Laparoscopic major hepatectomy remains a relatively rare operation because it is a difficult and technically demanding procedure, and a standard, safe, reproducible technique has not been widely adopted. This is compounded by ''major hepatectomy'' encompassing multiple different operations each with their own anatomic and procedural considerations. In 2010, we investigated our learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection. We found a significant increase in the number of major hepatectomies performed over a 12-year period, with concurrent reductions in the use of hand-assistance, pedicle clamping, median clamping time, median operative time, blood loss and morbidity. This learning curve was confirmed by a subsequent multinational study. Both hospital and surgeon volume have been shown to affect outcomes, and defining a sufficient number of repetitions before the learning curve plateaus is not easy for laparoscopic major hepatectomy. We recommend that laparoscopic competencies be developed upon a foundation of open liver surgery and that laparoscopic major hepatectomy should only be attempted after competency with less technically complex laparoscopic resections. A center advanced along its institutional learning curve provides the collective expertise necessary for safe patient selection and management. An environment with colleagues willing to share their acquired proficiency allows the surgeon to observe and critique his or her performance against colleagues. Also, the guidance of likeminded surgeons supports technical development and improved outcomes. In conclusion, steady progress can be made along the learning curve through committed practice of increasingly complex tasks and with proper coaching in a high-volume environment.

There is conflicting literature regarding the superiority of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus bland transarterial embolization (TAE), and this has not been well studied before transplantation. Twenty-five TAE patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio with TACE patients by the initial radiographic tumor size and number in a retrospective, case-controlled study. The patients were otherwise treated according to the same protocols. The method of embolization was chosen on the basis of interventionalist practices at 2 sites within the program. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses at 1 and 3 years were the primary endpoints. There were no significant demographic differences between the groups. The mean adjusted Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at transplantation and waiting times were not significantly different between the TAE and TACE patients (MELD scores: 26 ± 3 versus 24 ± 3 points, P = 0.12; waiting times: 13 ± 8 versus 11 ± 10 months, P = 0.43). TAE patients (16%) were less likely than TACE patients (40%) to require 2 procedures (P = 0.04). Explant tumors were completely necrotic for 36% of the TAE patients and for 26% of the TACE patients. The 3-year overall survival rates were 78% for the TAE patients and 74% for the TACE patients (P = 0.66), and the 3-year recurrence-free survival rates were 72% for the TAE patients and 68% for the TACE patients (P = 0.67). On an intention-to-treat basis, there was no significant risk of wait-list dropout associated with TAE or TACE (P = 0.83). In conclusion, there were no significant differences in wait-list dropout or in overall or recurrence-free survival between HCC patients undergoing TAE and HCC patients undergoing TACE before transplantation.