Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. BACKGROUND: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. METHODS: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Explainable artificial intelligence prediction-based model in laparoscopic liver surgery for segments 7 and 8: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more useful as a decision-making and outcomes predictor tool. We have developed AI models to predict surgical complexity and the postoperative course in laparoscopic liver surgery for segments 7 and 8. METHODS: We included patients with lesions located in segments 7 and 8 operated by minimally invasive liver surgery from an international multi-institutional database. We have employed AI models to predict surgical complexity and postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, we have applied SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to make the AI models interpretable. Finally, we analyzed the surgeries not converted to open versus those converted to open. RESULTS: Overall, 585 patients and 22 variables were included. Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) showed the highest performance for predicting surgery complexity and Random Forest (RF) for predicting postoperative outcomes. SHAP detected that MLP and RF gave the highest relevance to the variables "resection type" and "largest tumor size" for predicting surgery complexity and postoperative outcomes. In addition, we explored between surgeries converted to open and non-converted, finding statistically significant differences in the variables "tumor location," "blood loss," "complications," and "operation time." CONCLUSION: We have observed how the application of SHAP allows us to understand the predictions of AI models in surgical complexity and the postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery in segments 7 and 8.

Evaluation of the American College of Surgeons risk calculator in hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer in a Southeast Asian population.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) calculator in predicting outcomes after hepatectomy for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis in a Southeast Asian population. METHODS: Predicted and actual outcomes were compared for 166 patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRC liver metastasis identified between 2017 and 2022, using receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve (AUC) and Brier score. RESULTS: The ACS-NSQIP calculator accurately predicted most postoperative complications (AUC > 0.70), except for surgical site infection (AUC = 0.678, Brier score = 0.045). It also exhibited satisfactory performance for readmission (AUC = 0.818, Brier score = 0.011), reoperation (AUC = 0.945, Brier score = 0.002), and length of stay (LOS, AUC = 0.909). The predicted LOS was close to the actual LOS (5.9 vs. 5.0 days, P = 0.985). CONCLUSION: The ACS-NSQIP calculator demonstrated generally accurate predictions for 30-day postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy for CRC liver metastasis in our patient population.

Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An International Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). BACKGROUND: A dCCA might be a good indication for MIPD, as it is often diagnosed as primary resectable disease. However, multicenter series on MIPD for dCCA are lacking. METHODS: This is an international multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study including patients after MIPD or OPD for dCCA in 8 centers from 5 countries (2010-2021). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free interval (DFI). Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative complications and predictors for OS or DFI. Subgroup analyses included robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). RESULTS: Overall, 478 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were included of which 97 after MIPD (37 RPD, 60 LPD) and 381 after OPD. MIPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs 420 mL, P =0.025), longer operation time (453 vs 340 min; P <0.001), and less surgical site infections (7.8% vs 19.3%; P =0.042) compared with OPD. The median OS (30 vs 25 mo) and DFI (29 vs 18) for MIPD did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD. Tumor stage (Hazard ratio: 2.939, P <0.001) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio: 0.640, P =0.033) were individual predictors for OS. RPD was associated with a higher lymph node yield (18.0 vs 13.5; P =0.008) and less major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b-5; 8.1% vs 32.1%; P =0.005) compared with LPD. DISCUSSION: Both surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD for dCCA are acceptable as compared with OPD. Surgical outcomes seem to favor RPD as compared with LPD but more data are needed. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.

Intraoperative blood transfusion does not impact overall and recurrence-free survival after curative hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity-score-matched and inverse probability of treatment-weighted study.

INTRODUCTION: Our primary objective was to determine if receiving intraoperative blood transfusion was a significant prognostic factor for overall and recurrence-free survival after curative resection of hepatic cellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODOLOGY: Between 2001 and 2018, 1092 patients with histologically proven primary HCC who underwent curative liver resection were retrospectively reviewed. Primary study endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The main analysis was undertaken using propensity-score matching (PSM) to minimize confounding and selection biases in the comparison of patients with or without transfusion. RESULTS: There were 220 patients who received and 666 patients who did not receive intraoperative blood transfusion. The PSM cohort consisted of 163 pairs of patients. After PSM, the only perioperative outcome that appeared to significantly affect whether patients would receive blood transfusion was median blood loss (p = 0.001). In the PSM cohort, whether patients received blood transfusion was neither associated with OS (p = 0.759) nor RFS (p = 0.830). When the volume of blood transfusion was analyzed as a continuous variable, no significant dose-response relationship between blood transfusion volume and HR for OS and RFS was noted. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative blood transfusion had no significant impact on the survival outcomes in patients who receive curative resection in primary HCC.

Association of standardized liver volume and body mass index with outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: While minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have demonstrated advantages in improved post-operative recovery, widespread adoption is hampered by inherent technical difficulties. Our study attempts to analyze the role of anthropometric measures in MILR-related outcomes. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2020, 676 consecutive patients underwent MILR at the Singapore General Hospital of which 565 met study criteria and were included. Patients were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) as well as Standardized Liver Volumes (SLV). Associations between BMI and SLV to selected peri-operative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: A BMI of ≥ 29 was associated with increase in blood loss [Mean difference (MD) 69 mls, 95% CI 2 to 137] as well as operative conversions [Relative Risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.62] among patients undergoing MILR while a SLV of 1600 cc or higher was associated with an increase in blood loss (MD 30 mls, 95% CI 10 to 49). In addition, a BMI of ≤ 20 was associated with an increased risk of major complications (RR 2.25, 95% 1.16 to 4.35). The magnitude of differences observed in these findings increased with each unit change in BMI and SLV. CONCLUSION: Both BMI and SLV were useful anthropometric measures in predicting peri-operative outcomes in MILR and may be considered for incorporation in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring.

BACKGROUND: There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied. RESULTS: Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients. CONCLUSIONS: When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates. RESULTS: MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission. RESULTS: In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution. CONCLUSION: Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.

Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomies with vascular resection: A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison study.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly adopted worldwide and its potential advantages include reduced hospital stay and decrease pain. However, evidence supporting the role of MIPD for tumours requiring vascular reconstruction remains limited and requires further evaluation. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of MIPD with vascular resection (MIPDV) by performing a 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection (OPDV) based on a single surgeon's experience. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent PDV between 2011 and 2020 by a single surgeon. After PSM, the comparison was made between 13 MIPDV and 13 OPDV. Results: Thirty-six patients underwent venous reconstruction (VR) only and 5 underwent arterial reconstruction of which 4 had concomitant VR. The types of VR included 22 wedge resections with primary repair, 8 segmental resections with primary anastomosis and 11 requiring interposition grafts. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 3 (7.3%) patients. Major complications (>Grade 2) occurred in 16 (39%) patients, of which 7 were due to delayed gastric emptying requiring nasojejunal tube placement. There was 1 (2.4%) 30-day mortality (OPDV). Of the 13 MIPDV, there were 3 (23.1%) open conversions. PSM comparison demonstrated that MIPDV was associated with longer median operative time (720 min vs. 485 min (P = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as intra-operative blood loss, overall morbidity, major morbidity rate, POPF and length of stay. Conclusion: Our initial experience with the adoption MIPDV has demonstrated it to be safe with comparable outcomes to OPDV despite the longer operation time.

Repeat hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation in management of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: an average treatment effect analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver with high rates of recurrence post-resection. Repeat hepatectomy (RH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the mainstays for managing recurrent HCC following initial curative resection. This retrospective study aims to determine the average treatment effect of RH and RFA in patients with recurrent HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2000 to 2016, a total of 219 consecutive patients with recurrent HCC who underwent either RH or RFA were included in the study. The analysis was performed using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and propensity score-matched (PSM) methods. RESULTS: The minor and major post-operative morbidity after propensity score-matched analysis for the RH group was 30.0% and 6.0%, respectively, and 19.2% and 0.0% (p = 0.1006), respectively, for the RFA group. After propensity score matching, the median OS for RH and RFA was 85.5 (IQR, 33.5-not reached) and 53.3 months (IQR, 27.5-not reached) (p = 0.8474), respectively. There was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between both groups (p = 0.1287). RH showed improved long-term overall survival over RFA at the third [71.3% versus 65.7% (p = 0.0432)], fifth [59.9% versus 45.4% (p = 0.0271)] and tenth [35.4% versus 32.2% (p = 0.0132)] year follow-up, respectively. Median time to recurrence was 11.1 (IQR, 5.0-33.2) and 28.0 months (IQR, 9.1-not reached) (p = 0.0225) for the RFA and RH group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: RH confers a late survival benefit compared with RFA for patients with recurrent HCC despite a higher morbidity rate.

Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has become an important option for the treatment of various liver tumours. A major concern is the learning curve required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and summarize current literature analysing the learning curve for MIH. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in MIH to July 2019 was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. All original full-text articles published in English relating to learning curves for both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), or a combination of these, were included. To explore quantitatively the learning curve for MIH, a meta-regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty studies relating to learning curves in MIH were included. The median overall number of procedures required in studies utilizing cumulative summative (CUSUM) methodology for LLR was 50 (range 25-58) and for RLR was 25 (16-50). After adjustment for year of adoption of MIH, the CUSUM-derived caseload to surmount the learning curve for RLR was 47.1 (95 per cent c.i. 1.2 to 71.6) per cent; P = 0.046) less than that required for LLR. A year-on-year reduction in the number of procedures needed for MIH was observed, commencing at 48.3 cases in 1995 and decreasing to 23.8 cases in 2015. CONCLUSION: The overall learning curve for MIH decreased steadily over time, and appeared less steep for RLR compared with LLR.

Comparison between short and long-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open primary liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma: A 1:1 matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for nonrecurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Review of 204 MILR and 755 OLR without previous LR performed between 2005 and 2018. 1:1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) and 1:1 propensity-score matching (PSM) were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 190 MILR were well-matched with 190 OLR by PSM and 86 MILR with 86 OLR by CEM according to patient baseline characteristics. After PSM and CEM, MILR was associated with a significantly longer operation time [230 min (interquartile range [IQR], 145-330) vs. 160 min (IQR, 125-210), p < .001] [215 min (IQR, 135-295) vs. 153.5 min (120-180), p < .001], shorter postoperative stay [4 days (IQR, 3-6) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-8), p = .001)] [4 days (IQR, 3-5) vs. 6 days (IQR, 5-7), p = .004] and lower postoperative morbidity [40 (21%) vs. 67 (35.5%), p = .003] [16 (18.6%) vs. 27 (31.4%), p = .036] compared to OLR. MILR was also associated with a significantly longer median time to recurrence (70 vs. 40.3 months, p = .014) compared to OLR after PSM but not CEM. There was no significant difference in terms of overall survival and recurrence-free survival. CONCLUSION: MILR is associated with superior short-term postoperative outcomes and with at least equivalent long-term oncological outcomes compared to OLR for HCC.

Actual 10-year survivors and 10-year recurrence free survivors after primary liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the 21st century: A single institution contemporary experience.

BACKGROUND: At present, the majority of outcome studies of survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) post-liver resection (post-LR) present actuarial survival data, which often results in overestimation of survival. We sought to evaluate the actual 10-year survival post-LR for HCC and identify variables that are associated with long-term survival. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 600 consecutive patients who underwent primary LR for HCC from 2000 to 2010 at our institution. Twenty-eight patients (4.7%) with 90-day mortality and 125 patients who were lost to follow-up within 10 years were excluded leaving 447 patients who met the study criteria. RESULTS: There were 140 actual 10-year survivors of which 57 (40.7%) had a recurrence within 10 years. The actual 10-year overall survival (OS) rate of the 447 patients was 31.5% and the actual 10-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 18.6%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that only age >65 years (OR, 0.29; p < .001) (OR, 0.973; p = .041) and presence of cirrhosis (OR. 0.37; p = .005) (OR, 0.31; p = .001) were independent factors negatively associated with actual 10-year OS and actual 10-year RFS, respectively. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of patients will survive over 10 years after LR for HCC. Amongst these 10-year survivors, 41% had developed recurrent cancer within 10-years of follow-up.

Impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimally-invasive liver resections: a 1:1 coarsened exact-matched controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimal invasive liver resection (MILR) remains controversial and current difficulty scoring systems do not take in to account the presence of cirrhosis as a significant factor in determining the difficulty of MILR. We hypothesized that the difficulty of MILR is affected by the presence of cirrhosis. Hence, we performed a 1:1 matched-controlled study comparing the outcomes between patients undergoing MILR with and without cirrhosis including the Iwate system and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) system in the matching process. METHODS: Between 2006 and 2019, 598 consecutive patients underwent MILR of which 536 met the study inclusion criteria. There were 148 patients with cirrhosis and 388 non-cirrhotics. One-to-one coarsened exact matching identified approximately exact matches between 100 cirrhotic patients and 100 non-cirrhotic patients. RESULTS: Comparison between MILR patients with cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis in the entire cohort demonstrated that patients with cirrhosis were associated with a significantly increased open conversion rate, transfusion rate, need for Pringles maneuver, postoperative, stay, postoperative morbidity and postoperative 90-day mortality. After 1:1 coarsened exact matching, MILR with cirrhosis were significantly associated with an increased open conversion rate (15% vs 6%, p = 0.03), operation time (261 vs 238 min, p < 0.001), blood loss (607 vs 314 mls, p = 0.002), transfusion rate (22% vs 9%, p = 0.001), need for application of Pringles maneuver (51% vs 34%, p = 0.010), postoperative stay (6 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.004) and postoperative morbidity (26% vs 13%, p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: The presence of liver cirrhosis affected both the intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes of MILR and hence should be considered an important parameter to be included in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Preoperative Predictors of Futile Resection of Intraabdominal Extrahepatic Metastases from Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The management of post-liver resection recurrence is often the life-limiting factor in HCC treatment. While much has been published on intrahepatic recurrence and lung metastasis, there is a relative lack of data on intraabdominal extrahepatic metastasis (EHM). We sought to evaluate the outcomes of patients post-resection of intraabdominal EHM and assess preoperative factors predictive of early recurrence post-metastasectomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 25 consecutive patients who underwent metastasectomy for intraabdominal EHM from 2003 to 2016 at our institution. RESULTS: Of the 25 cases of EHM, 16 were in the peritoneum, 3 in the adrenal glands, 3 in the large bowel, 1 in the spleen, 1 in the pancreas and 1 in the omentum. Median overall survival was 27 months (IQR 15-89 months). Twenty-one patients (84%) developed recurrence post-metastasectomy of EHM of which 12 patients experienced early recurrence within 12 months. The median time to recurrence post-metastasectomy was 11(IQR 15.5) months. Multivariate analysis demonstrated both hepatitis B (11 (91.6%) versus 4 (44.4%), p = 0.00) status and high tumour grade (8 (66.6%) versus 3 (25%), p = 0.004) to be significant independent predictors of early recurrence. Patients who experienced early recurrence had a significantly shorter median overall survival (18 months (95% CI 12.9-23.0)) compared to those who did not (89 months (95% CI 24.8-153.1), p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Patients with EHM who underwent metastasectomy had a median overall survival of 27 months. Hepatitis B positivity and high primary tumour grade were preoperative predictors of futile surgery. All 7 patients who had both hepatitis B and high tumour grade experienced early recurrence post-metastasectomy.

Validation and comparison of the Iwate, IMM, Southampton and Hasegawa difficulty scoring systems for primary laparoscopic hepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: Various difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been formulated to grade the complexity of laparoscopic hepatectomies (LH). This study aims to externally validate and compare 4 contemporary DSS including the Iwate, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), Southampton and Hasegawa DSS in predicting the intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes after LH. METHODS: Retrospective review of 548 consecutive patients who underwent LH of which 455 met the study inclusion criteria. Outcomes measures of technical difficulty included operation time, Pringles maneuver, blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Postoperative outcomes measured included morbidity, major morbidity and postoperative hospital stay. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant progressive increase in blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operation time and postoperative stay associated with all 4 DSS. There was also good calibration with respect to blood loss, operation time, Pringles maneuver, open conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, postoperative major morbidity and postoperative stay for all 4 DSS. The Southampton score demonstrated the poorest calibration in terms of operation time and discrimination in terms of application of Pringles maneuver and major morbidity amongst all 4 systems. CONCLUSION: All 4 DSS significantly correlated with outcome measures associated with intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes. The Southampton DSS was the poorest system in our cohort of patients.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable colorectal liver metastases: an international multicentre propensity score matched analysis on long-term outcomes according to established prognostic risk scores.

BACKGROUND: There is still uncertainty regarding the role of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), especially in those with a low-risk of recurrence. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010-2015. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received perioperative CTx or not and were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Then, they were stratified according to prognostic risk scores, including: Clinical Risk Score (CRS), Tumour Burden Score (TBS) and Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score. RESULTS: The study included 967 patients with a median follow-up of 68 months. After PSM analysis, patients with perioperative CTx presented prolonged overall survival (OS) in comparison with the surgery alone group (82.8 vs 52.5 months, p = 0.017). On multivariable analysis perioperative CTx was an independent predictor of increased OS (HR 0.705, 95%CI 0.705-0.516, p = 0.029). The benefits of perioperative CTx on survival were confirmed in patients with CRS and TBS scores ≤2 (p = 0.022 and p = 0.020, respectively) and in patients with a GAME score ≤1 (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Perioperative CTx demonstrated an increase in OS in patients with CRLM. Patients with a low-risk of recurrence seem to benefit from systemic treatment.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies.

OBJECTIVE: To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). BACKGROUND: Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption. METHODS: Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease. RESULTS: Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.