Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres.

BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

A multicenter cohort analysis of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobe resection.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe (LRCL) requires a high level of expertise due to its challenging anatomical area. Only case reports, case series, and single-center cohort studies have been published. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of this laparoscopic procedure. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent LRCL in 4 high-volume hepatobiliary units between January 2000 and May 2018 was performed. Perioperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes were assessed. Postoperative morbidity was stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification with severe complications defined by grade III or more. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were included, including 22 (68.8%) with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM), one (3.1%) with cholangiocarcinoma, four (12.5%) with other malignancies, and five (15.6%) with symptomatic benign lesions. Simultaneous colorectal and/or additional liver resection was performed in 20 (62.5%) patients. The median (IQR) operative time was 155 (121-280) minutes, blood loss was 100 (50-275) ml, conversion rate was 9.4% (n = 3), severe complications were observed in 2 patients (6.3%), and median (range) length of hospital stay was 3 [1-39] days. No 90-day postoperative mortality was noticed. The median (IQR) follow-up for the CRLM group was 14 [10-23] months. Five-year overall survival rate was 82% in this subgroup. Small interinstitutional differences were observed without major impact on surgical outcomes. CONCLUSION: LRCL is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers. Profound anatomical knowledge, advanced laparoscopic skills, and mastering intraoperative ultrasound are essential. No major interinstitutional differences were ascertained.

Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection demands expertise and a long learning curve. Resection of the posterosuperior segments is challenging, and there are no data on the learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for laparoscopic resection of the posterosuperior segments. METHODS: A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the difficulty score for resection was undertaken using patient data from four specialized centres. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis of duration of operation, blood loss and conversions was performed, adjusting for the difficulty score of the procedures. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the completion of the learning curve. RESULTS: According to the CUSUM analysis of 464 patients, the learning curve showed an initial decrease in the difficulty score followed by an increase and, finally, stabilization. More patients with cirrhosis or previous surgery were operated in the latest phase of the learning curve. A smaller number of wedge resections and a larger number of anatomical resections were performed progressively. Dissection using a Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and the Pringle manoeuvre were used more frequently with time. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis showed a progressive decrease in operating time. Blood loss initially increased slightly, then stabilized and finally decreased over time. A similar trend was found for conversions. The learning curve was estimated to be 40 procedures for wedge and 65 for anatomical resections. CONCLUSION: The learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments consists of a stepwise process, during which accurate patient selection is key.

ANTECEDENTES: La resección hepática laparoscópica exige experiencia y una larga curva de aprendizaje. La resección de los segmentos posterosuperiores (PS) es un reto, y no hay datos acerca de la curva de aprendizaje (learning curve, LC). El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la LC de la resección laparoscópica de los segmentos PS. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis CUSUM de la puntuación de dificultad (difficulty score, DS) de la resección en pacientes de 4 centros especializados. La técnica CUSUM se ajustó al riesgo (risk-adjusted CUSUM, RA-CUSUM) para el tiempo operatorio, la pérdida de sangre y las conversiones a cirugía abierta ajustando según la DS de los procedimientos. Se utilizó una curva ROC para identificar el momento en el que se consideró que la LC había sido completada. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con el análisis CUSUM de los 464 pacientes incluidos, se observó una DS baja al inicio, que posteriormente se fue incrementando hasta llegar a una estabilización. En la última fase de la LC se operaron más pacientes con cirrosis o cirugía previa. De forma progresiva se fueron reduciendo el número de resecciones hepáticas en cuña y aumentando el de resecciones anatómicas. A lo largo del tiempo se introdujo el CUSA y la maniobra de Pringle con mayor frecuencia. El RA-CUSUM mostró una reducción progresiva del tiempo operatorio. La pérdida de sangre inicialmente aumentó ligeramente, luego se estabilizó y finalmente disminuyó con el tiempo. Una tendencia similar se observó para las conversiones. La LC se estimó en 40 casos para las resecciones en cuña y en 65 casos para las resecciones anatómicas. CONCLUSIÓN: La LC de la resección hepática laparoscópica de los segmentos PS es un proceso paso a paso durante el cual la selección del paciente es clave.

Quality of life from a randomized trial of laparoscopic or open liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Most treatments for cancer cause a decline in patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limiting this decline is a universal goal for healthcare providers. Using minimally invasive instead of open surgical techniques might be one way to achieve this. The aim of this study was to compare postoperative HRQoL after open and laparoscopic liver resection. METHODS: This was a predefined substudy of an RCT comparing open with laparoscopic liver resection. Patients with colorectal liver metastases were assigned randomly to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection. HRQoL was assessed with the Short Form 36 questionnaire at baseline, and 1 and 4 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were randomized, of whom 273 underwent surgery (129 laparoscopic, 144 open); 682 questionnaires (83.3 per cent) were available for analysis. One month after surgery, patients in the laparoscopic surgery group reported reduced scores in two HRQoL domains (physical functioning and role physical), whereas those in the open surgery group reported reduced scores in five domains (physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning). Four months after surgery, HRQoL scores in the laparoscopic group had returned to preoperative levels, whereas patients in the open group reported reduced scores for two domains (role physical and general health). The between-group difference was statistically significant in favour of laparoscopy for four domains after 1 month (role physical, bodily pain, vitality and social functioning) and for one domain after 4 months (role physical). CONCLUSION: Patients assigned to laparoscopic liver surgery reported better postoperative HRQoL than those assigned to open liver surgery. For role limitations caused by physical health problems, patients in the laparoscopic group reported better scores up to 4 months after surgery. Registration number: NCT01516710 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La mayoría de los tratamientos para el cáncer causan una disminución de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (health-related quality of life, HRQoL) de los pacientes. Limitar este declive es un objetivo universal para los proveedores de atención médica. El uso de técnicas quirúrgicas mínimamente invasivas en lugar de abiertas podría ser una forma de lograrlo. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la HRQoL postoperatoria después de la resección hepática abierta y laparoscópica. MÉTODOS: Se trata de un subestudio predefinido de un ensayo aleatorizado y controlado que comparó la resección hepática abierta con la laparoscópica. Los pacientes con metástasis hepáticas colorrectales se asignaron aleatoriamente al grupo de resección hepática con preservación de parénquima por vía abierta o por vía laparoscópica. La HRQoL se evaluó con el cuestionario abreviado SF-36 en el momento basal y al cabo de 1 y 4 meses después de la cirugía. RESULTADOS: Un total de 280 pacientes fueron aleatorizados, de los cuales 273 se sometieron a cirugía (129 = laparoscópica, 144 = abierta) y hubo 682 cuestionarios (83%) disponibles para el análisis. Un mes después de la cirugía, los pacientes del grupo de cirugía laparoscópica presentaron puntuaciones reducidas en dos items de HRQoL (función física y rol físico), mientras que los pacientes del grupo de cirugía abierta presentaron puntuaciones reducidas en cinco items (función física, rol físico, dolor corporal, vitalidad y función social). Cuatro meses después de la cirugía, el grupo de cirugía laparoscópica había vuelto a los niveles preoperatorios de la HRQoL, mientras que los pacientes del grupo de cirugía abierta presentaron puntuaciones reducidas para dos items (función física y salud general). La diferencia entre los grupos fue estadísticamente significativa a favor de la laparoscopia para cuatro items después de un mes de la cirugía (rol físico, dolor corporal, vitalidad y función social) y para un ítem (rol físico) después de cuatro meses. CONCLUSIÓN: Los pacientes asignados a cirugía hepática laparoscópica presentaron mejor HRQoL postoperatoria que los pacientes asignados a cirugía hepática abierta. Para las limitaciones de roles causadas por problemas físicos de salud, los pacientes de cirugía laparoscópica presentaron mejores puntuaciones a los cuatro meses tras la intervención quirúrgica.

Liver resection and ablation for squamous cell carcinoma liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Limited evidence exists to guide the management of patients with liver metastases from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The aim of this retrospective multicentre cohort study was to describe patterns of disease recurrence after liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases and factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). METHOD: Members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association were invited to include all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection/ablation for SCC liver metastases between 2002 and 2019. Patient, tumour and perioperative characteristics were analysed with regard to RFS and OS. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients included from 24 European centres, 56 patients had anal cancer, and 46 patients had SCC from other origin. RFS in patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer was 16 and 9 months, respectively (P = 0.134). A positive resection margin significantly influenced RFS for both anal cancer and non-anal cancer liver metastases (hazard ratio 6.82, 95 per cent c.i. 2.40 to 19.35, for the entire cohort). Median survival duration and 5-year OS rate among patients with anal cancer and non-anal cancer were 50 months and 45 per cent and 21 months and 25 per cent, respectively. For the entire cohort, only non-radical resection was associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio 3.21, 95 per cent c.i. 1.24 to 8.30). CONCLUSION: Liver resection/ablation of liver metastases from SCC can result in long-term survival. Survival was superior in treated patients with liver metastases from anal versus non-anal cancer. A negative resection margin is paramount for acceptable outcome.