Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers' practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

No abstract

This is the first study demonstrating PDC as a prognostic factor in CLM. TB was also a prognostic factor, but it was not an independent predictor of survival.

Preoperative strategies to increase liver volume are effective in achieving resectability of HCC. TACE + PVE is as safe as PVL/PVE providing higher OS. ALPPS is associated with a higher risk of PHLF, major complications, and mortality. RE despite the small experience seems to present similar resection rate and OS as TACE + PVE with higher rate of major complications.

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide. The liver is the most common site of distant metastases, and surgery is the only potentially curative treatment, although the recurrence rate following surgery is high. In order to define prognosis after surgery, many histopathological features have been identified in the primary tumour. In turn, pathologists routinely report specific findings to guide oncologists on the decision to recommend adjuvant therapy. In general, the pathological report of resected colorectal liver metastases is limited to confirmation of the malignancy and details regarding the margin status. Most pathological reports of a liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis lack information on other important features that have been reported to be independent prognostic factors. We herein review the evidence to support a more detailed pathological report of the resected liver specimen, with attention to: the number and size of liver metastases; margin size; the presence of lymphatic, vascular, perineural and biliary invasion; mucinous pattern; tumour growth pattern; the presence of a tumour pseudocapsule; and the pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, we propose a new protocol for the evaluation of colorectal liver metastasis resection specimens.

Hybrid technique had perioperative outcomes that were more in keeping with pure laparoscopic outcomes than open surgery. Hybrid liver surgery should be considered a minimally invasive approach.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent type of primary liver cancer and its incidence is increasing around the world in the last decades, making it the third cause of death by cancer in the world. Hepatic resection is one of the most effective treatments for HCC with five-year survival rates from 50-70%, especially for patients with a single nodule and preserved liver function. Some studies have shown a worse prognosis for HCC patients whose etiology is viral. That brings us to the question about the existence of a difference between the various causes of HCC and its prognosis. Aim: To compare the prognosis (overall and disease-free survival at five years) of patients undergoing hepatectomy for the treatment of HCC with respect to various causes of liver disease. Method: Was performed a review of medical records of patients undergoing hepatectomy between 2000 and 2014 for the treatment of HCC. They were divided into groups according to the cause of liver disease, followed by overall and disease-free survival analysis for comparison. Results:There was no statistically significant difference in the outcomes of the groups of patients divided according to the etiology of HCC. Overall and disease-free survival at five years of the patients in this sample were 49.9% and 40.7%, respectively. Conclusion: From the data of this sample, was verified that there was no prognostic differences among the groups of HCC patients of the various etiologies.

No abstract