Evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery: 20-year experience of a Norwegian high-volume referral center.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery has evolved to become a standard surgical approach in many specialized centers worldwide. In this study we present the evolution of laparoscopic liver surgery at a single high-volume referral center since its introduction in 1998. METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) between August 1998 and December 2018 at the Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. Perioperative outcomes were compared between three time periods: early (1998 to 2004), middle (2005 to 2012) and recent (2013-2018). RESULTS: Up to December 2020, 1533 LLRs have been performed. A total of 1232 procedures were examined (early period, n = 62; middle period, n = 367 and recent period, n = 803). Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery (68%). The rates of conversion to laparotomy and hand-assisted laparoscopy were 3.2% and 1.4%. The median operative time and blood loss were 130 min [interquartile range (IQR), 85-190] and 220 ml (IQR, 50-600), respectively. The total postoperative complications rate was 20.3% and the 30-day mortality was 0.3%. The median postoperative stay was two (IQR, 2-4) days. When comparing perioperative outcomes between the three time periods, shorter operation time (median, from 182 to 120 min, p < 0.001), less blood loss (median, from 550 to 200 ml, p = 0.023), decreased rate of conversions to laparotomy (from 8 to 3%) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (median, from 3 to 2 days, p < 0.001) was observed in the later periods, while the number of more complex liver resections had increased. CONCLUSION: During the last two decades, the indications, the number of patients and the complexity of laparoscopic liver procedures have expanded significantly. Initially being an experimental approach, laparoscopic liver surgery is now safely implemented across our unit and has become the method of choice for surgical treatment of most liver tumors.

Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing redo liver resections for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a European multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic redo resections for colorectal metastases are poorly investigated. This study aims to explore long-term results after second, third, and fourth resections. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospectively updated databases of primary and redo laparoscopic liver resections in six European HPB centers were analyzed. Procedure-related overall survival after first, second, third, and fourth resections were evaluated. Furthermore, patients without liver recurrence after first liver resection were compared to those with one redo, two or three redo, and patients with palliative treatment for liver recurrence after first laparoscopic liver surgery. Survival was calculated both from the date of the first liver resection and from the date of the actual liver resection. In total, 837 laparoscopic primary and redo liver resections performed in 762 patients were included (630 primary, 172 first redo, 29 second redo, and 6 third redo). Patients were bunched into four groups: Group 1-without hepatic recurrence after primary liver resection (n = 441); Group 2-with liver recurrence who underwent only one laparoscopic redo resection (n = 154); Group 3-with liver recurrence who underwent two laparoscopic redo resections (n = 29); Group 4-with liver recurrence who have not been found suitable for redo resections (n = 138). RESULTS: No significant difference has been found between the groups in terms of baseline characteristics and surgical outcomes. Rate of positive resection margin was higher in the group with palliative recurrence (group 4). Five-year survival calculated from the first liver resection was 67%, 62%, 84%, and 7% for group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Procedure-specific 5-year overall survival was 50% after primary laparoscopic liver resection, 52% after the 1st reoperation, 52% after the 2nd, and 40% after the 3rd reoperation made laparoscopic. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple redo recurrences can be performed laparoscopically with good long-term results. Liver recurrence does not aggravate prognosis as long as the patient is suitable for reoperation.

Impact of resection margins for colorectal liver metastases in laparoscopic and open liver resection: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus over the optimal width of resection margin for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), with evolving definitions alongside the advances on the management of the disease. In addition, data on the impact of resection margin after laparoscopic liver resection are still scarce. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases of patients undergoing open or laparoscopic CRLM resection in 7 European tertiary hepatobiliary referral centres were reviewed. After propensity score matching (PSM), the influence of 1 mm and wider margins on OS and DFS were evaluated in open and laparoscopic cohorts. RESULTS: After PSM, 648 patients were comparable in each group. The incidence of positive margins (< 1 mm) was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (17% vs 13%, p = 0,142). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter RFS in open (12 vs 26 months, p = 0.042) and in laparoscopic group (13 vs 23, p = 0,002). Margins < 1 mm were associated with shorter OS in open (36 vs 57 months, p = 0.027), but not in laparoscopic group (49 vs 60, p = 0,177). Subgroups with margins ≥ 1 mm (1-4 mm, 5-9 mm, ≥ 10 mm) presented similar RFS in open (p = 0,251) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.117), as well as similar OS in open (p = 0.295) or laparoscopic cohorts (p = 0.908). In the presence of liver recurrence, repeat liver resection was performed in 70 (30%) patients in the open group and 88 (48%) in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that a positive resection margin (less than 1 mm) width does not impact OS after laparoscopic resection of CRLMs as it does in open liver resection. However, a positive margin continues to affect RFS in open and laparoscopic resection. Wider margins than 1 mm do not seem to improve oncological results in open or laparoscopic surgery.

Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers.

INTRODUCTION: A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies. METHODS: Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses). RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated.

Can we ablate liver lesions close to large portal and hepatic veins with MR-guided HIFU? An experimental study in a porcine model.

OBJECTIVES: Invasive treatment of tumors adjacent to large hepatic vessels is a continuous clinical challenge. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of ablating liver tissue adjacent to large hepatic and portal veins with magnetic resonance imaging-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound (MRgHIFU). The secondary aim was to compare sonication data for ablations performed adjacent to hepatic veins (HV) versus portal veins (PV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: MRgHIFU ablations were performed in six male land swine under general anesthesia. Ablation cells of either 4 or 8 mm diameter were planned in clusters (two/animal) adjacent either to HV (n = 6) or to PV (n = 6), with diameter ≥ 5 mm. Ablations were made using 200 W and 1.2 MHz. Post-procedure evaluation was made on contrast-enhanced MRI (T1w CE-MRI), histopathology, and ablation data from the HIFU system. RESULTS: A total of 153 ablations in 81 cells and 12 clusters were performed. There were visible lesions with non-perfused volumes in all animals on T1w CE-MRI images. Histopathology showed hemorrhage and necrosis in all 12 clusters, with a median shortest distance to vessel wall of 0.4 mm (range 0-2.7 mm). Edema and endothelial swelling were observed without vessel wall rupture. In 8-mm ablations (n = 125), heat sink was detected more often for HV (43%) than for PV (19%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Ablations yielding coagulative necrosis of liver tissue can be performed adjacent to large hepatic vessels while keeping the vessel walls intact. This indicates that perivascular tumor ablation in the liver is feasible using MRgHIFU. KEY POINTS: • High-intensity focused ultrasound ablation is a non-invasive treatment modality that can be used for treatment of liver tumors. • This study shows that ablations of liver tissue can be performed adjacent to large hepatic vessels in an experimental setting. • Liver tumors close to large vessels can potentially be treated using this modality.

Laparoscopic Multiple Parenchyma-sparing Concomitant Liver Resections for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Parenchyma-sparing concept in liver surgery has received a new incitement with the introduction of laparoscopic techniques. Multiple concomitant liver resections are a major component in the parenchyma-sparing concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 689 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases from August 1998 to 2017, and 171 patients were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into 3 groups: group I with single liver resection (36 patients); group II with multiple concomitant liver resections (104 patients); group III with liver resection(s) combined with concomitant liver ablation (31 patients). Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared between the groups I and II, whereas variables of group III were presented as complementary information, avoiding statistically exigent multiple comparisons. RESULTS: There were 6 conversions, 0, 3 (2.9%), and 2 (6.5%), respectively in the groups I, II, and III. Median operative time was 161, 186, and 224 minute in the groups I, II, and III, respectively. Median blood loss was 300 mL in groups I and II, and 200 mL in group III. It was a tendency to higher rate of postoperative complications in the group of single resections with morbidity rate of 31%, 19%, and 23% in group I, II, and III, respectively. Median postoperative stay was 3 days in all groups. Tumor-free margin resection was achieved in 92%, 86%, and 93%, respectively in the groups I, II, III. The median weight of resected specimen was significantly lower in group II (90 vs. 257 g; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in survival between the groups. The 5-year overall survival was 31%, 42%, and 43% for groups I, II, and III, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic multiple concomitant parenchyma-sparing liver resections provide surgical and oncologic outcomes comparable with single greater resections for multiple lesions. This approach could be recommended for a wide application in specialized hepatopancreatobiliary centers.

Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is increasingly performed in specialized centers. While there is a trend towards a parenchyma-sparing strategy in multimodal treatment for CLM, its role is yet unclear. In this study we present short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (LPSLR) at a single center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LLR were performed in 951 procedures between August 1998 and March 2017 at Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Patients who primarily underwent LPSLR for CLM were included in the study. LPSLR was defined as non-anatomic hence the patients who underwent hemihepatectomy and sectionectomy were excluded. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. The Accordion classification was used to grade postoperative complications. The median follow-up was 40 months. RESULTS: 296 patients underwent primary LPSLR for CLM. A single specimen was resected in 204 cases, multiple resections were performed in 92 cases. 5 laparoscopic operations were converted to open. The median operative time was 134 minutes, blood loss was 200 ml and hospital stay was 3 days. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. The postoperative complication rate was 14.5%. 189 patients developed disease recurrence. Recurrence in the liver occurred in 146 patients (49%), of whom 85 patients underwent repeated surgical treatment (liver resection [n = 69], ablation [n = 14] and liver transplantation [n = 2]). Five-year overall survival was 48%, median overall survival was 56 months. CONCLUSIONS: LPSLR of CLM can be performed safely with the good surgical and oncological results. The technique facilitates repeated surgical treatment, which may improve survival for patients with CLM.

Superior mesenteric artery syndrome: quality of life after laparoscopic duodenojejunostomy.

In this study, we present results after laparoscopic duodenojejunostomy for five patients with protracted superior mesenteric artery syndrome. The procedure can be performed with minimal perioperative risk and very short postoperative stay. It provides significant postoperative symptom relief for many patients with typical presentation of the syndrome.

The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation.

OBJECTIVE: The European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery was held in Southampton on February 10 and 11, 2017 with the aim of presenting and validating clinical practice guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery. BACKGROUND: The exponential growth of laparoscopic liver surgery in recent years mandates the development of clinical practice guidelines to direct the speciality's continued safe progression and dissemination. METHODS: A unique approach to the development of clinical guidelines was adopted. Three well-validated methods were integrated: the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology for the assessment of evidence and development of guideline statements; the Delphi method of establishing expert consensus, and the AGREE II-GRS Instrument for the assessment of the methodological quality and external validation of the final statements. RESULTS: Along with the committee chairman, 22 European experts; 7 junior experts and an independent validation committee of 11 international surgeons produced 67 guideline statements for the safe progression and dissemination of laparoscopic liver surgery. Each of the statements reached at least a 95% consensus among the experts and were endorsed by the independent validation committee. CONCLUSION: The European Guidelines Meeting for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery has produced a set of clinical practice guidelines that have been independently validated for the safe development and progression of laparoscopic liver surgery. The Southampton Guidelines have amalgamated the available evidence and a wealth of experts' knowledge taking in consideration the relevant stakeholders' opinions and complying with the international methodology standards.

Conversion for Unfavorable Intraoperative Events Results in Significantly Worse Outcomes During Laparoscopic Liver Resection: Lessons Learned From a Multicenter Review of 2861 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk factors for conversion during laparoscopic liver resection and its effect on patient outcome in a large cohort of patients. Additional analysis of outcomes in patients who required conversion for unfavorable intraoperative findings and conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events will be performed to establish if the cause of conversion effects outcome. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple previous studies demonstrate that laparoscopic liver surgery reduces intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity while maintaining comparable oncological and survival outcomes when compared with open liver resections. However, limited information is available regarding the possible sequelae of conversion to open surgery, especially with regards to cause of conversion. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 2861 cases from prospectively maintained databases of 7 tertiary liver centers across Europe was performed. RESULTS: Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, previous liver resection(s), resections for malignant lesions, postero-superior location, and the extent of the resection are associated with an increased risk of conversion. Patients who require conversion have longer operations with higher blood loss; a longer HDU and total hospital stay, increased frequency and severity of complications and higher 30- and 90-day mortality. Patients who had an elective conversion for an unfavorable intraoperative finding had better outcomes than patients who had an emergency conversion secondary to an unfavorable intraoperative event in terms of HDU and total hospital stay, severity of complication, and 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the risk factors for conversion and suggests that conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events is associated with worse outcomes.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The OSLO-COMET Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking. METHODS: Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. RESULTS: The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67-21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

Laparoscopic liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma. Can we extend the surgical indication in cirrhotic patients?

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the value of laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and severe cirrhosis is still lacking. The aim of this study is to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic HCC patients. METHODS: The analysis included 403 LLR for HCC from seven European centres. 333 cirrhotic and 70 non-cirrhotic patients were compared. A matched comparison was performed between 100 Child-Pugh A and 25 Child-Pugh B patients. RESULTS: There was no difference in blood loss (250 vs. 250 mL, p 0.465) and morbidity (28.6 vs. 26.4%, p 0.473) between cirrhotics and non-cirrhotics, and liver-specific complications were similar (12.8 vs. 12%, p 0.924). The sub-analysis revealed similar perioperative outcomes in either Child-Pugh A or B patients. Noteworthy, ascitis (11 vs. 12%, p 0.562) and liver failure (3 vs. 4%, p 0.595) were not different. ASA score (OR 1.76, p 0.034) and conversion (OR 2.99, p 0.019) were risk factors for major morbidity. Despite lower recurrence-free survival in cirrhotics (43 vs. 55 months, p 0.034), overall survival was similar to non-cirrhotic patients (84 vs. 76.5, p 0.598). CONCLUSION: LLR for HCC appear equally safe in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients, and the advantages can be witnessed in those with advanced cirrhosis. Severe comorbidities and conversion should be considered risk factors for complications-rather than the severity of cirrhosis and portal hypertension-when liver resection is performed laparoscopically. Such results may be of great interest to liver surgeons and hepatologists when deciding on the management of HCC within cirrhosis.

Evolution of Laparoscopic Liver Surgery from Innovation to Implementation to Mastery: Perioperative and Oncologic Outcomes of 2,238 Patients from 4 European Specialized Centers.

BACKGROUND: First seen as an innovation for select patients, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has evolved since its introduction, resulting in worldwide use. Despite this, it is still limited mainly to referral centers. The aim of this study was to evaluate a large cohort undergoing LLR from 2000 to 2015, focusing on the technical approaches, perioperative and oncologic outcomes, and evolution of practice over time. STUDY DESIGN: The demographics and indications, intraoperative, perioperative, and oncologic outcomes of 2,238 patients were evaluated. Trends in practice and outcomes over time were assessed. RESULTS: The percentage of LLR performed yearly has increased from 5% in 2000 to 43% in 2015. Pure laparoscopy was used in 98.3% of cases. Wedge resections were the most common operation; they were predominant at the beginning of LLR and then decreased and remained steady at approximately 53%. Major hepatectomies were initially uncommon, then increased and reached a stable level at approximately 16%. Overall, 410 patients underwent resection in the posterosuperior segments; these were more frequent with time, and the highest percentage was in 2015 (26%). Blood loss, operative time, and conversion rate improved significantly with time. The 5-year overall survival rates were 73% and 54% for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), respectively. The 5-year, recurrence-free survival rates were 50% and 37% for HCC and CRLM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Since laparoscopy was introduced, a long implementation process has been necessary to allow for standardization and improvement in surgical care, mastery of the technique, and the ability to obtain good perioperative results with safe oncologic outcomes.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases in Elderly and Octogenarian Patients: A Multicenter Propensity Score Based Analysis of Short- and Long-term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the perioperative and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases in the elderly. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection has been associated with less morbidity and similar oncological outcomes to open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). It has been reported that these benefits continue to be observed in elderly patients. However, in previous studies, patients over 70 or 75 years were considered as a single, homogenous population raising questions regarding the true impact of the laparoscopic approach on this diverse group of elderly patients. METHOD: Prospectively maintained databases of all patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM in 5 tertiary liver centers were included. Those over 70-years old were selected for this study. The cohort was divided in 3 subgroups based on age. A comparative analysis was performed after the implementation of propensity score matching on the 2 main cohorts (laparoscopic and open groups) and also on the study subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 775 patients were included in the study. After propensity score matching 225 patients were comparable in each of the main groups. Lower blood loss (250 vs 400 mL, P = 0.001), less overall morbidity (22% vs 39%, P = 0.001), shorter High Dependency Unit (2 vs. 6 days, P = 0.001), and total hospital stay (5 vs. 8 days, P = 0.001) were observed after laparoscopic liver resection. Comparable rates of R0 resection (88% vs 88%, P = 0.999), median recurrence-free survival (33 vs 27 months, P = 0.502), and overall survival (51 vs 45 months, P = 0.671) were observed. The advantages seen with the laparoscopic approach were reproduced in the 70 to 74-year old subgroup; however there was a gradual loss of these advantages with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: In patients over 70 years of age laparoscopic liver resection, for colorectal liver metastases, offers significant lower morbidity, and a shorter hospital stay with comparable oncological outcomes when compared with open liver resection. However, the benefits of the laparoscopic approach appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians except for a lower High Dependency Unit stay.

Role of laparoscopic enucleation in the treatment of pancreatic lesions: case series and case-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies report successful application of laparoscopic pancreatic enucleation (LPE). However, the evidence is limited to small series. This study aimed to evaluate the indications, technique and outcome of LPE at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: Between February 1998 and April 2016, 45 consecutive LPEs were performed at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet. Twenty-four (53.3 %) patients subjected to right-sided LPE (RLPE) were compared with 21 (46.7 %) patients who had undergone left-sided LPE (LLPE). A case-matched analysis (1:2) was performed to compare the outcomes following LLPE and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). RESULTS: Patient demographics, BMI, ASA score and pathological characteristics were similar between the RLPE and LLPE groups. Operative time was slightly longer for RLPE [123 (53-320) vs 102 (50-373) min, P = 0.09]. The rates of severe morbidity (≥Accordion grade III) and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grades B/C) were comparable, although with a trend for higher rate of complications following LLPE (16.7 vs 33.3 %; P = 0.19 and 20.8 vs 33.3 %, P = 0.34, respectively). The hospital stay was similar between RLPE and LLPE [5 (2-80) vs 7 (2-52), P = 0.49]. A case-matched analysis demonstrated shorter operating time [145 (90-350) vs 103 (50-233) min, P = 0.02], but higher readmission rate following LLPE (25 vs 3.1 %, P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: LLPE seems to be associated with a higher risk of postoperative morbidity and readmission rates than LDP. RLPE is a feasible, safe approach and a reasonable alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy in selected patients with pancreatic lesions.

Perioperative outcomes and survival in elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in elderly patients have not been widely reported to date. This study aimed to analyze perioperative and oncologic outcomes in patients aged ≥70 years (elderly group) and compare with those <70 years (non-elderly group). METHODS: From April 1997 to September 2015, 402 consecutive patients with lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas underwent LDP at Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital. RESULTS: Of these, 118 (29.4%) were elderly, whereas 284 (70.6%) were non-elderly. Despite higher rate of comorbidities and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.001 and 0.001, respectively), elderly patients had lower postoperative morbidity, pancreatic fistula (PF) and readmission rates, compared with non-elderly (P = 0.032, 0.001 and 0.025, respectively). Spleen-preserving LDP (SPLDP) resulted in similar postoperative outcomes in the two groups. Elderly patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) were comparable to non-elderly in terms of median and 3-year survival (20.2 vs. 19 months (P = 0.94, log-rank) and 26.7% vs. 34.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both LDP and SPLDP are safe in patients aged ≥70 years, providing outcomes similar to those in younger group. Elderly patients with PDAC can benefit from LDP, since age itself is not associated with decreased survival after surgery.

Impact of obesity on surgical outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: A Norwegian single-center study.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is known as a risk factor for intra- and postoperative complications in pancreatic operation. However, the operative outcomes in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy remain unclear. METHODS: A total number of 423 patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet from April 1997 to December 2015. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on the body mass index: normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), and obese (≥30 kg/m2). After excluding underweight patients, 402 patients were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: Obese patients had significantly longer operative time and increased blood loss compared with overweight and normal weight patients (190 [61-480] minutes vs 158 [56-520] minutes vs 153 [29-374] minutes, P = .009 and 200 [0-2,800] mL vs 50 [0-6250] mL vs 90 [0-2,000] mL, P = .01, respectively). A multiple linear regression analysis identified obesity as predictive of prolonged operative time and increased blood loss during laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. The rates of clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and severe complications (≥grade III by Accordion classification) were comparable in the 3 groups (P = .23 and P = .37, respectively). A multivariate logistic regression model did not demonstrate an association between obesity and postoperative morbidity (P = .09). The duration of hospital stay was comparable in the 3 groups (P = .13). CONCLUSION: In spite of longer operative time and greater blood loss, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in obese patients is associated with satisfactory postoperative outcomes, similar to those in normal weight and overweight patients. Hence, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy should be equally considered both in obese and nonobese patients.

Validation of clinical risk scores for laparoscopic liver resections of colorectal liver metastases: A 10-year observed follow-up study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate clinical risk scores in patients underwent laparoscopic resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with 5 years follow-up or more, and assess 5- and 10-year actual survival in this group. METHODS: A total of 516 laparoscopic liver resections were performed in 406 patients with CLM between February 1998 and September 2015. A follow-up of 5 and 10 years could be assessed in 144 and 29 patients, respectively. The Fong score, pre- and postoperative Basingstoke Predictive Index (BPI), Nordlinger score, and Iwatsuki score were validated. RESULTS: Five- and ten-year cancer-related actual survival was 54% and 32%, respectively. The Fong score, pre- and postoperative BPI and the Nordlinger score divided patients into risk groups with significant difference in survival between the groups. However, predicted 5-year survival rates were lower than the actual 5-year survival (mean difference in 17%,13%, 20%, and 30%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The Fong score, pre- and postoperative BPI and the Nordlinger score systems can be used to predict survival for laparoscopically operated patients in the era of multimodal-treatment after adjusting of survival rates. The actual five- and 10-year survival after laparoscopic resection of CLM is similar to results previously published for open liver resection. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:757-763. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Learning curve of self-taught laparoscopic liver surgeons in left lateral sectionectomy: results from an international multi-institutional analysis on 245 cases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy was suggested as gold standard for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), thanks to recognized benefits compared to open approach. Aim of this study was to define learning curve (LC) of laparoscopic LLS (LLLS) using operative time (OT) as tool to analyze outcome of procedures performed by four experienced surgeons. Reproducibility and safety of LC in LLLS among independent surgeons were also analyzed as essential features of "standard procedure" concept. METHODS: LLLS performed by four experienced surgeons was collected. Multivariate analysis was carried out to screen factors affecting OT. A cumulative LC was created calculating median OT. Skewness of OT was analyzed, and ROC curve was carried out to identify the cutoff for LC. The impact of LC on outcomes (morbidity and mortality, blood loss, conversions, surgical margins and length of stay) was determined. RESULTS: A total of 245 LLLSs were collected. Conversion rate was 1.2 %. Median OT was 141 min, blood loss 100 mL, morbidity 11.4 % and mortality 0.4 %. "Associated procedures" was the only independent factor affecting OT. The skewness of the OT was calculated, and the cutoff point for LC was determined after 15 LLLSs. LLLS performed during and after LC period had similar outcomes. CONCLUSION: LLLS is feasible with low morbidity, mortality and conversion rate. LC in LLLS is shorter compared to minor liver resections. Furthermore, it is reproducible and safe since it does not negatively affect clinical outcome. A reproducible, safe and short LC contributes to considering laparoscopy as the gold standard approach to perform LLS.