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

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

Trends in the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open resections for benign liver lesions: An international multicenter retrospective cohort study of 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Solid benign liver lesions (BLL) are increasingly discovered, but clear indications for surgical treatment are often lacking. Concomitantly, laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly performed. The aim of this study was to assess if the availability of laparoscopic surgery has had an impact on the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients with BLL. METHODS: This is a retrospective international multicenter cohort study, including patients undergoing a laparoscopic or open liver resection for BLL from 19 centers in eight countries. Patients were divided according to the time period in which they underwent surgery (2008-2013, 2014-2016, and 2017-2019). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted (using logistic regression) time-trend analyses were performed. The primary outcome was textbook outcome (TOLS), defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥ grade 2, bile leak ≥ grade B, severe complications, readmission and 90-day or in-hospital mortality, with the absence of a prolonged length of stay added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: In the complete dataset comprised of patients that underwent liver surgery for all indications, the proportion of patients undergoing liver surgery for benign disease remained stable (12.6% in the first time period, 11.9% in the second time period and 12.1% in the last time period, p = 0.454). Overall, 845 patients undergoing a liver resection for BLL in the first (n = 374), second (n = 258) or third time period (n = 213) were included. The rates of ASA-scores≥3 (9.9%-16%,p < 0.001), laparoscopic surgery (57.8%-77%,p < 0.001), and Pringle maneuver use (33.2%-47.2%,p = 0.001) increased, whereas the length of stay decreased (5 to 4 days,p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the TOLS rate (86.6%-81.3%,p = 0.151), while the TOLS + rate increased from 41.7% to 58.7% (p < 0.001). The latter result was confirmed in the risk-adjusted analyses (aOR 1.849,p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The surgical treatment of BLL has evolved with an increased implementation of the laparoscopic approach and a decreased length of stay. This evolution was paralleled by stable TOLS rates above 80% and an increase in the TOLS + rate.

Development and Validation of Prediction Models and Risk Calculators for Posthepatectomy Liver Failure and Postoperative Complications Using a Diverse International Cohort of Major Hepatectomies.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to develop and validate models to predict clinically significant posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and serious complications [a Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI)>40] using preoperative and intraoperative variables. BACKGROUND: PHLF is a serious complication after major hepatectomy but does not comprehensively capture a patient's postoperative course. Adding the CCI as an additional metric can account for complications unrelated to liver function. METHODS: The cohort included adult patients who underwent major hepatectomies at 12 international centers (2010-2020). After splitting the data into training and validation sets (70:30), models for PHLF and a CCI>40 were fit using logistic regression with a lasso penalty on the training cohort. The models were then evaluated on the validation data set. RESULTS: Among 2192 patients, 185 (8.4%) had clinically significant PHLF and 160 (7.3%) had a CCI>40. The PHLF model had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.80, calibration slope of 0.95, and calibration-in-the-large of -0.09, while the CCI model had an AUC of 0.76, calibration slope of 0.88, and calibration-in-the-large of 0.02. When the models were provided only preoperative variables to predict PHLF and a CCI>40, this resulted in similar AUCs of 0.78 and 0.71, respectively. Both models were used to build 2 risk calculators with the option to include or exclude intraoperative variables ( PHLF Risk Calculator; CCI>40 Risk Calculator ). CONCLUSIONS: Using an international cohort of major hepatectomy patients, we used preoperative and intraoperative variables to develop and internally validate multivariable models to predict clinically significant PHLF and a CCI>40 with good discrimination and calibration.

An International Expert Delphi Consensus on Defining Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS).

OBJECTIVE: To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method. BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking. METHODS: This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS. RESULTS: In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.

Transatlantic registries for minimally invasive liver surgery: towards harmonization.

BACKGROUND: Several registries focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). This study compared transatlantic registries focusing on the variables collected and differences in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment in patients undergoing MILS. Furthermore, key variables were identified. METHODS: The five registries for liver surgery from North America (ACS-NSQIP), Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Europe were compared. A set of key variables were established by consensus expert opinion and compared between the registries. Anonymized data of all MILS procedures were collected (January 2014-December 2019). To summarize differences for all patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, the relative and absolute largest differences (RLD, ALD) between the smallest and largest outcome per variable among the registries are presented. RESULTS: In total, 13,571 patients after MILS were included. Both 30- and 90-day mortality after MILS were below 1.1% in all registries. The largest differences in baseline characteristics were seen in ASA grade 3-4 (RLD 3.0, ALD 46.1%) and the presence of liver cirrhosis (RLD 6.4, ALD 21.2%). The largest difference in treatment was the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (RLD 4.3, ALD 20.6%). The number of variables collected per registry varied from 28 to 303. From the 46 key variables, 34 were missing in at least one of the registries. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable variation in baseline characteristics, indications, and treatment of patients undergoing MILS in the five transatlantic registries, overall mortality after MILS was consistently below 1.1%. The registries should be harmonized to facilitate future collaborative research on MILS for which the identified 46 key variables will be instrumental.

Risk Factors of Positive Resection Margin in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A New Perspective in the Perioperative Assessment: A European Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk factors associated with R1 resection in patients undergoing OLS and LLS for CRLMs. BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of R1 resection in liver surgery for CRLMs has been continuously appraised, but R1 risk factors have not been clearly defined yet. METHODS: A cohort study of patients who underwent OLS and LLS for CRLMs in 9 European high-volume referral centers was performed. A multivariate analysis and the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the risk factors for R1 resection. A model predicting the likelihood of R1 resection was developed. RESULTS: Overall, 3387 consecutive liver resections for CRLMs were included. OLS was performed in 1792 cases whereas LLS in 1595; the R1 resection rate was 14% and 14.2%, respectively. The risk factors for R1 resection were: the type of resection (nonanatomic and anatomic/nonanatomic), the number of nodules and the size of tumor. In the LLS group only, blood loss was a risk factor, whereas the Pringle maneuver had a protective effect. The predictive size of tumor for R1 resection was >45 mm in OLS and >30 mm in LLS, > 2 lesions was significative in both groups and blood loss >350 cc in LLS. The model was able to predict R1 resection in OLS (area under curve 0.712; 95% confidence interval 0.665-0.739) and in LLS (area under curve 0.724; 95% confidence interval 0.671-0.745). CONCLUSIONS: The study describes the risk factors for R1 resection after liver surgery for CRLMs, which may be used to plan better the perioperative strategies to reduce the incidence of R1 resection during OLS and LLS.

Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS). METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007-December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS. RESULTS: Overall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195-285) vs. 247 min (195-315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188-400) vs. 400 mL (280-550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4-7) vs. 8 days (6-10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy. CONCLUSION: This international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.

Implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery for pancreatoduodenectomy increases the proportion of patients achieving textbook outcome: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy is associated with reduced length of stay (LOS) and morbidity. However, external validating of the impact is difficult due to the multimodal aspects of ERAS. This study aimed to assess implementation of ERAS for pancreatoduodenectomy with a composite measure of multiple ideal outcome indicators defined as 'textbook outcome' (TBO). METHODS: In a tertiary referral center, 250 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included in ERAS (May 2012-January 2017) and compared to a cohort of 125 patients undergoing traditional perioperative management (November 2009-April 2012). TBO was defined as proportion of patients without prolonged LOS, Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complications, postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage, bile leakage, readmissions or 30-day/in-hospital mortality. Additionally, overall treatment costs were calculated and compared using bootstrap independent t-test. RESULTS: The two cohorts were comparable in terms of demographic and surgical details. Implementation of ERAS was associated with reduced median LOS (10 days vs 13 days, p < 0.001) and comparable overall complication rate (62.0% vs 61.6%, p = 0.940) when compared to the traditional management group. In addition, a higher proportion of patients achieved TBO (56.4% vs 44.0%, p = 0.023) when treated according to ERAS principles. Furthermore, ERAS was associated with reduced mean total costs (£18132 vs £19385, p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Implementation of ERAS for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy is beneficial for both patients and hospitals. ERAS increased the proportion of patients achieving TBO and reduced overall costs. TBO is a potential measure for the evaluation of ERAS.

Liver transplantation for metastatic wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the era of molecular targeted therapies: Report of a first case.

The gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a digestive neoplasm of mesenchymal lineage. The treatment strategy for receptor tyrosine kinase-mutated GISTs is well defined. Wild-type GISTs (WT-GISTs) respond unsatisfactorily to specific kinase inhibitors. Moreover, evidence shows that repeat surgery has limited benefit. We report the case of a young female patient who was diagnosed with liver metastatic WT-GIST, after initial radical resection and adjuvant therapy with molecular targeted drugs. Due to the disease progression, a two-stage surgery was performed, with the removal of extrahepatic lesions followed by a total hepatectomy. The patient is disease-free after 4 years from liver transplantation (LT), performed under everolimus-based immunosuppression. The treatment of WT-GISTs remains a significant challenge due to the frequent resistance to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Liver transplantation might represent an effective treatment option for such disease.

Impact of aberrant left hepatic artery ligation on the outcome of liver transplantation.

The preservation of a graft's aberrant left hepatic artery (LHA) during liver transplantation (LT) ensures optimal vascularization of the left liver but can also be considered a risk factor for hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT). In contrast, ligation of an aberrant LHA may lead to hepatic ischemia with the potential risk of graft dysfunction and biliary complications. The aim of this study was to prospectively analyze the impact on the surgical strategy for LT of 5 tests performed to establish whether an aberrant LHA was an accessory or a replaced artery, thus leading to the design of a decisional algorithm. From August 2005 to December 2016, 395 whole LTs were performed in 376 patients. Five parameters were evaluated to determine whether an aberrant LHA was an accessory or a replaced artery. On the basis of our decision algorithm, an aberrant LHA was ligated during surgery when assessed as accessory and preserved when assessed as replaced. A total of 138 anatomical variants of hepatic arterial vascularization occurred in 120/395 (30.4%) grafts. Overall, the incidence of an aberrant LHA was 63/395 (15.9%). The LHA was ligated in 33 (52.4%) patients and preserved in 30 (47.6%) patients. After a mean follow-up period of 50.9 ± 39.7 months, the incidence of HAT, primary nonfunction, early allograft dysfunction, biliary stricture or leaks, and overall survival was similar in the 2 groups. In conclusion, once shown to be an accessory, an LHA can be safely ligated without clinical consequences on the outcome of LT. Liver Transplantation 24 204-213 2018 AASLD.

Prevention of Post-Hepatectomy Liver Failure in Cirrhotic Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for HCC: Has the Round Ligament to Be Preserved?

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality after liver resection. The factors related to PHLF are represented not only by the volume and function of the future liver remnant but also by the severity of portal hypertension. The aim of this study was to assess whether the preservation of the round ligament (RL) may mitigate portal hypertension, thus decreasing the risk of PHLF and ascites in cirrhotic patients while undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS). All the cirrhotic patients who underwent MILS for HCC from 2016 to 2021 in two international tertiary referral centers were retrospectively analyzed, comparing cases with the RL preserved vs. those with the RL divided. Only patients with cirrhosis ≥ Child A6, portal hypertension, and ICG-R15 > 10% were included. Main postoperative outcomes were compared, and the risk factors for postoperative ascites (severe PHLF, grade B/C) were investigated through a logistic regression. After the application of the selection criteria, a total of 130 MILS patients were identified, with 86 patients with the RL preserved and 44 with the RL divided. The RL-preserved group showed lower incidences of severe PHLF (7.0% vs. 20.5%, p = 0.023) and ascites (5.8% vs. 18.2%, p = 0.026) in comparison with the RL-divided group. After uni/multivariate analysis, the risk factors related to postoperative ascites were RL division and platelets < 92 × 103/µL, calculated with ROC analysis. The preservation of the round ligament during MILS may mitigate portal hypertension, preventing PHLF and ascites in cirrhotic patients with borderline liver function.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.

Neoadjuvant Treatment in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer. Is It Time for Pushing on It?

Pancreatic resection still represents the only curative option for patients affected by pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). However, the association with modern chemotherapy regimens is a key factor in improving the inauspicious oncological outcome. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment (NAT) for borderline resectable/locally advanced PDAC has been demonstrated; this evidence raises the question of whether even resectable PDAC should undergo NAT rather than upfront surgery. NAT may avoid futile surgery because of undetected distant metastases or aggressive tumor biology, providing more effective systemic control of the disease, which is hampered when adjuvant chemotherapy is delayed or precluded. However, recent data show controversial results regarding the efficacy and safety of NAT in resectable PDAC compared to upfront surgery. Although several prospective studies and meta-analyses indicate better oncologic outcomes after NAT, there are some biases, such as the methodological approaches used to capture the events of interest, which could make these results hardly reproducible. For instance, per-protocol studies, considering only the postoperative outcomes, tend to overestimate the performance of NAT by excluding patients who will never be suitable for surgery due to the development of chemotoxicity or tumor progression. To draw reliable conclusions, the studies should capture the events of interest of both strategies (NAT/upfront surgery) from the time of allocation to a specific treatment in an intention-to-treat fashion. This critical review highlights the current literature data concerning the use of NAT in resectable PDAC, summarizing the results of high-quality studies and focusing on the methodological issues of the most recent pieces of evidence.

It is the lymph node ratio that determines survival and recurrence patterns in resected distal cholangiocarcinoma. A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCC) is still associated with a poor overall survival (OS). This study aims to investigate the impact of novel prognostic scores in comparison with more traditional ones. METHODS: Multicentric retrospective analysis of patients who underwent a pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for dCC. An unadjusted analysis was used to identify predictors of decreased survival. Significant variables were introduced in a multivariable model that assessed OS, recurrence-free survival (RFS), early recurrence (defined as a recurrence within the first 12 months from the PD), local and distant recurrence. Prognostic scores evaluated included the TNM staging system, the lymph-node ratio (LNR), the platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the systemic inflammation index (SII). RESULTS: The study included 232 patients with resected dCC. The optimal cut-off value for LNR was 15% (LNR15). On the unadjusted analysis T stage (p = 0.012), N stage (p < 0.001), LNR15 (p < 0.001), grade (p < 0.001), perineural invasion (p < 0.001) and the R1 status of resection margin (p = 0.001) accounted for the decreased OS. No significant association between survival and PLR, NLR and SII were found. On the multivariable analysis only LNR15, perineural invasion and R1 were independent predictors of decreased RFS (p = 0.003, p = 0.021 and p = 0.009, respectively) and OS (p = 0.001, p = 0.016 and p = 0.013, respectively). Additionally, LNR15 was an independent predictor of early recurrence (p = 0.003) and both LNR15 and R1 were associated with increased local (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and distant recurrence (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: LNR15 is an independent predictor of DFS, OS, early, local and distal recurrence, combined with the status of the resection margin and perineural invasion.

Study: International Multicentric Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases (SIMMILR-CRLM).

(1) Background: Here we report on a retrospective study of an international multicentric cohort after minimally invasive liver resection (SIMMILR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) from six centers. (2) Methods: Resections were divided by the approach used: open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and robotic liver resection (RLR). Patients with macrovascular invasion, more than three metastases measuring more than 3 cm or a solitary metastasis more than 5 cm were excluded, and any remaining heterogeneity found was further analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) to decrease any potential bias. (3) Results: Prior to matching, 566 patients underwent OLR, 462 LLR and 36 RLR for CRLM. After PSM, 142 patients were in each group of the OLR vs. LLR group and 22 in the OLR vs. RLR and 21 in the LLR vs. RLR groups. Blood loss, hospital stay, and morbidity rates were all highly statistically significantly increased in the OLR compared to the LLR group, 636 mL vs. 353 mL, 9 vs. 5 days and 25% vs. 6%, respectively (p < 0.001). Only blood loss was significantly decreased when RLR was compared to OLR and LLR, 250 mL vs. 597 mL, and 224 mL vs. 778 mL, p < 0.008 and p < 0.04, respectively. (4) Conclusions: SIMMILR indicates that minimally invasive approaches for CRLM that follow the Milan criteria may have short term advantages. Notably, larger studies with long-term follow-up comparing robotic resections to both OLR and LLR are still needed.

Landmarks to identify segmental borders of the liver: A review prepared for PAM-HBP expert consensus meeting 2021.

BACKGROUND: In preparation for the upcoming consensus meeting in Tokyo in 2021, this systematic review aimed to analyze the current available evidence regarding surgical anatomy of the liver, focusing on useful landmarks, strategies and technical tools to perform precise anatomic liver resection (ALR). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed for English articles and on Ichushi database for Japanese articles until September 2020. The quality assessment of the articles was performed in accordance with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). RESULTS: A total of 3169 manuscripts were obtained, 1993 in English and 1176 in Japanese literature. Subsequently, 63 English and 20 Japanese articles were selected and reviewed. The quality assessment of comparative series and case series was revealed to be usually low; only six articles were qualified as high quality. Forty-two articles focused on analyzing intersegmental/sectional planes and their relationship with specific hepatic landmark veins. In 12 articles, the authors aimed to investigate liver surface anatomic structures, while 36 articles aimed to study technological tools and contrast agents for surgical segmentation during ALR. Although Couinaud's classification has remained the cornerstone in daily diagnostic/surgical practices, it does not always portray the realistic liver segmentation and there has been no standardization on which a single strategy should be followed to perform precise ALR. CONCLUSIONS: A global consensus should be pursued in order to establish clear guidelines and proper recommendations to perform ALR in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Outcome of major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients; does surgical approach matter? A propensity score matched analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Major hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients still represents a great challenge for liver surgeons. Hence, the aim in the present study is to investigate the clinical impact of major hepatectomy and to assess whether the surgical approach influences the outcome of cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study including cirrhotic patients undergoing major laparoscopic (mjLLR) and open liver resection (mjOLR) in 14 Western liver centers was performed (2009-2020). Clinical, demographic, and perioperative data were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). Long-term outcome after resection for hepatocellular carcinoma was analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 352 patients were included; 108 after mjLLR and 244 after mjOLR. After PSM, 88 patients were matched in each group. In the mjLLR group, compared to mjOLR, less blood loss (P = .042), lower overall and severe complication (P < .001, .020), such as surgical site infection, acute kidney injury and liver failure were observed, parallel to a shorter length of hospital stay. Stratifying patients based on the type of resection, less severe complications was observed only after laparoscopic left hepatectomy (P = .044), while the advantages of laparoscopy tend to decrease during right hepatectomy. Subgroup analysis of long-term survivals following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma showed no difference between mjLLR and mjOLR. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter experience suggests potential short-term benefits of mjLLR in cirrhotic patients compared to mjOLR, without compromising long-term outcome. These findings might have interesting clinical implications for the management of patients with chronic liver disease.

Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection: Results of a survey of world experts.

BACKGROUND: Although the number of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs) has been steadily increasing in many institutions, minimally invasive anatomic liver resection (MIALR) remains a complicated procedure that has not been standardized. We present the results of a survey among expert liver surgeons as a benchmark for standardizing MIALR. METHOD: We administered this survey to 34 expert liver surgeons who routinely perform MIALR. The survey contained questions on personal experience with liver resection, inflow/outflow control methods, and identification techniques of intersegmental/sectional planes (IPs). RESULTS: All 34 participants completed the survey; 24 experts (70%) had more than 11 years of experience with MILR, and over 80% of experts had performed over 100 open resections and MILRs each. Regarding the methods used for laparoscopic or robotic anatomic resection, the Glissonean approach (GA) was a more frequent procedure than the hilar approach (HA). Although hepatic veins were considered essential landmarks, the exposure methods varied. The top three techniques that the experts recommended for identifying IPs were creating a demarcation line, indocyanine green negative staining method, and intraoperative ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive anatomic liver resection remains a challenging procedure; however, a certain degree of consensus exists among expert liver surgeons.