Assessing quality of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: nationwide benchmarking.

BACKGROUND: Clinical auditing is a powerful tool to evaluate and improve healthcare. Deviations from the expected quality of care are identified by benchmarking the results of individual hospitals using national averages. This study aimed to evaluate the use of quality indicators for benchmarking hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery and when outlier hospitals could be identified. METHODS: A population-based study used data from two nationwide Dutch HPB audits (DHBA and DPCA) from 2014 to 2021. Sample size calculations determined the threshold (in percentage points) to identify centres as statistical outliers, based on current volume requirements (annual minimum of 20 resections) on a two-year period (2020-2021), covering mortality rate, failure to rescue (FTR), major morbidity rate and textbook/ideal outcome (TO) for minor liver resection (LR), major LR, pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP). RESULTS: In total, 10 963 and 7365 patients who underwent liver and pancreatic resection respectively were included. Benchmark and corresponding range of mortality rates were 0.6% (0 -3.2%) and 3.3% (0-16.7%) for minor and major LR, and 2.7% (0-7.0%) and 0.6% (0-4.2%) for PD and DP respectively. FTR rates were 5.4% (0-33.3%), 14.2% (0-100%), 7.5% (1.6%-28.5%) and 3.1% (0-14.9%). For major morbidity rate, corresponding rates were 9.8% (0-20.5%), 28.1% (0-47.1%), 36% (15.8%-58.3%) and 22.3% (5.2%-46.1%). For TO, corresponding rates were 73.6% (61.3%-94.4%), 54.1% (35.3-100), 46.8% (25.3%-59.4%) and 63.3% (30.7%-84.6%). Mortality rate thresholds indicating a significant outlier were 8.6% and 15.4% for minor and major LR and 14.2% and 8.6% for PD and DP. For FTR, these thresholds were 17.9%, 31.6%, 22.9% and 15.0%. For major morbidity rate, these thresholds were 26.1%, 49.7%, 57.9% and 52.9% respectively. For TO, lower thresholds were 52.5%, 32.5%, 25.8% and 41.4% respectively. Higher hospital volumes decrease thresholds to detect outliers. CONCLUSION: Current event rates and minimum volume requirements per hospital are too low to detect any meaningful between hospital differences in mortality rate and FTR. Major morbidity rate and TO are better candidates to use for benchmarking.

Limitations in resectability of colorectal liver metastases 2020 - A systematic approach for clinicians and patients.

Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) affect over 50 % of all patients with colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer in the western world. Resection of CRLM may provide cure and improves survival over chemotherapy alone. However, resectability of CLRM has to be decided in multidisciplinary tumor boards and is based on oncological factors, technical factors and patient factors. The advances of chemotherapy lead to the abolition of contraindications to resection in favor of technical resectability, but somatic mutations and molecular subtyping may improve selection of patients for resection in the future. Technical factors center around anatomy of the lesions, volume of the remnant liver and quality of the liver parenchymal. Multiple strategies have been developed to overcome volume limitations and they are reviewed here. The least investigated topic is how to select the right patients among an elderly and frail patient population for the large variety of technical options specifically for bi-lobar CRLM to keep 90-day mortality as low as possible. The review is an overview over the current state-of-the art and a systematic guide to the topic of resectability of CRLM for both clinicians and patients.

Expert Consensus Guidelines on Minimally Invasive Donor Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation From Innovation to Implementation: A Joint Initiative From the International Laparoscopic Liver Society (ILLS) and the Asian-Pacific Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (A-PHPBA).

OBJECTIVE: The Expert Consensus Guidelines initiative on MIDH for LDLT was organized with the goal of safe implementation and development of these complex techniques with donor safety as the main priority. BACKGROUND: Following the development of minimally invasive liver surgery, techniques of MIDH were developed with the aim of reducing the short- and long-term consequences of the procedure on liver donors. These techniques, although increasingly performed, lack clinical guidelines. METHODS: A group of 12 international MIDH experts, 1 research coordinator, and 8 junior faculty was assembled. Comprehensive literature search was made and studies classified using the SIGN method. Based on literature review and experts opinions, tentative recommendations were made by experts subgroups and submitted to the whole experts group using on-line Delphi Rounds with the goal of obtaining >90% Consensus. Pre-conference meeting formulated final recommendations that were presented during the plenary conference held in Seoul on September 7, 2019 in front of a Validation Committee composed of LDLT experts not practicing MIDH and an international audience. RESULTS: Eighteen Clinical Questions were addressed resulting in 44 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 90% consensus among experts and were afterward endorsed by the validation committee. CONCLUSIONS: The Expert Consensus on MIDH has produced a set of clinical guidelines based on available evidence and clinical expertise. These guidelines are presented for a safe implementation and development of MIDH in LDLT Centers with the goal of optimizing donor safety, donor care, and recipient outcomes.

Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma - Novel Benchmark Values for Surgical and Oncological Outcomes From 24 Expert Centers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons. BACKGROUND: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking. METHODS: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes. CONCLUSION: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.

Assessment of Magnet status and Textbook Outcomes among medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepato-pancreatic surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital Magnet status recognition and postoperative outcomes following complex cancer surgery remains ill-defined. We sought to characterize Textbook Outcome (TO) rates among patients undergoing (HP) surgery for cancer in Magnet versus non-Magnet centers. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP surgery between 2015 and 2017 were identified. The association of postoperative TO (no complications/extended length-of-stay/90-day mortality/90-day readmission) with Magnet designation was examined after adjusting for competing risk factors. RESULTS: Among 10,997 patients, 21.3% (n = 2337) patients underwent surgery at Magnet hospitals (non-Magnet centers: 78.7%, n = 8660). On multivariable analysis, patients undergoing HP surgery had comparable odds of achieving a TO at Magnet versus non-Magnet hospitals (hepatectomy: odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.17; pancreatectomy-OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.74-1.06). Patients treated at hospitals with a high nurse-to-bed ratio had higher odds of achieving a TO irrespective of whether they received surgery at Magnet (high vs. low nurse-to-bed ratio; OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01-1.89) or non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.10-1.45). Similarly, hospital HP volume was strongly associated with higher odds of TO following HP surgery in both Magnet (Leapfrog compliant vs. noncompliant; OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.06-1.44) and non-Magnet centers (OR: 1.18; 95% CI: 1.11-1.26). CONCLUSION: Hospital Magnet designation was not an independent factor of superior outcomes after HP surgery. Rather, hospital-level factors such as nurse-to-bed ratio and HP procedural volume drove outcomes.

Assessing Textbook Outcomes Following Liver Surgery for Primary Liver Cancer Over a 12-Year Time Period at Major Hepatobiliary Centers.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the current study was to comprehensively assess the change of practice in hepatobiliary surgery by determining the rates and the trends of textbook outcomes (TO) among patients undergoing surgery for primary liver cancer over time. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative-intent resection for primary liver malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) between 2005 and 2017 were analyzed using a large, international multi-institutional dataset. Rates of TO were assessed over time. Factors associated with achieving a TO and the impact of TO on long-term survival were examined. RESULTS: Among 1829 patients, 944 (51.6%) and 885 (48.4%) individuals underwent curative-intent resection for HCC and ICC, respectively. Over time, patients were older, more frequently had ASA class > 2, albumin-bilirubin grade 2/3, major vascular invasion and more frequently underwent major liver resection (all p < 0.05). Overall, a total of 1126 (62.0%) patients achieved a TO. No increasing trends in TO rates were noted over the years (ptrend = 0.90). In addition, there was no increasing trend in the TO rates among patients undergoing either major (ptrend = 0.39) or minor liver resection (ptrend = 0.63) over the study period. Achieving a TO was independently associated with 26% and 37% decreased hazards of death among ICC (HR 0.74, 95%CI 0.56-0.97) and HCC patients (HR 0.63, 95%CI 0.46-0.85), respectively. CONCLUSION: Approximately 6 in 10 patients undergoing surgery for primary liver tumors achieved a TO. While TO rates did not increase over time, TO was associated with better long-term outcomes following liver resection for both HCC and ICC.

Risk-adjusted benchmarks in laparoscopic liver surgery in a national cohort.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the best achievable outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) after risk adjustment based on surgical technical difficulty using a national registry. METHODS: LLRs registered in the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery registry from November 2014 to March 2018 were considered. Benchmarks were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). LLRs at each centre were divided into three clusters (groups I, II and III) based on the Kawaguchi classification. ABCs for overall and major morbidity were calculated in each cluster. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for overall and major morbidity. Significant variables were used in further risk adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 1752 of 2263 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 1096 (62·6 per cent) in group I, 435 (24·8 per cent) in group II and 221 (12·6 per cent) in group III. The ABCs for overall morbidity (7·8, 14·2 and 26·4 per cent for grades I, II and II respectively) and major morbidity (1·4, 2·2 and 5·7 per cent) increased with the difficulty of LLR. Multivariable analysis showed an increased risk of overall morbidity associated with multiple LLRs (odds ratio (OR) 1·35), simultaneous intestinal resection (OR 3·76) and cirrhosis (OR 1·83), and an increased risk of major morbidity with intestinal resection (OR 4·61). ABCs for overall and major morbidity were 14·4 and 3·2 per cent respectively for multiple LLRs, 30 and 11·1 per cent for intestinal resection, and 14·9 and 4·8 per cent for cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Overall morbidity benchmarks for LLR ranged from 7·8 to 26·4 per cent, and those for major morbidity from 1·4 to 5·7 per cent, depending on complexity. Benchmark values should be adjusted according to multiple LLRs or simultaneous intestinal resection and cirrhosis.

ANTECEDENTES: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los mejores resultados que se pueden conseguir en la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) después del ajuste por riesgos basado en la dificultad de la técnica quirúrgica utilizando un registro nacional. MÉTODOS: Se consideraron las LLRs incluidas en el Registro del Grupo Italiano de Cirugía Hepática Mínimamente Invasiva desde 11/2014 a 03/2018. Los resultados de referencia (benchmarks) se calcularon de acuerdo con el Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). Las LLRs de cada uno de los centros se dividieron en 3 grupos (Grupo I, II y III) en base a la clasificación de Kawaguchi. Se calculó el ABC de la morbilidad global y de la morbilidad mayor para cada grupo. Se realizó un análisis multivariable para identificar los factores independientes de riesgos para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor. Se utilizaron variables significativas para realizar ajustes de riesgo adicionales. RESULTADOS: Un total de 1.752 pacientes de los 2.263 cumplían los criterios de inclusión, de los cuales 1.096 (62,6%) se incluyeron en el Grupo I, 435 (24,8%) en el Grupo II y 221 (12,6%) en el Grupo III. El ABC de la morbilidad global (7,8%, 14,2%, 26,4%) y de la morbilidad mayor (1,4%, 2,2%, 5,7%) aumentó del Grupo I al Grupo III. El análisis multivariable mostró un incremento del riesgo para la morbilidad global asociada con múltiples LLRs (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,349), resección intestinal simultánea (OR 3,760) y cirrosis (OR 1,825), y para la morbilidad mayor con la resección intestinal (OR 4,606). Los ABC de la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor fueron 14,4% y 3,2% para las LLR múltiples, 30% y 11% para la resección intestinal, y 14,9% y 4,8% para la cirrosis, respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: Los resultados de referencia (benchmark) para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor en la LLR variaron entre un 8% y un 26% y entre un 1,4% y un 5,7%, dependiendo de la complejidad. Los valores de referencia deberían ajustarse de acuerdo con la práctica de LLRs múltiples o resección intestinal simultánea y cirrosis.

Outcome quality standards for surgery of colorectal liver metastasis.

PURPOSE: Liver metastases are the most common malignant solid liver lesions, approximately 40% of which stem from colorectal tumors. Liver resection is currently the only curative treatment for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM). However, there is a lack of consensus criteria to assess the results of this treatment. In order to evaluate the quality of surgical outcomes, it is necessary to identify quality indicators (QIs) and their corresponding quality standards (QS). We propose a simple method to determine QI and QS in CRLM surgery (CRLMS) and establish acceptable quality limits (AQL) for each QI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review of CRLMS results published from 2006 to 2016. Clinical guidelines, consensus conferences, and publications related to the CRLMS were reviewed to identify and select QIs. Once selected, a new review of the papers including the results of at least one of the QIs was performed. Statistical process control (SPC) method was applied to calculate the QS and AQL of each QI. The limits of variability were established from mean and confidence intervals at 95% and 99.8%. RESULTS: The most relevant QIs and its AQLs were postoperative mortality (2%, < 4.5%), overall postoperative morbidity (33%, < 41%), liver failure (5%, < 8%), postoperative hemorrhage (1%, < 3%), biliary fistula (6%, < 10%), reoperation (3%, < 6%), R1 resection margins (18%, < 25%), and overall survival at 12 and 60 months (84%, > 77%; and 34%, > 25%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite its limitations, the present study constitutes the most extensive scientific evidence to date on QI and AQL in CRLMS and may constitute a reference in future studies.

The lack of selection criteria for surgery in patients with non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of surgery in patients with non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases (NCRNNELM) remains controversial. At the population level, several statistical prognostic factors and scores have been proposed but inconsistently verified. At the patient level, no selection criteria have been demonstrated to guide individual therapeutic decision making. We aimed to evaluate potential individual selection criteria to predict the benefit of surgery in patients undergoing treatment for NCRNNELM. METHODS: Data for 114 patients undergoing surgery for NCRNNELM were reviewed. In this population, we identified an early relapse group (ER), defined as patients with unresectable recurrence < 1 year postoperatively who did not benefit from surgery (N = 28), and a long-term survival group (LTS), defined as patients who were recurrence-free ≥ 5 years postoperatively and benefited from surgery (N = 20). Clinicopathologic parameters, the Association Française de Chirurgie (AFC) score, and a modified 4-point Clinical Risk Score (mCRS) (excluding CEA level) were analyzed and compared between LTS and ER groups. RESULTS: The majority of patients were female and a majority had an ASA score ≤ 2 at the time of liver surgery. The median age was 55 years. Almost half of the patients (46%) presented with a single-liver metastasis. Intermediate- and low-risk AFC scores represented 40% and 60% of the population, respectively. Five- and 10-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 56% and 27%, and 30% and 12%, respectively. Negative prognostic factors were the size of liver metastases > 50 mm and delay between primary and NCRNNELM <24 months for OS and DFS, respectively. AFC score was not prognostic while high-risk mCRS (scores 3-4) was predictive for the poorer OS. The clinicopathologic parameters were similar in the ER and LTS groups, except the presence of N+ primary tumor, and the size of liver metastases was significantly higher in the ER group. CONCLUSION: In patients with resectable NCRNNELM, no predictive factors or scores were found to accurately preoperatively differentiate individual cases in whom surgery would be futile from those in whom surgery could be associated with a significant oncological benefit.

[Research progression and application of Laennec capsule in liver].

The Laennec capsule of liver was first discovered and reported by French doctor Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec in 1802.However, it has not received enough attention for more than 200 years since then. In recent years, with the rapid development of liver surgery represented by laparoscopic technology, and the deepening of the theory of precise liver surgery, the fine anatomical structure of liver Laennec capsule has returned to the vision of liver surgeons.Recent studies have demonstrated the presence of Laennec capsule in liver histology, covering the whole liver surface, and lining the surface of liver parenchyma around the Glisson pedicle and the main hepatic vein along the inflow and outflow channels of the liver. Based on the Laennec capsule approach, it is expected to unify the current approach of Glisson pedicle and the approach of hepatic vein, and provide a new theoretical basis for the liver surgery, and guide us in the standardization of liver surgeries.

A Comparison of the Learning Curves of Laparoscopic Liver Surgeons in Differing Stages of the IDEAL Paradigm of Surgical Innovation: Standing on the Shoulders of Pioneers.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the learning curves of the self-taught "pioneers" of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) with those of the trained "early adopters" in terms of short- and medium-term patient outcomes to establish if the learning curve can be reduced with specific training. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: It is expected that a wider adoption of a laparoscopic approach to liver surgery will be seen in the next few years. Current guidelines stress the need for an incremental, stepwise progression through the learning curve in order to minimize harm to patients. Previous studies have examined the learning curve in Stage 2 of the IDEAL paradigm of surgical innovation; however, LLS is now in stage 3 with specific training being provided to surgeons. METHODS: Using risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis, the learning curves and short- and medium-term outcomes of 4 "pioneering" surgeons from stage 2 were compared with 4 "early adapting" surgeons from stage 3 who had received specific training for LLS. RESULTS: After 46 procedures, the short- and medium-term outcomes of the "early adopters" were comparable to those achieved by the "pioneers" following 150 procedures in similar cases. CONCLUSIONS: With specific training, "early adapting" laparoscopic liver surgeons are able to overcome the learning curve for minor and major liver resections faster than the "pioneers" who were self-taught in LLS. The findings of this study are applicable to all surgical specialties and highlight the importance of specific training in the safe expansion of novel surgical practice.

Retrieval Practice or Overall Donor and Recipient Risk: What Impacts on Outcomes After Donation After Circulatory Death Liver Transplantation in the United Kingdom?

Parameters of retrieval surgery are meticulously documented in the United Kingdom, where up to 40% of livers are donation after circulatory death (DCD) donations. This retrospective analysis focuses on outcomes after transplantation of DCD livers, retrieved by different UK centers between 2011 and 2016. Donor and recipient risk factors and the donor retrieval technique were assessed. A total of 236 DCD livers from 9 retrieval centers with a median UK DCD risk score of 5 (low risk) to 7 points (high risk) were compared. The majority used University of Wisconsin solution for aortic flush with a median hepatectomy time of 27-44 minutes. The overall liver injury rate appeared relatively high (27.1%) with an observed tendency toward more retrieval injuries from centers performing a quicker hepatectomy. Among all included risk factors, the UK DCD risk score remained the best predictor for overall graft loss in the multivariate analysis (P < 0.001). In high-risk and futile donor-recipient combinations, the occurrence of liver retrieval injuries had negative impact on graft survival (P = 0.023). Expectedly, more ischemic cholangiopathies (P = 0.003) were found in livers transplanted with a higher cumulative donor-recipient risk. Although more biliary complications with subsequent graft loss were found in high-risk donor-recipient combinations, the impact of the standardized national retrieval practice on outcomes after DCD liver transplantation was minimal.

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.

Extending resectability of hilar cholangiocarcinomas: how can it be assessed and improved?

Until the 1980's, Klatskin tumors were considered 'desperate cases' and most of them were not resected; almost no oncologic concept was available. After many improvements, today, extended hepatectomy, including caudate lobe resection and lymphoadenectomy, have become a standard of care for oncologicaly radical resection of Klatskin tumors. Portal vein en bloc resection, if necessary, is a diffused standard assuring R0-resection without any improvement of survival in most series. Arterial resection remains episodical and controversial in its oncologic impact. Arterial resection-reconstruction was demonstrated to be feasible with many different technical possibilities. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, refinement of associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy and liver transplantations are some possible future resources for treatment of those aggressive tumors that could be able to expand the pool of treatable patients.

Comparative Study of the Initial Experience in Performing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right Hepatectomy with Technical Description of the Robotic Technique.

BACKGROUND: Despite potential benefits of robotic liver surgery, it is still considered a "development in progress" technique. METHODS: The outcomes of 14 patients undergoing robotic right hepatectomy were analyzed and compared with the results of 20 laparoscopic right hepatectomies consecutively performed by the same young surgeon. RESULTS: The overall mean operative time was less in robotic arm (425 ± 139 vs. 565.18 ± 183.73, p = 0.022) and the estimated blood loss was similar (335.15 ± 139.8 vs. 423.95 ± 205.15, p = 0.17); no blood transfusion was required. Two patients in robotic group and 5 in laparoscopic group (p = 0.454) underwent conversion to open surgery; the overall morbidity was 21.4 and 15% in studied arms, respectively (p = 0.634). Pathology reports showed a mean surgical margin of 26.02 ± 3.9 in robotic arm, 28.76 ± 4.6 for laparoscopic, (p = 0.079) and we achieved a R0 resection rate of 91.66 and 85%, respectively. Reoperation and 90-days mortality rate were both null in robotic arm. One patient in laparoscopic group was reoperated due to postoperative hemorrhage. One-year overall and disease free-survival rate were 92.3 and 84.6%, respectively in robotic arm and 90 and 85% in laparoscopic arm. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic right hepatectomy is a safe and feasible technique providing promising short-term outcomes and oncological results also in the initial phase of learning curve.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial hepatic caudate lobectomy.

Background: Hepatic caudate lobectomy is considered to be a technically difficult surgery because of the unique anatomy and deep location of the hepatic caudate lobe. Here, we assessed the technical feasibility and safety of robotic partial caudate lobectomy using the da Vinci® Surgical System and compared it with traditional open/laparoscopic surgery.Material and methods: Six patients diagnosed with liver cancer (primary liver cancer, 5; metastasis of breast cancer, 1) who underwent caudate lobectomy were prospectively enrolled. Two patients underwent robotic surgery, one underwent laparoscopic surgery, and three underwent traditional/open surgery. Surgical procedure, recovery, and characteristics of robotic surgery were noted and compared with other approaches.Results: All surgeries were successfully completed, and no serious postsurgical complications were observed. In the robotic group, the time taken to complete the surgery and the estimated intraoperative bleeding were 150 and 90 min and 50 and 100 ml in patient 1 and patient 2, respectively. The patients were able to tolerate fluid diet on the following postsurgical day. These two patients had no postsurgical complications and were discharged from the hospital on days 5 and 6 after recovery, respectively. Pathologically, the margins of specimens obtained from these two patients were tumor-free (R0 resection). Tumor size in the traditional/open group was larger than that in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Blood loss in the laparoscopic case was 50 ml and was less than that in the traditional/open surgery cases (300, 2100, and 1500 ml).Conclusions: Robot-assisted partial hepatic caudate lobectomy is a technically feasible surgery. Our study illustrated an advantage of robotic hepatic caudate lobectomy over laparoscopic or traditional/open surgery and suggested that da Vinci® minimally invasive hepatectomy is applicable in even more technically challenging anatomic locations.

Standardization of operative technique in minimally invasive right hepatectomy: improving cost-value relationship through value stream mapping in hepatobiliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar. METHODS: MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016. RESULTS: Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection. RESULTS: Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692). CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

[Expert recommendation for operational norms of laparoscopic radical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma].

Radical resection is the only curable treatment for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.With the continuous renewal of laparoscopic instruments and the continuous improvement of technology, laparoscopic radical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma has been gradually carried out in China, and its feasibility and safety have been recognized by some domestic peers. In order to standardize clinical diagnosis and treatment behavior, ensure patients receive safe and standardized treatment and improve prognosis, so that the operation can be standardized application and development. Based on the principles of treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and the corresponding technical norms of laparoscopic operation, the Expert Group on Operational Norms of Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma and Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Surgery have organized relevant domestic experts to formulate expert recommendations for laparoscopic radical resection of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, so as to facilitate clinical practice and standardized application.

[Current status and prospect of surgical treatment of liver cancer].

With the rapid development of liver surgery,minimally invasive techniques have been widely used in liver surgery. Many challenging liver can be performed laparoscopically to decrease the surgical trauma. At the same time,the efficiency and accuracy of liver surgeries have been highly improved by the advanced assisted technology of liver surgery. The purpose of this article is to summarize the current situation of liver surgery as well as the future of liver surgery.