The diagnosis of benign hepatic tumors as hepatic adenoma (HA) and focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) remains a challenge for clinicians and surgeons. The importance of differentiating between these lesions is based on the fact that HA must be surgically resected and FNH can be only observed. A series of 23 female patients with benign liver tumors (13 FNH, 10 HA) were evaluated, and a radiologic diagnostic algorithm was employed with the aim of establishing preoperative criteria for the differential diagnosis. All patients were submitted to surgical biopsy or hepatic resection to confirm the diagnosis. Based only on clinical and laboratory data, distinction was not possible. According to the investigative algorithm, the diagnosis was correct in 82.6% of the cases; but even with the development of imaging methods, which were used in combination, the differentiation was not possible in four patients. For FNH cases scintigraphy presented a sensitivity of 38.4% and specificity of 100%, whereas for HA the sensitivity reached 60% and specificity 85.7%. Magnetic resonance imaging, employed when scintigraphic findings were not typical, presented sensitivities of 71.4% and 80% and specificities of 100% and 100% for FNH and HA, respectively. Preoperative diagnosis of FNH was possible in 10 of 13 (76.9%) patients and was confirmed by histology in all of them. In one case, FNH was misdiagnosed as HA. The diagnosis of HA was possible in 9 of 10 (90%) adenoma cases. Surgical biopsy remains the best method for the differential diagnosis between HA and FNH and must be performed in all doubtful cases. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for all patients with adenoma and can be performed safely. With the evolution of imaging methods it seems that the preoperative diagnosis of FNH may be considered reliable, thereby avoiding unnecessary surgical resection.

Surgical volume is not sufficient to ensure quality and patient safety in MIPR. Safe adoption of these complex procedures should consider innovative mastery-based training outside of the operating room, novel video based coaching techniques and prospective reporting of patient data and outcomes using standardized definitions.

Available evidence for comparison of MIDP to ODP is weak, although the number of studies is high. Observed outcomes of MIDP are promising. In the absence of randomized control trials, an international registry should be established.

This worldwide survey showed that most participating HPB surgeons value MIPR as a useful development, especially for MIDP, but the role and implementation of MIPD requires further assessment. Most HPB surgeons would welcome specific training in MIPR and the establishment of an international registry.

MIPD appears to provide similar perioperative and oncologic outcomes in selected patients, when performed at experienced, high-volume centers. Its overall role in pancreatoduodenectomy needs to be better defined. Improved training opportunities, registry participation and prospective evaluation are needed.