Tumor visualization and fluorescence angiography with indocyanine green (ICG) in laparoscopic and robotic hepatobiliary surgery - valuation of early adopters from Germany.

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.

Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases: an experience from a German Academic Center.

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.