Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. BACKGROUND: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. CONCLUSIONS: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy/H67: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish global benchmark outcomes indicators for L-RPS/H67. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections has seen an increase in uptake in recent years. Over time, challenging procedures as laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies (L-RPS)/H67 are also increasingly adopted. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 854 patients undergoing minimally invasive RPS (MI-RPS) in 57 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2021. There were 651 pure L-RPS and 160 robotic RPS (R-RPS). Sixteen outcome indicators of low-risk L-RPS cases were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. The 75th percentile of individual center medians for a given outcome indicator was set as the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: There were 573 L-RPS/H67 performed in 43 expert centers, of which 254 L-RPS/H67 (44.3%) cases qualified as low risk benchmark cases. The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, 90-day mortality and textbook outcome after L-RPS were 350.8 minutes, 12.5%, 53.8%, 22.9%, 23.8%, 2.8%, 0% and 4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study established the first global benchmark values for L-RPS/H6/7. The benchmark provided an up-to-date reference of best achievable outcomes for surgical auditing and benchmarking.

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.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies. METHODS: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

Short-term Outcomes After Spleen-preserving Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy With or Without Preservation of Splenic Vessels: A Pan-European Retrospective Study in High-volume Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare short-term clinical outcomes after Kimura and Warshaw MIDP. BACKGROUND: Spleen preservation during distal pancreatectomy can be achieved by either preservation (Kimura) or resection (Warshaw) of the splenic vessels. Multicenter studies reporting outcomes of Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP are scarce. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study including consecutive MIDP procedures intended to be spleen-preserving from 29 high-volume centers (≥15 distal pancreatectomies annually) in 8 European countries. Primary outcomes were secondary splenectomy for ischemia and major (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) complications. Sensitivity analysis assessed the impact of excluding ("rescue") Warshaw procedures which were performed in centers that typically (>75%) performed Kimura MIDP. RESULTS: Overall, 1095 patients after MIDP were included with successful splenic preservation in 878 patients (80%), including 634 Kimura and 244 Warshaw procedures. Rates of clinically relevant splenic ischemia (0.6% vs 1.6%, P = 0.127) and major complications (11.5% vs 14.4%, P = 0.308) did not differ significantly between Kimura and Warshaw MIDP, respectively. Mortality rates were higher after Warshaw MIDP (0.0% vs 1.2%, P = 0.023), and decreased in the sensitivity analysis (0.0% vs 0.6%, P = 0.052). Kimura MIDP was associated with longer operative time (202 vs 184 minutes, P = 0.033) and less blood loss (100 vs 150 mL, P < 0.001) as compared to Warshaw MIDP. Unplanned splenectomy was associated with a higher conversion rate (20.7% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Kimura and Warshaw spleen-preserving MIDP provide equivalent short-term outcomes with low rates of secondary splenectomy and postoperative morbidity. Further analyses of long-term outcomes are needed.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR). BACKGROUND: There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. RESULTS: There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy in Patients with Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: An International, Retrospective, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RDP) is increasingly used as an alternative to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer but comparative multicenter studies confirming the safety and efficacy of RDP are lacking. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective, cohort study, including consecutive patients undergoing RDP and LDP for resectable pancreatic cancer in 33 experienced centers from 11 countries (2010-2019). The primary outcome was R0-resection. Secondary outcomes included lymph node yield, major complications, conversion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 542 patients after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy were included: 103 RDP (19%) and 439 LDP (81%). The R0-resection rate was comparable (75.7% RDP vs. 69.3% LDP, p = 0.404). RDP was associated with longer operative time (290 vs. 240 min, p < 0.001), more vascular resections (7.6% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.030), lower conversion rate (4.9% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.001), more major complications (26.2% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.019), improved lymph node yield (18 vs. 16, p = 0.021), and longer hospital stay (10 vs. 8 days, p = 0.001). The 90-day mortality (1.9% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.268) and overall survival (median 28 vs. 31 months, p = 0.599) did not differ significantly between RDP and LDP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients with resectable pancreatic cancer, RDP and LDP provide a comparable R0-resection rate and overall survival in experienced centers. Although the lymph node yield and conversion rate appeared favorable after RDP, LDP was associated with shorter operating time, less major complications, and shorter hospital stay. The specific benefits associated with each approach should be confirmed by multicenter, randomized trials.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes After Preoperative FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy in Resected Pancreatic Cancer: An International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is increasingly administered to patients with borderline resectable (BRPC) and locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) to improve overall survival (OS). Multicenter studies reporting on the impact from the number of preoperative cycles and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy in relation to outcomes in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the outcome of pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX, including predictors of OS. METHODS: This international multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients from 31 centers in 19 European countries and the United States undergoing pancreatectomy after preoperative FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (2012-2016). The primary end point was OS from diagnosis. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. RESULTS: The study included 423 patients who underwent pancreatectomy after a median of six (IQR 5-8) preoperative cycles of FOLFIRINOX. Postoperative major morbidity occurred for 88 (20.8%) patients and 90-day mortality for 12 (2.8%) patients. An R0 resection was achieved for 243 (57.4%) patients, and 259 (61.2%) patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. The median OS was 38 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 34-42 months) for BRPC and 33 months (95% CI 27-45 months) for LAPC. Overall survival was significantly associated with R0 resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.63; 95% CI 1.20-2.20) and tumor differentiation (HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.08-1.91). Neither the number of preoperative chemotherapy cycles nor the use adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study found that pancreatectomy after FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy is associated with favorable outcomes for patients with BRPC and those with LAPC. Future studies should confirm that the number of neoadjuvant cycles and the use adjuvant chemotherapy have no relation to OS after resection.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. METHODS: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

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.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.

BACKGROUND: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

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.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Left and Extended Left Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Study Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversies exist among liver surgeons regarding clinical outcomes of the laparoscopic versus the robotic approach for major complex hepatectomies. The authors therefore designed a study to examine and compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (L-LH/L-ELH) versus robotic left hepatectomy or extended left hepatectomy (R-LH/R-ELH) using a large international multicenter collaborative database. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective analysis of 580 patients undergoing L-LH/L-ELH or R-LH/R-ELH at 25 specialized hepatobiliary centers worldwide was undertaken. Propensity score-matching (PSM) was used at a 1:1 nearest-neighbor ratio according to 15 perioperative variables, including demographics, tumor characteristics, Child-Pugh score, presence of portal hypertension, multiple resections, histologic diagnosis, and Iwate difficulty grade. RESULTS: Before the PSM, 190 (32 %) patients underwent R-LH/R-ELH, and 390 (68 %) patients underwent L-LH/L-ELH. After the matching, 164 patients were identified in each arm without significant differences in demographics, preoperative variables, medical history, tumor pathology, tumor characteristics, or Iwate score. Regarding intra- and postoperative outcomes, the rebotic approach had significantly less estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml [IQR 200 ml] vs 200 ml [IQR 235 ml]; p = 0.029), fewer conversions to open operations (n = 4 [2.4 %] vs n = 13, [7.9 %]; p = 0.043), and a shorter hospital stay (6 days [IQR 3 days] vs 7 days [IQR 3.3 days]; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Both techniques are safe and feasible in major hepatic resections. Compared with L-LH/L-ELH, R-LH/R-ELH is associated with less EBL, fewer conversions to open operations, and a shorter hospital stay.

Benchmarking of robotic and laparoscopic spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy by using two different methods.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is an important tool for quality comparison and improvement. However, no benchmark values are available for minimally invasive spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, either laparoscopically or robotically assisted. The aim of this study was to establish benchmarks for these techniques using two different methods. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing laparoscopically or robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy were extracted from a multicentre database (2006-2019). Benchmarks for 10 outcomes were calculated using the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) and best-patient-in-best-centre methods. RESULTS: Overall, 951 laparoscopically assisted (77.3 per cent) and 279 robotically assisted (22.7 per cent) procedures were included. Using the ABC method, the benchmarks for laparoscopically assisted and robotically assisted spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy respectively were: 150 and 207 min for duration of operation, 55 and 100 ml for blood loss, 3.5 and 1.7 per cent for conversion, 0 and 1.7 per cent for failure to preserve the spleen, 27.3 and 34.0 per cent for overall morbidity, 5.1 and 3.3 per cent for major morbidity, 3.6 and 7.1 per cent for pancreatic fistula grade B/C, 5 and 6 days for duration of hospital stay, 2.9 and 5.4 per cent for readmissions, and 0 and 0 per cent for 90-day mortality. Best-patient-in-best-centre methodology revealed milder benchmark cut-offs for laparoscopically and robotically assisted procedures, with operating times of 254 and 262.5 min, blood loss of 150 and 195 ml, conversion rates of 5.8 and 8.2 per cent, rates of failure to salvage spleen of 29.9 and 27.3 per cent, overall morbidity rates of 62.7 and 55.7 per cent, major morbidity rates of 20.4 and 14 per cent, POPF B/C rates of 23.8 and 24.2 per cent, duration of hospital stay of 8 and 8 days, readmission rates of 20 and 15.1 per cent, and 90-day mortality rates of 0 and 0 per cent respectively. CONCLUSION: Two benchmark methods for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy produced different values, and should be interpreted and applied differently.

Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS). METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk. RESULTS: A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87). CONCLUSION: The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.

Utility of the Iwate difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy: do surgical outcomes differ for tumors in segments VI and VII?

INTRODUCTION: The Iwate Score (IS) have not been well-validated for specific procedures, especially for right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). In this study, the utility of the IS was determined for laparoscopic (L)RPS and the effect of tumor location on surgical outcomes was investigated. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 647 L-RPS performed in 40 international centers of which 596L-RPS cases met the inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients stratified based on the Iwate score were compared to determine whether a correlation with surgical difficulty existed. A 1:1 Mahalanobis distance matching was utilized to investigate the effect of tumor location on L-RPS outcomes. RESULTS: The patients were stratified into 3 levels of difficulty (31 intermediate, 143 advanced, and 422 expert) based on the IS. When using a stepwise increase of the IS excluding the tumor location score, only Pringle's maneuver was more frequently used in the higher surgical difficulty level (35.5%, 54.6%, and 65.2%, intermediate, advanced, and expert levels, respectively, Z = 3.34, p = 0.001). Other perioperative results were not associated with a statistical gradation toward higher difficulty level. 80 of 85 patients with a segment VI lesion and 511 patients with a segment VII lesion were matched 1:1. There were no significant differences in the perioperative outcomes of the two groups including open conversion, operating time, blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing L-RPS, the IS did not significantly correlate with most outcome measures associated with intraoperative difficulty and postoperative outcomes. Similarly, tumor location had no effect on L-RPS outcomes.

A scoring system for predicting malignancy in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas: a multicenter EUROPEAN validation.

PURPOSE: A preoperative estimate of the risk of malignancy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) is important. The present study carries out an external validation of the Shin score in a European multicenter cohort. METHODS: An observational multicenter European study from 2010 to 2015. All consecutive patients undergoing surgery for IPMN at 35 hospitals with histological-confirmed IPMN were included. RESULTS: A total of 567 patients were included. The score was significantly associated with the presence of malignancy (p < 0.001). In all, 64% of the patients with benign IPMN had a Shin score < 3 and 57% of those with a diagnosis of malignancy had a score ≥ 3. The relative risk (RR) with a Shin score of 3 was 1.37 (95% CI: 1.07-1.77), with a sensitivity of 57.1% and specificity of 64.4%. CONCLUSION: Patients with a Shin score ≤ 1 should undergo surveillance, while patients with a score ≥ 4 should undergo surgery. Treatment of patients with Shin scores of 2 or 3 should be individualized because these scores cannot accurately predict malignancy of IPMNs. This score should not be the only criterion and should be applied in accordance with agreed clinical guidelines.