actual robot-assisted procedures. Surgical simulators facili-
tate familiarization with the console and the way it operates, including basic
troubleshooting, skill development in regard to camera and instrument opera-
tion, and compensation for the loss of tactile feedback. However, further
research is needed to develop this as an effective and reliable VR environment.
4.2.1.2 Advanced Training

After the conclusion of basic training, there are different options to continue
the surgeon’s training program, and operating room observation is an impor-
tant component. There are several ways to implement operating room observa-
tion in a training program: watching live surgery and actually being present in
the operating room; watching surgery in another room with the possibility of
communicating with the surgeon gives a real-life experience; watching a video
recording of an operation together with a teacher is another option. Video
recording has the advantage that illustrative surgeries are selected in advance
and the educational moments can be planned ahead.
Another important component of this step of training is the introduction of
a specific proctorship program. Proctoring – that is, providing direct supervi-
sion of an expert – takes place in the initial phase of a learning curve, and the
proctor is responsible for assessing the trainee’s skills and knowledge. A

review regarding proctoring emphasizes the importance of proctoring for
robotic surgery and institutional credentialing and addresses the medicolegal
aspects [13]. Although extended proctorship is an expensive way of training,
it provides a relatively safe way to introduce a new technique and prevents
surgeons from beginning to perform procedures before they have mastered the
technique. If expert surgeons are already practicing in the trainee’s institution,
the surgeon in training can start a proctorship in that institution. If this is not
the case, the recommendation is case observation at another hospital and proc-
torship organization in the trainee’s home institution.
Usually, the proctor will visit the hospital of the trainee, and surgery is per-
formed together, with the trainee receiving more responsibilities depending on his
or her skills. Proctoring is a very time-consuming and expensive way of teaching,
so it is interesting to look at alternatives. Modern communication technology,
telementoring, and teleprocotoring will save time and travel. Alternatively, a
trainee can make a video recording of the performed procedure and send it to a
proctor; the evaluation can then be carried out by watching the video online
together. Surprisingly, after a 5-day intensive robotic course, only 37.5% of atten-
dees used the possibility of proctoring, even at no extra cost. This could be
because most trainees attended as a team, and on returning to their hospital, they
performed surgery together. However, there is an increased take-rate when a proc-
toring program follows the standard intuitive training: 100% of urologist who
underwent an extended proctoring phase after training performed prostatectomies
afterward. Another possibility is using the availability of the mentoring console.
This is possible with new technology of the da Vinci Si HD system (Fig. 4.1). This
is a second console that allows the surgeon to collaborate with the trainee during
surgery. The mentoring console has two collaborative modes: the swap mode,
which allows the mentor and the trainee to operate simultaneously and actively
swap control of the robot arms; and the nudge mode, which allows them both to
have control over two robot arms. The nudge mode seems to be particularly use-
ful for guiding the trainee’s hands during some steps of an operation. There is also
the possibility for the trainee to sit at the mentoring console and passively follow
the motions of the telemanipulators being used by the instructor (haptic learning).
Lack of mentors/proctors is one of the main causes of failure in establish-
ing a new robotic program in a particular institution; the second is usually lack
of volume [8, 13]. It is recommended that two surgeons from the same institu-
tion be trained at the same time, thus remaining in collaborating when return-
ing to their home institution.
4.2.1.3 Learning Curve

The learning curve refers to the amount of surgical procedures performed before
a surgeon reaches an accepted plateau in outcome parameters (operating time,
blood loss, complication rate, surgery quality). More complex procedures have a
relatively long learning curve. The length of a learning curve may also vary as a
result of surgeon-related factors (surgical experience with a similar technology,
Fig. 4.1 da Vinci Surgical System Si HD (reproduced with permission from Intuitive Surgical, Inc.)
familiarity with the procedure) or hospital-related factors (availability of theater

time, available case load). Many series of robot-assisted laparoscopic procedures
have been reported, but only a minority addresses the aspect of the learning curve.
With respect to the outcome parameter operating time, there are the differ-
ent phases of the operation. First, there is the aspect of time needed for the
operating team to prepare and activate the robot system (setup time). Second,
there is the time phase relating to positioning and installing the robot (docking
time). Third, one can differentiate the actual time needed to complete the
robotic surgery procedure (console time). Fourth, there is the entire time span
in which the patient is in the theater (theater time). Setup and docking time can
be reduced quickly when working in a high-volume setting with a dedicated
team. Intraoperatively, outcome parameters are blood loss, complication rate,
and conversion rate to open surgery. To maintain the quality of oncological
surgery, parameters such as number of lymph nodes, tumour-free margins, and
recurrence rate are known to be used. Instead of the learning curve, Sammon
et al. suggest using the learning rate, defined as the percentage decrease in
operative time (minutes) per doubling of cumulative procedure number [14].
It is difficult to estimate the specific learning curve for a specific proce-
dure. For example, whereas robotic prostatectomy represents one of the most
standardized robotic procedures, it still presents a high variability in terms of
procedural learning.
4.2.2 Surgical Team Training
The experience of the team is proven to have a beneficial impact on overall

surgery time, and this is confirmed by experience at our center [15]. With the
da Vinci system, some important procedural steps are demanded of the assis-
tant surgeon, such as trocar placement, robotic-cart docking, instrument
exchange, suction and irrigation, retraction, staple use, solving troubleshoot-
ing, rapid conversion. The ideal training for the assistant surgeon is the same
as for the console surgeon.
Similarly, the nursing team plays a highly important role in the success and
speed of growth of a robotic program. Specific tasks are delegated to the nurs-
ing personnel, such as system startup, patient draping, camera setting, cart
docking, solving vision tower or connection problems, and rapid conversion.
Personnel training can be done at the same time as that of the surgeon, espe-
cially in basic training where most components are of common interest to a
nurse. Another option is to have specific training courses for nurses, as is pos-
sible in our International School of Robotic Surgery in Grosseto. In our opin-
ion, it is important that at the beginning of experience in robotic surgery there
is an adequate number of sufficiently trained personnel to provide backup at
all times, and once a core team is trained and proficient, new personnel can be
added to shifts for training (Fig. 4.2).
The International School of Robotic Surgery in Grosseto was born in 2000
for clinical surgery and began experimental surgery and training with the pur-
chase of a second dVSS in 2002. It is possible for staff to attend formal cours-
es and participate in clinical activity. Different types of courses are available
for surgeons. After completing formal courses, the school offers its coopera-
tion as a proctor to other centers beginning a robotic surgery program.
Thanks to the collaboration with other robotic centers around the world, a
new teaching method was recently introduced, with the birth of the Clinical
Virtual University (CVU), which allows observing live surgery by streaming,
with comment and interaction with the surgeon (Fig. 4.3).
Fig. 4.2 Robotic training process

Fig. 4.3
International
School of Robotic
Surgery, Grosseto,
Italy
4.3 Discussion
With the increasing popularity of robotic surgery comes a growing need for
sophisticated training programs for residents, fellows, and surgeons. Ideally,
these training programs should be competence based. Courses are commonly
used to share new information and/or learn new skills. Some are purely didac-
tic, and other mainly consist of skills training, but many combine the two
aspects. In contrast to open surgery, robotic skills can improve significantly in
a relatively short time.
With the approval of the dVSS by the US FDA, the manufacturer was told
to provide a comprehensive robotic training for all surgeons and their teams.
The manufacturer has engaged 24 training centers around the world. Training
comprises two parts: on-site training, which emphasizes key features of the
system, preparation and management in individual hospitals, and off-site train-
ing consisting of a course to learn and practice procedural skills. From there
on, surgical proctoring support is provided in the first cases. It is important to
start quickly with regularly scheduled cases after completing a course; other-
wise, newly learned skills can fade. At least one or two cases a week is recom-
mended to overcome the first part of the learning curve. In addition to the reg-
istered training centers, some centers developed their own training program
and thus function as training centers. These centers primarily focus on specif-
ic procedures.
Robotic surgery is still expensive, and several authors addressed or com-
pared costs with laparoscopic or open surgical procedures. Most studies main-
ly focus on the costs of the robotic system, with an additional 10% per year of
fixed service and instrument costs.
Rarely addressed are the costs of the learning curve of the surgeon and sur-
gical team. These are substantial costs that are often underestimated. Steinberg
et al. [17] constructed a theoretical model to describe costs associated with the
learning curve of a single surgeon for robot-assisted laparoscopy radical
prostatectomy (RALP). This study [17] illustrates the high costs involved with
the learning curve for complex robotic procedures and emphasizes the need for
sophisticated training programs together with a high case load to overcome the
learning curve.
Implementing a new technology such as robot-assisted laparoscopic sur-
gery in a safe and efficient way is demanding. There are many factors that
influence successful implementation of a robotic training program. Issues such
as training modalities, longer operative times, patient outcomes, cost, case
volume, number of robotic procedures required for the surgeon to become pro-
ficient, and patient-quality parameters are all items that require attention. The
exponential growth of robotic surgery, however, is not giving the surgical
community much time to develop structured training programs for future
robotic surgeons. In the near future, an increasing number of well-trained
robotic surgeons will be needed.
Designing a competence-based training curriculum for robotic surgery
remains a challenge, but with the exponential increase in robotic surgery, the
need for such certified curricula is increasing rapidly. There is a lack of vali-
dated training tools for robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery, and in the near
future, further research in this field needs to be performed. With the increas-
ing quality of virtual reality simulators for robotic surgery it is expected that
this training modality will play an important role in training future robotic sur-
geons, even in terms of costs. Procedural training for robotic surgery needs to
be carried out in a stepwise and systematic manner. In this way, introduction
of this new technology can be performed in an efficient and safe way and with-
out compromising results for our patients.
References
1. Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A et al. (2009) Current status of robotic assisted pelvic surgery and
future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440
2. Schreuder HW, Verheijen RH (2009) Robotic surgery. BJOG 116:198–213
3. Wilson EB (2009) The evolution of robotic general surgery. Scand J Surg 98:125–129
4. Kunkler K (2006) The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot 2:203–210
5. Hance J, Aggarwal R, Undre S, Darzi A (2005) Skills training in telerobotic surgery. Int J Med
Robot 1:7–12
6. Gallagher AG, Traynor O (2008) Simulation in surgery: opportunity or threat? Ir J Med Sci
177:283–287
7. Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc
22:313–325
8. Intuitive Surgical Training manual (2009) Intuitive Surgical Inc
9. Mirheydar H, Jones M, Koeneman KS, Sweet RM (2009) Robotic surgical education: a col-
laborative approach to training postgraduate urologists and endourology fellows. JSLS
13:287–292
10. Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2008) Objective evaluation of expert performance dur-
ing human robotic surgical procedures. J Robotic Surg 1:307–312
11. Albani JM, Lee DI (2007) Virtual reality-assisted robotic surgery simulation. J Endourol
21:285–287
12. Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL et al. (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and
medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the Society of Urolog-
ic Robotic Surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132
13. Rane A (2005) A training module for laparoscopic urology. JSLS 9:460–462
14. Sammon J, Perry A, Beaule L et al. (2010) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: learning rate
analysis as an objective measure of the acquisition of surgical skill. BJU Int 106:855–860
15. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al. (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic pancreatic sur-
gery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657
16. Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W III, Seigne JD (2008) The cost of learning robotic-
assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72:1068–1072
The Laparoscopic Column
5
Alberto Bartoli and Alberto Patriti
5.1 Introduction
Operating rooms usually used for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) are not
designed for this purpose. Hence, for this reason, all instrumental devices
(screens, light sources, recording systems, electrocoagulators, insufflators)
are located on dedicated trays. Because these devices take space, it is nec-
essary to have a room appositely prepared for immediate and safe use.
Operating room personnel need to be specifically prepared for this type of
surgery; for example, it is necessary to know highly technical details of and
sterilization methodology for all devices, which require more attention than
conventional surgical instruments [1]. In the event of surgical complication
or the impossibility of continuing with the laparoscopic approach, sur-
geons, assistants, and equipment need to be ready for conversion to an open
procedure.
Modern operating rooms specifically designed for MIS are equipped
with video screens installed on apposite mobile arms mounted to the ceil-
ing; this setup greatly assists surgeons in their work. Moreover this design
is easily manageable in case it is necessary for specific procedures or for
particular patient positions. Recording systems are installed on either the
cabinet or the perimeter wall, which allow staff to record without being
directly involved. The primary tools necessary for general and liver MIS
are briefly described.
A. Patriti ()
Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery,
ASL3 Umbria, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital,
Spoleto, Italy

Updates in Surgery
36 A. Bartoli and A. Patriti
5.2 Laparoscopic Trolley

The mobile video cart is equipped with locking brakes and has four antistatic
rollers. The trolley has a drawer and three shelves, the upper shelves have a tilt
adjustment and are used for supporting the video monitor unit. Included on the
trolley is an electrical terminal supply strip mounted on the rear of the second
shelf. Ceiling-mounted trolleys have recently been introduced by many com-
panies. They are ergonomically better and consume less space in the operating
theater than the mobile cart.
5.3 Light Cable and Light Source

MIS depends on artificial light being made available in a closed body cavity.
In 1867 Bruck, a dentist from Breslau, Prussia, made a platinum wire loop that
he heated with electric current and used that as a light source for surgical pur-
poses. Prior to 1954, endoscopy was performed using tungsten light bulbs to
illuminate the body cavity. These bulbs emitted low-frequency red light. The
bulb was so hot that there was always a risk of injury to bowel. In 1954, a
major breakthrough in technology occurred with the development of fiber
optic cables, the principle of which was based on the total internal reflection
of light. Light is conducted along a curved glass rod by multiple totally inter-
nal reflections from the walls of the rod. Light enters at one end of the fiber
and emerge at the other end, with virtually all its original strength, after
numerous internal reflections [2]. Nowadays, there are two types of light
cables available: (1) the fiber-optic cable, and (2) the liquid crystal gel cable.
Optic cables consist of a bundle of optical fiberglass thread swaged at both
ends. The fiber size is usually between 10 and 25 mm in diameter. They have
a very high quality of optical transmission but are fragile. In fact, as they are
progressively used, some optical fibers break. The loss of optical fibers may
be seen when one end of the cable is viewed in daylight: the broken fibers
appear as black spots. Gel cables consist of a sheath filled with a clear optical
gel (liquid crystal) [3]. Theoretically, they are capable of transmitting 30%
more light than optic fibers. This type of cable poses three problems, howev-
er: (1) The quartz swaging at the ends is extremely fragile, especially when the
cable is hot. (2) The slightest shock can cause the quartz end to crack and thus
cause a loss in light transmission. (3) These cables transmit more heat than
optical fiber cables and are made more rigid by a metal sheath, which makes
them more difficult to maintain and to store.
Light cables are conventionally attached to a light source and to the cam-
era through a right-angle connection. A typical light source consists of:
1. A lamp
2. A heat filter
3. A condensing lens
4. A manual or automatic intensity control circuit.
5 The Laparoscopic Column 37
5.3.1 Lamp
The lamp, or bulb, is the most important part of the light source. The quality
of light depends on the lamp used. Several modern types of light sources are
currently available and mainly differ by the type of bulb used. Four types of
lamp are usually used:
1. Quartz halogen
2. Incandescent
3. Xenon
4. Metal halide vapor arc.
5.3.1.1 Quartz Halogen

Halogen bulbs provide a highly efficient, almost crisp, white light source with
excellent color rendering. Electrodes in halogen lamps are made of tungsten;
this is the only metal with a sufficiently high melting temperature and suffi-
cient vapor pressure at elevated temperatures. They use a halogen gas that
allows bulbs to burn more intensely without sacrificing life. Halogen bulbs are
low voltage and have an average life of 2,000 h. Color temperature of a halo-
gen lamp is (5,000–5,600 K). These lamps are cheap and can be used for
laparoscopic surgery if low-budget setup is required.
5.3.1.2 Xenon Lamps

Xenon lamps consist of a spherical or ellipsoidal envelope made of quartz
glass, which can withstand high thermal loads and high internal pressure. For
ultimate image quality, only the highest-grade clear fused silica quartz is used.
It is typically doped, although not visible to the human eye, to absorb harmful
UV radiation generated during operation. The color temperature of the Xenon
lamp is 6,000–6,400 K. The operating pressures are tens of atmospheres at
times, with surface temperatures exceeding 600 °C. The smaller, pointed elec-
trode is called the cathode, which supplies the current to the lamp and facili-
tates the emission of electrons. To supply a sufficient amount of electrons, the
cathode material is doped with thorium. The optimum operating temperature
of the cathode tip is approximately 2,000 °C. To obtain this precise operating
temperature, the cathode tip is pointed and in many cases has a groove on the
pointed tip to act as a heat choke. This heat choke causes the tip to run at a
higher temperature. This configuration allows for a very high concentration of
light from the cathode tip and a highly stable arc. The anode, the larger elec-
trode, receives electrons emitted by the cathode. Once the electrons penetrate
the anode face, the resulting energy is converted to heat, most of which radi-
ates away. The large, cylindrical shape of the anode helps to keep the temper-
ature low by radiating the heat from the anode surface.
5.3.1.3 Metal Halide Vapor Arc Lamp

In metal halide lamps, the mix of compounds is carefully chosen to produce an
output that approximates white light as perceived by the human eye. There are
two types of metal halide lamps generally used: the iron iodide lamp, and the
gallium iodide lamp.
The intensity of light delivered by any lamp also depends on the source
power supply. However, increasing the power poses a real problem as concerns
the heat created. At present, improvements made to cameras mean that it is
possible to return to reasonable power levels, of the order of 250 W; however,
400-W units are preferable in order to guarantee sufficient illumination of the
abdomen, even when bleeding causes strong light absorption.
The two most frequently used types of lamps are halogen and xenon. This
may be due to the colors obtained. The xenon has a slightly bluish tint, and the
light emitted is more natural than that of a halogen lamp. However, most cam-
eras analyze and compensate for these variations by means of automatic equal-
ization of whites (2,100–10,000 K), which allows the same quality image to be
obtained with both light sources. Proper white balancing before beginning the
operation is good practice for obtaining a natural color. The white light is com-
posed of equal proportion of red, green, and blue (RGB), and at the time of
white balancing, the camera sets its digital coding for these primary colors to
equal proportion, assuming that the target is white. If at the time of white bal-
ancing the telescope is not seeing a perfectly white object, then the setup of
the camera will be poor, resulting in poor color perception.
5.3.2 Heat Filter
For 100% of the energy consumed, a normal light source uses approximately
2% in light and 98% in heat. This heat is mainly due to the infrared spectrum
of light and to obstruction in the light pathway. If infrared light travels through
the light cable, then the cable will become intolerably hot. A heat filter is
therefore introduced to filter this infrared light for travel through the fiber-
optic cable. A cool light source lowers this ratio by creating more light, but it
does not reduce heat produced by the energy to zero. This implies a significant
dissipation of heat, which increases as the power rating increases. Sources are
protected against transmitting too much heat; the heat is essentially dissipated
in transport, along the cable, in the connection with the endoscope and along
the endoscope.
5.3.3 Condensing Lens
The purpose of the condensing lens is to converge the light emitted by the
lamp to the area of light-cable input. In most light sources, it is used for
increasing light intensity per square centimeter of area.
5.4 Laparoscope and Camera Unit

The purpose of the laparoscope and camera unit is to transmit high-quality
images from the surgical field to the signal processing unit, which relays the
images to the video monitor. Traditional laparoscopes have two separate chan-
nels. One channel contains a series of glass rods (known as the Hopkins rod-
lens system) that transmit images from the surgical field to the eyepiece of the
laparoscope [4]. The second channel contains light fibers, which transmit light
from an external source to the surgical field. Laparoscopes may be straight or
angled at the tip. Straight (0°) laparoscopes offer a view of whatever lies
directly ahead, whereas angled (e.g., 30° or 45°) scopes allow the surgeon to
look around structures by rotating the scope. Typically, laparoscopes are either
5 or 10 mm in diameter and are usually 25–30 cm in length. Smaller diameter
laparoscopes, such as 3-mm scopes, are also available. Longer laparoscopes
(e.g., 40–45 cm) are also available and are frequently used in bariatric cases.
To transmit images from the laparoscope to the signal processing unit, a
camera is attached to the eyepiece via a coupler [5]. First-generation cameras
developed in the 1980s used a one-chip system to convert colors into electri-
cal charges and relay those images. Most current-generation laparoscopic cam-
eras use three-chip charge-coupled device systems, which sense primary col-
ors (RGB) and convert these colors to electrical charges. This enhancement
allows for a higher image resolution. Subsequent improvements in color detec-
tion and light sensitivity over the last 15 years have made three-chip systems
the standard in many operating rooms. Modern high-definition three-chip sys-
tems can offer more than 1,000 lines of resolution.
5.5 Video Monitor

Most traditional video monitors used in the operating room will accept input
from three types of analog signals: composite, brightness/color (Y/C,) and
RGB. Older laparoscopic camera systems typically output either composite or
super video signals, whereas many current-generation systems also generate
RGB output, which often provides higher-resolution images. However, even
with the use of RGB signals, the resolution provided by traditional cathode ray
tube monitors is somewhat limited (typically 600 lines or less). For enhanced
resolution, including high-definition formats, digital monitors that accept dig-
ital video interface (DVI) and serial digital interface (SDI) signals may be
used with high-definition video cameras. These flat-panel digital monitors,
which are also capable of accepting analog signals, are often ceiling-mounted
displays that are capable of providing more than 1,000 lines of resolution
(nearly twice the resolution of a typical television image) [6].
5.6 Insufflator
The creation of pneumoperitoneum is one of the essential steps of laparoscopic sur-
gery because it distends the abdominal wall and significantly enhances visualiza-
tion of intra-abdominal structures. The laparoscopic pioneers used room air prima-
rily because it was readily available and cheap. Studies published as recently as
1980 suggest that the creation of pneumoperitoneum with room air was safe and
cost effective [7]. However, its combustibility, poor solubility in blood, and possi-
bility for creating venous air embolism have virtually eliminated the use of room
air insufflation in today’s operating rooms. Likewise, insufflation with nitrous
oxide was popular throughout the 1970s [8]. However, reports of intra-abdominal
explosions have subsequently limited its popularity [9].
Carbon dioxide is currently the most commonly used gas during insufflation.
It is odorless, nonflammable, and highly soluble in blood, which reduces the like-
lihood of air embolisms. Although clinically significant hypercarbia and acidemia
can occur, particularly in patients with cardiopulmonary comorbidities, most
patients tolerate carbon dioxide pneumoperitoneum without any adverse effects.
To establish standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum (typically 12–14
mmHg), the insufflator must first be connected to the carbon dioxide cylinder.
Tubing is then used to connect the insufflator to either a Veress needle or a
laparoscopic port within the peritoneal cavity. Next, gas flow from the insuf-
flator is initiated. Although the amount of gas needed to create adequate pneu-
moperitoneum varies according to patient size, abdominal wall compliance,
and degree of gas leakage, several liters of carbon dioxide are usually ade-
quate. To maintain pneumoperitoneum throughout a case, substantially more
gas is needed. One report estimates that an average laparoscopic colectomy
requires approximately 110–180 L of carbon dioxide [10].
Most conventional insufflators use an intermittent pressure monitoring sys-
tem. This allows the insufflator to decrease the gas flow if the intra-abdominal
pressure exceeds a preset value. Conversely, it can increase gas flow to
account for a loss of gas either externally or through peritoneal absorption.
Rather than cycling gas continuously, insufflators alternate between injecting
gas every 2–3 s and monitoring intra-abdominal pressure.
The possibility of peritoneal contamination or disease transmission through
the flow of intraperitoneal fluid or particulate matter from the patient to the
insufflator (and then to the next patient) has been a concern since the early
days of laparoscopy. To address this concern, insufflation filters composed of
mesh with 0.1- to 0.3-μm have been developed. The literature surrounding the
effectiveness of these filters is limited. One study published in 1989 reported
that rust, dust, and metal filings could be detected on insufflator filters.
Another by the same author found that the use of a 0.3-μm filter reduced
microbial colonization of gas cylinders and insufflators [11]. However, a sub-
sequent examination that used microscopy, mass spectrometry, and bacterial
analysis showed no evidence of microbial or particulate matter trapping by the
filters [12].
References
1. Girotti MJ, Nagy AG, Litwin DE, Mamazza J, Poulin EC (1992) Laparoscopic surgery–ba-
sic armamentarium. Can J Surg 35 (3):281–284
2. Bellina JH, Haas M (1984) Cold light sources. Are they really cold? J Reprod Med 29
(4):275–277
3. Nalwa HS (2001) Handbook of Advanced Electronic and Photonic Materials and Devices. Ac-
ademic Press
4. Cockett WS, Cockett AT (1998) The Hopkins rod-lens system and the Storz cold light illu-
mination system. Urology 51 (5A Suppl):1–2
5. Berber E, Siperstein AE (2001) Understanding and optimizing laparoscopic videosystems. Surg
Endosc 15 (8):781–787. doi:10.1007/s004640000391
6. Soper N, Eubanks W, Swanstrom L (2008) Mastery of endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery.
Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins
7. Diaz MO, Atwood RJ, Laufe LE (1980) Laparoscopic sterilization with room air insufflation:
preliminary report. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 18 (2):119–122
8. Menes T, Spivak H (2000) Laparoscopy: searching for the proper insufflation gas. Surg En-
dosc 14 (11):1050–1056
9. El-Kady AA, Abd-El-Razek M (1976) Intraperitoneal explosion during female sterilization
by laparoscopic electrocoagulation. A case report. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 14 (6):487–488
10. Sammour T, Kahokehr A, Hayes J, Hulme-Moir M, Hill AG (2010) Warming and humidifi-
cation of insufflation carbon dioxide in laparoscopic colonic surgery: a double-blinded ran-
domized controlled trial. Ann Surg 251 (6):1024–1033. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181d77a25
11. Ott DE (1997) Microbial colonization of laparoscopic gas delivery systems: a qualitative analy-
sis. Jsls 1 (4):325–329
12. Frankel SM, Fitzgerald RL, Sackier JM (1998) Utility of insufflation filters in laparoscopic
surgery. Surg Endosc 12 (9):1137–1140
Technology in the Operating Room:
the Robot 6
Graziano Ceccarelli, Alberto Patriti, Alberto Bartoli,
6.1 Introduction
Robot-assisted and computer-assisted surgery are terms for technological

devices using robotic systems to aid in surgical procedures. The surgeon,
instead of directly using the surgical instruments, uses a computer-controlled
telemanipulator that allows reproduction of finger and wrist movements dur-
ing surgery, which is performed by articulated instruments at the tips of the
robotic arms [1]. The term robot was used for the first time by the Czech play-
wright Karel Capek in 1921 in his play “Rossum’s Universal Robots” (robota
is a Czech word meaning forced labor) [2]. In 1985, the PUMA 560 robot was
used to place a needle for a brain biopsy under computed tomography (CT)
guidance [3]. In 1988, the PROBOT device, developed at the Imperial College
of London, was used for prostate surgery. In 1993, the company Computer
Motion developed the AESOP (a voice-controlled camera holder) and ZEUS
systems [4]. The first robotic reconnection of fallopian tubes was performed
in 1997 using this device. In 1999, the first robotically assisted heart bypass
and the first beating-heart coronary bypass graft were performed using the
same robotic system [5]. In September 2001, Marescaux et al. performed the
first transatlantic surgical intervention, the Lindbergh Operation. Surgeons
where in New York, USA, and the patient affected by gallbladder stones was
in Strasburg, France [6].
The da Vinci Surgical System® was a real breakthrough. It was developed
and marketed by Intuitive Surgical Inc. (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) in 1997 and
was classified as a master–slave surgical system. The original telesurgery
G. Ceccarelli ()

Updates in Surgery
44 G. Ceccarelli et al.
robotic system at the basis of da Vinci was developed with grant support from
Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The telesurgical robot was
originally intended to facilitate remote surgery in the battlefield. The first
machine was set up in Europe in 1997, and the first surgical procedure was
reported by Himpens et al. in 1997 [20]. In 1998 the first robotic heart bypass
was performed in Leipzig, Germany. The da Vinci was cleared by the US Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000 for general laparoscopic surgery. In
2003. the Intuitive Surgical Company bought the Computer Motion system,
and ZEUS was no longer marketed. In January 2009, the first all-robot-assist-
ed kidney transplant was performed in Livingston, NJ, USA. Robotics in hepa-
tobiliary and pancreatic surgery continues to develop with interesting results,
above all the possibility of overcoming laparoscopic limitations [7–9].
Recently, even a right lobe donor hepatectomy was performed robotically [10].
6.2 The da Vinci System

The da Vinci system has been gradually upgraded from the first three-arm system
to the current light-weight da Vinci Si with four arms and a high-definition (HD)
camera. The da Vinci system basically has three components: the surgeon con-
sole, the robotic cart (with four arms), and the endoscopic column or vision cart
(Fig. 6.1a). The robotic instruments (hook, scissors, grasper, bipolar forceps, etc)
are articulated with 7 degrees of freedom. In the more recent versions, an HD, 3D
camera is available. In the typical robotic operating room, the surgeon sits at the
console and his or her finger movements are translated electromechanically into
precise and scaled micromovements of the instruments; the computer detects and
filters out any tremors in the surgeon’s hand movements [11].
6.2.1 Surgeon Console
The console consists of the binocular viewer, instrument controllers, two control
panels (for system setup), and foot-control pedals (Fig. 6.2a). It contains the
computer hardware and software. The surgeon operates while seated, viewing in
an HD, 3D view. The surgeon’s thumb and index finger of each hand are placed
in loops (master controllers). The system translates the surgeon’s wrist and fin-
ger movements into real-time movements to the surgical instruments. There are
five foot-control pedals in the da Vinci Si model: the clutch pedal, which disen-
gages the instruments from the controllers; the camera pedal, allowing adjust-
ment of the view; the pedal to adjust focus; and the bipolar and monopolar coag-
ulation pedals. Two panels are positioned on each side of the surgeon: on the left
is the camera and endoscopic calibration and motion scaling; on the right is the
system start control, emergency stop control, and standby buttons. If necessary,
the system can be rapidly disengaged by placing it on standby mode.
6 Technology in the Operating Room: the Robot 45
a b
Fig. 6.1 a The three components of the da Vinci Surgical System; b setup of the robotic theater
6.2.2 Patient-side Cart
The patient-side cart (Fig. 6.1a) consist of four robotic arms (one camera arm
and three instrument arms). Plastic drapes are necessary to drape the arms to
achieve sterility. The arms move around fixed pivot points. Each arm has a
series of multiple positioning joints and a terminal pivot joint at the attach-
ment with the laparoscopic port. The cart is connected by cables to the con-
sole. Once in position for surgery (docked), it is locked in place. For right
hepatic resections, it is docked generally at the patient’s right shoulder and for
left hepatic resection at the head or left shoulder (Fig. 6.1b).
6.2.3 Endoscopic Column (Stack) and Camera System
The endoscopic column and camera system (Fig. 6.1a) has all the features of
a standard laparo/endoscopic column with a monitor, a carbon dioxide (CO2)
insufflator, a dual high-intensity light source, and a camera unit. The camera
system, 10× magnification, has a dual lens system with two three-chip cam-
eras. The spatial separation of these images projected to the surgeon’s eyes in
the binocular viewer provides true 3D imaging at the console. It is possible to
integrate to the operating-field view images of real-time intraoperative ultra-
sound (US), CT scan, or others in a highly useful multimedia integration
process (Fig. 6.2c).
a b
Fig. 6.2 a Surgeon control; b robotic instruments used

c for hepatic resection; c example of integrated view (with
ultrasound image)
6.2.4 EndoWrist Instruments
A wide range of dedicated instruments is available (forceps, hook, bipolar for-

ceps, grasper, etc.) (Fig. 6.2b). Almost all instruments have an articulated tip
and have seven degrees of freedom, with the only exception being the ultra-
sonic dissector. Human tremors are abolished by position sensing. Almost all
instruments have only ten lives.
6.2.5 Setup Procedure
The robotic startup sequence includes a self-test that takes approximately

1min. The arms must be covered by sterile drapes. Once the camera and endo-
scope are connected, they need to be calibrated. Now the patient is placed in
6 Technology in the Operating Room: the Robot 47
the position desired for the specific operation with the robotic arms attached.
The surgeon takes position at the console and the ready button is pressed. An
infrared sensor at the head pad engages the instruments and the camera.
6.3 Applications and Hepatobiliary Surgery

More than 1,000 systems have now been set up across the globe, a majority of them
being in the USA. The da Vinci robot is now being used in various fields such as:
• Urology: radical prostatectomy, pyeloplasty, cystectomy, nephrectomy,
ureteral reimplantation, donor nephron surgery [12]
• Gynecology: hysterectomy, myomectomy, sacrocolpopexy [13]
• General and hepatobiliary surgery: cholecystectomy, Nissen fundoplica-
tion, Heller myotomy, gastric bypass, adrenalectomy, splenectomy and
bowel resection, liver resection, pancreatic surgery [14–16]
• Cardiothoracic surgery: internal mammary artery and blood vessel mobili-
zation and cardiac tissue ablation; mitral valve repair; endoscopic atrial
septal defect closure; cardiac revascularization [17]
• Ear nose and throat: transoral resection of tumors of the upper aerodigesti-
ve tract (tonsil, tongue base, larynx), transaxillary thyroidectomy [18].
6.4 Conclusions
The da Vinci Surgical System allows improvement over conventional
laparoscopy; it is an electromechanical actuator transmitting movements of the
surgeon’s hands to the tip of instruments, which have seven degrees of freedom
and can articulate up to 90°. The EndoWrist technology eliminates the fulcrum
effect and the surgeon’s natural hand tremors. This technology provides high
stereoscopic definition, a steady view, and movement scaling into micromotions.
The console allows the surgeon to operate from a seated and ergonomic position,
with eyes and hands positioned in line with the instruments. The articulated
instruments allow operation with just a short learning curve for complex laparo-
scopic procedures (involving dissection or reconstruction steps).
However, robotic surgical systems cannot perform by themselves. They rely
on a human operator for all input and are designed to replicate the movement of
the surgeon’s hands. With regard to clinical evidence, there are many publica-
tions on robotic surgery, the majority of which are nonrandomized prospective
studies and case series (level of evidence II). Since 1998, >4,000 publications
have appeared in various clinical journals, with about one half of these in urol-
ogy, as well as in cardiothoracic surgery, general surgery, gynecologic surgery;
pediatric surgery, ear nose and throat, and others [19]. Urologists and general
surgeons are the frontrunners in the use of robotic surgery. One of the most
important limitations of this technology is its high cost, and more studies are
needed to demonstrate cost-effectiveness in the different fields.
References
1. Ballantyne GH (2002) The pitfalls of laparoscopic surgery: challenges for robotic and tele-
robotic surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 12:1–5
2. Christensen AG (2007) Karel Čapek. In: The Literary Encyclopedia. First published 16 No-
vember 2007 [http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=728. Accessed 04 June
2012]
3. Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA Hayall S (1988) A robot with improved absolute position-
ing accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(2)153–161
4. Unger SW, Unger HM, Bass RT (1994) AESOP robotic arm. Surg Endosc 8(9):1131
5. McConnell PI, Schneeberger EW, Michler RE (2003) History and development of robotic car-
diac surgery. Problems in General Surgery 20(2):20–30
6. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M et al (2001) Transatlantic ro-
bot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 27;413(6854):379–380
7. Melvin WS, Krause KR, Needleman BJ, Ellison EC (2003) Robotic resection of pancreatic
neuroendocrine tumor. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 13(1):33–36
8. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Elli EF, Shah G, Addeo P et al (2010) Robot-assisted
laparoscopic pancreatic surgery: single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc 24:1646–1657.
doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0825-4
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824 [Epub 2011 Jun 8]
10. Giulianotti PC, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H, Bianco F, Spaggiari M, Oberholzer J et al (2012) Ro-
bot-assisted right lobe donor hepatectomy.Transpl Int 25(1):e5–e9. doi:10.1111/j.1432-
2277.2011.01373.x [Epub 2011 Oct 27]
11. da Vinci Surgery (2012). http://www.davincisurgery.com. Accessed 5 June 2012
12. Skolarus TA, Zhang Y, Hollenbeck BK (2010) Robotic surgery in urologic oncology: gath-
ering the evidence. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 10(4):421–432
13. Ahmed K, Khan MS, Vats A, Nagpal K, Priest O, Patel V et al (2009) Current status of ro-
botic assisted pelvic surgery and future developments. Int J Surg 7:431–440
14. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M, Sbrana F, Cecconi S, Baestracci T et al (2003) Robot-
ics in general surgery: personal experience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg
138:777–784
15. Ceccarelli G, Patriti A, Biancafarina A, Spaziani A, Bartoli A, Bellochi R, Casciola L (2009)
Intraoperative and postoperative outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic Nis-
sen fundoplication. Eur Surg Res 43(2):198–203 [Epub 2009 Jun 10]
16. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Ceribelli C et al (2011) Robot-assisted laparoscopic management of
cardia carcinoma according to Siewert recommendations. Int J Med Robot 7(2):170–177.
doi:10.1002/rcs.385 [Epub 2011 Mar 17]
17. Kypson AP, Randolph Chitwood W Jr (2004) Robotic applications in cardiac surgery. Int J
Adv Robotic Syst 1(2):87–92
18. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Desai SC, Quon H (2009) Transoral robotic surgery: does
the end justify the means? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 17:126–131
19. Intuitive Surgical (2012). http://www.intuitivesurgical.com/. Accessed 5 June 2012
20. Himpens J, Lemans G, Cadiere GB (1998) Telesurgical laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg
Endosc 12:1091
Part II
Surgery:
Principles and Management
Anesthesia
7
Ada De Felice, Giuseppe De Simone, Marcella Marracino
and Ciro Esposito
7.1 Introduction
Liver surgery is associated with a high rate of perioperative morbidity in

patients with chronic liver disease and with underlying risk factors such as
advanced age and pulmonary and vascular comorbidities, especially when a
major hepatic resection is planned [1–4]. Safety and feasibility of laparoscop-
ic liver resection (LLR) have been demonstrated by several studies, and nowa-
days, the open and laparoscopic approach can be considered equivalent in
terms of operative risk [5–7]. Factors contributing to make LLR safe are
advances in surgical techniques, more accurate knowledge of liver anatomy
and physiology, development of dedicated anesthesiological protocols, and a
close collaboration between the anesthesiological and surgical staff. The lat-
ter is of paramount importance in order to reduce operative time and intraop-
erative blood loss with the associated morbidity. Anesthesiologists’ duties
range from offering skillful technical help and assistance in the operating
room, to patient selection and to postoperative monitoring.
7.2 General Considerations
Preoperative evaluation of patient candidates for LLR is necessary to deter-

mine perioperative risks related to the disease and the operation and to plan
preoperative workup, intraoperative strategy, and postoperative care. LLR has
comparable postoperative morbidity and mortality to open hepatic procedures.
A. De Felice ()
Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit- Transplants Department, A. Cardarelli Hospital,
Naples, Italy

Updates in Surgery
52 A. De Felice et al.
Some surgical and anesthesiological implications decrease patient eligibility to

laparoscopic surgery until exclusion: severe chronic obstructive pulmonary dis-
ease (COPD), pulmonary fibrosis, severe cardiopathy or renal hypoperfusion,
acute glaucoma, ventricular–peritoneal shunt. The incidence of perioperative
complications is associated with many factors, such as high American Society
of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA PSC) class, emer-
gency, intraoperative surgical and anesthesiological management, and avail-
ability of postoperative intensive care unit. On many issues there is no consen-
sus from experts. Thus, it is good practice to organize a multidisciplinary staff
for examining single cases or to integrate different prognostic scores (e.g.,
Child–Pugh, New York Heart Association classification, Glasgow Prognostic
Score) to prevent postoperative complications. When the risk of surgery-relat-
ed morbidity and mortality is high (advanced age, presence of cardiovascular
risk factors, multisystem disease, poor functional status), the thoroughness of
the preoperative assessment should be intensified and go beyond the standard
history, taking into account physical examination, basic laboratories, and elec-
trocardiogram. Actually, studies suggest performing cardiopulmonary exercise
testing (CPET) to evaluate the cardiopulmonary reserve required to respond to
metabolic stress of the perioperative period [8–11].
7.3 Anesthesia and Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Managing hemorrhage and the risk of gas embolism are the major issues in
LLR. Improvements in surgical techniques allow hepatic resection to be per-
formed generally with minimal blood loss. This condition was obtained with
the introduction of local hemostatic agents and new instruments for liver tran-
section. The cardiopulmonary interventions to reduce blood loss during liver
resection include low central venous pressure (LCVP) and hypoventilation.
Central venous pressure is controlled <5 cm H2O with a combination of anes-
thesia and early intraoperative fluid restriction to reduce venous hemorrhage
during parenchymal transection. The anesthetic technique, designed to main-
tain LCVP and reduce transfusion requirements, also preserves renal function
and minimizes short- and long-term adverse effects of transfusions, such as
transmission of infection, allergic reactions, hemolysis, anaphylaxis, and
transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) [12–15]. Massive hemorrhage is
one of the most important adverse events to avoid during LLR. Blood loss is
an independent predictor of mortality, and it compromises, in common with
postoperative complications, the long-term outcome of oncologic patients.
Massive transfusion is commonly defined as replacement of one blood volume
over a period of 24 h or transfusion of at least four red blood cell concentrates
within 1 h. Massively transfused patients will show evidence of coagulopathy
in a high percentage of cases. Preoperative evaluation, including the patient’s
and his or her relatives’ bleeding history and routine coagulation testing aid
making a correct diagnosis of inherited and acquired bleeding disorders and
7 Anesthesia 53
set up a possible preoperative preparation (modification of anticoagulant

drugs, antifibrinolytic agents, erythropoietin, preadmission blood collection).
In the operating room, periodic visual assessment of the surgical field is
strongly suggested to detect as soon as possible bleeding due to surgical trau-
ma or coagulopathy. Furthermore, rotational thromboelastometry or modified
thrombelastography (point-of-care coagulation monitoring devices) are supe-
rior to routine laboratory tests to guide intraoperative hemostasis management.
Therapeutic approaches are based on hypothermia, acidosis, and hypocalcemia
corrections and on the use of blood products (red cell concentrates, platelets,
plasma), coagulation factor concentrates (fibrinogen, prothrombin complex,
von Willebrand factor), and pharmacological agents (antifibrinolytic drugs,
desmopressin) [16–20].
Laparoscopy and intraperitoneal carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation may
have detrimental cardiovascular effects. Changes in cardiovascular function
due to the high abdominal pressure (12–14 mmHg) are characterized by an
immediate decrease in cardiac index and an increase in mean arterial blood
pressure and systemic vascular resistance. In the next few minutes, there is
partial restoration of cardiac index and resistance, but blood pressure and heart
rate do not change during the entire LLR. The pattern is the result of interac-
tion between increased abdominal pressure, neurohumoral responses, and CO2
absorption. Decailliot [21] has reported an evaluation on hemodynamic conse-
quences of pneumoperitoneum (PP) associated to portal triad clamping (PTC)
using trans esophageal echocardiography (TEE) to provide information about
left ventricular cavity dimensions, wall thickness and wall motion. Interestin-
gly, analysis of echocardiographic data demonstrated the occurrence of region-
al wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs) in 50% of patients during PTC with
PP, as compared with only 10% of patients during PTC without PP. Although
a decrease in preload is the main important change during PTC in open liver
surgery, this study also demonstrated a decrease in left ventricular (LV) func-
tion, which is likely to be a consequence of decreased LV preload and
increased LV afterload during laparoscopic liver resections. In patients with-
out cardiac disease, PTC during a laparoscopic procedure could be performed
safely although hemodynamic modifications are reported, while hemodynam-
ic consequences in patients with preexisting cardiac disease and altered LV
function need further investigation. The changes in cardiopulmonary function
during laparoscopic upper abdominal surgery suggest judicious invasive mon-
itoring and careful interpretation in ASA III-IV patients. Pulmonary function
changes are characterized by reduced compliance without large alterations in
partial arterial oxygen pressure (PaO2), but tissue oxygenation can be adverse-
ly affected due to reduced O2 delivery. Difficulty in maintaining normocarbia
is due to the abdominal distention reducing pulmonary compliance and to CO2
absorption [22–23]. End-tidal CO2 tension is not a reliable index of partial
arterial carbon dioxide pressure (PaCO2), particularly in ASA III-IV patients.
CO2 is highly soluble in blood and fairly innocuous to the peritoneum. Small
amounts absorbed into the circulation cause slight increases in arterial and
alveolar CO2 and in central venous pressure. When CO2 enters the venous cir-
culation through iatrogenically opened vascular channels, catastrophic and
potentially fatal hemodynamic and respiratory failure may result. Gas
embolism may occur each time the vein’s internal pressure is lower than the
external pressure, not only during a laparoscopic procedure when CO2 is
inflated into the peritoneal cavity, but also during open surgery, such as major
liver resections, neurosurgery, and vascular or cardiac surgery. Although
symptomatic CO2 embolism is a rare condition, it is recognized as a potential-
ly fatal complication of laparoscopic surgery. The risk of gas embolism may
increase when positive-pressure CO2 pneumoperitoneum is associated to
LCVP used to minimize hemorrhage during liver resection. For these reasons,
maximal caution should be exerted when laparoscopic surgery is performed
close to large veins. Reinsufflation, inducing gas entry through the injured
vessel, might be another risk factor for CO2 embolism. The risk to the patient
may be minimized by the surgical team’s awareness of CO 2 embolism, contin-
uous intraoperative monitoring of end-tidal CO2, and hemogas analysis.
7.4 Conclusions
Laparoscopic surgery offers many benefits to the patient, including shorter
hospital stay, shorter recovery time, less postoperative pain, and faster return
to normal diet and usual activities. Nevertheless, ascites, postresectional liver
failure, bile leakage, intra-abdominal hemorrhage, and intra-abdominal
abscess are common complications of both open and laparoscopic liver sur-
gery. The extent of resection and the degree of baseline functional impairment
are the main independent risk factors for postoperative complications, includ-
ing liver failure. Adverse events impairing various organs (kidneys, respirato-
ry apparatus, cardiocirculatory system, nervous system) can occur even after
30 days from surgery. Complications after major surgery are a leading cause
of morbidity and mortality. The etiology of postoperative complications is
complex, but impaired cardiovascular flow and poor cardiorespiratory reserve
appear to be key factors. Primary objects of anesthesiological assistance are an
optimal analgesia and the control of hemodynamic parameters. Moreover, in
postoperative period the pattern of lung function following laparoscopy is
characterized by a transient reduction in lung volumes and capacities with a
restrictive breathing pattern and the loss of the abdominal contribution to
breathing. These changes are qualitatively similar to but of a lesser magnitude
than those following “open” abdominal surgery. Non-invasive ventilation may
be useful to avoid atelectasia and consequently hypoxemia. The role of the
anesthesiologists is to support the surgical team in early detection of patients
who need to be strictly monitored and assisted. A multidisciplinary effort must
be made through the entire chain – from the outpatient clinic through dis-
charge from hospital – with the utmost exertion of all team members in order
to address the specific needs of the patient [24–27].
7 Anesthesia 55
References
1. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM et al (2004) Improving perioperative outcome expands the role of
hepatectomy in management of benign and malignant hepatobiliary diseases: analysis of
1222 consecutive patients from a prospective database. Ann Surg 240:698–708
2. Imamura H, Seyama Y, Kokudo N et al (2003) One thousand fifty-six hepatectomies without
mortality in 8 years. Arch Surg 138(11):1198–1206
3. Kusano T, Sasaki A, Kai S et al (2009) Predictors and prognostic significance of operative
complications in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent hepatic resection. Eur
J Surg Oncol 35(11):1179–1185
4. Reddy SK, Tsung A, Geller DA (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection. World J Surg
35(7):1478–1486 Review
surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Sur-
gery. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
6. Welsh FK, Tekkis PP, John TG, Rees M (2010) Open liver resection for colorectal metastases:
better short- and long-term outcomes in patients potentially suitable for laparoscopic liver re-
section HPB (Oxford) 12(3):188–194
7. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection-2,804
patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841 Review
8. Garcia-Miguel FJ, Serrano-Aguilar PG, Lopez-Bastida J (2003) Preoperative assessment. Lancet
362:1749–1757
9. Khuri SF, Henderson WG, DePalma RG et al (2005) Determinants of long-term survival af-
ter major surgery and the adverse effect of postoperative complications. Ann Surg 242:326–341
10. Smith TB, Stonell C, Purkayastha S, Paraskevas P (2009) Cardiopulmonary exercise testing
as a risk assessment method in non cardio-pulmonary surgery: a systematic review. Anaes-
thesia 64(8):883–893 Review
11. Fujiwara Y, Shiba H, Furukawa K et al (2010) Glasgow prognostic score is related to blood
transfusion requirements and postoperative complications in hepatic resection for hepatocel-
lular carcinoma. Anticancer Res 30:5129–5136
12. Melendez JA, Arsian V, Fischer ME et al (1998) Perioperative outcomes of major hepatic re-
sections under low central venous pressure anesthesia: blood loss, blood transfusion, and the
risk of postoperative renal dysfunction. J Am Coll Surg 187:620–625
13. Jones RM, Moulton CE, Hardy KJ (1998) Central venous pressure and its effect on blood loss
during liver resection. Br J Surg 85:1058–1060
14. Gurusamy KS, Li J, Sharma D, Davidson BR (2009) Cardiopulmonary interventions to de-
crease blood loss and blood transfusion requirements for liver resection. Cochrane Database
Syst Rev 7(4):CD007338
15. Bux J, Sachs UJ (2007) The pathogenesis of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI).
Br J Haematol 136(6):788–799
16. Cockbain AJ, Masudi T, Lodge JP, Toogood GJ, Prasad KR (2010) Predictors of blood trans-
fusion requirement in elective liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 12(1):50–55
17. Sima CS, Jarnagin WR, Fong Y et al (2009) Predicting the risk of perioperative transfusion
for patients undergoing elective hepatectomy. Ann Surg 250(6):914–921
18. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Perioperative Blood Transfusion and
Adjuvant Therapies (2006) Practice guidelines for perioperative blood transfusion and adju-
vant therapies: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force
on Perioperative Blood Transfusion and Adjuvant Therapies. Anesthesiology 105(1):198–208
19. Mannucci PM, Levi M (2007) Prevention and treatment of major blood loss. N Engl J Med
31;356(22):2301–2311
20. Liumbruno GM, Bennardello F, Lattanzio A, Piccoli P, Rossetti G; Italian Society of Trans-
fusion Medicine and Immunohaematology (SIMTI) Working Party (2011) Recommendations
for the transfusion management of patients in the peri-operative period. II. The intra-opera-
tive period. Blood Transfus 9(2):189–217
21. Decailliot F, Streich B, Heurtematte Y et al (2005) Hemodynamic Effects of Portal Triad Clamp-
ing With and Without Pneumoperitoneum: An Echocardiographic Study. Anesth Analg
100:617-622
22. Putensen-Himmer G, Putensen C, Lammer H, Lingnau W, Aigner F, Benzer H (1992) Com-
parison of postoperative respiratory function after laparoscopy or open laparotomy for chole-
cystectomy. Anesthesiology 177:675-680
23. Cunningham A, Brull S (1993) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: anesthetic implications.
Anesth Analg 76:1120–1125
24. Rothe CF (1993) Mean circulatory filling pressure: its meaning and measurement. J Appl Phys-
iol 74(2):499–509 Review
25. Jhanji S, Lee C, Watson D, Hinds C, Pearse RM (2009) Microvascular flow and tissue oxy-
genation after major abdominal surgery: association with post-operative complications. In-
tensive Care Med 35(4):671–677
26. Virani S, Michaelson JS, Hutter MM et al (2007) Morbidity and mortality after liver resec-
tion: results of the patient safety in surgery study. J Am Coll Surg 204(6):1284–1292
27. Mirnezami R, Mirnezami AH, Chandrakumaran K et al (2011) Short- and long-term outcomes
after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis HPB
(Oxford) 13(5):295–308
Costs and Benefits. A Triad in Comparison:
Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery 8
Graziano Ceccarelli, Alberto Patriti, Raffaele Bellochi,
8.1 Introduction
Technologic innovation in health care is one of the most important causes of

growth in health-care costs. In recent years, financial restrictions have led to
careful evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of every new medical procedure
[1]. Minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic and robotic) has improved
patient outcomes in different general surgery subspecialties. Liver surgery
represents one of the most recent applications of these technologies [2]. The
cost-effectiveness of these procedures compared with open procedures is still
a matter of debate [3]. Procedure costs include mainly direct costs (operating
room time, instruments, and medications) and costs related to hospital stay. In
laparoscopic surgery, instrument cost (technological component) is the most
important component and is affected by the type (reusable or disposable) and
number of instruments used in each procedure. Laparoscopic and robotic pro-
cedures are, of course, more expensive compared with open procedures if
direct costs only are considered. However, in overall cost evaluation, other
parameters must be included, such as costs of complications and patient
recovery time and reintegration into social and professional lives. In this eval-
uation, minimally invasive surgery has demonstrated advantages in cost-
effectiveness in the major randomized controlled studies [1, 3, 4].
G. Ceccarelli ()
e-mail:[email protected]

Updates in Surgery
8.2 Cost-effectiveness of Laparoscopic Liver Resections

Koffron et al. reported an important shift in the rate of laparoscopic (LLR) and
open liver resection in their institution. LLR represented 10% of cases in 2002
and 80% in 2007, showing that laparoscopy decreased operative times (99% vs
182 min), blood loss (102 vs 325 ml), transfusion requirement (2 of 300 vs 8
of 100), length of stay (1.9 vs 5.4 days), overall operative complications (9.3
vs 22%), and local malignancy recurrence rate (2% vs 3%) [5]. A reduction in
hospital stay, blood loss, and postoperative pain and morbidity was clearly
confirmed by several studies, suggesting that LLR may be a suitable alterna-
tive to open surgery [6, 7].
Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is the most standardized and
anatomically performed LLR. Comparing LLS with the open procedure,
decreased intraoperative blood loss and shorter postoperative stay were demon-
strated [7, 8]. Vanounou et al., in 2010, published a study comparing 44 laparo-
scopic and 29 open LLS. In the laparoscopic group, they observed a shorter
median length of stay of 2 days (P = 0.001) and a reduction in postoperative
morbidity (P = 0.001). The economic impact of the laparoscopic compared with
the open approach was evaluated using the deviation-based cost modeling
(DBCM). Laparoscopy resulted in cost savings of US$1,412, demonstrating it
to be cost effective. The cost savings observed was due mainly to reduced
length of hospital stay and secondarily by a lower complication rate (less need
for ancillary services such as laboratory, radiology, and pharmacy) [9]. Edwin
et al. reported that total hospital costs for treating patients undergoing laparo-
scopic left hepatic resection is lower than for open counterparts. This fact is
explained mainly by decreased postoperative hospital stay, and faster return of
patients to their work would contribute additional values to the society [10].
Polignano et al., comparing laparoscopic versus open liver segmentectomy in a
prospective, case-matched fashion, demonstrated a significant reduction in
overall hospital costs using laparoscopy. By examining the average unit costs
for theater time, disposable instruments, high-dependency-unit (HDU) stay,
ward stay, and overall costs, the authors demonstrated that, although theater-
time costs did not differ, the laparoscopic approach allowed rapid recovery and
reduced HDU and ward costs. The laparoscopic approach was 2,571 euros more
cost efficient than the corresponding open approach [3].
Taken as a whole, it appears that any laparoscopic approach may advance
patient care and improve patient outcomes compared with traditional open
hepatectomy. In addition to its clinical benefit, the laparoscopic approach
seems to also offer an economic benefit [5].
8.3 Costs in Robotic Surgery

Robotic technology has increased in recent years. The number of robot-assist-
ed procedures worldwide has nearly tripled, from 80,000 cases in 2007 to
8 Costs and Benefits. A Triad in Comparison: Open, Laparoscopic, and Robotic Surgery 59
250,000 in 2009 [11]. Cost studies exist for about 20 types of procedures and
demonstrate that the average additional cost for the robotic approach is about
US$1,600, increasing to more than US$3,000 if the amortized cost of the robot
is included. Fixed costs depend greatly upon the number of cases necessary to
amortize the life span of the robotic system (breakeven-point analysis). van
Dam et al. calculated a direct cost for each patient of 3,920 euros, 1,960 euros,
1,306 euros, and 980 euros if, respectively, 100, 200, 300, and 400 robotic pro-
cedures are performed each year (amortization over 7 years). So, for even a
few surgical procedures, the costs can be competitive to similar open surgical
procedures [12, 13].
8.3.1 Direct and Indirect Costs Associated With Robotic Surgery
8.3.1.1 Equipment Costs

The da Vinci Si robotic device costs more than US$1,800,000, with a yearly
service contract of about US$180,000 (about 10%). All robotic instruments
($700–1,000 per case) have a limited, preprogrammed number of uses (gener-
ally ten). Another important aspect is the lack of market competition; the only
robotic system (da Vinci) is produced by a single company [14].
8.3.1.2 Operative Time

Operative time includes the surgical procedure and the time to prepare the sur-
gical theater and to setup and dock the robotic system. This extra time may be
calculated at about 15–40 min, but with experienced surgical teams, it may be
lowered to 5–10 min. Operative time decreases, of course, with surgeon and
surgical team experience. The learning curve to attain the necessary expertise
also has costs. In high-volume centers, the learning curve can be rapidly
reached and costs minimized [15].
8.3.1.3 Hospital Stay/Complications

Minimally invasive procedures decrease hospital stay compared with open sur-
gery, so overall costs of hospitalization are decreased [16]. However, for most
procedures, there are no demonstrated advantages of the robotic over the con-
ventional laparoscopic approach in terms of hospital stay. On the other hand
intra- and postoperative morbidity has added costs linked to longer hospital
stay and the patient’s inability to work. Many studies demonstrate these advan-
tages of minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery, but only a
few studies were designed to compare robotic to laparoscopy [17, 18].
8.3.1.4 Costs of Patient Inability to Work

It is more difficult to calculate the savings for society, health systems, and
insurance when assessing sick leave. Regardless, minimally invasive proce-
dures allow patients to resume their normal professional activities sooner than
after undergoing open surgery.
8.3.1.5 Cost of Oncologic Aspects

When we treat oncologic conditions such as liver tumors, other aspects must
be considered. In particular, these are estimated blood loss (and transfusions),
lymph node harvesting, recurrence, and survival.
8.3.2 Cost-effectiveness in Robotic Liver Surgery
Only a few studies deal with this aspect. They suggest that compared with
laparoscopy, robotic surgery is easier to set up, has the advantages of more
easily identifying and dealing with vascular and biliary structures, and allows
very precise dissection and safe parenchymal division, as a result reducing the
risk of complications. The robotic instrumentation in general adds US$500 per
case to the laparoscopic equipment cost. These costs can be reduced with
heavy use of the robot by other surgical specialties. In some studies, perioper-
ative outcomes were similar between robotic and conventional liver resection
groups, with the robotic procedures taking about 25 min longer. We believe
that this additional time is related to the learning curve of the surgical team.
For selected liver lesions, the robotic approach provides better perioperative
outcomes compared with laparoscopy, with better visualization and dexterity.
The robotic approach merits further attention because of its potential to mimic
open liver resection [19–21]
8.4 Models to Compare Surgical Costs

To compare costs of different procedures, comparing direct costs only is not
sufficient. One of the most used cost-model tools is deviation-based cost mod-
eling, which consists of defining deviations from the expected hospital course
and comparing the clinical and economic impact of complications in different
procedures, particularly in relation to length of stay. Postoperative complica-
tions (in particular, their severity) are an important factor conditioning
patients’ overall hospital course and costs [9, 22]. The principal advantage of
using this model is its availability to any surgical procedure at any institution.
Data are analyzed using the appropriate statistical analysis, permitting a rigor-
ous comparison of two or more techniques (e.g., laparoscopy vs open vs robot-
ic procedures) [23]. Another important cost-effective model is the Markov
model. Cost-effectiveness was measured in terms of incremental cost per life-
year gained and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for a
time horizon up to 25 years [24].
8.5 Innovation Governance and Health Technology

Assessment (HTA)
Every new health technology has the problem of “innovation governance,” and
every health service around the world needs to rely on sufficient information.
Every new technology can stimulate enthusiasm, competition, and desire to
pioneer; so every heath system needs to avoid availability of these innovations
to health-care providers with limited experience. One method adopted to eval-
uate cost-effectiveness of new technology is a multistep evaluation process (a
multidisciplinary panel) to determine:
1. Definition of the technology’s evidence profile and all relevant clinical
outcomes
2. Systematic review of scientific literature
3. Definition of the acceptable level of uncertainty for investing research
resources
4. Analysis of local context
5. Identification of clinical indications with promising clinical return [25].
In Great Britain, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE), a special health authority of the English National Health Service
(NHS), publishes guidelines in three areas: the use of health technologies
(medicines, treatments, and procedures); clinical practice; and health promo-
tion. These appraisals are based primarily on evaluating efficacy and cost-
effectiveness. NICE tries to provide standards of care. It helps improve the
quality of the service and the evidence of clinical practice of the NHS. NICE
uses the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) program that was set up in
1993. This program aims to ensure that high-quality research information on
costs, effectiveness, and broader impact of health technologies is available for
physicians and managers of the NHS. Through its Technology Assessment
Report (TAR), the HTA program is able to commission bespoke reports, not
only for NICE, but also for other policy customers.
8.6 Conclusions
The use of every new technology begins a process of formally conducted
research. In particular, a cost-effective evaluation needs to collect acceptable
levels of evidence proving the clinical effectiveness of the new procedures.
The safety and advantages in outcomes of minimally invasive hepatic surgery
have been demonstrated in many operative procedures, even in those per-
formed for malignancies [26]. Studies of overall costs (direct and indirect)
comparing open and laparoscopic procedures demonstrate interesting results
in better cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy, above all as the consequence of
reduced postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, and complications, demon-

strating a reduction in overall costs [5–7]. Robotic technology was developed
to overcome these limitations, although it is expensive due to the high costs of
purchase, maintenance, and need for dedicated instruments. However, the
learning curve for robotic surgery is shorter compared with that for
laparoscopy, and the conversion rate lower [18, 27, 28]. The more precise
movements and dexterity of robotic technology demonstrates fewer postoper-
ative complications in other procedures also, such as gastric bypass and car-
diothoracic surgery.
To reduce laparoscopic – and especially robotic – surgery costs, it may be
useful to concentrate activity (high-volume centers), create specialized
laparoscopic or robotic units, train dedicated theater staff, reduce the number
of disposable instruments per operation, reduce setup time, and reduce the
learning curve with the help of expert surgeons at the beginning of the train-
ing period. When addressing cost savings of robotic surgery, it is necessary to
increase multidisciplinary use and overall annual use (at least 300 procedures
are necessary to amortized the purchase cost). Reduced equipment costs,
development of new types of instruments – as occurs with almost all electron-
ic devices – competition between major equipment manufacturing companies,
multicenter prospective randomized trials incorporating economic aspects,
and evidence-based benefits are all necessary to justify the use of minimally
invasive surgery. More studies concerning oncologic outcomes of minimally
invasive surgery (lymph-node harvesting; recurrence and survival rates) are
also necessary.
In 2006, Lanzafame wrote: “…we must use technology responsibly and
honestly, evaluating our outcomes. It is our responsibility to educate our
patients, ourselves, and our colleagues about the benefits and limits of mini-
mally invasive surgery” [29].
Acknowledgments A special thank to Dr. Giuliano Metastasio, Dr. Maria Bonadonna and Ms.
Erminia Ciammarughi.
References
1. Künzli BM, Friess H, Shrikhande SV (2010) Is laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery equal
to open surgery? An evidence based perspective. World J Gastrointest Surg 272(4):101–108
2. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection –
3,804 patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841
3. Polignano FM, Quyn AJ, de Figueiredo RS, Henderson NA, Kulli C, Tait IS (2008) Laparo-
scopic vs open liver segmentectomy: prospective, case-matched, intention-to-treat analysis
of clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness. Surg Endosc 22(12):2564–2270
4. Koffron AJ, Kung RD, Auffenberg GB, Abecassis MM (2007) Laparoscopic liver surgery for
everyone: the hybrid method. Surgery 142(4):463–468
5. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R, Abecassis M (2007) Evaluation of 300 minimally inva-
sive liver resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg 246(3):385–392
6. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CN, Tsang YY, Ng WW, Ling E et al (2007) Laparoscopic vs open
hepatectomy for liver tumours: a case control study. Hong Kong Med J 13:442–448
7. Aldrighetti L, Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M, Guzzetti E, Casati M et al (2008) A prospec-
tive evaluation of laparoscopic vs open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg
12(3):457–462
8. Abu Hilal M, McPhail MJ, Zeidan B, Zeidan S, Hallam MJ, Armstrong T et al (2008) Laparo-
scopic vs open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy: a comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol
34(12):1285–1288
9. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT, Tsung A, Marsh JW, Geller DA et al (2010) Comparing
the clinical and economic impact of laparoscopic vs open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol
17(4):998–1009
10. Edwin B, Nordin A, Kazaryan AM (2011) Laparoscopic liver surgery: new frontiers. Scand
J Surg 100:54–65
11. Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs – the case of robot-as-
sisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704
12. van Dam P, Hauspy J, Verkinderen L, Trinh B, Van Looy L, Dirix L (2011) Do costs of ro-
botic surgery matter? In: Darwish A (ed) Advanced endoscopic gynecology. InTech, Rijeka
13. van Dam P, Hauspy J, Verkinderen L, Trinh XB, van Dam PJ, Van Looy L et al (2011) Are
costs of robot-assisted surgery warranted for gynecological procedures? Obstet Gynecol Int
973830 [Epub Sept 18]
14. Lotan Y (2010) Economics of robotics in urology. Curr Opin Urol 20(1):92–97
15. Leddy LS, Lendvay TS, Satava RM (2010) Robotic surgery: applications and cost effective-
ness. Open Access Surgery 3:99–107
16. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA (2006) Financial aspects of laparoscopy. In: Gill I (ed) Textbook of la-
paroscopic urology. Informa Healthcare USA, New York
17. Bell MC, Torgerson J, Seshadri-Kreaden U, Suttle AW, Hunt S (2008) Comparison of out-
comes and cost for endometrial cancer staging via traditional laparotomy, standard laparoscopy
and robotic techniques. Gynecol Oncol 111(3):407–411
18. Ceccarelli G, Patriti A, Biancafarina A, Spaziani A, Bartoli A, Bellochi R, Casciola L (2009)
Intraoperative and postoperative outcome of robot-assisted and traditional laparoscopic Nis-
sen fundoplication. Eur Surg Res 43(2):198–203 [Epub 2009 Jun 10]
19. Choi SB, Park JS, Kim JK, Hyung WJ, Kim KS, Yoon DS et al (2008) Early experiences of
robotic-assisted laparoscopic liver resection. Yonsei Med J 49(4):632–638
20. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new pro-
posal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824 [Epub 2011 Jun 8]
22. Vanounou T, Pratt W, Fischer JE, Vollmer CM Jr, Callery MP (2007) Deviation-based cost
modeling: a novel model to evaluate the clinical and economic impact of clinical pathways.
J Am Coll Surg 204(4):570–579
23. Murray A, Lourenco T, de Verteuil R, Hernandez R, Fraser C, McKinley A et al (2006) Clin-
ical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: sys-
tematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 10(45):1–141
24. Ballini L, Minozzi S, Negro A, Pirini G, Grilli R (2010) A method for addressing research
gaps in HTA, developed whilst evaluating robotic-assisted surgery: a proposal. Health Res
Policy Syst 20;8:27
25. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Darzi A, Lovegrove R, Jiao L et al (2007) Laparo-
scopic vs open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms-a meta-analysis. Sur-
gery 141:203–211
26. Buell JF, Thomas MT, Rudich S et al (2008) Experience with more than 500 minimally in-
vasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 248(3):475–486
27. Dev H, Sharma NL, Dawson SN, Neal DE, Shah N (2012) Detailed analysis of operating time
learning curves in robotic prostatectomy by a novice surgeon. BJU Int 109:1074–1080 [Epub
2011 Oct 28]
28. Secin FP (2011) The learning curve of robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy:
what is the evidence? Arch Esp Urol 64(8):830–838
29. Lanzafame RJ (2006) Issues in the acquisition, development, and use of technology in health
care. JSLS 10:401–408
Transection Devices
9
Alberto Patriti
9.1 Introduction
The risk of massive bleeding during liver transection and postoperative biliary
leaks are due to the complex biliary and vascular anatomy of the liver.
Hemorrhage was once the leading cause of death in liver resection, and the
now reduced hospital mortality rate of ≤5% can be attributed to better intra-
operative bleeding control. Hemorrhage and perioperative blood transfusion
not only increase the risk of operative morbidity and mortality but jeopardize
long-term survival after resection of liver malignancies because of the associ-
ated immunosuppression, leading to a higher risk of tumor recurrence [1].
Bleeding control is the result of the evolution of different aspects of liver sur-
gery and anesthesia. Technological advances led to the development of specif-
ic instruments for liver transection; intraoperative ultrasound allows better
delineation of the transection plane; and a better understanding of physiology
and anatomy improved control of inflow and outflow. Inflow occlusion and
low central venous pressure (CVP) anesthesia have been widely used to
reduce bleeding from inflow vessels and backflow in the transection surface.
Inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver) has been used since the early twentieth
century to prevent bleeding during transection, which is performed by crush-
ing the liver parenchyma with the fingers or forceps (Kelly-clamp crushing),
and the concomitant low CVP induced by anesthesia further minimizes blood
loss by preventing retrograde bleeding from the hepatic veins. Assuming that
inflow occlusion and low CVP cause significant damage due to ischemia and
reperfusion, there has been a growing interest in using new devices that facil-
A. Patriti ()

Updates in Surgery
66 A. Patriti
itate bloodless transection, obviating the need for inflow occlusion. In the
laparoscopic setting, these factors, associated with the struggle to perform an
intermittent Pringle maneuver and clamp crushing, have led to a wide diffu-
sion of a variety of transection devices, mostly derived from those routinely
used in open surgery. This chapter provides a description of the main transec-
tion device features and considerations on the Pringle maneuver associated
with clamp crushing in the laparoscopic setting.
9.2 Main Features of Transection Devices

The ideal surgical instrument for liver transection must effectively cut through
the parenchyma while simultaneously recognizing and sealing any vessels or
bile ducts. In reality, because no such single instrument yet exists, transection
is achieved by a combination of instruments and techniques, which first facil-
itate division of the liver tissue, with subsequent vessel identification and seal-
ing. The two basic actions of liver transection can be achieved by a variety of
energy types [2].
9.2.1 Mechanical Energy
Manual fragmentation of the liver parenchyma is the more primeval transection

device. The “finger fracture technique” under cycles of inflow occlusion was
first introduced by Lin et al. in 1958. This technique was subsequently impro-
ved through the use of surgical instruments, such as a small Kelly clamp for
blunt dissection. Nowadays, clamp crushing remains one of the most widely
used techniques for liver transection in open surgery. A more evolved device
employing mechanical energy is the water-jet dissector. The Hydro-Jet®
(ERBE, Tuebingen, Germany) employs a pressurized jet of water to fragment
the liver parenchyma tissue and expose the vascular and ductal structures. In all
systems employing mechanical energy, vessels and bile duct must be sealed by
other devices, clipped, or ligated before division. The endoscopic stapler can be
considered the only method employing mechanical energy that crushes and
divides the liver parenchyma, securing blood and bile vessels at the same time.
A straight clamp is used to fracture the hepatic parenchyma, and subsequently,
this portion of the liver is transected with a vascular stapler.
9.2.2 Alternating Current
High-frequency alternating current can be delivered in either a monopolar or a

bipolar fashion. Most electrosurgical devices work in a radiowave frequency
range of 500,000 Hz to 3 MHz. The monopolar device is composed of a gen-
erator, an electrode of application, and an electrode for the returning current to
9 Transection Devices 67
complete the circuit. The patient’s body becomes part of the circuit when the
system is activated. As the effectiveness of energy conversion into heat is
inversely related to the area of contact, the application electrode is designed to
be small to efficiently generate heat, and the returning electrode is designed to
be large to disperse energy and prevent burn injury to the patient. Generated
heat is dependent on three other factors in addition to the size of the contact
area: power setting/frequency of the current; length of activation time;
whether the waveform released from the generator is continuous or intermit-
tent. Unipolar devices can be used to incise tissue when activated with a con-
stant waveform and to coagulate when activated with an intermittent wave-
form. In the cutting mode, much heat is generated relatively quickly over the
target area, with minimum lateral thermal spread. As a result, the device cuts
through tissue without coagulating underlying vessels. In contrast with the
coagulation mode, the electrocautery generates less heat on a slower frequen-
cy, with potential for large lateral thermal spread. This results in tissue dehy-
dration and vessel thrombosis. A blind waveform can be chosen to take advan-
tage of both cutting and coagulation mode. A large grounding pad must be
placed securely on the patient for the unipolar electrocautery device to func-
tion properly and prevent thermal burn injury to the patient at the current re-
entry electrode site. Bipolar electrocautery establishes a short circuit between
the tips of the instrument, whether a tissue grasper or forceps, without requir-
ing a grounding pad. The tissue grasped between the tips of the instrument
completes the circuit. In generating heat that only affects the tissue within the
short circuit, it provides precise thermal coagulation. Bipolar electrocautery is
more effective than the monopolar instrument for coagulating vessels because
it adds the mechanical advantage of tissue compression between the tips of the
instrument to the thermal coagulation. Bipolar electrocautery is particularly
useful for conducting a procedure in which lateral thermal injury or arcing
phenomenon need to be avoided. The argon-beam coagulator is a special form
of monopolar electrocautery. The device creates a monopolar electric circuit
between a handheld probe and target tissue by establishing a steady flow of
electrons through a channel of electrically activated ionized argon gas. This
high-flow argon gas conducts electrical current to the target tissue, where it
generates thermal coagulation. The depth of thermal penetration of tissue
varies from fractions of a millimeter to a maximum of 6 mm, depending on
three factors: (1) power setting, (2) distance between probe and target, and (3)
length of application. It is most commonly used to control oozing on the cut-
ting liver surface.
9.2.3 Radiofrequency Energy
Radiofrequency (RF) is a rate of oscillation in the range of about 3 kHz to

300GHz, which corresponds to the frequency of radio waves and alternating
currents carrying radio signals. RF usually refers to electrical rather than
68 A. Patriti
mechanical oscillations; therefore, RF devices work basically as a monopolar

and bipolar electrocautery. A special feature of RF current is the “skin effect”:
the current does not penetrate deeply into electrical conductors but flows along
their surfaces. The rapid alternating directional movements of ions in the tis-
sue surrounding the probe result in the release of kinetic energy, determining
high temperatures. It can raise the temperature of target tissue to >100°C and
cause protein denaturation, desiccation, and coagulation necrosis, with a built-
in sensor terminating the transmission of the current automatically at a partic-
ular set point, preventing overheating and unwanted collateral damage. To
date, RF devices are largely used for resection and ablation of liver tumors.
The most popular RF-based devices for parenchymal transection are LigaSure,
TissueLink, and radiofrequency-assisted devices. LigaSure (Valley Lab, Tyco
Healthcare, Boulder, CO, USA) is designed to seal small vessels. By a combi-
nation of compression pressure and bipolar RF energy, it causes shrinkage of
collagen and elastin in the vessel wall, and it is effective in sealing small ves-
sels up to 7 mm in diameter. Gyrus Plasma Trisector (PK) (Gyrus Group PLC,
Gyrus International, Ltd., UK) is a novel RF system based on bipolar technol-
ogy and is available for open and laparoscopic surgery. The PK system uses
high-powered pulsed bipolar energy to produce a plasma kinetic field around
the working elements and is designed to operate at temperatures that allow
effective tissue dissection but to cause minimal collateral damage and adher-
ence to tissue. The TissueLink (Medical, Inc., Dover, NH, USA) is new tech-
nology using saline-linked RF energy. In this instrument, saline runs to the tip
of the electrode to couple RF energy to the liver surface and achieve coagula-
tion. The radiofrequency-assisted devices are designed to be inserted along the
transection plane serially 1- to 2-cm apart, and RF energy is applied for 1–2
min to create overlapping cylinders of coagulated tissue, followed by transec-
tion of the coagulated liver using a simple scalpel. Devices in this category are
the Cool-tip RF electrode (Radionics Inc., Burlington, MA, USA) and the
Laparoscopic HabibTM 4X (LH4X; RITA Medical Systems, Inc. California,
CA, USA). The LH4X consists of a 2×2 array of needles arranged in a rec-
tangle and uses bipolar RF energy to create an area of necrosis that can be cut
with scissors or scalpel.
9.2.4 High-frequency Sound Waves
Ultrasound effects on living tissue depend on its frequency. At a low power

level, it causes no tissue damage and is mainly used for diagnostic purposes.
With a high frequency setting, ultrasound can be used to dissect, cut, and coag-
ulate. There are several high-frequency ultrasonic devices available for surgi-
cal practice. The Harmonic Scalpel (Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH,
USA) and the LOTUS (Laparoscopic Operation by Torsional Ultrasound;
S.R.A. Developments Ltd., Devon, UK) use ultrasonically activated shears to
seal small vessels between the vibrating blades. The blade longitudinal
(Harmonic Scalpel) or tortional (LOTUS) vibration with a frequency of 55.5

kHz can dissect liver parenchyma easily. The coagulation effect is caused by
protein denaturation, which occurs as a result of destruction of the hydrogen
bonds in proteins and generation of heat in the vibrating tissue. Blood vessels
up to 2–3 mm in diameter are coagulated on contact with the vibrating blade.
The tissue-cutting effect derives from a saw mechanism in the direction of the
vibrating blade.
The Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) (Tyco Healthcare,
Mansfield, MA, USA) fragments and aspirates liver parenchyma with ultrason-
ic energy, thus exposing vascular and ductal structures that can be ligated,
clipped, or sealed with other transection devices. CUSA uses lower frequency
ultrasound energy and works basically as an ultrasound probe combined with an
aspirator. The main feature of CUSA is the ability to fragment and aspirate tis-
sue of low collagen and high water content (hepatocytes), leaving intact anatom-
ical structures with high collagen content, such as blood and biliary vessels.
9.3 What is the Best Transection Device?

Even though some of these devices have gained wide acceptance for hepatec-
tomy, their efficacy has been tested in only a few randomized studies conduct-
ed in the open surgical setting. In a recent meta-analysis, data from 556
patients undergoing elective liver resection and randomized in seven trials
were reviewed [3]. In that systematic review, there were no significant differ-
ences in mortality and complication rates (including bile leak) of liver resec-
tion, irrespective of the method used for parenchymal transection. Markers of
liver parenchymal injury or liver dysfunction were also similar, and there was
no difference in intensive care unit or hospital stay between groups. On the
other hand, the clamp crushing coupled with the Pringle maneuver appeared to
have the lowest blood loss and lowest transfusion requirements compared with
the other techniques. Clamp crushing was quicker than CUSA, Hydro-Jet, and
RFDS. Ikeda et al. randomized 120 patients to undergo clamp crushing or liver
resection with the LigaSure. In both groups, intermittent pedicle clamping was
applied, and the technique of parenchymal transection differed only for the
method of securing blood and bile vessels. After liver capsule cauterization,
the liver parenchyma was fractured by clamp crushing, and vascular struc-
tures, including portal triads and hepatic veins, were sealed with LigaSure in
one group and ligated in the other. The two groups did not differ in terms of
transection speed and postoperative morbidity [4]. Therefore, there is no evi-
dence of superiority of any technique over clamp crushing and the Pringle
maneuver for open liver resections. Clamp crushing is hardly reproducible
laparoscopically and several concerns limited the wide diffusion of the Pringle
maneuver among laparoscopic liver surgeons.
Encircling the liver pedicle is technically challenging with the rigid laparo-
scopic tools, and the risk of injury to the inferior vena cava and structures
70 A. Patriti
within the liver pedicle is considered potentially life threatening. Moreover, an

effective intermittent clamping is difficult to achieve due to the continuous
changes of the visual field between the section line and liver pedicle. Finally,
some preclinical data show that a high abdominal pressure could decrease liver
backflow, enhancing ischemic damage induced by inflow occlusion [5, 6].
These are several reasons the use of the other devices has been adopted in
laparoscopic liver resection instead of clamp crushing. Nevertheless, to date,
there are no randomized studies demonstrating the superiority of one tech-
nique or device over the others for liver transection in laparoscopic surgery. A
consensus among authors regards the use of vascular staplers to secure and
divide the portal pedicles and hepatic veins [7–9]. Similarly, transection of the
superficial liver layer (2 cm beneath the glissonian sheet), with the absence of
large vessels and bile ducts, is unanimously considered safe with all devices,
monopolar and ultrasonically activated shears included. When a deeper tran-
section is required, two methods can be followed: (1) indiscriminately coagu-
late all tissues and vessels along the transection plane, or (2) destroy the liver
parenchyma to expose the inner vascular and biliary structures to be clipped or
sealed separately and then divided.
RF-based devices work in the first manner. The LigaSure Atlas crushes
the parenchyma between the instrument jaws and then coagulates any vessel
and bile duct to at least 7 mm in diameter. The reported advantage of this
device is the minimal adjacent tissue damage due to thermal spread [10]. In
fact, when compared with other laparoscopic devices used for hepatic
parenchymal dissection, the LigaSure device demonstrates a lower mean
temperature in the surrounding parenchyma. In a study by Kim et al., the
mean temperature in the liver was 121.3 ± 9.7°C and 76 ± 2.9°C for the
Harmonic scalpel and LigaSure, respectively [11]. The LH4X is another
bipolar RF device. It produces coagulative necrosis along the line of intend-
ed parenchymal transection without vascular clamping of either portal triads
or major vessels. The area of necrosis is then cut with laparoscopic scissors
[12]. Limitations of RF-based devices are possible vascular injuries when
the transection plane is close to a major liver vessel, and the wide area of
necrosis at the surgical margin, which can increase the risk of postoperative
septic complications and make identifying marginal recurrences difficult
during follow-up [13].
Rather than creating massive coagulation of the transection plane, ultrason-
ic and water-jet devices fragment the liver parenchyma, leaving intact arteries,
veins, and bile ducts crossing the line of division, which can be sealed or
clipped and divided using the ultrasonic coagulating cutter, electrocautery, or
an RF-based device [7, 8, 14]. Therefore, the choice of transection techniques
in laparoscopic and open surgery is a matter of surgeon preference, as there are
no data from prospective randomized trials that compared different tech-
niques. Frequently, liver transection is performed using more than one device.
Therefore, it will be difficult to design controlled studies to prospectively
compare all the available devices [15].
9.4 Clamp-crushing Technique in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Whereas clamp crushing associated with intermittent Pringle maneuver is con-
sidered the safer and more accurate method of parenchymal transection in
open liver surgery, its use in the laparoscopic practice seems to be neglected
[3]. As discussed above, there are many technical and theoretical reasons
explaining this preference of laparoscopic surgeons. Despite the extensive use
of high-tech devices, the principle behind clamp crushing – to fragment the
parenchyma while preserving vascular structures – has been reproduced by
some devices, such as water-jet devices and CUSA. Moreover, parenchymal
fragmentation under intermittent inflow occlusion has been described in
laparoscopic series. Cuschieri, in 2005, claimed that to transect the liver he
uses a long-jawed crushing laparoscopic forceps under intermittent Pringle
maneuvers carried out with a laparoscopic vascular clamp introduced through
a port on the right flank [16]. Lee et al., in their series of 100 laparoscopic
hepatectomies, used clamp crushing in selected cases [21].
Renewed interest in this old-school technique is paralleled by ingenious
and easy techniques to achieve a safe and reproducible inflow occlusion. Four
groups independently describe a novel way to clamp the liver pedicle extracor-
poreally [17–19]. The availability of a tourniquet encircling the liver pedicle
that can be managed from the outside has the advantage of guaranteeing inter-
mittent and effective inflow occlusions, as in open surgery. This feature is
especially appreciable when major bleeding occurs, as the surgeon or the
assistant can rapidly occlude the inflow, avoiding the struggle of looking for
the liver pedicle in a bloody field and changing the focus of attention from the
bleeding site.
With the advent of robotics, clamp crushing has become the standard for
parenchymal transection in our institution. Using the EndoWrist bipolar
Precise forceps (Intuitive Surgical Systems, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), the
parenchyma can be easily fragmented, exposing the inner vessels as in open
surgery. The on-table surgeon uses the device to perform intermittent inflow
occlusion, thereby allowing the console surgeon to focus attention only on the
transection line [20]. The wristed instruments gave back to the laparoscopic
surgeon the possibility of performing curved and angled resections in all liver
segments, an ability that was lost with the rigid laparoscopic tools. The effect
of the poor ergonomics of laparoscopic devices has detrimental effects on the
outcome of liver resection.
Straight resections are easier, forcing the surgeon to favor major hepatec-
tomies for lesions located in the posterior liver segments. Therefore, it is the
author’s opinion that robotic clamp crushing may improve parenchymal
preservation, even for deeply located lesions, thus widening the indications for
a minimally invasive approach even to lesions in the posterolateral segments
and located close to major liver vessels.
72 A. Patriti
References
1. Kooby DA, Stockman J, Ben-Porat Let al (2003) Influence of transfusions on perioperative
and long-term outcome in patients following hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann
Surg 237(6):860–869. doi:10.1097/01.SLA.0000072371.95588.DA
2. Poon RT (2007) Current techniques of liver transection. HPB (Oxford) 9(3):166–173.
doi:10.1080/13651820701216182
3. Gurusamy KS, Pamecha V, Sharma D, Davidson BR (2009) Techniques for liver parenchy-
mal transection in liver resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD006880.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006880.pub2
4. Ikeda M, Hasegawa K, Sano K et al (2009) The vessel sealing system (LigaSure) in hepatic
resection: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 250(2):199–203. doi:10.1097/SLA.
0b013e3181a334f9
5. Nsadi B, Gilson N, Pire E et al (2011) Consequences of pneumoperitoneum on liver ischemia
during laparoscopic portal triad clamping in a swine model. J Surg Res 166(1):e35–43
6. Takagi S (1998) Hepatic and portal vein blood flow during carbon dioxide pneumoperi-
toneum for laparoscopic hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 12(5):427–431
7. Aldrighetti L, Pulitano C, Arru M et al (2008) Ultrasonic-mediated laparoscopic liver tran-
section. Am J Surg 195(2):270–272. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.02.022
to living liver donation. Surg Endosc 25(1):79–87. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1133-8
9. Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Tsuchiya M et al (2008) Application of devices for safe laparoscopic
hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 10(4):219–224. doi:10.1080/13651820802166831
10. Slakey DP (2008) Laparoscopic liver resection using a bipolar vessel-sealing device: Liga-
Sure. HPB (Oxford) 10(4):253–255. doi:10.1080/13651820802166880
11. Kim FJ, Chammas MF Jr, Gewehr E et al (2008) Temperature safety profile of laparoscopic
devices: Harmonic ACE (ACE), LigaSure V (LV), and plasma trisector (PT). Surg Endosc
22(6):1464–1469. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9650-9
12. Pai M, Navarra G, Ayav A et al (2008) Laparoscopic Habib 4X: a bipolar radiofrequency de-
vice for bloodless laparoscopic liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 10(4):261–264.
doi:10.1080/13651820802167862
13. McGahan JP, Khatri VP (2008) Imaging findings after liver resection by using radiofrequen-
cy parenchymal coagulation devices: initial experiences. Radiology 247(3):896–902.
doi:10.1148/radiol.2473070949
14. Vollmer CM, Dixon E, Sahajpal A et al (2006) Water-jet dissection for parenchymal division
during hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 8(5):377–385. doi:10.1080/13651820600839449
patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b0c4df
16. Cuschieri A (2005) Laparoscopic liver resections. J Minim Access Surg 1(3):99–109.
doi:10.4103/0972-9941.18993
17. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Casciola L (2011) Extracorporeal Pringle maneuver in ro-
bot-assisted liver surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(5):e242–244.
doi:10.1097/SLE.0b013e31822d7fb4
18. Saif R, Jacob M, Robinson S et al (2011) Laparoscopic Pringle’s manoeuvre for liver resec-
tion?: how I do it. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 20(6):365–368
19. Rotellar F, Pardo F, Bueno A et al (2011) Extracorporeal tourniquet method for intermittent
hepatic pedicle clamping during laparoscopic liver surgery: an easy, cheap, and effective tech-
nique. Langenbecks Arch Surg. doi:10.1007/s00423-011-0887-3
doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
21. Lee MR, Kim YH, Roh YH et al (2011) Lessons learned from 100 initial cases of laparoscop-
ic liver surgery. J Korean Surg Soc 80:334-341. Epub 2011, May 6
The Louisville Consensus Conference:
Conclusions and Perspectives 10
Giulio Belli, Luigi Cioffi, Andrea Belli and Corrado Fantini
10.1 Introduction
After an initial period of scepticism, especially concerning technical and

oncological problems, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) has become a feasible
and safe technique. Over the past decade, the minimally invasive approach has
been used increasingly in to manage hepatic diseases, showing that this tech-
nique in liver surgery, despite the technical challenges, reduces operative
blood loss and results in fewer early postoperative complications, less postop-
erative analgesic drug consumption, and shorter hospital stay, with an onco-
logic clearance and a survival rate similar to that of open surgery [1–5].
Therefore, the place of laparoscopy in liver surgery is increasing, and many
types of liver resections, including major hepatectomies, are now performed
by laparoscopy in specialized centers [6–9]. Nevertheless, no international
consensus on laparoscopic surgical management of liver lesions has been pub-
lished, and no worldwide criteria exist for the indications for minimally inva-
sive liver resection. Thus, there are no evidence-based criteria assisting the
surgeon with management strategies for the laparoscopic treatment of liver
tumors. For example, how large should the lesion be? Where should the lesion
be located? Should we modify the well-accepted surgical indication only
because we can perform a liver resection using a minimally invasive
approach? Should we perform laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) only for
benign lesions, or can we resect even malignant lesions by laparoscopy?
In view of these factors, a project was launched to prepare an internation-
al position on LLS. A working group consisting of 45 experts in hepatobiliary
surgery (Fig. 10.1) on 7–8 November 2008 was invited to participate in a con-
G. Belli ()
General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy

Updates in Surgery
74 G. Belli et al.
Fig. 10.1 Louisville Consensus Conference working group consisting of 45 experts in hepatobil-
iary surgery from five continents
Joseph F. Buell1, Daniel Cherqui2, David Geller3, Nicholas O’Rourke4, David Iannitti5, Ibrahim
Dagher6, Alan J. Koffron7, Mark Thomas8, Brice Gayet9, Ho Seong Han10, Go Wakabayashi11,
Giulio Belli12, Hironori Kaneko13, Chen-Guo Ker14, Olivier Scatton15, Alexis Laurent2, Eddie K.
Abdalla16, Prosanto Chaudhury17, Erik Dutson18, Clark Gamblin3, Michael D’Angelica19, David
Nagorney20, Giuliano Testa21, Daniel Labow22, Derrik Manas23, Ronnie T Poon24, Heidi
Nelson20, Robert Martin1, Bryan Clary25, C. Wright Pinson26, John Martinie5, Jean-Nicolas
Vauthey16, Robert Goldstein27, Sasan Roayaie22, David Barlett3, Joseph Espat28, Michael
Abecassis29, Myrddin Rees30, Yuman Fong19, Kelly M. McMasters1, Christoph Broelsch31, Ron
Busuttil19, Jacques Belghiti32, Steven Strasberg33, and Ravi S. Chari22.
sensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, USA; more than 300 attendees
were present from five continents. Specific areas of discussion included indi-
cations for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications,
patient safety, and surgeon training. The final objective was to summarize the
current world position on LLS [10].
During the conference, it was established that only three terms should be
used to describe LLR – pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the
hybrid technique – in order to standardize terminology. Concerning the role of
major laparoscopic hepatectomy, all experts agreed that major LLR have been
performed in highly specialized centers with safety and efficacy equalling
open surgery, and major LLS should proceed only when a reported degree of
safety is published that is equivalent to open liver surgery.
Patient selection was considered the key point of discussion. Although
most types of liver resections can be performed laparoscopically, the technique
1University of Louisville; 2Henri Mondor Hospital; 3University of Pittsburgh; 4Royal Brisbane

Hospital; 5Carolinas Medical Center; 6Antoine Beclere Hospital; 7William Beaumont;
8Cincinnati, Ohio; 9Institut Mutualiste; 10SNU, Seoul Korea; 11 Iwate Medical University;
12Loreto Nuovo Hospital; 13Toho University; 14Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital;
15Hospital Cochin; 16The University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; 17McGill
University; 18University of California-Los Angeles; 19Memorial Sloan Kettering; 20Mayo Clinic;

21University of Chicago; 22Mount Sinai Medical Center; 23NHS, Newcastle, England; 24Queen
Mary Hospital; 25Duke University; 26Vanderbilt University Medical Center; 27Baylor, Houston;
28Roger Williams Medical Center; 29Northwestern University; 30North Hampshire Hospital;
31Essen, Germany; 32Hospital Beaujon; 33Washington University
10 The Louisville Consensus Conference: Conclusions and Perspectives 75
should be limited to experienced surgeons already facile with more limited

laparoscopic resections. It is important to stress that left lateral sectionectomy
was found by all participants to be the most straightforward moderately sized
laparoscopic procedure, and there was agreement that in experienced hands,
laparoscopy should be the standard approach for this particular operation [11].
An important aspect debated was when and how a patient should be converted
to an open procedure. There was general acceptance that conversion should
not be viewed as a complication and should be performed for lack of case
progress and/or patient safety. In case of bleeding, efforts should be made to
control hemorrhage laparoscopically before converting to hand assist or
laparotomy, as significant time and blood loss can occur during the process of
conversion. Another important and widely discussed topic was indications for
resection of asymptomatic benign hepatic lesions. All participants agreed that
indications should not be widened. On the other hand, traditional indications
should be respected, even if the laparoscopic approach is less invasive that an
open one [12, 13]. Unroofing simple hepatic cysts should not be considered a
liver resection and should not be included in the analyses of LLR [24–30]. The
role of LLS for primary and metastatic liver tumors was widely discussed. The
major concern with LLR for colorectal metastases included a potential
increase in positive resection margins and failure to detect occult lesions,
although there are no trials as yet that clearly demonstrate that laparoscopic
hepatic resections have equivalent long-term outcomes to open hepatic resec-
tion. There was agreement that surgeons with experience in both open and
laparoscopic approaches to liver resection are permitted to perform LLS for
metastases [14]. Hepatocellular carcinoma has been considered a good indica-
tion for LLS, even in patients with a cirrhotic liver. There was general agree-
ment that laparoscopic resection of small hepatocellular cancers in a cirrhotic
liver is feasible and safe in centers with experienced surgeons, with reduced
morbidity compared with open resection, especially with reduced occurrence
of postoperative ascites. Thus, follow-up data suggest that the long-term onco-
logical outcome has not been compromised by the laparoscopic approach com-
pared with open resection [17–21].
The role of LLS in a transplant setting was considered differently. The con-
sideration was that laparoscopic live-donor hepatectomy is the most controver-
sial application for LLS and should only proceed in the confines of a world-
wide registry [22, 23]. All experts agreed that registries are effective, and in
some cases more effective, than randomized control trials in detecting and
recording uncommon but severe negative events [24]. All experts also felt that
there may be a role for a prospective randomized trial, but study population
and length of time to perform the trial may make this impracticable. There was
consensus that understanding the role and safety of LLS would be advanced
through a cooperative patient registry.
Finally, there was agreement that LLS should be initiated only in centers in
which the combined expertise in laparoscopic and hepatic surgery exists.
National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should
76 G. Belli et al.
become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credential-

ing to ensure a high and consistent clinical outcome.
10.2 Perspectives
Only 3 years have passed since the Louisville Consensus Conference, but
many changes have already occurred in clinical practice. LLS is an evolving
field, and a new (r)evolution is likely to be realized in the near future. In fact,
even if at the moment several centers worldwide are progressively introducing
the laparoscopic approach in liver surgery, some pioneering centers (many of
those involved in the Louisville Consensus Conference) are already pushing
the “traditional” indications for laparoscopy. Progressively more patients are
being treated with a laparoscopic approach, even those affected by liver
lesions located in the posterolateral segments [25, 26], which were generally
considered as a contraindication to laparoscopy. Robotic surgery is gaining
popularity and possibly will help standardize LLS, making it safer [27]. Also,
the position on major laparoscopic hepatectomy is slowly moving toward new
perspectives. The International Consensus Group for Laparoscopic Liver
Surgery is, in fact, evaluating the potential role of laparoscopic left hemihep-
atectomy as a standard of care [28]. In conclusion, LLS, after an initially slow
diffusion, is now a strong reality and is progressively offered more and more
as a therapeutic option in many centers worldwide. It is likely that the intro-
duction of new dedicated technologies, together with the advent of a new gen-
eration of hepatic surgeons trained in advanced laparoscopy, will result in a
dramatic increase in the percentage of patients treated for a liver lesion by a
laparoscopic approach.
References
1. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J (1992) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor (ab-
stract). Surg Endosc 6:99
2. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Gilbart E et al (1996) Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lateral
segmentectomy-technical aspects. Surg Endosc 10:758–761
3. Kaneko H, Takagi S, Shiba T (1996) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy and left lateral seg-
mentectomy: technique and results of a clinical series. Surgery 120:468–475
4. Huscher CG, Lirici MM, Chiodini S (1998) Laparoscopic liver resections. Semin Laparosc
Surg 5:204–210
5. Cherqui D, Husson E, Hammoud R et al (2000) Laparoscopic liver resections: a feasibility
study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232:753–762
6. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R et al (2007) Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver
resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg 246:385–392
7. O’Rourke N, Fielding G (2004) Laparoscopic right hepatectomy: surgical technique. J Gas-
trointest Surg 8:213–216
8. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Azagra JS et al (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malignant liver
tumors: preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 236:90–97
9. Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H et al (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 93:67–72
10 The Louisville Consensus Conference: Conclusions and Perspectives 77
10. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2009) World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic
Surgery. Ann Surg 250:825–830
11. Lesurtel M, Cherqui D, Laurent A et al (2003) Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic
lobectomy: a case-control study. J Am Coll Surg 196:236–242
12. Koffron A, Geller D, Gamblin TC et al (2006) Laparoscopic liver surgery: shifting the man-
agement of liver tumors. Hepatology 44:1694–1700
13. Buell JF, Koffron AJ, Thomas MJ et al (2005) Laparoscopic liver resection. J Am Coll Surg
200:472– 480
14. O’Rourke N, Shaw I, Nathanson L et al (2004) Laparoscopic resection of hepatic colorectal
metastases. HPB (Oxford) 6:230–235
15. Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Tsuchiya M et al (2008) Application of devices for safe laparoscopic
hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 10:219–224
16. Aloia TA, Vauthey JN, Loyer EM et al (2006) Solitary colorectal liver metastasis: resection
determines outcome. Arch Surg 141:460–466
17. Laurent A, Cherqui D, Lesurtel M et al (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection for subcapsular
hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic liver disease. Arch Surg 138:763–769
18. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for
hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis: short- and middleterm
results. Surg Endosc 21:2004–2011
19. Dagher I, Proske JM, Carloni A et al (2007) Laparoscopic liver resection: results for 70 pa-
tients. Surg Endosc 21:619–624
20. Kaneko H (2005) Laparoscopic hepatectomy: indications and outcomes. J Hepatobiliary Pan-
creatSurg 12:438–443
21. Chen HY, Juan CC, Ker CG (2008) Laparoscopic liver surgery for patients with hepatocel-
lular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 15:800–806
22. Cherqui D, Soubrane O, Husson E et al (2002) Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for
liver transplantation in children. Lancet 359:392–399
23. Soubrane O, Cherqui D, Scatton O et al (2006) Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in liv-
ing donors: safety and reproducibility of the technique in a single center. Ann Surg 244:815–820
24. Barone JE, Lincer RM (1991) A prospective analysis of 1518 laparoscopic cholecystec-
tomies: the Southern Surgeons Club. N Engl J Med 324:1073–1078
25. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS et al (2008) 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 144:32–38
26. Kazaryan A, Rosok BI, Marangos Pavlik I et al (2011) Comparative evaluation of laparoscop-
ic liver resection for posterosuperior and anterolateral segments. Surg Endosc 25:3881–3889
gery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg End 25:3815–3824
28. Belli G, Gayet B, Han HS et al (2012) International Consensus Group for Laparoscopic Liv-
er Surgery Laparoscopic Hemi-Hepatectomy: a consideration for acceptance as standard of-
care. New Orleans, LA, 10th World Congress of IHPBA, Paris, July 1-5, 2012
Indications to Surgery: Laparoscopic
or Robotic Approach 11
Luciano Casciola and Alberto Patriti
11.1 Introduction
Minimally invasive liver surgery is growing worldwide. To date, more than

3,000 cases of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) have been published, and
the interest in robot-assisted resections (RAR) is rising [1–9]. Indications for
LLR are similar to those of open liver resections, as recently stated in the
Louisville Statement Consensus Conference [2]. LLR was initially indicated
for benign and peripherally located lesions, suggesting a concern about the
safety and oncologic effectiveness of these procedures. In the last few years,
the number of laparoscopic complex liver resections has increased, and even
major hepatectomies and segmentectomies of the posterosuperior (PS) seg-
ments have been successfully performed [10, 11]. Recently, robotics was
introduced into general surgery with the aim of overcoming some of the lim-
itations associated with traditional laparoscopy, thus providing greater
manueverability with a set of articulated instruments and a tridimensional
vision [12, 13]. The first application of robotics in liver surgery dates back to
2008, when Choi et al. published their first series of four left lateral sectionec-
tomies [14]. After this report, a few case series were published showing the
feasibility of robot-assisted minor and major liver resections [5–8, 15–17] and
– to date – there is only one prospective comparative study [17]: Berber at al.
compared nine patients undergoing RAR matched with 23 patients undergoing
LLR. However, the study has some limitations, including small sample size.
One inclusion criteria was tumor location in the peripheral liver segments,
precluding arriving at definitive conclusions on possible advantages of RAR
in situations considered demanding with a laparoscopic approach. Some tech-
A. Patriti ()

Updates in Surgery
80 L. Casciola and A. Patriti
nical aspects preclude investigating the real role of the da Vinci robotic system
in liver resection. The on-table assistant carried out parenchymal division
using the Harmonic Scalpel, making it impossible to analyze differences relat-
ed to the use of the robotic endowristed instruments. Therefore, as of yet, we
have no high level of evidence in favor of RAR over LLR, and the associated
considerations of the authors regarding this issue come from published case
series and their personal experiences.
11.2 Limitations of Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

Theoretically, the only limitation to laparoscopic liver surgery is surgeon abil-
ity and preferences. In fact, reports show that the limitations of LLR described
in the Louisville Statement Consensus Conference can be overcome. The first
limitation is restricted lesions located in PS segments (1, 7, 8, 4a). Most
laparoscopic liver surgeons prefer a right hepatectomy to remove a lesion in
segments 7 and 8, but Cho et al. showed that this was possible even with a
parenchyma-preserving resection [11]. Nevertheless, LLR of lesions located in
the PS segments are associated with significantly longer operative time and
intraoperative transfusion compared with anterolateral segment resections
(segments 2, 3, 4b, 5, 6) [11]. Tumors that are either large (>5 cm), central,
multiple, bilateral, or with connections with the hilum, major hepatic veins, or
inferior vena cava are at the moment considered not good candidates for a
laparoscopic approach. Also, for these particular cases, reports show that in
experience hands, LLR can be safely performed: Yoon et al. reported that LLR
for multiple hepatocellular carcinoma lesions does not increase operative time,
intraoperative transfusion rate, length of postoperative hospital stay, or post-
operative complications [18]. A major LLR can be an option for lesions >5cm
or with connections with one portal pedicle or one hepatic vein, and studies
report comparable early and oncologic results between laparoscopic and open
major resections [19]. Conversely, these situations are a real limitation for sur-
geons who do not consider a major hepatectomy an effective option when the
laparoscopic approach would change the surgical strategy from that adopted in
open surgery. Finally, biliary reconstruction after an extended right hepatecto-
my is an objective limitation of laparoscopic surgery that does not allow a rage
of movements fine enough to safely complete a bilioenteric anastomosis.
11.3 Possible Advantages of Robot-assisted Surgery

To date, only a few reports have focused on robotics in liver surgery. The num-
ber of patients involved is rather small, and most surgeries are carried out on
a retrospective basis [5, 7, 8, 12, 19]. Potential advantages of robotic assis-
tance arising from these studies may include facilitating complex reconstruc-
tions (i.e., biliary and vascular anastomoses) [5, 6, 20] and parenchyma-pre-
11 Indications to Surgery: Laparoscopic or Robotic Approach 81
serving resections of lesions located in PS segments [8]. Giulianotti et al.

demonstrated that robot-assisted major hepatectomies are safe and feasible,
even when a biliary reconstruction is required, as in the case of hilar cholan-
giocarcinoma [5, 6]. However, there are no studies comparing the outcome of
robot-assisted and major laparoscopic hepatectomies. In a study at our institu-
tion, where every attempt is made to perform parenchyma-preserving surgery,
we show the possibility allowed by the robot to preserve liver parenchyma,
even in cases of tumor location in the PS segments or close to a major liver
vessel. In 23 cases, ten patients (47.8%) had liver nodules in the PS segments;
in three cases, the tumour was connected with a portal branch, in two cases
with a hepatic vein, and in one case with both vascular structures. No major
hepatectomies were carried out in the manner of the surgical plan we would
have followed in the open setting [8].
11.4 Conclusions
Even if randomized controlled studies are still absent, RAR could be an attrac-
tive option for surgeons who wish to perform a minimally invasive parenchy-
ma-preserving surgery, even in cases of lesions close to the main liver vessels
or located in segments 7, 8, and 1. As there are no randomized studies demon-
strating the superiority of RAR over LLR in major hepatectomies and antero-
lateral-segment resections, the two approaches can be considered analogous.
There is some evidence from Giulianotti et al.’s study that applications of
robotics in major hepatectomies could improve two phases of liver resection:
hilar and hepatocaval confluence dissection. This aspect provides the basis for
prospective studies on the da Vinci system application for liver resections
requiring meticulous vascular dissection and reconstruction [5]. Nevertheless,
if a RAR program is planned, even resections in the anterior segments should
be considered in the first phase of the learning curve in order for the surgeon
and all staff members to gain expertise and subsequently safely approach PS
segments and complex major hepatectomies using robotic surgery techniques.
References
1. Ardito F, Tayar C, Laurent A et al (2007) Laparoscopic liver resection for benign disease. Arch
Surg 142(12):1188–1193. doi:142/12/1188 [pii] 10.1001/archsurg.142.12.1188
surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
vasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 248 (3):475–486. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318185e647
00000658-200809000-00014 [pii
4. Nguyen KT, Laurent A, Dagher I et al (2009) Minimally invasive liver resection for metasta-
tic colorectal cancer: a multi-institutional, international report of safety, feasibility, and ear-
ly outcomes. Ann Surg 250(5):842–848. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181bc789c
82 L. Casciola and A. Patriti
5. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resec-
tions. Surgery 149(1):29–39. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.04.002
technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850. doi:10.1001/archsurg.2011.145
7. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A et al (2009) Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage re-
section of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a pilot study. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg 16(4):450–457. doi:10.1007/s00534-009-0073-y
doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
9. Descottes B, Glineur D, Lachachi F et al (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection of benign liver
tumors. Surg Endosc 17(1):23–30. doi:10.1007/s00464-002-9047-8
11. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Shin SH (2008) Feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection for tu-
mors located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, with a special reference to over-
coming current limitations on tumor location. Surgery 144(1):32–38.
doi:10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.020
12. Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Angelini M et al (2003) Robotics in general surgery: personal ex-
perience in a large community hospital. Arch Surg 138(7):777–784. doi:10.1001/arch-
surg.138.7.777
13. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC et al (2011) Robotic extended pancreatectomy with vas-
cular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas 40(8):1264–1270.
doi:10.1097/MPA.0b013e318220e3a4
14. Choi SB, Park JS, Kim JK et al (2008) Early experiences of robotic-assisted laparoscopic liv-
er resection. Yonsei Med J 49(4):632–638. doi:10.3349/ymj.2008.49.4.632
15. Giulianotti PC, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H et al (2012) Robot-assisted right lobe donor hepatecto-
my. Transpl Int 25(1):e5–9. doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2011.01373.x
16. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM et al (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatecto-
my in China: initial experience. Ann Surg 253(2):342–348. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ff4601
17. Berber E, Akyildiz HY, Aucejo F et al (2010) Robotic versus laparoscopic resection of liver
tumours. HPB (Oxford) 12(8):583–586. doi:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00234.x
18. Yoon YS, Han HS, Cho JY et al (2012) Laparoscopic approach for treatment of multiple he-
patocellular carcinomas. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2304-6
19. Topal H, Tiek J, Aerts R, Topal B (2012) Outcome of laparoscopic major liver resection for
colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-012-2209-4
20. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Addeo P (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extended
right hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Techn A
20(2):159–163. doi:10.1089/lap.2009.0383
Diagnostic Laparoscopy and
Allied Technologies 12
Roberto Santambrogio and Enrico Opocher
12.1 Introduction
The concept of using ultrasound (US) through a laparoscopic access was first
described by Yamakawa et al. in 1958 [1], but only since the end of the 1980s
were laparoscopic US probes introduced in the clinical practice. Available
data indicate that laparoscopy with laparoscopic US (LUS) provides informa-
tion similar to that obtained by intraoperative US and can identify lesions that
are too small to be visible by preoperative imaging techniques. Furthermore,
LUS also allows performance of US-guided biopsy or interstitial therapies
such as ethanol injection, cryoablation, or radiofrequency thermal ablation in
the same session.
12.2 Indications
12.2.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
LUS avoids unnecessary laparotomy in 12–39% of cases (Table 12.1) [2–10].

However, it is still not known whether a routine or a selective laparoscopy
approach should be adopted, and selection criteria are not well defined. On the
other hand, with the increasing use of the laparoscopic treatment approach to
hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the use of LUS will not be limited to avoid-
ing unnecessary laparotomy for patients with inoperable HCC: LUS staging
will allow us to choose the optimal treatment strategy for patients with oper-
able or inoperable HCC [9]. In our experience [10], in patients with a single
R. Santambrogio ()
Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Digestive Surgery,
San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Updates in Surgery
84 R. Santambrogio and E. Opocher
Table 12.1 Series of laparoscopic ultrasound staging for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and
metastases (Meta)
Authors Year No. patients HCC Information
John et al [2] ‘94 43 15% 42% better staging
Tandan et al [3] ‘97 31 10% 10% no LPT
Ido et al [4] ‘99 186 100% 12% better staging
Lo et al [5] ‘00 198 100% 16% no LPT
D’Angelica et al [6] ‘03 401 8% 20% no LPT
De Castro et al [7] ‘04 76 39% 23% no LPT
Klegar et al [8] ‘05 20 100% 42% better staging
Lai et al [9] ‘08 119 100% 39% no LPT
Montorsi et al [10] ‘01 132 100% 25% better staging
14% no LPT
Authors Year No. patients Meta Information
Rahusen et al [11] ‘99 50 100% 38% no LPT
Jarnagin et al [12] ‘01 103 100% CRS ≤2: 12% better staging
CRS >2: 42% better staging
Koea et al [13] ‘04 57 100% 5% no LPT
Thaler et al [14] ‘05 136 100% 25% no LPT
Khan et al [15] ‘07 210 100% 8% no LPT
Mann et al [16] ‘07 200 100% CRS ≤2: 6% better staging
CRS >2: 38% better staging
Pilkington et al [17] ‘07 77 100% 21% no LPT
Li Destri et al [18] ‘08 43 100% CRS ≤2: 12% no LPT
CRS >2: 39% no LPT
Shah et al [19] ‘10 79 100% CRS ≤2: 7% no LPT
CRS >2: 24% no LPT
LPT, laparotomy; CRS, clinical scoring system [12].
HCC nodule at preoperative imaging, there was a 19% risk of finding a new
lesion compared with 29% for patients with more than one nodule. Even if no
exhaustive criteria exist, we do not usually perform LUS staging if patients
who are candidates for hepatic resection have a single nodule on preoperative
imaging studies. In these cases, if a new nodule is detected by intraoperative
US, it can be treated with radiofrequency or alcohol injection at that time.
12.2.2 Liver Metastasis

Publications on the role of LUS in potentially resectable colorectal liver
metastasis (CRLM) suggest a limited value, mainly because of the low sensi-
tivity and heterogeneity caused by varied study selection criteria and institu-
tional practice, evolution of techniques and technologies, and broadening of
criteria used for resection (Table 12.1) [11–19]. A more selective approach is
therefore justified, with large, prospective, multicenter studies evaluating the
12 Diagnostic Laparoscopy and Allied Technologies 85
role of LUS in patients with resectable CRLM, accompanied by well-defined

risk stratification and appropriate algorithms incorporating intention to treat
using all available modalities rather than using pure surgical evaluation alone
[20].
12.3 Laparoscopic Ultrasound
12.3.1 Materials
12.3.1.1 Ultrasound Equipment

We used a US machine connected to an LUS probe with a flexible tip, 10 mm
in diameter and 50 cm in length. A 5- to 7.5-MHz linear-array transducer was
sidemounted near the tip of the shaft. The length of the transducer surface was
38 mm, which produced an image footprint of approximately 4 cm in length
and 6 cm in depth. Recently, we also used a microconvex probe that permits
application of intravenously administered US contrast agents during LUS of
the liver. The addition of contrast enhancement during intraoperative US
improves image conspicuity and allows correct diagnosis of new malignant
nodules and ablation efficacy in hepatic tumors and oncologic margin out-
comes.
12.3.1.2 Tru-Cut Biopsy Needle

It is useful to use a cutting needle with an automatic trigger mechanism to
enable holding the probe with one hand and the needle with the other. Because
of the presence of the pneumoperitoneum, which separates the surface of the
liver from the abdominal wall, the use of longer needles (25–27 cm) could be
necessary for lesions localized in the posterior segments or in the highest part
of the liver (segments 4a and 8).
12.3.2 Laparoscopic Technique
Usually it is sufficient to use two 10-mm trocar accesses. However, patient

positioning is dependent on the location of the hepatic lesions to be treated
(Fig. 12.1). Generally, patient position on the operating table is supine with the
left arm extended: the surgeon stands either on the right side or between the
patient’s legs (Fig. 12.1a, b). Patients with tumors in segments 6 and 7 can be
placed in either an oblique position with the right side elevated up to 45° or
left decubitus position with the right arm elevated and across the chest and the
surgeon at either the right or the left side of the patient (Fig. 12.1c).
The location of LUS probe introduction is limited by trocar locations: the
umbilical port can be made for laparoscopic exploration; the second trocar site
for LUS can be selected depending upon both preoperative imaging evaluation
and intraoperative conditions as determined by laparoscopy.
a b
Fig. 12.1a–c Patient and operating room positions for laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation
(LRFA). a Supine position with patient’s legs abducted (surgeon stands between the legs) for
lesions in segments 2, 3, and 4; b supine position with patient’s legs adducted (surgeon stands on
the patient’s right side) for lesions in segments 4, 5, and 8; c oblique position with the patient’s
right side elevated up to 45°, or left decubitus position with the right arm elevated and across the
chest (surgeon stands at the left side of the patient) for lesions in segments 6 and 7
Exploring the liver parenchyma can usually be performed with a direct-

contact technique thanks to the natural humidity of the liver surface, which
allows good acoustic contact with the transducer. However, the dome of the
liver may be difficult to examine due to the lack of adequate contact between
the probe and the convex liver surface. This can be overcome by instilling
saline solution and scanning the highest part of the organ through the fluid
(water-immersion method). Furthermore, in some instances, it is useful to
decrease the pneumoperitoneum to 6–8 mmHg, favoring a correct angle of
transducer contact with the liver surface. The entire liver is initially screened,
and the size of each tumor is measured by LUS and described according to the
Couinaud classification of liver anatomy [21].
12.4 Laparoscopic Radiofrequency Ablation
12.4.1 Materials
12.4.1.1 Radiofrequency (RFA)/Microwave (MW) Machines and

Electrode/Antenna
We used a dual-ablation system that has both an MW and an RFA energy gen-
erator in the same hardware. For RFA technology, we prefer a a 17-gauge,
internally cooled electrode with an exposed tip length of 3 cm and shaft length
of 250 mm. For MW technology, we use a 14-gauge interstitial antenna with a
shaft length of 270 mm. MW offers all the benefits of RFA energy for thermal
ablation but is not as dependent on tissue properties and has the ability to heat
faster in a larger volume. Thus, MW is less susceptible to perfusion or heat
sinks and may be able to penetrate deeper into low-conductivity materials.
12.4.2 Laparoscopic Technique
After lesions have been identified, the therapeutic electrode can be accurately
inserted into the tumor. When dealing with lesions localized in segment 1 or in
the posterior segments of an enlarged liver, a longer laparoscopic electrode
could be necessary (27 cm). The electrode must pass the abdominal wall and
the pneumoperitoneum space prior to reaching the liver surface, meeting a ful-
crum that increases the difficulty of moving the tip of the electrode. This prob-
lem can be overcome with the aid of either a 2-mm trocar or a 14-gauge can-
nula needle placed through the abdominal wall and the electrode then placed
through this sheath.
A LUS-guided interventional procedure [22] can be successfully performed
if the following ideal working conditions are fulfilled: (1) the lesion is well
visible – the US probe must be oriented on the liver surface to display the
largest diameter of the entire lesion; (2) the electrode must be positioned near
the LUS probe transducer in order to introduce it slightly oblique to the trans-
ducer and with an acute angle to the axis of the LUS probe. In fact, after insert-
ing the electrode into the liver parenchyma, slight rotation of the probe can
identify the mark of the electrode and guide its tip into the lesion. If electrode
access is too acute with respect to the liver surface, it is well possible that the
electrode remains superficial and parallel to the long axis of the probe without
reaching the lesion. For lesions located in posterior segments, it is necessary
to insert the electrode on the liver surface further than the lesion: in this case,
the transducer cannot visualize contemporarily the tumor and the electrode tip.
On the other hand, because any LUS-guided interventional procedure is total-
ly freehand, a puncture adapter has been proposed: incorporation of the biop-
sy channel into the shaft of the US probe permits accurate electrode placement
only in lesions seated in some areas of the liver [23]. Laparoscopic RFA has a
Table 12.2 Results of laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation

Author Publication No. Follow-up Total Intrahepatic Local
year patients (months) necrosis recurrence recurrences
Ido et al [24] 1997 15 15.9 100% 13% 7%
Ito et al [25] 1999 14 NA 100% 28.6% 28.6%
Seki et al [26] 2000 24 23.5 92% 45.8% 12.5%
Podnos et al [27] 2001 12 7.4 100% 8% 8%
Noguchi et al [28] 2003 51 NA 98% 53% NA
Hsieh et al [29] 2004 40 12.5 NA 47.5% NA
Casaccia et al [30] 2008 24 NA 90% 21% NA
Ballem et al [31] 2008 104 NA NA 30%a NA
Sakaguchi et alb [32] 2009 391 NA NA NA 8.2%
Simo et al [33] 2011 39 3 97% 15% NA
Personal 2012 354 26.3 91% 56% 23%
aDisease-free recurrence; bmulticenter study.
limited diffusion due to the technical difficulties of the procedure, but it seems
to produce promising results (Table 12.2) [24–33].
12.4.3 Technical Variants: Intrahepatic Vascular Occlusion
This approach determines an ischemic area surrounding the lesion, thus

increasing the necrosis volume [34]. This effect could reduce the risk of imme-
diate therapy failure (partial ablation) and of local recurrences. In order to
obtain a selective intrahepatic portal venous occlusion, the primary vessel of
the lesion is identified by color Doppler imaging. using US guidance, we
direct the electrode toward this area, with direct puncture of the nearby blood
vessel; the ablation cycle lasts either 2–4 min using RFA or 60–90 seconds
using MWA. We perform another evaluation with color Doppler imaging to
confirm a coagulative ablation of the vascular area: a discolored area on the
liver surface can be also visualized (Fig. 12.2). Then, the lesion is treated with
the insertion of the electrode in the usual way. This approach decreases local
recurrence after RFA ablation, with similar results to surgical resection [35].
12.4.4 Technical Variants: Cooling Technique
If the tumor is located in the hepatic hilar region, RFA may cause bile duct
stenosis due to physical or heat damage. It is possible to prevent this biliary
damage by inserting preoperatively an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage tube,
and percutaneous RFA is then performed with intraductal perfusion of cold 5%
a b c
Fig. 12.2 a Primary vessel of the

lesion identified by color Doppler
imaging. b Using ultrasonographic
guidance, the radiofrequency
electrode is directed toward this
area (arrow) with direct puncture
of the nearby blood vessel; the
ablation cycle lasted 2–4 min.
c Another evaluation with color
Doppler imaging was performed to
confirm a coagulative ablation of
the vascular area; d discolored area
on the liver surface is also
visualized. The lesion was treated
with insertion of the electrode in
d
the usual way
glucose isotonic solution. It is possible to perform the same cooling technique

through percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, but this is a more demand-
ing technique because intrahepatic biliary ducts are usually thin. Another tech-
nique is intraductal cooling of the main bile ducts during laparoscopic RFA.
The tube can be inserted in the main biliary duct either through the cystic duct
(cholecystectomy must be performed) or through a direct incision of the main
bile duct (choledochotomy). However, these procedures could be very difficult
in cirrhotic patients.
We prefer a less invasive approach: we insert some gauze in the peritoneal

cavity and place them around the hepatoduodenal ligament. Then, an irrigator
with cold saline solution infuses them: cold vascular flow in the portal and
arterial systems protects bile ducts from the thermal effects of RFA by dissi-
pating the heat generated in the ablated area. The possible “heat-sink” effect
of central-bile-duct cooling might also affect the efficacy of RFA in terms of
local recurrences, but in our experience, neither biliary damage nor partial
ablation or local HCC recurrence was observed.
12.5 Conclusions
As more open surgical procedures move to laparoscopic approaches, the
demand for LUS continues to increase. New improvements in technology and
equipment have already advanced LUS from its experimental beginnings to
the point of routine clinical applications [36]. The applications in LUS-guided
biopsies and local therapies reveal good results in recent years. An operator
learning curve remains, however, and mastering LUS requires familiarity with
the special equipment and scanning techniques. However, as technology and
the widespread use continue to advance, the full range and importance of LUS
applications no doubt will increase.
References
1. Yamakawa K, Naito S, Azuma K et al (1958) Laparoscopic diagnosis of the intraabdominal
organs. Jpn J Gastroenterol 55:741–747
2. John TG, Greig JD, Crosbie JL et al (1994) Superior staging of liver tumors with laparoscopy
and laparoscopic ultrasound. Ann Surg 6:711–719
3. Tandan VR, Asch M, Margolis M et al (1997) Laparoscopic vs open intraoperative ultrasound
examination of the liver: a controlled study. J Gastrointest Surg 1:146–151
4. Ido K, Nakazawa Y, Isoda N et al (1999) The role of laparoscopic US and laparoscopic US-
guided aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of multicentric hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroin-
test Endosc 50:523–526
5. Lo CM, Fan ST, Liu CL et al (2000) Determining resectability for hepatocellular carcinoma:
the role of laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonography. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg
7:260–264
6. D’Angelica M, Fong Y, Weber S et al (2003) The role of staging laparoscopy in hepatobil-
iary malignancy: prospective analysis of 401 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 10:183–189
7. De Castro SMM, Tilleman EHBM, Busch ORC et al (2004) Diagnostic laparoscopy for pri-
mary and secondary liver malignancies: impact of improved imaging and changed criteria for
resection. Ann Surg Oncol 11:522–529
8. Klegar EK, Marcus SG, Newman E, Hiotis SP (2005) Diagnostic laparoscopy in the evalua-
tion of the viral hepatitis patient with potentially resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB
(Oxford) 7:204–207
9. Lai ECH, Tang CN, Ha JPY et al (2008) The evolving influence of laparoscopy and laparo-
scopic ultrasonography on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg 196:736–740
10. Montorsi M, Santambrogio R, Bianchi P et al (2001) Laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultra-
sound (L-LUS) for the pre-treatment staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study.
J Gastrointest Surg 5:312–315
11. Rahusen FD, Cuesta MA, Borgstein PJ et al (1999) Selection of patients for resection of col-
orectal metastases to the liver using diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasonogra-
phy. Ann Surg 230:31–37
12. Jarnagin WR, Conlon K, Bodniewicz J et al (2001) A clinical scoring system predicts the yield
of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with potentially resectable hepatic colorectal metastases.
Cancer 91:1121–1128
13. Koea J, Rodgers M, Thompson P et al (2004) Laparoscopy in the management of colorectal
cancer metastatic to the liver. ANZ J Surg 74:1056–1059
14. Thaler K, Kanneganti S, Khajanchee Y et al (2005) The evolving role of staging laparoscopy
in the treatment of colorectal hepatic metastasis. Arch Surg 140:727–734
15. Khan AZ, Karanjia ND (2007) The impact of staging laparoscopic prior to hepatic resection
for colorectal metastases. EJSO 33:1010–1013
16. Mann CD, Neal CP, Metcalfe MS et al (2007) Clinical risk score predicts yield of staging la-
paroscopy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 94:855–859
17. Pilkington SA, Rees M, Peppercorn D, John TJ (2007) Laparoscopic staging in selected pa-
tients with colorectal liver metastases as a prelude to liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 9:58–63
18. Li Destri G, Di Benedetto F, Torrisi B et al (2008) Metachronous liver metastases and resectabil-
ity: Fong’s score and laparoscopic evaluation. HPB (Oxford) 10:1–17
19. Shah AJ, Phull J, Finch-Jones MD (2010) Clinical risk score can be used to select patients
for staging laparoscopy and laparoscopic ultrasound for colorectal liver metastases. World J
Surg 34:2141–2145
20. Hariharan D, Constantinides V, Kocher H, Tekkis PP (2012) The role of laparoscopy and la-
paroscopic ultrasound in the preoperative staging of patients with resectable colorectal liver
metastases: a meta-analysis. Am J Surg [Epub ahead of print, January 12, PMID: 22244586]
21. Santambrogio R, Opocher E, Pisani Ceretti A et al (2007) Impact of intraoperative ultrasonog-
raphy in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Endosc 21:181–188
22. Santambrogio R, Bianchi P, Pasta A et al (2002) Ultrasound-guided interventional procedures
of the liver during laparoscopy: technical considerations. Surg Endosc 16:349–354
23. Hassan H, Vilmann P, Sharma V, Holm J (2009) Initial experience with a new laparoscopic
ultrasound probe for guided biopsy in the staging of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Surg En-
dosc 23:1552–1558
24. Ido K, Isoda N, Kawamoto C et al (1997) Laparoscopic microwave coagulation therapy for
solitary hepatocellular carcinoma performed under laparoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroin-
test Endosc 45:415–420
25. Ito T, Niiyama G, Kawanaka M et al (1999) Laparoscopic microwave coagulation for the treat-
ment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Endosc 11:137–143
26. Seki S, Sakaguchi H, Kadoya H et al (2000) Laparoscopic microwave coagulation therapy
for hepatocellular carcinoma. Endoscopy 32:591–597
27. Podnos YD, Henry G, Ortiz JA et al (2001) Laparoscopic ultrasound with radiofrequency ab-
lation in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: technique and technical consider-
ations. Am Surg 67:1181–1184
28. Noguchi O, Izumi N, Inoue K et al (2003) Laparoscopic ablation therapy for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Clinical significance of a newly developed laparoscopic sector ultrasonic probe.
Dig Endosc 15:179–184
29. Hsieh CB, Chang HM, Chen TW et al (2004) Comparison of transcatheter arterial chemoem-
bolization, laparoscopic radiofrequency, and conservative treatment for decompensated cir-
rhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 10:505–508
30. Casaccia M, Adorno E, Nardi I et al (2008) Laparoscopic US-guided radiofrequency ablation
of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in liver cirrhosis: feasibility and clinical outcome.
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 18:797–801
31. Ballem N, Berber E, Pitt T, Siperstein A (2008) Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of un-
resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term follow-up. HPB (Oxford) 10:315–320
32. Sakaguchi H, Seki S, Tsuji K et al (2009) Endoscopic thermal ablation therapies for hepato-
cellular carcinoma: a multi-center study. Hepatol Res 39:47–52
33. Simo KA, Sereika SE, Newton KN, Gerber DA (2011) Laparoscopic-assisted microwave ab-
lation for hepatocellular carcinoma: safety and efficacy in comparison with radiofrequency
ablation. J Surg Oncol 104:822–829
34. Santambrogio R, Costa M, Barabino M, Opocher E (2008) Laparoscopic radiofrequency of
hepatocellular carcinoma using ultrasound-guided selective intrahepatic vascular occlusion.
Surg Endosc 22-2051–2055
35. Santambrogio R, Opocher E, Zuin M (2009) Surgical resection versus laparoscopic radiofre-
quency ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh class A liver cir-
rhosis. Ann Surg Oncol 16:3289–3298
36. Vapenstad C, Rethy A, Lango T et al (2010) Laparoscopic ultrasound: a survey of its current
and future use, requirements and integration with navigation technology. Surg Endosc
24:2944–2953
Part III
Surgery: General Aspects
Intraoperative Ultrasound
13
Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Viganò, Roberto Lo Tesoriere,
Nadia Russolillo and Lorenzo Capussotti
13.1 Introduction
In recent years, liver surgery has become more popular and safer, and morbid-
ity and mortality rates following surgery have significantly decreased.
Anesthesia and technical refinements, together with technological innova-
tions, are the main factors responsible for improvements in these results.
Intraoperative ultrasonography (IUS) is considered an indispensable tool in
both neoplastic disease staging and operative decision making and surgical
guidance during liver resection. Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) use was first
reported in 1981 by Fukuda and Nakano [1]. In the 1990s, LUS gained popu-
larity with the introduction of laparoscopic surgery. Although LUS is report-
ed to increase surgical safety [2], it remains far from being routinely used: in
a recent international survey, LUS use was reported in only 67% of procedures
related to the liver [3]. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend the routine use
of LUS not only for better disease staging at the beginning of the operation
but during every step of the resection in order to guide the hepatectomy and
to make it safer for the patient and easier for the surgeon.
To perform adequate exploration of the liver, a compact, mobile, real-time
B-mode medium- to top-level machine is mandatory, with the availability of
color-flow and power-flow imaging to evaluate blood flow within the liver.
The most advanced laparoscopic US transducers on the market can be intro-
duced through a 10- to 12-mm port and usually have a 5- to 10-MHz frequen-
cy range; the distal end of the probe, both linear and convex shaped, can be
moved in both the left/right and up/down directions to better adhere to the
A. Ferrero ()
Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano Umberto I
Turin, Italy

Updates in Surgery
96 A. Ferrero et al.
liver surface. A built-in biopsy channel to make it easier to obtain the desired
samples and the possibility of supporting contrast imaging are highly desir-
able.
13.2 Exploration Techniques

General anesthesia is typically used. The primary trocar for the 30° laparo-
scope is inserted with an open approach in the umbilicus or periumbilically,
depending upon previous abdominal scars. Two 10- to 12-mm trocars for the
probe are then inserted in the right and left upper quadrants between the
midaxillary line and the anterior axillary line (Fig. 13.1). Through these ports,
all areas of the liver should be viewable.
US study of the liver should represent the first step of any liver surgery and
does not require any previous liver mobilization. LUS exploration should be
performed before any other maneuver on the liver, because surgical dissection
during pneumoperitoneum causes gas to spread into the anatomic planes, caus-
ing artifacts. The round and falciform ligaments are not sectioned, and lysis of
the adhesions is performed to allow adequate access to both hemilivers. Two
standardized explorations are then performed: the first to study liver anatomy
(caval confluence, portal bifurcation, left segmental pedicles, right segmental
pedicles, hepatic pedicle) and the second to study liver parenchyma and its
lesions.
Fig. 13.1 Trocar position.

Green laparoscope port; red
operative ports (ultrasound
probe, grasper, biopsy
forceps)
13 Intraoperative Ultrasound 97
Liver anatomy can be precisely identified during LUS. Hepatocaval conflu-

ence is usually visualized with the probe introduced through the right port and
positioned on S4a. By moving the probe between the diaphragm and the liver
dome, the right hepatic vein is then identified. Portal bifurcation and right
hepatic pedicles are visualized by positioning the transducer on S4b and mov-
ing it to the right side. Left portal pedicles and left hepatic vein are better iden-
tified from the left upper quadrant. The hepatic pedicle can be visualized from
the left port both by positioning the probe on the left liver and directly on the
hepatoduodenal ligament.
13.3 Laparoscopic Ultrasonography and Staging

IUS and direct inspection of the abdominal cavity are used to assess the
resectability of liver tumors. However, open exploration is associated with
morbidity and increased length of hospital stay. For these reasons, a minimal-
ly invasive approach, based on laparoscopic exploration, was proposed for
intraoperative staging in patients with hepatic malignant tumors. LUS over-
comes the 2D capability of laparoscopy by providing a third arm that could
change the surgical strategy by detecting additional, deeply located, hepatic
tumors not seen at laparoscopic inspection. Nevertheless, its value as a staging
technique is still debated as a consequence of improvement in preoperative
staging techniques throughout the years.
13.3.1 General Data
Few data in the literature analyzed the role of LUS for staging malignant liver
disease (Table 13.1). Clarke et al. [4], in their prospective study comparing
LUS with conventional preoperative imaging modalities in patients undergo-
ing resection for colorectal liver metastases, found 25–35% additional lesions
intraoperatively. Moreover, 40% of liver tumors detected by LUS had not been
visible or palpable at surgery. Although this study is interesting, it was per-
formed when preoperative staging techniques were less effective. John et al.
[5] analyzed a cohort of 50 consecutive patients with potentially resectable
liver tumors. Laparoscopic exploration demonstrated factors precluding cura-
tive resection in 23 patients (46%). LUS identified liver tumors not visible
during laparoscopy in 14 patients (33%) and provided additional staging infor-
mation in 18 of 43 patients (42%). Foroutani and colleagues [6] performed
computed tomography (CT) scans and LUS in 55 patients with a total of 222
liver lesions, including primary and metastatic tumors. Triphasic spiral CT
scans were obtained less than 1 week before surgery. Liver LUS was per-
formed with a linear-array 7.5-MHz side-viewing laparoscopic transducer.
LUS detected all 201 tumors seen on preoperative CT and an additional 21
tumors (9.5%) in 11 patients (20%). Lesions missed by CT were broken down
Table 13.1 Studies assessing the role of LUS in staging of malignant liver disease
Study/Year Accrual Diagnosis # of patients Unresectable LUS finding
period (SL/LUS) Disease at SL
# of patients
D’Angelica 1997-2001 Hepatobiliary 401/153 84 (20.9%) 8 (9.5%)
(2003) [13] cancer
Connor 1992-2003 HC 84/84 34 (40%) 14 (41%)
(2005)
Mann 2000-2004 Colorectal 200/159 39 (19.5%) 20 (51%)
(2007) [8] Metastases
Lai 2001-2007 HCC 119/119 46 (38.6%) 7 (15%)
(2008) [10]
Author’s data 2000-2011 GC/HC/IHC 131/71 35 (26.7%) 5 (29%*)
(2012)
SL, staging laparoscopy; LUS, laparoscopic ultrasound; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HC, hilar
cholangiocarcinoma; IHC, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
* 5 patients out of 17 considered unresectable after SL+LUS.
by size: more than a quarter were <1 cm, and none was >3 cm. CT was more
likely to miss tumors close to the falciform ligament of the liver and along the
liver’s periphery.
13.3.2 Colorectal Liver Metastases
Many studies published in the 1990s reported that patients with colorectal
liver metastases had unresectable disease at laparoscopy in 22–48% of cases.
This high rate may be due to the inadequacy of preoperative imaging studies
used to determine resectability. The results of more recent studies show that
the majority of patients considered to have resectable disease based on good-
quality preoperative imaging do not have occult unresectable disease, and the
yield of laparoscopy was lower than previously reported (10–20%). In 2001
[7] Jarnagin at al. used a scoring system, CRS, (Clinical Risk Score, derived
from the nodal status of the primary disease, disease-free interval, number of
hepatic metastases, largest diameter of hepatic tumor and the carcinoembry-
onic antigen level) to identify high risk patients most likely to benefit from
staging laparoscopy (SL). The authors reported that with a high CRS, the
chances of unresectable disease were 42%, whereas, with a low score, resec-
tion was precluded in only 12% of patients. In that study, LUS was performed
only in 60% of patients and identified unresectable disease that was not
appreciated by inspection alone in three of 14 patients (21%). Subse quently,
Mann et al. [8] validated the role of the CRS in 200 patients and confirmed
that the potential benefit of SL augments progressively with increasing CRS.
In conclusion, data from the literature support the theory that SL+LUS should
be used only in selected patients with a high risk of having unresectable disease.
The amount of available literature pertaining to SL in hepatocellular carcino-

ma (HCC) is limited. As peritoneal disease is uncommon with HCC, SL may
be useful. Nevertheless, the rate of contraindications to surgery found during
laparoscopy ranged from 16% to 37%. These results could be explained by
intraoperative findings by LUS. During liver laparoscopy, LUS exploration
improves the yield of detecting lesions. Montorsi et al. reported that LUS iden-
tified the presence of new HCC nodules in 20.5% of patients [9]. Lai et al. [10]
reported the results of 122 consecutive patients with potentially operable HCC
who underwent preoperative SL and LUS; 46 patients were found to have an
inoperable tumor, 44 after laparoscopic staging and 2 after laparatomy. In par-
ticular, 37 patients presented inadequate liver remnants or severe cirrhosis,
two patients had peritoneal metastasis, and LUS detected vascular invasion
and bilobar liver lesions in seven patients. According to these results, Weitz et
al. [11] proposed SL only in patients with clinically evident liver cirrhosis and
major vascular invasion or bilobar tumors.
13.3.4 Biliary Cancer
Biliary tract tumors can be divided into two main categories: gallbladder can-
cers and cholangiocarcinomas. The two groups differ in patterns of spread and
prognosis. Gallbladder cancer tends to grow more rapidly and has earlier dis-
semination, which makes SL a useful tool in this setting. In contrast, cholan-
giocarcinomas tend to be more locally invasive, decreasing the yield of SL. In
the Goere et al. experience [12], overall SL yield was higher for gallbladder
cancer (GC; 62%), followed by intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC; 36%),
then hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC; 25%). Nevertheless, all patients with vas-
cular or nodal involvement and two with liver metastases were missed by
laparoscopy, probably because the authors did not associate LUS. A study by
D’Angelica et al. [13] of 410 patients with resectable hepatobiliary malignan-
cy at preoperative imaging shows that SL was completed in 73% of patients.
Moreover, in 84 (55%) of the 153 evaluated patients, SL identified disease that
precluded resection. The authors confirmed that the highest yield was for bil-
iary cancers (GC 50%, IHC 25%, HC 20%). LUS identified clinically impor-
tant additional disease in 14.9% of patients and was responsible for approxi-
mately 10% of the findings of unresectability.
In our center from 2000 to 2011, 131 of 240 potentially resectable patients
(54.5%) with proximal biliary cancers underwent SL based on the following
criteria: suspicion of GC with carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19.9 >100 U/ml, bor-
derline resectable IHC or HC. After 2008, all patients with HC underwent SL.
LUS was systematically performed after 2006. Overall, 71 patients (54.1%)

underwent LUS. At SL, 35 cases (26.7%) were considered unresectable for
carcinomatosis (28), new liver nodules (10), and vascular invasion (9). LUS
found additional liver nodules in six IHC, five GC, and two HC patients and
vascular invasion in four IHC, eight GC, and three HC cases. Finally, LUS
identified unresectable disease in five patients (7%) otherwise considered
resectable by SL only. All but one patient, who had a laparoscopic hepatecto-
my, underwent laparotomy (n =95), with evidence in 11 (11.5%) of carcino-
matosis (n = 8), new liver nodules (n = 3), or vascular invasion (n = 2). Of
note, five of these patients had an incomplete SL. The overall accuracy of SL
was 76%, increasing to 89.4% with LUS. The overall yield of SL + LUS was
23.9%, with highest rates for GC (65%). Thus, in our study, LUS increased SL
accuracy for detecting unresectable disease in a subset of patients with proxi-
mal biliary cancer.
In conclusion, available data indicate that laparoscopy with LUS provides
information similar to that obtained by intraoperative open US and that it is
able to identify small intrahepatic lesions not diagnosed by conventional pre-
operative techniques.
13.4 Performance of Laparoscopic Ultrasonography

Compared with Intraoperative Open Ultrasonography
The reliability of LUS should be validated by comparing its performances with
that of open IUS. In the literature, this issue is poorly analyzed. In 1996, Cozzi
et al. demonstrated similar sensitivity of LUS and open IUS in detecting
hypoechoic artificial lesions in five fresh pig livers [14]. In 1997, Tandan et al.
reported a small series of patients (27 cases) scheduled for liver resection
undergoing both LUS and open IUS [15]: LUS had good sensitivity and speci-
ficity in comparison with open IUS (93% and 100%, respectively). Some addi-
tional data derive from the series of SL: open IUS rarely disclosed additional
liver nodules whenever LUS was previously performed.
In this context, the authors of this chapter performed a prospective study to
definitively compare LUS and open IUS. Between September 2009 and March
2011, all 230 patients scheduled for liver resection at the Mauriziano Umberto
I hospital were considered. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of primary or
metastatic liver tumor. Exclusion criteria were diagnosis of hilar or gallblad-
der cholangiocarcinoma, more than ten lesions at preoperative imaging, liver
reresection, liver resection completed by laparoscopy, adhesions precluding
complete LUS, and unresectability at exploration. Study protocol scheduled
laparoscopy with LUS and then laparotomy, open IUS, and hepatectomy.
Contrast-enhanced IUS (CE-IUS) was performed in discordant cases.
Reference standards were final pathology and 6-month follow-up. Sixty-five
patients were assessed (12 with HCC; 12 with peripheral cholangiocarcinoma;
37 with colorectal metastases, and four with noncolorectal metastases).
Median number of preoperative imaging studies was three: percutaneous US

and CT scan in 100% of cases, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 67%,
and positron emission tomography (PET)-CT in 54%. One hundred and nine-
teen lesions were diagnosed at preoperative imaging: median number per
patient was one (1–9); median diameter was 18 (3–160) mm.
In comparison with preoperative imaging, LUS detected 22 additional
lesions (+18.5%) in 14 patients (21.5%). The median diameter of new nodules
was 7 (2–15) mm. In comparison with LUS, open IUS detected two additional
lesions in two patients. Conversely, open IUS did not confirm (even after CE-
IUS) four lesions detected by LUS. Overall, 20 new lesions (+16.8%) in ten
patients (15.4%) were detected by open IUS. In comparison with open IUS,
per-lesion LUS sensitivity was 98.6% and per-patient accuracy was 93.8%.
Agreement between the two procedures for newly detected malignant nodules
was 99.3% in per-lesion and 100% in per-patient analyses. Similar results were
observed for detecting vascular and biliary infiltrations: in comparison with
preoperative imaging, new data were added by both LUS and open IUS, with
an agreement between the two procedures of 99.3% (Fig. 13.2). Liver resection
a c
Fig. 13.2a–c Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) intraoperative staging. An 82-year old man affected
by segments 2–3 hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis scheduled for laparoscopic left lateral
sectionectomy. LUS detected a tumor thrombus in the left hepatic vein (a) that was not evident at
preoperative imaging. The procedure was converted to laparotomy. Open intraoperative ultra-
sound (IUS) confirmed vascular infiltration (b), easily detectable by means of e-flow US (c). IVC,
inferior vena cava; LHV, left hepatic vein; MHV, middle hepatic vein; TT, tumor thrombus
a b
Fig. 13.3 a, b Laparoscopic ultrasound guidance to resection. Segment 2 wedge resection. Section
plane runs along segment 2 pedicle (P2) (a); adequate tumor specimen margin (b)
was finally modified in 13 (20%) patients, and agreement between LUS and
open IUS in surgical strategy modification was 92.3%.
Final pathology confirmed 14 newly detected malignant nodules (+11.8%)
in eight patients (12.3%). Six nodules (five detected by both LUS and open
IUS and one by open IUS only) were benign. After a 6-month follow-up, ten
new hepatic malignant nodules were identified in six (9.2%) patients. Per-
lesion sensitivity of preoperative imaging, LUS, and open IUS were 83.1%,
92.3%, and 93.0%, respectively.
In conclusion, the reliability of LUS for staging liver diseases and planning
surgical treatment was demonstrated by its performances similar to those of
open IUS. These data strengthen the safety concept of laparoscopic liver sur-
gery, which is based on its capability to reproduce open surgical procedures.
13.5 Laparoscopic Ultrasonography and Liver Resection

Indeed, LUS has several roles in liver surgery: it is the only method of identi-
fying the precise liver anatomy and recognizing the presence of vasculobiliary
anomalies. Furthermore, it plays an important role in intraoperative staging of
the disease and identifying the exact site of the lesion and eventual new nod-
ules within the liver.
Moreover, probably the most important role of LUS is to assist the surgeon
during resection. Laparoscopic surgery presents some inherent limitations,
such as the lack of tactile sensation, impairing operative planning: US can
compensate for these limitations by allowing the surgeon to see beyond the
surface of the liver. During the first step of the operation, relationships
between tumor and intrahepatic vasculobiliary pedicles can be precisely visu-
alized, and resection lines are designed on the liver surface with monopolar
coagulation. During transection, the resection plane is repeatedly checked by
US to maintain a safe margin, providing the surgeon with immediate feedback
of possible necessary changes (Fig. 13.3). Any glissonian pedicle or vein
encountered during liver transection can be checked and recognized by LUS
before ligature and section. Color-Doppler US allows the user to visualize
blood flow and assess flow in and near the area of interest, thus avoiding
injury to important vessels during dissection. The possibility of guiding inter-
stitial treatments associated with hepatectomy, such as radiofrequency or
microwave ablation, gives an added value to the procedure, mainly in HCC
management.
LUS has some drawbacks and limitations. Hand–eye coordination of the
probe visualized through the video laparoscope can be difficult. Orientation
and the following image interpretation can be complicated. Furthermore, the
field of view is limited due to transducer size. Some US-specific drawbacks
add to the difficulties of interpretation, such as shadowing, multiple reflec-
tions, variable contrast depending on liver parenchyma status, and the fact that
image quality also may be somewhat operator dependent. Nevertheless,
despite these difficulties, LUS remains an indispensable tool for surgeons
dealing with laparoscopic liver resections.
References
1. Fukuda MMF, Nakano Y (1982) Studies on echolaparoscopy. Scan J Gastroenterol 17:186
2. Machi J, Johnson JO, Deziel DJ et al (2009) The routine use of laparoscopic ultrasound de-
creases bile duct injury: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 23:384–388
3. Vapenstad C, Rethy A, Langø T et al (2010) Laparoscopic ultrasound: a survey of its current
and future use, requirements, and integration with navigation technology. Surg Endosc
24:2944–2953
4. Clarke MP, Kane RA, Steele G et al (1989) Prospective comparison of preoperative imaging
and intraoperative ultrasonography in the detection of liver tumors. Surgical 106:849–855
and laparoscopic ultrasound. Ann Surg 220:711–719
6. Foroutani A, Gerland A, Berber E (2000) Laparoscopic ultrasound vs. triphasic computed to-
mography for detecting liver tumors. Arch Surg 135:933–938
7. Jarnagin WR, Conlon K, Bodniewicz J, Dougherty E, DeMatteo RP, Blumgart LH, Fong Y
(2001) A clinical scoring system predicts the yield of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with
potentially resectable hepatic colorectal metastases. Cancer 91:1121–1128
8. Mann CD, Neal CP, Metcalfe MS et al (2007) Clinical Risk Score predicts yield of staging
laparoscopy in patients with colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 94:855–859
9. Montorsi M, Santambrogio R, Bianchi P et al (2001) Laparoscopy with laparoscopic ultra-

sound for pretreatment staging of hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study. J Gastroin-
test Surg 5:312–315
10. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP et al (2008) The evolving influence of laparoscopy and laparoscop-
ic ultrasonography on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg 196:736–740
11. Weitz J, D’Angelica M, Jarnagin W et al (2004) Selective use of diagnostic laparoscopy pri-
or to planned hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Surgery 135:273–281
12. Goere D, Wagholikar GD, Pessaux P et al (2006) Utility of staging laparoscopy in subsets of
biliary cancers: laparoscopy is a powerful diagnostic tool in patients with intrahepatic and gall-
bladder carcinoma. Surg Endosc 20:721–725
13. D’Angelica M, Fong Y, Weber S et al (2003) The role of staging laparoscopy in hepatobil-
iary malignancy: prospective analysis of 401 cases. Ann Surg Oncol 10:183–189
14. Cozzi PJ, McCall JL, Jorgensen JO, Morris DL (1996) Laparoscopic vs. open ultrasound of
the liver: an in vitro study. HPB Surg 10(2):87–89
15. Tandan VR, Asch M, Margolis M et al (1997) Laparoscopic vs. open intraoperative ultrasound
examination of the liver: a controlled study. J Gastrointest Surg 1(2):146–150
A New Anatomical Vision:
Liver Surgery on the Screen 14
Fulvio Calise, Giuseppe Surfaro, Antonio Giuliani,
Carla Migliaccio and Antonio Ceriello
14.1 Introduction
Shall we see through a camera better than with our eyes? The question, still
appropriate at the present time, dates back to the seventeenth century. It seems
that Vermeer, and then Canaletto some decades later, introduced in their paint-
ings the use of the camera obscura, or optic camera (Figs. 14.1, 14.2). The
simplest arrangement, with a lens fastened in the pinhole, projected an
inversed and reversed image on a vertical screen opposite the aperture. A vari-
ation on this employed a translucent screen, allowing the viewer to see the
image from the other side, thereby correcting the left-to-right reversal. These
two types of cameras projected the image directly and could be combined in
one device. The optical camera obscura ushered in a new approach to optics,
opening up new views of the visible world and shaping a new understanding
of vision itself.
After the Second World War, the operating microscope was introduced in
several surgical fields: in other words, a prism allowing splitting of the light
beam in order that assistants may also visualize the procedure or to allow pho-
tography or video to be taken of the operating field.
In his famous essay “Homo Videns,” Giovanni Sartori [1] raised his lead-
ing questions: Is it true that the tele-vision, namely, to see through a screen,
changes our human nature? Is it really true that the screen is an anthropogenic
instrument? Probably yes, is the devastating answer to both questions.
Therefore, it seems that for a long time, humans have needed help to bet-
ter visualize reality. The laparoscopic revolution has made this need a day-by-
F. Calise ()
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
106 F. Calise et al.
Fig. 14.1 An illustration of two 18th century

camerae obscurae (a, b). In (a) a booth-type
camera obscura. From Wikimedia Commons,
photographic reproduction considered in the pu-
a blic domain
Fig. 14.2 Four drawings by Canaletto, representing Campo San Giovanni e Paolo in Venice, ob-
tained with a camera obscura (Venice, Gallerie dell’Accademia). From Wikimedia Commons, pho-
tographic reproduction considered in the public domain
day opportunity and challenge for surgeons to better serve their patients.
However, at the same time, the physical essence of the body – to touch, to han-
dle the organs – disappears in favor of vision through a screen: the surgeon no
longer looks where his or her hands (i.e., the surgical instruments) are, but
14 A New Anatomical Vision: Liver Surgery on the Screen 107
looks upward, in another direction. So, the surgeon’s operative approach, and
consequently the approach to the anatomy of organs, has changed.
In a laparoscopic approach and at the present time, particularly with the use
of the robot, we may move our camera (our technological eye) where we want,
and rotate it and our forceps a full 360° – an impossible feat for our human
eyes and hands. However, at the same time, we lose our touch, which is
laparoscopy’s burden. When we operate on the stomach, the spleen, and the
pancreas, these organs remain in place until almost the end of surgery. This is
not so for the liver.
14.2 Surgeon Position

When we open the abdomen to operate, we have a lateral vision of the organs.
To approach the basic structures of the liver, a 3D organ, we need to free it
from its ligaments and to raise, lower, turn, rotate, and change the position of
the operating table. In laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), the first main change
is that the surgeon is no longer on the right side of the patient but between his
or her legs. In other words, the liver is in front of the surgeon, who can now
immediately explore the four faces of the liver and has an immediate approach
to the hepatic hilum. This, alone, shows how feasible the approach is to the
left-lateral and anterior liver segments. Finally, we do not directly use our eyes
to see what we are operating on, but we look at a screen, which is generally
placed at our left, on the right side of the patient. We thus return to our optic
camera….
14.3 Trocar Position

Generally in LLS, the best trocar positioning is to describe an arch with its
concavity upward in order to obtain correct crossing of the operating instru-
ments, which is the focus of the tools’ triangulation. Therefore, again differ-
ently from open liver surgery (OLS), in LLS, we are obliged to use axial
movements with a fixed point of rotation (except in some cases with the pos-
sibility of using an angled instrument) and to work in a straight line to obtain
the most appropriate visual field [2].
14.4 Pedicle Approach

Change in technique does not mean change in surgical principles. Therefore,
in LLS, as direct manual control of the pedicle is impossible, it becomes nec-
essary to previously prepare the Pringle maneuver. Indeed, in the laparoscop-
ic approach, it is possible to obtain good frontal vision of the liver and perform
a safe and rapid maneuver by underpassing the pedicle to obtain ready control
in case of bleeding. Laparoscopic visualization provides a frontal view of the

pedicle, not bilateral as in OLS. It is then necessary to use a Roticulator Endo
Dissect (or other articulating device) that may allow passing through the
Winslow foramen, helping compensate for the loss of adequate lateral vision.
14.5 Intrahepatic Approach and Vascular Pedicles Vision

Isolation of vascular branches at the hilum follows exactly the same pattern
than in OLS and is even easier to do provided that the surgeon can work with
both right and left hands. In fact, hilum dissection is more simply done if we
use the HARMONIC scalpel or bipolar forceps with the right and left hands
alternatively, according, namely, to portal vein direction. The surgeon must
also remember that any section of a major vessel needs ultrasound guidance
due to lack of pulse touch.
The intrahepatic approach was first described by Tung and Quang [3] in
1965 and involves hepatic parenchyma dissection along the hepatic fissures
and pedicle ligation directly within the liver. Employing this technique fits
well with LLS, which allows good vision of the anterior face of the liver, and
being problematic, manipulate or rotate the liver. In other words, in major
hepatectomy (right and left), the approach to resection mimics the anterior
approach described by Belghiti et al. for OLS [4].
The approach to the vena cava for right hepatectomy is frontal and under
the liver, being extremely difficult to rotate the liver towards the left. So, the
surgeon works as if the operating field was within a tunnel. The right liga-
ments can be mobilized after completing the resection. The final approach to
the right hepatic vein is from within the liver, just as Tung and Quang wrote
many years ago: historia magistra vitae…
Conversely, left hepatectomy using LLS allows better vision compared
with OLS, with optimal access to the left side of the vena cava after dissection
of the Arantius ligament and also – but only if strictly necessary and easy to
do – isolation of the left hepatic vein on a tape.
Some authors suggest an intrahepatic glissonian approach for laparoscopic
right-segmental liver resection and for pure right hepatectomy [5, 6] in order
to obtain appropriate vascular control during transection. On this topic, we
emphasize the possibility with laparoscopy of good visualization of the portal
branches either to isolate them and obtain vascular control or to ligate them in
the case of a two-stage hepatectomy.
Finally, although we see better using LLS, we actually see less. The exten-
sive use of a linear vascular stapler (LVS) during LLS is a novelty compared
with the OLS approach. The use of LVS is of great help in LLR because it
speeds up the procedure and reduces bleeding [7, 8]. Regardless, most of the
time, the surgeon does not see what is being stapled and cut. O tempora o
mores… The intra-abdominal pressure allows this technical “trick”: however,
the surgeon must pay attention when cutting the biliary branches with a stapler
14 A New Anatomical Vision: Liver Surgery on the Screen 109
because there the seal is not always optimal and often requires an additional
stitch to prevent bile leak.
14.6 Conclusions
Due to advances in operating-room technology, surgeons, when performing
LLS surgery, have lost their traditional surgical position at the right side of the
patient, have lost direct visualization of what they do, have lost the ability to
touch with their hands the operating field, and have lost the predominance of
one hand over the other. And yet, this 360° change in operative technique has
occurred and is of great advantage – to the surgeon and thus to the patient. Not
bad in only one generation. We are rewriting our tablets of Moses, and this is
the wonder of our job!
References
1. Sartori G (2000) Homo videns. Laterza, Bari
2. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Gilbart E et al (1996) Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lateral
segmentectomy-technical aspects. Surg Endosc 10:758–761
3. Ton-That-Tung, Nguyen-Duong-Quang (1965) Segmentary hepatectomy by transparenchy-
matous vascular ligation. Presse Med 73(52):3015–3017
4. Belghiti J, Guevara OA, Noun R et al (2001) Liver hanging maneuver: a safe approach to right
hepatectomy without liver mobilization. J Am Coll Surg 193(1):109–111
5. Machado MA, Makdissi FF, Galvão FH et al (2008) Intrahepatic Glissonian approach for la-
paroscopic right segmental liver resections. Am J Surg 196:38–42
6. Ikeda T, Yonemura Y, Ueda N et al (2011) Pure laparoscopic right hepatectomy in the semi-
prone position using the intrahepatic glissonian approach and a modified hanging maneuver
to minimize intraoperative bleeding. Surg Today 41:1592–1598
7. Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Takagi S et al (2004) Hepatic resection using stapling devices. Am J
Surg 187:280–284
8. Gumbs AA, Gayet B, Gagner M (2008) Laparoscopic liver resection: when to use the laparo-
scopic stapler device. HPB (Oxford) 10(4):296–303
Encircling the Pedicle for the
Pringle Maneuver 15
Vincenzo Scuderi, Antonio Ceriello, Giuseppe Aragiusto,
Antonio Giuliani and Fulvio Calise
15.1 Introduction
Although some liver resections may now be safely performed without vascu-
lar clamping, blood saving remains an important concern in hepatobiliary sur-
gery, especially in patients with liver tumors, as blood loss seems to directly
affect early and late outcome.
Hepatic inflow occlusion has been recommended for reducing blood loss
during liver resection. Although various techniques for hepatic vascular con-
trol have been presented, Pringle maneuver (PM), the oldest and simplest, is
still favored by many surgeons in conventional open surgery.
During laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), however, PM is not easily per-
formed because of the narrow field of vision and because the laparoscopic for-
ceps is usually too obtuse to encircle the hepatoduodenal ligament (HDL).
Nevertheless, the good results using LLS are actually based on the continuous
effort to reproduce the same maneuvers used in open surgery. Therefore, pru-
dently loading the hepatic pedicle on a tape is advisable when using a mini-
mally invasive approach. Furthermore, bleeding from the cut hepatic surface
during laparoscopic surgery can dramatically complicate the outcome of the
procedure by darkening the operative field.
The importance of the ability to clamp the hepatic hilum in the course of
LLS emerges in the study of Nguyen et al., who reviewed 2,804 laparoscopic
liver resections (LLR) and reported that the main cause of conversion was
bleeding (34%; 40/116) [1]. In this chapter, methods proposed for encircling
V. Scuderi ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, A. Cardarelli Hospital,
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
112 V. Scuderi et al.
the hepatic hilum and general principles of liver inflow control are described,
outlining correlations between hepatic pedicle clamping and pneumoperi-
toneum (PP).
15.2 Anatomic and Hemodynamic Remarks Regarding

Hepatic Inflow Occlusion
The adult liver, accounting for 2–3% of overall body weight, has a dual vas-
cular inflow (1,500 ml/min, approximately one quarter of the total cardiac out-
put) through the portal vein (75% of total hepatic blood flow) and the hepatic
artery (25%) and an outflow drainage through the main and accessory hepatic
veins. The main portal vein drains the splanchnic territory; its blood pressure
is usually low, with a portocaval gradient <5 mmHg.
In the most common anatomy, the main hepatic artery arises from the celi-
ac trunk; in 20–25% of cases, several types of anatomic variations may be
encountered. The most common ones include the right hepatic artery arising
from the superior mesenteric artery and running behind the pancreatic head
along the right posterolateral side of the portal vein, and the left hepatic artery
arising from the left gastric artery and running in the lesser omentum.
Once the lesser omentum is opened, a blunt dissector may be passed
through the foramen of Winslow and the pedicle encircled with an umbilical
tape; in this manner, the HDL can usually be clamped en masse using atrau-
matic flexible clamps or a tourniquet. When a right hepatic artery originating
from the superior mesenteric artery is present, it runs within the HDL and is
therefore included in the PM. By contrast, a left hepatic artery originating
from the left gastric artery runs separately and requires individual clamping in
order to totally occlude the arterial inflow.
Blood pressure in the hepatic sinusoids depends on hepatic blood flow,
hepatic resistance, and pressure in the hepatic veins; the latter is directly
linked to the pressure in the inferior vena cava (IVC) and right atrium. Hepatic
vein pressure can be estimated during open procedures by monitoring the cen-
tral venous pressure (CVP). In cases of inflow clamping, intrahepatic blood
pressure as well as pressure in the hepatic veins depends exclusively on CVP.
The hemodynamic repercussions of liver inflow clamping have been exten-
sively studied by means of intraoperative hemodynamic assessment (invasive
arterial pressure and CVP monitoring) during traditional and minimally inva-
sive liver resections. During laparoscopy, the PP renders CVP monitoring
unreliable, and it therefore must be estimated by observing the IVC: when it
appears flaccid and fluctuates with heart and lung movements it can be
assumed that CVP is sufficiently low and suitable for parenchymal transection.
Persistent bleeding during parenchymal transection during inflow occlu-
sion results either from incomplete inflow occlusion or, more significantly,
from backflow bleeding through the hepatic veins. Incomplete inflow occlu-
sion can be avoided by applying the clamp or tourniquet until pulsation in the
15 Encircling the Pedicle for the Pringle Maneuver 113
distal hepatic artery is absent, clamping any accessory hepatic artery and
lysing hypervascular adhesions around the liver. Moreover, the PM interrupts
the arterial and portal venous inflow to the liver but has no effect on backflow
bleeding from branches of the hepatic veins. This is the reason for the impor-
tance of low CVP to reduce bleeding during transection: backflow bleeding is
reduced when CVP is maintained <5 cm H2O, although it can increase the risk
of air embolism.
Hepatic backflow during inflow occlusion, as well as being responsible of
persistent bleeding, provides a liver parenchymal perfusion that, even though
suboptimal, is sufficient to guarantee liver tolerance to normothermic
ischemia, even under PP conditions. Nsadi et al. [2] show in the swine model
that high abdominal pressure during PP decreases liver backflow, enhancing
ischemic liver damage due to inflow occlusion. The severity of ischemic dam-
age could be increased by low hepatic oxygenation and by decreased hepatic
backflow due to higher abdominal pressure. Evidence of applicability during a
minimally invasive approach [3] to intermittent portal clamping (IPC) is there-
fore also important, just as it is for open hepatic resection [4]. IPC of 15 min
and a 5-min clamp-free interval is considered the best option to achieve both
hemorrhage control and reduce ischemia–reperfusion liver damage.
Moreover, continuous portal clamping generates splanchnic congestion
with intestinal edema, which may lead to postoperative morbidity, especially
in cases of bowel resection for colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metas-
tases. Splanchnic congestion from portal clamping tends to be mild with IPC.
15.3 Surgical Strategies for Laparoscopic Inflow Control

Laparoscopic encircling of the HDL can be difficult because of the narrow
field due to the 2D view and because the device, with its obtuse curves and
sharp and hard tips, provides limited degrees of freedom. This concern may
induce some surgeon to avoid passing tape around the HDL under blind
manipulation because of the risk of injury to the IVC and other vital structures
within porta hepatis. Furthermore, previous surgery (recurrent hepatocellular
cancer or colorectal cancer metastases) may cause multiple adhesions, making
this surgical procedure hazardous.
In case of severe bleeding during laparoscopic hepatic transection without
preparation of the hepatic hilum, it is prudent to immediately convert to an open
procedure. Rotellar et al.’s [5] experience is quite significant: after 16 LLR pro-
cedures, including major hepatectomies without hilum preparation, the authors
report conversion to the open approach due to uncontrollable bleeding from a
portal pedicle during resection of a 13-mm lesion in S6. After this event, the
authors decided to almost systematically perform inflow control.
The approach to the HDL is not univocal. It was proposed that inflow
occlusion with laparoscopic vascular clamp or through an intraperitoneal or
extracorporeal tourniquet method be performed. The laparoscopic vascular
clamp is reported to be not robust enough to give satisfactory inflow occlu-

sion; furthermore, its hasty and blind placement in an emergency bleeding sit-
uation can be dangerous.
A tape placed around the porta hepatis and passed through a 16-F rubber
drain to be used as a tourniquet for PM, proposed originally by Cherqui et al.
[6], appears safer and more efficient.
Robotic HDL encircling is described as being similar to and easier than that
in the open setting. The robotic system overcomes laparoscopic limitations,
thanks to the fine movements of the dedicated devices that, with 6 degrees of
freedom, can reproduce basic movements of human hands [7].
In case of a traditional laparoscopic approach with inarticulate device,
Rotellar et al. [5] proposed passing behind the HDL with a normal laparoscop-
ic forceps; when inserted from the right flank and through the foramen of
Winslow, it exits from the opened lesser omentum to grasp the tape. The
authors propose two different dispositions for the tourniquet, based on tumor
site, to perform an efficient inflow occlusion without interference between
tourniquet and operative devices (Figs. 15.1 and 15.2)
Fig. 15.1 a Patient and trocar

position for laparoscopic resection
of lesions located posteriorly:
segments 6 and 7 and posterior areas
of segments 5 and 8.
b Same position with tourniquet in
place. Asterisk indicates the lesion.
White arrow indicates the catheter
where the tourniquet becomes
extracorporeal. Reproduced from [5]
with permission
b
Fig. 15.2 a Patient and trocar position

for laparoscopic resection of lesions
located anteriorly: segments 2, 3, 4
a–b, 5, and 8. b Position with the
tourniquet in place. Asterisk indicates
the lesion. White arrow indicates the
catheter where the tourniquet becomes
extracorporeal. Reproduced from [5]
with permission
An easier and safer approach appears to be the use of articulate device.

Maehara et al. [8] propose the use of a biliary scope (BS) introduced through
the opened lesser omentum until the light of its tip is visible on the right side
of pedicle; the tape is then grasped with endoscopic forceps, passed inside the
BS, and a stopper is positioned along it extracorporeally if clamping is needed.
Belli et al. [9] and Cho et al. [10] independently proposed the use of the
Endo Retract Maxi (United Surgical, Tyco Healthcare Group, Norwalk, CT,
USA) with a silicon tape (Vesseloops; Argon Medical Devices, TX, USA) pre-
liminarily fixed to this tip (Fig. 15.3). When this device is behind the HDL, its
metallic arch is prudently extended, allowing visualization of its tip and the
tape at the right side of the pedicle (see video related to this chapter).
With the same purpose, Saif et al. [11] describe the use of the Gold Finger
(Ethicon Endo Surgery, Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, NJ, USA), a
flexible articulating device developed for bariatric surgery. After positioning
the tape around the HDL, the two ends of the device are positioned through a
port, inside a tube (chest tube or bladder catheter or drain tube), extracorpore-
a b
Fig. 15.3 a Endo Retract (Covidien) Maxi in closed position. b Endo Retract Maxi in activated
position. Vessel tape is preliminarily fixed to the tip of the metallic arch
Fig. 15.4 SILS™ Dissector (courtesy of Covidien)
ally. Before starting the parenchyma transection, or in case of bleeding, it is

possible to blindly pull the tape with the left hand and push the tube with the
right one, without changing the visual field.
In our experience, we always prepare the HDL for eventual inflow occlu-
sion. We pass a silicon tape (Vessel Loops; Argon Medical Devices TX, USA)
behind the pedicle from the left or right using the Endo Dissect articulating
device (Covidien) (Figs. 15.4 and 15.5); two clips join the extremes of the
tape, which remains in the intraperitoneal position. If clamping is necessary,
the surgeon can expose the HDL by pulling the tape with the left hand and
placing a laparoscopic vascular clamp on the portal pedicle with the right hand
from the left flank through an additional trocar.
Fig. 15.5 SILS™ Dissector with Vessel Loop (Argon Medical Devices, Athens, TX, USA) around
hepatic hilum
Few data are available regarding inflow hepatic control in the event of a
laparoscopic redo. Belli et al. [12] report data on 15 laparoscopic redo surger-
ies (12 resection and three radiofrequency ablation) for recurrent HCC after
open or minimally invasive resection; the authors prepared the PM in nine
patients, but there was no need to perform it.
Cheung et al. [13] reported a case of laparoscopic hepatectomy for recur-
rent HCC; PM was not applied during transection.
Shafaee et al. [14] describe a large tri-institutional analysis of 76 repeat
hepatectomy for both benign and malign recurrence, but no information is
available regarding inflow control during this redo surgery.
15.4 Conclusions
PM has almost no systemic hemodynamic repercussions, although some
patients with unstable cardiovascular status can present dangerous arterial
hypotension, requiring fluid refilling that increases venous pressure, leading to
blood loss from hepatic veins.
Refinements in surgical tools and improvements in anesthesiology manage-
ment therefore allow surgeons to perform major hepatectomies with an accept-
able morbidity rate. Irrespective of this global advancement, part of the mor-
bidity is related to ischemia–reperfusion injury of the small, and often dis-
eased, remnant liver. Regardless, it is remarkable to note that hepatic resection
without vascular clamping is possible, feasible, and safe: many reports show
that major liver resection can also be safely performed without vascular
clamping. In fact, after years of systematic vascular clamping during major
hepatic resection, the advances in parenchymal transection, including the use
of coagulating and gently dissecting devices, make PM not always necessary.
In LLR, thanks to different options proposed for encircling the pedicle and
the improvements in transection devices, widespread and systematic inflow
occlusion appears sometimes unjustified.
Topal et al. [15], in a large series, statistically analyzes blood loss between
laparoscopic and open liver resections, demonstrating that operative blood loss
was significantly reduced in 109 patients undergoing LLR compared with 250
patients undergoing open resection (150 vs. 300 ml). Simillis et al. [16]
described reduced blood loss with LLR but also more frequent use of portal
clamping during LLR in respect to traditional liver resection.
A CVP <5 cm H2O during open liver resection reduces bleeding from the
transection surface, but during the laparoscopic approach, this setting changes
greatly. First, the PP collapses the IVC and CVP determination becomes unre-
liable. On the other hand, due to the risk of gas embolism related to the PP, a
CVP slightly increased at 3–6 cm H2O is considered protective. This warning
should always be present in our minds.
Several groups report significant LLR series also in cirrhotic patients with-
out using the PM [17, 18]. The less frequent use of hepatic inflow occlusion
during resection is a parameter evaluated during the progress of the learning
curve in minimally invasive liver surgery [19].
The spread of living-donor transplantation has revitalized the debate sur-
rounding ischemia–reperfusion injury. Grafts resected from living donors could
be harvested without theoretical negative effects of ischemia induced by hepat-
ic pedicle clamping. Always taking into account that donor safety is undoubt-
edly the highest priority, it is better for the donor’s residual liver that PM be
avoided [20]. The technical possibility of performing laparoscopic left-lateral
sectionectomy for pediatric living-donor transplantation, without performing
PM, is remarkable [21] as the ultimate step of the learning curve.
Laparoscopic PM is widely adopted to decrease blood loss during liver sur-
gery. However, thanks to contemporary transection equipment, advanced oper-
ative techniques, and increasing skill of hepatic surgeons in minimally inva-
sive liver surgery, routine use of inflow occlusion is becoming less and less
frequent. However, it is important that the hepatic laparoscopic surgeon has
the skill to perform, in a few minutes, a practical procedure to occlude hepat-
ic blood inflow.
James Hogarth Pringle (1863–1941)

The name of the surgeon who first per-
formed a particular surgical procedure or
described an anatomical structure is often
used to identify such landmarks, yet the
extraordinary professional achievements
of the surgeon generally remain unknown.
James Hogarth Pringle (Fig.15.6) was born
in Parramatta, Australia, on 26 January
1863, the son of well-know surgeon George
Hogarth Pringle of Sydney, Australia [22].
He graduated in medicine at Edinburgh
University in Scotland in 1885, following
which he made a 3-year European grand
tour across Berlin, Vienna, and Hamburg,
creating fruitful links with German and
Austrian surgeons. Fig. 15.6 James Hogarth Pringle
In 1892, he began working with Sir William (1863–1941), Royal College of
Macewen at Glasgow Royal Infirmary Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow
(GRI), Scotland, where remained for the rest
of his career, until 1923.
He was a skilled surgeon with an impressive surgical series and an active
participation as a member of the British Association of Surgeons. He and
his master, Macewen, were among the first to be sympathetic to the cause
of the first women medical students, accepting them into their clinics. He
also contributed greatly to the fields of malignant melanoma, head injury,
and arterial reconstruction with a saphenous vein graft.
His book Fractures and Their Treatment, published in 1910, was a milestone
textbook for a generation of British orthopedists. There were two reasons for
the extraordinary results of his innovative approach to fracture treatment: The
first was his support at one of the first hospital radiology departments in the
world, at GRI, which was founded by John Macintyre in 1896. The second
was confident application of the rules of asepsis, a concept introduced by
Joseph Lister, an assistant surgeon at GRI. It is remarkable, moreover, to
remember that Pringle was the first to perform hindquarter amputation in a
one-stage procedure for sarcoma of the thigh (a 50-min procedure under
spinal anaesthesia!).
Pringle could hardly have imagined that well into the future, the maneuver
he proposed to control bleeding of the liver during surgery would still be
written and talked about, or that his technique would be considerably debat-
ed in relation to a minimally invasive approach to liver surgery. From the
end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, there was
much scientific turmoil surrounding reasons for the inexorable and abrupt
death of animals subjected to clamping of the hepatic pedicle. In his paper
of 1908 (Ann Surg 48:541–549), Pringle supports the effectiveness of tem-

porary hepatic hilum clamping. He reported on eight cases of liver injury:
three patients died just after arrival at the hospital, and one patient died 3
days after the injury because he refused surgery. In the remaining four
patients, temporary clamping of the hepatic pedicle allowed surgery to be
performed in a bloodless operating field by successfully obtaining hemosta-
sis without fatal implications for the patients: “An assistant held the portal
vein and the hepatic artery between a finger and thumb and completely
arrested all bleeding, and we got on a little further in consequence of being
able to wipe out blood and blood clots and to examine the rupture” [23].
In support of his observations, he reported successful experiences with liver
resection in rabbits by clamping the hepatic hilum.
References
Patients. Ann Sur 250:831–841
2. Nsadi B, Gilson N, Pire E et al (2011) Consequences of pneumoperitoneum on liver ischemia
during laparoscopic portal triad clamping in a swine model. J Surg Res 166(1):35–43
3. Patriti A, Ceribelli C, Ceccarelli G et al (2012) Non-cirrhotic liver tolerance to intermittent
inflow occlusion during laparoscopic liver resection. Updates Surg. doi:10.1007/s13304-
012-0144-5
4. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Donadon M et al (2012) Safety of intermittent Pringle maneuver cu-
mulative time exceeding 120 minutes in liver resection: a further step in favor of the ‘‘Radi-
cal but Conservative’’ policy. Ann Surg 255(2):270–280
5. Rotellar F, Pardo F, Bueno A et al (2012) Extracorporeal tourniquet method for intermittent
hepatic pedicle clamping during laparoscopic liver surgery: an easy, cheap, and effective tech-
nique. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397:481–485
7. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Casciola L (2011) Extracorporeal Pringle maneuver in ro-
bot-assisted liver surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(5):e242–e244
8. Maehara S, Adachi E, Shimada M et al (2007) Clinical usefulness of biliary scope for Pringle’s
maneuver in laparoscopic hepatectomy. J Am Coll Surg 205:816–818
9. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A et al (2008) Laparoscopic segment VI liver resection using
a left lateral decubitus position: a personal modified technique. J Gastrointest Surg
12:2221–2226
10. Cho A, Yamamoto H, Nagata M et al (2009) Safe and feasible inflow occlusion in laparoscop-
ic liver resection. Surg Endosc 23:906–908
11. Saif R, Jacob M, Robinson S et al (2011) Laparoscopic Pringle’s manoeuvre for liver resec-
tion: how I do it. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 20:365–368
12. Belli G, Cioffi L, Fantini C et al (2009) Laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent hepatocel-
lular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: feasibility, safety and results. Surg Endosc 23:1807–1811
13. Cheung TT, Kwok-chai KNg, Tung-ping Poon R et al (2010) A case of laparoscopic hepate-
ctomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 16(4):526–530
14. Shafaee Z, Kazaryan AM, Marvin MR et al (2011) Is laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy fea-
sible? A tri-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg 212:171–179
15. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open liver resection of hepatic
neoplasms: comparative analysis of short-term results. Surg Endosc 22:2208–2213
16. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatic re-
sections for benign and malignant neoplasms a meta-analysis. Surgery 141(2):203–211
17. Belli G, Fantini C, D'Agostino A et al (2005) Laparoscopic liver resection without a Pringle
maneuver for HCC in cirrhotic patients. Chir Ital 57(1):15–25
18. Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M et al (2008) Laparoscopic liver resection without portal clamp-
ing: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc 22:2196–2200
19. Viganò L, Laurent A, Tayar C et al (2009) The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection
improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250:772–782
20. Imamura H, Takayama T, Sugawara Y et al (2002) Pringle’s manoeuvre in living donors. Lancet
360:2049–2050
to living liver donation. Surg Endosc 25:79–87
22. Macintyre I (2008) George (1830-72) and his son James Hogarth (1863-1941) Pringle: un-
sung surgical pioneers. J Med Biogr 16:155–161
23. Pringle JH (1908) Notes on the arrest of hepatic haemorrhage due to trauma. Ann Surg
48:541–549
Minimally Invasive Combined Surgery:
Liver and Colon–Rectum 16
Mario Morino and Federico Famiglietti
16.1 Indications and Background

Minimally invasive combined colorectal and liver resection is indicated for
both benign (diverticular disease, colonic adenoma unsuitable for endoscop-
ic resection, benign liver lesions) and malignant (primary colorectal cancer,
hepatocellular carcinoma or HCC, colorectal liver metastases) etiologies.
However, whereas reports for benign diseases are sporadic [1], most of the
studies published show results of the combined minimally invasive approach
to primary colorectal cancer (CRC) with synchronous liver metastases
(SLM) [2–7].
During the natural history of colorectal cancer, about 50 % of patients
develop hepatic metastases, and of these, 15–20 % has synchronous disease
[8]. Although synchronous metastases may confer a poorer prognosis than
metachronous metastases, complete surgical resection remains the only thera-
py with potential for cure [9]. In this setting, simultaneous colorectal and
hepatic resection for primary CRC with SLM compared with the classical
staged approach has been described as safe and feasible in selected patients
[10–12]. In particular, a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective studies showed that
simultaneous resections lead to shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates
over the staged approach, with similar long-term outcomes [12]. This
approach may also be beneficial in terms of cost and patient quality of life,
avoiding two hospitalizations and limiting the effect of two major surgeries on
immunological homeostasis. Moreover, from a psychological point of view,
patients feel better knowing that all the disease has been removed in a single
procedure. Given these findings, laparoscopy should be considered the natu-
M. Morino ()
Digestive and Colorectal Surgery, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Updates in Surgery
124 M. Morino and F. Famiglietti
ral evolution for such an approach, enhancing the benefits with its well-known
short-term advantages over open surgery in both colorectal and liver resections
[13, 14].
16.2 Patient Selection

Proper patient selection for this procedure is of paramount importance. When
considering a minimally invasive combined resection for stage IV CRC, limi-
tations of the simultaneous approach and those of the laparoscopic approach
should be taken into account (Table 16.1). First, patient characteristics and
tumor behavior should be considered. Concerning obesity, even though laparo-
scopic colorectal resection in obese patients is safe and feasible [15], it could
be an extremely demanding procedure in certain cases (i.e., rectal cancer) [16].
Conversely, the laparoscopic combined procedure may be advantageous, espe-
cially in severely obese patients, in terms of reduced surgical-site infection
(SSI) and wound complication rates. So, body mass index (BMI) must be care-
fully evaluated and related to the surgeon’s laparoscopic expertise. Moreover,
a detailed history should be obtained, and special attention should be given to
performance status and symptoms and signs suggesting advanced disease,
such as pain, ascites, jaundice, weight loss, and a palpable mass. Similarly,
highly (>30 ng/ml) elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum levels
were found to be predictive of the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy
before surgery [17]. Obstruction and perforation from the primary colorectal
cancer are further poor prognostic signs, also representing an adverse clinical
condition for a combined procedure. Conversely, extrahepatic metastases
should not be considered a contraindication unless unresectable.
The extent and location of metastatic disease within the liver are other
important issues. The use of a simultaneous approach for SLM is highly con-
troversial due to concerns about the extent of hepatectomy from both oncolog-
ical and technical points of view. Several authors describe low survival and
Table 16.1 Contraindications for minimally invasive combined colorectal and liver resection
Absolute contraindications Relative contraindications
PS > 2 BMI > 30; (GoR D)
Poor prognosis More than 3 SLM; (GoR C)
Obstructed or perforated CRC Need for major liver resection (3 or more segments);
(GoR C)
Unresectable extrahepatic metastases Lesions in segments 1, 7, 8; (GoR C)
R0 unlikely Extraperitoneal rectal cancer; (GoR C/D)
Primary CRC > 5 cm; (GoR C/D)
PS, performance status; BMI, body mass index; CRC, colorectal cancer; SLM, synchronous liver
metastases; GoR, grade of recommendation.
16 Minimally Invasive Combined Surgery: Liver and Colon–Rectum 125
high morbidity rates for patients with more than three SLM [10, 11], suggest-
ing a staged approach in these cases. Moreover, tumor location in the posteri-
or and superior liver segments (segments 1, 5, and 8) and the need for major
hepatectomy are well-known limitations for laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS)
[18]. Despite recent advances in minimally invasive liver surgery and
chemotherapeutic regimens, patients with either extensive liver metastatic
involvement or scheduled for resections of the posterior and anterior segments
should be referred to centers highly experienced in advanced laparoscopic pro-
cedures and liver surgery or submitted to hybrid laparoscopic procedures.
Finally, size and site of the primary tumor are predictive of morbidity in
metastatic patients who undergo laparoscopic colectomy for CRC. In fact, a
retrospective analysis from our institution comparing laparoscopic and open
colorectal resections in patients with symptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer
raises concerns about the laparoscopic approach to tumors >5 cm and
extraperitoneal rectal cancers due to the increased risk of conversion and post-
operative complications [19]. In our opinion, these cases should probably be
approached directly by laparotomy.
In conclusion, a tailored approach to CRC patients with SLM should be
used. The characteristics of patients and their tumors should be discussed
within a multidisciplinary team to plan the most appropriate timing of
chemotherapy and surgery.
16.3 Techniques of Minimally Invasive Combined Colorectal

and Liver Resection
Due to its recent introduction, the laparoscopic technique of combined hepat-
ic and colorectal resection is not yet well standardized. To date, only case
reports [1, 6] and a few case series [2–5, 7] are available in the literature, and
technical details differ considerably. Moreover, laparoscopic combined resec-
tions for SLM are often included as associate procedures in large series of
laparoscopic liver or colonic resections in which details of the combined tech-
nique and their specific results are not reported [19, 20]. In general, the mini-
mally invasive approach to patients with CRC and SLM could be roughly cat-
egorized into two groups according to whether one of the resections is per-
formed via laparotomy.
16.3.1 Pure Laparoscopic Technique
Patients with peripheral SLM located on left lateral (segments 2 and 3) and
anterior right (5 and 6) liver segments can benefit from a totally laparoscopic
combined resection. When both resections are deemed feasible by
laparoscopy, we routinely start with the hepatic resection in order to avoid
both septic contamination of the liver surgical field and the adverse effect of a
Fig. 16.1 Trocar positioning for left-

sided colorectal lesions. During col-
orectal resection, the operative trocars
are C and D; during liver resection,
they are D and E for tumors located
in the right lobe and B and D for
tumors located in the left lobe. Dotted
lines represent possible sites of
minilaparotomy
Pringle maneuver on venous colonic outflow. In fact, liver pedicle clamping

causes transient portal hypertension that leads to intestinal edema and conse-
quently to an increased risk of anastomotic leakage. The patient, under gener-
al anesthesia, is placed in a supine position with legs abducted. The surgeon
stands between the patient’s legs and the monitor is positioned on the patient’s
right shoulder. Usually, the Lloyd–Davis position is preferred for lesions in
segments 2–5, whereas the semi-left-lateral decubitus position is used for the
lesions in segment 6. Pneumoperitoneum is created by a Veress needle at an
intra-abdominal pressure of 12 mmHg. Five trocars are usually placed both for
left- (Fig. 16.1) and right-sided lesions (Fig. 16.2). The first phase of the pro-
cedure consists of careful exploration of the peritoneal cavity, the liver, and
the pelvis. The feasibility of laparoscopic colorectal resection should be veri-
fied at the beginning, as it is a crucial point for both successfully completing
the combined procedure and preventing complications such as conversion to
open surgery. Next, the patient is placed in a reverse Trendelenburg position.
A laparoscopic ultrasound should be performed in all cases to confirm
resectability and detect any other occult metastases. The hepatic pedicle can be
isolated and a tape passed around it; both ends are passed in a tourniquet to
enable performance of a Pringle maneuver. The dissection line is demarcated
on the liver with monopolar cautery. Liver parenchymal transection is per-
Fig. 16.2 Trocar positioning for right-

sided colonic lesions. During colonic
resection, operative trocars are B and
D; during liver resection, they are C
and D for tumors located in the right
lobe and C and E for tumors located in
the left lobe. Dotted lines represent
possible sites of minilaparotomy
formed with an ultrasonic scalpel. Intraparenchymal control of the major ves-

sels is achieved with clips or sutures. In left lobectomies (segments 2 and 3),
the left hepatic vein is sectioned with a linear vascular endostapler. Sectioning
of the segmental bile ducts is performed by extraparenchymal ligation and
scissors sectioning in cases of left lobectomy (resections of segments 2 and 3),
using the ultrasonic scalpel in other procedures. The specimen is put into a
sterile bag and left under the diaphragm for later retrieval. The surgeon then
moves to the patient’s right side and the monitor is shifted close to the
patient’s left leg. For resections involving left colon, sigmoid, or rectum, the
splenic flexure is mobilized at the beginning of the operation. Next, the patient
is placed in a Trendelenburg position with a right tilt. A lateral-to-medial dis-
section is performed, with a high vascular ligation. The inferior mesenteric
artery is divided 1 cm from the aorta after ligation with clips, and the inferior
mesenteric vein is divided at the level of Treitz ligament. Complete left-colon
mobilization and a distal colonic or rectal transection is performed. A suprapu-
bic minilaparotomy is then performed to extract both colorectal and hepatic
specimens, to resect the proximal margin, and to introduce the stapler anvil.
Finally, pneumoperitoneum is reestablished, and a double-stapled mechanical
anastomosis is fashioned. When the distal clearance of the inferior margin of
the tumor is at the level of the surgical anal canal, or in a narrow pelvis where
a transverse stapled section is sometimes impossible, the technique of choice

is a rectal mucosectomy and a true coloanal anastomosis, executed manually
from below and removing the specimen by the anal verge. Right hemicolec-
tomies are completed laparoscopically with a medial-to-lateral dissection, high
vascular ligation, and complete right colonic mobilization. An intracorporeal
ileocolic stapled anastomosis is fashioned. Irrigation of all ports and extrac-
tion sites with povidone–iodine solution is recommended. Suction drains are
selectively used.
Sometimes concerns about the feasibility of a totally laparoscopic com-
bined procedure could be raised at the beginning of the operation due to tech-
nical or anesthesiological problems. In these cases, it is advisable to attempt
laparoscopic colorectal resection first. Once the colorectal resection is com-
pleted, three main factors should be evaluated before proceeding to liver resec-
tion: (1) an R0 colorectal resection must be likely, (2) technical evaluation of
the quality of the anastomosis must be satisfactory, and (3) the expected oper-
ative time of the entire combined procedure should not exceed 8 h [3]. If these
criteria are met, the patient is turned into the reverse Trendelenburg position
and the laparoscopic hepatic resection can be then performed. Conversely,
when one of the resections is deemed unfeasible laparoscopically, a hybrid
video-assisted technique becomes necessary.
16.3.2 Hybrid Video-Assisted Techniques
In general, hybrid methods are advisable when a complete resection either of

the hepatic or colorectal lesion is difficult to achieve laparoscopically.
When a major liver resection (three or more segments) is needed, this can
be completed through a right subcostal incision, whereas the laparoscopic
CRC resection can be easily performed with a classic four-trocar technique, as
described above. The CRC resection should be performed first, but the intes-
tinal anastomosis could be fashioned at the end of the liver parenchymal tran-
section, as a Pringle maneuver is probably necessary in these cases and the
intestinal anastomosis may be compromised. Moreover, blood loss and trans-
fusions might occur during such resections, and anastomotic perfusion may be
affected. The resected specimens are then brought out through the midline or
the right subcostal incision.
Similarly, in patients with low, bulky T4 rectal cancers and SLM, a totally
laparoscopic combined resection is not recommended. Four to five trocars are
placed along an ideal semicircular line, with the concavity facing the subcostal
margin to perform laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), as described previous-
ly, whereas open anterior resection is classically performed through a midline
incision.
16.4 Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Combined Colorectal

and Liver Resection
Outcomes of laparoscopic combined colorectal and liver resections are infre-
quently reported in the literature due to its recent introduction into clinical
practice. Moreover, most studies are on video-assisted hybrid operations,
whereas totally laparoscopic combined procedures are often included as asso-
ciate procedures in large series of LLR or colonic resections, in which their
specific results are not reported [19, 20]. The procedure is safe and feasible in
highly selected patients. Morbidity rate ranges from 10% to 50% [4, 7], medi-
an hospital stay varies from 10 to 19 days [4, 7], and operative time is between
300 and 446 min [3, 4]. Only one comparative study between laparoscopic and
the open approach to combined colorectal and liver resection has been pub-
lished so far [7]. The authors found that the laparoscopic-assisted procedure
was associated with significantly longer operative time (358 vs 278 min) but
lower blood loss (350 vs 500 ml). Morbidity rate was similar between groups
and the 3-year survival rate. Of note, 13 of 20 patients underwent a hybrid pro-
cedure with open liver resection.
16.5 Summary
The use of laparoscopy in this specific field seems promising. Adequate liver
exploration during synchronous resections is crucial. Compared with open sur-
gery, the laparoscopic approach allows minimization of abdominal wall trau-
ma and consequently reduces postoperative pain, the incidence of incisional
hernia, and SSIs. Moreover, as recently reported [13, 14], laparoscopy
enhances recovery and could lead to an earlier start of chemotherapy in these
patients. Adequate patient selection and extensive surgeon experience in
hepatic and laparoscopic surgery are essential prerequisites to optimize out-
comes. Nevertheless, several issues remain unsolved (resection timing and
concerns about anastomotic leakage and septic contamination of the liver sur-
face), and the technique needs to be standardized. Future studies should try to
answer these open questions.
References
1. Inagaki H, Kurokawa T, Sakamoto J et al (2003) Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy com-
bined with right hemicolectomy for liver tumor and hemorrhagic diverticulosis. Surg Endosc
17:158–159
2. Kim SH, Lim SB, Ha YH et al (2008) Laparoscopic-assisted combined colon and liver resec-
tion for primary colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: initial experience.
World J Surg 32:2701–2706
3. Bretagnol F, Hatwell C, Farges O et al (2008) Benefit of laparoscopy for rectal resection in

patients operated simultaneously for synchronous liver metastases: preliminary experience.
Surgery 144:436–441
4. Akiyoshi T, Kuroyanagi H, Saiura A et al (2009) Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer
and synchronous liver metastases: initial experience of laparoscopy for colorectal cancer re-
section. Dig Surg 26:471–475
5. Lee JS, Hong HT, Kim JH et al (2010) Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary col-
orectal cancer and metastatic liver tumor: initial experience of single institute. J Laparoen-
dosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:683–687
6. Casaccia M, Famiglietti F, Andorno E et al (2010) Simultaneous laparoscopic anterior resec-
tion and left hepatic lobectomy for stage IV rectal cancer. JSLS 14:414–417
7. Huh JW, Koh YS, Kim HR et al (2011) Comparison of laparoscopic and open colorectal re-
sections for patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection for liver metastases. Surg Endosc
25:193–198
8. Manfredi S, Lepage C, Hatem C et al (2006) Epidemiology and management of liver metas-
tases from colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 244:254–259
9. Tsai MS, Su YH, Ho MC et al (2007) Clinicopathological features and prognosis in resectable
synchronous and metachronous colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol 14:786–794
10. Capussotti L, Viganò L, Ferrero A et al (2007) Timing of resection of liver metastases syn-
chronous to colorectal tumor: proposal of prognosis-based decisional model. Ann Surg On-
col 14:1143–1150
11. Reddy SK, Pawlik TM, Zorzi D et al (2007) Simultaneous resections of colorectal cancer and
synchronous liver metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 14:3481–3491
12. Chen J, Li Q, Wang C et al (2011) Simultaneous vs. staged resection for synchronous colorec-
tal liver metastases: a metaanalysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:191–199
13. Schwenk W, Haase O, Neudecker J et al (2005) Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorec-
tal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD003145
14. Croome KP, Yamashita MH (2010) Laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection for benign and
malignant tumors: an updated meta-analysis. Arch Surg 145:1109–1118
15. Makino T, Shukla PJ, Rubino F et al (2012) The impact of obesity on perioperative outcomes
after laparoscopic colorectal resection. Ann Surg 255:228–236
16. Buchanan GN, Malik A, Parvaiz A et al (2008) Laparoscopic resection for colorectal cancer.
Br J Surg 95:893–902
17. Sorbye H, Mauer M, Gruenberger T et al (2012) Predictive factors for the benefit of periop-
erative FOLFOX for resectable liver metastasis in colorectal cancer patients (EORTC Inter-
group Trial 40983). Ann Surg 255:534–539
18. Morino M, Morra I, Rosso E et al (2003) Laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection: a compar-
ative study. Surg Endosc 17:1914–1918
19. Allaix ME, Degiuli M, Giraudo G et al (2012) Laparoscopic versus open colorectal resections
in patients with symptomatic stage IV colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc 5 [Epub ahead of print,
PMID: 22476839]
20. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L et al (2009) Oncologic results of laparoscopic versus open he-
patectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 250:849–855
Minimally Invasive Procedures
for Liver Trauma 17
Graziano Ceccarelli, Raffaella Niola, Alberto Patriti, Fulvio Calise
17.1 Introduction
The liver is one of the most frequently injured abdominal organs in trauma
(about 35–45% of blunt abdominal trauma, 40% of stab wounds, and 30% of
gunshot wounds); about 80% occur in men between 20 and 40 years of age [1].
Liver trauma is classified according to the Liver Injury Scale from the
American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), which lists six
grades with progressive severity depending above all on two parameters: depth
of parenchyma laceration, and the area of hematoma with or without vascular
involvement. The diagnostic and therapeutic approach to abdominal and liver
trauma has evolved in recent decades, leading to a reduction in deaths [1, 2].
Conservative treatment in intensive care in the majority of liver injuries is
supported by a high level of practitioner experience, with a successful out-
come in approximately 70% of patients and a very low morbidity rate [3–5].
Treatment requires hemodynamic stability, accurate and close imaging evalu-
ation [computed tomography (CT) scan, ultrasound (US)] and the absence of
other serious abdominal injuries (bowel perforations, vascular or thoracic
lesions). Considerations leading to a nonoperative approach are that many
liver injuries stop bleeding spontaneously; too many nontherapeutic laparo-
tomies in the past, and fewer complications with the nonoperative approach.
The major drawbacks of the conservative approach are the need for close radi-
ological and clinical monitoring and the possibility of missing lesions.
Minimally invasive techniques, such as image-guided percutaneous
drainage, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram (ERCP), operative
G. Ceccarelli ()
e-mail:[email protected]
Updates in Surgery
angiography, and – in particular – laparoscopy, may be useful in selected trau-

ma cases and for treating complications correlated with the trauma.
17.2 Approach to Patients with Abdominal Trauma

A multimodality intervention strategy is required. Patients with liver trauma
can be triaged into two subsets upon arrival in the emergency room: hemody-
namically stable patients; and patients in critical condition from the outset,
with hemodynamic instability and risk of consumption coagulopathy.
Hemodynamic stability is defined as a systolic pressure >90 mmHg and a
pulse rate <100 bpm. A tensely distended abdomen with acute anemia, persist-
ent hypotension despite replacement with a liter of colloid infusion during
transport, and the need for transfusion of ≥5 U blood require immediate oper-
ative intervention due to the of risk of coagulopathy and multiorgan failure.
The presence of extraintestinal free air indicates perforation of a hollow vis-
cus requiring surgery. There is no established consensus on how much blood
loss or transfusion requirement mandates the decision to operate. Some
authors consider a simple liver laceration with <250 ml of hemoperitoneum
(limited bleeding) an indication for conservative management, whereas others
accept as much as 500 ml of blood filling the cul-de-sac (moderate bleeding)
before opting for surgery (Fig. 17.1a-c) [3, 6]. Multidetector-row CT (MDCT)
is the main diagnostic tool in trauma evaluation to define liver injury severity,
quantify hemoperitoneum, and identify other intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal
injuries (duodenum, pancreas, kidneys) or the presence of pneumoperitoneum.
It also offers the advantage of identifying ongoing active bleeding [4, 7, 8].
The value and clinical use of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), introduced
in 1965 by Root [9], has been reduced with the diffusion of US and CT-scan
procedures. US performed in casualty [focused assessment sonography in trau-
ma (FAST) technique for four-quadrant evaluation and cardiac region], may be
useful but has low efficacy in identifying bowel injury.
17.3 Imaging Findings

CT-based criteria guide the diagnostic management of blunt hepatic trauma.
They include intrahepatic or subcapsular hematoma, evidence of arterial vas-
cular injury such as pseudoaneurysms and traumatic arteriovenous fistulas,
presence of hepatic venous involvement, devascularized tissue, hemoperi-
toneum grade, and associated injured abdominal organs (Fig. 17.1d-f). These
findings indicate either conservative or operative management of hepatic
injury and help in the selection of patients who should undergo hepatic angiog-
raphy and possibly embolization.
Hepatic contusions appear on contrast-enhanced MDCT as poorly mar-
ginated, low-attenuation areas compared with the normal, enhancing, hepatic
17 Minimally Invasive Procedures for Liver Trauma 133
a b
c d
e f
Fig 17.1 a Hepatic subcapsular hematoma. b Hematoma lacerations. c Hematoma laceration with
hemoperitoneum. d Abdominal stab wound. e Abdominal stab wound TC imaging. f Laparosco-
pic repair of diaphragmatic laceration in a stab wound involving liver and diaphragm
parenchyma. Hepatic lacerations appear as well-defined, linear, or branching

areas of low attenuation within the enhancing liver parenchyma. Perihepatic
and intraperitoneal blood are common with liver lacerations and indicate tear-
ing of the hepatic capsule [10]. A bare-area laceration is commonly associated
with a right adrenal or renal injury and hematoma in the right retroperitoneum
[8]. Hepatic subcapsular hematomas are seen as a low-density crescentic col-
lection of blood, typically around the right lateral hepatic margin. A subcapsu-
lar hematoma often compresses the underlying hepatic parenchyma, a charac-
teristic that is useful for distinguishing this lesion from perihepatic blood.
Active bleeding within the liver appears as an irregular or linear high-attenu-
ation focus of extravasated intravenously administered contrast material that
remains persistently high in attenuation and typically increases in size on
excretory-phase images. Active extravasation in the liver may be seen in the
hepatic parenchyma, subcapsular space, or peritoneum. Hepatic vascular
injuries and active extravasation resulting in bleeding into the peritoneal cav-
ity through a tear in the liver capsule are strong predictors of failure of nonop-
erative management [11, 12].
17.4 Hepatic Embolization

General indications for angiography and arterial hepatic embolization are evi-
dence of continuous hemorrhage or patients who remain in borderline condi-
tion after resuscitation and in whom contrast medium extravasation or intra-
parenchymal blush or contrast staining is seen on MDCT. Hepatic arterial
bleeding can also be controlled with embolization, and patients with hepatic
trauma generally are directed to the interventional radiology suite in two sce-
narios: The first is when a patient continues to hemorrhage after damage-con-
trol laparotomy. The second is when a hemodynamically stable trauma
patient’s imaging shows hepatic hemorrhage; in this case, an embolization
procedure may be used to obviate surgery.
In their study of 230 consecutive patients with grade 3, 4, or 5 hepatic
injuries treated with nonoperative management, Kozar et al. reported an 11%
overall complication rate. Complications included persistent bleeding, biliary-
tract complications, and abdominal compartment syndrome. Twelve patients
with persistent bleeding were treated with embolization, and the bleeding was
successfully controlled in all cases [13].
17.4.1 Technique
An abdominal aortogram is the first step before selective hepatic angiography.

Knowledge of the hepatic vascular variants is essential. Selective celiac and
superior mesenteric artery (SMA) angiography should be performed. Images
should be evaluated for the presence of extravasation, pseudoaneurysm, arte-
riovenous fistula, anteriobiliary fistula, or traumatic occlusion. Extravasation
is recognized by a dense extravascular collection of contrast medium (Fig.
17.2a-g) Pseudoaneurysms are well circumscribed collections of contrast
material that extend beyond the expected vascular wall and in the acute setting
a b c
d e f g
Fig 17.2 a Axial CT post-contrast image demonstrates perihepatic packing that surrounds a wide
laceration of liver parenchyma. b Coronal CT post-contrast image shows a wide laceration of right
lobe liver parenchyma (black arrows), in which an ongoing hemorrhage is found, demonstrated by
the contrast medium extravasation (white arrow). c Coronal CT post-contrast image shows a pseu-
doaneurysm of the hepatic artery (black arrow). There is also a subcapsular hematoma (white ar-
row). d Selective hepatic arteriogram shows a contrast medium extravasation that looks like (but
it is not) a small intraparenchimal pseudoaneurism, at the eight segment; arterial phase. e Late an-
giography phase. f coaxial technique by microcatheter allows a selective embolization of the lesion.
g At the end of the procedure a devascularization of the lesion is evident
are nothing more than contained hematomas; these are unstable and should be
treated. Traumatic occlusions may represent dissection without bleeding but
cannot be differentiated angiographically from a transected vessel with inter-
mittent bleeding, which may resume if the hemodynamic parameters of the
patient change. Assuming normal anatomy, a diagnostic celiac angiogram
though a 4- or 5-F catheter is performed and followed by subselection of small
vessels as the active bleeder is approached. As with any embolization, a
sheath at the access site is recommended to avoid losing access if the embol-
ic agent occludes the catheter. The hepatic arteries are prone to spasm, and
branches distal to the left or right main trunks may be too small to engage
without a microcatheter. High-flow microcatheters, such as the Renegade HI-
FLO (Boston Scientific, Watertown, MA, USA) and the Progreat (Terumo,
Tokyo, Japan) in 100- and 110-cm lengths are preferred for use in visceral
trauma. These catheters accept Gelfoam (Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) slur-
ry and large particles with less risk of catheter occlusion. Ideally, solitary
bleeding sublobular branches are selected and embolized with 2- to 3-mm
coils. If distal as well as proximal embolization across a bleeding site cannot
be performed, Gelfoam or large-particle embolization should be performed
before coil embolization in order to block flow reversal in the artery distal to
the injury and continued backbleeding via these collateral pathways. Follow-
up celiac angiography should always be performed to ensure pan-hepatic
hemostasis before leaving the angiography suite.
17.4.2 Complications of Hepatic Embolization in Nonoperative

Treatment
Published complication rates of angiography in the trauma setting range from

4% to 5% Complications of arterial hepatic embolization mainly include
rebleeding, and later, hepatic infarction or abscess, bile duct, or gallbladder
necrosis or biliary hematoma. Persistent bleeding is the most common compli-
cation of conservative nonoperative management, occurring up to 9% of cases
[14], and is the most common indication for surgical intervention. Abdominal
hypertension (compartment syndrome), defined as vesical pressure >20 cm
H2O, with associated organ failure, may be the consequence of retroperitoneal
bleeding, where intestinal edema and overgenerous repletion of vascular vol-
ume with crystalloid may play an important role [15]. Biliary complications
typically occur later. The primary cause of these complications is biliary fistu-
la, which often derives from the biliary tree or, more rarely, from the gallblad-
der or duodenum [16]. A bile leakage results in a direct chemical insult to the
peritoneum. When the collection is well circumscribed, the treatment of choice
is CT or echo-guided percutaneous drainage, which has a success rate of
70–100% [14]. Collections that are difficult to access percutaneously can be
managed by an open or laparoscopic surgical approach [17]. Hemobilia
(caused by a communication between a bile duct and a blood vessel), biliopor-
tal fistula, hepatic necrosis, abscess, and sepsis are other possible complica-
tions. Extensive hepatic necrosis exposes the patient to hepatocellular insuffi-
ciency and abscess formation and often requires surgical excision. Intrahepatic
abscesses occur in 0.7–1.5% of blunt hepatic trauma, and their time of onset
ranges from 1 to 12 days [18]. Other complications associated with emboliza-
tion are contrast reactions and vascular injury/dissection related to the proce-
dure [19].
17.5 Laparoscopy in Abdominal Trauma Management

The role of laparoscopy in abdominal trauma is controversial and has a long
history. During the early 1970s, US surgeons developed this approach, demon-
strating its usefulness, efficacy, and safety in the emergency setting [20–23].
Berci et al., in 1991, evaluated a series of 150 cases of hemoperitoneum and
demonstrated reduction in about 25 % of nontherapeutic laparotomies using
diagnostic laparoscopy. Ivatury et al., in 1993 [33] and Brandt in 1994 [45]
reached the same conclusions and moreover described abdominothoracic pen-
Table 17.1 Indications to laparoscopy in abdominal trauma (who and where)
- Hemodynamically stable patients candidate

for explorative laparotomy
- Polytrauma patients candidates for general
anesthesia, with hemoperitoneum and - Centers with expert teams in
suspicion of hepatic injury laparoscopy, available 24 h a day
- Abdominal compartment syndrome
Who Where
- Signs of abdominal complications after
conservative treatment (fever, anemia with - Availability of necessary
increase abdominal fluid, suspected equipment and instruments
bowel perforation)
- Stab- or gunshot-wound trauma with liver
or abdominal cavity involvement
etrating injuries in about 40% of cases associated with a diaphragmatic injury.

Fabian et al., in 1993, concluded that laparoscopy “is a safe modality for trau-
ma, it is most efficacious for evaluation of equivocal penetrating wounds.
Significant cost savings would be gained by performance under local anesthe-
sia...” [24]. Local anesthesia at bedside has now been completely abandoned,
as operating theater and general anesthesia are considered safer, allowing more
information to be gathered and better patient compliance.
The spread of laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approaches and the develop-
ment of new endoscopic tools (5-mm high-definition cameras, ultrasonic
scalpel, etc) have contributed to the diffusion of the minimally invasive surgi-
cal approach. Therapeutic laparoscopic options have increased in recent years
to manage emergency situations. Nontherapeutic laparotomy has a morbidity
rate ranging between 22% and 61%, with very high hospital stay [25–30].
To date, a laparoscopic approach is reserved for patients in hemodynami-
cally stable conditions. Surgery is required only for persisting doubt or
increasing hemoperitoneum after conservative management, the presence of
shock signs, peritoneal irritation, or abdominal free fluid or free air in the fol-
low-up period [31]. Indications to laparoscopy are reported in Table 17.1.
General contraindications to a laparoscopic procedure are primarily hemody-
namic instability and the patient’s general condition (American Society of
Anesthesiologists, ASA, grade IV).
Emergency laparoscopic treatment of hepatic injury consists primarily of
hemostatic procedures (coagulation, or application of hemostatic devices),
small atypical resections of devascularized tissue, positioning of stitches for
hemostasis or biliary stasis. When the surgical treatment cannot be performed
safety by laparoscopy or the surgeon has not enough experience, then a con-
version to laparotomy is necessary.
17.6 Penetrating Abdominal and Liver Trauma

In penetrating abdominal trauma, especially those from gunshot wounds, the
role of laparoscopy is still under debate; the bowel is the most frequently
involved abdominal organ (about 50%). The type of penetrating agent and its
trajectory can help the surgeon to evaluate the gravity of the wound. In 1999,
Demetriades et al. reported successful nonoperative management in 21% of 52
patients with isolated gunshot wounds to the liver; that percentage increased
to 28.4% in a study published in 2006 by the same authors [32].
Diagnostic laparoscopy for evaluating penetrating trauma is more defined
in thoracic–abdominal stab wounds; laparoscopy may aid in the diagnosis of
diaphragmatic and other intra-abdominal injuries, thus avoiding nontherapeu-
tic laparotomies. Results of large case series are interesting, reporting that
laparoscopy is associated with a low number of complications and reduces the
number of unnecessary laparotomies. However, Ivatury and colleagues report-
ed that laparoscopy identified only 20% of intestinal lesions caused by pene-
trating trauma [33]. A gunshot wound to the anterior abdomen with question-
able tangential trajectory may be assessed in the same manner. The argument
is that even if there are no clinical signs of intra-abdominal injuries, the disad-
vantages associated with an unnecessary laparotomy are minor compared with
the danger of peritonitis in cases of delayed diagnosis of intestinal perforation.
Laparoscopy allows inspection of the peritoneum for signs of perforation. In
selected cases, several studies report treatment of intra-abdominal injuries [32,
34–36], describing an algorithm for treating hemodynamically stable patients
with thoracoabdominal wounds but without peritoneal signs, suggesting vide-
olaparoscopy is indicated if the wound is located in the left thoracoabdominal
area [32] .
17.7 Laparoscopic Management of Complications

Nonoperative or conservative treatment has been associated with about 12% of
in-hospital morbidity (abscess, biloma, etc). Management of these complica-
tions consists of a multimodal approach: radiological drainage, endoscopic
stenting, and surgery. Laparoscopy recently gained a role as diagnostic and
therapeutic techniques, with favorable results [33, 37, 38]. In some referral
centers, delayed laparoscopy is even routinely proposed [39]. Thus,
laparoscopy should not be considered a failure of nonoperative management
but as a part of this therapeutic strategy.
17.8 Laparoscopic Procedure: Technical Notes

Laparoscopic exploration is performed under general anesthesia. The patient
lies in the supine position; a nasogastric tube must always be introduced
before anesthesia, and a bladder catheter should be already positioned.

Pneumoperitoneum should be induced slowly and carefully, which is easier
with an open technique. Special attention should be given to the possibility of
a tension pneumothorax caused by an unsuspected diaphragmatic rupture.
Generally, the first trocar, of 10–12 mm, is introduced at the umbilicus. A 30°
camera is used. The peritoneal cavity should be examined systematically,
beginning with the right upper quadrant and proceeding clockwise.
Suction/irrigation may be needed for optimal visualization, and methylene
blue can be administered to help identify gastrointestinal injuries. Trocar posi-
tion is related to the area of injury, so the number and the seat of trocar posi-
tioning vary from patient to patient and must be decided upon as necessary.
The presence and localization of blood clots inside the abdominal cavity is an
important landmark of where the bleeding has started. The surgeon should not
hesitate to convert to laparotomy if not confident that there are no missed
injuries (especially retroperitoneal colon, pancreas, duodenum, and kidneys).
Bowel distension increases the risk of iatrogenic injury or lesion underestima-
tion. Once the bleeding source is identified, the surgeon can decide upon either
conservative treatment or proceed to surgical repair, which can be done com-
pletely by laparoscopy or by an open approach. Laparoscopic sutures, intestin-
al resection, and intracorporeal anastomosis often require additional trocars
and extensive surgeon experience. Laparoscopic liver resections and total or
partial splenectomies require the use of devices such as ultrasonic or radiofre-
quency dissectors; anywhere else, simple hemostasis bipolar or monopolar dis-
sectors are enough. To manage parenchymal bleeding, a wide variety of hemo-
static agents are now available that can be applied by laparoscopy (see video).
Evidence in Minimally Invasive Surgery for Abdominal Trauma

Consensus Developement Conference of the Società Italiana Chirurgia
Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE); Associazione Chirurghi Ospedalieri
Italiani (ACOI); Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC); Società Italiana Chirurgia
d’Urgenza e Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana Chirurghi dell’Ospedalità
Privata (SICOP), and the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery
(EAES), 2010 [40]:
In stable penetrating trauma of the abdomen, laparoscopy may be useful in

patients with documented or equivocal penetration of the anterior fascia –
grade of reference (GoR) B – and in stable blunt trauma patients with sus-
pected intra-abdominal injury and equivocal findings on imaging studies,
or even in patients with negative studies but with a high clinical likelihood
for intra-abdominal injury (‘unclear abdomen’) to exclude relevant injury
(GoR C). To optimize results, the procedure should be incorporated in insti-
tutional diagnostic and treatment algorithms for trauma patients (Gor D).
17.9 Conclusions
Hemodynamic stability is a prerequisite for an accurate work up in emergency
situations. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) can be used to
assess injury severity and to determine subsequent strategies [26].
Approximately 70 % of liver injuries do not require a surgical procedure;
including select patients with most complex hepatic injuries (grades 4 and 5).
Angiography is indicated to identify and treat active bleeding detected by CT.
Diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy has been reported to be as high as 75 %
(Level of evidence, LE IIb) [41] and is indicated in patients with suspected
intra-abdominal lesions, equivocal findings on imaging studies, and when non-
operative management has failed or there are suspected hollow viscus injuries
with peritonitis and a potential diaphragmatic lesion. The procedure effective-
ly decreases the rate of negative laparotomies and minimizes patient morbidi-
ty [29, 40].
To approach abdominal and liver trauma by laparoscopy, an expert laparo-
scopic surgical and anesthesiological team is as necessary as adequate and
appropriate equipment. Laparoscopy must be considered a therapeutic proce-
dure in selected cases as well as being a diagnostic tool. Laparoscopy limita-
tions are the impossibility of exploring the abdominal cavity, particularly the
retroperitoneal space, so conversion to open surgery is required in many cases.
Complications related to carbon dioxide (CO2) diffusion to the chest through
diaphragmatic injuries can also occur. Very rare cases of gas embolism, found
mainly after hepatic lesions, have also been reported [42, 43]. The presence of
diaphragmatic rupture is not a contraindication to a laparoscopic approach, but
a thoracic tube must be placed before laparoscopy to avoid hypertensive pneu-
mothorax. Among the absolute contraindications are: hemodynamic instabili-
ty, poor or critical general conditions (ASA III–IV), gunshot wounds with mul-
tivisceral involvement and evisceration, severe head injury (where the high
intra-abdominal pressure may increase intracranial pressure), and the presence
of severe thoracic trauma.
Others benefits of minimally invasive surgery are represented by fewer
wound complications, early patient recovery and resumption of respiratory
function, and significant reduction in hospitalization. Retrospective cost-
analysis studies compared total hospital costs of exploratory laparotomy and
diagnostic laparoscopy with penetrating abdominal trauma, showing that
laparoscopy is cheaper than exploratory laparotomy (level of evidence 4) [44].
References
1. Richardson DJ, Franklin GA, Lukan JK et al (2000) Evolution in the management of hepat-
ic trauma: a 25-years perspective. Ann Surg 232(3):324–330
2. Awad AT, El Hammadi HA (1999) Hepatic injuries: management and outcome. Int Surg
84(3):266–270
3. Croce MA, Fabian TC, Menke PG et al (1995) Non-operative management of blunt hepatic
trauma is the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients: results of a prospec-
tive trial. Ann Surg 221:744–753
4. Cuff RF, Cogbill TH, Lambert PJ (2000) Nonoperative management of blunt liver trauma:
the value of follow-up abdominal computed tomography scans. Am Surg 66:332–336
5. Franklin GA, Casós SR (2006) Current advances in the surgical approach to abdominal trau-
ma. Injury 37(12):1143–1156
6. Chen RJ, Fang JF, Chen MF (2001) Intra-abdominal pressure monitoring as a guideline in the
non-operative management of blunt hepatic trauma. J Trauma 51(1):44–50
7. Woong YoonW, Jeong YY, Kim JK et al (2005) CT in blunt liver trauma. Radiographics
25(1):87–104
8. Shanmuganathan K (2004) Multi-detector row CT imaging of blunt abdominal trauma. Semin
Ultrasound CT MR 25:180–204
9. Root HD, Hauser CW, McKinley CR et al (1965) Diagnostic peritoneal lavage. Surgery
57:633–637
10. Patten RM, Spear RP, Vincent LM et al (1993) Traumatic lacerations of the liver limited to
the bare area: CT findings in 25 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:1019–1022
11. Fang JF, Chen RJ, Wong YC et al (2000) Classification and treatment of pooling of contrast
material on computed tomographic scan of blunt hepatic trauma. J Trauma 49:1083–1088
12. Wong YC, Wang LJ, See LC et al (2003) Contrast material extravasation on contrast-enhanced
helical computed tomographic scan of blunt abdominal trauma: its significance on the choice,
time, and outcome of treatment. J Trauma 54:164–170
13. Kozar RA, Moore JB, Niles SE et al (2005) Complications of nonoperative management of
high-grade blunt hepatic injuries. J Trauma 59(5):1066–1071
14. Carillo EH, Spain DA, Wohltmann CD et al (1999) Interventional techniques are useful ad-
juncts in nonoperative management of hepatic injuries. J Trauma 46:619–622
15. Malbrain ML, Cheatham ML, Kirkpatrick A et al (2006) Results from the International Con-
ference of Experts on Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syn-
drome. I. Definitions. Intensive Care Med 32(11):1722–1732
16. Griffen M, Ochoa J, Boulanger BR (2000) A minimally invasive approach to bile peritonitis
after blunt liver injury. Am Surg 66:309–312
17. Franklin GA, Richardson JD, Brown AL et al (2007) Prevention of bile peritonitis by laparo-
scopic evacuation and lavage after nonoperative treatment of liver injuries. Am Surg
73(6):611–616, discussion 616–617
18. Hsieh CH, Chen RJ, Fang JF et al (2003) Liver abscess after nonoperative management of
blunt liver injury. Langenbecks Arch Surg 387(9-10):343–347
19. Monnin V, Sengel C, Thony F et al (2008) Place of arterial embolization in severe blunt he-
patic trauma: a multidisciplinary approach. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 31(5):875–882
20. Berci G, Dunkelman D, Michel S et al (1983) Emergency minilaparoscopy in abdominal trau-
ma. Am J Surg 146:261–265
21. Gazzaniga AB, Stanton WW, Bartlett RH (1976) Laparoscopy in the diagnosis of blunt and
penetrating injuries to the abdomen. Am J Surg 131(3):315–318
22. Carnevale N, Baron N, Delany HM (1977) Peritoneoscopy as an aid in diagnosis of abdom-
inal trauma: a preliminary report. J Trauma 17(8):634–641
23. Sherwood R, Berci G, Austin E, Morgenstern L (1980) Minilaparoscopy for blunt abdomi-
nal trauma. Arch Surg 115(5):672–673
24. Fabian TC, Croce MA, Stewart RM et al (1993) A prospective analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy
in trauma. Ann Surg 217:557–565
25. Taner AS, Topgul K, Kucukel F, Demir A, Sari S (2001) Diagnostic laparoscopy decreases
the rate of unnecessary laparotomies and reduces hospital costs in trauma patients. J Laparoen-
dosc Adv Surg Tech 11:207–211
26. Uranüs S, Dorr K (2010) Laparoscopy in abdominal trauma. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 36:19–24
27. Smith RS, Fry WR, Morabito DJ, Koehler RH, Organ CH Jr (1995) Therapeutic laparoscopy
in trauma. Am J Surg 170:632–637
28. Smith CH, Novick TL, Jacobs DG, Thomason MH (2000) Laparoscopic repair of a ruptured
diaphragm secondary to blunt trauma. Surg Endosc 14:501–502
29. Choi YB, Lim KS (2003) Therapeutic laparoscopy for abdominal trauma. Surg Endosc
17:421–427
30. Mathonnet M, Peyrou P, Gainant A, Bouvier S, Cubertafond P (2003) Role of laparoscopy in
blunt perforations of the small bowel. Surg Endosc 17:641–645
31. Kozar RA, Moore FA, Cothren CC et al (2006) Risk factors for hepatic morbidity following
nonoperative management: multicenter study. Arch Surg 141(5):451–458
32. Demetriades D, Hadjizacharia P, Constantinou C et al (2006) Selective nonoperative manage-
ment of penetrating abdominal solid organ injuries. Ann Surg 244(4):620–628
33. Ivatury RR, Simon RJ, Stahl WM (1993) A critical evaluation of laparoscopy in penetrating
abdominal trauma. J Trauma 34(6):822–827
34. Ferrada R, Birolini D (1999) New concepts in the management of patients with penetrating
abdominal wounds. Surg Clin North Am 79(6):1331–1356
35. Sosa JL, Arrillaga A, Puente I, Sleeman D, Ginzburg E, Martin L (1995) Laparoscopy in 121
consecutive patients with abdominal gunshot wounds. J Trauma 39:501–506
36. Mazuski JE, Shapiro MJ, Kaminski DL (1997) Diagnostic laparoscopy for evaluation of pen-
etrating abdominal trauma. J Trauma 42:163
37. Carrillo EH, Reed DN Jr, Gordon L, Spain DA, Richardson JD (2001) Delayed laparoscopy
facilitates the management of biliary peritonitis in patients with complex liver injuries. Surg
Endosc 15(3):319–322
38. Marzano E, Rosso E, Oussoultzoglou E, Collange O, Bachellier P, Pessaux P (2010) Laparo-
scopic treatment of biliary peritonitis following nonoperative management of blunt liver trau-
ma. World J Emerg Surg 5:26
39. Feliciano DV, Rozycki GS (2002) Hepatic trauma. Scand J Surg 91(1):72–79
40. Agresta F, Ansaloni L, Baiocchi L et al (2011) Consensus Development Conference of the So-
cietà Italiana Chirurgia Endoscopica e nuove tecnologie (SICE); Associazione Chirurghi Os-
pedalieri Italiani (ACOI); Società Italiana di Chirurgia (SIC); Società Italiana Chirurgia d’Ur-
genza e Trauma (SICUT), Società Italiana Chirurghi dell’Ospedalità Privata (SICOP) and the
European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)
41. Mallat AF, Mancini ML, Daley BJ, Enderson BL (2008) The role of laparoscopy in trauma:
a ten-year review of diagnosis and therapeutics. Am Surg 74(12):1166–1170
42. Jayaraman S, Khakhar A, Yang H, Bainbridge D, Quan D (2009) The association between cen-
tral venous pressure, pneumoperitoneum, and venous carbon dioxide embolism in laparoscop-
ic hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 23(10):2369–2373
43. Min SK, Kim JH, Lee SY (2007) Carbon dioxide and argon gas embolism during laparoscop-
ic hepatic resection. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 51(7):949–953
44. Marks JM, Youngelman DF, Berk T (1997) Cost analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy vs laparo-
tomy in the evaluation of penetrating abdominal trauma. Surg Endosc 11:272–276
45. Brandt CP, Priebe PP, Jacobs DG (1994) Potential of laparoscopy to reduce non-therapeutic
trauma laparotomies. Am Surg 60:416-420
Minimally Invasive Surgery
in Cirrhotic Patients 18
Giulio Belli, Paolo Limongelli, Andrea Belli, Gianluca Russo
and Alberto D’Agostino
In Western countries, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common

primary liver cancer. Its incidence is increased in patients with chronic liver
disease mostly due to hepatitis B or C infections [1]. In patients with cirrho-
sis, screening can improve survival by diagnosing the tumor while it is still
small and asymptomatic [2]. Liver transplantation is a curative option for
HCC in patients with underlying chronic liver disease but cannot be applied
on a large scale due to patient age and alcohol abuse, associated diseases, and
shortage of donors [3, 4]. Therefore, other treatments, such as hepatic resec-
tion and percutaneous techniques such as ethanol injection and radiofrequen-
cy ablation (RFA), are needed either as bridging treatments or alternative
management for those unsuitable for a liver transplant. Although hepatic
resection performed in cirrhotic patients remains a surgical challenge for both
surgeons and patients, it can attain a high curative rate, a morbidity rate of
10–40%, and a mortality rate <10% [5–7]. Open liver resection plays a para-
mount role in the curative treatment of HCC in patients with adequate liver
function [8]. With improvements in technology and equipment, laparoscopic
liver resection (LLR) is now considered a safe procedure, even for managing
liver tumors, if performed by experienced surgeons [6].
Since the early 2000s, the minimally invasive approach has been used
increasingly to manage hepatic diseases, even in presence of cirrhosis [9].
Despite its technical challenges, reduced operative blood loss, fewer early
postoperative complications, lower analgesic drug requirements, and shorter
hospital stay are attainable. Besides, oncologic clearance and survival rate are
similar to those of open surgery. The role of the minimally invasive approach
in liver surgery continues to increase, and many types of liver resections,
G. Belli ()
General and HPB Surgery, Loreto Nuovo Hospital, Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
144 G. Belli et al.
including major hepatectomies, are now performed laparoscopically in spe-

cialized centers [10–12]. In addition, laparoscopy seems to improve the
patient’s postoperative course and avoid abdominal-wall, and probably
parenchymal, injury. In fact, the benefit of laparoscopic over open procedures
seems to be greater, especially in cirrhotic patients, in whom postoperative
ascites and abdominal-wall complications can be decreased. Nevertheless,
close monitoring to detect and manage recurrence by bridge treatments, redo
liver resection and salvage transplantation in eligible patients is required to
improve survival [13, 14]. Recurrence and the need for repeat treatments are
the Achilles’ heel of hepatic resection for HCC in cirrhosis. Therefore, as with
the first operation, selection criteria using the laparoscopic approach in
patients with recurrent tumor include generally well-compensated chronic
liver disease (Child–Pugh class A) without signs of severe portal hypertension
(esophageal varices F2); exophytic or subcapsular tumors located in the left
(2, 3, 4b) or peripheral right (5–6) segments; a maximum lesion size of 4–5
cm; and limited resection (less than three segments). Patients with complicat-
ed cirrhosis (Child–Pugh class B–C) or an American Society of
Anesthesiology (ASA) classification >2 are generally excluded from this pro-
cedure. In recent years, thanks to improvements in technology and equipment
and accumulated surgical-team experience, any type of liver resection, includ-
ing posterosuperior segments and left and right hemihepatectomy in well-
selected patients can be performed successfully.
The most frequently required type of liver resection for small, single HCC
is limited anatomic resection. Such resections are particularly suitable for
laparoscopy. In our experience, laparoscopic resection has been successfully
performed in >90% of our patients, with only few procedures requiring con-
version to open surgery. Our institution started a specific program of LLR and
is now a referral center for managing HCC patients eligible for the approach,
accounting for the fact that more than one third of liver resections are now per-
formed laparoscopically. Good perioperative results were attained even at the
beginning of our experience when highly selected, small subcapsular lesions
were the main indication for HCC resection in cirrhosis. These results were
confirmed in the second half of our experience, when we included larger
tumors, major resections, and a significant increase in bisegmentectomies.
These findings reflect the impact of the surgical team’s learning curve on
patients previously deemed unsuitable for a laparoscopic approach [6].
However, liver resections in cirrhotic patients are technically more difficult
than in patients with normal liver, presenting added complications such as pro-
fuse bleeding during liver mobilization and parenchymal transection.
Intraoperative bleeding is of great concern in LLR, with a reported incidence
of 7%, and controlling it remains of key importance [15]. The development of
new surgical devices and the hemostatic effect of pneumoperitoneum on
hepatic vein branches partly explain comparable blood loss between open and
LLRs [3, 16]. Operative durations of LLRs are significantly longer than those
of matched open counterparts [17, 18], but the procedure’s safety is attested to
18 Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cirrhotic Patients 145
by the absence of mortality and the low specific morbidity rates (15%), with
low rates of transient postoperative liver failure. These findings are important,
as ascites and jaundice are the main complications of liver resection – even of
minor ones – in cirrhotic patients.
Laparoscopic resection of HCC in cirrhotic liver is feasible and safe in
selected patients and achieves adequate long-term survival and recurrence
rates compared with open surgery when stratified for tumor characteristics
known to be related to survival outcome [6].
References
1. Cherqui D, Laurent A, Tayar C, Chang S, Van Nhieu JT, Loriau J et al (2006) Laparoscopic
liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease.
Ann Surg 243:499–506
2 . Chan AC, Poon RT, Ng KK, Lo CM, Fan ST, Wong J (2008) Changing paradigm in the man-
agement of hepatocellular carcinoma improves the survival benefit of early detection by
screening. Ann Surg 247:666–673
3. Llovet JM, Fuster J, Bruix J (1999) Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early
hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus transplantation. Hepatology 30:1434–1440
4. Yao FY, Bass NM, Nikolai B, Davern TJ, Kerlan R, Wu V et al (2002) Liver transplantation
for hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of survival according to the intention-to-treatprinciple
and dropout from the waiting list. Liver Transpl 8:873–883
5. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Cioffi L, Langella S, Russolillo N et al (2007) Laparoscop-
ic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven
cirrhosis: short- and middle-term results. Surg Endosc 21(11):2004–2011
6. Belli G, Limongelli P, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Cioffi L, Belli A et al (2009) Laparoscopic
and open treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Br J Surg
96(9):1041–1048
7. Dagher I, Belli G, Fantini C, Laurent A, Tayar C, Lainas P et al (2010) Laparoscopic hepate-
ctomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg 211(1):16–23
8. Cha CH, Ruo L, Fong Y, Jarnagin WR, Shia J, Blumgart LH et al (2003) Resection of hepa-
tocellular carcinoma in patients otherwise eligible for transplantation. Ann Surg 238:315–321
9. Belli G, D’Agostino A, Fantini C, Cioffi L, Belli A, Russolillo N et al (2006) Laparoscopic
incisional and umbilical hernia repair in cirrhotic patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan
Tech 16(5):330–333
10. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N, Iannitti D, Dagher I et al (2009) The interna-
tional position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg
250(5):825–830
11. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Cioffi L, Russo G, Belli A, Limongelli P (2011) Laparoen-
doscopic single site liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: first
technical note. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(4):e166–168
12. Belli G, Gayet B, Han HS et al (2012) International Consensus Group for Laparoscopic Liv-
er Surgery Laparoscopic Hemi-Hepatectomy: a consideration for acceptance as standard of
care. New Orleans, LA, 10th World Congress of IHPBA, Paris, July 1-5, 2012
13. Belli G, Fantini C, Belli A, Limongelli P (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocel-
lular carcinoma in cirrhosis: long-term outcomes. Dig Surg 28(2):134–140
14. Belli G, D’Agostino A, Fantini C, Cioffi L, Belli A, Russolillo N et al (2007) Laparoscopic
radiofrequency ablation combined with laparoscopic liver resection for more than one HCC
on cirrhosis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17(4):331–334
15. Chen HY, Juan CC, Ker CG (2008) Laparoscopic liver surgery for patients with hepatocel-
lular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 15:800–806
146 G. Belli et al.
16. Dagher I, Lainas P, Carloni A, Caillard C, Champault A, Smadja C et al (2008) Laparoscop-

ic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Endosc 22:372–378
17. Laurent A, Cherqui D, Lesurtel M, Brunetti F, Tayar C, Fagniez PL (2003) Laparoscopic liv-
er resection for subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic liver disease.
Arch Surg 138:763–769
18. Lesurtel M, Cherqui D, Laurent A, Tayar C, Fagniez PL (2003) Laparoscopic versus open left
lateral hepatic lobectomy: a case-control study. J Am Coll Surg 196:236–242
Reoperative Laparoscopic
Hepatectomy 19
Joseph F. Buell, Alan Koffron, Bjørn Edwin,
Robert Cannon and Brice Gayet
Since the inception of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), the indication for
this procedure has evolved from peripheral wedge resections to formal lobec-
tomies and now even to reoperative hepatectomy. Multiple centers worldwide
have reported their experiences using various laparoscopic surgical tech-
niques for hepatectomy, including pure laparoscopy, hand assist, and the
hybrid technique [1–10]. Concurrent data clearly report the efficacy of repeat
hepatectomy, particularly for colorectal metastases resection, supporting the
role for secondary and even tertiary redo hepatectomy. This increase in tech-
nical field strength in conjunction with efficacy data led to the evolution of
reoperative LLR strategies [11–14].
Reoperative LLR is inherently complex due to the presence of adhesions,
atypical anatomy, and – in the case of redo liver surgery – a potentially compro-
mised liver remnant. These technical considerations often prohibited reoperative
laparoscopic hepatectomy to all but a few highly experienced surgical teams and
large-volume centers. Prior to embarking on a laparoscopic approach to reoper-
ative hepatectomy, all three institutions participating in our collaborative group
had extensive experience in both open redo hepatectomies and LLRs.
This chapter is dedicated to examining the evaluation process of potential
candidates for the technical approaches used to execute the reoperative
laparoscopic hepatectomy. To achieve this, we examined our clinical experi-
ence with reoperative LLRs from a collaborative group comprising: (1)
Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris, France; (2) Rikshospitalet, Oslo
University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, and (3) Tulane University, New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA. Each group previously published their separate and exten-
sive technical approaches to primary LLRs [5–10].
J. F. Buell ()
Professor of Surgery and Pediatrics, Tulane Transplant Institute,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
Updates in Surgery
148 J. F. Buell et al.
In a 14-year period, 74 patients underwent 76 repeat LLRs [10]. They were

most commonly performed for resection of a liver lesion in the same or adja-
cent segment resected during a prior resection (75%). Notably, few selected
patients had steatosis or fibrosis, and none had cirrhosis. A significantly high-
er incidence of operative conversions was observed than with traditional
laparoscopic hepatectomy (10% vs. 2%). The two principal causes for oper-
ative conversions were uncontrolled hemorrhage or failure to progress. Failure
to progress arose from dense adhesions, posterior-segment tumors, and lesion
multiplicity. Despite these complexities, an R0 resection was achieved in 92%
of patients. However, the resection margin was <1 mm in nearly 10% of cases.
Despite this limited margin, no local tumor recurrences were observed. Tumor
recurrence was observed in 13% of patients with liver disease as the only site
of cancer recurrence. There were no cancer recurrences observed at the port
sites. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was significantly
higher in the laparoscopic reoperative hepatectomy group (30 %) compared
with a collaborative incidence for primary laparoscopic hepatectomy (30% vs.
15 %). Interestingly, postoperative bile leaks also occurred at a higher rate
(6.5% vs. 4%).
The most common indication in the literature for recurrent open hepatic
resection is regional recurrence of colorectal liver metastasis [11–14]. Repeat
hepatectomy in itself is among one of the most challenging technical proce-
dures in the field of hepatobiliary surgery. Concerns with repeat liver resections
include the difficulty of the procedure itself and the potential for hemorrhagic
complications in the setting of uncertain remnant anatomy, dense adhesions, or
even compromised intrinsic hepatic disease [15]. Reported morbidity and mor-
tality rates for open repeat liver resections varies from 22% to 28% and 0%
to 5 %, respectively [11–14, 16] (Table 19.1). Laparoscopic hepatectomy
results in decreased blood loss and postoperative pain, shortened hospital stay,
and improved recovery times. Despite initial concerns over oncological integri-
ty, the laparoscopic approach to cancer is not inferior to that of open resection
[16–19]. This is consistent with findings from primary laparoscopic colon
resection data that demonstrates survival is improved with a laparoscopic
approach to colon resection in advanced-stage colorectal cancer (Table 19.2).
Belli et al. reported similar findings in their experience with 12 reoperative
laparoscopic resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the setting of
cirrhosis [20]. Both Belli’s and our group concluded that re-resection after pri-
mary open liver resection requires more extensive intra-abdominal adhesioly-
sis than prior laparoscopic resection, leading to longer operative times and
higher bleeding risk. This is consistent with findings of several open repeat
hepatectomy series for colorectal metastasis, which showed higher blood loss
and longer hospital stays compared with primary open resections [21-22].
Critical to reoperative liver resection is extrahepatic disease detection.
Excluding peritoneal carcinomatosis in dense intra-abdominal adhesions
requires extensive adhesion lysis and suspicious lesion biopsy. Intraoperative
ultrasound is also critical to define remnant vascular anatomy affected by prior
19 Reoperative Laparoscopic Hepatectomy 149
Table 19.1 Comparison of reoperative liver resection for colorectal metastases

Author Cases Re-resection Formal EBL Morbidity Mortality 5-year
lobe (%) (ml) (%) (%) survival (%)
Tuttle et al. [12] 23 Open 30 800 22 0 32
Petrowsky et al. [13] 126 Open 28 900 28 1.5 34
Ishiguro et al. [14] 111 Open 11 913 14 0 41
de Jong et al. [16] 246 Open 21 NR 21 0.4 47
Shafaee et al. [10] 55 Laparoscopic 29 300 27 0 55
EBL, estimated blood loss; Formal lobe, right lobe segments 5-7, left lobe segments 4, 2, 3, ± 1;
NR , not reported.
Table 19.2 Comparison of high-volume laparoscopic liver resection with our reoperative laparo-
scopic liver resection experience
Author Cases Formal OR time EBL Conversion Morbidity Mortality Cirrhosis
lobe (%) (min) (ml) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Buell et al. [24] 342 23 150 221 1.4 19.1 1.1 16
Kazaryan et al. [9] 149 32 164 350 3.4 12.6 0.7 NR
Gayet et al. [7] 313 31 160 150 5.4 15.3 0 9.2
Shafaee et al. [10] 76 25 195 300 10 32 0 1.3
EBL, estimated blood loss; OR time, operating room time; Formal lobe, right lobe segments 5-7,
left lobe segments 4, 3, 2, ± 1; NR , not reported.
resection. Alterations in major vascular distributions must be defined to devel-

op an operative strategy and to prevent inadvertent vascular injury or remnant
compromise.
The observation of smaller surgical margins in reoperative laparoscopic
hepatectomy is concerning but may be dictated by the altered vascular anato-
my present in the remnant liver. Historically, 10 mm is advocated as an appro-
priate surgical margin for hepatic resection. In the setting of redo liver resec-
tions, this may not be achievable due to the risk of remnant liver compromise.
Additionally, stapler hepatectomy has been postulated, with the devices com-
pression requirements to artificially reduce the pathologic margin. Multiple
publications report the oncologic benefit of 10-mm margins, with several argu-
ing the adequacy of a negative margin. de Haas et al. reported that R1 resec-
tions did not adversely affect survival in patients with hepatic colorectal
metastasis where an R0 resection was not feasible [22].
Technically, the use of a hand-assist device appears to be beneficial in the
setting of reoperative laparoscopic hepatectomy [23]. In patients with prior
open hepatectomy, the use of the prior right subcostal portion of the chevron
is an ideal location for placing the hand-assist device (Figs. 19.1 and 19.2).
This incision also allows significant adhesion lysis using a hybrid approach
and minimizes the amount of dissection performed through a laparoscopic
Fig. 19.1 Port placement for reoperative

laparoscopic liver resection with prior open
hepatic resection
10 mm
5 mm
10 mm
Fig. 19.2 Intraoperative and hand-assist device port placement following prior chevron incision;
laparoscopic approach for redo hepatic resection to segment 4 after prior open hepatic resection
of segments 6–7 for colorectal metastases
19 Reoperative Laparoscopic Hepatectomy 151
approach. Data support the feasibility of reoperative laparoscopic hepatectomy

whether the primary resection was laparoscopic or open.
Reoperative laparoscopic hepatectomy is feasible, safe, and efficacious in
high-volume centers in which the surgical team is experienced and comfort-
able with complex open and laparoscopic resections. Patients with prior
laparoscopic resections are felt to be better candidates than patients with prior
open hepatic resections. Critical to the success of reoperative laparoscopic
hepatectomy is detailed intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound and meticulous
and extensive adhesion lysis to exclude the presence of extrahepatic disease.
Attention to detail results in precise resection with minimized risk to remnant
liver function.
Acknowledgements A contribution to this chapter is gratefully acknowledged to Dr. Bob

Saggi.
References
1. Lefor AT, Flowers JL (1994) Laparoscopic wedge biopsy of the liver. J Am Coll Surg
178(3):307–308
3. Descottes B, Lachachi F, Sodji M et al (2000) Early experience with laparoscopic approach
for solid liver tumors: initial 16 cases. Ann Surg 232:641–645
4. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Santiago Azagra J et al (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malig-
nant liver tumors: preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 236:90–97
5. Vibert E, Kouider A, Gayet B et al (2004) Laparoscopic anatomic liver resection. HPB (Ox-
ford) 6:222–229
6. Buell JF, Thomas MJ, Doty TC et al (2004) An initial experience and evolution of laparoscop-
ic hepatic resectional surgery. Surgery 136:804–811
7. Gayet B, Cavaliere D, Vibert E et al (2007) Totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy. Am J Surg
194:685–689
vasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 248:475–485
9. Kazaryan AM, Marangos IP, Rosseland AR et al (2010) Laparoscopic liver resection for ma-
lignant and benign lesions: 10 year Norwegian single centre experience. Arch Surg 145(1):34–40
10. Shafaee Z, Kazaryan AM, Marvin M et al (2011) An initial assessment of laparoscopic repeat
hepatectomy. A tri-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg 212(2):171–179
11. Fong Y, Blumgart LH, Cohen A et al (1994) Repeat hepatic resections for metastatic colorec-
tal cancer. Ann Surg 200:657–662
12. Tuttle TM, Curley SA, Roh MS et al (1997) Repeat hepatic resection as effective treatment
for recurrent colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 4(2):125–130
13. Petrowsky H, Gonen M, Jarnagin W et al (2002) Second liver resections are safe and effec-
tive treatment for recurrent hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, a bi-institutional analy-
sis. Ann Surg 235:863–871
14. Ishiguro S, Akasu T, Fujimoto Y et al (2006) Second hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liv-
er metastasis: analysis of preoperative prognostic factors. Ann Surg Oncol 13(12):1579–1587
15. Elias D, Lasser P, Hoang JM et al (1993) Repeat hepatectomy for cancer. Br J Surg
80:1557–1562
16. de Jong MC, Mayo SC, Pulitano C et al (2009) Repeat curative intent liver surgery is safe
and effective for recurrent colorectal liver metastasis: Results from an International multi-in-
stitutional analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 13:2141–2151
17. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatic re-
sections for benign and malignant neoplasms—a meta-analysis. Surgery 141: 203–211
18. Mala T, Edwin B, Gladhaug I et al (2002) A comparative study of the short-term outcome fol-
lowing open and laparoscopic liver resection of colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc
16(7):1059–1063
19. Viganò L, Tayar C, Laurent A et al (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review.
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:410–421
20. Belli G, Cioffi L, Fantini C et al (2009) Laparoscopic redo surgery for recurrent hepatocel-
lular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: feasibility, safety, and results. Surg Endosc 23:1807–1811
patectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 250(5):849–855
22. de Haas RJ, Wicherts DA, Flores E et al (2008) R1 resection by necessity for colorectal liv-
er metastases. Is it still a contraindication to surgery? Ann Surg 248(4):626–636
23. Cannon RM, Brock GN, Marvin MR et al (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection: an examina-
tion of our first 300 patients. J Am Coll Surg 213(4):501–507
Surgery. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement.
Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
Treating the Resected Surface
20
Vincenzo Scuderi, Antonio Ceriello, Giuseppe Surfaro,
Gianpaolo Marte and Fulvio Calise
20.1 Introduction
Postoperative complications directly due to liver resection are hepatic failure
and abdominal fluid collections due to bleeding or biliary leaks from the
resection plane. The decrease in complication rates is due to technological
advances and the widespread use of anatomically oriented resection tech-
niques that significantly minimize liver-tissue necrosis. Hepatic parenchyma
has in fact a complex, high-density framework of vascular and biliary struc-
tures, and even the most meticulous and appropriate approach to resection
does not exclude the risk of postoperative bleeding and/or biliary leaks.
The intriguing concept of “dressing” the resection area with topical (hemo-
static/sealant) agents capable of stopping biliary leaks and bleeding has gradu-
ally become widespread. Success in this area perhaps lies in the desire of many
surgeons for a safe and effective biocompatible “ally” that once applied would
remain in the patient’s abdomen to assist the healing process. The list of char-
acteristics necessary to create an ideal ally is long: has no adverse effects, is
completely absorbable, effectively stops all fluid flow, is inexpensive, is easi-
ly preserved without particular temperature requirements, is ready to use or
requires quick preparation only, and requires minimal surgeon training.
The use of hemostatic and sealant agents on the cross-section of the resect-
ed liver surface can prevent not only postoperative complications but improve
resection time by obtaining a dry liver surface during the parenchyma transec-
tion; this last consideration is particularly important during minimally inva-
sive liver surgery (MILS) when treating both liver resection surfaces provides
a clear surgical field and thus eliminates light absorption due to bleeding.
V. Scuderi ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, A. Cardarelli Hospital,
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
In the literature are many articles reporting the use of such agents in differ-
ent kinds of surgical procedures. Kraus et al. [1] report on >2,000 articles
related to using hemostatics, glues, and sealants in various fields of surgery.
The surgeons’ knowledge concerning pharmacodynamic characteristics and
strengths of products often appears to be rather poor. Current indications for
agent choice and usage are heterogeneous and mostly based on the individual
surgeon’s preference, particularly in relation to the type of surgical procedure
(open or MILS), bleeding severity, surgeon’s personal experience, cost consid-
erations, and availability in the operating room. On the basis of recent evi-
dence using the traditional resection approach, there is potential for wide-
spread use of such strategies also in MILS.
All such products are virtually suitable for use during laparoscopic liver
resection (LLR); in fact, there are several anecdotal or case reports of their
effective use during MILS. The aim of this chapter is to report briefly the
rational use of these agents and their characteristics considering the feasibili-
ty of their use during MILS.
20.2 Rationale for Use of Hemostats and Sealant

in Liver Surgery
Bleeding and bile leaks from the parenchymal surface are often particularly
troublesome resection-related abdominal complications and are especially
difficult to manage in patients with liver cancer or cirrhosis due to reduced
platelet counts and blood coagulation activity.
Several agents are available that, depending on composition and structure
and, through different mechanisms, obtain and/or improve hemostasis and
reduce the postoperative risk of bile leaks. They can be broadly categorized
into the following: fibrin sealants, collagen hemostatic absorbable sponge,
gelatin matrix, and oxidized regenerated cellulose fleece.
Some agents improve endogenous hemostasis by stimulating clot forma-
tion and inhibiting fibrinolysis; others are a combination of a procoagulant
substance with a vehicle such as collagen matrix; yet others provide a
mechanical barrier to bleeding and a matrix to act as a template for the
endogenous coagulation cascade.
Sealants can be used to treat and prevent blood and/or bile leakage.
Applied to a relatively bloodless field, they create a barrier to fluid flows,
reducing the need for red cell transfusion and preventing postoperative bleed-
ing or bile leakage.
Fibrin sealants consist of a source of human fibrinogen combined with
human or bovine thrombin, which then forms a cross-linked, insoluble fibrin
matrix. Some agents contain an antifibrinolytic agent, such as tranexamic
acid or bovine aprotinin, to stabilize the clot.
These products do not require active bleeding or blood-derived fibrinogen
to achieve polymerization. The quantitative composition of the fibrin glue
20 Treating the Resected Surface 155
affects the properties of the resulting clot: high fibrinogen concentrations pro-
duce strong, slowly forming clots; high thrombin concentrations produce weak-
er but rapidly forming clots [2]. There are also systems available that obtain the
fibrinogen component of fibrin sealant from the patient’s own plasma.
Hemostatics can be used to arrest bleeding if directly applied to a bleed-
ing site; they work in the presence of blood flow and may even require the
patient’s blood factors before they can begin having an effect.
20.2.1 Bleeding
Blood loss is a prognostic factor of postoperative morbidity and mortality after

liver resection. The liver has a vascular structure with a high predisposition to
bleeding, particularly during major resection. Its hepatic sinusoidal structure
is not capable of smooth-muscle contraction to induce vasoconstriction.
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), an indication for hepatic resection, usu-
ally occurs as a result of a cirrhotic liver, a condition that often leads to clot-
ting alterations. The other frequent indications for hepatic resection are
metastases from colorectal cancer in patients treated with chemotherapy,
which can damage the non-neoplastic liver parenchyma by causing
chemotherapy-associated liver injury (CALI; staged in steatosis, steatohepati-
tis, sinusoidal obstruction syndrome) that may enhance the risk of bleeding.
A series of 19 MILS left lateral sectionectomy for malignant lesion and 18
left lateral sectionectomies for benign conditions (17 solid lesion and one liv-
ing donor) recorded significantly more blood loss with benign than with
malignant tumors. This could be explained not only as a learning-curve effect
(more frequent resection of benign lesions at the beginning of the learning
curve) but by the fact that severe steatosis was mostly predominant in benign
solid tumors [3]. This pathological finding may increase bleeding predisposi-
tion of the parenchyma transection and have consequences on postoperative
morbidity, mortality, and cancer recurrence rates [4].
Applying direct pressure at a bleeding site frequently provides either com-
plete arrest or adequate control to enable more definitive measures to be
taken. However, this method may not be sufficient in case of diffuse venous
bleeding or when severe coagulopathy is present. Topical hemostatic agents
can be therefore helpful when conventional surgical methods, such as com-
pression, ligation, clipping, and electrocautery, are not sufficient. A wide
variety of products has been developed and is now available to assist surgeons
in bleeding management.
The often large variation in efficiency detected when comparing studies
can be attributed to the diversity of agents applied, the rather heterogeneous
compositions of classic fibrin glues tested, poor standardization of applica-
tion techniques, and overall differences in clinical settings [1].
During laparoscopic surgery for parenchymal organs (liver, pancreas, kid-
ney), the major problem is successfully performing hemostasis from the
resected stump [5–8]. In particular, MILS remains a highly specialized field

due to potential bleeding from the transection surface, which may be more dif-
ficult to control laparoscopically than during the open procedure.
20.2.2 Biliary Leaks
One of the most feared complications involved with hepatic resection is biliary
fistula through small lesions in the biliary ductules during parenchymal tran-
section. Despite the decrease in overall postoperative complications the inci-
dence of bile leakage remains from 3.6% to 12% [9, 10]. Bile leaks and its
outputs are often difficult to detect and quantify. Several different criteria have
been used so far to establish the presence of bile leaks: drain volume; drain
output bilirubin concentration in comparison with serum bilirubin concentra-
tion; cholangiography.
The biliary system is a very low-pressure system, and the watertight seal-
ing of small, undetected duct lesions in this system would be of great benefit
in hepatobiliary surgery [11]. The potential for mechanical sealant occlusion
of small lesions of tubular structures is well demonstrated in most experiences
in neurosurgery and pulmonary surgery. Nevertheless, it must be assumed that
these results cannot be directly applied to the biliary system. The variable
types and aggressive nature of different bodily fluids probably must be taken
into account. Bile leaks are most likely far more difficult to control than leak-
age of pulmonary air or cerebral fluids.
In a review of 2,804 laparoscopic liver surgeries (LLSs) [12], postoperative
complications were primarily related to biliary leaks (42; 1.5 %). Although
LLS has a lower incidence of biliary leaks with respect to the open approach,
it is correct to consider that the former comprises a minor number of major
procedures. Nevertheless, in some series comparing LLS with the open
approach, it seems that the former approach would result in an increased inci-
dence in bile leaks, particularly those due to the use of staplers to transect the
parenchyma.
20.3 Hemostats and Sealants in MILS

Limiting intraoperative blood loss is an important aspect of MILS because
improving view of the operative field reduces the rate of open conversion.
A peculiar aspect of MILS is the extreme attention required to stop any
bleeding, not only from the remaining parenchymal surface (as in the open
approach), but also from the resected parenchymal surface.
During laparoscopic hepatic transection, a variety of techniques are avail-
able to stop oozing and/or major bleeding. The first, and easiest, maneuver is
pressure application to the transection surface. This maneuver stops small
hemorrhages and gains surgical time in case a greater and more serious hem-
orrhage requires a suitable hemostatic approach (intracorporeal sutures, bipo-

lar diathermy, an appropriate clip). Applying pressure on the transection sur-
face is done by gently pressing a small gauze swab against the bleeding point
or by re-closing the resection line; the latter procedure, in addition to the
effect of pressure, allows the bleeding surface to come into contact with the
opposite procoagulant- rich surface of the transected liver [13].
At the end of parenchymal transection, central venous pressure (CVP) and
blood pressure are restored to normal physiological parameters, the pneu-
moperitoneum can be eliminated and, after 10 min, resection margins can be
carefully inspected for any bleeding and bile leaks; a Valsalva maneuver has
been proposed to confirm hemostasis [13].
At the end of traditional hepatic resection, many authors report managing
hemorrhagic sites by applying an argon beam coagulator (ABC) to the final raw
liver surface. Its use during laparoscopic procedures is, however, associated
with reports of serious complications, including gas embolism and tension
pneumothorax [14, 15]. The ABC should only be used during laparoscopic sur-
gery once all other possible methods of achieving hemostasis have been
attempted unsuccessfully. However, ABC is safe as long as pressures are close-
ly monitored and evacuation of flume and pressure is appropriately controlled.
Few papers in the literature focus solely on concern with bleeding, bile
leaks, and the use of glues and sealants during LLS [13, 16–18]. Several
papers on MILS, however, report that topical hemostatic agents are being used
on a routine basis. A recent literature review by Saif et al. [19] regards the use
of sealants and hemostats during MILS. Below we address the characteristics
and methods of hemostatic and sealant applications that are most often used in
MILS:
• Liquid fibrin sealant glues (Tisseel®, Evicel®)
• Gelatin matrix (FloSeal®)
• Collagen sponges (TachoSil®)
• Oxidized regenerated cellulose fleece (Surgicel®).
20.3.1 Liquid Fibrin Sealants and Glues
Fibrin sealants consist of a source of human fibrinogen combined with human

or bovine thrombin to form a cross-linked, insoluble fibrin matrix. Some
agents also contain an antifibrinolytic agent such as tranexamic acid or bovine
aprotinin to stabilize the clot. These products do not require active bleeding or
blood-derived fibrinogen to achieve polymerization.
Tisseel® (Baxter, USA) (2 ml, 4 ml, 10 ml) is a fibrin glue with two main
human components: fibrinogen and thrombin. It is provided as two prefilled
syringes, the contents of which are mixed on the bleeding site. Mixing the two
components forms a clot that reproduces and enhances the last phase of the
coagulation cascade independently from the patient’s own coagulation
process.
• First syringe: fibrinogen 70–110 mg/ml; fibronectin 2–9 mg/ml; Factor

XIII 10–15 U/ml; plasminogen 40–80 μg/ml; aprotinin 3,000 kiu/ml;
growth factors (epithelial growth factor or EGF, basic fibroblast growth
factor or bFGF, transforming growth factor beta-1 or TGF-β1, vascular
endothelial growth factor or VEGF)
• Second syringe: human thrombin (500 UI/ml, 4 UI/ml); calcium.
Due to the presence of growth factor, Tisseel® is not only a hemostatic and
adhesive agent but also promotes tissue healing. The manufacturer has devel-
oped laparoscopic applicators for this fibrin glue: 1) the Duplocath 35 appli-
cator, which has a dual-lumen; 2) 35-mm-long catheter designed for use in a
5-mm trocar (Fig. 20.1); the Duplospray system is designed for aerosolized
spray application of fibrin glue to the raw surface of the liver during MILS; it
has a feedback system to maintain a steady pneumo pressure (Fig. 20.2).
Evicel® (Ethicon, USA) is a fibrin sealant consisting of two clottable
human proteins: fibrinogen and thrombin. In this fibrin glue, chromatographic
filtering techniques have reduced the concentration of plasminogen and there-
fore abolished the need for an antifibrinolytic.
It is the new formulation of Quixil® (in Europe) or Crosseal® (in the
USA), differing from them by not contain the potentially neurotoxic antifibri-
nolytic agent, tranexamic acid; this change does not affect hemostatic efficacy
or longevity of its fibrin clots. It is also available a laparoscopic spray system
for this glue.
Fig. 20.1 Laparoscopic application of Tisseel with Duplocath 35 applicator

Fig. 20.2 Aereosolized spray application of Tisseel. 1, Duplospray system; 2, fibrillar regenerated
cellulose
20.3.2 Gelatin Matrix
The gelatin matrix FloSeal® (Baxter, USA) consist of granules with a mean
size of 500–600 μm crosslinked with glutaraldehyde and packaged in a syringe
in a hydrated state below the equilibrium swell of the gelatin. Before use, the
gelatin matrix is prepared by mixing together human-derived thrombin solu-
tion in a process that can be completed by the nurse in <2 min. It provides ade-
quate hemostasis via a unique mechanism in which both components act inde-
pendently and synergistically to promote clot formation at the bleeding site,
thus leading to hemostasis (mechanical and biological effect). FloSeal® is
delivered to the bleeding site through a single-barrel syringe and held in place
with a gauze sponge for 10 min or until the bleeding stops.
The granular nature of the thrombin-coated gel allows conformation to
irregular liver surfaces, resulting in intimate gelatin contact with the tissue
surface at the bleeding site. Upon contact with blood, the gelatin granules
swell (approximately 20% within 10 min), creating a tamponade effect, phys-
ically restricting blood flow, and thus providing a mechanically stable matrix.
The blood, percolating between the granules, is exposed to high concentrations
of human thrombin that rapidly catalyze fibrinogen conversion to fibrin
monomers, accelerating formation of a clot that is reinforced by the incorpo-
ration of granules within the fibrin mesh of the clot. Reinforcement of the clot
makes it less susceptible to coagulopathies due to clotting factor deficiencies
Fig. 20.3 Resected surface of S3 segmentectomy treated with FLOSEAL®
or platelet malfunction, as observed in cirrhotic patients or those treated with

chemotherapy.
During MILS, the bleeding site is covered by FloSeal® using the specifi-
cally developed laparoscopic applicator, and a moist gauze pad introduced into
the abdomen is used to place pressure on the bleeding site (Fig. 20.3).
Structure of the fibrin matrix keeps it in place on the liver surface. Granules
not incorporated into the clot can and should be removed with gentle irrigation
without disrupting the clot to allow verification of hemostasis, avoid artifacts
in postresection imaging, reduce the risk of adhesions, and prevent the risk of
infections and foreign-body reactions. Preclinical studies show the material to
be fully resorbed within 6–8 weeks, consistent with the normal healing
process.
Care must be taken by the surgeon to deliver an adequate volume to the
bleeding site and ensure that the gel makes intimate contact with bleeding tis-
sue. Because of the unique mechanism by which it provides hemostasis,
FloSeal® does not work in the absence of bleeding. This differentiates it from
other fibrin sealants, which initially require a relatively dry surface for the clot
to adhere to the underlying tissue. Furthermore, as FloSeal® does not rely on
the presence of functional platelets or other coagulation factors, except fib-
rinogen, to produce its hemostatic effect, it is effective when used in patients
with coagulopathy.
20.3.3 Collagen Sponges
TachoSil® (Nycomed: a Takeda Company) is a hemostatic and tissue sealant

consisting of a ready-to-use equine collagen sponge carrying the human coag-
ulation factors, is sterile, and is absorbable within 12 weeks. It is a develop-
ment of TachoComb® and TachoComb H® but differs from them by contain-
ing only human coagulation factor without bovine aprotinin; therefore, the the-
oretical risk of transmitting bovine diseases (including bovine spongiform
encephalopathy) is eliminated. The active (hemostatic-sealant) side of the patch
is yellow (due to use of riboflavin); the other side is white (Fig. 20.4a, b). The
active side of the patch carries a fixed combination of human fibrinogen (5.5
mg) and thrombin (2.0 IU). TachoSil® is applied with the yellow side onto the
transected liver surface. Because moisture activates the adhesive, the patch
must be applied dry, and therefore, forceps and gloves used to manipulate it
until in place must also be dry. After application, TachoSil® can be touched on
the white side, and gentle compression using a wet gauze swab is required to
Fig. 20.4 Collagen sponge

TachoSil (a yellow side
and b white side)
b
attain complete contact with the parenchyma surface. Application can be diffi-
cult during MILS; therefore, various tricks and techniques have been proposed
to introduce TachoSil® into the abdomen (see video related to this chapter).
This pliable patch is easily modeled using gentle compression with a swab
moistened with saline solution and other usual instrumentation, such as forceps,
to improve close adhesion to the wet, irregular cut surface. After 3–5 min of
compression, the gauze is removed, and close adhesion of the patch to the
parenchyma surface is verified. Patches are available in three sizes: 9.5 cm ×
4.8 cm; 4.8 cm × 4.8 cm; 3.0 cm × 2.5 cm.
20.3.4 Oxidized, Regenerated Cellulose Fleece
Oxidized cellulose and oxidized, regenerated cellulose fleece are ready-to-

use hemostatic devices that use mechanical effects to absorb liquids and com-
press tissue; these effects are activated by swelling of the resulting gelatinous
mass. Denaturation of blood proteins by cellulosic acid within the product
probably contributes to the hemostatic effect. Their acidic nature also
explains why they may have a vasoconstrictive and bactericidal effect.
Surgicel® (Ethicon, USA) is the most commonly used product of this nature
and is available as a tightly woven, knitted patch or in a fibrillar form (Fig.
20.2). These agents can be easily applied during LLS because they are readi-
ly inserted through the trocars.
20.4 Conclusion
Thanks to technical progress in liver surgery, uncontrollable intraoperative
bleedings are exceptional. On the other hand, postoperative mortality and mor-
bidity are still related to postoperative bleeding, bile leakage, and fluid accu-
mulation, potentially leading to repeated surgical or interventional treatment.
Despite all available pre- and intraoperative information, the risk for bleeding
and bile leakage is difficult to define.
Thanks to advances in surgical techniques and overall management of the
resection area, the operative risks of liver surgery are now minimized. Applying
an absorbable “dressing” to the raw resected liver surface and creating a water-
tight occlusive effect on blood, bile, and lymphatic vessels and triggering clot
formation is an intriguing concept.
Difficulty obtaining hemostasis continues to be the Achilles’ heel of LLS.
MILS is a potentially high-risk approach because the surgeon’s capacity to
control troublesome, persistent bleeding sites are reduced. During LLS blood
obscures the surgical field, making surgical maneuvers difficult to perform,
and the absence of direct manual compression can necessitate conversion to
the open procedure.
The availability and development of agents to control bleeding will poten-

tially enhance the safety of MILS. To prevent stump-related resection compli-
cations, topical agents, routinely used during open liver resection, are now
used during MILS. Though this application can never replace an adequate sur-
gical technique, familiarity with tools, methods, and techniques for hemosta-
sis and sealant application is essential for laparoscopic surgeons.
The widespread use of LLS will depend also on the ability and skill of
expert surgeons and technological advances to address managing risks related
to bleeding and bile leaks using any new approach. The development of new
agents, technique, specialized equipment, and applicators for use during
laparoscopic procedures means that applications of this sort will increase and
their use become more extensive. Successful hemostasis in MILS extends and
confirms laparoscopic indications. Limitations due to insufficient hemostasis
and the need to convert to the open approach due to uncontrollable bleeding
are becoming rare thanks to progressing technological developments and
increased surgical-team expertise.
References
1. Kraus TW, Mehrabi A, Schemmer P, Kashfi A et al (2005) Scientific evidence for application
of topical hemostats, tissue glues and sealants in hepatobiliary surgery. J Am Coll Surg
200(3):418–427
2. Yoshida H, Hirozane K, Kamiya A (2000) Adhesive strength of autologous fibrin glue. Biol
Pharm Bul 23:313–317
4. Vauthey JN, Pawlik TM, Ribero D et al (2006) Chemotherapy regimen predicts steatohepati-
tis and an increase in 90-day mortality after surgery for hepatic colorectal metastases. J Clin
Oncol 24:2065–2072
5. Lattouf JB, Beri A, Klinger CH et al (2007) Practical hints for hemostasis in laparoscopic sur-
gery. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 16:45–51
6. Msezane LP, Katz MH, Gofrit ON et al (2008) Hemostatic agents and instruments in laparo-
scopic renal surgery. J Endourol 22:403–408
7. Katkhouda N (2004) New hemostatic agents in general open and laparoscopic surgery. Surg
Technol Int 13:65–70
8. Melman L, Matthews BD (2008) Current trends in laparoscopic solid organ surgery: spleen,
adrenal, pancreas and liver. Surg Clin North Am 88:1033–1046
9. Imamura H, Seyama Y, Kokudo N et al (2003) One thousand fifty-six hepatectomies without
mortality in 8 years. Arch Surg 138:1198–1206
10. Capussotti L, Ferrero A, Viganò L et al (2006) Bile leakage and liver resection: where is the
risk? Arch Surg 141:690–694
11. Toti L, Attia M, Manzia M et al (2010) Reduction in bile leaks following adult split liver trans-
plant using a fibrin-collagen sponge: a pilot study. Dig Liver Dis 42:205–209
patients. Ann Surg 250(5):831–841
13. Hilal MA, Underwood T, Taylor MG et al (2010) Bleeding and hemostasis in laparoscopic
liver surgery. Surg Endosc 24:572–577
14. Shanberg AM, Zagnoev M, Clougherty TP (2002) Tension pneumothorax caused by the ar-
gon beam coagulator during laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. J Urol 168:2162
15. Ikegami T, Shimada M, Imura S et al (2009) Argon gas embolism in the application of laparo-
scopic microwave coagulation therapy. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16:394–398
16. Saxton ML (2007) Hemostasis in minimally invasive liver surgery. Surgery 142(suppl
4):S46–S49
17. Saxena AK, van Tuil C (2007) Advantages of fibrin glue spray in laparoscopic liver biopsies.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 17:545–547
18. Robinson S, Manas D, Noormohamed S et al (2009) The use of an impregnated collagen sponge
(TACHOSIL) for laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of liver tumours. HPB 11(suppl 2):150
19. Saif R, Jacob M, Robinson S et al (2011) Use of fibrin-based sealants and gelatin-matrix he-
mostats in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:131–141
Specimen Extraction
21
Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli, Raffaele Bellochi
21.1 Introduction
Specimen extraction is the final step of every laparoscopic liver resection

(LLR). An ideal method of extraction should minimize contamination of the
peritoneum and port sites in the abdominal wall, have a good cosmetic result,
avoid early (wound infection) and late (incisional hernia) complications, and
allow specimen integrity for pathological examination. There is at present no
consensus on the best site for specimen extraction. However, three different
sites are adequate for using 10-mm endoscopic bags: an enlarged port site
(umbilical area), a Pfannenstiel incision, and a pre-existing abdominal scar.
Most of the time, the specimen dimension is the main limiting factor, followed
by esthetic concerns, when choosing the extraction site.
21.2 Periumbilical Extraction
This site can be used when a trocar is inserted in the periumbilical area and
when a minor hepatectomy is performed [1]. A 10-mm endoscopic bag is
inserted through the umbilical trocar. Once the specimen is accommodated
into the bag, the abdomen is deflated. The umbilical incision is extended
along the left circumference of the umbilicus. When the subcutaneous connec-
tive tissue is stretched apart, the linea alba becomes evident. A 3- to 5-cm inci-
sion is made in the craniocaudal direction and in some cases can be extended
transversely, entering the left rectus sheath. With dilation and slight traction
A. Patriti ()
Updates in Surgery
166 A. Patriti et al.
on the bag, specimen removal is carried out aseptically and without the risk of
neoplastic seeding. The closure is performed in layers with an interrupted
suture. Generally, the skin incision is hidden by the umbilical scar and
achieves good long-term esthetic results. This technique avoids the disadvan-
tage of an additional incision in the abdominal wall, but in patients with risk
factors – diabetes, smoking, obesity, wound infection – may give rise to an
incisional hernia with a higher incidence than the Pfannenstiel incision [2].
21.3 Pfannenstiel Incision

The Pfannenstiel site can be used when a major hepatectomy is performed.
When liver resection is completed and the patient is tilted on the left flank, the
procedure can be demanding and time consuming. The specimen is inserted
into the endoscopic bag. The wire of the bag is cut and the bag is left in the
pelvis. A curved, transverse abdominal incision with downward convexity is
performed above the symphysis pubis. The incision passes through the skin,
superficial fascia, and aponeurosis of the rectus sheath, exposing the pyrami-
dalis and rectus muscles, which are separated at the midline, after which the
peritoneum is opened vertically. The endoscopic bag is grasped and removed.
The incision is sutured in layers. This technique has a very good cosmetic out-
come and is associated with a lower risk of incisional hernia than with the
other methods. However, it is an additional laparotomy in a site not used for
trocar insertion during minimally invasive liver surgery and could expose the
patient to an unnecessary hypothetical risk of infection and incisional hernia.
21.4 Pre-existing Abdominal Scar

Regardless of the site of a previous scar (appendectomy, oophorectomy...), the
abdominal wall is incised to the fascia, and the endoscopic bag with the spec-
imen is retained, as previously described. The specimen is then retracted
against the fascia, and the fascia and peritoneum are opened only as much as
necessary for retrieval. The incision is finally sutured in layers. This technique
could be associated with a high risk of incisional hernia because it produces a
new incision in scar tissue.
References
1. Casciola L, Codacci-Pisanelli M, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Di Zitti L, Patriti A (2008) A mod-
ified umbilical incision for specimen extraction after laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Surg
Endosc 22(3):784–786. doi:10.1007/s00464-007-9584-2
2. Bartone G, de Bellis M, Crovella F (2008) Trocar-Site Hernia. In: Crovella F, Bartone G, Fei
L (eds) Incisional Hernia. Springer Milan, pp 175-185
Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up
22
Antonio Giuliani, Carla Migliaccio, Giuseppe Surfaro,
Antonio Ceriello and Maurizio Defez
22.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) is now a widely accepted procedure. It is no

longer questionable whether short-terms results after liver resection are better
for LLS than for open surgery. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates,
hospital stay, abdominal-wall complications, and intraoperative bleeding are
reduced with LLS in both benign and malignant conditions [1–6]. In the
absence of general contraindications, a laparoscopic approach should be indi-
cated for the majority of benign liver nodules located in the anterior segments
[7–9]. Many investigators in the early 2000s felt there were no benefits in
long-term oncological outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC) and colorectal metastasis (CRM) undergoing LLS. In very early expe-
riences with general laparoscopic surgery, there was evidence of an unusually
high tumor recurrence rate, especially at port sites. This condition was not
found following LLS, probably because this surgery became widely diffused
among surgeons following technical refinements to reduce tumor manipula-
tion and avoid tumor-cell seeding. Another early issue was the adequacy of
surgical margins [10]. More recent series show that this condition is not sus-
tained by evidence [2, 3, 7, 11], even if there are no controlled trials compar-
ing open and LLS approaches.
However, in 2010, Hilal et al. showed that in LLS for CRM, they obtained a
mean tumour-free margin of 17 mm, with >1 cm in 76% of patients [11].
Regardless, although it is clear that LLS is feasible and reproducible, some doubts
remain concerning short- and long-term results compared with open surgery [1].
A. Giuliani ()
Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center, A. Cardarelli Hospital,
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
168 A. Giuliani et al.
22.2 General Considerations

LLS is a safe and reproducible procedure, with an overall mortality rate of
0.3%–0.6%, a morbidity rate of 10.5%, with no intraoperative deaths [5–6].
Intraoperative blood loss, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications,
amount of intravenously administered narcotic agents, and days until oral
intake are significantly reduced in patients undergoing LLS [5–7, 12].
Moreover, if we consider hospital readmission rates due to surgical complica-
tions, we observe a better trend in patients who underwent LLS.
Gustafson et al. showed that 30-day hospital readmission rates for surgery-
related complications were higher, even though not significantly, in patients
with open liver surgery compared with those who underwent LLS (9 of 49 vs.
2 of 27, p =0.20) [13]. Furthermore, 1-year hospital readmission rates due to
surgical complications were significantly lower in the LLS group (4 of 27 vs.
19 of 49, p = 0.002) [13]. Similarly, Vanounou et al., comparing 44 patients
with LLS and 29 with open surgery, showed significant reduction in postoper-
ative morbidity (p = 0.001) [14]. This observation was confirmed in a sub-
group of patients with malignant diseases (p =0.003) [14]. Interestingly, how-
ever, analysis of cost–benefit effect and economic impact of LLS vs open sur-
gery showed that LLS was US$1,527–2,939 more cost efficient for the patient
compared with the open technique [14]. The cost analysis of a surgical proce-
dure should not be limited to the cost of instruments and technology but
extended to other parameters, such as hospital stay or blood transfusions. Most
likely, the observation of Vanounou et al. is related to the fact that with LLS
there is a reduction in costs related to many indirect parameters, such as
patients’ loss of work days, the use of drugs for pain control at home, the need
for new outpatient access, and the possibility of being autonomous in daily
activities without the help of others. These parameters and the reduced rate of
rehospitalization compared with open surgery (the latter due to complications
such as incisional hernia) may explain the cost advantages for LLS.
22.3 Benign Tumors

There are no series reporting on long-term follow-up for benign liver tumors.
Specific data may only be extrapolated from multicentric or single-center
experiences. The most common benign indications are focal nodular hyperpla-
sia (FNH), adenomas, and hemangiomas.
A meta-analysis from Croome and Yamashita [12] analyzed 26 randomized
studies comparing LLS and open liver surgery, with a total number of 354
benign liver lesions of 851 liver resections (41.6%). Considering LLS only,
Mirnezami et al. found that 27.3% of all resections were for benign diseases
(196 of 717 LLS) [5]. Both studies showed good postoperative and short-term
results for LLS, with no mention about long-term results. A series of 61
patients with hepatolithiasis undergoing a total of 28 LLS showed at a mean
22 Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up 169
follow-up of 17 months (r 2–40), only one patient with stone recurrence

(3.4%) [15]. A similar observation was made by Lai et al. in 55 patients who
underwent LLS, with stone recurrence in three patients (5.4%) at a mean fol-
low-up of 59 ± 30 months [16]. Furthermore, LLS for benign disease shows
better health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in the first year after surgery
compared with the open approach. We retrospectively compared surgical
results of two groups of patients with benign liver lesions (29 with LLS and 46
with open surgery) and evaluated HR-QoL using the 36-question Short Form
(SF-36) Health Survey. Our results show a significantly better HR-QoL in the
first year after LLS than with open surgery (unpublished data).
22.4 Malignancies
Most criticism of LLS for malignancy in the earlier experience seems to have
abated. There are no reported cases of port-site recurrence after LLS for malig-
nant disease [5]. Mirnezami et al., in their meta-analysis, showed that in eight
studies with a total of 392 patients and available data on resection margins,
there were no significant differences between LLS and open surgery.
Furthermore, there was an increased incidence of margin resections <1 cm in
patients with open resection, with positive resection margins being greater in
open surgery (neither statistically significant) [5]. This is probably due to the
larger number of anatomical resections observed in LLS series than in open
surgery, in which nonanatomical and wedge resections are more frequent.
Croome and Yamashita confirm that there are no significant differences in the
risk of positive margins after LLS, although they found the risk of resection
margins <1 cm to be approximately twice as high in the LLS group – relative
risk (RR) 1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31–3.02; p =0.001) [12].
Many studies in the literature compare results of LLS and open surgery for
HCC, whereas there are fewer studies about CRM. This is probably because
patients with CRM, except those who undergo a one-stage procedure for syn-
chronous metastases, have always had previous surgery for the primary malig-
nancy. Previous surgery, in fact, in most surgical units, is still considered a
contraindication to LLS.
22.4.1 Colorectal Metastases
Nguyen et al., in a review of world literature on LLS accounted of 2804

patients, found a 3 years overall survival from 80 % to 87 % and a 3 year dis-
ease survival of 51% respectively for patients with CRM [6].
So, are there differences between long-term results of LLS and open sur-
gery? In 2009, Welsh et al. compared two groups of patients who underwent
both LLS (group 1, n = 266) and open (group 2, n = 886) surgery for CRM. They
made a careful selection, excluding from LLS patients with lesions ≥ 6 cm,
lesions near or involving the hilum/internal vena cava (IVC), involving sur-
rounding tissue, and patients with previous abdominal surgery [17].
Furthermore, in group 1, there were more patients with fewer than three metas-
tases (p <0.001), bilobar diffusion (p <0.001), and fewer mean tumor diame-
ter (3.3 cm vs. 5.3 cm; p <0.001). The overall 5-year survival rate was better
for group 1 (44.2% vs. 37.8% ; p = 0.005), with a 7-year survival rate of 36.9%
vs. 32.1% (p = 0.004) [17]. In 2010, Nguyen et al. [18] evaluated four studies
of LLS for CRM, finding a 5-year survival rate ranging from 46% to 64%,
which is absolutely comparable with open surgery but with the advantages of
LLS in the short term, such as small skin incisions, less pain, less narcotic
requirement, and shorter length of hospital stay. In patients with CRM, part of
the previous incision can be used to extract the specimen, which is an obvious
advantage for the patient. Moreover, in this study, they found that LLS gave an
actuarial hospital cost saving of US$2,939.00 per case compared with open
surgery due entirely to shorter hospital stay [18].
It is obvious, therefore, that a controlled trial with similar groups for lesion
number and size, resection type (anatomical/nonanatomical), and type of
chemotherapy (neoadjuvant/adjuvant/perioperative) with a mean follow-up of
3 years should answer the question. Table 22.1 shows medium and long-term
follow-up results after LLS for CRM in major series in the literature.
In patients undergoing surgery for HCC, we observed a cumulative survival rate

at 1, 3, and 5 years of 60%, 38%, and 25%, respectively, in the paper by Poon et
al. [19] who evaluated 377 patients. However, as is widely known, survival may
consistently change according to HCC size, number, and grading [9]. The bene-
fits of LLS for HCC seem to be greater than for other indications: advantages
mainly are reduction of postoperative ascites and abdominal-wall complications
without compromising porto-caval shunts [19, 20]. A large European series eval-
uated 163 LLS for HCC compared with 378 patients who underwent open sur-
gery [20]. OS (overall survival) was good, with an incidence of 1-, 3-, and 5-
year disease-free survival (DFS) compared with open surgery of 77.5%, 47.1%,
and 32.2%, respectively. Aldrighetti et al. showed a mean DFS of 23.3 months,
but more than half of their patients had a Child–Pugh score of B or C [21].
Truant et al. compared 36 LLS to 53 open resections. Mean age in the LLS
group was 60.5 (±10.2) years, with 34 patients (94.4%) with a solitary tumor
with a mean size of 2.9 (±1.2) cm. Two of these patients underwent liver trans-
plantation for recurrence, whereas in the open group, the number of patients
who underwent salvage transplantation was five (not significant). The authors
referred to the role of surgical resection as a bridge to transplantation: LLS
seems to be the best approach in this situation. In fact, the authors found
13.2% of severe complications (Clavien–Dindo III–V) after open surgery com-
pared with only 2.8% after LLS [22]. Better postoperative results are also con-
Table 22.1 Medium and long-term follow-up after laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) for colorectal metastases (CRM)
Author Number Type of study 3-year disease-free 3-year overall 5-year disease-free 5-year overall
of patients survival survival survival survival
Nguyen et al. (2009) [6] 2,804; 115 CRM Review 51% 80–87% n.a. n.a.
Kazaryan et al. (2010) [2] 1,77, 96 CRM Single center n.a. n.a. n.a. 46% (actuarial)
Welsh et al. (2010) [17] 1,152, 266 CRM Single center n.a. 69.7% n.a. 44.2%
Castaing et al. (2009) [27] 60 CRM Two center n.a. 82% n.a. 64%
Sasaki et al. (2009) [28] 39 CRM Single center n.a. 64% n.a. 64%
Ito et al. (2009) [29] 13 CRM Single center n.a. 72% n.a. n.a.
22 Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up
Vibert et al. (2006) [30] 42 CRM Single center n.a. 87% n.a. n.a.
n.a., not applicable.
Table 22.2 Medium and long-term follow-up after laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
Author Number Age Child–Pugh A 1-year overall 3-year overall 5-year overall
of patients survival survival survival
Dagher et al. (2010) [20] 163 65 (24–84) (median) 111 (68%) 92.6% 68.7 64.9
Aldrighetti et al. 16 65 (10) (mean, SD) 9 (56.2%) n.a. Mean overall n.a.
(2010) [21] survival of
40.2 months
Truant et al. (2011) [22] 36 60.6 (10.2) (mean, SD) 32 (88.9%) n.a. n.a. 70%
Tranchart et al. (2010) [23] 42 63.7 (13.1) (mean, SD) 30 (71.4%) 93.1% 74.4% 59.5%
Lai et al. (2009) [24] 25 59 (35–79) (median) 23 (92%) n.a. 60% n.a.
Lee et al. (2011) [25] 33 59 (36–85) (median) 33 (100%) 87.5% 87.5% 75%
Belli et al. (2011) [26] 65 63.2 (6.8) (mean, SD) 58 (89%) 95% (actuarial) 70% (actuarial)
55% (actuarial)
SD, standard deviation; n.a., not applicable.
171
firmed by others [18, 19]. Furthermore, Tranchart et al., comparing 42 patients

undergoing LLS and 42 undergoing open surgery, found that blood loss
(p <0.0001), use of portal clamping (p <0.0001), hospital stay (p <0.0001),
and cirrhotic decompensation (p = 0.03) were better in the LLS group [23].
Table 22.2 shows medium and long-term follow-up after LLS for HCC.
22.5 Conclusions
LLS is a safe, feasible, and efficient procedure for treating benign and malig-
nant liver tumors, even in patients with prior abdominal surgery, and provides
short-term benefits without compromising long-term oncological results.
However, to achieve good oncological results, LLS should be reserved for
expert surgical teams and proposed only for carefully selected patients.
Although surgical margins, recurrence rate, and OS rates seem similar to or
better than open surgery, controlled trials are needed to compare results of
LLS and open surgery in specific groups of patients matched for lesion size,
number and resection type.
References
2. Kazaryan AM, Pavlik Marangos I, Rosseland AR et al (2010) Laparoscopic liver resection
for malignant and benign lesions: ten-year Norwegian single-center experience. Arch Surg
145:34–40
3. Abu Hilal M, McPhail MJ, Zeidan B et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepat-
ic sectionectomy: A comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1285-1288
4. Nguyen KT, Marsh JW, Tsung A et al (2011) Comparative benefits of laparoscopic vs open
hepatic resection: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg 146:348–356
5. Mirnezami R, Mirnezami AH, Chandrakumaran K et al (2011) Short- and long-term outcomes
after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Ox-
ford) 13:295–308
patients. Ann Surg 250:831–841
7. Pilgrim C, TO H, Ustatoff V et al (2009) Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe procedure for
cancer patients. HBP Surg 11:247–251
8. Farges O, Jagot P, Kirstetter P et al (2010) Prospective assessment of the safety and benefit
of laparoscopic liver resections. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 9:242–248
9. Ardito F, Tayar C, Laurent A et al (2007) Laparoscopic liver resection for benign disease. Arch
Surg 142:1188–1193
10. Gigot JF, Glineur D, Santiago Azagra J et al (2002) Laparoscopic liver resection for malig-
nant liver tumors: preliminary results of a multicenter European study. Ann Surg 236:90–97
11. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Zuccaro M et al (2010) Short- and medium-term results of to-
tally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 927–933
12. Croome KP, Yamashita MH (2010) Laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection for benign and
malignant tumors: an updated meta-analysis Arch Surg 145:1109–1118
13. Gustafson JD, Fox JP, Ouellette JR et al (2012) Open versus laparoscopic liver resection: look-
ing beyond the immediate postoperative period. Surg Endosc 26:468–472
22 Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up 173
14. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT (2010) Comparing the clinical and economic impact of la-
paroscopic versus open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol 17:998–1009
15. Tu JF, Jiang FZ, Zhu HL et al (2010) Laparoscopic vs open left hepatectomy for hepatolithi-
asis. World J Gastroenterol 16:2818–2823
16. Lai EC, Ngai TC, Yang GP et al (2010) Laparoscopic approach of surgical treatment for pri-
mary hepatolithiasis: a cohort study. Am J Surg 199:716–721
17. Welsh FKS, Tekkis PP, John TG, Rees M (2010) Open liver resection for colorectal metas-
tases: better short- and long-term outcomes in patients potentially suitable for laparoscopic
liver resection HPB (Oxford) 12:188–194
18. Nguyen KT, Geller DA (2010) Outcomes of laparoscopic hepatic resection for colorectal can-
cer metastases. J Surg Oncol 102:975–977
19. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM et al (2001) Improving survival results after resection of hepato-
cellular carcinoma: a prospective study of 377 patients over 10 years. Ann Surg 234:63–70
20. Dagher I, Belli G, Fantini C et al (2010) Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carci-
noma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg 211:16–23
21. Aldrighetti L, Guzzetti E, Pulitano C et al (2010) Case-matched analysis of totally laparoscop-
ic versus open liver resection for HCC: short and middle term results. J Surg Oncol 102:82–86
22. Truant S, Bouras AF, Hebbar M et al (2011) Laparoscopic resection vs. open liver resection
for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: a case-matched
study. Surg Endosc 25:3668–3677
23. Tranchart H, Di Giuro G, Lainas P et al (2010) Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular car-
cinoma: a matched-pair comparative study. Surg End 24:1170–1176
24. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP et al (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcino-
ma ten-year experience in a single center. Arch Surg 144:143–147
25. Lee KT, Chong CN, Wong J et al (2011) Long-term results of laparoscopic hepatectomy ver-
sus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-matched analysis. World J Surg
35:2268–2274
26. Belli G, Fantini C, Bella A et al (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carci-
noma in chirrhosis: long term results. Dig Surg 28:134–140
patectomy for colorectal liver in two specialized centers. Ann Surg 250:849–855
28. Sasaki A, Nitta H, Otsuka K et al (2009) Ten-year experience of totally laparoscopic liver re-
section in a single institution. Br J Surg 96:274–279
29. Ito K, Ito H, Are C et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open liver resection: a matched-pair case
control study. J Gastrointest Surg 13:2276–2283
30. Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H et al (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 93:67–72
Part IV
Surgery: Techniques
Portal Vein Ligation
23
Giuseppe Aragiusto, Antonio Ceriello, Antonio Giuliani,
Carla Migliaccio and Fulvio Calise
23.1 Introduction
Portal vein ligation (PVL) is a standard procedure for achieving resectability

in patients with an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) prior to planning
subsequent major hepatectomy. Its role in inducing FRL hypertrophy prior to
major liver resection is clear [1]. Actually, PVL is the first step in a two-stage
hepatectomy for treating initially unresectable liver metastases [1]. As report-
ed in the literature, this procedure can be achieved safely without causing
mortality [2]. Capussotti et al. showed how PVL is as effective as PV
embolization in inducing hypertrophy of the remnant liver volume [2]. The
possibility of using a laparoscopic approach seems to be favorable, even for
achieving lower patient morbidity rates, particularly in the case of synchro-
nous colorectal metastasis, avoiding the need to perform a further procedure
(laparotomy/portal embolisation) [3, 4]. Finally, in a planned two-stage hepa-
tectomy, laparoscopic PVL (LPVL) greatly reduces the presence of adhesions
when it is time to perform the second surgical step [5].
23.2 Portal Pedicle Anatomy
The PV is about 8 cm long and is formed at the level of the second lumbar ver-
tebra by the junction of the superior and inferior mesenteric veins and the
splenic vein. It passes upward behind the superior part of the duodenum and
then ascends in the right border of the lesser omentum to the right extremity
G. Aragiusto ()
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
178 G. Aragiusto et al.
of the porta hepatis, where it divides into a right and a left branch, which
accompany the corresponding branches of the hepatic artery into the liver
parenchyma. In the lesser omentum, it is located behind and between the com-
mon bile duct and the hepatic artery, the former lying to the right of the latter.
It is surrounded by the hepatic plexus of nerves and is accompanied by numer-
ous lymphatic vessels and some lymph glands. The right branch of the PV
enters the right lobe of the liver, but before doing so, it generally receives the
cystic vein. The left branch, longer but of smaller caliber than the right, cross-
es the left sagittal fossa, branches to the caudate lobe, and then enters the left
lobe of the liver. A frequent anatomical variation (11%) is the presence of a
right artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery and entering the
pedicle on the right side of the main portal trunk.
23.3 Surgical Technique

The patient is placed in the supine position with the lower limbs apart: the sur-
geon is placed between patient’s legs, with one assistant on the left and one on
the right side of the patient. Trocar placement is shown in Fig. 23.1. A mini-
mum of four trocars is needed to perform the procedure, and should be spaced
Fig. 23.1 Trocar placement

23 Portal Vein Ligation 179
Fig. 23.2 Trocar placement for a left-sided or rectum tumor
out one from the other to avoid crossing over of the instruments. Special atten-
tion must be paid to small abdomens where the distance is reduced. In case of
a simultaneous laparoscopic approach to colorectal disease and to the liver,
trocar placement for a left-rectum-sided tumor is shown in Fig. 23.2. Pneumo-
peritoneum is obtained via open laparoscopy in the umbilical area and is main-
tained at 12 mmHg. The camera is placed at the level of the umbilical incision.
The three remaining trocars are then placed: two 10- to 12-mm trocars are
placed in the right and left paramedian area and the 5-mm trocar is placed in
the epigastric area 2 cm under the xiphoid appendix. The screen is placed on
the side of the operative table, close to the patient’s head.
The first step after exploring the abdominal cavity is to encircle the pedi-
cle to enable quick control of any eventual bleeding (see dedicated chapter in
this volume). The portal triad is then dissected from the right side with the
help of the Harmonic scalpel or bipolar forceps. Attention must always be paid
to the presence of a right branch from the superior mesenteric artery, which
can be checked using intraoperative ultrasound (US). The bile duct and right
hepatic artery are lifted with a dissector to expose the main PV. The right PV
is completely dissected and encircled with a vessel loop. Further dissection is
performed in a cranial direction to identify the portal bifurcation. The right or
left branch is then passed and encircled with another vessel loop.
Intraoperative color Doppler US is routinely performed: the main trunk and
the selected branch are sequentially clamped before portal branch ligation to
180 G. Aragiusto et al.
ensure that the isolated vessel is the right/left portal branch, avoiding mistakes
due to the presence of anatomic PV variants. In our experience, in two cases,
we could perform a separate ligation of branches for segments 5 and 8 and 6
and 7 in the presence of portal trifurcation instead of the normal bifurcation
(right and left branch) (see DVD). The right/left branch is now occluded with
either clips or silk ligature.
23.4 Conclusions
In the hands of an experienced laparoscopic surgeon, LPVL is feasible and
safe and induces adequate regeneration of FRL, with no related complications
[2]. In patients requiring laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer with syn-
chronous liver metastases, simultaneous LPVL did not lead to increased mor-
bidity. The laparoscopic approach also allows associated wedge resections of
small anterior lesions in the FRL at the time of LPVL.
References
1. Jaeck D, Oussoultzoglou E, Rosso E et al (2004) A two-stage hepatectomy procedure com-
bined with portal vein embolization to achieve curative resection for initially unresectable mul-
tiple and bilobar colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 240:1037–1051
2. Capussotti L, Muratore A, Baracchi F et al (2008) Portal vein ligation as an efficient method
of increasing the future liver remnant volume in the surgical treatment of colorectal metas-
tases. Arch Surg 143:978–982
3. Are C, Iacovitti S, Prete F et al (2008) Feasibility of laparoscopic portal vein ligation prior to
major hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford) 10:229–233
4. Ayiomamitis GD, Low JK, Alkari B et al (2009) Role of laparoscopic right portal vein liga-
tion in planning staged or major liver resection. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 19:409–413
5. Machado MA, Makdissi FF, Surjan RC et al (2010) Two-stage laparoscopic liver resection
for bilateral colorectal liver metastasis. Surg Endosc 24:2044–2047
Tumorectomy
24
Alberto Patriti, Giorgio Ercolani, Luciano Casciola
and Antonio Daniele Pinna
24.1 Introduction
Surgical treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) and hepatocellular

carcinoma (HCC) is moving toward a parenchyma-sparing approach. The
observation that surgical margin width is not definitively correlated with
CRLM recurrence rate has encouraged favoring limited nonanatomic liver
resections over major hepatectomies [1–3]. The optimal width of resection
margin is unclear, with no clear minimum established. Pawlik and colleagues
observed that the width of a negative margin did not affect survival, recur-
rence risk, or site of recurrence [4]. They concluded that a predicted margin
width of <1 cm should not be used as exclusion to resection. A recent meta-
analysis showed that a resection margin >1 cm is desirable, but disease-free
survival is only slightly affected by a subcentimeter margin [5]. Emphasis on
obtaining an R0 resection rather than striving for a minimal margin width was
confirmed in the 2006 American Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association/
Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract/Society of Surgical Oncology
(AHPBA/SSAT/SSO) Consensus Statement [6]. This approach has the advan-
tage of reducing morbidity without changes in long-term results and offers the
possibility of repeated hepatectomies in case of liver metastasis recurrence
[7–9]. This trend has been improved by progresses in intraoperative ultra-
sound (US), which reduces the need for major hepatectomies even in demand-
ing situations such as tumor invasion of the hepatic veins [10].
The concept of parenchymal preservation might be different in cases of
HCC. Impaired liver function secondary to the underlying cirrhosis requires a
A. Patriti ()
Updates in Surgery
balance between oncologic issues and parenchyma preservation. HCC spreads

along portal veins and can give rise to satellite nodules up to 2 cm. Therefore,
anatomic resection of parenchyma involved by the tumor, along with its feed-
ing portal branch, is considered the gold standard treatment for HCC, and
anatomic segmentectomy can be considered the more parenchymal-preserving
oncologically effective procedure [11, 12]. However, in case of reduced liver
function evaluated by indocyanine green clearance (IGC) or Model for End-
Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, subsegmentectomies can be applied, par-
ticularly in cases of superficial nodules not amenable to a percutaneous
approach. This type of resection has been applied via the laparoscopic
approach in patients with HCC on cirrhotic liver who are awaiting liver trans-
plantation to control the tumor during the waiting period and to facilitate oper-
ative procedures at the time of transplantation [13]. In this chapter, we discuss
the technique of nonanatomic resections, which can be applied for CRLM and
HCC on cirrhosis. These considerations can be extended to endocrine tumors
and noncolorectal, nonendocrine (NCRNNE) liver metastases [14].
24.2 Factors Affecting Surgical Strategy

Even though nonanatomic resections are commonly performed, even in low-
volume centers, tumorectomies may present challenges that can hamper onco-
logic efficacy and patient safety. There are no standard techniques for
tumorectomies as there are for anatomic resections, and there are no anatomic
landmarks on the liver surface to drive the resection. Frequently, curved or
angulated resection lines are required, and the nodule can be in close relation
to a major liver vessel. Therefore, confidence with intraoperative US is imper-
ative when approaching liver resection with a parenchymal-preserving
attempt. As major portal pedicles are not usually dissected and ligated during
a tumorectomy as they are in anatomic major hepatectomies, and the availabil-
ity of a system for inflow occlusion (Pringle maneuver) is prudential in most
cases, particularly if nodules are located in the right lobe, and are essential
when dissection close to a major vascular structure is planned. Tumor proxim-
ity to the main vascular structure represents a possible limiting factor to car-
rying out a safe tumorectomy due to the risk of bleeding and biliary fistula,
and in these situations, laparoscopy should be carefully evaluated.
• Position of the tumor is the primary consideration in surgical strategy for
laparoscopic tumorectomy. Resections in the posterolateral segments are
difficult due to inadequate exposure, poor operative field, and difficulty
with parenchymal dissection. In studies investigating the laparoscopic
approach to posterolateral liver malignancies, major resection is the preva-
lent procedure, in contrast to minor resections performed for lesions in the
anterior segments [15]. This discrepancy can be ascribed to the rigid
laparoscopic tools. In fact, segmentectomies and subsegmentectomies of
the posterosuperior segments require curved or angulated section lines and
24 Tumorectomy 183
are demanding procedures considering small degrees of freedom allowed

by the instruments [15].
• Distance of the lesion from the liver surface is crucial due to the lack of
tactile sensation in laparoscopic and – even more so – in robot-assisted sur-
gery. For deeply located lesions, laparoscopic US is mandatory for locating
the tumor and achieving a clear margin resection. In the second instance,
lesion dimensions and echogenicity may contribute to hampering a margin-
free tumorectomy or even tumor identification. Careful US exploration in
an attempt to correlate intraoperative findings with preoperative images
can help identify even small isoechoic lesions. An iPad (Apple Computer
Inc., CA, USA) enveloped into a sterile plastic bag can be used to intraop-
eratively view preoperative images. Using the application OsiriX, an open-
source Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) view-
er, it is possible to watch in real time the preoperative computed tomogra-
phy (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) images, scrolling through them
while performing the laparoscopic US liver exploration.
24.3 Technical Details

For a safe laparoscopic tumorectomy, patient positioning and trocar place-
ment should be individualized according to tumor location. Pneu mo -
peritoneum induction with the Veress needle can help tailor trocar position,
thus limiting the use of a periumbilical port to cases in which it is really nec-
essary, as for tumor located in segments 4b and 5 and in the left lobe, and to
avoid injury to a recannulated umbilical vein, which might be quite danger-
ous in cirrhotic patients. Nonanatomic liver resection of peripheric, superfi-
cial lesions located in anterior segments (3, 4b, 5, 6) is generally feasible and
can be done with minimal morbidity and mortality rates. Pedicle clamping is
optional or can be applied only in case of bleeding, and liver division can be
performed with all the available transection devices; in these cases, using a
cutting stapler can facilitate resection and markedly reduced operative time.
Generally, three to four trocars disposed at the level of the umbilical line are
adequate.
For lesions located in the posterolateral sector (upper segment 6; segments
7 and 8), the patient is rotated on the left flank to facilitate liver mobilization
and inferior vena cava dissection, when necessary. The camera port and the
left-sided trocars should be placed as close as possible to the right costal mar-
gin, whereas the right trocar can be inserted in the intercostal space between
the 10th and 11th ribs along the scapular line. At this level, the risk of acciden-
tally injuring the lung is very low, and direct access is provided to the pos-
terolateral segments, as previously shown by Gumbs and Gayet in laparoscop-
ic surgery and by our group for the robot-assisted approach [16, 17]. Due to
the higher risk of bleeding, intermittent pedicle clamping is advisable when
approaching posterolateral segments [17, 18].
Careful US exploration with demarcation on the Glisson capsule of the

right hepatic vein can avoid major bleeding during parenchymal transection.
For deeply located lesions or when the tumor is close to a major vessel, even
in those located in anterior segments, the “corkscrew” technique can be use-
ful: After identifying the lesion by inspection and intraoperative US, Glisson’s
capsule is marked with electrocautery 1- to 2-cm away from the tumor margin.
According to tumor location, the marked area is anchored by stitches, with
caution taken to prevent the needle from entering the tumor. The suture is held
together by metallic clips, and upward traction is performed, facilitating
parenchymal transection and accurate identification of vascular and biliary
structures. Parenchymal transection is performed with the monopolar shears
for the first liver layer (1 cm from the Glisson capsule) and then with the
Kelly-clamp crushing technique or an ultrasonic dissector. Whenever neces-
sary, metallic clips or stitches are applied to achieve vascular and biliary con-
trol. Control of the surgical margin should be always verified by intraoperative
US during parenchymal transection [19]. Generally, small specimens can be
extracted using an EndoBag through any port site; otherwise, enlarging the
umbilical port or, rarely, a Pfannenstiel incision, could be necessary.
24.4 Robot-Assisted Nonanatomic Resections

Robot assistance is particularly useful for performing parenchymal-preserving
resections, especially in the posterolateral segments and when the tumor is in
contact with a portal branch or hepatic veins and when both are close to the
tumor mass (Fig. 24.1) [17]. In fact, EndoWrist instruments allow fine move-
ments and complex transection planes, reducing discomfort coming from the
use of rigid tools. Principles of patient and trocar positions in conventional
laparoscopic surgery are applicable also for the robot-assisted approach. For
liver surgery, the robot is docked over the patient’s head.
All liver resections should be guided by US performed by the on-table sur-
geon. The console surgeon can view the US screen in picture-in-picture modal-
ity, directing the dissection plane, which appears as an echogenic line between
the cut surfaces. The parenchyma is usually transected with the Harmonic
scalpel for straight-line resections. The Kelly-clamp crushing technique with
the EndoWrist bipolar Precise forceps (Intuitive Surgical Systems, Sunnyvale,
CA, USA) is preferred for curved and angulated section lines and tumor dis-
section close to a major liver vessel. Hemostasis of small vessels is obtained
with monopolar or bipolar cautery. To secure larger vessels on the transection
line, we use Hem-o-lok® clips or ligatures with Vicryl® or Prolene®. The
hepatic veins are usually divided with the laparoscopic linear stapler or
sutured with Prolene®. Biliostasis is assessed by observation and bile leaks
controlled with sutures, as in open surgery.
24 Tumorectomy 185
Fig. 24.1 Right portal branch (RPB): final field after tumorectomy of a colorectal liver metastasis
close to the RPB
References
1. Elias D, Cavalcanti A, Sabourin JC et al (1998) Resection of liver metastases from colorec-
tal cancer: the real impact of the surgical margin. Eur J Surg Oncol 24(3):174–179
2. Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G, Mellano A, Langella S, Capussotti L (2010) Resection
margin and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Ann Surg
Oncol 17(5):1324–1329
3. Torzilli G, Montorsi M, Donadon M et al (2005) “Radical but conservative” is the main goal
for ultrasonography-guided liver resection: prospective validation of this approach. J Am Coll
Surg 201(4):517–528
4. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D et al (2005) Effect of surgical margin status on survival
and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg
241(5):715–722, discussion 722–714
5. Cucchetti A, Ercolani G, Cescon M et al (2012) Impact of subcentimeter margin on outcome
after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases: A meta-regression approach. Surgery
151(5):691–699. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.009
6. Charnsangavej C, Clary B, Fong Y, Grothey A, Pawlik TM, Choti MA (2006) Selection of
patients for resection of hepatic colorectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg
Oncol 13(10):1261–1268. doi:10.1245/s10434-006-9023-y
7. Gold JS, Are C, Kornprat P et al (2008) Increased use of parenchymal-sparing surgery for bi-
lateral liver metastases from colorectal cancer is associated with improved mortality without
change in oncologic outcome: trends in treatment over time in 440 patients. Ann Surg
247(1):109–117. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181557e47; 00000658-200801000-00017 [pii]
8. Ferrero A, Viganò L, Lo Tesoriere R, Russolillo N, Sgotto E, Capussotti L (2009) Bisegmen-

tectomies as alternative to right hepatectomy in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases.
Hepatogastroenterology 56(94-95):1429–1435
9. Viganò L, Ferrero A, Sgotto E, Polastri R, Muratore A, Capussotti L (2005) Parenchyma spar-
ing: evolution of the resective surgical approach of hepatic metastasis from the colorectum.
Suppl Tumori 4(3):S35
10. Torzilli G, Montorsi M, Del Fabbro D, Palmisano A, Donadon M, Makuuchi M (2006) Ul-
trasonographically guided surgical approach to liver tumours involving the hepatic veins
close to the caval confluence. British J Surg 93(10):1238–1246
11. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Cimino M et al (2010) Anatomical segmental and subsegmental re-
section of the liver for hepatocellular carcinoma: a new approach by means of ultrasound-guid-
ed vessel compression. Ann Surg 251(2):229–235
12. Makuuchi M, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki S (1981) Intraoperative ultrasonic examination for he-
patectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol (11):367–390
13. Laurent A, Tayar C, Andreoletti M, Lauzet JY, Merle JC, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liv-
er resection facilitates salvage liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal He-
patobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(3):310–314. doi:10.1007/s00534-009-0063-0
14. Goéré D, Elias D (2008) Resection of liver metastases from non-colorectal non-endocrine pri-
mary tumours. Eur J Surg Oncol 34(3):281–288. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2007.07.205
15. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Shin SH (2009) Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for le-
sions located in the right side of the liver. Arch Surg 144(1):25–29
16. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2008) Video: the lateral laparoscopic approach to lesions in the poste-
rior segments. J Gastrointest Surg 12(7):1154
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
18. Rotellar F, Pardo F, Bueno A, Marti-Cruchaga P, Zozaya G (2012) Extracorporeal tourniquet
method for intermittent hepatic pedicle clamping during laparoscopic liver surgery: an easy,
cheap, and effective technique. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(3):481–485. doi:10.1007/s00423-
011-0887-3
19. Makdissi FF, Surjan RC, Machado MA (2009) Laparoscopic enucleation of liver tumors.
Corkscrew technique revisited. J Surg Oncol 99(3):166–168. doi:10.1002/jso.21206
Segmentectomies (Chapters 26-34):
A Foreword 25
Fulvio Calise
25.1 Introduction
In 1957, Couinaud published his fundamental paper on the surgical anatomy

of the liver [1], describing the eight segments, everyone with its pedicle:
artery, portal vein, and bile duct. Since then, every liver surgeon has referred
to it as a bible to be followed during routine surgical practice. Only with the
experience with liver transplantation in the mid-1990s was splitting segment
1 into two sections suggested, identifying the portion of segment 1 on the
right side of the caval vein as segment 9 [2]. This was only a minor modifica-
tion of the original classification. Since the rapid spread of liver surgery in the
1970s, several authors have suggested technical tricks to remove the entire
segment by sectioning the tributary pedicle [3–5].
Nowadays, intraoperative ultrasound (US)-guided vessel compression is
applicable when performing anatomic segmental and subsegmental resections
and coupling parenchyma sparing and tumor resection. Is it therefore manda-
tory, thanks to progress in US-guided liver resections, to resect the entire seg-
ment in order to be oncologically correct? Several reports [6, 7] show that the
minimal margin for metastasis may go from the traditional 1 cm to 1 mm, or
even predicting, as with Torzilli et al., R1 for metastases lying on a major vein
[8, 9]. The situation is different for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to
frequent satellite nodules; however, according to several reports, it seems
there are no differences in oncological outcome between regulated (segmen-
tectomy) and unregulated resection [10–12].
F. Calise ()
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
188 F. Calise
According to Dahiya et al. [10], the choice between minor and major
resection for small (<5 cm), solitary HCC in cirrhotic patients is unclear.
Evaluating the long-term disease-free survival and overall survival after
minor (259) or major (114) hepatic resections for small solitary HCC in cir-
rhotic patients, the authors concluded that the severity of cirrhosis and tumor
characteristics rather than resection type predict long-term survival. Matsui et
al. [11] reported data on 365 patients who underwent hepatic resections with-
out tumor surface exposure and 62 with the HCC surface at the cut stump with
no surgical margins due to cancer adherence to the major hepatic vascular
structures. No significant differences were registered between the two groups
regarding recurrence and overall survival rates, recurrence rate at the cut
stump, or number and location of intrahepatic recurrences. According to
Torzilli et al. [12], parenchymal-sparing intraoperative US-guided finger com-
pression should be part of the modern liver surgeon’s armamentarium when
performing conservative resection for malignant hepatic lesions.
25.2 Parenchymal Sparing and Minimally Invasive Surgery

of the Liver: A Possible “Marriage”?
Minimally invasive surgery of the liver (MISL) has contributed to the support
of formally uncompleted segmentectomies by simplifying the technical proce-
dures of resection, particularly due to the difficulty of transferring into a
laparoscopic approach all the sophisticated techniques carried out in open sur-
gery. Whether or not a real parenchyma-sparing approach with minimal resec-
tion margin is applicable to a laparoscopic approach is yet under debate.
Theoretically, a >1-cm resection margin may be difficult during laparoscopic
liver resection (LLR) due to the loss of surgeon’s tactile sense to precisely
determine tumor margin and increased traction on the specimen leading to
tearing away of parenchyma from the intended resection plane. These prob-
lems are most readily appreciated in laparoscopic wedge resection (WR), as
transection requires to create a deep margin around the tumor; conversely, a
laparoscopic anatomic segmental resection is a more standardized and well-
defined procedure.
In the largest review of LLR series, reported by Nguyen et al. [13], the
most common type of liver resection (45%) is wedge resection or segmentec-
tomy (1,258/2,804). LLR achieves adequate oncologic treatment and does not
seem to unequivocally affect resection margins. Certain techniques for
parenchymal transection may alter the evaluation of adequate oncological
resection because margins are artificially lowered by the stapler, commonly
used in some centers during LLR, as the perilesional parenchyma is destroyed
at the transection line [14, 15].
The impact of the extent of LLR on oncologic outcome is the topic of var-
ious studies. Several compare resection margins between LLR and traditional
hepatectomy [16–19]; others compare them between anatomic and nonanatom-
25 Segmentectomies (Chapters 26-34): A Foreword 189
ic LLR. Abu Hilal et al. [20] focused on left lateral sectionectomy (LLS),
showing there was no difference in resection margin between the laparoscop-
ic (11 mm; 1.5–30 mm) and open (12 mm; 4–40 mm) approaches. Aldrighetti
et al. [21] showed that the resection margin of laparoscopic LLS (1.1±0.3 cm)
is comparable with the open approach (1.3±0.5 cm). McPhail et al. [22], in a
collective review of five case–control series on LLS versus open surgery sug-
gest that the laparoscopic approach did not compromise margin status.
Kazaryan et al. [23] reported a comparative evaluation of 75 segmental LLR
performed for malignant tumors localized in posterosuperior (1, 7, 8, 4a: 28
procedures) and anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, 6: 47 procedures) segments. An
infiltrated margin resection was detected in 5.3% of procedures: two cases in
each group had positive resection margins. Furthermore, for one additional
resection in each group, the resection margin was <1 mm. The minimal dis-
tance from the resection line to the tumor tissue was significantly shorter in the
posterosuperior (median 3 mm) than in the anterolateral (median 8 mm) group.
25.3 Conclusion
The actual resective approach to hepatic cancer (primary or secondary) is ori-
ented toward minimal parenchymal resection. This methodology is sustained
by observation that surgical margin width is not correlated with cancer recur-
rence. Parenchyma-sparing resection reduces morbidity rates without chang-
ing long-term results and allows the possibility of redo liver resection in case
of recurrence. With regard to segmentectomies, MISL has opened new fron-
tiers that yet need to be supported by years and years of experience: however,
our impression is that we are rediscussing dogma that dominated liver surgery
for more than 30 years. This is, once more, a crucial challenge to enable us to
better serve our patients.
References
1. Couinaud C (1957) Le foie, etude anatomiques et chirurgicales. Masson, Paris
2. Couinaud C (1994) Surgical approach to the dorsal section of the liver. Chirurgie
119(9):485–488
3. Iwamoto S, Sanefuji H, Okuda K (2003) Angiographic subsegmentectomy for the treatment
of patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 97(4):1051–1056
4. Tanaka K, Shimada H, Matsumoto C et al (2008) Anatomic versus limited non-anatomic re-
section for solitary hepatocellular carcinoma. Surgery 143(5):607–615
5. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Cimino M et al (2010) Anatomical segmental and subsegmental re-
section of the liver for hepatocellular carcinoma: a new approach by means of ultrasound-guid-
ed vessel compression. Ann Surg 251:229–235
6. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CS, Zorzi D et al (2005) Effect of surgical margin status on survival
and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg 241(5):715–724
7. Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G et al (2010) Resection margin and recurrence-free survival
after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol 17(5):1324–1329
190 F. Calise
8. Torzilli G, Montorsi M, Del Fabbro D et al (2006) Ultrasonographically guided surgical ap-

proach to liver tumours involving the hepatic veins close to the caval confluence. Br J Surg
93:1238–1246
9. Torzilli G, Botea F, Donadon M et al (2010) Minimesohepatectomy for colorectal liver metas-
tasis invading the middle hepatic vein at the hepatocaval confluence. Ann Surg Oncol 17:483
10. Dahiya D, Wu TJ, Lee CF et al (2010) Minor versus major hepatic resection for small hepa-
tocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients: a 20-year experience. Surgery 147:676–685
11. Matsui Y, Terakawa N, Satoi S et al (2007) Postoperative outcomes in patients with hepato-
cellular carcinomas resected with exposure of the tumor surface: clinical role of the no-mar-
gin resection. Arch Surg 142:596–602
12. Torzilli G, Donadon M, Cimino M et al (2009) Systematic subsegmentectomy by ultrasound-
guided finger compression for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Ann Surg Oncol
16(7):1843
patients. Ann Surg 250(5)831–841
14. Kaneko H, Otsuka Y, Takagi S et al (2004) Hepatic resection using stapling devices. Am J
Surg 187:280–284
scopic stapler device. HPB (Oxford) 10(4):296–303
16. Lee KF, Cheung YS, Chong CN, Tsang Y, Ng W, Ling E et al (2007) Laparoscopic vs. open
hepatectomy for liver tumours: a case control study. Hong Kong Med J 13:442–448
17. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Darzi A, Lovegrove R, Jiao L et al (2007) Laparo-
scopic vs. open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms: a meta-analysis. Sur-
gery 141:203–211
18. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Vandeweyer H, Penninckx F (2008) Laparoscopic vs. open liv-
er resection of hepatic neoplasms: comparative analysis of short term results. Surg Endosc
22:2208–2213
19. Tsinberg M, Tellioglu G, Simpfendorfer CH et al (2009) Comparison of laparoscopic vs. open
liver tumor resection: a case-controlled study. Surg Endosc 23:847–853
20. Abu Hilal MA, McPhail MJW, Zeidan B et al (2008) Laparoscopic vs. open left lateral sec-
tionectomy: a comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1285–1288
21. Aldrighetti L, Pulitano C, Catena M et al (2008) A prospective evaluation of laparoscopic vs.
open left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:457–462
22. McPhail MJ, Scibelli T, Abdelaziz M et al (2009) Laparoscopic vs. open left lateral hepate-
ctomy. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 3:345–351
23. Kazaryan AM, Røsok BI, Marangos IP et al (2011) Comparative evaluation of laparoscopic
liver resection for posterosuperior and anterolateral segments. Surg Endosc 25(12):3881–3389
Segment 1: Laparoscopic Approach
26
Umberto Cillo, Riccardo Boetto, Alessandro Vitale
and Daniele Neri
26.1 Introduction
The hepatic caudate lobe (S1), or Spiegel lobe, has been widely considered a
“nonlaparoscopic” segment due to its particular anatomical location between
the hilar plate and inferior vena cava, which technically restricts the use of a
conventional laparoscopic approach when treating segment 1 primitive and
metastatic lesions. Since the early 2000s, the increasing detail in understand-
ing liver segmental anatomy, improved preoperative imaging and intraopera-
tive anesthesiologic management, as well as improvements in laparoscopic
surgical skills and equipment, have allowed a significant increase in the
adoption of minimally invasive procedures. Initially confined to wedge
resections and segmentectomies of the anterior liver (laparoscopic seg-
ments), more advanced minimally invasive liver resections, such as in left
and right sections, are now extensively performed and attain acceptable mor-
bidity and mortality rates, with 3- and 5-year survival rates reported for hepa-
tocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal metastases comparable with those
of open procedures [1]. Even though extremely rare, isolated laparoscopic
resection of hepatic segment 1 (S1) has also been reported in the context of
technically dyshomogeneous series. With the exception of a couple of
reports, there is substantial lack, however, of a systematic technical descrip-
tion of the procedure.
U. Cillo ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center,
University of Padua,
Padua, Italy
Updates in Surgery
192 U. Cillo et al.
26.2 Anatomical Background

Hepatic S1 is usually divided into three portions according to Kumon’s clas-
sification: the Spiegel lobe, the caudate process, and the paracaval portion.
The Spiegel lobe is located underneath the lesser omentum on the left part of
the inferior vena cava (IVC). The paracaval portion lies in front of the intra-
hepatic portion of the IVC, just to the right of the Spiegel lobe, and is sur-
rounded by the right and middle hepatic veins. The caudate process is project-
ed between the IVC and portal vein, just to the right of the paracaval portion.
Kumon defined the paracaval portion as the liver parenchymal portion ventral
to the IVC between the Spiegel lobe and the right hepatic lobe, adjacent to the
middle hepatic vein ventrally; Coinaud also demonstrated and confirmed the
existence of a paracaval portion, classifying this area as a separate S9 [2, 3].
The dorsal side of the IVC is sometimes covered by a parenchymal bridge of
the S1 and often by a membranous structure called the IVC ligament. One or
two thick (2–3 mm in diameter) veins, usually termed caudate veins, and sev-
eral thin veins ensure S1 drainage, with some presenting as proper drainage
for the S1 Spiegel lobe and others with common drainage with the paracaval
portion of S1 and/or S4, 7, and 8. Thick veins enter the IVC, whereas thin
veins merge with the IVC and middle and/or right hepatic veins. Almost half
of the two to four S1 ducts merge with the posterior sectorial hepatic duct (B6
and 7) originating from S6 and 7, usually showing an epiportal course; the
remaining S1 ducts join the left hepatic duct, formed by the joining of B2, 3,
and 4 [4].
Arterial supply is represented by multiple small branches arising from the
left (LHA) and right (RHA) hepatic arteries; singular branches from these
arteries only are present in 35% and 12% of individuals, respectively. More
frequently (53%), vascularization is guaranteed by both arterial branches.
Artery for S1 does not designate a single vessel, but some large branches can
be identified at angiography. Artery for S1 arising from the RHA courses pos-
teriorly and medially and mainly supplies the lateral portion of S1 (the para-
caval portion); Artery for S1 arising from the LHA, courses posteriorly, and
mainly supplies the medial portion of S1 (caudate process, Spiegel lobe) [5].
Hepatic S1 presents an articulated and variable vascular supply. All three
portions present vascular inflow from primary glissonian branches originating
from the right and left portal vein, with the hilar bifurcation branch supplying
not only the paracaval portion but also the left Spiegel lobe (29%) and the
right caudate process (21%), allowing possible metastatic spreading of hepat-
ic tumors to the entire liver [6].
26 Segment 1: Laparoscopic Approach 193
26.3 Previous Clinical Experience

Experience in laparoscopic isolated resection of S1 is extremely limited, and
data interpretation is confounded by the fact that S1 resection series are often
included in wider sets of different laparoscopic approaches [1]. Therefore, it is
impossible at the present time to draw definitive conclusions on safety and
oncologic efficacy of such a procedure due to the lack of sufficiently large,
focused studies. However, a few series report acceptable rates of adverse
events associated with the approach, suggesting encouraging safety profiles.
Indeed, even though an isolated laparoscopic approach to lesions located in
the posterosuperior segments (S1, 7, 8, and 4a) are significantly associated
with longer operative time (331.4 vs. 258.5 min, P = 0.009) and intraoperative
transfusion (47.2% vs. 25%, P = 0.015) compared with procedures on the
anterolateral segments (S2, 3, 5, and 7), the approach was technically feasible
and safe, with morbidities comparable with open surgery (19.4% vs. 16.3%,
NS) in a recent monocentric series [7]. Dulucq and colleagues described the
two cases to be reported in the literature and the surgical technique for isolat-
ed laparoscopic R0 resection of S1 for single colorectal metastasis using a six-
trocar approach and the Pringle maneuver: operative time was 150 and 105
min, respectively, with no major complications or significant blood loss [8].

As for the other segmental laparoscopic hepatic resections, it is possible to
identify at least three technical approaches: totally laparoscopic, hand-assist-
ed, and laparoscopic-assisted open hybrid surgical techniques [1]. Before any
further consideration regarding the most appropriate laparoscopic approach,
however, it is important to recall that as far as the classic open, isolated resec-
tion of S1 is concerned, three common approaches have been described: left,
right, and transparenchymal. The left approach is the most frequently
described in laparoscopic resections, whereas the right approach, potentially
indicated in the presence of masses located in the caudate process, is barely
achievable by laparoscopy due to the difficult complete left rotation of the
right hemiliver to expose the right row of spigelian veins. The anterior trans-
parenchymal approach is theoretically applicable laparoscopically, primarily
in association with right hepatectomy, even though S1 exposure with this tech-
nique is not always optimal.
With this in mind, it is clear that correct patient and trocar positioning is
critical to patient safety and maximal comfort for the surgeon when perform-
ing minimally invasive S1 liver resection. In our experience, when a left
approach is planned, the patient is positioned in the supine decubitus (30° anti-
Trendelenburg), legs apart, with the surgeon standing between them and the
assistant and the surgeon holding the camera standing on the patient’s right
and left side, respectively.
194 U. Cillo et al.
Fig. 26.1 Trocar positioning
Pneumoperitoneum (14 mmHg) is induced by positioning a supraumbili-

cal 12-mm optical trocar (30°) using an open technique; 15-mm and 5-mm
operative trocars are placed under direct vision in the left and right midclav-
icular lines, respectively, 5 cm above the transverse umbilical line. A 5-mm
trocar is placed in the epigastrium, allowing inferior liver-surface retraction
with adequate S1 and IVC exposure. Central venous pressure is maintained
>5 mmHg (Fig. 26.1).
The peritoneal cavity is explored to rule out extrahepatic disease, and intra-
operative liver ultrasonography is performed on the S1 before and after care-
ful hepatoduodenal ligament dissection with a cautery hook (in search of the
left hepatic accessory arteries) when looking for the presence of a lesion and
possible IVC direct involvement.
The left lobe is not mobilized, and the liver is lifted upward with a 5-mm
laparoscopic liver retractor, allowing glissonian pedicle interruption and hook
cauterization of the peritoneal reflection of the IVC by gently grasping the
spigelian lobe on the left side; blunt IVC dissection is continued, interrupted
between clips, exposing the hepatic accessory veins. Once the spigelian lobe
is completely released from the IVC, the glissonian pedicle is approached,
with clip positioning on dorsal portal accessory veins. Indeed, we consider it
safer to first mobilize the lobe, even though this interrupts venous outflow, to
attain better control of the glissonian area.
Parenchymal transection is performed cephalad using radiofreqency for-

ceps and bipolar cautery with intermittent water-drip irrigation until S1 resec-
tion is complete. The resection surface is meticulously checked for biliary
leaks, and bleeding control is completed with bipolar cautery and water-drip
irrigation. The tumor specimen is retrieved through the 12-mm supraumbilical
port inside a dedicated laparoscopic plastic bag to prevent seeding. A small
suction drain is positioned through the right 15-mm trocar at the bed of the
hepatic resection. Pringle maneuver is not usually applied in our experience
during parenchymal transection.
Due to the difficulty of this approach, laparoscopic S1 resection should be
performed only in specialized centers by hepatobiliary surgeons with signifi-
cant expertise in laparoscopic surgery.
References
2. Kumon M (1985) Anatomy of the caudate lobe with special reference to the portal vein and
bile duct. Acta Hepatol Jpn 26:1193–1199
3. Pulitanò C, Aldrighetti L (2008) The current role of laparoscopic liver resection for the treat-
ment of liver tumors. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:648–654
4. Murakami G, Hata F (2002) Human liver caudate lobe and liver segment. Anat Sci Int
77(4):211–224
5. Furuta T, Maeda E, Akai H et al (2009) Hepatic segments and vasculature: projecting CT anato-
my onto angiograms. Radiographics 29(7):1–22
6. Kaneko H (2005) Laparoscopic hepatectomy: indications and outcomes. J Hepatobiliary Pan-
creat Surg 12:438–443
7. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS et al (2008) 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 144:32–38
8. Dulucq JL, Wintringer P, Stabilini C et al (2006) Isolated laparoscopic resection of the hepat-
ic caudate lobe: surgical technique and report of 2 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percut Tech
16:32–35
Segment 2: Laparoscopic
and Robot-Assisted Approach 27
Alberto Patriti, Antonio Giuliani and Vincenzo Scuderi
27.1 Introduction
Segment 2 (S2) is the most posterior part of the anatomical left lobe and com-
prises S2 and S3 in the Couinaud description of liver segmental anatomy [1].
Liver tumors located in S2 are generally resected with a formal laparoscopic
left lateral sectionectomy that is considered the approach of choice for tumors
located in the left hepatic lobe [2]. In fact, the straight resection line along the
falciform ligament is particularly feasible with all laparoscopic transection
devices, including vascular linear staplers. Minimally invasive S2 segmentec-
tomy is more challenging, requiring a high level of confidence with laparo-
scopic ultrasound (US) and creating a curved resection line not readily feasi-
ble in laparoscopic surgery. Indications for S2 segmentectomy are colorectal
liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma without invasion of the left
hepatic vein (LHV) and the surrounding S3 and 4.
27.2 S2 Anatomy
S2 is the upper part of the left hepatic lobe. According to the Couinaud classi-
fication, S2 is bordered medially by the falciform ligament and inferiorly by the
LHV. Cranially, S2 is in contact with the diaphragm through a small bare area
enclosed by the left triangular ligament. On the inferior surface, the medial bor-
der of S2 is the ligamentum venosum. Blood supply is maintained by a pedicle
A. Patriti ()
Updates in Surgery
Fig. 27.1 Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound showing the portal branch for segment 2 (S2)
arising from the umbilical portion of the left portal vein (LPV). The left hepatic vein (LHV) cross-
es the S2 branch at its origin
Fig. 27.2 Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound showing the left hepatic vein (LHV) crossing the
portal pedicle for segment 2 (S2) and the ligamentum venosum (the hyperechoic line below S2)
(P2) arising directly from the left portal vein (LPV) in the first part of the umbil-
ical portion. At US exploration P2 can be observed at the level of the angle
where the LPV enters the liver parenchyma. In a transverse direction, P2 reach-
es the right triangular ligament crossing the LHV (Figs. 27.1 and 27.2)
27 Segment 2: Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Approach 199
27.3.1 Laparoscopic
The patient is placed in the supine position in a 30–35° reverse Trendelenburg

position with the table tilted to the right side. The operator is placed between
patient’s legs with an assistant on each side. The camera in inserted in the
umbilicus with an open approach. Three trocars (two 10–12 mm in the right
and left paramedian positions, respectively, and one 5 mm in the epigastrium)
are placed, with an accessory 10- to 12-mm trocar in the left flank when the
Pringle maneuver is needed (Fig. 27.3). The camera used is a 30° laparoscope.
An overall inspection of the cavity is made to evaluate the presence of gross
pathologies, followed by a US scan. The first step is to pass the pedicle to
facilitate the Pringle maneuver by gently inserting a Roticulator grasp behind
the pedicle; a vessel loop is then passed and closed with two medium titanium
clips. The round ligament is left in place, and the falciform ligament, the left
triangular ligament, the left coronal ligament, the lesser omentum, and the
splenic ligament are sectioned with the Harmonic scalpel. When the left lobe
is completely mobilized, the transection plane is outlined on the liver capsule
with monopolar diathermy, and another US scan is performed to control resec-
Fig. 27.3 Trocar positioning for laparoscopic

resection of S2
tion margins. The transection is begun, without clamping the pedicle, with the
Harmonic scalpel and the Cavitron Compact Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator
(CUSA) on one hand and the bipolar forceps on the other; in this phase, it is
important to change the operative hand to attain the required position for the
transection and to perform hemostasis on both transection surfaces. The assis-
tant exposes S2 with the aspirator. Portal and arterial inflow to S2 is controlled
via intrahepatic access with clips. During the transection, it is important to pay
attention to the confluence of the LHV in the inferior vena cava to avoid cre-
ating lesions. The transection is completed using a vascular stapler to secure
small branches of the LHV close to the hepatocaval confluence. The procedure
is completed by applying fibrin glue to the transection surface and placing a
tubular drain behind the pedicle.
27.3.2 Robot-Assisted
Laparoscopic S2 segmentectomy is difficult due to the curved resection line

and technical difficulties controlling the inflow pedicle. For these reasons,
we approach this segmentectomy using the four-arm da Vinci robotic system.
The patient is placed in the 30° reverse Trendelenburg position with the
robot over the head. Pneumoperitoneum is generally induced with the Veress
needle inserted in the left upper quadrant and maintained during surgery at
10–12 mmHg. Abdominal pressure can be reduced during LHV dissection to
avoid gas embolism. A 12-mm trocar is placed in the paraumbilical area for
the robotic camera. Two additional 8-mm robotic ports are introduced into
the right and left upper quadrant. In resections performed with the fourth
arm, an 8-mm trocar is placed in the left subcostal area five fingerbreadths
from the port placed in the right upper quadrant. One or two accessory tro-
cars can be placed in the right and left lower quadrant for use by the on-table
assistant for suction and retraction (Fig. 27.4). The operation begins with
umbilical and falciform ligament takedown and division of the right triangu-
lar ligament, exposing the hepatocaval confluence of the LHV. The left and
fourth robotic arms are used to maintain traction on the ligaments that are cut
using the monopolar scissor of the right robotic arm. Using careful US
exploration, the course of the LHV is marked on the liver surface, delineat-
ing the border between S2 and S3. The crossing point between P2 and the
LHV is marked as well. From this point to the superior border of the liver,
the transection line can proceed straight to avoid accidental injury to the
hepatocaval confluence. In this manner, the transection line will assume a
bidirectional shape, with two intersecting lines forming an obtuse angle at
the crossing point between the LHV and P2. Two 2-0 stay sutures are placed
at both sides of the origin of the LHV at the level of the liver’s inferior bor-
der. The suture in S3 is held by the assistant and that in S2 by the fourth
robotic arm and will be used to retract liver surfaces during transection. A
tourniquet is passed around the liver pedicle, as described in Chap. 15, for
27 Segment 2: Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Approach 201
Fig. 27.4 Trocar positioning for robot-assisted

resection of S2
intermittent Pringle maneuver. Liver transection is carried out with the

Precise bipolar forceps on the left arm and the monopolar scissor on the right
arm in the fashion of the Kelly-clamp crushing technique. Small vessels are
coagulated while the LHV and P2 branches are clipped or ligated. If proper-
ly performed, the transection line runs along the left border of the LHV,
reaching underneath the P2. Liver parenchyma around the portal pedicle
must be crushed until it is completely exposed. Otherwise, its oblique direc-
tion makes it difficult to properly clip or ligate the entire pedicle, and mul-
tiple fires are necessary to secure the vessel. After the pedicle is divided,
liver transection proceeds in a nearly straight line. Application of a vascular
stapler could be useful in the last 2–3 cm of the resection plane to secure
small branches of the LHV close to the hepatocaval confluence and conclude
the resection.
Machado et al. suggest a different approach to S2. They describe an intra-
hepatic glissonian access to P2, performing two incisions laterally to the ori-
gin of P2 at the level of the inferior liver surface. The pedicle is secured with
a vascular linear stapler, and transection is carried out following the demarca-
tion between S2 and S3 without using the Pringle maneuver. The technique is
reported to be safe and feasible, even in laparoscopic surgery [3].
References
1. Couinaud C (1956) Contribution of anatomical research to liver surgery. Fr Med 19(5):5–12
2. Aldrighetti L, Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M, Guzzetti E, Casati M, Comotti L, Ferla G (2008)
A prospective evaluation of laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy. J Gas-
trointest Surg 12(3):457–462. doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0244-6
3. Machado MA, Makdissi FF, Surjan RC, Herman P, Teixeira AR, C Machado MC (2009) La-
paroscopic resection of left liver segments using the intrahepatic Glissonian approach. Surg
Endosc 23(11):2615–2619. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0423-5
28
Marco Filauro, Claudio Bagarolo, Giulio Angelini,
Fiorenza Belli and Andrea Barberis
28.1 Introduction
Segment 3 (S3) of the liver is considered highly suitable for laparoscopic
resection [1, 2] due to its anterior position (favorable access without liver
mobilization), the possibility of accessing the segmental pedicle using fixed
and constant anatomical landmarks, and the possibility of direct visualization
and ultrasound (US) scanning of the lesion(s) to be resected.
28.2 Indications
Indications to isolated resection [3] of S3 are:
• Benign diseases: giant/symptomatic hemangiomas, symptomatic focal
nodular hyperplasia (FNH) (compressive effect to adjacent organs)
• Border line: giant/symptomatic/complicated adenoma
• Histologically or radiologically uncertain diseases (mainly to define dif-
ferential diagnosis with malignancy)
• Malignant diseases: hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), secondaries, when
segmental resection allows a radical (R0) operation [4].
28.3 Preoperative Care and Instruments

The patient is carefully worked up for accurate indication to S3 resection and
laparoscopic feasibility: preoperative US (with contrast-enhanced US, if indi-
M. Filauro ()
General and Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surgery, Galliera Hospitals
Genoa, Italy
Updates in Surgery
204 M. Filauro et al.
cated), abdominal multislice computed tomography (CT) with contrast agent,

and liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a specific contrast agent are
performed with appropriate and individually selected indications.
After anesthesiologic evaluation, the same preoperative schedule as that
used in the laparotomic approach is followed, considering the intraoperative
possibility of converting laparoscopy to open surgery. For this reasons, we pre-
fer to use central venous access and epidural catheter for blended anesthesia.
The patient is positioned supine on the operating table, with legs spread
and fixed with appropriate padding to permit lateral and/or caudal movement
during operation. A laparoscopic video unit is placed at the patient’s head: a
double screen is advisable to facilitate viewing by the entire surgical team.
Four trocars are inserted (Fig. 28.1):
• Hasson trocar on the supraumbilical midline
• A 5-mm trocar on the midclavicular right line
• A 10- to 12-mm trocar on the midclavicular left line
• A 5-mm trocar on the left flank (or alternatively in the left xiphoid region).
This schema could be modified considering patient size, intraperitoneal
adhesions, liver volume, and other variables. The patient is positioned in the
anti-Trendelenburg position at a degree that depends upon the intra-abdomi-
nal situation. The following instruments must be available on the scrub-
nurse’s table:
• A 30° laparoscope
• Laparoscopic ultrasonography probe (10 mm)
• Johann atraumatic graspers (2)
• Right-angle dissector (5 mm)
• Monopolar coagulation device
• Bipolar coagulation grasper (5mm)
• US shears (5 mm) and/or radiofrequency (RF) coagulation grasper (5 mm)
• Laparoscopic Cavitron Compact Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) (as
an option, if available)
• Laparoscopic retractor (5 mm)
• Linear laparoscopic stapler
• Irrigation and suction device (5 mm)
• Clips (medium-large) applier (10 mm)
• Retrieval bag.

Trocars are positioned (Fig. 28.1) after creation of a pneumoperitoneum at 12
mmHg; adhesions (if present) are treated, and a general abdominal exploration
is carried out to evaluate concomitant diseases not previously demonstrated
(peritoneal implants, fluid collections, etc). The liver is widely exposed and
parenchymal status is evaluated for firmness, nodules appearing on the sur-
face, and abnormal perihepatic venous vessel (portal hypertension) (Fig. 28.2).
Locoregional lymph nodes are also evaluated. Segment 3 lesion(s) are
explored and evaluated by instrumental “palpation”.
Fig. 28.2 Lesion overview

Fig. 28.3 Intraoperative laparoscopic

ultrasound
US probes are now inserted through 10- to 12-mm trocar, and liver scan-
ning – laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) – is systematically performed (S6, 7; S5,
8; S4, 1; S2, 3); the hepatic pedicle is also scanned. LUS confirms lesion loca-
tion and number, demonstrates the presence of further lesion(s), and facilitates
US-guided needle biopsy on suspected nodules (Fig. 28.3). US-guided tattoo-
ing using electrocautery is carried out to identify the resection margin on the
liver surface, as well as the anatomical landmark of S3. The hepatic pedicle is
isolated and encircled with a soft rubber tourniquet to facilitate intracorporeal
Pringle maneuver (in case of bleeding). Lymph node sampling on the hepatic
pedicle can be performed at this time. The umbilical ligament is not sectioned
in order to maintain the left lobe; the falciform ligament is not opened.
Parenchymal section begins at the lateral margin of the umbilical ligament
on the marked line, which is identified ultrasonically: dissection is achieved
by the operating surgeon with tissue crushing using US shears (Fig. 28.4)
(with the right hand) or by CUSA (optional); hemostasis is attained using the
same US shears and bipolar grasper (with the left hand).
The second surgeon inserts and uses the suction device or Johann grasper
in the left flank (xiphoid) trocar to keep the left liver on a lateral margin and
facilitate opening the parenchyma during dissection and to clean the sectioned
line. Parenchymal sectioning proceeds cranially and allows easy access to the
pedicle of S3: the pedicle can be clamped to demonstrate segmentary ischemia
and then clipped and sectioned.
Sectioning can also be achieved using the linear stapler (Fig. 28.5) [5] with
a vascular cartridge; the section line must be checked to exclude biliary leak-
age. LUS must be repeated during parenchymal sectioning to confirm the right
line is being followed and that lesion(s) is adequately located in the lateral side.
Fig. 28.4 Parenchymal section with ultrasonic (US) shears
Fig. 28.5 Division of segmental pedicle with linear stapler
When the upper cranial landmark of resection is reached, hemostatic mate-

rial (fibrillar oxidized cellulose) can be placed in the sectioned line; the later-
al section can then be started. In this part of operation, the US shears are
moved in the left-flank trocar and the bipolar grasper in the left midclavicular
trocar. During parenchymal sectioning, well-isolated and accurately identified
vessels are closed using US shears and/or clips: anatomical resection must be
always provided. LUS must be repeated during this stage. When the two lines
of the parenchymal section are joined, resection is completed, and the speci-
men is inserted in a removal bag. The Pringle maneuver is usually not neces-
sary if accurate, anatomical dissection and hemostasis are achieved.
Hemostasis must be checked after reduction of abdominal pressure (pneu-
moperitoneum must be lowered to 2–3 mmHg) and improved by selected bipo-
lar coagulation; fibrin glue and fibrillar oxidized cellulose are applied to the
liver surface. One tubular or Jackson–Pratt drainage tube is positioned on the
resected liver surface. The specimen can be extracted through the umbilical
incision (adequately enlarged) or, if too bulky, through a small suprapubic
incision.
The postoperative period does not require specific care: the patient is mobi-
lized early, and food intake begins on the first postoperative day. The drainage
tube can be removed on the second postoperative day if no bleeding and/or
bile leakage occurs.
Acknowledgements A contribution to this chapter is gratefully acknowledged to Dr. Stefano

Cappato.
References
1. Rao A, Rao G, Ahmed I (2012) Laparoscopic or open liver resection? Let systematic review
decide it. Am J Surg [Epub ahead of print, January 13, PMID: 22245507]
2. Kazaryan AM, Pavlik Marangos I, Rosseland AR et al (2010) Laparoscopic liver resection
for malignant and benign lesions: ten-year Norwegian single-center experience. Arch Surg
145:34–40
surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250:825–830
4. Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Abu Salameh M et al (2012) Oncological efficiency analysis of la-
paroscopic liver resection for primary and metastatic cancer: a single-center UK experience.
Arch Surg 147:42–48
scopic stapler device. HPB (Oxford) 10:296–303
29
Giuseppe Maria Ettorre, Giovanni Vennarecci,
Pasquale Lepiane, Andrea Laurenzi and Roberto Santoro
29.1 Introduction
Segment 4 (S4) laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is demanding for two main
reasons: laparoscopic liver surgeons more frequently perform either isolated
S4 resection (i.e., segmentectomy, wedge resection) or in association with
central or left hepatectomy; for transplant teams involved in living-related
pediatric living transplantation, S4 resection represents a crucial part of
laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy because the cutting plane crosses S4
and can be moved according to the volume of the harvested liver (left lateral
sectionectomy, left hepatectomy) [1–3].
29.2 S4 Anatomy
S4 is part of the left liver. It represents the left paramedian sector in associa-
tion with S3, according to Couinaud classification [4], and the left medial sec-
tion, according to Brisbane classification. Its anatomical limits are the main
portal scissura medially (Cantlie’s line), which contains the middle hepatic
vein; the umbilical fissure laterally, which contains in up to 60% of cases a
hepatic scissural vein; and the anterior surface of S1 posteriorly. This posteri-
or limit can be conceived of as a plane composed of the left portal branch con-
fluence, the origin of the middle hepatic vein on the inferior vena cava, and
the Arantius’ ligament. S4 can be further divided into two subsegments: 4a
(superior–posterior) and 4b (inferior–anterior) according to the transverse
scissura.
G. M. Ettorre ()
General Surgery and Transplantation, San Camillo Hospital
Rome, Italy
Updates in Surgery
210 G. M. Ettorre et al.
Portal vein supply to S4 develops late in embryogenesis, and for this rea-
son, the vascular branches can be multiple and variable. Usually, portal flow
is provided by a cluster of three to thirteen veins that stem from the umbilical
part of the left main portal branch, with one stronger vein that heads toward
subsegment 4b. Rarely, it is possible to find a venous branch that comes direct-
ly from the left main portal branch [5].
The arterial supply is usually provided by an arterial branch arising from
the left hepatic artery. In 10% of cases, the S4 artery originates from the right
hepatic artery. In a few cases, there can be a double arterial vascular supply
originating from both right and left hepatic arteries [6].
The biliary drainage consists of one or two bile ducts, which join the left
hepatic duct. The S4 bile duct can be either close to the common hepatic duct
confluence or join directly the hepatic confluence or the common hepatic duct.
Suprahepatic drainage is mainly provided by two to three branches that
drain into the left surface of the middle hepatic vein, and there are also some
branches that drain either in the scissural vein or in the left hepatic vein. The
scissural vein drains S4 and a small part of S3 and enters the left hepatic vein
before the common trunk [5, 6].

S4 can be laparoscopically approached either as anatomical segmental resec-
tion or limited resection as subsegmentectomy or wedge. The S4 laparoscopic
approach is also considered in major hepatectomies, such as central (S4, 5, 8)
or left hepatectomy (S2, 3, 4). Our purpose in this chapter is to describe the
anatomical S4 resection.
Patient position for S4 LLR is supine, with the legs opened. The surgeon
stands between the patient’s legs and the first and second assistants on the
patient’s left. The laparoscopic tower is placed on the right side of the patient’s
head. Trocar positions are shown in Fig. 29.1. A 30° optical device with flex-
ible extremity is preferred, particularly when performing a subsegment 4a
resection.
As the hepatic resection can go through a deep plane, the Pringle maneu-
ver is always prepared for. For a subsegment 4b LLR, we avoid any liver
mobilization. For lesions located in subsegment 4a, surgical dissection of the
left triangular, round, and falciform ligament can be considered on a case-by-
case basis.
Considering that S4 is in the central region of the liver, LLR must be safe
and should avoid any type of injuries to the liver, particularly to the left hepat-
ic pedicle, gallbladder, middle hepatic vein, and P2–3.
The procedure usually begins with an intraoperative ultrasound (US) of the
liver to determine exact lesion location and vascular structures surrounding it
(i.e., portal pedicles, hepatic veins). The cutting surfaces are then marked with
monopolar diathermy. The first step is to section the parenchymal bridge – if
Fig. 29.1 Trocar positions for S4

laparoscopic liver resection
present – which connects the S4 to the left lobe on the inferior surface of the
liver. This sectioning allows wide and clear vision, P4 identification, and the
origin of the Arantius’ ligament. All parenchymal dissections can be performed
with US devices [Ultracision Ethicon, Cavitron Compact Ultrasonic Surgical
Aspirator (CUSA), Olympus]. To seal 1-to-3-mm vessels, we usually utilize
vascular clips, Hem-o-lok clips (Teleflex Medical), and UltraCision ultrason-
ic dissector (Ethicon). In case of bigger vascular structures (i.e., portal pedi-
cles or hepatic veins), we use Hem-o-lok clips or a laparoscopic stapler.
For a laparoscopic anatomic segmentectomy, the operative field can be
exposed by traction from the gallbladder toward the patient’s right side and
traction of the round ligament toward the left side. Cutting surfaces run paral-
lel to the falciform ligament on the left side and to the middle hepatic vein
(Cantlie’s line) on the right side. These two cutting surfaces continue to join
in the suprahepatic region. The deep section surface is parallel to a plane com-
posed of the left portal branch and Arantius’ ligament.
In S4 wedge resections, it is not mandatory to respect the anatomical
planes, and a traction stitch on the specimen can be useful to expose the cut-
ting surface. At the end of the S4 resection, it is preferable to avoid cholecys-
tectomy in patients in whom a further liver resection may be necessary (i.e.,
colorectal metastases, neuroendocrine tumors), whereas it is mandatory in all
other cases, particularly if the gallbladder has been injured during traction
maneuvers or when a transcystic bile leak test has been performed.
212 G. M. Ettorre et al.
One of the main risks in S4 resection or central hepatectomy is the wide

hepatic surface achieved at the end of the procedure, which requires accurate
hemostasis and biliostasis. Hemostasis can be achieved with the monopolar
diathermy or hemostatic devices on the cutting surfaces. A drain is placed on
the operative field in case of anatomical resection.
Among 102 LLRs performed in our unit, S4 was approached 21 times:
three during left hepatectomy, three during anatomic segmental resections,
eleven during wedge resections, three during multiple wedge resections, and
one during left lateral sectionectomy extended to S4.
29.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, the laparoscopic approach to S4 is demanding; it is involved in
as many as 20% of cases in dedicated hepatic surgery units. Knowledge of the
difficult S4 anatomy allows specialized surgical teams to avoid major compli-
cations and to approach more difficult hepatic resections.
Acknowledgements A contribution to this chapter is gratefully acknowledged to Dr. Marco

Colasanti.
References
2. Sommacale D, Farges O, Ettorre GM et al (2000). In situ split liver transplantation for two
adults recipient. Transplantation 15;69:1005–1007
3. The terminology of committee of the IHPBA (2000) The Brisbane 2000 terminology of he-
patic anatomy and resections. HPB (Oxford) 2:333–339
4. Couinaud C (1957) Le foie etudes anatomiques et chirurgicales. Masson & Cie, Paris
5. Gadzijev EM, Ravnik D (1996) Atlas of applied internal liver anatomy. Springer, Wien, New
York
6. Couinaud C (1993) Un scandale: segment IV et transplantation du foie. J Chir 130:443–446
Segment 4b: Laparoscopic Approach
30
Felice Giuliante, Francesco Ardito, Maria Vellone
and Gennaro Nuzzo
30.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of segment 4b (S4b) involves removing
the inferior portion of S4. S4 is divided into two portions: 4a (superior por-
tion) and 4b (inferior portion) [1]. The main indication for isolated anatomic
liver resection of S4b is the presence of a tumor, which can be resected with
adequate free surgical margins; absence of involvement of the left portal pedi-
cle; no extension through the umbilical scissure on the left; and no involve-
ment of S5 on the right (Fig. 30.1). Limited resections, such as isolated resec-
tion of S4b, should always be attempted in order to preserve as much healthy
liver parenchyma as possible to decrease the risk of postoperative liver failure
after more extended resections and allow re-resection in case of recurrence.
30.2 S4b Anatomy

The anatomic landmarks of S4b are the falciform ligament on the left; the left
half of the gallbladder bed on the right and the peripheral route of the middle
hepatic vein (MHV); the left portal pedicle superiorly; and the hilar plate infe-
riorly [1]. Arterial and portal blood supply of S4b arises from the left portal
pedicle, which curves forward at the left border of the hilus along the umbil-
ical fissure and terminates 1–2 cm from the anterior edge of the liver at the
level of the Rex recessus, where the round ligament is joined anteriorly. Here,
at the intrahepatic portion of the left portal pedicle, is where pedicles to S2, 3,
and 4 originate before branching into their respective segments [1]. This point
F. Giuliante ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
Rome, Italy
Updates in Surgery
214 F. Giuliante et al.
Fig. 30.1 An 83-year-old female patient with a 3-cm colorectal liver metastasis in segment 4b
(yellow arrow)
is a clinically important ultrasound (US) landmark. From the left side, a

branch arises to the anterior portion of the left lobe, P3 (Fig. 30.2a). Another
branch arises from the right side to the portion of the liver situated to the right
of the umbilical fissure, referred to as P4 (Fig. 30.2b, c).

Liver resection of S4b has two transection planes: on the left along the umbil-
ical scissure, and on the right along the gallbladder bed. The left transection
plane is an anatomic plane and easy to follow during parenchymal transection
because it is located along the falciform ligament. The right transection plane
has no external landmarks.
Two laparoscopic surgical techniques for liver resection of S4b have been
described in the literature: the US-guided LLR with intraparenchymal ligation
of P4b [2–5], and the intrahepatic glissonian approach [6]. In the first tech-
nique, P4b is identified and ligated during the left-side parenchymal transec-
tion. The transection plane between S4b and S5 is determined by the ischemic
demarcation line, which can be a good guide for the plane of parenchymal
transection. Of course, the intraoperative US should also be used to localize
the MHV because the right transection plane is along the right side of the vein.
30 Segment 4b: Laparoscopic Approach 215
c
Fig. 30.2 Intraoperative laparoscopic ultrasound. Pedicles to segments 4b and 3 arising from the
left portal vein (a). Longitudinal view of the pedicle to segment 4b (b, c)
The intrahepatic glissonian approach, described by Machado et al. [6], is based

on clamping around P4b, including the parenchymal tissue around the pedicle.
This technique is based on small incisions according to anatomic landmarks.
The round ligament is retracted upward, exposing the umbilical fissure
between S3 and 4. Using the round ligament as a guide, on its right side, it is
possible to identify the anterior aspect of P4b. Two small incisions are made,
216 F. Giuliante et al.
Fig. 30.3 Trocar position. Three 12-mm trocars

(red) and two 5-mm trocars (blue) are used
one in front of the hilum and one at the base of the round ligament. In this way,
a large vascular clamp is introduced and P4b is clamped. The demarcation area
includes S4b and represents the guide for the anatomic resection.
Under general anesthesia, the patient is placed in the supine position. The
surgeon is between the patient’s legs, with one assistant on each side of the
patient. Five trocars are usually inserted. The procedure is performed with
pressure-controlled carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum, maintained at
12 mmHg. Using an open technique, a 12-mm trocar is placed about 3 cm
above the umbilicus. Through this port, a 30° laparoscope is introduced and
four additional trocars are placed at the sites, as shown in Fig. 30.3 (two 12-
mm and two 5-mm trocars).
The liver is explored visually and by laparoscopic US in order to confirm
the location of the tumor, to assess its relationship with P4b and the hilar plate
and with the radicals of the MHV, and to ensure adequate resection margin.
The round ligament is divided. The portal pedicle is systematically encircled
with a tape to allow intermittent pedicle clamping (15-min clamping and 5-
min release periods), if required. Cholecystectomy is usually performed. Liver
transection is usually performed using bipolar multifunctional shears and for-
ceps (Aesculap; B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany). Small vascular or biliary
pedicles are divided after bipolar coagulation or between absorbable clips.
During parenchymal transection, it is fundamental to repeatedly perform
laparoscopic US to ensure an adequate resection margin. P4b is isolated intra-
30 Segment 4b: Laparoscopic Approach 217
parenchymally and divided between Hem-o-lok nonabsorbable clips (Weck

Teleflex Medical, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA).
The resected specimen may be removed into an endoscopic bag through the
extended incision of the 12-mm trocar, through the Pfannenstiel incision, or
through a previous appendectomy incision. Abdominal drainage is usually left
in place.
30.4 Conclusion
LLR of S4b is a feasible operative procedure in selected patients. The use of
laparoscopic US is mandatory to guide liver resection and ensure an adequate
resection margin. Careful intraparenchymal dissection of the glissonian pedi-
cle makes LLR as feasible as open liver resection.
References
1. Bismuth H (1982) Surgical anatomy and anatomical surgery of the liver. World J Surg 6:3–9
2. Ahn KS, Han HS, Yoon YS, Cho JY (2011) Laparoscopic anatomic S4 segmentectomy for
hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:e183–186
3. Bryant R, Laurent A, Tayar C, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection-understanding
its role in current practice: the Henri Mondor Hospital experience. Ann Surg 250:103–111
sive liver resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg 246:385–392; discussion
392–394
5. Ardito F, Tayar C, Laurent A, Karoui M, Loriau J, Cherqui D (2007) Laparoscopic liver re-
section for benign disease. Arch Surg 142:1188–1193; discussion 1193
6. Machado MA, Makdissi FF, Surjan RC, Herman P, Teixeira AR, C Machado MC (2009) La-
paroscopic resection of left liver segments using the intrahepatic Glissonian approach. Surg
Endosc 23:2615–2619
31
Lorenzo Capussotti, Alessandro Ferrero, Luca Viganò and
Roberto Lo Tesoriere
31.1 Introduction
Since the early experiences of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), segment 5

(S5) resections have been depicted [1]. The segment’s anterior position allows
easy access, manipulation, transection, and bleeding control. Even if no series
specifically analyze outcomes of S5 laparoscopic resections, their feasibility
and efficacy have been clearly demonstrated by available series that include
quite a large number of these procedures [2–4]. In this chapter, we analyze the
surgical anatomy and laparoscopic resection of S5.
31.2 S5 Anatomy
The surgical liver anatomy is still today based on the liver segmental classifi-
cation established by Couinaud in 1957. This classification separated the liver
into eight different segments, each one having its own glissonian or portal
pedicle (portal, arterial, and biliary branches) and shares its hepatic vein
drainage with adjacent segments. According to this classification, the right
portal pedicle divides secondarily into two branches: the right anterior pedi-
cle, feeding S5 and 8; and the right posterior pedicle, feeding S6 and 7.
Actually, S5 is fed not by a single pedicle but usually by several branches
(from two to five), which arise from the caudal side of the right anterior pedi-
cle before the origin of the two main S8 branches (Fig. 31.1). The S5 pedicles
L. Capussotti ()
Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano Umberto I,
Turin, Italy
Updates in Surgery
220 L. Capussotti et al.
Fig. 31.1 Segment 5 (S5) anatomy. P5–8, right anterior portal branch; P8d, S8 dorsal portal
branch; P8v, S8 ventral portal branch; P5, S5 portal branches; MHV, middle hepatic vein, RHV,
right hepatic vein; V5, hepatic veins draining S5
arise within the liver, and their ligature can be performed only inside the
parenchyma by following the right anterior portal pedicle.
Hepatic venous outflow of S5 is drained into both the middle and the right
hepatic veins, which can be considered the lateral landmarks of the parenchy-
ma of S5. Two to four veins arising in S5 drain into the middle hepatic vein,
and a similar number of veins drain into the right hepatic vein. Many studies
of the right liver venous drainage have been carried out in centers performing
living-donor liver transplantation. The Kyoto group, using 3D reconstructed
images of the hepatic vascular anatomy, divided the anterior sector morpho-
logically into two types: a right-hepatic-vein-dominant graft in which the ter-
ritory draining into the middle hepatic vein is <40%, and the middle-hepatic-
vein-dominant graft [5].

The technique for S5 segmentectomy is described here, but in practice, almost
all published S5 laparoscopic procedures are wedge resections. Complete state-
of-the-art equipment is recommended, including two monitors. Although some
groups use 0° laparoscopes [2, 3], 30° laparoscopes are usually preferred.
The patient is placed in the supine position, in mild reverse Trendelenburg
Fig. 31.2 Trocar position. Red

10- to 12-mm port; yellow 5-
mm port; 1, laparoscope port;
2, surgeon right and left opera-
tive port; 3, assistant port
position, with lower limbs apart. The right arm is along the body; the left arm
is abducted for vein and artery cannulation. The surgeon stands between
patient’s legs with one assistant on each side. Some authors prefer the patient
in the supine position, with the surgeon standing on at the patient’s side and
the assistant on the opposite side [6].
Carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum is created using a Veress needle
or the open technique. We prefer the open access, which is mandatory in the
presence of previous laparotomies. Electronic monitoring of intra-abdominal
pressure is required, and it should be maintained <14 mmHg. Port-site posi-
tioning varies among authors, but the one preferred in our experience is shown
in Fig. 31.2.
Hand-assisted laparoscopy has been proposed to render laparoscopic liver
resection (LLR) safer and more accessible than open resection [6]. The tech-
nique may help in abdominal exploration, liver mobilization, parenchymal
transection, and bleeding control. In our experience, hand assistance is rarely
needed and is usually not beneficial in S5 resections.
The first surgical step is always exploration of the liver and abdominal cav-
ity, checking for ascites, signs of portal hypertension, carcinomatosis, and pri-
mary tumor recurrence, according to the patient’s disease. Frozen sections of
any peritoneal deposits are recommended. Liver volume and quality (steatosis
or cirrhosis) and tumor(s) characteristics are evaluated. Subglissonian infra-
centimetric tumors missed by preoperative imaging can be also be revealed.
Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS) is mandatory to complete the patient’s
evaluation. It allows study of liver anatomy and its variations, locates known
lesions, defines tumor connections with portal pedicles and hepatic veins, and
screens the parenchyma for additional tumors. Several studies demonstrate
that intraoperative US might change surgical strategy in up to 20–25% of
cases [7, 8].
Once laparoscopic resection of S5 has been decided upon, the round liga-
ment can be divided and used for traction. In cirrhotic patients, the round lig-
ament should be spared to preserve collateral vessels. No liver mobilization is
required before resection. In order to improve visualization of the transection
plane, the gallbladder is partially mobilized along its left margin and then used
for traction. It will be removed en bloc with the specimen at the end of tran-
section.
The lesser omentum is checked for left hepatic artery. The porta hepatis is
encircled with an umbilical tape. It has been demonstrated that liver resections
can be safely performed without pedicle clamping [9]. Moreover, pneumoperi-
toneum itself significantly decreases blood inflow to the liver. Salvage inter-
mittent clamping (15-min clamping followed by a 5-min interval) can be per-
formed whenever necessary in case of bleeding during transection [10]. The
procedure is safe and well tolerated [11] but is being used less and less in
laparoscopic practice [12]. If needed, pedicle clamping is performed by insert-
ing a tourniquet into the abdominal cavity through a port. The tape is then
pulled and the tourniquet fixed by a forceps inserted through an additional port.
Before starting parenchymal transection, the boundaries of S5 must be
identified (Fig. 31.3). No superficial landmarks are evident except for the gall-
bladder bed on the left side. In open surgery, S5 can be identified by US, blue
die injection in P5 pedicles, or pedicle digital compression. The last two
options have not been reproduced during laparoscopy. LUS is the only way to
define S5 boundaries and is achieved as follows: the middle hepatic vein lies
along the gallbladder bed on left side; the right hepatic vein is on the right
side; the origin of P5 pedicles from the right portal branch is on the upper part.
The boundaries are marked by cautery incision of Glisson’s capsule.
Parenchymal transection is then carried out, starting along the left side.
Different transection techniques are available and are described elsewhere in
this book. LUS is often performed during transection to identify encountered
vascular structures and to check adequacy of surgical margins (Fig. 31.4).
Hepatic veins draining S5 into the middle hepatic vein are encountered and
divided by applying clips. The transection is continued up to the origin of S5
pedicles, which are identified and sectioned between clips. The ischemic area
corresponding to S5 is checked. The transection is now started along the right
side. In this phase, the transection device can be handled by the right or the left
hand, according to the surgeon’s preferences, and on a case-by-case evaluation
basis. The hepatic veins draining S5 into the right hepatic vein are divided, and
the resection is completed.
b
Fig. 31.3 Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) identification of segment 5 (S5) landmarks. a Right
hepatic vein (RHV), defining the right boundary of S5, is marked under LUS guidance. b Main
S5 pedicle (P5) is marked under LUS guidance. S6 artery (A6) and portal branch (P6) and right
anterior portal pedicle (P5–8) are visible
In all cases, the specimen is placed in a plastic bag and extracted through
a separate incision, either along a new suprapubic horizontal incision or a pre-
vious abdominal scar. Fragmentation must be avoided. After specimen extrac-
tion, the incision is sutured and the pneumoperitoneum is again created.
Hemostasis is checked, as is the presence of any bile leak. According to sur-
geon preference, the raw cut surface can be treated by any hemostatic agent,
and an abdominal drainage can be used (Fig. 31.5).
Fig. 31.4 Laparoscopic

ultrasound (LUS) control
of transection line.
a The planned section line
is checked on the left side
of the cut surface. It runs
across segment 5 (S5)
pedicle (P5) and along S6
pedicle (P6). A6 S6 artery.
b The planned section line
is checked on the right
side of the section plane.
It runs across a hepatic
vein draining S5 into the
right hepatic vein
(RHV-V5) and along S6
pedicle (P6, A6)
a b
Fig. 31.5 Cut surface of the liver.

Segment 5 (S5) resection is
completed. S6 portal branch
(P6 branch) is exposed on the cut
surface. Stumps of S5
pedicles (P5) and of a small S6
pedicle (P6) are visible
References
study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232(6):753–762
2. Dagher I, Proske JM, Carloni A et al (2007) Laparoscopic liver resection: results for 70 pa-
tients. Surg Endosc 21(4):619–624
3. Vibert E, Perniceni T, Levard H et al (2006) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 93(1):67–72
4. Viganò L, Tayar C, Laurent A, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic
review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(4):410–421
5. Yu PF, Wu J, Zheng SS (2007) Management of the middle hepatic vein and its tributaries in
right lobe living donor liver transplantation. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 6:358–363
sive liver resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg 246(3):385–392
and laparoscopic ultrasound. Ann Surg 220(6):711–719
8. Foroutani A, Garland AM, Berber E et al (2000) Laparoscopic ultrasound vs triphasic com-
puted tomography for detecting liver tumors. Arch Surg 135:933–938
9. Capussotti L, Muratore A, Ferrero A et al (2006) Randomized clinical trial of liver resection
with and without hepatic pedicle clamping. Br J Surg 93(6):685–689
10. Viganò L, Jaffary SA, Ferrero A et al (2011) Liver resection without pedicle clamping: fea-
sibility and need for “salvage clamping”. Looking for the right clamping policy. Analysis of
512 consecutive resections. J Gastrointest Surg 15(10):1820–1828
11. Decailliot F, Cherqui D, Leroux B et al (2001) Effects of portal triad clamping on haemody-
namic conditions during laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Anaesth 87(3):493–496
12. Viganò L, Laurent A, Tayar C et al (2009) The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection:
improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250(5):772–782
32
Umberto Cillo, Marina Polacco, Francesco D’Amico
and Enrico Gringeri
32.1 Introduction
Totally laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), first described by Gagner et al. in
1992 [1], now appears to be safe and effective procedure to treat lesions locat-
ed on left lateral (2 and 3), middle (4b), and anterior right (5, 6) segments.
Tumors localized in the posterior and superior segments of the liver or masses
requiring major liver resections (right hepatectomy, left hepatectomy, extend-
ed right or left hepatectomy) are still considered less frequent indications for
the minimally invasive approach and should be reserved to centers with signif-
icant experience in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), open hepatic surgery, and
intraoperative ultrasound (US) [2]. Indications for LLS, with particular refer-
ence to resection of segment 6 (S6), remain basically the same as in open sur-
gery and, technical feasibility of S6 resection using a minimally invasive
approach is increasing with surgeon skill [2]. On this basis, a liver lesion locat-
ed on S6 should be routinely evaluated for LLR in high-volume centers.
32.2 S6 Anatomy
According to Couinaud’s division into self-contained units, each liver seg-
ment can be resected without damaging the others. For the liver to remain
viable, resections must proceed along the vessels that define the peripheries of
these segments, with resection lines roughly parallel to the hepatic veins. S6
is the right posterolateral anterior/inferior segment. It is limited medially by
U. Cillo ()
Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit and Liver Transplant Center, University of Padua,
Padua, Italy
Updates in Surgery
228 U. Cillo et al.
the right scissure posteriorly from the S7 fissure (detectable only by US exam-
ination). Laterally it is in contact with the abdominal wall and the lower por-
tion with the hepatic colonic flexure. Its blood supply is guaranteed by the
right posterior branch of the right artery. Literature reports describe some vari-
ations in portal-branches anatomy: in most patients, the right posterior trunk
has a constant pattern of division and is directed dorsolaterally in a more or
less horizontal plane. Covey and Brown demonstrated, in a cohort of 200 com-
puted tomography (CT) portograms, that about 35% of patients had variant
portal-vein anatomy; in particular, 6% of P6 originates as a separate branch of
the right portal vein, and in 1%, P7 arises as well as a separate branch of the
right portal vein [3]. Some reports also describe the presence of a posterior
trunk in the absence of a common right portal trunk, or a separate origin of
segmental branches from the right portal trunk. The right hepatic vein shows
marked variability, described as early confluence or presence of multiple right
hepatic veins and sometimes as an accessory inferior hepatic vein draining
directly into the inferior vena cava (IVC) from S6 (right inferior) [4]. Biliary
ducts from S6 and 7 usually drain into the right posterior hepatic duct. Rarely,
the right posterior hepatic duct drains directly into the left hepatic duct
(13–19%) or into the common hepatic duct (5%) [5].
32.3 Clinical Experience

The literature does not report focused series of S6 totally operated by LLR. It
is therefore impossible to draw definitive clinical conclusions and to make
technical recommendations about a procedure that has not been fully studied.
In fact, although the safety and feasibility of S6 LLR, in terms of clinical and
oncologic results, have been suggested by various reports, to date, the tech-
nique lacks a systematic analysis of associated clinical patterns and detailed
step-by-step technical description [6].

S5 and 6 are the most easily accessible and suitable locations for LLR on the
right side. However, whereas laparoscopic procedures for left liver are well
described and standardized, the approach to S6 is still matter of some degree
of discussion.
As with the other segmental laparoscopic hepatic resections, it is possible
to identify at least three technical approaches: totally laparoscopic, hand-
assisted, and laparoscopic-assisted open “hybrid” surgical techniques. There
remains, however, a debate about patient positioning: we prefer a left lateral
decubitus or semilateral decubitus position that ranges from 45° to 70° with
the aid of a beanbag mattress (as described by Belli et al. [7]). The patient is
placed in a secure position with safety straps and tape. Nerve-compression
injuries are prevented by identifying and coating all pressure points. The
patient is tilted in mild anti-Trendelenburg position to help with exposure, and
the right arm is elevated with an arm rest. The surgeon and first assistant usu-
ally stand in front of the patient on the left side, with the second assistant in
front of them. Some authors suggest adopting the standard supine position
with the patient’s legs spread open.
According to a previous description, four trocars may be positioned along
a semicircular line, with the concavity facing the right subcostal margin: two
12-mm trocars (a, b) for introducing the laparoscope, the endoscopic stapler
device, and the intraoperative US probe; and two 5-mm surgical trocars (c, d).
The first 12-mm trocar (a) is placed, using the open technique (Hasson tech-
nique), in the midline at one third of the xiphoumbilical distance [7, 8]. The
carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum is then induced, with an intra-
abdominal pressure to be maintained at 12–14 mmHg to prevent risk of gas
embolism. The remaining three trocars all positioned under direct vision: the
second 12-mm trocar (b) is positioned laterally to the umbilicus transrectally;
one 5-mm trocar (c) is positioned in the right flank inferior and slightly poste-
rior to the margin of the 11th rib; the second 5-mm trocar (d) is placed on the
left, subcostally [9].
To obtain adequate vascular control at the level of the S6 portal pedicle
during parenchymal transection and to better facilitate a round-shaped transec-
tion plane, we propose a different trocar positioning, as shown in Fig. 32.1.
The right subcostal trocar (D) allows retraction of the liver’s inferior surface
and a greater vascular control at the end of the transection procedure, when it
is necessary to control the glissonian pedicle.
A cold-light-source 30° laparoscope is used. The absence of carcinosis
and/or extrahepatic localization of disease is confirmed by a standard
exploratory laparoscopy. Nodule localization, number, volume, and vascular
relationship are determined by intraoperative US. The next step is to approach
the hepatoduodenal ligament to prepare for the eventual Pringle maneuver.
Incision of the pars lucida of the lesser omentum and isolation of the hepatic
pedicle is then performed, and the hilum is subsequently encircled by a tape.
We do not recommend routinely performing a cholecystectomy during S6
LLR.
A liver retractor is used to gently expose the right hepatic lobe and begin
mobilization of the right hemiliver. The triangular ligament is divided by hook
cautery, and the dissection is carried on to the diaphragm medially toward the
IVC. US examination is used to establish the exact transaction plane and posi-
tion of the right hepatic vein. Both positions are then traced on the liver sur-
face by monopolar cautery.
Liver parenchymal transection begins by using monopolar cautery for the
glissonian surface and the very superficial layers. More deeply, it is performed
by US dissection [Cavitron Compact Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA
Excel), Tyco Healthcare] or a US Harmonic scalpel (Ethicon Ultracision
Harmonic ACE, Ethicon, Somerville, NJ, USA). At our center, we more fre-
230 U. Cillo et al.
Fig. 32.1 Trocar positioning for S6

laparoscopic liver resection
D, 5 mm
A, 12 mm
C, 5 mm
B, 12 mm
quently adopt a 5-mm sharp-tip radiofrequency (RF) device (LigaSure Vessel

Sealing System, Valleylab, Tyco, UK), which provides a nice balance between
a gentle dissection and good capability to control small- and medium-size
intraparenchymal vessels.
We consider it advisable to proceed with the parenchymal transection on
both superior and inferior surfaces of S6 and progressively deepening the tran-
section on both sides. This approach favors a progressive and safe approach to
the more significant S6 vessels, in particular, achieving a step-by-step skele-
tonization of P6. S6 vascular hilum, indeed, is usually situated deep in the seg-
ment, below the right hepatic vein. Near the end of parenchymal transection,
the glissonian pedicle is divided by positioning a linear vascular endostapler
(Endo GIA™ Ultra Universal Stapler, Covidien, Mansfield, MA, USA). The
major venous S6 outflow (V6) may be encountered either ventromedially to
the glissonian pedicle in the more frequent presentation, or more dorsally if a
dominant right inferior vein is present. In both cases, it may be controlled and
divided after clip positioning.
After parenchymal transection is completed, accurate hemostasis and bil-
iostasis must be achieved. The transected surface can be sealed with fibrin
glue (Tisseel®; Baxter, Vienna, Austria) to reduce the incidence of biliary fis-
tulas and improve hemostasis.
The liver specimen is extracted using a retrieval bag and removed, without
fragmentation (EndoBag™ Specimen Retrieval, Covidien), to minimize the
risk of neoplastic cells seeding at trocar levels. This is attained after enlarging
one of the trocar sites or by performing a Pfannenstiel incision.
The use of abdominal drainage after LLR is still under debate; an 18-F rub-
ber tube can be used for this purpose and removed on postoperative day 1 or 2
in absence of complications.
References
1. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc J (1992) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor. Surg
Endosc 6:99
2. Topal B, Fieuws S, Aerts R, Vandeweyer H, Penninckx F (2008) Laparoscopic versus open
liver resection of hepatic neoplasms: comparative analysis of short-term results. Surg Endosc
22(10):2208–2013
3. Covey AM, Brown KT (2007) Prevalence of right portal vein branching anomalies. AJR Am
J Roentgenol 188(5):W492
4. Van Leewen MS, Noordzij J, Arancha Fernandez M, Hennipman A, Feldberg MAM, Dillon
EH (1994) Portal venous and segmental anatomy of the right hemiliver. AJR 163:1395–1404
5. Catalano OA, Singh AH, Uppot RN, Hahn PF, Ferrone CR, Sahani DV (2008) Vascular and
biliary variants in the liver: implications for liver surgery. Radiographics 28(2):359–378
7. Belli G, Fantini C, D’Agostino A, Cioffi L, Limongelli P, Russo G, Belli A (2008) Laparo-
scopic segment VI liver resection using a left lateral decubitus position: a personal modified
technique. J Gastrointest Surg 12(12):2221–2226
8. Han HS, Cho JY, Yoon YS (2009) Techniques for performing laparoscopic liver resection in
various hepatic locations. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(4):427–432
9. Cherqui D, Chouillard E, Laurent A, Tayar C (2006) Laparoscopic hepatectomy. Elsevier Mas-
son SAS, Paris, France
Segment 7: Robot-Assisted Approach
33
Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli and Luciano Casciola
33.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) was initially indicated for benign and
peripherally located lesions, suggesting concern about the oncologic effec-
tiveness of these procedures and a fear of massive bleeding when approaching
posterior and superior liver segments [1]. A right hepatectomy remains the
preferred choice for deeply located lesions in segments 7 (S7) and 8 by most
laparoscopic liver surgeons to avoid curved and angulated transection lines
close to the right hepatic vein (RHV) and the inferior vena cava (IVC) [2].
However, in the last few years, the number of minimally invasive complex
liver resections has increased, and even segmentectomies of the posterosupe-
rior (PS) segments have been successfully performed [2–4]. Thus, laparoscop-
ic segmental and subsegmental resection of S7 are an important step toward
the fulfillment, even in minimally invasive surgery, of the principles of
parenchyma preservation that represent the actual trend in the treatment of
both colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma [5].
33.2 S7 Anatomy
S7 is the upper part of the right posterior sector. According to the classifica-
tion of Couinaud, S7 is delimited medially by the RHV, and the blood supply
is maintained by one of the two branches of the common trunk for the poste-
rior sector of the right portal pedicle. More recent anatomical studies describe
A. Patriti ()
Updates in Surgery
Fig. 33.1 Intraoperative

laparoscopic ultrasound showing
the right portal vein (RPV)
branching off P7 and the branch
for the anterior sector. The latter
trifurcates in a small P6 and in
P5 and P8
a complex vascular anatomy of the posterior sector, knowledge of which could

be useful during ultrasound (US) exploration and liver resection. Four vascu-
lar pattern of the posterior portal vein are described. The “arch-like” pattern is
characterized by a common posterior trunk with a curved course upward and
backward, providing several inferior branches for S6 (P6). The trunk for S7
(P7) is a direct continuation of this posterior trunk. In the “simple bifurcation”
pattern, the posterior sectorial trunk branches off into the P6 and P7 trunk. The
“trifurcation” pattern is characterized by an intermediate branch that supplies
an area between S6 and S7. The last group comprises variations involving the
right anterior sectorial branch. The most common variations, accounting for
33.5% of 197 cadaveric dissections, are the tri-furcation forming P6 and P7
and the anterior sectorial trunk (Fig. 33.1) [6]. Therefore, identifying the infe-
rior border of S7 with S6 according to the portal distribution could be demand-
ing and requires careful preoperative workup and accurate intraoperative US
exploration.
The RHV can only be used as the medial border of S7 close to the hepato-
caval confluence, where a distinct trunk is present. More distally, tributaries of
the RHV pass between subsegmental branches of the posterior sector, making
medial definition of S7 and S6 impractical. In nearly 20% of cases, the RHV
is poorly developed, and S7 is drained by one or more accessory veins direct-
ly into the IVC. In this situation, a thick accessory vein draining S7 is present
and can be used as the medial border of S7.
33 Segment 7: Robot-Assisted Approach 235

S7 segmentectomy is challenging due to its deep location and contiguity to the
RHV and IVC. Due to the high risk of bleeding, intermittent pedicle clamping and
low central venous pressure anesthesia are advisable when approaching S7 [7, 8].
To date, the most frequently used laparoscopic approaches to S7 are later-
al and anterior. Both techniques require a 30° reverse-Trendelenburg position
and patient rotation on the left flank in order to facilitate liver mobilization
and IVC dissection. Due to the atypical patient position, pneumoperitoneum is
generally induced with the Veress needle inserted in the right upper quadrant
and maintained during surgery at 10–12 mmHg. Reductions in abdominal
pressures can be applied during RHV and IVC dissection or in case they tear
to avoid gas embolism.
Gumbs and Gayet described the lateral approach in 2008 using convention-
al laparoscopy. The camera port and left operative trocar are inserted
transcostally, whereas the third and forth operative trocars are placed along the
right costal margin. The main advantage of this approach is the frontal view to
S7 and the right hepatocaval confluence. The right triangular and coronal lig-
aments are divided with the Harmonic scalpel or the monopolar scissors. Caval
dissection proceeds in a right to medial direction, clipping and dividing the
accessory veins and right posterior liver ligament and exposing the right hepa-
tocaval confluence. Under US exploration, the borders of S7 are marked with
monopolar forceps on the liver surface, and parenchymal transection can be
carried out using the Harmonic scalpel and the bipolar forceps. Anatomical S7
segmentectomy implies two right-angled resection lines; therefore, the main
transection device can be moved from the transcostal operative trocar for the
inferior border of S7 and the subcostal trocar for the medial border parallel to
the RHV. The main advantage of this approach is the frontal view to S7 and
the ergonomic position of the operative trocars, which allow excellent access
to S7, even with the traditional laparoscopic tools. Our personal criticism to
this approach is the impossibility of safely encircling the liver pedicle to apply
the Pringle maneuver.
The anterior approach was described by our group in 2011 and requires the
use of the articulated arms of the da Vinci robotic system, which is docked
over the patient’s head. The camera port and the left-sided trocars are placed
as close as possible to the right costal margin, whereas the right trocar is
inserted in the intercostal space between the 10th and 11th rib along the scapu-
lar line. At this level, the risk of accidental injury to the lung is very low, and
direct access to the posterolateral segments is provided [7]. Two accessory tro-
cars can be placed along the middle and anterior axillary line or in the umbil-
ical area (Figs. 33.2 and 33.3).
Fig. 33.2 Trocar disposition to robotically

approach segment 7 (S7). Black dots robotic
trocars. White circles 12-mm accessory trocars.
Pringle position to exteriorize the tube for
extracorporeal Pringle maneuver
Pringle
Fig. 33.3 Postoperative aesthetic

outcome of a robot-assisted resection
in segment 7 (S7)
Surgery starts by encircling the liver pedicle for the Pringle maneuver. In
case of a large right lobe, the camera can be inserted in the accessory trocar in
the anterior axillary line or in the umbilical area for better vision. The device
for inflow occlusion is composed of a 20-F chest tube, an umbilical tape, and
a plug used to occlude the Foley catheter. The chest tube is inserted percuta-
neously in the epigastric region. The umbilical tape is passed around the hepa-
toduodenal ligament with the use of an EndoWrist Cadiere forceps (Intuitive
Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Under direct visualization of the Winslow
foramen, the Cadiere forceps easily encircles the hepatoduodenal ligament,
breaking out the pars flaccida of the lesser omentum. The umbilical tape is
then exteriorized through the chest tube with the use of a 5-mm laparoscopic
forceps. The chest tube is finally closed with the plug in order to avoid air loss.
When inflow occlusion is needed, the on-table surgeon removes the plug and
blindly pulls the umbilical tape with the left hand while pushing the tube with
the right hand. When the desired tape tension is achieved, the chest tube is
closed with the plug. Once the device for inflow occlusion is arranged, the
camera can be introduced in its original subcostal port. Monopolar scissors are
inserted in the right robotic arm and the bipolar forceps in the left. The right
triangular and coronal ligaments are divided with the monopolar scissors.
Caval dissection proceeds in a downward to upward direction, clipping and
dividing the accessory veins and the right posterior liver ligament, exposing
the right hepatocaval confluence. The accessory veins are clipped with plastic
locking clips by the on-table assistant and divided by the console surgeon
using the EndoWrist robotic scissors on the right robotic arm. Surgical mar-
gins are marked on a routine basis using the laparoscopic US used by the on-
table assistant. Parenchymal dissection is carried out under intermittent inflow
occlusions using the bipolar forceps in the fashion of the Kelly-clamp crush-
ing technique. Liver dissection starts from the inferior border of S7 and, once
the RHV is reached, proceeds upward along the main RHV trunk. The speci-
men is generally removed through an enlarged port-site protected by an
EndoBag.
The main advantage of this approach is the safety provided by the inflow
occlusion and the robot’s EndoWrist movements that allow fine dissection
along the intraparenchymal portion of the RHV and curved resection lines
without changes in instrument positions.
References
mors located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, with a special reference to overcom-
ing current limitations on tumor location. Surgery 144(1):32–38. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.020
4. Gumbs AA, Gayet B (2008) Video: the lateral laparoscopic approach to lesions in the poste-
rior segments. J Gastrointest Surg 12(7):1154. doi:10.1007/s11605-007-0455-x
5. Torzilli G, Montorsi M, Donadon M, Palmisano A, Del Fabbro D, Gambetti A, Olivari N, Maku-
uchi M (2005) “Radical but conservative” is the main goal for ultrasonography-guided liver
resection: prospective validation of this approach. J Am Colle Surg 201(4):517-528.
doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.04.026
6. Hata F, Hirata K, Murakami G, Mukaiya M (1999) Identification of segments VI and VII of
the liver based on the ramification patterns of the intrahepatic portal and hepatic veins. Clin
Anat 12(4):229–244
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
cheap, and effective technique. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(3):481–485. doi:10.1007/s00423-
011-0887-3
Segment 8: Robot-Assisted Approach
34
Alberto Patriti, Graziano Ceccarelli, Alessandro Spaziani
34.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic resection of segment 8 (S8) is considered particularly demand-
ing due to its vascular anatomy and location in the “dome” of the liver [1]. As
for S7, a right hepatectomy remains the preferred technique of most laparo-
scopic liver surgeons for resecting lesions in S8 in order to avoid complex
transection lines close to the right (RHV) and middle (MHV) hepatic veins
[2]. Therefore, laparoscopic S8 segmentectomy remains purely anecdotal and
reserved to centers with significant experience in laparoscopic (LLS) and
open (OLS) liver surgery. There are no studies designed to investigate the best
minimally invasive approach to S8. However, in the few series in which pos-
terolateral lesions were approached laparoscopically, resection was associated
with higher blood loss, operative time, and conversion rate in respect to resec-
tion of the anterior segments [3]. Introduction of the da Vinci Robotic System
(Intuitive Surgical Inc, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), with its three articulated oper-
ative arms, has made liver transection easier, even for nonlinear resections.
Therefore, it is conceivable that the robot could be useful also to improve the
safety of minimally invasive S8 resection, even though evidence for a routine
robot-assisted S8 segmentectomy is still lacking [4].
34.2 S8 Anatomy
S8 is the anterior–superior area of the liver. According to the classification of
Couinaud, S8 is delimited medially by the MHV and laterally by the RHV, but
A. Patriti ()
Updates in Surgery
more recent studies revealed a discrepancy between the “classical” functional

anatomy of S8 and the relationships between the portal branch to S8 (P8) and
the longitudinal scissurae along the two hepatic veins. Blood supply to S8 is
maintained by one branch arising from the common trunk for the anterior sec-
tor of the right portal pedicle. Takayasu et al. described the division of P8 into
four subsegmental branches, that appear, counterclockwise, as: (a) ventral, (b)
dorsolateral, (c) dorsal, and (d) medial (Figs. 34.1, 34.2) [5]. P8d is the cra-
nially directed subsegmental branch that runs through the space between the
two hepatic veins laterally and S1 dorsally. As described by Cho et al., P8c is
directed cranially and gives rise to branches that cross the RHV, distributing
over the entire dorsocranial area, including the upper part of the area classified
by Couinaud as S7 [6]. Therefore, limits of S8 go beyond the RHV, and differ-
ent types of subsegmentectomies are possible due to its peculiar vascular
anatomy [7].

Due to the high risk of bleeding, intermittent pedicle clamping and low central
venous pressure anesthesia are advisable when approaching S8 [8].
Fig. 34.1 Transverse section of the liver at the level of the hepatocaval confluence. MHV, middle
hepatic vein; RHV, right hepatic vein; P8, portal branches of segment 8
Fig. 34.2 Echographic image showing the transverse section of the liver. P8, portal branches of
segment 8; RHV, right hepatic vein; IVC, inferior vena cava
The patient is placed in the supine position with the lower limbs apart on a
split leg table. The on-table surgeon stands between the patient’s legs. The
scrub nurse and surgical instruments are positioned lateral to the left leg. A
reverse Trendelenburg position is used, and the table is tilted to the left, as
necessary, to take advantage of gravity and liver weight to improve exposure.
The robot cart is docked over the patient’s head.
Pneumoperitoneum is generally induced with the Veress needle inserted in
the left upper quadrant and maintained during surgery at 10-12 mmHg.
Reductions in abdominal pressures can be applied during RHV and MHV dis-
section or if they tear, to avoid gas embolism.
The camera port is inserted supraumbilically. Two 8-mm trocars, one in the
left and one in the right upper quadrant are used for the robotic arms, and two
accessory trocars placed in the umbilical line are used for suction and retrac-
tion by the on-table assistant (Fig. 34.3). Through the same accessory ports,
the on-table assistant can perform the intraoperative ultrasound (US). We sug-
gest using only 12-mm trocars for this purpose. Two robotic instruments are
used: a bipolar Precise forceps and a monopolar scissor.
The round ligament is divided between clips by the robotic articulated scis-
sors on the right arm. The falciform ligament is transected close to the abdom-
inal wall along its length to the confluence of the hepatic veins and inferior
vena cava. This confluence is then carefully dissected in order to identify inser-
Fig. 34.3 Trocar placement. Black dots,

robotic trocars; white circles, accessory
trocars
tion of the RHV and common trunk of the MHV and left (LHV) hepatic vein.
To expose the bare area of the liver, liver mobilization begins by cutting the
right triangular ligament while the assistant lifts up and gradually rotates the
right lobe to the left. The coronal ligament is then divided until reaching the
confluence of the RHV, which is already partially dissected. With US explo-
ration and guidance the borders of S8 are marked on the liver surface with
monopolar forceps, and parenchymal transection can be carried out using the
Kelly-clamp crushing technique under intermittent pedicle clamping. During
division of the inferior boundary, the right anterior sectional pedicle and the S8
pedicle should be sought. Applying Pringle maneuver to obtain a bloodless
operative field is critical and facilitates identification of these pedicles within
the liver, minimizing erroneous ligation of the S5 pedicle. Dissection along the
two hepatic veins is carried out with a gentle Kelly-clamp crushing technique,
clipping small branches with titanium clips and larger structures with plastic
locking clips. The main advantage of using the robot is the possibility to ligate
and suture small defects on the vessel wall. The transection plane is finally
inspected for bleeding and biliary leaks, which can be selectively repaired with
5-0 sutures.
References
mors located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver, with a special reference to over-
coming current limitations on tumor location. Surgery 144(1):32–38. doi:S0039-
6060(08)00215-8 [pii] 10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.020
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
5. Takayasu K, Moriyama N, Muramatsu Y, Shima Y, Goto H, Yamada T (1985) Intrahepatic por-
tal vein branches studied by percutaneous transhepatic portography. Radiology 154(1):31–36
6. Cho A, Okazumi S, Takayama W, Takeda A, Iwasaki K, Sasagawa S, Natsume T, Kono T, Kon-
do S, Ochiai T, Ryu M (2000) Anatomy of the right anterosuperior area (segment 8) of the
liver: evaluation with helical CT during arterial portography. Radiology 214(2):491–495
7. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Palmisano A, Donadon M, Del Fabbro D, Marconi M, Scifo G, Mon-
torsi M (2011) Total or partial anatomical resection of segment 8 using the ultrasound-guid-
ed finger compression technique. HPB (Oxford) 13(8):586–591.
cheap, and effective technique. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(3):481–485.
Left Lateral Sectionectomy:
Laparoscopic Approach 35
Luca Aldrighetti, Francesca Ratti, Federica Cipriani,
Michele Paganelli and Gianfranco Ferla
35.1 Introduction
Interest in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) has increased since first being
described [1], thanks to the possibility of reducing postoperative pain and dis-
ability, shortening hospital stay and time required for functional recovery, the
growing experience in both laparoscopy and hepatic surgery, continual tech-
nological progress, and patient awareness about the benefits of this approach
[2, 3]. Many series are available in the literature regarding laparoscopic resec-
tions of any liver segment, and even major hepatectomies are perfomed in
selected cases [4]. Regardless, the laparoscopic approach is at present sug-
gested as the gold standard only for left lateral sectionectomy [5] (according
to Brisbane classification [6]) or left lobectomy, intending resection of seg-
ments 2 and 3 (S2, S3) (according to Couinaud). Experience gained in recent
years has improved results of this type of surgery, even thanks in part to the
learning-curve effect [7], and has led to continual research of minimal inva-
siveness through the Laparo-Endoscopic Single Site (LESS) surgery, which is
now used also for liver surgery, especially for left lobectomy [8, 9].

For left lateral sectionectomy, the patient is placed in the French position,
with the first surgeon standing between the patient’s legs and one assistant on
each side of the patient. A four-trocar configuration is used (one 5-mm trocar
L. Aldrighetti ()
Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit,
San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University,
Milan, Italy
Updates in Surgery
246 L. Aldrighetti et al.
and three 12-mm trocars), positioned in a rhomboid configuration: one of

these, inserted above the umbilicus, houses the 30° laparoscope. With an open
laparoscopy technique, the first trocar is placed above the umbilicus, and con-
tinuous carbon dioxide (CO2) pneumoperitoneum is induced to a pressure of
12 mmHg.
The liver is examined by direct vision, and intraoperative ultrasonography
(US) is preliminarily performed to confirm lesion nature, number, and size and
define their relationship with intrahepatic vascular structures. The line of
intended resection is outlined with electrocautery marks on the left side of the
falciform ligament. The transection plane is conducted from the convex sur-
face (starting at the left side of the falciform ligament) to the ligamentum
venosum and from the free margin of the liver to the diaphragm. Liver mobi-
lization by sectioning the round, falciform, and triangular ligaments is never
performed at the beginning of the intervention, usually conducted in open sur-
gery, because ligaments suspend the liver without the need for other instru-
ments and allow easy wide opening of the liver during the transection phase.
Several techniques and technologies are available to transect the parenchyma
and are chosen according to the preference of each surgeon, as no clear advan-
tage of one technique over the others has been definitively demonstrated so
far. In our center, a system integrating two surgical instruments – the ultrason-
ic coagulating cutter and the conventional ultrasonic dissector – is used: both
tools are activated by ultrasonic energy produced by a single generator.
However, the two hand pieces are independent and cannot be used at the same
time. Ultrasonic dissection leaves arteries, veins, and bile ducts intact, which
can be sealed and divided using the ultrasonic coagulator for minor structures
or clips for larger ones. Bipolar coagulation with tiny-tip forceps is also exten-
sively used to seal small blood vessels and treat the raw surface of the liver
during transection. The intraparenchymal vascular anatomy is easily defined
using the ultrasonic dissector, so that a decision pertaining to hemostatic tech-
nique can be based on vessel size. Ultrasonic dissection is highly effective in
normal liver, as the presence of the soft and well-hydrated parenchyma
enhances the effects of cavitation, dissolution, and aspiration of liver tissue,
leaving intact collagen-rich structures (blood vessels and bile ducts). In cir-
rhotic livers, the prevalence of fibrotic tissue significantly lowers the efficacy
of US dissection, so that the crushing technique with fine forceps is preferen-
tially used or direct sealing and division of liver parenchyma is performed by
energy-activated devices (i.e., radiofrequency, US). Parenchymal transection
by direct application of several cartridges of mechanical staplers may also be
used in cirrhotic livers. Portobiliary pedicles for the left lobe (S2 and 3) are
reached through a transparenchymal approach, avoiding primary extrahepatic
isolation of vessels. The glissonian plane, including the portobiliary pedicles
for S2 and 3, is dissected free and then transected under direct vision with an
articulated linear stapler charged with vascular cartridges. Two cartridges are
usually needed to complete glissonian plane transection. Only in selected
cases it is possible to separately dissect and identify the single portobiliary
35 Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Laparoscopic Approach 247
pedicles for S2 and 3, and caution is advised not to exceed in this attempt, as
it may be challenging to repair any vascular or biliary lesion during this
maneuver, thus leading to conversion to an open surgery. Caution must also be
taken not to damage the hepatic vein with the edge of the stapler at the time of
glissonian pedicle transection.
The left hepatic vein crosses the transection plane at the edge of the dihe-
dral angle created between the two raw liver surfaces and stands on a more
superficial plane than the glissonian pedicles. Its position should be checked
by direct vision before applying the linear stapler to transect portobiliary pedi-
cles. After glissonian pedicles are divided, alternating use of ultrasonic dissec-
tion and coagulating cutter or bipolar forceps is continued until the left hepat-
ic vein is well recognized and exposed. An extreme dissection of the hepatic
vein may lead to damage, so its preparation should be barely enough to place
the linear stapler, avoiding strictures at the confluence with the middle hepat-
ic vein. Transection of the left hepatic vein usually completes the hepatic
resection.
Left triangular and coronary ligaments are finally divided. The resected
specimen is then placed in a retrieval bag and removed, without fragmentation,
through the umbilical port incision, extending the incision for larger speci-
mens or, in selected cases, through a Pfannenstiel incision. A single, flat
Jackson-Pratt drain is optionally placed in the posterior aspect of the resection
bed through a port site. The Pringle maneuver is not routinely performed in
laparoscopic left lobectomy [10, 11].
The LESS approach implies using an access device consisting of a plastic
disk connected to a plastic ring, which is inserted into the abdomen by a plas-
tic sheath. An introducer device allows single-port introduction. The outer sur-
face of the device has three or four ports, with gel-capped access sites to main-
tain pneumoperitoneum, and an insufflation port. An additional 12-mm tradi-
tional port may be placed to allow dissector and linear stapler introduction just
at the end of parenchymal transection.
35.3 Benefits of Laparoscopy

Since first being described, the laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionec-
tomy has been gaining increasing popularity, especially when compared with
laparoscopic resections for liver lesions located in the right lobe [2]. Currently,
laparoscopy is suggested as the gold standard approach, even though it
requires good experience both in laparoscopic and liver surgery [5, 12]. Its
benefits are well recognized: in general, faster postoperative functional recov-
ery, less pain and therefore fewer analgesics requirements, and comparable
oncological outcomes and incidence of postoperative complications, as
demonstrated by several studies in the literature comparing results in open
(OLS) and LLS [13, 14]. Some studies also report reduced blood loss and
need for transfusions in patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionec-
tomy. The advantages of laparoscopic versus open approach for left lateral sec-
tionectomy have been confirmed by systematic reviews [2, 15]. Literature data
of studies comparing laparoscopic and open left lateral sectionectomy are
summarized in Table 35.1.
Currently, the open approach for left lateral sectionectomy may be reserved
to patients who require synchronous resection of other lesions located in “non-
laparoscopic” segments or to patients with major adhesions resulting from pre-
vious abdominal surgery. Previous surgery must not be considered an absolute
exclusion criterion for the laparoscopic approach, as patients with prior col-
orectal surgery, cholecystectomy, or even liver surgery may be suitable for
laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. The possibility of performing laparo-
scopic left lateral sectionectomy, however, must not influence – or, even
worse, create the indication for – liver resection, so the pool of candidates for
surgery must not be expanded simply because of the widespread application of
minimally invasive techniques, even if some particular patient subsets may
receive the finest benefits from this approach.
In cirrhotic patients undergoing resection for hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC), laparoscopy allows preservation of wall portosystemic shunts and the
round ligament, and perioperative increases in portal pressure with the subse-
quent risks of bleeding and ascites may be reduced. Indeed, a recent meta-analy-
sis [16] comparing results of laparoscopic and open approaches for surgical
resection of HCC showed a significant advantage of laparoscopy in terms of
postoperative complications as a consequence of a lower incidence of ascites.
Medium- and long-term outcomes are comparable with open surgery in
terms of disease-free and overall survival, as demonstrated by previous work
from our group [17]. The potential advantage of laparoscopic liver resection as
a “bridge treatment” before orthotopic liver transplantation has to be validat-
ed yet; however, such an advantage may lie in fewer adhesions, with no nega-
tive impact on the transplantation procedure [18].
Patients affected by liver metastases from colorectal cancer (colorectal
liver metastases – CLM) often require repeated liver resections, as recurrence
after the first resection is frequent (30% of patients present isolated liver
recurrence). Second, third, and even forth liver resections for CLM are actual-
ly reported in the literature [19]. The laparoscopic approach may lower the
incidence and severity of postoperative adherence syndrome so that in patients
with CLM who need reresection for recurrent disease, easier access to the liver
area may be obtained, without limiting even the possibility of a repeat laparo-
scopic resection, if technically indicated.
Not least, the aesthetic result, traditionally considered a secondary outcome
of oncological surgery, may need to be re-evaluated under the perspective of
quality of life impact in the setting of modern oncology and in specific sub-
groups of patients, including left-lobe living donors [18] and resections for
benign disease (adenomas, cystadenomas, hemangiomas, focal nodular hyper-
plasia) [20], even if satisfaction regarding the cosmetic outcome is not yet
specifically investigated in literature series.
Table 35.1 Comparative studies between laparoscopic and open left hepatic lobectomy
Abu Hilal et al. (2008) [21] Aldrighetti et al. (2008) [13] Lesurtel et al. (2003) [22] Tang et al. (2005) [23] Soubrane et al. (2006) [24]
LLLS OLLS P value LLLS OLLS P value LLLS OLLS P value LLLS OLLS P value LLLS OLLS P value
Participants 24 20 - 20 20 - 18 20 - 10 7 - 16 14 -
Sex(M:F) 7:17 10:10 NS 12:8 13:7 NS 7:11 5:15 NS 2:8 3:4 NS 10:6 9:5 0.07
Medianage, years 65 65 NS 63 66 NS 55 47 NS 52 57 NS 29 32 0.10
Indications 0.403472 Not assessed - NS Not assessed - No assessed -
CRM 14 11 1 1
HCC 1 2 4 4
FNH 2 4 3 3
Others 4 7 10 10
Median operative NS NS <0.01 0.007 <0.005
time, mins 180 155 260 220 202 145 232 150 320 244
Morbidity, % NS NS NS NS NS
13 25 10 25 11 15 20 57 19 36
35 Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Laparoscopic Approach
Median blood 0.002 0.001 <0.05 NS <0.005

loss, ml 80 470 165 214 236 429 350 400 19 200
Median hospital <0.001 0.003 NS 0.019 NS
stay, days 3,5 7 4.50 5.80 8 10 8 14 7.5 8.1
Median resection NS Not assessed - Not assessed - Not assessed - Not assessed -
margin, mm 12 11
LLLS, laparascopic left lateral sectionectomy; OLLS, open left lateral sectionectomy.
249
The LESS approach represents an attempt to further minimize surgical

invasiveness. The typical triangulation of laparoscopy, facilitated by tradition-
al instruments and the laparoscope, is lacking, and the in-line vision gives the
operator the impression of impaired vision. However, the main difficulty
encountered by the surgeon is the conflict between hands outside the abdomen
and among instruments into the abdomen. The LESS approach has already
been described for many surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy, colon
resection, nephrectomy, and recently also for liver resection [8].
The actual benefits on clinical outcome due to a smaller incision are not yet
clear. Significant differences cannot be expected to emerge as strong as those
when comparing open and laparoscopic procedures, as the biological scenario is
almost the same. Nevertheless, recent work by our group shows that the LESS
approach in liver resection is feasible, safe, and at least not inferior to the stan-
dard laparoscopic resection in terms of complications and clinical outcome [9].
35.4 Conclusion
Laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy has gained wide accept-
ance, thanks to its safety and efficacy: many series from the literature are
available and demonstrate significant advantages in terms of short term out-
come when compared to open access, without impairing long term results in
the treatment of both benign and malignant liver lesions. Laparoscopic
approach is now considered a gold standard for resection of S2 and S3, even
though requiring a good expertise in both laparoscopic and hepatic surgery to
complete the learning curve.
References
1. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Jacobs C, Crema E (1994) Laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy
(left hepatic lobectomy). Endosurgery 1:7–9
2. Pulitanò C, Aldrighetti L (2008) The current role of laparoscopic liver resection for the treat-
ment of liver tumors. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 5:648–654
3. Reddy SK, Tsung A, Geller A (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection. World J Surg 35:1478–1486
4. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O'Rourke N et al; World Consensus Conference on Laparo-
scopic Surgery (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville
statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
5. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Brondello S, Calmes MO, Philippe P, Schmitz B (2009) Laparoscop-
ic liver sectionectomy 2 and 3 (LLS 2 and 3): towards the “gold standard”. J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Surg 16:422–426
6. Terminology Committee of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (2000) The
IHPBA Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB (Oxford) 2:333–339
7. Viganò L, Laurent A, Tayar C, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Cherqui D (2009) The learning curve in
laparoscopic liver resection. Improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250:772–782
8. Aldrighetti L, Guzzetti E, Ferla G (2011) Laparoscopic hepatic left lateral sectionectomy us-
ing the LaparoEndoscopic Single Site approach: evolution of minimally invasive liver sur-
gery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18:103–105
35 Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Laparoscopic Approach 251
9. Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, Catena M, Pulitanò C, Cipriani F, Ferla G (2012) Laparoendoscopic

single site (LESS) surgery for left-lateral hepatic sectionectomy as an alternative to tradition-
al laparoscopy: case-matched analysis from a single center. Surg Endosc 26(7):2016–2022
10. Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M, Guzzetti E, Comotti L, Ferla G, Aldrighetti L (2008) Laparo-
scopic liver resection without portal clamping: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc
22:2196–2200
11. Aldrighetti L, Pulitanò C, Arru M, Catena M, Guzzetti E, Casati M, Ferla G (2008) Ultrason-
ic-mediated laparoscopic liver transection. Am J Surg 195:270–272
12. Chang S, Laurent A, Tayar C, Karoui M, Cherqui D (2007) Laparoscopy as a routine approach
for left lateral sectionectomy. Brit J Surg 94:58–63
13. Aldrighetti L, Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M, Guzzetti E, Casati M, Comotti L, Ferla G (2008)
A prospective evaluation of laparoscopic versus open left lateral hepatic sectionectomy. J Gas-
trointest Surg 12:457–462
14. Zhou YM, Shao WY, Zhao YF, Xu DH, Li B (2011) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open
resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 56:1937–1943
15. Viganò L, Tayar C, Laurent A, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic
review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(4):410–421
16. Aldrighetti L, Guzzetti E, Pulitanò C, Cipriani F, Catena M, Paganelli M, Ferla G (2010) Case-
matched analysis of totally laparoscopic versus open liver resection for HCC: short and mid-
dle term results. J Surg Oncol 102:82–86
17. Zhou YM, Shao WY, Zhao YF, Xu DH, Li B (2011) Meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open
resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 56:1937–1943
18. Troisi R, Van Huysse J, Berrevoet F, Vandenbossche B, Sainz-Barriga M, Vinci A, Ricciardi
S, Bocchetti T, Rogiers X, de Hemptinne B (2011) Evolution of laparoscopic left lateral sec-
tionectomy without the Pringle manuevre: through resection of benign and malignant tumors
19. Adam R, Pascal G, Azoulay D, Tanaka K, Castaign D, Bismuth H (2003) Liver resection for
colorectal metastases: the third hepatectomy. Ann Surg 238(6):871–883
20. Ardito F, Tayar C, Laurent A, Karoui M, Loriau J, Cherqui D (2007) Laparoscopic liver re-
section for benign disease. Arch Surg 142(12):1188–1193
21. Abu Hilal M, Mc Phail MJ, Zeidan B et al (2008) Laparoscopic versus open left lateral he-
patic sectionectomy: A comparative study. Eur J Surg Oncol 34:1285-8
22. Lesurtel M, Cherqui D, Laurent A, Tayar C, Fagniez PL (2003) Laparoscopic versus open left
lateral hepatic lobectomy: a case-control study. J Am Coll Surg 196:236-42
23. Tang CN, Tai CK, Ha JP, Siu WT, Tsui KK, Li MK (2005) Laparoscopy versus open left lat-
eral segmentectomy for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis. Surg Endosc 19:1232-6
24. Soubrane O, Cherqui D, Scatton O et al (2006) Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in
living donors: safety and reproducibility of the technique in a single center. Ann Surg
244:815-20
Right Hepatectomy:
Michael D. Kluger and Daniel Cherqui
36.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) has become increasingly common [1, 2]. A
recent international position paper maintains that LLS is a safe and effective
approach to the management of surgical liver disease in selected patients in
the hands of trained surgeons [3]. However, most procedures are limited
resections, and only 9% of nearly 3,000 cases reported in the international lit-
erature are right hepatectomies [4], as it remains a challenging procedure.
After a brief discussion of patient selection and necessary devices, we
herein describe the technical aspects of the laparoscopic anterior approach for
right hepatectomy in four stages: (1) patient positioning, port placement, peri-
toneal cavity and liver inspection, and ultrasonography; (2) approach, pedicle
control, anterior liver mobilization, hilar-plate dissection; (3) marking the
liver, parenchymal dissection, hemostasis, and bile-duct ligation; (4) speci-
men extraction, cholangiography, and drainage.
36.2 Patient Selection and Evaluation

Lesion location and, to a lesser extent, size are the most important determi-
nants of when laparoscopic resection is appropriate. In the case of right hepa-
tectomy, we recommend lesions that are not intact with the hilum, main hepat-
ic veins, or the inferior vena cava. We consider large tumors (i.e. > 8 cm) rel-
ative contraindications to a laparoscopic approach. Formal contraindications
D. Cherqui ()
Section of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation
New York Presbyterian Hospital – Weill Cornell Medical Center,
New York, USA
Updates in Surgery
254 M. D. Kluger and D. Cherqui
remain gallbladder cancer and hilar cholangiocarcinoma, the need for com-
plete vascular occlusion, and whether oncologic principles could be better
served via laparotomy. High-quality imaging with vascular reconstruction is
necessary to understand the patient’s intrahepatic arterial, portal, and biliary
anatomy.
36.3 Essential Operating Room Equipment
36.3.1 The Laparoscopic Operating Room
• All laparoscopic equipment must be state of the art and in good working
order
• Adjustable, remote-controlled electric split-leg table
• Monitors placed lateral to each shoulder of the patient, with a hanging
monitor above the patient’s head
• One to two carbon dioxide insufflators maintaining a pneumoperitoneum of
12 mmHg
• Ultrasound with B and D modes and a high-frequency laparoscopic trans-
ducer
• Energy vessel-sealing device
• Ultrasonic dissector device
• Set of readily available conventional open instruments.
36.3.2 Necessary Laparoscopic Instruments
• A 10-mm 30° laparoscope

• Atraumatic bowel graspers
• Curved and right-angle dissectors
• Scissors
• Needle drivers
• Liver retractor
• Bipolar diathermy forceps
• Monopolar diathermy hook
• Articulated vascular linear stapler (30-mm and 45-mm vascular cartridges)
• Suction irrigator
• Umbilical tape and a 4- to 6-cm 16-F rubber tube to serve as a tourniquet
• Titanium clip applier, small and medium
• Plastic locking clip applier, medium and large
• Endoscopic bag
• 5-0 monofilament sutures cut to 20–30 cm.
36 Right Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach 255
Fig. 36.1 View of the recommended operating room setup from the patient’s right foot
36.4 The Procedure
36.4.1 Stage 1
36.4.1.1 Patient Positioning

The patient is placed in the supine position with the lower limbs apart on a
split-leg table. The right arm is padded and tucked at the side. The surgeon
stands between the patient’s legs, with an assistant seated at each side. The
scrub nurse and instruments are positioned lateral to the patient’s right leg
(Fig. 36.1). A Mayo stand positioned over the patient’s right leg holds the most
commonly utilized instruments. Reverse Trendelenburg position is used, tilt-
ing the table laterally as necessary to take advantage of gravity and the weight
of the liver to improve exposure.
36.4.1.2 Port Placement

Five trocars are placed (Fig. 36.2):
• 1 × 12-mm port placed supraumbilically for the camera
• 2 × 12-mm paramedian ports are the working ports
• 2 × 5-mm lateral ports to be used for retraction.
The open technique is used to insert the camera port, and the remaining
four ports are placed under direct vision generally following the profile of the
liver in a curve from right to left.
Fig. 36.2 Trocar placement for laparoscopic

right hepatectomy
36.4.1.3 Inspection of the Peritoneal Cavity and Liver,

and Ultrasonography
A thorough inspection of the peritoneal cavity for gross pathology is per-
formed. Laparoscopic ultrasonography is performed to confirm lesion location
and assess vascular anatomy.
36.4.2 Stage 2
36.4.2.1 Approach
A laparoscopic right hepatectomy can be performed from an anterior approach
(i.e., transection without posterior mobilization of the right liver) or the con-
ventional approach. The latter entails mobilization of the right liver, dissection
off the inferior vena cava, and extrahepatic control of the right hepatic vein
prior to transection; the use of a hand port may be useful in this setting. The
hilar dissection is the same for both approaches. The pure laparoscopic anteri-
or approach is presented here.
36.4.2.2 Anterior Liver Mobilization

The round ligament is divided using a vessel-sealing device. The falciform lig-
ament is transected close to the abdominal wall along its length to the conflu-
ence of the hepatic veins and inferior vena cava. This confluence is then care-
fully dissected in order to identify the insertion of the right hepatic vein and
common trunk of the middle and left hepatic veins.
36.4.2.3 Pedicle Control

A tourniquet can be constructed in case a Pringle maneuver is necessitated. A
blunt bowel grasper is gently passed through the most lateral right 5-mm port
under the hepatoduodenal ligament and through the pars flaccida. An umbilical
tape is then handed to the bowel grasper – encircling the hepatoduodenal liga-
ment – and extracorporeally inserted through a 16-F rubber tube and returned to
the abdomen. To clamp, a laparoscopic instrument grasps the ends of the tape,
pulling it taught, while a laparoscopic locking-clip applier pushes the tubing
toward the pedicle and applies a clip. We do not routinely use pedicle clamping
for right hepatectomies, as the specimen is devascularized prior to transection.
36.4.2.4 Hilar-Plate Dissection

The gallbladder and distal cystic duct can be used as “handles” to improve
exposure of the transection plane after division of the cystic duct and cystic
artery. The gallbladder is retracted to the patient’s right, and the distal cystic
duct is retracted to the patient’s left, exposing the short course of the extrahep-
atic right pedicle. The right hepatic artery is circumferentially dissected for a
distance of 1–2 cm and encircled with a tape to retract it away and protect the
other hilar structures. After visualization of the contralateral arterial branch,
the right hepatic artery is divided between plastic locking clips. If present, a
replaced right hepatic artery is ligated and divided.
Right hepatic artery division greatly improves visualization of the right
portal vein. It will often be necessary to ligate a small vein feeding segment 1
(S1) from the right portal vein with an electrosurgical device to safely dissect
the right portal branch. This is now dissected circumferentially along its short
extrahepatic course and a tape passed around it. The bifurcation and left por-
tal branch must be clearly visualized. When transecting the right portal vein
with a linear stapler, the tape should be pulled to the patient’s left so as to dis-
place the bifurcation to the left and lengthen the right branch. When possible,
intraparenchymal dissection to the first-order branches of the hepatic artery
and portal veins limits the risk of damaging the hilar structures.
36.4.3 Stage 3
36.4.3.1 Marking the Liver

Based on vascular demarcation, the transection plane is outlined on the liver
capsule with monopolar diathermy.
36.4.3.2 Parenchymal Dissection, Hemostasis, and Bile-Duct Ligation

For the peripheral transection (i.e., first 2 cm in depth), the Harmonic scalpel
or LigaSure are efficient instruments. Deeper in the liver parenchyma, larger
vascular structures are encountered. These can be damaged by blind dissec-
tion, especially fragile hepatic venous branches, and we recommend using an
ultrasonic dissector to identify the structures.
Vascular and biliary structures <3 mm are ligated and transected using
bipolar diathermy or vessel-sealing devices. Larger structures are ligated using
plastic locking clips. Laparoscopic staplers with 2.5 mm depth vascular loads
are used for the glissonian pedicle and right hepatic vein.
Parenchymal transection is started at the inferior edge of the liver in the
anterior-to-posterior and caudad-to-cephalad directions along the demarcation
line. As progress is made cranially, the proximal hepatic veins draining S5 and
S8 toward the middle hepatic vein are exposed, clipped, and divided.
Hilar-plate dissection and division of the right intraparenchymal bile ducts
allows the transection plane to be opened widely for progression of parenchy-
mal transection. At the hilar plate, the right bile duct is circumferentially dis-
sected until the anterior and posterior branches are visualized, at which point
the duct can be divided with locking clips or the stapler. It will be necessary
to next divide the connective tissue junction between the right lobe and S1
with diathermy to fully expose the retrohepatic cava.
As parenchymal transection progresses posteriorly and cephalad, the pos-
terior capsule of the liver is divided with sharp dissection and monopolar
diathermy along the anterior surface of the cava while systematically clipping
and dividing the small bridging veins.
The right hepatic vein is identified at its insertion into the vena cava and cir-
cumferentially dissected. An umbilical tape is placed around the vessel and
retracted to the right in order to elongate the vein prior to transection with an
articulating linear stapler. This prevents impingement on the inferior vena cava.
The specimen is now retracted to the right as the hepatocaval ligament is
transected with multiple clips or a single firing of the linear stapler. Finally,
the attachments of the specimen to the diaphragm are freed with electrosurgi-
cal instruments.
36.4.4 Stage 4
36.4.4.1 Specimen Extraction

In the virgin abdomen, specimens are removed through a Pfannenstiel incision.
Alternatively, specimens can be removed by opening pre-existing incisions.
Regardless of the chosen incision, the abdominal wall is incised to the fascia,
and a 15-mm trocar is inserted at the center of the incision under direct laparo-
scopic vision. A large-capacity endoscopic bag is introduced and the specimen
retained. The specimen is then retracted against the fascia, and the fascia and
peritoneum are opened only as much as necessary for retrieval. The fascial lay-
ers are reapproximated, and pneumoperitoneum is reintroduced. The operative

site is lavaged and examined for hemostasis and biliary-tract integrity.
36.4.4.2 Cholangiography, Drainage, and Closure

Intraoperative cholangiography is not routinely performed; however, a cholan-
giogram catheter can be inserted through the cystic duct for methylene blue
injection or radiographic cholangiography, if necessary. Because of the large
dead space created, a 10-F closed-circuit suction drain is placed in the sub-
phrenic space. The falciform ligament is reattached to the diaphragm with
monofilament sutures to avoid torsion of the left lobe. The skin and port site
incisions are closed with absorbable subcuticular sutures.
References
study in 30 patients. Ann Surg 232(6):753–762
2. Bryant R, Laurent A, Tayar C, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection-understanding
its role in current practice: the Henri Mondor Hospital experience. Ann Surg 250(1):103–111
surgery: The Louisville Statement. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
Right Hepatectomy:
Robot-Assisted Approach 37
David Calatayud and Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti
37.1 Introduction
Liver surgery has advanced more than any other type of surgery since the
early 1980s. This development is partly due to advances in technology and
surgical instrumentation, as well as in anesthetic management of patients. In
fact, indications for extended liver surgery interventions being performed
today were thought of as unthinkable practice just a few decades ago.
In 1957, Couinaud [1] described the functional anatomy of the liver based
on the distribution of portal pedicles and hepatic veins. This distribution of
liver segments is still vital when planning liver surgery using the classifica-
tion of Brisbane [2]. The open approach continues as the predominant one in
liver surgery, despite great enthusiasm following the development and growth
of laparoscopy since the early 1990s. In fact, in some high-volume centers
with skilled surgeons, laparoscopy is now the method of choice when per-
forming left lateral sectionectomy [resection of segments 2 and 3 (S2 and 3)],
or when lesions are located in anterior segments [3–7]. However, major resec-
tions (removal of three or more segments) are typically performed using the
open approach.
In our experience, the robot-assisted approach is distinctly different from
laparoscopy for this type of surgery. Following a single-surgeon experience of
47 major resections, 31 of which were right hepatectomies (Table 37.1) [8, 9]
we found major liver resection using the robot to be not only feasible but also
advantageous, creating the ideal gateway for minimally invasive surgery of
the liver (MISL).
D. Calatayud ()
Division of General, Minimally Invasive, and Robotic Surgery,
Department of Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, IL, USA
Updates in Surgery
262 D. Calatayud and P. C. Giulianotti
Table 37.1 Major liver resections performed using the robotic approach (single-surgeon
experience)
Procedure No.
Right hepatectomy 31
Left hepatectomy 5
Extended right hepatectomy 4
Trisegmentectomy or multiple (>3) liver segment resection 4
Of all hepatic resections performed, right hepatectomy is the most com-

monly performed worldwide, and its technique is well standardized. In this
chapter, we describe the surgical steps of this technique using the robot-assist-
ed approach.
37.2.1 Patient and Trocar Positions
The patient is placed in a mild reverse-Trendelenburg position, with left later-

al decubitus. Pneumoperitoneum is made using a Veress needle in the left
upper quadrant, maintaining a pressure of 15 mmHg. Four trocars are placed
for the robot: one in the right pararectal position for the camera, two 8-mm tro-
cars in the right flank and left pararectal, respectively, and another 8-mm tro-
car for the fourth arm in the left flank. Two laparoscopic trocars are also
added, to be used by the assistant. These are placed in the periumbilical loca-
tion and between the camera trocar and the left-arm trocar (Fig. 37.1).
37.2.2 Intraoperative Ultrasound
Intraoperative ultrasound (US) is performed routinely, which allows delin-

eation of the lesion to be resected, its relationship to vascular structures to be
evaluated, and additional lesions to be detected. The entire liver should be
explored, always using the same steps (see Chap. 13).
37.2.3 Hepatic Hilum Dissection
After performing a cholecystectomy, the hepatic hilum is dissected using the

monopolar hook with the right arm of the robot and the bipolar forceps with the
left. The first element to dissect is the right hepatic artery, sectioning between
ligatures. Once this is complete, the right portal vein is dissected, with special
attention given to the additional branches of varying size (from small/medium
37 Right Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach 263
Fig. 37.1 Trocar positioning. Green robotic camera;

red robotic trocars for instruments; yellow laparo-
scopic trocars (assistant trocars)
branches to the caudate lobe up to a possible portal trifurcation). After section-

ing the right portal vein between hemoclips, we prefer to place a security stitch
using 5-0 polypropylene in the right portal vein proximal stump.
Biliary tree dissection and evaluation requires special attention because
sectioning will be made either at this time or later during the procedure,
depending upon the location of the biliary bifurcation (extrahepatic, more or
less proximal). Modern visualization technology with indocyanine green
clearance (IGC) fluorescence enables extrahepatic biliary tree evaluation with-
out requiring any invasive procedure; this is due to the physical characteristics
of IGC, which allow unique hepatic metabolism and biliary excretion.
37.2.4 Hepatocaval Dissection (Piggyback Technique)
Use of the fourth arm is instrumental in completing this step because it helps
separate the liver to the top and left. We use gauze between the instrument and
the liver to prevent injury. The first step is to section the right triangular liga-
ment using the hook. The Harmonic scalpel can also be used if the ligament is
thickened. Next, we section the right triangular ligament to the right hepatic
vein (RHV) then dissect the right hepatic lobe from the retroperitoneum above
the right kidney up to the vena cava. At this point, we dissect the space
between the vena cava and liver (piggyback), sectioning between hemoclips
on the venous branches. For safety reasons, we also apply 5-0 polypropylene
stitches on the side of the vena cava. A hepatocaval dissection is then made up
to the RHV drainage.
37.2.5 Hepatic Parenchymal Transection
Prior to liver transection, we prepare the hilum for a Pringle maneuver if it

becomes necessary. We use tape and a silicone tube to introduce both ends of
the tape and apply two clips. In our experience, the Pringle maneuver has been
required in one case only.
Ischemic delineation of transection along Cantlie’s line [10] is marked fol-
lowing sectioning of vascular vessels of the right hepatic lobe. The monopolar
hook can be used to mark this line and open the capsule of Glisson, although
it is not mandatory. Prior to starting the transection, we apply 4-0 polypropy-
lene stitches on each side of the Cantlie line in the edge of the liver.
Transection is performed using the HARMONIC scalpel, closing gradually as
monopolar energy is applied. Transection is performed layer by layer, from
superficial to deep, opening the liver as with a book. This is made possible by
using the polypropylene stitches initially applied. When vascular branches that
cross between the right and left lobes are encountered, we ligate them. It is
preferable to apply the hemoclips before sectioning. However, if this is not
possible, or if the veins are broken, bipolar cautery can be used in smaller ves-
sels and 4-0 polypropylene stitches in larger vessels. This maneuver is possi-
ble due to the articulation ability and degrees of freedom of movement of the
robotic instruments.
Upon reaching the area of the RHV, a mechanical stapler is used to section
the vein and complete the transection. Occasionally, depending upon patient
and local conditions, the endoscopic stapler is needed prior to reaching the
RHV. Once the transection is complete, we check for hemostasis and bile
leakage on the transected surface; hemostatic glue is applied, if needed. The
surgical specimen is then extracted in an EndoBag through a Pfannenstiel
minilaparotomy incision. Surgical hemostasis and trocar orifices are again
evaluated (Fig. 37.2).
37.3 Discussion
The robot-assisted surgical procedure follows the identical steps as those for
the standardized open approach. This may be part of the reason for the success
of robot-assisted surgery, as it requires no change to the standard technique
while offering to the hepatic surgeon advantages that are not found with the
laparoscopic approach. It is important to note, however, that because using the
robotic approach is not standardized for major liver surgery, it represents a
37 Right Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach 265
a b
c d
e f
g h
Fig. 37.2 Robot-assisted right hepatectomy. a Right hepatic artery dissection; b biliary bifurcation
dissection; c right hepatic duct section; d right portal vein dissection; e hepatocaval dissection
(piggyback); f liver parenchymal transection; g right hepatic vein section; h end of the surgery,
remnant left hepatic lobe
major change in the field of MISL when compared with the laparoscopic
approach. However, in the hands of skilled liver surgeons, this approach can
help to significantly expand indications for liver surgery in a minimally inva-
sive environment.
References
1. Couinaud C (1957) Le foie: etudes anatomiques et chirurgicales. Masson, Paris
2. Strasberg SM, Belghiti J, Clavien PA et al (2000) The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anato-
my and resections. HPB Surg 2:333–339
surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Sur-
gery. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
4. Shafaee Z, Kazaryan AM, Marvin MR et al (2011) Is laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy fea-
sible? A tri-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg 212(2):171–179
5. Cherqui D, Belghiti J (2009) Hepatic surgery. What progress? What future? Gastroenterol Clin
Biol 33(8-9):896–902
7. Gayet B, Cavaliere D, Vibert E et al (2007) Totally laparoscopic right hepatectomy. Am J Surg
194(5):685–689
technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850
tions. Surgery 149(1):29–39
10. Cantlie J (1897) On a new arrangement of the right and left lobes of the liver. Proceedings –
Anatomical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 32:4–9
Left Hepatectomy:
Fulvio Calise, Piero Atelli, Antonio Giuliani, Vincenzo Scuderi
and Aldo Rocca
38.1 Introduction
Since the first laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy, reported by Azagra et al.

in 1996 [1], major laparoscopic hepatectomies have become increasingly fre-
quent: in a 2009 world review of almost 3,000 laparoscopic liver resections
(LLR), 7 % were left hepatectomies [2]. Several studies show the safety and
feasibility of major LLR in the hands of surgeons who are expert in both liver
and laparoscopic surgery [3, 4]. The Louisville Conference in 2008 estab-
lished that there is no formal contraindication to minimally invasive surgery
of the liver (MISL), even for major hepatectomies, provided that established
guidelines are attentively followed [5].
In this respect, we recommend not to operate lesions involving major ves-
sels and, anyway, with a size over 7-8 cm. Currently there is a formal con-
traindication to operate Klatskin tumors.
The advantages of MISL are well known: reduced blood loss, morbidity,
and hospital stay [6]. For the left liver in particular, the laparoscopic camera
allows magnificent exposition of left branches of the artery and portal vein
and on the left of the liver ligaments.
38.2 Left Liver Anatomy
The left liver comprises segments (S) 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to the Couinaud
classification. These segments receive the arterial inflow from the left branch
F. Calise ()
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
of the hepatic artery: in 8% of cases, a supplementary left artery arises from

the gastric artery. The laparoscopic view allows easy identification of this
anatomical variant. Venous inflow is assured by the left branch of the portal
vein, providing tributaries on the left side of S1 before entering the liver. The
left biliary duct is usually longer than the right one. Outflow is provided by the
median (MHV) and left (LHV) hepatic veins, which generally merge before
entering the vena cava.
38.3 Essential Operating Room Equipment
38.3.1 The Laparoscopic Operating Room
• An adjustable table
• Two monitors
• One or two carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflators maintaining pneumoperi-
toneum of 12 mmHg
• Ultrasound with B and D modes, and a high-frequency laparoscopic transducer
• Energy vessel-sealing device
• Ultrasonic dissector device
• Readily available set of conventional open surgery instruments for possible
rapid conversion.
38.3.2 Necessary Laparoscopic Instruments
• A 10- mm 30° laparoscope

• Atraumatic bowel graspers
• Curved and right-angle dissectors
• Scissors
• Needle drivers
• Liver retractor
• Satinsky forceps
• Bipolar diathermy forceps
• Monopolar diathermy hook
• Articulated vascular linear stapler (30-mm and 45-mm vascular cartridges)
• Suction irrigator
• Umbilical tape
• Titanium clip appliers, small and medium
• EndoBag
• 5-0 monofilament sutures cut to 20–30 cm
38 Left Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach 269
38.4.1 Patient Position
The patient is positioned in the supine decubitus with the legs apart. The sur-
geon stands between the legs with one assistant on either side of the patient.
Two monitors are positioned, one on either side of the patient’s head. The bed
is positioned in reverse Trendelenburg with a slight right inclination, which
allows better exposition of the liver.
38.4.2 Port Placement
Pneumoperitoneum is made with an open umbilical access. Generally, we use

four trocars, the first for the 30° camera in the umbilical port and the others
positioned under direct visualization, two of 10-12 mm in the right and left
flank and one trocar of 4 mm in the epigastric region: The fifth trocar is
optional; it may be required for the Pringle maneuver and is positioned on the
right anterior axillary line, 2 cm above the umbilical line (Fig. 38.1)

Fig. 38.2
38.4.3 Exploration and Pedicle Preparation
The procedure starts with complete exploration of the abdominal cavity and
liver surface. An intraoperative ultrasound (US) of the liver is necessary to
direct surgical strategy; it requires a preliminary section of the falciform liga-
ment to allow exploration of the entire liver surface (Fig. 38.2). The first step
is resection of the round ligament close to the liver. It could be temporarily
saved, especially in cirrhotic patients, to preserve collateral circles; the liga-
ment and the gallbladder will be used to help the surgeon handle the liver dur-
ing parenchymal resection (Fig. 38.3).
The second step is to encircle the pedicle by inserting behind it a
Roticulator Endo Grasp to prepare for the Pringle maneuver, which may be
needed at any time. A vessel loop is then passed and secured with two medi-
um clips (Fig. 38.3) We then proceed to identify the left elements of the pedi-
cle (Fig. 38.4). First is the left branch of the hepatic artery and, if is present,
left hepatic artery in the lesser omentum. The artery is released from the soft
tissue of the hepatoduodenal ligament with the assistance of an ultrasonic
dissector. Once the artery is released, we pass and encircle it with a vessel
loop. A little traction on the loop toward the right side allows good exposi-
tion of the left branch of the portal vein. Usually, the left branch tends to
have a longer extrahepatic course, so it is not so difficult to free the vessel
from the connective soft tissue and wind it with a vessel loop. Each vessel is
confirmed with US. Following temporary clamping of the left branches, the
liver shows a clear demarcation line between the vascularized and ischemic
Fig. 38.3
Fig. 38.4
segments. This prudent approach allows exclusion of any anatomical variant.

The artery is then divided between two clips; the left branch of the portal
vein is also divided between clips, or if large, by a linear vascular stapler.
Fig. 38.5
38.5 Left Liver Mobilization

Left liver mobilization begins by dissecting the falciform ligament all the way
up with the HARMONIC stapler to visualize merging of the MHV and LHV
into the vena cava. Dissection continues along the left coronal and triangular
ligaments. We do not suggest trying to isolate the common trunk because of
the potential risk of massive and uncontrollable bleeding. Thanks to laparo-
scopic visualization, this dissection may be carried out easily. Liberation ends
with the dissection of the lesser omentum.
38.6 Parenchymal Transection

After vascular demarcation, the section line is outlined using monopolar coag-
ulation. We usually perform the transection under intermittent pedicle clamp-
ing, as in open surgery (15’+5’). Soft traction on the round ligament applied
by the assistant toward the left can be useful to open the transection angle.
Parenchymal tissue is crushed, and the biliary and vascular structures are
skeletonized and coagulated by using the ultrasonic dissector if <3 mm. Larger
vessels, such as venous branches tributaries of S4 are closed using a vascular
linear stapler or clips and then cut by scissors (Fig. 38.5).
During declamping, we check the transection surface and coagulate all
bleeding sources using a bipolar forceps continuously irrigated to improve
hemostatic power. The left bile duct is then reached intraparenchymally and
divided using two clips or, alternatively, a linear stapler. Finally, MHV and
LHV are cut through using a linear 45/60-mm vascular stapler. Residual liver
tissue is then sectioned using the ultrasonic dissector.
38.7 Specimen Extraction

The resected portion of the liver is placed in a high-capacity EndoBag and
placed in the right flank. A Pfannenstiel incision is the better choice for
retracting the specimen, particularly in the presence of previous open surgery.
Alternatively, the umbilical incision, properly enlarged, may be used.
After reintroducing pneumoperitoneum, accurate hemostatic control and
biliostasis is performed. Fibrin glue may be placed on resection surfaces to
help preventing them from bleeding and biliary fistula in the postoperative
course. A suction drain is positioned under the liver through the Winslow fora-
men. The umbilical port site is closed with separate stitches. Skin is then
closed with nonabsorbable sutures.
References
1. Azagra JS, Goergen M, Gilbart E, Jacobs D (1996) Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lat-
eral segmentectomy-technical aspects. Surg Endosc 10(7):758–761
2. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopicliver resection-2,804
tion in standard of care. Ann Surg 250(5):856–860
4. Nguyen KT, Geller DA (2010) Laparoscopic liver resection-current update. Surg Clin North
Am 90(4):749–760
6. Nguyen KT, Marsh JW, Tsung A, Steel JJ, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2011) Comparative ben-
efitsof laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg 146(3):348–556
Left Hepatectomy:
Robot-Assisted Approach 39
Ugo Boggi, Stefano Signori, Fabio Caniglia,
Mario Belluomini and Carla Cappelli
39.1 Introduction
Laparoscopy is now the standard approach for left lateral segmentectomy and
is the preferred method for resection of liver tumors measuring <5 cm locat-
ed in anterior segments [1, 2]. In properly selected patients managed at high-
volume centers, laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) is associated with reduced
blood loss, diminished need for blood transfusions, low rate of microscopical-
ly positive margins, and improved outcome in cirrhotic patients [3]. Despite
the fact that gifted hepatic surgeons facile with complex laparoscopic maneu-
vers have successfully performed posterior segmentectomies and major hepa-
tectomies [1–3], the inherent limitations of the laparoscopic technique have
significantly limited its acceptance for challenging hepatic resections [1, 2].
The da Vinci Surgical System (dVSS) (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale,
CA, USA) is an electromechanical actuator transmitting the movements of the
surgeon’s hands to the tip of miniaturized instruments that have seven degrees
of freedom, unlike the human wrist, and can articulate up to 90°. EndoWrist
technology eliminates the fulcrum effect and provides the surgeon with the
same level of dexterity as during open surgery. Further, the dVSS eliminates
the surgeon’s natural hand tremor and provides a steady, high-definition,
stereoscopic, view, improves hand–eye coordination, allows movement scal-
ing into micromotions, and provides optimal working ergonomics [4]. These
tremendous technological improvements are particularly rewarding when fine
dissection or suturing within deep and narrow spaces is required. In this
respect, using the dVSS for major hepatectomy and/or resection of posterior
U. Boggi ()
Department of Oncology, Transplants, and New Technologies
University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Updates in Surgery
276 U. Boggi et al.
liver segments could be particularly useful. Robotic assistance is also expect-

ed to improve the surgeon’s ability to deal with resection of the caudate lobe
and/or safe dissection of large vessels in the presence of tumor adherence or
anatomic distortion [4–9]. Finally, when patients requiring hepatic-vessel
resection and reconstruction are still considered suitable for a minimally inva-
sive hepatectomy, robot assistance may provide an opportunity for the surgeon
to face this challenging scenario laparoscopically [10].
39.2 Patient Selection

Patients suitable for LLS, having either benign or malignant lesions, can be
considered for robot-assisted hepatectomy. Robot assistance may be particu-
larly useful when resection of caudate lobe is necessary or when challenging
vascular dissection is anticipated. Although the dVSS allows biliary [5] and
vascular [10] reconstructions, the high-grade biology of Klatskin tumors sug-
gests that extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma should not be considered for
laparoscopic robot-assisted resection.
State-of-the-art preoperative imaging is mandatory. Generation of patient-
specific 3D models (Fig. 39.1) is a useful adjunct and may be a step toward
effective intraoperative navigation that could be further facilitated by the
TilePro utility of the dVSS.
Fig. 39.1 Patient-specific 3D model providing segmenting radiological images

39 Left Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach 277

Patients are placed in the lithotomy position and secured to the operating table
by wide bandings. The patient’s arms are either tucked along the body or sus-
pended above the head to avoid collision with robotic arms that could possibly
result in nerve injury. The table is placed at 20° in the reverse – Trendelenburg
position. The dVSS tower is docked directly over the patient’s head, with two
operating arms on the patient’s left side. The robotic surgeon operates from the
dVSS console, whereas the laparoscopic surgeon stands between the patient’s
legs to manage the suction irrigator, exchange instruments, and pass needles.
A total of five ports are placed, as shown in Fig. 39.2. Pneumoperitoneum is
maintained at 12 mmHg. Since the robotic tower’s bulk limits accessibility to
the patient by the anaesthesia team, airway control and vascular lines must be
perfectly secured before starting surgery.
Surgery begins with visual exploration of the abdomen, followed by con-
tact ultrasonography (US) of the liver. As soon as resectability is confirmed,
the left lobe is freed from its surrounding peritoneal and diaphragmatic attach-
ments. Next, the hepatoduodenal ligament is exposed by retracting upward and
cephalad the gallbladder grasped with a Cadiere forceps driven by robotic arm
3. Left hepatic duct, artery, and portal vein are dissected and divided between
ligatures. After vascular isolation of the portal triad supplying the left hepatic
Fig. 39.2 Ports are

placed along a
semicircular line
that has its lowest
point just below the
umbilicus
8 mm robotic 8 mm robotic
arm 1 port arm 3 port
12 mm robotic 8 mm robotic
camera port arm 2 port
12 mm assistant Extraction incision
port
278 U. Boggi et al.
lobe, a vascular demarcation along the parenchymal transection plane becomes

obvious. The gallbladder is resected en bloc with the specimen.
Before starting with parenchymal transection, the caudate lobe is dissected
from the inferior vena cava. Small hepatic veins are individually secured by
fine polypropylene sutures. Parenchymal transection is carried out using
Maryland bipolar forceps (robotic arm 2) and monopolar curved scissors
(robotic arm 1). During this phase, a Cadiere forceps (robotic arm 3) may be
used to retract the specimen, to allow optimal alignment of the transection line
with robotic scissors, or to tampon hemorrhage sites using a peanut sponge.
Hepatic veins are sealed and divided using an endoscopic stapler armed
with a vascular cartridge. The stapler is usually inserted through the 12-mm
assistant’s port, as the alignment between the device and the target hepatic
vein is usually optimal. In some patients, because of anatomic variations
and/or distortion of conventional anatomical planes, the position of camera
and assistant ports may be switched to insert the vascular stapler through the
right-sided port originally used for the camera. Due to the risk of stapler mal-
function [4], albeit exceedingly rare, the surgeon may prefer to use a TA endo-
scopic stapler or the newer no-knife GIA stapler, as these devices allow the
surgeon to verify the correct positioning of the staple rows before dividing the
vessels. The specimen is removed in an EndoBag via a transverse suprapubic
incision measuring some 7 cm.
Before the operation is completed, the raw surface of the liver is carefully
inspected. Bile leaks and bleeding sites are individually sealed by suture liga-
ture. No topical hemostatic glue or sealants are employed. Two closed-suction
Redon’s drains (12 F) are placed near the transection surface of the liver.
39.4 Robotic Instruments

Robotic arm 3, used mostly for tissue retraction, is armed with a Cadiere forceps.
Robotic arm 1, corresponding to the surgeon’s right hand, is armed with monopo-
lar curved scissors, and robotic arm 2 is armed with Maryland bipolar forceps.
Most of the operation is carried our using these three instruments. The hook, for
instance, is not necessary, as dissection can be performed equally well and pre-
cisely using scissors. The use of needle drivers is instead required to place sutures
and ligate ties. The use of sophisticated energy devices, such as the robotic
Harmonic shears, is not necessary in most patients, as the precision of robotic dis-
section allows the surgeon to efficiently control bleeding sites using less-sophis-
ticated electromechanical technology. Further, as robotic Harmonic shears cannot
articulate, the use of this device reduces the surgeon’s dexterity.
The practical value of instrument articulation is difficult to describe and is
best perceived by direct experience. Shifting from an articulating instrument to
a straight one during the same operation enhances the perception of this differ-
ence. Finally, the surgeon’s ability to securely achieve hemostasis is improved
by the use of robotic Hem-o-lok clips. These clips are the same as those used
39 Left Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach 279
in conventional laparoscopy, but the applier articulates, making delicate clip

positioning easy even in the setting of suboptimal port-to-target alignment.
39.5 Surgical Dissection Planes

We prefer to carry out the resection strictly along anatomical planes. To do so,
we prefer to ligate and divide the left portal pedicle before starting parenchy-
mal transection. Careful preoperative imaging is of paramount importance to
be prepared to face anatomic variations. If tumor type does not require lym-
phatic clearance of the hepatoduodenal ligament, dissection of the left hepatic
artery and left branch of the portal vein begins just below the hilar plate. The
bile duct may be divided intraparenchymally but, in most instances, can be
safely dissected off, ligated, and divided before proceeding with parenchymal
transection. The hepatic pedicle is not usually encircled in preparation for a
Pringle maneuver, but this option may be considered if a difficult liver tran-
section is anticipated.
After trial cross-clamping, the left hepatic artery and left branch of the por-
tal vein are divided between ligatures. The use of staplers or clips is rarely
required at this stage. The left hepatic vein, and occasionally the middle hepat-
ic vein, may be encircled outside the liver. More often, however, to avoid the
nonessential risks of tearing these delicate vessels, hepatic veins are taken
intraparenchymally. The plane of liver transection follows the ischemic demar-
cation line. Intraoperative US may be further used as a guide to achieve nega-
tive margin resection when the tumor is close to the Cantlie line.
39.6 Conclusion
Robot-assisted surgery is here to stay, but it is not essential in patients having
liver lesions that are easy to resect. High equipment cost is a further argument
to restrict the use of robotics to the more challenging operations. Our experi-
ence with left, right, and extended right hepatectomies suggests that robot
assistance greatly facilitates control of bleeding originating from large hepat-
ic veins. As previously described, we were able to control a large caval injury
breach caused by stapler misfiring on the right hepatic vein without conse-
quences to the patient [4].
Although the advantages of robot-assisted laparoscopy compared with
either open or conventional laparoscopic surgery remain to be determined, it
seems reasonable to anticipate that technical improvements in the dVSS might
facilitate safe dissection of paracaval lesions and/or bulky tumors involving
the caudate lobe. More generally, however, winning back a level of surgical
dexterity comparable with that experienced in open surgery could either
improve the results of the standard laparoscopic left hepatectomy or enable
surgeons to safely operate laparoscopically more patients who would other-
280 U. Boggi et al.
wise require an open approach. As bleeding is the leading cause of conversion

to open surgery in liver resections, using the dVSS could reduce the conver-
sion rate without compromising patient safety.
References
surgery. The Louisville statement. Ann Surg 250:825–830
2. Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection –
2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250:831–841
4. Boggi U, Moretto C, Vistoli F et al (2009) Robotic suture of a large caval injury caused by
endo-GIA stapler malfunction during laparoscopic wedge resection of liver segments VII and
VIII en-bloc with the right hepatic vein. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol 18:306–310
5. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM et al (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extended right
hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:159–163
tions. Surgery 149:29–39
7. Ji WB, Wang HG, Zhao ZM et al (2011) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic anatomic hepatecto-
my in China: initial experience. Ann Surg 253:342–348
8. Giulianotti PC, Tzvetanov I, Jeon H et al (2012) Robot-assisted right lobe donor hepatecto-
my. Transpl Int 25:e5–9
9. Lai ECH, Tang CN, Li MKW (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy: tech-
nique and surgical outcomes. Int J Surg 10:11–15
10. Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC et al (2011) Robotic extended pancreatectomy with vas-
cular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas 40:1264–1270
Left Sectionectomy for Living Donor:
Marco Spada, Ugo Boggi, Calogero Ricotta,
Duilio Pagano and Salvatore Gruttadauria
40.1 Split-Liver and Living-Liver Donation
Before the introduction of split-liver and living donor liver transplantation,

the mortality rate among children with end-stage liver disease exceeded 25%
[1], and this precipitated the need for greater understanding of segmental liver
anatomy and for improvements in surgical techniques. These improvements
first led to the possibility of obtaining reduced-size allografts with
autonomous arterial, portal, biliary, and venous drainage. Initially, split liver
was applied for one pediatric and one adult recipient; its applications were
progressively extended, with results similar to those of transplantation of the
whole organ [2, 3]. The increasing age of cadaveric donors is hampering the
use of this technique, with a significant lengthening of the waiting list for
pediatric patients.
A different approach to the problem of organ shortage is represented by
living donation. In this case, also, initial procedures were made in pediatric
recipients: the first attempts were undertaken by Raia et al., in Brazil [4], and
Strong et al. [5]. Since then, the technique has been widely applied, with sat-
isfactory results in pediatric and, more recently, adult recipients [6, 7].
Between 1999 and 2002, five right-lobe living donor deaths (two in the USA
and three in Europe) led to a more cautious approach to the use of this proce-
dure [8]. As a result, there was a decline in the number of adult living donor
liver transplants.
Donor morbidity has been correlated with the extent of hepatectomy: com-
M. Spada ()
Department of Abdominal and Transplantation Surgery, Istituto Mediterraneo per i Trapianti e
Terapie ad Alta Specializzazione (IsMeTT) - University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC),
Palermo, Italy
Updates in Surgery
282 M. Spada et al.
plications are significantly higher after right hepatectomy (20–40%) compared

with left lobectomy or left lateral segmentectomy (10%). The most common
donor complications are bile leak, bacterial infections, pleural effusions
requiring intervention, wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and inci-
sional hernias. The reported living donor morbidity rates range from 8% to 12
% [9].
For small pediatric recipients, the most commonly used graft is the left lat-
eral segment, whereas for larger adolescents or small adults, a left-lobe allo-
graft can be used for transplantation, as reported in some series [10].
40.2 Laparoscopic Liver Surgery

The rapid evolution of laparoscopic surgery has led to the feasibility of safe,
minimally invasive hepatic resection. Gagner et al. reported the first laparo-
scopic liver resection in 1992 [11]. Azagra et al. were the first to perform a left
lateral segmentectomy, in 1996 [12]. Since these initial reports, several surgi-
cal groups are now performing major hepatic resections laparoscopically [13],
with reported morbidity and mortality rates equivalent to those of open sur-
gery. The laparoscopic approach has resulted in decreased blood loss, shorter
postoperative stay, reduced need for postoperative analgesic, and reduced risk
of developing an incisional hernia [13].
From a technical point of view, minimally invasive hepatic resection
includes pure laparoscopic, hand-assisted laparoscopic, and a laparoscopic-
assisted open “hybrid” approach in which the operation is started laparoscop-
ically and proceeds with a small laparotomy. It has been suggested that laparo-
scopic living donor hepatectomy may provide a new procedure with dimin-
ished donor morbidity and increased appeal for living liver donation.
40.3 Laparoscopic Living Donor Left Lateral Segmentectomy

A total of 34 living donor left lateral segmentectomies performed laparoscop-
ically have been reported in peer-reviewed articles. Other case series are
reported in brief abstracts. Cherqui et al. reported, in 2002, the first two cases
of laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy for living donation [14]. The same
group, in 2006, reported an additional 14 cases, which were compared with 14
donors who underwent an open liver resection, demonstrating that this proce-
dure was safe and reproducible, resulting in grafts similar to those obtained by
open surgery [15]. In 2009, Troisi et al. reported one case in Belgium [16], and
that same year, Coelho et al. reported a case in Brazil [17]. Five procedures of
this type were done in the USA (Samstein, personal communication) and, at
the 16th International Liver Transplant Society Congress, a French collabora-
tive study described 53 procedures [18]. In 2011, Kim et al. reported 11 cases
of laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomies, comparing outcomes with the
40 Left Sectionectomy for Living Donor: Laparoscopic Approach 283
open live-donor procedure [19]. In 2010, our group started the laparoscopic
living donor hepatectomy program for pediatric transplantation. Since then,
five procedures have been successfully performed. All procedures were done
with a purely laparoscopic approach. The reported conversion rate was
between 6% and 8%, whereas morbidity ranged from 10–30 % in the largest
series. No donor death was reported. Table 40.1 depicts the main donor, oper-
ative, and recipient data of the reported cases, including our series. From an
economic standpoint, the laparoscopic approach has been reported to be com-
parable with the open procedure in terms of out-of-pocket donor costs [19].
At our institute, donor workup for living donation includes triphasic liver
computed tomography (CT) with volume measurement, magnetic resonance
(MR) cholangiography, and percutaneous liver biopsy. Donors receive an
exhaustive explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of open and
laparoscopic donor hepatectomy, and since the beginning of our laparoscopic
living donor program, none of them has refused the minimally invasive
approach.

The donor is placed supine in the 30° reverse-Trendelenburg position, with the
surgeon standing between the donor’s legs. A Veress needle is placed above the
umbilicus along the midline. Pneumoperitoneum at 10–12 mmHg is obtained
using carbon dioxide. One 12-mm trocar is placed in the same site, and the 35°
optical device is inserted to explore the abdominal cavity. Two to four addi-
tional 12- and 5-mm trocars are inserted in the upper abdominal quadrant. The
round and falciform ligaments are divided with the HARMONIC scissors, and
the left triangular ligament is dissected. The lesser omentum is opened through
the pars flaccida. The left aspect of the hepatic hilum is then dissected with an
electric hook to expose the left hepatic artery, which is dissected free and
encircled with a vessel loop. If the arterial branch for segment 4 (S4) origi-
nates from the left hepatic artery, this is clipped and cut. The small parenchy-
mal bridge connecting S3 and 4 is divided, exposing the round ligament. Its
right side is dissected, isolating, clipping, and cutting the small portal branch-
es to S4, until the left branch of the portal vein is exposed and taped. During
this part of the procedure, bipolar electrocautery and nonabsorbable self-lock-
ing clips are used.
Small portal branches to the caudate lobe are clipped and cut to maximize
the length of the left portal vein. The left lateral segment is rotated on the right
side and the ligamentum venosum is dissected up to the left hepatic vein,
which, if possible, is isolated and encircled with a cotton tape using an extra-
parenchymal approach. Parenchymal dissection is initiated along the falciform
ligament with Harmonic or bipolar electrocautery. When the dissection reach-
es the hilar plate, the left biliary tree is cut sharply with scissors and its right
stump clipped. The section of the parenchyma can be completed up to the ori-
Table 40.1 Laparoscopic living donor left lateral segmentectomies reported in the literature
284
Author No. Donor characteristics Procedure data Morbidity Mortality

Age Sex Weight Graft Operation Blood loss Hospital stay Donor Recipient Donor Recipient
(years) (M/F) (kg) weight (g) time (min) (ml) (days)
Cherqui et al. 2 27–31 1/1 60–80 250–280 390±30 300±150 189±44 – – – –
2002 [14]
Soubrane et al. 16 29±5 10/6 70±10 253±45 320±67 7.5±2.3 Bile leak HAT (2) Sepsis –
2006 [15] with PVT with (1)
reoperation ReTX (1)
(1) Biliary
Wound complications
hematoma (2) (3)
Troisi et al. 1 31 0/1 NA NA NA NA – – – –
2009 [16]
Coelho et al. 1 25 1/0 77 653 NA NA Abdominal NA – NA
2009 [17] collection (1)
Spada et al. 5 27±7 2/3 68±15 280±113 449±48 NA 5.2±1.1 – PVT (1) – –
(ahead of print)
Stenard et al. 53 NA NA NA NA 285±66 69±98 Biliary leak Bleeding – 3
2010 [18] (3) (1) HAT (3)
Abdominal Biliary leak
collection (1) (10)
ReTX (4)
Kim et al. 11 27±6 1/10 NA 230±43 330±68 396±72 6.9±0.3 – Portal vein – –
2011 [19] stenosis (1)
Biliary
stenosis(1)
HAT, hepatic artery thrombosis; NA, not available; PVT, portal vein thrombosis; ReTX, retransplantation
M. Spada et al.
gin of the left hepatic vein. If the hepatic vein cannot be previously isolated
extraparenchymally, its exposure is accomplished, completing the parenchy-
mal transection. Care is taken not to jeopardize the middle hepatic vein, espe-
cially if a common trunk is present, and to identify and clip small hepatic vein
branches crossing the transection plane.
A 7- to 8-cm suprapubic incision is obtained, a 15-mm EndoBag placed
through this incision, and the left lateral segment putted into the EndoBag.
Small bulldog clips are placed distally on the left hepatic artery and on the left
branch of the portal vein, and these two vessels, along with the left hepatic
vein, are sutured and cut with a unilateral linear stapler. The graft, already in
the EndoBag, is rapidly retrieved, flushed on the back table with a 4 °C
University of Wisconsin (UW) solution through the left portal vein, and pre-
pared for subsequent transplantation. The suprapubic wound is then closed and
pneumoperitoneum re-established in order to check for hemostasis and bil-
iostasis on the resected edge of the liver.
40.5 Discussion
Laparoscopic intervention allows for minimally invasive surgery in otherwise
healthy individuals and is a logical application in living liver transplantation.
Donor selection and exclusion criteria are similar to those used in the open
technique. Therefore, the laparoscopic approach does not limit the possibility of
performing a living donation. In all reported experiences, in case of emergency
transplantation, the laparoscopic technique is not proposed for logistical rea-
sons and the open approach is preferred. Hepatic resection is performed using
the same method as for open liver surgery. The “hanging-over” maneuvre, used
by some authors [19], may facilitate parenchymal transection and a better view
of the left bile duct. All authors paid attention to preserving left bile duct vas-
cularization, cutting the bile duct sharply. During left lateral sectionectomy, no
clamping is used; likewise, cholecystectomy and intraoperative cholangiogra-
phy are not routinely performed. Warm ischemia time is always very short,
especially with the adoption of stratagems such as those used by us. The lack of
reports of primary nonfunction shows that the reported warm ischemia time had
no negative impact on the outcome. Operative times are slightly longer than
with the standard technique, especially in early experience. However, this had
no negative impact on postoperative recovery and hospitalization times.
Concerns have been raised regarding the negative influence of pneu-
moperitoneum on graft functional recovery after transplantation [20]. In the
reported series of living donor laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy, there
are no reported surgical, vascular, immunological, or infectious complications
specifically resulting from the minimally invasive technique.
Overall, analysis of early results of the reported series shows comparable
donor complications and grafts and recipient outcomes between laparoscopic
left lateral segmentectomy and open donor procedures. The use laparoscopic
286 M. Spada et al.
surgery instead of an open procedure potentially provides living donors with a

number of advantages, including: (1) reduced hemorrhaging, consequently
reduced need for blood transfusion, (2) smaller incision, resulting in less post-
operative scarring, (3) shorter recovery time, (4) less postoperative pain and
disability, leading to reduced narcotic requirement, and 5) less risk of incision-
al hernia.
Living donor left lateral segmentectomy is a safe, feasible, and repro-
ducible procedure and can be beneficial for the donor. Moreover, the proce-
dure provides suitable grafts with early graft function and perioperative com-
plication rates comparable with those from standard open procedures. We can
therefore recommend minimally invasive donor hepatectomy as a safe new
procedure in living donor liver transplants. Further analysis of outcomes, from
larger case series and from multi-institutional registers, however, are essential
in determining whether this new procedure will increase the appeal to and
numbers of living liver donors.
Acknowledgements A contribution to this chapter is gratefully acknowledged to Dr. Bruno

Gridelli.
References
1. Broelsch CE, Emond JC, Whitington PF, Thistlethwaite JR, Baker AL, Lichtor JL (1990) Ap-
plication of reduced-size liver transplants as split grafts, auxiliary orthotopic grafts, and liv-
ing related segmental transplants. Ann Surg 212:368–375
2. Spada M, Gridelli B, Colledan M et al (2000) Extensive use of split liver for pediatric liver
transplantation: a single-center experience. Liver Transpl 6:415–428
3. Hong JC, Yersiz H, Busuttil RW (2011) Where are we today in split liver transplantation? Curr
Opin Organ Transplant 16:269–273
4. Raia S, Nery JR, Mies S (1989) Liver transplantation from live donors. Lancet 2:1042–1043
5. Strong RW, Lynch SV, Ong TH et al (1990) Successful liver transplantation from a living donor
to her son. N Engl J Med 322:1505–1507
6. Marcos A (2000) Right lobe living donor liver transplantation: a review. Liver Transplant 6:3–20
7. Gruttadauria S, Pagano D, Echeverri GJ, Cintorino D, Spada M, Gridelli B (2010) How to
face organ shortage in liver transplantation in an area with low rate of deceased donation. Up-
dates Surg 62:149–152
8. Trotter JF, Adam R, Lo CM, Kenison J (2006) Documented deaths of hepatic lobe donors for
living donor liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 12:1485–1488
9. Azoulay D, Bhangui P, Andreani P et al (2011) Short- and long-term donor morbidity in right
lobe living donor liver transplantation: 91 consecutive cases in a European center. Am J
Transplantation 11:101–110
10. Neto JS, Pugliese R, Fonseca EA et al (2012) Four hundred thirty consecutive pediatric live
donor liver transplants: variables associated with post-transplant patient and graft survival.
Liver Transpl 18:577–584
11. Gagner M, Rheault M, Dubuc JE (1992) Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy for liver tumor.
Surg Endosc 6:99
12. Azagra JS, Georgen M, Gilbart E, Jacobs D (1996) Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lat-
eral segmentectomy. Technical aspects. Surg Endosc 10:758–761
13. Reddy SK, Tsung A, Geller DA (20119 Laparoscopic liver resection. World J Surg
35:1478–1486
14. Cherqui D, Soubrane O, Husson E et al (2002) Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for
liver transplantation in children. Lancet 359:392–396
16. Troisi R, Debruyne R, Rogiers X (2009) Laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy for pediatric
liver transplantation. Acta Chir Belg 109:559–562
17. Coelho JC, Freitas AC, Mathias JE (2009) Laparoscopic resection of the left lateral segment
of the liver in living donor liver transplantation. Rev Col Bras Cir 36:537–538
18. Stenard F, Boillot O, Scatton O et al (2010) Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy in living
donor is the gold standard approach in France. Liver Transplant 16 Suppl 1:93 CE4
19. Kim KH, Jung DH, Park KM et al (2011) Comparison of open and laparoscopic live donor
left lateral sectionectomy. British J Surg 98:1302–1308
20. Troppmann C, Osmond D, Perez RV (2003) Laparoscopic (vs open) live donor nephrectomy:
a UNOS database analysis of early graft function and survival. Am J Transplant 3:1295–1301
Part V
Surgery: Outcome
Complications
41
Antonio Giuliani, Francesco Sicoli, Walter Santaniello,
Giangiacomo Nunzio Monti and Marcella Marracino
41.1 Introduction
Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered as a safe and repro-

ducible procedure but is reserved for surgeons trained in both liver and laparo-
scopic surgery [1–5]. When adequate training is provided, early surgical results
are better and complications after LLR are reduced compared with open sur-
gery [1–5]. Complication rates reported in the literature range from 0% to 50%
[2]. This is probably to be explained by the differences in series in terms of sur-
gical experience (initial or trained), number of patients, type of disease, and
type of resections. In this chapter, we discuss both general and specific com-
plications of LLR and the reasons for conversions to open procedures.
41.2 General Complications
Nguyen et al., in a review of 2,804 patients, reported nine deaths (0.3%) and
295 complications (10%). Interestingly, of the nine deaths, three were in cir-
rhotic patients (33.3%) and five (55.5%) were related to liver surgery [2].
The rate of general complications was 75.6 % (223/295), whereas the liver-
related rate was 24.4% (72/295). If all 2,804 patients are considered, the
liver-related complication rate was 2.5% while general and surgery-related
complications were 7.9% [2]. The most frequently reported surgery-related
complications are trocar-site bleeding (0.5%), wound infections (0.46%),
intra-abdominal bleeding (0.35%), incisional hernias (0.35%), and intra-
A. Giuliani ()
Naples, Italy
Updates in Surgery
abdominal fluid collections (0.35%) [2]. The most frequent general complica-
tions involve the respiratory system (1.1%) (pleural effusion, pneumonia, res-
piratory failure, pneumothorax, atelectasis, pulmonary embolism) [2].
Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) seem to be at a higher risk for
postoperative complications than those with colorectal liver metastases
(CRLM) (50% vs 11%, p =0.02) [2].
In a cost–benefit comparison, complications after LLR seem to be more
favorable than after open liver resection (OLR). Vanounou et al. reported that
postoperative morbidity rate, according to Clavien classifications, is better for
LLR (p =0.001) [6]. In fact, 86% of patients with LLR showed no or minimal
complications (grade I), with only 9% showing grade II complications (31%
for open surgery). For grade III or IV complications, they reported 10% in
patients in the open surgery compared with only 4% in the LLR group [6]. A
more favorable outcome is confirmed for patients operated for malignancies
through the laparoscopic approach (p =0.003) [6]. The final median cost for
LLR vs. OLR was US$15,260 vs. US$17,629 (p = 0.03), respectively [6].
Other authors report that days of required narcotic pain medication is
decreased after LLR compared with OLS (1 day vs. 5 days; p =0.001), as is
the total amount of drugs required [7, 8].
The learning curve does not seem to have a role in determining morbidity
after LLR. Cannon et al. compared 300 LLR patients divided in two groups
according to the beginning and end of the surgeons’ training experience, with
no differences in terms of morbidity (11% vs. 14%, p = 0.300) and mortality
(1% vs. 3%, p = 0.625) [9]. A different observation was made by Dagher et al.
In their study on cirrhotic patients, general morbidity was higher in the early
phase of experience (75 LLR) compared with the more recent phase (88 LLR)
(16% vs. 5.7%; p =0.040), whereas specific liver morbidity was lower in the
early experience but was not significant (8% vs. 14.7%; p =0.224) [4]. This
was probably due to a more favorable patient selection with smaller lesions in
the second phase (4.0 cm vs. 3.4 cm; p =0.044) [4].
41.3 Liver-Related Complications

Buell et al. [10] reported a high rate of mortality (9.7%) in cirrhotic patients
operated with LLR; a rate indeed too high when compared with the large series
of patients operated with OLR [10–13]. An explanation of this high mortality
is done by Donadon et al; they argue that this was probably due both to sur-
geons’ initial experience and to an improper selection of patients, with Model
for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >15 in some cases [14]. More
recent series report a reduced mortality rate after LLR in cirrhotic patients,
down to 1.6% [15]. The laparoscopic approach proves also to be better in
patients with portal hypertension, as it avoids ligature of portocaval shunts, as
must be performed in open surgery (see Chapter 18). Lai et al., reporting a 10-
year experience of LLR for HCC, showed neither postoperative liver failure
41 Complications 293
nor encephalopathy [16]. The world review by Nguyen et al. reported a rate of
2.5% of liver-related complications after LLR [2]. The most frequent were bile
leaks (1.5%) and transient liver failure/ascites (1.0%). In the European experi-
ence of LLR for HCC, liver-specific complications occurred in 19 patients [4]
(11.6%), including ascites in 14, bleeding in 4 requiring reoperation for hemo-
stasis in 3, and one patients with biliary collection drained percutaneously [4].
Gustafson et al. compared 49 open and 27 LLR and found no significant dif-
ferences between groups concerning major resections and number of lesions.
They reported that bile leaks were reduced in the LLR groups (4 vs. 0) during
hospital stay [17]. The risk of gas embolism due to pneumoperitoneum is very
low. However, there are some sporadic case reports about delayed carbon diox-
ide cerebral embolism with ischemic cerebral lesions [18]. One case report
described the spontaneous rupture of the splenic capsule subsequent to the
Pringle maneuver during LLR [19]. This is an anecdotal observation, but it is
important to point out that various types of complications can occur in LLR.
41.4 Conversions
The Louisville Statement indicates: “Conversion should be performed for dif-
ficult resections requiring extended operating times for patient safety, and
should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure” [5].
In the review by Nguyen et al., the overall conversions rate was 4.1%, in
most cases due to uncontrollable bleeding (1.4%) [2]. Other reasons were
adhesions (0.4%) and anatomical limitation/inaccessible lesion location
(0.4%); reasons for 0.8% of conversion were not documented [2].
Interestingly, if we consider only patients with CRLM, the conversion rate is
higher (12%), as reported by Abu Hilal et al., which is probably related to
previous open surgery [20]. This data is absolutely comparable with the con-
version rate in other laparoscopic procedures in patients with previous
abdominal surgery. In fact, Naguib et al. reported a 10.6% conversion rate in
patients with previous abdominal surgery for laparoscopic colorectal resec-
tion [21]. In cirrhotic patients, a 6.8% conversion rate was reported for
trained surgeons [4].
41.5 Conclusions
LLR seems to be related to a lower postoperative complication rate compared
with OLR. This is probably due both to a more appropriate selection of
patients suitable for a laparoscopic approach and to the dramatic decrease in
general complications that occur following laparotomy. The conversion rate in
LLR is similar to that observed in other major laparoscopic procedures and
should not be considered as an unsuccessful event but good practice to avoid
major complications.
References
patients. Ann Surg 250:831–841
3. Pilgrim C, TO H, Ustatoff V et al (2009) Laparoscopic hepatectomy is a safe procedure for
cancer patients. HBP Surg 11:247–251
noma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg 211:16–23
Surgery. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement.
Ann Surg 250:825–830
6. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT (2010) Comparing the clinical and economic impact of la-
paroscopic versus open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol 17:998–1009
7. Mala T, Edwin B, Gladhaug I et al (2002) A comparative study of the short-term outcome fol-
lowing open and laparoscopic liver resection of colorectal metastases. Surg Endosc
16:1059–1063
8. Nguyen KT, Marsh JW, Tsung A et al (2011) Comparative benefits of laparoscopic vs open
hepatic resection: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg 146:348–356
9. Cannon RM, Brock GN, Marvin MR et al (2011) Laparoscopic liver resection: an examina-
tion of our first 300 patients. J Am Coll Surg 213:501–507
vasive hepatic procedures. Ann Surg 248:475–486
11. Torzilli G, Makuuchi M, Inoue K et al (1999) No-mortality liver resection for hepatocellular
carcinoma in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients: is there a way? A prospective analysis of our
approach. Arch Surg 134:984–992
12. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL et al (1999) Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: toward ze-
ro hospital deaths. Ann Surg 229:322–330
13. Donadon M, Botea F, Belliappa V et al (2009) Experience with more than 500 minimally in-
vasive hepatic procedures: a serious note of caution. Ann Surg 249:1064–1065
14. Donadon M, Botea F, Belliappa V et al (2009) Experience with more than 500 minimally in-
vasive hepatic procedures: a serious note of caution. Ann Surg 249:1064–1065; author reply:
1065–1066
15. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP et al (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcino-
ma ten-year experience in a single center. Arch Surg 144:143–147
16. Gustafson JD, Fox JP, Ouellette JR et al (2012) Open versus laparoscopic liver resection: look-
ing beyond the immediate postoperative period. Surg Endosc 26:468–472
17. Van Gorp V, Diltoer M, Delvaux G et al (2011) Delayed recovery following laparoscopic par-
tial hepatectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol 23:12–15
18. Low JK, Ayiomamitis GD, Hamoudi A et al (2011) Spontaneous rupture of the splenic cap-
sule with massive bleeding subsequent to the pringle maneuver during laparoscopic liver re-
section. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21:84–86
19. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Zuccaro M et al (2010) Short- and medium-term results of to-
tally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg 97:927–933
20. Naguib N, Saklani A, Shah P et al (2012) Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic colorectal re-
section in patients with previous abdominal operations. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 5:8
The Italian Experience in Minimally
Invasive Surgery of the Liver: 42
A National Survey
Luca Aldrighetti, Federica Cipriani, Francesca Ratti,

Luciano Casciola and Fulvio Calise, on behalf of the Italian
National Survey Study Group1
42.1 Introduction
In 2009, the most comprehensive review of published series of minimally
invasive liver resection (MILR) reported nearly 3,000 cases performed world-
wide, emphasizing an exponential growth in the application of this technique
by surgeons experienced with both hepatic and laparoscopic surgery [1]. The
goal of our survey was to provide an overview of the spread of the minimally
invasive approach to liver resections in Italy.
1 (Contributors are listed by number of cases): Belli Giulio, Ospedale S. M. Loreto Nuovo, Napoli; Al-
drighetti Luca, Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano; Boni Luigi, A.O.U. Fondazione Macchi, Varese; Cillo
Umberto, A.O.U. – Università degli Studi, Padova; Ettorre Giuseppe, A.O. San Camillo – Forlanini, Ro-
ma; De Carlis Luciano, A.O. Ospedale Niguarda Ca’ Granda, Milano; Giuliani Antonio, A.O. Cardarel-
li, Napoli; Reggiani Paolo, Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano; Santambrogio Roberto, A.O. San
Paolo, Milano; Spampinato Marcello, Policlinico di Abano Terme, Abano Terme; Morino Mario, Ospe-
dale Molinette, Torino; Filauro Marco, Ospedale Galliera, Genova; Navarra Giuseppe, A.O.U. Policlini-
co Martino, Messina; Pinna Antonio, Policlinico S. Orsola - Malpighi, Bologna; Casciola Luciano,
Ospedale San Matteo degli Infermi, Spoleto; Capussotti Lorenzo, Ospedale Mauriziano Umberto I, To-
rino; Casaccia Marco, A.O.U. San Martino, Genova; Nuzzo Gennaro, Policlinico Gemelli, Roma; Guer-
rieri Mario, A.O.U. Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona; Bassi Nicolò, Ospedale S. Maria di Ca’ Foncello, Treviso;
Brolese Alberto, Ospedale S. Chiara, Trento; Sgroi Giovanni, A.O. Treviglio – Caravaggio, Treviglio;
Buonanno Maurizio, A.O. Rummo, Benevento; Jovine Elio, Ospedale Maggiore, Bologna; Spada Mar-
co, IsMeTT, Palermo; Corcione Francesco, A.O. Monaldi, Napoli; Dalla Valle Raffaele, Ospedale Mag-
giore, Parma; Colledan Michele, A.O. Ospedali Riuniti, Bergamo; Gerunda Giorgio, A.O.U. Policlinico,
Modena; Mezzatesta Pietro, Casa di Cura La Maddalena, Palermo; Di Somma Carmine Gianfranco,
A.O.U. San Martino, Genova; Guglielmi Alfredo, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Verona; Di Carlo Isidoro, A.O.
Cannizzaro, Catania; Gruttadauria Salvatore, A.O.U. Policlinico Vittorio Emanuele, Catania; Antonucci
Adelmo, Policlinico di Monza, Monza; Caldarera Goffredo, A.O. Garibaldi, Catania; Scuderi Vincenzo,
Ospedale San Lazzaro, Alba; De Werra Carlo, Università degli Studi Federico II, Napoli; Maida Pietro,
Ospedale Evangelico Villa Betania, Napoli.
L. Aldrighetti ()
Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Hospital,
Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan. Italy
Email: [email protected]
Updates in Surgery
42.2 Materials and Methods

All Italian surgical centers were contacted through the mailing list of the
Italian Chapter of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association
(IHPBA) and the Società Italiana di Chirurgia [Italian Society of Surgery
(SIC)]. The Survey announcement was included in the SIC on-line newsletter.
Centers potentially interested in participating in the survey were directly con-
tacted through personal e-mail addresses or phone numbers whenever not
already included in other mailing lists or if it was felt they had not been pre-
viously reached (i.e., no answer received within 1 month of the announce-
ment). The e-mail invitation to participate in the survey was sent with a letter
of explanation and a specific Word format questionnaire regarding a series of
items previously chosen by the promoting group (Luca Aldrighetti, Fulvio
Calise, Luciano Casciola) to describe the clinical activity of any center per-
forming MILR (see questionnaire at the end of the chapter). Specific questions
were also added to provide a larger picture of the Italian experience in both
robot-assisted liver resections and simultaneous resections of liver metastases
and colorectal cancer. All returned questionnaires were screened to eliminate
any double counting of patients, even if no apparent duplicate data were found
in the total number of patients. A single surgeon was then identified for each
center for any correspondence regarding the data or any need to complete
missing data. No minimal cutoff in the number of cases was established for
project inclusion so that even small series were taken into account.
Only liver resections performed through a minimally invasive technique
were taken into consideration; these comprised totally laparoscopic, hand-assist-
ed laparoscopic, single-port laparoscopic, and robot-assisted techniques.
Tumour characteristics (benign, malignant), technical approaches (totally
laparoscopic, hand-assisted, single-port, robotic), and extent of resection (minor,
major, wedge) were assessed and analyzed in detail. Intraoperative data about
technical devices, vascular control, and number of resections for each patient
were recorded. Reasons for conversion to open surgery, perioperative deaths,
and complications were also recorded. Finally, the beginning of MILR activity
and the number of cases per year were taken into consideration for every center.
All resections performed until 28 February 2012 were included. Data were
recorded in an SPSS database and analyzed using statistical analysis.
42.3 Results
Questionnaires were obtained from 39 centers in 11 Italian regions. The centers
reported a total of 1,677 MILR between 1 January 1995 and 28 February 2012.
Participating centers and their regional distributions are shown in Fig. 42.1. The
median number of patients per center was 27 (range 1–145). The world review
of laparoscopic liver resections by Nguyen and colleagues in 2009 enrolled
2,804 liver resections performed over a 16-year period (1992–2008) [1].
42 The Italian Experience in Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver: A National Survey 297
Fig. 42.1 Regional distribution of the 39 centers participating in the survey
In this survey, MILR accounted for 10.3% of all liver resections performed
during the same period in the same centers (n = 16,244) (Fig. 42.2). Among all
centers, the rate of MILR over the full number of resections ranged between
0.9% and 58.0%. One center reported performing liver resections using the
laparoscopic approach only. These data are consistent with the literature,
which reports a range between 19% and 24.3% [2, 3].
The total number of patients requiring conversion was 180 of 1,677
approached by a minimally invasive technique, which means an Italian con-
version rate of 10.7%, even if a wide difference in conversion rates was
recorded among centers (range 0–30.9%). This rate appears to be in accor-
dance with data from the literature, as a conversion rate between 2% and
15.0% has been reported. Viganò and Cherqui suggest that 60 cases are need-
ed to complete the learning curve in MILR [4]. When only Italian series with
>60 patients were considered (11 series), similar results were registered
(10.5%, range 3.8–30.9%). The most common causes of conversion were:
intraoperative hemorrhage in 62 cases (34.4%), concerns for oncological rad-
icality in 47 (26.1%), and technical difficulties in 43 (23.8%). Other reasons
were severe adhesions from previous surgery in 14 cases (7.7%), anaesthesio-
logical problems in five (2.7%), and injury to adjacent organs in one (0.5%).
The 180 liver resections converted to open surgery were excluded from statis-
Minimally invasive
approach
10.3%
(1,677 cases)
Traditional open
approach
89.7%
(14,567 cases)
Fig. 42.2 Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) accounted for 10.3% of all liver resections
performed during the same period in the same centers (n = 16,244)
tical analysis. Therefore, this survey comprises 1,497 liver resections complet-
ed using minimally invasive approaches. Analysis of the volume of cases
throughout the years showed that Italy has experienced exponential growth in
MILR, with a progressive increase and an almost linear trend (Fig. 42.3),
which is significantly similar to the ever-growing volume of MILR performed
every year in other Eastern and Western countries [1]. Moreover, no center
abandoned the laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) program once adopted. These
findings likely reflect both an increased interest by surgeons and a wider
acceptance by patients of the minimally invasive approach, even in the field of
the liver resections.
Most centers began to perform MILR 9 years after starting programs of
advanced laparoscopic surgery and after performing a significant amount of
open liver resections. Moreover, in most centers, the number of MILR seems
to have reached a fixed proportion of total annual resections after a mean of 4
years of activity. Only four centers simultaneously began advanced laparo-
scopic surgery and liver resections. It has been suggested that surgeons should
have extensive previous experience in open liver surgery (OLS) and technical
skill in advanced laparoscopic surgery before using MILR [4]. Data from our
survey seem to demonstrate that Italian surgeons approach MILR with caution
and follow general rules and guidelines.
Fig. 42.3 In Italy, there has been exponential growth in minimally invasive liver resection (MILR)
between 1995 and 2012, with a progressive increase and an almost linear trend
42.3.1 Indications
In Italy, MILR are usually performed following well-accepted indications for

liver resections. Indeed, even though benign diseases were treated by laparo-
scopic approaches (412 cases, 27.5%), most LLR were performed for malig-
nant diseases: 1,085 (72.5%) (Fig. 42.4). Interestingly, the world review by
Nguyen et al. [1] showed a different relative distribution between benign and
malignant diagnosis, with a significantly higher amount of benign cases (45%
and 50.0%, respectively).
Benign neoplasms reported were focal nodular hyperplasia in 91 cases
(22.0%), liver adenomas in 88 (21.3%), and hemangioma in 86 (20.8%).
Benign cystic disease was present in 43 cases (10.4%) and included simple or
complicated cysts, hydatid cysts, and cystoadenomas. In a minority of cases,
liver resection was performed for intrahepatic lithiasis (16 cases, 3.8%) and
regenerative or inflammatory nodules (14 cases, 3.3%).
Malignant lesions included hepatocellular carcinoma (608 cases, 56.0%),
which was the most frequent indication and accounted for 40.6% of all MILR.
Liver metastases were present in 432 cases (39.8%). There were 302 (69.9%
of metastases) colorectal metastases; the remaining 130 were metastases from
other sites: lung, breast, kidney, melanoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor
(GIST), squamous cell anal cancer, neuroendocrine tumor, and mesothelioma.
The remaining 45 cases of malignant lesions (4.1%) were intrahepatic cholan-
giocellular carcinoma. Breakdown of the diagnoses is shown in Fig. 42.5 and
compared with similar data from the world review [1]. In 115 cases (38.1% of
colorectal metastases), secondary liver and primary colorectal cancer were
benign 27.5%
(412 cases)
malignant 72.5%
(1,085 cases)
Fig. 42.4 Benign and malignant neoplasms resected through a laparoscopic approach
simultaneously resected through a minimally invasive approach (Fig. 42.6).

Finally, laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy was performed in four cases
for living-donor liver procurement.
42.3.2 Extent of Liver Resections
According to the Brisbane 2000 System of Nomenclature [5], minor resections

were performed in 1,391 cases (92.9% of total resections), with left lateral sec-
tionectomy being the most widely performed procedure (357 cases, 25.7% of
minor resections and 23.8% of total resections) (Fig. 42.7). Left lateral sec-
tionectomy was also the most frequent procedure in all single series, indicat-
ing that the left lateral sectionectomy is becoming more frequently approached
by laparoscopy. Wedge resections or single segmentectomies were performed
in 870 cases (62.5% of all minor resections). Minor MILR involved mainly the
so called laparoscopic segments: 2, 3, 4b, 5, 6 (784 cases, 90.1%), which are
considered easier to approach by laparoscopic devices than the posterosuperi-
or segments (1, 4a, 7, 8). Indeed, wedge resections or single segmentectomies
involving posterosuperior segments were performed in only 80 cases (9.1%),
with right sectionectomies being reported in an even smaller number of cases:
right posterior sectionectomy in 33 cases (2.4%); right anterior sectionectomy
in nine cases (0.6%) of minor resections. Resections of segment 1 (S1) were
recorded in six cases. These results are consistent with indications for MILR
provided by the Louisville Consensus Conference (2008), which included
minor liver resections in patients with solitary lesions located in S2–6 [6].
Major liver resections were 106 (7.1% of total laparoscopic resections)
Fig. 42.5 Breakdown

of diagnoses (benign,
malignant) reported
in the world review [1]
(red) compared with
our national survey
(blue)
intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma:
4%
Fig. 42.6 Secondary liver and primary colorectal cancer simultaneously resected through a mini-
mally invasive approach in 115 cases (38.1% of colorectal metastases)
left lateral
sectionectomy:
23.8%
(357 cases)
major
resections:
7.1% other minor
(106 cases) resections:
69.1%
(912 cases)
Fig. 42.7 Minor resections performed in 1,391 cases (92.9% of total resections), with left lateral
sectionectomy being the most widely performed procedure (357 cases; 23.8% of total resections).
Major resections accounted for 7.1% of the total
(Fig. 42.7). There were 63 left and 43 right hepatectomies, which accounted
for 59.4% and 40.6% of all major resections, respectively. There were no cen-
tral or extended right/left hepatectomies. Despite the fact that major hepatec-
tomies are feasible using the laparoscopic approach [7], the small number of
major liver resections found in our survey is substantially consistent with pre-
vious data from the literature (15.8% in the world review) [1] and probably
reflects the low rate of candidates for major resections who can be approached
laparoscopically. Indeed, major resections for gallbladder or Klatskin tumors
are not as yet considered suitable for the minimally invasive approach, nor are
major resections for large primary liver tumors or neoplasms involving major
vascular pedicles (i.e., hepatic or portal vein thrombosis).
Multiple simultaneous resections were performed in 254 cases (16.9% of
all resections). This finding is in accordance with the recent trend toward per-
forming multiple simultaneous parenchyma-sparing resections instead of
major hepatectomies whenever technically feasible in patients with colorectal
liver metastases [8, 9]. Biliary or vascular reconstructions, which are general-
ly considered contraindications to the minimally invasive approach even if
technically feasible, were never performed.
42.3.3 Minimally Invasive Approaches
The majority of centers used a multiple-port totally laparoscopic approach,

whereas hand-assisted and single-port resections were performed less frequent-
ly. Totally LLR accounted for 92.6% of the entire series (n = 1,386) (Fig. 42.8).
The hand-assisted approach, which is sometimes reported in the literature
as being indicated for technically challenging cases, such as hemihepatectomy,
resection of posterosuperior segments, or as an alternative to the conversion to
open surgery, was reported in only 19 cases (1.3%).
Twenty-nine liver resections were performed with the single-port access
(1.9%), which was used mainly in cases of left lateral sectionectomy that
seems the best suitable MILR for such an approach, as the transection plane
may be appropriately accomplished even without full triangulation among
instruments [10].
Three centers recently performed robot-assisted hepatectomies: 63 robot-
assisted liver resections, accounting for 4.2% of all liver resections, including
16 segmentectomies/sectionectomies involving the right posterior segments.
No major resections were performed using the robot-assisted technique. It is
reasonable to believe that the robot-assisted technique for liver resections will
spread more extensively throughout Italian centers in the near future, covering
a higher rate of the national pool of MILR and allowing a wider application of
the minimally invasive approach to what are presently considered the “nonla-
paroscopic segments” (right posterosuperior segments, cranial and posterior
portion of S4, cranial portion of S1), as well as to major hemihepatectomies
[11, 12].
hand-assisted:
1.3%
(19 cases)
totally laparoscopic single-port:
92.6% 1.9%
(1386 cases) (29 cases)
robotic:
4.2%
(63 cases)
Fig. 42.8 The majority of centers used a totally laparoscopic multiple-port approach, whereas
hand-assisted, single-port, and robot-assisted techniques were performed less frequently
42.3.4 Intraoperative Outcomes
Intraoperative details are described in Table 42.1. On the basis of the design of
this survey, no specific analysis or comment on intraoperative outcomes can
be reliably performed, as these data represent the cumulative outcomes from a
heterogeneous group of MILR carried out by surgeons with wide-ranging
experience in liver surgery and laparoscopic procedures. Further studies may
be advisable to depict a nationwide picture of intraoperative performances in
Italian centers using MILR.
Table 42.1 Intraoperative details

Parameter Results
Intraoperative mortality, n (%) 0 (0 %)
Intraoperative blood loss mL (range) 125 (50–625)
Operating timea min
(range) 145 (45–315)
Pringle maneuver
• Performing centers, n (%) (continuous/intermittent). 22 (56.4 %) (3/19)
• Cases performed, n (%) 199 (13.7 %)
• Total lengthb 22 (7–52)
Surgical drain placement, n (%) 1,392 (93.0 %)
aWeighted mean time; bweighted mean time of vascular occlusion.
42.3.5 Technical Features
Different technologies were used to transect the liver parenchyma in MILR,

with ultrasound (US) or radiofrequency-energy-based devices being the most
widely used (Ultracision, Sonosurg, Ligasure, Lotus), as 31 centers reported
routinely performing MILR primarily through these devices. This is in accor-
dance with trends shown in the literature [6], even though the choice among
the various devices definitely depends on the personal experience and prefer-
ence of each surgical team. Alternatives consisted of radiofrequency-based
MILR (Habib 4X). One single center routinely used vascular staplers to per-
form the entire transection, whereas most centers use staplers only to transect
the main portal branches and hepatic veins.
The more extensive application of technological devices in MILR than in
conventional open liver resections – where Kelly-clamp crushing technique or
ultrasonic dissection plus bipolar forceps or ligations are still the most com-
mon modalities of parenchymal transection – is understandable enough, as
precise and complete progressive hemostasis is more critical during parenchy-
mal transection in MILR than in open resections. Indeed, any – even minimal
– bleeding from portal and hepatic vessels may be more challenging to control
laparoscopically, as they impair optimal vision, which is an obstacle to safe
progression of resection and ultimately requires conversion to open surgery.
In this survey, the Pringle maneuver was performed by 22 centers (56.4%),
with a mean time of vascular control ranging from 9 to 57 min among centers.
The Pringle maneuver was used continuously and intermittently in three and
19 centers, respectively. The weighted mean time of vascular occlusion was 22
min. Nevertheless, the number of LLR performed using the Pringle maneuver
was only 199 (13.7%). These results confirm that MILR may be performed
even without routine vascular control, as suggested by previous data from the
literature [13]. On the other hand, routine encircling of the hepatic pedicle for
Pringle maneuver has yet to be recommended as a precautionary measure
whenever approaching an MILR.
Finally, the majority of centers still prefer to place an abdominal drain at
the end of the liver resection (1,392 cases, 93.0%). This finding is somehow in
contrast with the wide-spreading tendency toward fast-track and Enhanced
Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs, which substantially ban the routine
use of surgical drains.
42.3.6 Postoperative Outcomes
Postoperative details are listed in Table 42.2. There were no intraoperative

deaths and three postoperative deaths (mortality rate 0.2%). This is in accor-
dance with data reported in literature, where a postoperative mortality rate
<1.0% is reported for MILR, thus confirming the safety of this approach even
in the field of liver resections [1].
Table 42.2 Postoperative details

Parameter Results
Postoperative mortality, n (%) 3 (0.2 %)
Postoperative morbidity: type of
complication, n (total resections)
• Ascites 81 (5.4 %)
• Pleural effusion 74 (4.9 %)
• Hemorrhage 61 (4.0 %)
• Bile leakage 35 (2.3 %)
• Fever 29 (1.9 %)
• Urinary tract infection 11 (0.7 %)
• Intra-abdominal infection 11 (0.7 %)
• Jaundice 5 (0.3 %)
• Pneumonia 5 (0.3 %)
• Bowel perforation 4 (0.2 %)
• Arrhythmia 3 (0.2 %)
• Bowel obstruction 1 (0.06)
• Pulmonary embolism 1 (0.06)
• Hypertensive peak 1 (0.06)
• Pneumothorax 1 (0.06)
• Acute respiratory failure 1 (0.06)
• Acute cardiac failure 1 (0.06)
• Peripheral paresthesia 1 (0.06)
Grade of severity (Clavien-Dindo

classification), n (all complications)
• Grade I 125 (36.5 %)
• Grade II 174 (50.8 %)
• Grade III 42 (12.2 %)
• Grade IV 2 (0.5 %)
• Grade V 3 (0.2 %)
Postoperative course 5.6 postoperative days (2–12)
In this survey, 342 postoperative complications were reported (22.8%);

ascites occurred in 81 cases (23.6% of all complications, 5.4% of all MILR);
pleural effusion was reported in 74 cases (21.6% of all complications, 4.9% of
all MILR); postoperative hemorrhage occurred in 61 patients (17.8% of all
complications, 4.0% of all MILR); postoperative bile leakage was reported in
35 cases (10.2% of all complications, 2.3% of all MILR). The complete list of
complications is reported in Table 42.2, together with their stratification by
severity according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [14]. Most complica-
tions were grade II (174; 50.8%); 125 were grade I (36.5%); 42 were grade III
(12.2%) requiring surgical, endoscopic, or radiological interventions; two
were grade IV. In the literature 10–15% morbidity is reported, with a mean
postoperative bile leakage incidence of 1.5% for MILR [1].
During the postoperative course, patients returned to unrestricted diet a

weighted mean of 2 days after surgery. Postoperative hospital stay ranged
between 2 and 12 days, with a wide variability likely due both to the great het-
erogeneity of MILR and to the variety of postoperative patient management
among centers. However, the weighted mean hospital stay was 6 (range 3–15)
days, whereas weighted mean postoperative course lasted 5 (range 3–12) days.
No significant discrepancy was noted between these data and previous results
from multiple series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses reported in the lit-
erature.
42.4 Conclusion
In recent years, the minimally invasive approach to liver resections has
increased significantly in Italy. About 1,500 minimally invasive liver resec-
tions have been carried out across the country, and 39 centers from 11 regions
contributed to our data collection survey. Several centers definitively complet-
ed the learning curve, as attested by clinical results consistent with major
series from Western and Eastern countries. Our survey demonstrates the over-
riding importance that our country plays in the spread of this technique.
National collaborative projects may result in Italian groups playing a signifi-
cant role in the international scenario for future advances in minimally inva-
sive approaches to liver resections.
Laparoscopic Resective Liver Surgery: National Survey
General information
Institution
Address
Contact person
Temporal references
Year
When did laparoscopic surgery start to be performed?
When did laparoscopic liver resections start to be performed?
Surgical activities
Cases
Total of liver resections (open + LPS)
Total of laparoscopic liver resections (conversions included)
Laparoscopic liver resections completed
Non-resective laparoscopic liver procedures:
• Unroofing
• Pericystectomy
• Radiofrequency ablation
• …
Synchronous colonic-hepatic resection

Cases
Total of synchronous colonic-hepatic resections
Total of synchronous colonic-hepatic laparoscopic resections *
Synchronous colonic-hepatic laparoscopic resections completed *
Hepatic resection:
• Right hepatectomy
• Left hepatectomy
• Segmentectomy (specify segment)
• Wedge resection
(* Enter only the cases with laparoscopic liver resection).
Distribution of resection per year

Year Total Open liver Laparoscopic liver Laparoscopic Major laparo-
of liver resections resections liver resections scopic liver
resections (intention-to-treat) completed resections (*)
(*) Right/left/extended hepatectomy.
Robotic liver resections

NO
YES:
Year
Total
Major liver resections
Diagnosis (only liver resections)

Cases
Malignant neoplasms
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Cholangiocellular carcinoma
Other malignant primaries
Colorectal metastases
Metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasm
Metastases from other primaries
Benign neoplasms
Haemangioma
Adenoma
Focal nodular hyperplasia
Intra-hepatic lithiasis
Other benign neoplasms
Liver resection
Type of resection (indicate the main procedure Cases
in case of multiple resections)
Right hepatectomy
Left hepatectomy
Extended right hepatectomy
Extended left hepatectomy
Central hepatectomy
Left lateral sectionectomy
Right posterior sectionectomy (6-7)
Right anterior sectionectomy (5-8)
Segmentectomy
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
Type of resection
Single Cases
Multiple
Technique of resection
Totally laparoscopic Cases
Hand assisted
Single port
Transection devices (indicate which device(s) Cases

were adopted and the number of cases)
Pringle Maneuver
Cases
YES
NO
Drainage
YES
NO
Conversions
Total of laparoscopic liver resection that were converted
Causes:
Intraoperative data
Length of operation (min)
• Median (range)
• Mean (±SD)
Blood losses (ml)
• Median (range)
• Mean (±SD)
Pringle maneuver
• Mean length (min)
• Type of vascular clamping: intermittent or continuous?
Postoperative data
Length of hospitalization
• Median (range)
• Mean (±SD)
Postoperative stay
• Median (range)
• Mean (±SD)
Refeeding
• Median (range)
Complications (Dindo-Clavien classification)

Type of complication Severity grade Cases
Classification of surgical complications according to Dindo-Clavien
Grades Definition
Grade I: Any deviation from the normal postoperative course without
the need for pharmacological treatment or surgical,
endoscopic and radiological interventions.
Acceptable therapeutic regimens are: drugs as antiemetics,
antipyretics, analgetics, diuretics and electrolytes and
physiotherapy. This grade also includes wound infections
opened at the bedside.
Grade II: Requiring pharmacological treatment with drugs other than

such allowed for grade I complications.
Blood transfusions and total parenteral nutrition are also

included.
Grade III: Requiring surgical, endoscopic or radiological intervention
Grade III-a: Intervention not under general anesthesia
Grade III-b: Intervention under general anesthesia
Grade IV: Life-threatening complication (including CNS complications)1
requiring IC/ICU management
Grade IV-a: Single-organ dysfunction (including dialysis)
Grade IV-b: Multiorgan dysfunction
Grade V: Death of a patient
Suffix ‘d’: If the patient suffers from a complication at the time of
discharge (see examples in Appendix B,
http://Links.Lww-.com/SLA/A3), the suffix “d” (for ‘disability’)
is added to the respective grade of complication. This label indi-
cates the need for a follow-up to fully evaluate the complication.
1
Brain hemorrhage, ischemic stroke, subarrachnoidal bleeding, but excluding transient
ischemic attacks (TIA); IC, intermediate care; ICU, intensive care unit.
www.surgicalcomplication.info
SD, standard deviation; min, minutes.
Comments
Suggestions
References
1. Nguyen KT, Gambin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection –
2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250:831–841
2. Morino M, Morra I, Rosso E, Miglietta C, Garrone C (2003) Laparoscopic vs open hepatic
resection. Surg Endosc 17:1914–1918
3. Nguyen KT, Marsh JW, Tsung A, Steel JJ, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2011) Comparative ben-
efits of laparoscopic vs open hepatic resection: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg 146:348–356
4. Viganò L, Laurent A, Tayar C, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Cherqui D (2009) The learning curve in
laparoscopic liver resection. Improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250:772–782
5. Terminology Committee of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (2000) The
IHPBA Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB Surg 2:333–339
6. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al; World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Surgery
(2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville statement, 2008.
Ann Surg 250(5):825–830
tion in standard of care. Ann Surg 250:856–860
8. Torzilli G, Montorsi M, Donadon M (2005) “Radical but conservative” is the main goal of
ultrasonography-guided liver resection: prospective validation of this approach. J Am Coll Surg
201:517–528
9. Ferrero A, Viganò L, Lo Tesoriere N, Russolillo N, Sgotto E, Capussotti L (2009) Bisegmen-

tectomies as alternative to right hepatectomy in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases.
Hepatogastroenterology 56:1429–1435
10. Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, Catena M, Pulitanò C, Cipriani F, Ferla G (2012) Laparoendoscopic
single site (LESS) surgery for left-lateral hepatic sectionectomy as an alternative to tradition-
al laparoscopy: case-matched analysis from a single center. Surg Endosc [Epub ahead of print,
January 26, PMID: 2278101]
Surg Endosc 25:3815–3824
12. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Bianco FM, Addeo P (2010) Robot-assisted laparoscopic extended
right hepatectomy with biliary reconstruction. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:159–163
13. Pulitanò C, Catena M, Arru M, Guzzetti E, Comotti L, Ferla G, Aldrighetti L (2008) Laparo-
scopic liver resection without portal clamping: a prospective evaluation. Surg Endosc
22:2196–2200
14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien-Dindo classification of sur-
gical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196
Perspectives: Where Shall We Be
20 Years from Now? 43
Antonio Giuliani and Alberto Patriti
43.1 A Premise
In the 1990 at the dawn of the laparoscopic surgery era, Miller published a
review on Gastroenterology titled “Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: passing
fancy or legitimate treatment option?” [1]. A few years after the first laparo-
scopic cholecystectomy by Mouret in the 1987, some doubts arose about the
future of this new surgical approach. However, against every criticism, the
revolution began; only 2 years after Soper et al. published an article titled
“Laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The new ‘gold standard’?” [2]. Quickly, the
historical cliché “the bigger the incision, the better the surgeon” yielded to
“the smaller the incision, the better the surgeon”.
The world of all surgeons changed daily: their hands were no longer “in”
the patient’s abdomen but “over” it; the surgeon could no longer “touch” the
organs but had to learn how to “feel“ them. The new era was named “the
laparoscopic revolution,” but probably the correct definition is “laparoscopic
evolution,” as laparoscopy dated back to many years earlier. This evolution
continues dramatically, with the surgeon’s hands no longer over the patient
but a considerable distance away, possibly even in another room with a remote
control: this is the robot era. Now, the surgeon must learn how to get used to
a 3D vision with the camera as a “medium messenger.” Twenty five years after
the laparoscopic revolution, it must be admitted that laparoscopic cholecys-
tectomy is not a passing fancy. If laparoscopic surgery is considered in some
cases to still be an option, in other cases the surgeon must consider it a duty.
A. Giuliani ()
Department of Surgery, Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Transplant Center,
A. Cardarelli Hospital,
Naples, Italy
Email: [email protected]
Updates in Surgery
314 A. Giuliani and A. Patriti
The development of new instruments, new approaches such as as single-

incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS), and new technologies continuously
transform this technique, raising fundamental questions about the learning
curve and economic sustainability. However, if the road to the laparoscopic
revolution was smooth and limitless, in many surgical procedures, the road to
laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) was bumpy, as it has been in liver surgery
since its beginnings [3].
The axiom noli tangere regarding the liver was changed by Luigi Berta, an
Italian surgeon who in 1716 performed the first liver resection on a protruding
part of the liver from a stab wound. Only 170 years later, an experimental
phase was initiated by Lins, who performed a liver resection and began exper-
iments on rabbits. Contemporarily, Hjortsjo in 1950 and Couinaud in 1957
independently described the human liver anatomy and recognized its function-
al division in segments, which began the modern era of liver surgery. Fifty
years later, LLR entered an area “of resistance to the dramatic diffusion of
laparoscopic surgery” [3]. Cherqui concluded his article with many doubts
about LLR reproducibility, patient selection, and oncological indications while
considering LLS as an appealing option even for a problematic reconstruction
after resection [3]. Less than 10 years later, many studies answer Cherqui’s
questions, with more than 4,200 LLR performed worldwide [4]. Similarly,
concerns about oncological results following LLR seem to be dispelled by
considerable positive evidence.
The feasibility, efficacy, and reproducibility of LLR are clear, with many
advantages for patients in terms of surgical results in the short-, medium-, and
long-term follow-up compared with open liver surgery. Moreover, LLR shows
some clear advantages for cirrhotic patients, who were always considered bor-
derline for the laparoscopic approach. LLR has better results with less postop-
erative liver failure compared with open surgery due to its lesser invasiveness,
reduced blood loss, and caval port shunt sparing [5].
43.2 Where Are We Going?

This is where we are now: curiously, in 2012, the ancient principle of noli tan-
gere, with minimally invasive surgery, and the procedure for rapid liver regen-
eration after split-liver surgery in situ [6] – reminding us of the Prometheus
myth – seems to be the future of liver surgery.
However, some limitations seem to remain, such as the possibility of per-
forming multiple wedge resections to spare liver parenchyma, the approach to
posterior segments, and the possibility of performing vascular and biliary
anastomoses.
43 Perspectives: Where Shall We Be 20 Years from Now? 315
43.3 The Learning Curve

The future scenario depends on how the next generation of surgeons will face
the basic and advanced tasks of their clinical practice. In most general surgery
departments in the Western world, >50% of interventions are laparoscopic.
About half of the surgical activity in liver surgery units is devoted to liver
metastases, mainly from colorectal cancer. In the Italian survey of LLR by
Aldrighetti and colleagues (Chap. 42), more than 1,500 LLR were performed
in more than 30 centers in our country, with only a minority of them fully ded-
icated to hepatobiliary surgery. LLR, at least for minor interventions (up to
two segments), seems to be moving forward.
It is already a established that many surgeons learn to perform minor LLR
without wide experience in open liver resections (OLR) but with consistent
experience in laparoscopic abdominal surgery only. This trend will continue
and expand, and treatment of synchronous metastases will increasingly
become the domain of the general surgeon.
Current laws – namely, the Italian legislation – will need to cope with the
increasing need for the experimental learning curve (Chap. 3): pigs and human
cadavers will be required more frequently to allow young surgeons to practice.
The learning curve is strictly related to the robot’s future and destiny, as well.
43.4 The Robot

Technological progress is unpredictable, particularly in the case of the robot,
the future of which is strictly related to the development of many sectors of
research: aeronautics, mechanical industry, computer technology, molecular
biology. The global economic crisis could place limits to rapid improvements
but it is easy to foresee that, at the deadline of original patents, economies of
the Third World will quickly be able to provide much less expensive and even
more advanced instruments, ready to invade the worldwide market. If one
takes into account that the robot is a “transversal” instrument to be correctly
used in symbiosis among several specialties, i.e. general surgery, thoracic sur-
gery, gynecology, urology etc., the economic burden often flaunted in opposi-
tion to the use of robot could fade away.
It is noteworthy that today, Intuitive, Inc., which holds patents for the robot
hardware, does not provide instruments specifically designed for robot-assist-
ed liver surgery. They will need to change and begin to invest, as matter of
fact, in the two main expected developments in robotics applied to liver sur-
gery: image integration, and new tools for parenchymal transection. Both open
and minimally invasive liver surgery largely depends on preoperative imaging
(computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) and intraoperative
ultrasonography (IOUS) to evaluate vascular and biliary anatomy, identify
known and occult intrahepatic lesions, and aid operative planning. A software
(TilePro; Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), working with the da Vinci
Si platform, may just show data sources in the robotic operative view. TilePro
delivers information from up to two data sources simultaneously. Data are
superimposed on the surgical view and could be delivered via S-video or dig-
ital visual interface (DVI) input into the console. Six data sources may be tog-
gled to present any two at one time to the console surgeon. Additionally, data
can be broadcast to all monitors in the room so the assistants, nurses, and anes-
thesia teams can view the simulcast. The TilePro “inbox” in the console view
may be scaled depending on surgeon preference, with a 50% display dimen-
sion having a resolution of 512 × 384 pixels. Data sources are limitless: static
images, graphic data, dynamic video, intraoperative ultrasound (IUS), can all
be input. The console surgeon with one click of the camera foot pedal may per-
form changes or remove information [6, 7]. The possibilities of TilePro are
actually weakened by the lack of a robotic US. IUS is generally performed by
the on-table surgeon and, if not trained in US, by the console surgeon, who
moves from the console to the table with consequent time wasting and loss of
information. By collaboration between Johns Hopkins University and
Intuitive, a prototype of a new robotic device for laparoscopic US has been
developed, which promises to overcome the limitations of IUS for robot-
assisted liver surgery. The instrument is composed of a linear transducer
installed on an articulated probe controlled from the master tool manipulators
of the surgical console [8]. In preclinical trials, the probe was used with dedi-
cated open-source software, enabling the US images to be displayed in differ-
ent ways: the split-screen display mode, in which the surgeon has a side-by-
side view of the endoscopic and US images; the “picture-in-a-picture” display
mode, that insets the US image into the endoscopic view; and the ‘‘flashlight’’
display mode, in which the US image is overlaid onto a 3D representation of
the imaging plane in the stereo view of the console. The effect of this mode is
to display the US image in the plane in which it is physically acquired by the
transducer. Image magnification and camera filtering are other evolutions of
the robotic optic system with interesting future clinical applications. The dig-
ital image at the console can be manipulated, and the camera can be adapted
to be sensitive to different light frequencies. Intuitive Inc. has recently cleared
for the European market new system components, including a surgical endo-
scope capable of visible light and near-infrared imaging. The 3D high-defini-
tion (HD) stereoscopic camera provides visible light and near infrared illumi-
nation through the surgical endoscope via a flexible light guide. The system
allows surgeons to view high-resolution, near-infrared images of blood flow in
vessels and microvessels, tissue and organ perfusion, and biliary excretion in
real-time during minimally invasive surgical procedures. The da Vinci robotic
system with this new camera has been just adopted in clinical studies to
replace intraoperative cholangiography using indocyanine green to delineate
biliary anatomy and drive resection of kidney and prostate tumors [9, 10].
The other limitation of robot-assisted liver surgery is the lack of dedicated
instruments. Parenchymal transection is generally carried out with the bipolar
Precise forceps, the Harmonic scalpel, or the Plasma Trisector Gyrus [11, 12].
None of the aforementioned instruments were designed for liver surgery.

Improvements in transection devices are eagerly awaited, from the simple
humidified bipolar forceps to the more complex articulated Harmonic scalpel.
Articulating ultrasonically activated devices have been described and tested in
preclinical studies, but there are as yet no experimental or clinical applications
in robotic surgery [13].
43.5 Conclusions
Where shall we be 20 years from now? We are witness to the rising populari-
ty of minimally invasive surgery, which seems to join perfectly with new
trends in medical oncology. If surgery may still have a place for treating liver
malignancies, it will be due to preponderant use of minimally invasive surgery.
Continuous updates and advancements in laparoscopic and robotic technolo-
gies, possible integration of these technologies with new medical anticancer
drugs, and finally, patient choice, will be driving forces behind the minimally
invasive approach to resecting liver malignancies.
The more fascinating aspect of the possible evolution of minimally inva-
sive surgery is miniaturization and complete integration of the robotic devices
in the operating room, along with imaging modalities and medical therapies.
Quantum dots are tiny crystals that glow when stimulated by ultraviolet (UV)
light. The wavelength, or color, of the light depends on the size of the crystal.
Latex beads filled with these crystals can be designed to bind to specific DNA
sequences. By combining different sized quantum dots within a single bead,
scientists can create probes that release distinct colors and intensities of light.
When the crystals are stimulated by UV light, each bead emits light that serves
as a sort of spectral bar code, identifying a particular region of DNA. This
implies that even early tumors will be detectable, overcoming the limitations
of X-ray-and US-based modalities. The use of optic digital systems in the
operating room to detect small tumors by integrating nanotechnologies and
articulated, miniaturized surgical devices to remove the tumors with conserva-
tive operations could be one possible future of surgical oncology.
Some might argue that surgery of the future will be considerably distant
from the attitude of the surgeon and that an extreme technocracy will be arrest-
ed by the need of the surgeon to be the first artificer of patient healing.
However, it is our personal opinion that when the surgeon understands that
some technologies may expand his/her senses and improve his/her abilities, he
or she will be the main promoter of this evolution.
Probably, we shall observe more LLR and other laparoscopic liver proce-
dures (portal vein ligations, treatment of cysts) in general surgery units, espe-
cially in those with the availability of robotic technology. The surgeon may even
be in another room, but there will always be an assistant (human? robotic?) near
the patient. Young surgeons will learn liver surgery, probably at a distance from
the patient, while seated in front of a console with the tutor by his or her side.
The surgeon’s hands will be guided by technology, visualizing in the monitor

(with an indicator) how to dissect, ligate, and coagulate in order to perform the
optimal procedure for each individual patient. We should be able to treat other
pathologies also, such as Klatskin tumors, and vascular and biliary resections
with ductal anastomosis will be routinely performed in most advanced centers.
Another fascinating technology will change the scenario: nanotechnology,
that is, objects <100 nm in size. Experimental microrobots are already avail-
able, and it seems likely that in one or two decades, microrobots will be com-
monly used in surgery before their eventual replacement by nanorobots. We
shall witness a gradual transition from surgical repair to disease prevention
with nanotechnologies. Nanoparticle-assisted surgery already illuminates can-
cers so that surgeons can completely remove them
Another aspect of the interposition of a digital media between the patient
and the surgeon are the advantages for education. Young surgeons will benefit
first of the new technology. Learning liver surgery will be extremely different
due to the possibility of interaction in virtual reality with the anatomy of the
liver. The role of the proctor will therefore change dramatically in this sce-
nario. Probably, the expert surgeon will be able to provide real-time feedback,
supervision, and graduated responsibility, even if away from the patient or the
hospital. Using telementoring and telemedicine models, a single surgeon will
proctor more residents or fellows, avoiding continuous and expensive travels
Finally let us all make an effort to provide for our young surgeons the oppor-
tunity for adequate training prior to entering the operating room: this will help
them advance more quickly toward innovation and benefit to their patients.
Of course, all this will have an impact on our training as surgeons: expect
to be surpassed by surgical advances in your lifetime. Therefore, be vigilant
about upcoming trends, and prepare to adapt to them. Do not underestimate
any new technique; instead, learn about it and study the trend.
References
1. Miller TA (1990) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: passing fancy or legitimate treatment op-
tion? Gastroenterology 99(5):1527–1529
2. Soper NJ, Stockmann PT, Dunnegan DL, Ashley SW (1992) Laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
The new ‘gold standard’? Arch Surg 127(8):917–921; discussion 921–923
3. Cherqui D (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 90(6):644–646. doi:10.1002/bjs.4197
noma: a European experience. J Am Coll Surg 211(1):16–23. doi:10.1016/j.jamcoll-
surg.2010.03.012
6. Volonté F, Pugin F, Buchs NC et al (2012) Console-integrated stereoscopic OsiriX 3D volume-
rendered images for da Vinci colorectal robotic surgery. Surg Innov. doi:10.1177/1553350612446353
7. Volonté F, Pugin F, Bucher P, Sugimoto M, Ratib O, Morel P (2011) Augmented reality and
image overlay navigation with OsiriX in laparoscopic and robotic surgery: not only a matter
of fashion. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 18(4):506–509. doi:10.1007/s00534-011-0385-6
8. Schneider CM, Peng PD, Taylor RH et al (2012) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ultrasonogra-

phy for hepatic surgery. Surgery 151(5):756–762. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2011.07.040
9. Brouwer OR, Buckle T, Bunschoten A et al (2012) Image navigation as a means to expand
the boundaries of fluorescence-guided surgery. Phys Med Biol 57(10):3123–3136.
doi:10.1088/0031-9155/57/10/3123
10. Tobis S, Knopf JK, Silvers C et al (2012) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic partial nephrecto-
my with near infrared fluorescence imaging. J Endourol. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0604
Surg Endosc 25(12):3815–3824. doi:10.1007/s00464-011-1796-9
tions. Surgery 149(1):29–39. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.04.002
13. Ogura G, Nakamura R, Muragaki Y, Hashizume M, Iseki H (2009) Development of an artic-
ulating ultrasonically activated device for laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23(9):2138–2142.
doi:10.1007/s00464-008-0248-7
Index
A Clamp crushing 69, 71

Accessory veins 237 Clavien classifications 170, 292
Adenoma 168 Clots 155
American Society of Anesthesiologists Coagulation monitoring devices 53
Physical Status Classification (ASA PSC) Collagen sponge 161
52 Colonic resections 129
Anastomotic leakage 126 Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) 181, 197,
Anatomic liver resection 207, 213 233, 292
Anterior segments 182, 184 Colorectal metastasis (CRM) 167
Anterolateral segment resections 80 Combined colorectal and liver resection 123,
Anti-Trendelenburg position 204 125
Arantius’ ligament 209 Complications after llr 291
Argon beam coagulator (ABC) 67, 157 Condensing lens 36, 38
Ascites 170, 293 Contact ultrasonography 277
Contrast-enhanced IUS (CE-IUS) 100
B Conversion 293
Backflow bleeding 112 Cool-tip RF electrode 68
Bile leak 69, 278, 293 “Corkscrew” technique 184
from the resection plane 153 Coronal ligament 235
Biliary fistula 156 Couinaud 314
Biliary scope (BS) 115
Bilioenteric anastomosis 80 D
Bipolar electrocautery 67, 184 da Vinci Robotic System 80, 239
Bipolar diathermy 157 Four-arm da Vinci robotic system 200
Bleeding control 65 da Vinci Si platform 315
Bleeding from the resection plane 153 da Vinci Surgical System (dVSS) 275
Blood loss 118 DNA 317
Body mass index (BMI) 124 “Dome” of the liver 239
Donor workup 283
C
Camera filtering 316 E
Cantlie’s line 211 Emangioma 168
Carbon dioxide 40 EndoWrist instruments 71, 184, 275
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) 124 EndoWrist bipolar Precise forceps 184
Caval dissection 237 EndoWrist Cadiere forceps 237
Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator Exploration of the liver 95
(CUSA) 69, 71, 200, 205 Exploration techniques 96
Cholangiography 259 Extracorporeally clamp 71
321
322 Index
F Intraparenchymal ligation 214

Fiber-optic cable 36 Intuitive, Inc 315
Fibrillar oxidized cellulose 207 iPad 183
Fibrin sealants 154 Iron iodide lamp 38
Finger fracture technique 66
Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) 168 J-K
Jackson-Pratt drainage 208
G Kelly-clamp crushing technique 65, 69, 71,
Gallium iodide lamp 38 184, 200
Gas embolism 293 Klatskin tumors 276
Gelatin matrix 159
Glissonian approach 215 L
Glues 154 Lamp 36-37
Gold standard 247 Laparoscope and Camera Unit 39
Gyrus Plasma Trisector 68 Laparoscopic cholecystectomy 313
“Laparoscopic revolution” 313
H “Laparoscopic evolution” 313
Halogen 38 Laparoscopic HabibTM 4X 68
Hand-assisted laparoscopy 221 Laparoscopic hepatectomy 74, 76
Harmonic scalpel 68, 80, 108, 179, 184, 199, Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) 79,129
229, 235, 258, 263, 316, 317 cirrhosis 144
Harmonic shears 278 cirrhotic liver 143
heat filter 36, 38 survival rates 145
Hem-o-lok clips 184, 211, 217, 278 mortality 145
hemorrhage 54, 65 morbidity rates 145
Hemostasis 153, 163, 208, 258 hospital length of stay 168
Hepatic blood flow 112 recurrence- free survival (RFS) 170
Hepatocaval confluence 81, 234 Laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) 245, 253
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) 80, 143, Laparoscopic redo 117
167, 181, 197, 233, 248, 292 Laparoscopic resection 203
Hepatoduodenal ligament (HDL) 111 Laparoscopic staging 97
Hepatolithiasis 168 Laparoscopic staplers 258
High-frequency alternating current Laparoscopic trolley 36
bipolar 66 Laparoscopic ultrasonography (LUS)
monopolar 66 Laparoscopic ultrasound (LUS) 95, 126, 206,
Hilar-plate 258 216
Hjortsjo 314 Learning curve 3, 9, 11, 17, 19, 25, 26, 29,
Hopkins rodense system 39 32, 47, 59, 81, 90, 118, 144, 155, 245, 292,
Hybrid methods 128 297, 307, 315
Hybrid Video-Assisted Techniques 128 Left lateral sectionectomy 245
Left lateral segment 282
I Left lateral segmentectomy
Image magnification 316 conversion rate 283
Incisional hernia 166, 168, 291 Left lobectomy 127, 282
Indocyanine green 316 Left medial section 209
Inferior vena cava (IVC) 233 Left portal branch 209
Inflow occlusion 111, 183 LESS approach 247
Insufflator 40 LH4X 70
Intensity control circuit 36 LigaSure 68-69
Intermittent pedicle clamping (IPC) 113, 216 Light Cable 36
Intermittent Pringle maneuver 200 Light Source 36
Intrahepatic glissonian access 200 Linear laparoscopic stapler 205
Intraoperative cholangiography 316 Linear stapler 246
Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) 95, 181, 315 Liquid crystal gel cable 36
Index 323
Liver anatomy 314 Pfannenstiel incision 165, 166

Liver backflow 70 Plasma Trisector Gyrus 316
Liver inflow clamping 112 Plastic locking clips 258
Liver metastases 248 Pneumoperitoneum 40, 54, 200, 285
Liver resection 102 Porta hepatis 114
Living donor 118, 281 Portal clamping 172
LOTUS (Laparoscopic Operation by Portal hypertension 144
Torsional Ultrasound) 68 Posterior portal vein 234
Louisville Statement Consensus Conference Posterior sector 234
79, 80 Posterolateral sector 183
Low central venous pressure (CVP) 65 Posterolateral segments 71, 182-183
Low central venous pressure (LCVP) 52 Posterosuperior segments (PS) 182, 233
Luigi Berta 314 Precise bipolar forceps 71, 200, 316
Preoperative evaluation 51, 52
M Pringle maneuver 71, 65, 69, 111, 126, 182,
Major liver resection 128 199, 206, 237, 257, 279, 293
Manual fragmentation 66 Proctor 318
Massive transfusion 52 Pure laparoscopic technique 125
Metal halide vapor arc lamp 37
Microrobots 318 Q
Miniaturization 317 Quantum dots 317
Minilaparotomy 127 Quartz halogen 37
Minimally invasive surgery 285
Minor resections 182 R
Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) Radiofrequency 67
292 Readmission rates 168
Monopolar cautery 184 Rectal cancer 124
Resection margins 169, 216
N Resection plane 103
Nanotechnologies 317 Reverse-Trendelenburg position 235
Near-infrared imaging 316 Rex recessus 213
No-knife GIA stapler 278 RF-based devices 68
Nonanatomic liver resection 183 Right hepatectomy 253
Noncolorectal, nonendocrine liver metastases Right hepatic vein (RHV) 233
(NCRNNE) 182 Right hepatocaval confluence 235
Right triangular ligament 235
O Robot-assisted hepatectomy 276
Open access 221 Robot-assisted nonanatomic resections 184
Open liver resection 143 Robot-assisted resections (RAR) 79
OsiriX 183 Robot-assisted S8 segmentectomy 239
Overall yield of SL + LUS 100 Robot-assisted surgery 183, 279
Oxidized cellulose 162 Robotic clamp crushing 71
Robotic US 316
P Roticulator grasp 199
P2 200
P8 240 S
Parenchymal section 206 Segment 2 197
Parenchymal-preserving surgery 80, 81, 181, segmentectomy 200
182 Segment 4 209, 213
Patch 162 subsegment 4a 209
Patient Positioning 255 subsegment 4b 209
Pediatric recipients 281 Segment 5 219
Pediatric transplantation 283 S5 pedicle 242
perioperative risks 51 S5 segmentectomy 220
324 Index
Segment 7 233 Third World 315

S7 segmentectomy 235 TilePro 276, 315
Segment 8 (S8) 239 TissueLink 68
S8 pedicle 242 Tourniquet method 113
S8 segmentectomy 239 Trocar-site bleeding 291
Scissural vein 210 Tumorectomy 182
Sealant agents 153 segmentectomy 182
in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) 213
Simultaneous colorectal and hepatic resection U
123 Ultrasonic devices 70
Single incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) Ultrasonic dissection 246
314 Ultrasound (US) scanning 203
Skin effect 68 Umbilicus 165
Specimen extraction 165 US shears 205
Split-liver 281
Stage IV colorectal cancer 125 V
Stapler 66 Vascular anastomoses 80
Subsegmentectomy 182 Vascular clamp 113, 116, 118
Surgical margins 167, 181 Veress needle 183, 221
Synchronous liver metastases (SLM) 123, 169 Vessel-sealing devices 258
Synchronous resections 129 Video Monitor 39
T W
TA endoscopic stapler 278 Water-jet devices 66, 69, 70
Takayasu 240 Winslow foramen 114, 237
Tattooing 206
Technocracy 317 X
The LigaSure Atlas 70 Xenon Lamps 37, 38

F.calise, L.casciola - Minimally Invasive Surgery of The Liver - 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F.calise, L.casciola - Minimally Invasive Surgery of The Liver - 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

F.calise, L.casciola - Minimally Invasive Surgery of The Liver - 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Updates in Surgery

Fulvio Calise • Luciano Casciola

In collaboration with Graziano Ceccarelli,

Additional material to this book can be downloaded from http://extras.springer.com.

Springer Milan Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2013 2014 2015 2016

Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l. – Via Decembrio 28 – I-20137 Milan

New technologies and a generation of surgeons mastering advanced minimal-

Rome, September 2012 Gianluigi Melotti

This book is meant as a challenge to the usual.

Naples and Spoleto, September 2012 Fulvio Calise

1 Minimally Invasive Surgery: An Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver: An Update . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 The Learning Curve in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 The Learning Curve: Teaching in Robotic Surgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5 The Laparoscopic Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6 Technology in the Operating Room: the Robot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

8 Costs and Benefits. A Triad in Comparison: Open, Laparoscopic

10 The Louisville Consensus Conference: Conclusions

11 Indications to Surgery: Laparoscopic or Robotic Approach . . . . . . . 79

12 Diagnostic Laparoscopy and Allied Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

14 A New Anatomical Vision: Liver Surgery on the Screen . . . . . . . . . 105

15 Encircling the Pedicle for the Pringle Maneuver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

16 Minimally Invasive Combined Surgery:

17 Minimally Invasive Procedures for Liver Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

18 Minimally Invasive Surgery in Cirrhotic Patients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

19 Reoperative Laparoscopic Hepatectomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

20 Treating the Resected Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

21 Specimen Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

22 Short- and Long-Term Follow-Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

23 Portal Vein Ligation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

25 Segmentectomies (Chapters 26-34): A Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

26 Segment 1: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

27 Segment 2: Laparoscopic and Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . 197

28 Segment 3: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

29 Segment 4: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

30 Segment 4b: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

31 Segment 5: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

32 Segment 6: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

33 Segment 7: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

34 Segment 8: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

35 Left Lateral Sectionectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

36 Right Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

37 Right Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

38 Left Hepatectomy: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

39 Left Hepatectomy: Robot-Assisted Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

40 Left Sectionectomy for Living Donor: Laparoscopic Approach . . . . 281

42 The Italian Experience in Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Liver:

43 Perspectives: Where Shall We Be 20 Years from Now? . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Giulio Angelini General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Luca Aldrighetti Department of Surgery, Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit,

Mario Annecchiarico Department of Surgery, General Surgery Unit,

Giuseppe Aragiusto Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Francesco Ardito Hepatobiliary Surgery Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro

Piero Atelli Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Center,

Claudio Bagarolo General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Andrea Barberis General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Galliera Hospitals,

Alberto Bartoli Department of Surgery, Division of General, Minimally Invasive