Recurrence and tumor-related death after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with metabolic syndrome.

Background & Aims: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a growing epidemic and a risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study investigated the long-term outcomes of liver resection (LR) for HCC in patients with MS. Rates, timing, patterns, and treatment of recurrences were investigated, and cancer-specific survivals were assessed. Methods: Between 2001 and 2021, data from 24 clinical centers were collected. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival were analyzed as well as recurrence patterns and treatment. The analysis was conducted using a competing-risk framework. The trajectory of the risk of recurrence over time was applied to a competing risk analysis. For post-recurrence survival, death resulting from tumor progression was the primary endpoint, whereas deaths with recurrence relating to other causes were considered as competing events. Results: In total, 813 patients were included in the study. Median OS was 81.4 months (range 28.1-157.0 months), and recurrence occurred in 48.3% of patients, with a median RFS of 39.8 months (range 15.7-174.7 months). Cause-specific hazard of recurrence showed a first peak 6 months (0.027), and a second peak 24 months (0.021) after surgery. The later the recurrence, the higher the chance of receiving curative intent approaches (p = 0.001). Size >5 cm, multiple tumors, microvascular invasion, and cirrhosis were independent predictors of recurrence showing a cause-specific hazard over time. RFS was associated with death for recurrence (hazard ratio: 0.985, 95% CI: 0.977-0.995; p = 0.002). Conclusions: Patients with MS undergoing LR for HCC have good long-term survival. Recurrence occurs in 48% of patients with a double-peak incidence and time-specific hazards depending on tumor-related factors and underlying disease. The timing of recurrence significantly impacts survival. Surveillance after resection should be adjusted over time depending on risk factors. Impact and implications: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is a growing epidemic and a significant risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The present study demonstrated that patients who undergo surgical resection for HCC on MS have a good long-term survival and that recurrence occurs in almost half of the cases with a double peak incidence and time-specific hazards depending on tumor-related factors and underlying liver disease. Also, the timing of recurrence significantly impacts survival. Clinicians should therefore adjust follow-up after surgery accordingly, considering timing of recurrence and specific risk factors. Also, the results of the present study might help design future trials on the use of adjuvant therapy following resection.

Factors Associated with and Impact of Open Conversion in Laparoscopic and Robotic Minor Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study of 10,541 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Robotic living donor hepatectomy is associated with superior outcomes for both the donor and the recipient compared with laparoscopic or open - A single-center prospective registry study of 3448 cases.

Minimally invasive donor hepatectomy is an emerging surgical technique in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). We examined outcomes across open, laparoscopic, and robotic LDLT using a prospective registry. We analyzed 3448 cases (1724 donor-recipient pairs) from January 2011 to March 2023 (NCT06062706). Among donors, 520 (30%) were female. Adult-to-adult LDLT comprised 1061 (62%) cases. A total of 646 (37%) of the donors underwent open, 165 (10%) laparoscopic, and 913 (53%) robotic hepatectomies. Primary outcomes: donor overall morbidity was 4% (35/903) for robotic, 8% (13/165) laparoscopic, and 16% (106/646) open (P < .001) procedures. Pediatric and adult recipient mortality was similar among the 3 donor hepatectomy approaches: robotic 1.5% and 7.0%, compared with 2.3% and 8.3% laparoscopic, and 1.6% and 5.5% for open donor surgery, respectively (P = .802, P = .564). Secondary outcomes: pediatric and adult recipients major morbidity after robotic hepatectomy was 15% and 23%, compared with 25% and 44% for laparoscopic surgery and 19% and 31% for open surgery, respectively (P = .033, P < .001). Graft and recipient 5-year survival were 90% and 93% for pediatrics and 79% and 80% for adults, respectively. In conclusion, robotic LDLT was associated with superior outcomes when compared with the laparoscopic and open approaches. Both donors and, for the first time reported, recipients benefitted from lower morbidity rates in robotic surgery, emphasizing its potential for further advancing this field.

Benchmark Outcomes in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation: A Multicenter Analysis of 80 996 Transplants From 126 Centers.

Background: We defined clinically relevant benchmark values in deceased donor kidney transplantation (KT), to assess the best achievable results in low-risk patient cohorts from experienced centers. Methods: We identified the "ideal" cases from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from centers performing ≥50 KT per year between 2010 and 2018. Cases have been selected based on the kidney donor profile index values (<35%), a cold ischemia time (CIT) ≤18 h, a HLA mismatch ≤4, and excluding blood group (ABO) incompatible, dual and combined transplants. The outcomes of the benchmark cohort have been compared with a group of patients excluded from the benchmark cohort because but not meeting 1 or more of the abovementioned criteria. Results: The 171 424 KT patients in the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files were screened and 8694 benchmark cases of a total of 80 996 KT (10.7%) from 126 centers meeting the selection criteria were identified. The benchmarks for 1-, 3-, and 5-y patient survival are ≥97%, ≥92.5%, and ≥86.7%, and ≥95.4%, ≥87.8%, and ≥79.6% for graft survival. Benchmark cutoff for hospital length of stay is ≤5 d, ≤23.6% for delayed graft function, and ≤7.5% and ≤9.1% for 6-mo and 1-y incidence of acute rejection. Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y actuarial graft survivals were 96.6%, 91.1%, and 84.2% versus 93.5%, 85.4%, and 75.5% in the benchmark and comparison groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Overall 1-, 3-, and 5-y actuarial patient survivals were 98.1%, 94.8%, and 90.0% versus 96.6%, 91.1%, and 83.0% in the benchmark and comparison groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions: For the first time, we quantified the best achievable postoperative results in an ideal scenario in deceased donor KT, aimed at improving the clinical practice guided by the comparison of center performances with the ideal outcomes defined.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemihepatectomy: The ORANGE II PLUS Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after laparoscopic versus open major liver resection (hemihepatectomy) mainly for primary or metastatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was time to functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, quality of life (QoL), and for those with cancer, resection margin status and time to adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, patient-blinded, superiority trial on adult patients undergoing hemihepatectomy. Patients were recruited from 16 hospitals in Europe between November 2013 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomly assigned patients, 332 patients (94.3%) underwent surgery (laparoscopic, n = 166 and open, n = 166) and comprised the analysis population. The median time to functional recovery was 4 days (IQR, 3-5; range, 1-30) for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy versus 5 days (IQR, 4-6; range, 1-33) for open hemihepatectomy (difference, -17.5% [96% CI, -25.6 to -8.4]; P < .001). There was no difference in major complications (laparoscopic 24/166 [14.5%] v open 28/166 [16.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; P = .58). Regarding QoL, both global health status (difference, 3.2 points; P < .001) and body image (difference, 0.9 points; P < .001) scored significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. For the 281 (84.6%) patients with cancer, R0 resection margin status was similar (laparoscopic 106 [77.9%] v open 122 patients [84.1%], OR, 0.60; P = .14) with a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy in the laparoscopic group (46.5 days v 62.8 days, hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a shorter time to functional recovery compared with open surgery. In addition, it was associated with a better QoL, and in patients with cancer, a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy with no adverse impact on cancer outcomes observed.

Higher Postoperative Mortality and Inferior Survival After Right-Sided Liver Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Left-Sided Resection is Preferred When Possible.

BACKGROUND: A right- or left-sided liver resection can be considered in about half of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), depending on tumor location and vascular involvement. This study compared postoperative mortality and long-term survival of right- versus left-sided liver resections for pCCA. METHODS: Patients who underwent major liver resection for pCCA at 25 Western centers were stratified according to the type of hepatectomy-left, extended left, right, and extended right. The primary outcomes were 90-day mortality and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2022, 1701 patients underwent major liver resection for pCCA. The 90-day mortality was 9% after left-sided and 18% after right-sided liver resection (p < 0.001). The 90-day mortality rates were 8% (44/540) after left, 11% (29/276) after extended left, 17% (51/309) after right, and 19% (108/576) after extended right hepatectomy (p < 0.001). Median OS was 30 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 27-34) after left and 23 months (95% CI 20-25) after right liver resection (p < 0.001), and 33 months (95% CI 28-38), 27 months (95% CI 23-32), 25 months (95% CI 21-30), and 21 months (95% CI 18-24) after left, extended left, right, and extended right hepatectomy, respectively (p < 0.001). A left-sided resection was an independent favorable prognostic factor for both 90-day mortality and OS compared with right-sided resection, with similar results after excluding 90-day fatalities. CONCLUSIONS: A left or extended left hepatectomy is associated with a lower 90-day mortality and superior OS compared with an (extended) right hepatectomy for pCCA. When both a left and right liver resection are feasible, a left-sided liver resection is preferred.

Local recurrence risk factors and outcomes in minimally invasive thermal ablation for liver tumors: a single-institution analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive thermal ablation (MITA) of liver tumors is a commonly performed procedure, alone or in combination with liver resection. Despite being a first-option strategy for small lesions, it is technically demanding, and many concerns still exist about local disease control. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing MITA from 1-2019 to 12-2022 were retrospectively enrolled. Risk factors of local recurrence were investigated through univariate and multivariable cox regression analysis. RESULTS: At the multivariable analysis of the 207 nodules undergoing MITA, RFA was associated with worse local Recurrence Free Survival (lRFS) than MWA (HR 2.87 [95 % CI 0.96-8.66], p = 0.05), as well as a concomitant surgical resection (HR 3.89 [95 % CI 1.06-9.77], p = 0.02). A concomitant surgical resection showed worse lRFS in the subgroup analysis of both HCC (HR 3.98 [95 % CI 1.16-13.62], p = 0.02) and CRLM patients (HR 2.68 [95 % CI 0.66-5.92], p = 0.04). Interestingly, a tumor size between 30 and 40 mm was not associated to worse lRFS. CONCLUSION: MWA may reduce the risk of local recurrence in comparison to RFA, while MITA associated to liver resection may face an increased risk of local recurrence. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm such results.

Liver Histology Predicts Liver Regeneration and Outcome in ALPPS: Novel Findings From A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Alterations in liver histology influence the liver's capacity to regenerate, but the relevance of each of the different changes in rapid liver growth induction is unknown. This study aimed to analyze the influence of the degree of histological alterations during the first and second stages on the ability of the liver to regenerate. METHODS: This cohort study included data obtained from the International ALPPS Registry between November 2011 and October 2020. Only patients with colorectal liver metastases were included in the study. We developed a histological risk score based on histological changes (stages 1 and 2) and a tumor pathology score based on the histological factors associated with poor tumor prognosis. RESULTS: In total, 395 patients were included. The time to reach stage 2 was shorter in patients with a low histological risk stage 1 (13 vs 17 days, P ˂0.01), low histological risk stage 2 (13 vs 15 days, P <0.01), and low pathological tumor risk (13 vs 15 days, P <0.01). Regarding interval stage, there was a higher inverse correlation in high histological risk stage 1 group compared to low histological risk 1 group in relation with future liver remnant body weight ( r =-0.1 and r =-0.08, respectively), and future liver remnant ( r =-0.15 and r =-0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: ALPPS is associated with increased histological alterations in the liver parenchyma. It seems that the more histological alterations present and the higher the number of poor prognostic factors in the tumor histology, the longer the time to reach the second stage.

Management of Established Small-for-size Syndrome in Post Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Medical, Radiological, and Surgical Interventions: Guidelines From the ILTS-iLDLT-LTSI Consensus Conference.

Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS) following living donor liver transplantation is a complication that can lead to devastating outcomes such as prolonged poor graft function and possibly graft loss. Because of the concern about the syndrome, some transplants of mismatched grafts may not be performed. Portal hyperperfusion of a small graft and hyperdynamic splanchnic circulation are recognized as main pathogenic factors for the syndrome. Management of established SFSS is guided by the severity of the presentation with the initial focus on pharmacological therapy to modulate portal flow and provide supportive care to the patient with the goal of facilitating graft regeneration and recovery. When medical management fails or condition progresses with impending dysfunction or even liver failure, interventional radiology (IR) and/or surgical interventions to reduce portal overperfusion should be considered. Although most patients have good outcomes with medical, IR, and/or surgical management that allow graft regeneration, the risk of graft loss increases dramatically in the setting of bilirubin >10 mg/dL and INR>1.6 on postoperative day 7 or isolated bilirubin >20 mg/dL on postoperative day 14. Retransplantation should be considered based on the overall clinical situation and the above postoperative laboratory parameters. The following recommendations focus on medical and IR/surgical management of SFSS as well as considerations and timing of retransplantation when other therapies fail.

Preoperative planning and intraoperative real-time navigation with indocyanine green fluorescence in robotic liver surgery.

PURPOSE: We aimed at exploring indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence wide spectrum of applications in hepatobiliary surgery as can result particularly useful in robotic liver resections (RLR) in order to overcome some technical limitations, increasing safety, and efficacy. METHODS: We describe our experience of 76 RLR performed between March 2020 and December 2022 exploring all the possible applications of pre- and intraoperative ICG administration. RESULTS: Hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal liver metastases were the most common indications for RLR (34.2% and 26.7% of patients, respectively), and 51.3% of cases were complex resections with high IWATE difficulty scores. ICG was administered preoperatively in 61 patients (80.3%), intraoperatively in 42 patients (55.3%) and in both contexts in 25 patients (32.9%), with no observed adverse events. The most frequent ICG goal was to achieve tumor enhancement (59 patients, 77.6%), with a success rate of 94.9% and the detection of 3 additional malignant lesions. ICG facilitated evaluation of the resection margin for residual tumor and perfusion adequacy in 33.9% and 32.9% of cases, respectively, mandating a resection enlargement in 7.9% of patients. ICG fluorescence allowed the identification of the transection plane through negative staining in the 25% of cases. Vascular and biliary structures were visualized in 21.1% and 9.2% of patients, with a success rate of 81.3% and 85.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: RLR can benefit from the routine integration of ICG fluoresce evaluation according to each individual patient and condition-specific goals and issues, allowing liver functional assessment, anatomical and vascular evaluation, tumor detection, and resection margins assessment.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) liver tumors: an international multicenter propensity-score matched cohort study of 799 cases.

Background: The use of laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic liver resections (RLR) has been safely performed in many institutions for liver tumours. A large scale international multicenter study would provide stronger evidence and insight into application of these techniques for huge liver tumours ≥10 cm. Methods: This was a retrospective review of 971 patients who underwent LLR and RLR for huge (≥10 cm) tumors at 42 international centers between 2002-2020. Results: One hundred RLR and 699 LLR which met study criteria were included. The comparison between the 2 approaches for patients with huge tumors were performed using 1:3 propensity-score matching (PSM) (73 vs. 219). Before PSM, LLR was associated with significantly increased frequency of previous abdominal surgery, malignant pathology, liver cirrhosis and increased median blood. After PSM, RLR and LLR was associated with no significant difference in key perioperative outcomes including media operation time (242 vs. 290 min, P=0.286), transfusion rate rate (19.2% vs. 16.9%, P=0.652), median blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, P=0.694), open conversion rate (8.2% vs. 11.0%, P=0.519), morbidity (28.8% vs. 21.9%, P=0.221), major morbidity (4.1% vs. 9.6%, P=0.152), mortality and postoperative length of stay (6 vs. 6 days, P=0.435). Conclusions: RLR and LLR can be performed safely for selected patients with huge liver tumours with excellent outcomes. There was no significant difference in perioperative outcomes after RLR or LLR.

Role of preoperative 3D rendering for minimally invasive parenchyma sparing liver resections.

BACKGROUND: 3D rendering (3DR) represents a promising approach to plan surgical strategies. The study aimed to compare the results of minimally invasive liver resections (MILS) in patients with 3DR versus conventional 2D CT-scan. METHODS: We performed 118 3DR for various indications; the patients underwent a preoperative tri-phasic CT-scan and rendered with Synapse3D® Software. Fifty-six patients undergoing MILS with pre-operative 3DR were compared to a similar cohort of 127 patients undergoing conventional pre-operative 2D CT-scan using the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: The 3DR mandated pre-operative surgical plan variations in 33.9% cases, contraindicated surgery in 12.7%, providing a new surgical indication in 5.9% previously excluded cases. PSM identified 39 patients in both groups with comparable results in terms of conversion rates, blood loss, blood transfusions, parenchymal R1-margins, grade ≥3 Clavien-Dindo complications, 90-days mortality, and hospital stay respectively in 3DR and conventional 2D. Operative time was significantly increased in the 3DR group (402 vs. 347 min, p = 0.020). Vascular R1 resections were 25.6% vs 7.7% (p = 0.068), while the conversion rate was 0% vs 10.2% (p = 0.058), respectively, for 3DR group vs conventional 2D. CONCLUSION: 3DR may help in surgical planning increasing resectability rate while reducing conversion rates, allowing the precise identification of anatomical landmarks in minimally invasive parenchyma-preserving liver resections.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR. METHODS: This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR. RESULTS: 5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate). CONCLUSION: LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.

Sub-classification of laparoscopic left hepatectomy based on hierarchic interaction of tumor location and size with perioperative outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this multicentric study was to investigate the impact of tumor location and size on the difficulty of Laparoscopic-Left Hepatectomy (L-LH). METHODS: Patients who underwent L-LH performed across 46 centers from 2004 to 2020 were analyzed. Of 1236 L-LH, 770 patients met the study criteria. Baseline clinical and surgical characteristics with a potential impact on LLR were included in a multi-label conditional interference tree. Tumor size cut-off was algorithmically determined. RESULTS: Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on tumor location and dimension: 457 in antero-lateral location (Group 1), 144 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size ≤40 mm (Group 2), and 169 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size >40 mm (Group 3). Patients in the Group 3 had higher conversion rate (7.0% vs. 7.6% vs. 13.0%, p-value .048), longer operating time (median, 240 min vs. 285 min vs. 286 min, p-value <.001), greater blood loss (median, 150 mL vs. 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p-value <.001) and higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (5.7% vs. 5.6% vs. 11.3%, p-value .039). Pringle's maneuver was also utilized more frequently in Group 3 (66.7%), compared to Group 1 (53.2%) and Group 2 (51.8%) (p = .006). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality between the three groups. CONCLUSION: L-LH for tumors that are >40 mm in diameter and located in PS Segment 4a are associated with the highest degree of technical difficulty. However, post-operative outcomes were not different from L-LH of smaller tumors located in PS segments, or tumors located in the antero-lateral segments.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Hepatobiliary scintigraphy to predict postoperative liver failure after major liver resection; a multicenter cohort study in 547 patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to analyze the predictive value of Hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HBS) for posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) after major liver resection with a comparison to assessment of liver volume in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients who underwent liver resection after HBS were included from six centers. Remnant liver volume was calculated from CT images. PHLF was scored and graded according to the grade B/C ISGLS criteria. RESULTS: In 547 patients PHLF incidence was 10% (56/547) and 90-day mortality rate 8% (42/547). Overall predictive value of remnant liver function was 0.66 (0.58-0.74) and similar to that of remnant volume (0.63 (0.72). For biliary tumors, a function cut-off of 2.7%/min/m2 and 30% volume cut-off resulted in a PHLF rate 12% and 13%, respectively. While an 8.5%/min (4.5%/min/m2) function cut-off resulted in 7% PHLF for those with a function above the cutoff while a 40% volume cutoff still resulted in 14% PHLF rate. In the multivariable analyses for PHLF, liver function was predictive but liver volume was not. CONCLUSION: The current study shows that preoperative liver function assessment using HBS is at least as predictive for PHLF as liver volume assessment, and likely has several advantages, particularly in the high-risk sub-group of biliary tumors.

Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic and robotic liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: The ability to stratify the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) allows surgeons at different phases of the learning curve to tackle cases of appropriate difficulty safely. Several difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been formulated which attempt to accurately stratify this difficulty. The present study aims to review the literature pertaining to the existing DSS for MILR. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and metanalysis of the literature reporting on the formulation, supporting data, and comparison of DSS for MILR. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were identified which reported on the formulation of unique DSS for MILR. Five of these (Ban, Iwate, Hasegawa, Institut Mutaliste Montsouris [IMM], and Southampton DSS) were externally validated and shown to predict difficulty of MILR via a range of outcome measures. The Ban DSS was supported by pooled data from 10 studies (9 LLR, 1 RLR), Iwate by 10 studies (8 LLR, 2 RLR), Hasegawa by four studies (all LLR), IMM by eight studies (all LLR), and Southampton by five studies (all LLR). There was no clear superior DSS. CONCLUSION: The existing DSS were all effective in predicting difficulty of MILR. Present studies comparing between DSS have not established a clear superior system, and the five main DSS have been found to be predictive of difficulty in LLR and two of these in RLR.