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.

From morbidity reduction to cost-effectiveness: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations in minimal invasive liver surgery.

PURPOSE: Minimal-invasive liver surgery (MILS) reduces surgical trauma and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. To amplify these benefits, perioperative multimodal concepts like Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), can play a crucial role. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for MILS in an ERAS program, considering the necessary additional workforce and associated expenses. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing surgical approach in patients within an ERAS program compared to standard care from 2018-2022 at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Cost data were provided by the medical controlling office. ERAS items were applied according to the ERAS society recommendations. RESULTS: 537 patients underwent liver surgery (46% laparoscopic, 26% robotic assisted, 28% open surgery) and 487 were managed by the ERAS protocol. Implementation of ERAS reduced overall postoperative complications in the MILS group (18% vs. 32%, p = 0.048). Complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II incurred the highest costs (€ 31,093) compared to minor (€ 17,510) and no complications (€13,893; p < 0.001). In the event of major complications, profit margins were reduced by a median of € 6,640. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing the ERAS society recommendations in liver surgery leads to a significant reduction of complications. This outcome justifies the higher cost associated with a well-structured ERAS protocol, as it effectively offsets the expenses of complications.

Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP to localize bile leakage after liver trauma and surgery: impact on treatment and outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Bile leakage (BL) is a challenging complication after hepatobiliary surgery and liver trauma. Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is used to diagnose BL non-invasively. We assessed the value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP in the detection of postoperative and post-traumatic BL hypothesizing that exact identification of the leakage site is pivotal for treatment planning and outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 39 trauma and postoperative patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP for suspected BL. Three readers rated the presence of BL and leakage site (intraparenchymal, central, peripheral ± aberrant or disconnected ducts). Imaging findings were compared to subsequent interventional procedures and their complexity and outcome. RESULTS: BL was detected in Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP in 25 of patients and was subsequently confirmed. Sites of BL differed significantly between postoperative (central [58%] and peripheral [42%]) and trauma patients (intraparenchymal [100%]; p < 0.001). Aberrant or disconnected ducts were diagnosed in 8%/26% of cases in the postoperative subgroup. Inter-rater agreement for the detection and localization of BL was almost perfect (Κ = 0.85 and 0.88; p < 0.001). Intraparenchymal BL required significantly less complex interventional procedures (p = 0.002), whereas hospitalization and mortality did not differ between the subgroups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP reliably detects and exactly locates BL in postoperative and trauma patients. Exact localization of biliary injuries enables specific treatment planning, as intraparenchymal leakages, which occur more frequently after trauma, require less complex interventions than central or peripheral leaks in the postoperative setting. As a result of specific treatment based on exact BL localization, there was no difference in the duration of hospitalization or mortality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP is a reliable diagnostic tool for exactly localizing iatrogenic and post-traumatic biliary leakage. Its precise localization helps tailor local therapies for different injury patterns, resulting in comparable clinical outcomes despite varying treatments. KEY POINTS: • Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP enables adequate detection and localization of bile leakages in both postoperative and post-traumatic patients. • The site of bile leakage significantly impacts the complexity of required additional interventions. • Intraparenchymal bile leakage is commonly seen in patients with a history of liver trauma and requires less complex interventions than postoperative central or peripheral bile leakages, while hospitalization and mortality are similar.

Simplifying minimally invasive right hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Extrahepatic transection of the right hepatic artery and right portal vein before parenchymal dissection is a widely used standard for minimal invasive right hepatectomy. Hereby, hilar dissection represents a technical difficulty. We report our results of a simplified approach in which the hilar dissection is omitted and the line of dissection is defined with ultrasound. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomy were included. Ultrasound-guided hepatectomy (UGH) was defined by the following main steps: (1) ultrasound-guided definition of the transection line, (2) dissection of the liver parenchyma according to the caudal approach, (3) intraparenchymal transection of the right pedicle and (4) of the right liver vein, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes of UGH were compared to the standard technique. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for parameters of perioperative risk. RESULTS: Median operative time was 310 min in the UGH group compared to 338 min in the control group (p = 0.013). No differences were observed for Pringle maneuver duration (35 min vs. 25 min; p = ns) nor postoperative transaminases levels (p = ns). There was a trend toward a lower major complication rate in the UGH group (13 vs. 25%) and a shorter median hospital stay (8 days vs. 10 days); however, both being short of statistical significance (p = ns). Bile leak was observed in zero cases of UGH compared to 9 out of 32 cases (28%) for the control group (p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: UGH appears to be at least comparable to the standard technique in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Accordingly, transection of the right hepatic artery and right portal vein prior to the transection phase can be omitted, at least in selected cases. These results need to be confirmed in a prospective and randomized trial.

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.

A surgical strategy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma - the hilar first concept.

PURPOSE: The present study assesses long-term overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after curative resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICCA) depending on resection margin (RM) status and lymph node (LN) status. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutively resected patients with ICCA at a single high-volume center between 2005 and 2018 were collected. Minimum follow-up was 36 months. Perioperative and long-term oncological outcome was assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two cases were included in the analysis. Thirty- and 90-day-mortality was 5.2% (n = 10) and 10.9% (n = 21). OS was 26 months with 1-, 2-, and 5-year-OS rates of 72%, 53%, and 26%. One-, 2-, and 5-year-DFS rates were 54%, 42%, and 35% (N0 vs. N1: 29 vs. 9 months, p = 0.116). R1 was not found to be an independent risk factor for reduced survival in the overall cohort (p = 0.098). When differentiating according to the LN status, clear resection margins were significantly associated with increased DFS for N0 cases (50 months vs. 9 months, p = 0.004). For N1 cases, no significant difference in DFS was calculated for R0 compared to R1 cases (9 months vs. 9 months, p = 0.88). For N0 cases, clear resection margins > 10 mm were associated with prolonged OS (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: For N1 cases, there was no significant survival benefit when comparing R0 versus R1, while the complication rate remained high for the extended resection types. In view of merging multimodal treatment, the hilar first concept assesses locoregional LN status for optimal surgical therapy.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.

PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS: We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS: RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

FIRE-9 - PORT / AIO-KRK-0418: a prospective, randomized, open, multicenter Phase III trial to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant/additive chemotherapy in patients with definitely-treated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Additive/adjuvant chemotherapy as concept after local treatment of colorectal metastases has not been proven to be successful by phase III trials. Accordingly, a standard of care to improve relapse rates and long-term survival is not established and adjuvant chemotherapy cannot be recommended as a standard therapy due to limited evidence in literature. The PORT trial aims to generate evidence that post-resection/ablation/radiation chemotherapy improves the survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients to be included into this trial must have synchronous or metachronous metastases of colorectal cancer-either resected (R0 or R1) and/or effectively treated by ablation or radiation within 3-10 weeks before randomization-and have the primary tumor resected, without radiographic evidence of active metastatic disease at study entry. The primary endpoint of the trial is progression-free survival after 24 months, secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, treatments (including efficacy) beyond study participation, translational endpoints, and others. One arm of the study comprising 2/3 of the population will be treated for 6 months with modified FOLFOXIRI or modified FOLFOX6 (investigator´s choice, depending on the performance status of the patients but determined before randomization), while the other arm (1/3 of the population) will be observed and undergo scheduled follow-up computed tomography scans according to the interventional arm. DISCUSSION: Optimal oncological management after removal of colorectal metastases is unclear. The PORT trial aims to generate evidence that additive/adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive treatment of colorectal metastases improves progression free and overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT05008809 ) and EudraCT (2020-006,144-18).

Robotic vs. laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-center analysis of 600 consecutive patients in 6 years.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic liver surgery has become a standard procedure, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery and compare outcomes with conventional laparoscopy. METHODS: We here report the results of a single-center, prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229) investigating the safety and feasibility of robotic liver surgery. Baseline characteristics, surgical complexity (using the IWATE score), and postoperative outcomes were then compared to laparoscopic liver resections performed at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. A propensity score-based matching (PSM) was applied to control for selection bias. RESULTS: One hundred twenty nine robotic liver resections were performed using the da Vinci Xi surgical system (Intuitive) in this prospective study and were compared to 471 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections. After PSM, both groups comprised 129 cases with similar baseline characteristics and surgical complexity. There were no significant differences in intraoperative variables, such as need for red blood cell transfusion, duration of surgery, or conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications were comparable after robotic and laparoscopic surgery (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3a: 23% vs. 19%, p = 0.625); however, there were more bile leakages grade B-C in the robotic group (17% vs. 7%, p = 0.006). Length of stay and oncological short-term outcomes were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: We propose robotic liver resection as a safe and feasible alternative to established laparoscopic techniques. The object of future studies must be to define interventions where robotic techniques are superior to conventional laparoscopy.

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Safety of intermittent Pringle maneuver during minimally invasive liver resection in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with and without cirrhosis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of minimally invasive intermittent Pringle maneuver (IPM) on postoperative outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver cirrhosis. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated the safety of IPM in patients with HCC who underwent minimally invasive liver resection during five years at our center. Factors influencing the use of IPM were examined in univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Cases with use of IPM (IPM) and those without use of IPM (no IPM) were then compared regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes after propensity score matching (PSM) for surgical difficulty. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one patients underwent liver resection for HCC at our center and met inclusion criteria. Of these, 73 patients (48%) received IPM with a median duration of 18 min (5-78). One hundred patients (66%) had confirmed liver cirrhosis. In multivariate analysis, patients with large tumors (≥ 3 cm) and difficult tumor locations (segments VII or VIII) were more likely to undergo IPM (OR 1.176, p = 0.043, and OR 3.243, p = 0.001, respectively). After PSM, there were no differences in intraoperative blood transfusion or postoperative complication rates between the IPM and no IPM groups. Neither did we observe any differences in the subgroup analysis for cirrhotic patients. Postoperative serum liver function tests were not affected by the use of IPM. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we conclude that the use of IPM in minimally invasive liver resection is safe and feasible for patients with HCC, including those with compensated liver cirrhosis.

Textbook outcome after major hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma - definitions and influencing factors.

PURPOSE: The concept of "textbook outcome" (TO) as composite quality measure depicting the ideal surgical has not yet been defined for patients undergoing major hepatectomy (MH) for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). This study sought to propose a uniform definition through a systematic literature review as well as to identify patient- or procedure-related factors influencing TO. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients undergoing MH for PHC at our department between January 2005 and August 2019. After conducting a systematic literature search, we defined TO as the absence of 90-day mortality and major complications, no hospital readmission within 90 days after discharge, and no prolonged hospital stay (<75. percentile). A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing TO. RESULTS: Of 283 patients, TO was achieved in 67 (24%) patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative biliary drainage was associated with a decreased (OR= 0.405, 95% CI: 0.194-0.845, p=0.016) and left-sided-resection (OR= 1.899, 95% CI: 1.048-3.440, p=0.035) with increased odds for TO. Overall survival (OS) and DFS (disease-free survival) did not differ significantly between the outcome groups (OS: p=0.280, DFS: p=0.735). However, there was a trend towards better overall survival, especially in the late course with TO. CONCLUSION: Our analysis proposed a uniform definition of TO after MH for PHC. We identified left hepatectomy as an independent factor positively influencing TO. In patients where both right- and left-sided resections are feasible, this underlines the importance of a careful selection of patients who are scheduled for right hepatectomy.

Robotic versus open pancreatic surgery: a propensity score-matched cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) is associated with high intraoperative costs compared to open pancreatic surgery (OPS). However, it remains unclear whether several advantages of RPS such as reduced surgical trauma and a shorter postoperative recovery time could lead to a reduction in total costs outweighing the intraoperative costs. The study aimed to compare patients undergoing OPS and RPS with regards to cost-effectiveness in a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis. METHODS: Patients undergoing OPS and RPS between 2017 and 2019 were included in this monocentric, retrospective analysis. The controlling department provided financial data (costs and revenues, net loss/profit). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed or OPS and RPS (matching criteria: age, American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, body mass index (BMI), and type of pancreatic resection) with a caliper 0.2. RESULTS: In total, 272 eligible OPS cases were identified, of which 252 met all inclusion criteria and were thus included in the further analysis. The RPS group contained 92 patients. The matched cohorts contained 41 patients in each group. Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the RPS group (12 vs. 19 days, p = 0.003). Major postoperative morbidity (Dindo/Clavien ≥ 3a) and 90-day mortality did not differ significantly between OPS and RPS (p > 0.05). Intraoperative costs were significantly higher in the RPS group than in the OPS group (7334€ vs. 5115€, p < 0.001). This was, however, balanced by other financial categories. The overall cost-effectiveness tended to be better when comparing RPS to OPS (net profit-RPS: 57€ vs. OPS: - 2894€, p = 0.328). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed major postoperative complications, longer hospital stay, and ASA scores < 3 were linked to the risk of net loss (i.e., costs > revenue). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical outcomes of RPS were similar to those of OPS. Higher intraoperative costs of RPS are outweighed by advantages in other categories of cost-effectiveness such as decreased lengths of hospital stay.

[Laparoscopic Posterolateral Sectionectomy in Hepatocellular Cacinoma - Increasing Oncological Precision by Combining the Glissonean Pedicle Approach and Fluorescence Guidance]. / 1 Laparoskopische posterolaterale Sektionektomie beim hepatozellulären Karzinom ­ Erhöhung der onkologischen Präzision durch Kombination des Glissonean Pedicle Approach und der Fluoreszenznavigation.

AIM: Minimally invasive procedures have been increasingly performed in liver surgery. Benefits include lower intraoperative blood loss, reduced postoperative morbidity and shorter lengths of hospital stay in comparison to open liver surgery. Exact resection margins seem advantageous in primary liver cancer but challenging to implement with minimally invasive techniques. In this case report, we aimed to increase surgical precision by combining the Glissonean pedicle approach and intraoperative fluorescence guidance. INDICATION: A 73-year-old female patient with CHILD A liver cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus infection was transferred to our hospital with high levels of alpha-fetoprotein (792 ng/ml). Sectional imaging confirmed the suspected diagnosis of a single hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with a size of 2.2 cm in segments VI/VII. In line with the local tumour board recommendation, an anatomical posterolateral sectionectomy using the Glissonean pedicle approach was planned. METHODS: The patient was placed in the French position. After mobilisation of the right liver, the posterolateral pedicle was encircled and transected. 0.2 mg/kg of body mass indocyanine green (ICG) was then injected intravenously. The perfused parenchyma of segments I-V and VIII turned green, but the unperfused posterolateral segment VI and VII remained native. The transection line was marked under ICG-imaging to indicate the transition of the posterolateral to the anteromedial sector. Parenchymal transection was performed under intermittent ICG-guided imaging. Pathological workup confirmed R0 resection of a well differentiated HCC in a cirrhotic liver (grade 4). The patient was discharged from the hospital on the 6th postoperative day after an uncomplicated course and was confirmed to be tumour-free six months after surgery. CONCLUSION: As an additional intraoperative tool, ICG-imaging may provide visualisation of segment and sector boundaries and thus may enable precise anatomical resection. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the added value of this technique, especially with regard to the rate of R0 resections.

[Differentiated Strategies for the Therapy of Liver Metastases in Gastro-entero-pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasia]. / Differenzierte Therapiestrategie bei Lebermetastasen gastro-entero-pankreatischer Neuroendokriner Neoplasien.

Neuroendocrine neoplasias comprise a heterogenous group of malignant tumours, mostly arising from the gastro-entero-pancreatic system (GEP). Most of these tumours develop from the small intestine and pancreas and the liver is the predominant site for distant metastases. Patients may be asymptomatic for a long time and liver metastases are frequently diagnosed by chance or during operations for bowel obstruction, for example, during emergency surgery. The only curative therapy consists in complete removal of primary and metastases. In case of metastatic disease, various treatment modalities need to be discussed in interdisciplinary tumour boards comprised of specialists from gastroenterology, (liver-)surgery, radiology, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, pathology and endocrinology. By combining different therapies, even patients with progressive disease may reach long-term overall survival with good quality of life. The most important factors for decisions on therapy are individual factors like tumour grading, hormonal functionality, type of metastases and evolution of the disease. Adequate treatment of liver metastases comprises various surgical strategies as well as locally ablative radiological interventions and nuclear medical therapies, in complement to systemic treatments.

Right-sided resection with standard or selective portal vein resection in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Standard portal vein resection (PVR) has been proposed to improve oncological outcomes in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC), however it potentially introduces an increased risk of morbidity. The policy in Amsterdam UMC(AMC) is to resect the portal vein bifurcation selectively when involved, while in Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, standard PVR is performed with right trisectionectomy. The objective of this study was to analyze postoperative outcomes and survival after standard or selective PVR for PHC. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed including PHC-patients undergoing right-sided resection in Amsterdam (2000-2018) and Berlin (2005-2015). Primary outcomes were 90-day mortality, severe morbidity (Clavien-Dindo≥3), and overall survival (OS). A propensity score comparison (1:1 ratio) was performed corrected for age/sex/ASA/jaundice/tumor diameter/N-stage/Bismuth-Corlette type-IV. RESULTS: A total of 251 patients who underwent right-sided resection for PHC were evaluated: 87 in the selective (Amsterdam) and 164 in the standard PVR-group (Berlin). Major differences in baseline characteristics were observed, with higher ASA and AJCC-stage in the standard PVR-group (Berlin). Severe morbidity and 90-day mortality were comparable before matching (selective/Amsterdam:68% and 19%, standard/Berlin:61% and 17%,p = 0.284 and p = 0.746, respectively). After propensity score matching, both short term outcomes and OS were comparable (selective/Amsterdam (n = 45) 33 months (95%CI:20-45), standard/Berlin (n = 45) 31 months (95%CI:24-38,p = 0.747)). CONCLUSION: In this combined cohort, standard PVR was not associated with increased severe morbidity or mortality. After propensity score matching, survival was comparable after selective (Amsterdam) and standard PVR (Berlin).

Transplantation programs facing lack of empirical evidence on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: A society recommendation consensus update.

BACKGROUND: Since phase III trials for the most prominent vaccines excluded immunocompromised or immunosuppressed patients, data on safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for recipients of solid organ transplantations are scarce. AIMS: Our study offers a synthesis of expert opinions aligned with available data addressing key questions of the clinical management of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations for transplant patients. METHOD: An online research was performed retrieving available recommendations by national and international transplantation organizations and state institutions on SARS-CoV2 vaccination management for transplant recipients. RESULTS: Eleven key statements were identified from recommendations by 18 national and international societies, and consensus for the individual statements was evaluated by means of the Society Recommendation Consensus score. The highest consensus level (SRC A) was found for prioritized access to vaccination for transplant patients despite anticipation of a weakened immune response. All currently authorized vaccines can be considered safe for transplant patients (SRC A). The handling of immunosuppressive medication, the timely management of vaccines, and other aspects were aligned with available expert opinions. CONCLUSION: Expert consensus can be determined for crucial aspects of the implementation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination programs. We hereby offer a tool for immediate decision-making until empirical data becomes available.

A tailored approach in lymph node-positive perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Extended right hepatectomy is associated with wide surgical margins in PHC and often favored for oncological considerations. However, it remains uncertain whether established surgical principles also apply to the subgroup of node-positive patients. The aim of the present study was to define a tailored surgical approach for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) and lymph node metastases. METHODS: We reviewed the course of all consecutive patients undergoing major hepatectomy for PHC between 2005 and 2015 at the Department of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-one patients underwent major hepatectomy for PHC with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates of 72%, 48%, and 36%, and 60%, 22%, and 12%, respectively. In lymph node-positive patients (n = 109, 47%), extended left hepatectomy was associated with improved OS and DFS, respectively, when compared to extended right hepatectomy (p = 0.008 and p = 0.003). Interestingly, OS and DFS did not differ between R0 and R1 resections in those patients (both p = ns). Patients undergoing extended left hepatectomy were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.022). This is of note as adjuvant chemotherapy, besides grading (p = 0.041), was the only independent prognostic factor in node-positive patients (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: Patients with node-positive PHC might benefit from less aggressive approaches being associated with lower morbidity and a higher chance for adjuvant chemotherapy. Lymph node sampling might help to guide patients to the appropriate surgical approach according to their lymph node status.

The ILLS Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Fellow Skills Curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopy is becoming the standard approach in liver surgery. As the degree of difficulty varies greatly from core skills to advanced procedures, strategies for teaching young surgeons need to be reconsidered. We here aimed to design a skills curriculum for LLR. METHODS: Using the nominal group technique, 22 substeps of LLR were identified by 61 hepatobiliary surgeons. The raters were asked to rate (1) the difficulty of substeps and (2) the minimum number of times that the substep must be performed for mastery of the technique. According to the frequency of defined substeps, being estimated on the basis of high volume center experiences (n = 222 LLR; 1/2017-12/2018), the center's training capacity and defined goals for a 2-year fellowship were calculated. RESULTS: Ten surgical substeps (45%) are routinely performed and can thus be taught sufficiently at centers carrying out ≥50 LLR in 2 years. As the mobilization of the right liver lobe and the dissection of the hepatic artery or portal vein is performed in only 27% and 28% of all LLR, respectively, sufficient training can only be provided at centers with ≥100 LLRs in 2 years. Mastery of complex parenchymal dissection (19%) and hilar lymphadenectomy (8%) can only be achieved in center performing ≥200 LLR in 2 years. CONCLUSION: We here suggest a stepwise approach for training of hepatobiliary fellows in LLR. Based on the estimated complexity of the substeps and the size of the center, not every substep can be learned within 2 years.