Objectives Indocyanine green (ICG) is a fluorescent dye which was initially used for liver functional assessment. Moreover, it is of value for intraoperative visualization of liver segments and bile ducts or primary and secondary liver tumors. Especially in minimally invasive liver surgery, this is essential to enhance the precision of anatomical guided surgery and oncological quality. As early adopters of ICG implementation into laparoscopic and robotic-assisted liver surgery in Germany, we summarize the current recommendations and share our experiences. Methods Actual strategies for ICG application in minimally invasive liver surgery were evaluated and summarized during a review of the literature. Experiences in patients who underwent laparoscopic or robotic-assisted liver surgery with intraoperative ICG staining between 2018 and 2020 from the Magdeburg registry for minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS) were evaluated and the data were analyzed retrospectively. Results ICG can be used to identify anatomical liver segments by fluorescence angiography via direct or indirect tissue staining. Fluorescence cholangiography visualizes the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts. Primary and secondary liver tumors can be identified with a sensitivity of 69–100%. For this 0.5 mg/kg body weight ICG must be applicated intravenously 2–14 days prior to surgery. Within the MD-MILS we identified 18 patients which received ICG for intraoperative tumor staining of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cholangiocarcinoma, peritoneal HCC metastases, adenoma, or colorectal liver metastases. The sensitivity for tumor staining was 100%. In 27.8% additional liver tumors were identified by ICG fluorescence. In 39% a false positive signal could be detected. This occurred mainly in cirrhotic livers. Conclusions ICG staining is a simple and useful tool to assess individual hepatic anatomy or to detect tumors during minimally invasive liver surgery. It may enhance surgical precision and improve oncological quality. False-positive detection rates of liver tumors can be reduced by respecting the tumor entity and liver functional impairments.

Background Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) is increasing in incidence. The aim of this work was to present our experience by reporting short-term and long-term outcomes after MILS for CRLM with comparative analysis of laparoscopic (LLS) and robotic liver surgery (RLS). Methods Twenty-five patients with CRLM, who underwent MILS between May 2012 and March 2020, were selected from our retrospective registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Thirteen of these patients underwent LLS and 12 RLS. Short-term and long-term outcomes of both groups were analyzed. Results Operating time was significantly longer in the RLS vs. the LLS group (342.0 vs. 200.0 min; p = 0.004). There was no significant difference between the laparoscopic vs. the robotic group regarding length of postoperative stay (8.8 days), measured blood loss (430.4 ml), intraoperative blood transfusion, overall morbidity (20.0%), and liver surgery related morbidity (4%). The mean BMI was 27.3 (range from 19.2 to 44.8) kg/m2. The 30-day mortality was 0%. R0 resection was achieved in all patients (100.0%) in RLS vs. 10 patients (76.9%) in LLS. Major resections were carried out in 32.0% of the cases, and 84.0% of the patients showed intra-abdominal adhesions due to previous abdominal surgery. In 24.0% of cases, the tumor was bilobar, the maximum number of tumors removed was 9, and the largest tumor was 8.5 cm in diameter. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 84, 56.9, and 48.7%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year overall recurrence-free survival rates were 49.6 and 36.2%, respectively, without significant differences between RLS vs. LLS. Conclusion Minimally invasive liver surgery for CRLM is safe and feasible. Minimally invasive resection of multiple lesions and large tumors is also possible. RLS may help to achieve higher rates of R0 resections. High BMI, previous abdominal surgery, and bilobar tumors are not a barrier for MILS. Laparoscopic and robotic liver resections for CRLM provide similar long-term results which are comparable to open techniques.

Purpose Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. Methods The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. Results We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). Conclusion Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.

Background: The implementation of robotics in liver surgery offers several advantages compared to conventional open and laparoscopic techniques. One major advantage is the enhanced degree of freedom at the tip of the robotic tools compared to laparoscopic instruments. This enables excellent vessel control during inflow and outflow dissection of the liver. Parenchymal transection remains the most challenging part during robotic liver resection because currently available robotic instruments for parenchymal transection have several limitations and there is no standardized technique as of yet. We established a new strategy and share our experience. Methods: We present a novel technique for the transection of liver parenchyma during robotic surgery, using three devices (3D) simultaneously: monopolar scissors and bipolar Maryland forceps of the robot and laparoscopic-guided waterjet. We collected the perioperative data of twenty-eight patients who underwent this procedure for minor and major liver resections between February 2019 and December 2020 from the Magdeburg Registry of minimally invasive liver surgery (MD-MILS). Results: Twenty-eight patients underwent robotic-assisted 3D parenchyma dissection within the investigation period. Twelve cases of major and sixteen cases of minor hepatectomy for malignant and non-malignant cases were performed. Operative time for major liver resections (≥ 3 liver segments) was 381.7 (SD 80.6) min vs. 252.0 (70.4) min for minor resections (p < 0.01). Intraoperative measured blood loss was 495.8 (SD 508.8) ml for major and 256.3 (170.2) ml for minor liver resections (p = 0.090). The mean postoperative stay was 13.3 (SD 11.1) days for all cases. Liver surgery-related morbidity was 10.7%, no mortalities occurred. We achieved an R0 resection in all malignant cases. Conclusions: The 3D technique for parenchyma dissection in robotic liver surgery is a safe and feasible procedure. This novel method offers an advanced locally controlled preparation of intrahepatic vessels and bile ducts. The combination of precise extrahepatic vessel handling with the 3D technique of parenchyma dissection is a fundamental step forward to the standardization of robotic liver surgery for teaching purposing and the wider adoption of robotic hepatectomy into routine patient care.

The phthalimidone derivatives EM12 and lenalidomide, which are both structurally related to thalidomide, are highly interesting drugs and very recently lenalidomide attracted great attention as an antitumor and immune-modulating drug in the therapy for multiple myeloma. EM12 and lenalidomide are chiral, and the stereogenic carbon C-3 in the piperidine-2,6-dione moiety of these phthalimidone derivatives is prone to interconversion due to keto-enol tautomerization. The knowledge of the enantiomerization barrier is mandatory for pharmacokinetic studies and to develop a tailored therapy using the enantiopure or racemic drug. Here, we used dynamic EKC in combination with direct-calculation methods to determine the enantiomerization barriers of EM12 and lenalidomide. The separations of the enantiomers of EM12 and lenalidomide were performed in 50 mM aqueous disodium hydrogen phosphate buffer at pH 8 and 50 mM aqueous sodium tetraborate buffer at pH 9.3, respectively, using 20 mg/mL heptakis-(2,3-diacetyl-6-sulfato)-β-CD as a chiral additive. Enantiomerization of the compounds during the electrokinetic chromatographic separation resulted in pronounced plateau formation between the well-separated enantiomers. Peak form analysis of the experimentally obtained interconversion profiles yielded the enantiomerization rate constants k1 of EM12 and lenalidomide as well as the kinetic activation parameters ΔG(‡), ΔH(‡‡), and ΔS(‡) of enantiomerization by the evaluation of temperature-dependent measurements. The enantiomerization barrier ΔG(‡) was determined to be 98.3 ± 1.0 kJ/mol; the activation parameters ΔH(‡) = 46.1 ± 2.4 kJ/mol and ΔS(‡) = -170 ± 61 J/(K·mol) for EM12 and ΔG(‡) = 91.5 ± 1.0 kJ/mol, ΔH(‡) = 62.4 ± 5.4 kJ/mol, and ΔS(‡) = -98 ± 7 J/(K·mol) for lenalidomide. These findings were corroborated by density functional theory calculations at the B3LYP/3-21G level of theory of the ground state and intermediates considering an enantiomerization pathway via a keto-enol tautomerism.