Laparoscopic Caudate Resection: How to Safely Manage the Spiegel/IVC Interface.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive caudate lobectomy, or even paracaval caudate resection, can be associated with significant bleeding due to its abutment of inferior vena cava (IVC), portal pedicle and hepatic veins.1-3 This risk can be magnified by cirrhosis as well as response to neoadjuvant therapy (a common phenomenon after excellent response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy), leading to obliteration or even fusion of the hepato-caval space.4-7 PATIENT: A 68-year-old female with stage IVa colorectal adenocarcinoma was found to have a single liver metastasis (3.8 × 3.1 cm) in the paracaval caudate lobe. The patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, leading to inflammatory fusion of the hepato-caval space. Despite this, the patient underwent a safe laparoscopic Spiegel process resection. TECHNIQUE: Prior to surgery, three-dimensional liver and port site modeling was performed to optimize the understanding of the spatial relationship between the tumor, IVC, and portal-hepatic veins. Following inflow control of portal veinous branches, the fused hepato-caval space was dissected. The adhesions were then sharply dissected to mobilize the paracaval caudate lobe off the IVC. Using scissors rather than an energy device reduced the risk of inadvertent thermal injury to the IVC. CONCLUSION: Preoperative virtual hepatectomy facilitates surgical planning, increasing the understanding of the tumor/vessel relationship and port placement. In case of a fused hepato-caval space, low central venous pressure and judicious management of short hepatic vein branches are the key for a successful dissection. Moreover, anticipation of a fused hepato-caval space and its strategic management are paramount when performing a minimally invasive caudate resection.

Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy After Laparoscopic Whipple.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of a second de novo pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) among patients with prior cancer has been reported to be 6%.1,2 however, as survival increases through improvements in systemic therapy, this incidence of a de novo PDAC after prior PDAC may become more prevalent.3-8 In this context, a structured and stepwise approach to a total pancreatectomy for a second de novo PDAC after a prior PDAC treated with a pancreaticoduodenectomy is detailed. PATIENTS: We present two similar cases. The first patient was a 71-year-old female with de novo body PDAC, and the second was a 50-year-old female with de novo tail PDAC. To rule out recurrence, immunohistochemical staining as well as the review of biopsies by two experienced pathologists were employed. Both patients had undergone a laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC 4 and 3 years prior. Each patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent a safe laparoscopic total pancreatectomy. TECHNIQUE: Prior to surgery, three-dimensional anatomic and port site modeling is performed to optimize the understanding of the spatial relationship between the tumor, blood vessels, and adjacent organs involved. The port site modeling (including pneumoperitoneum simulation) focuses on the optimal port set-up for dissecting the biliopancreatic limb off the portal vein. Following complete mobilization of the biliopancreatic limb, the biliopancreatic limb is staple-divided between the hepatico- and pancreaticojejunostomy. Great care must be taken to avoid accidental staple injury to the hepatic artery or celiac trunk. The remainder of the dissection is akin to a standard distal pancreaticosplenectomy. CONCLUSION: Virtual pancreatectomy modeling facilitates an optimal set-up for the critical step of this case, i.e. dissection of the pancreaticojejunostomy off the portal vein. Early division of the biliopancreatic limb between hepatico- and pancreatojejunostomy is crucial to facilitating the remainder of the dissection. Laparoscopic total pancreatectomy for a de novo PDAC after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy may become more common as survival of patients with prior PDAC improves over time.

Innovations in surgery for gallbladder cancer: A review of robotic surgery as a feasible and safe option.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted surgical techniques in the treatment of gallbladder cancer, comparing it with traditional open and laparoscopic methods. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature searched for comparative analyses of patient outcomes following robotic, open, and laparoscopic surgeries, focusing on oncological results and perioperative benefits. RESULTS: Five total studies published between 2019 and 2023 were identified. Findings indicate that robotic-assisted surgery for gallbladder cancer is as effective as traditional methods in terms of oncological outcomes, with potential advantages in precision and perioperative recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic surgery offers a viable and potentially advantageous alternative for gallbladder cancer treatment, warranting further research to confirm its benefits and establish comprehensive surgical guidelines.

Temporal trends of health disparity in the utilization of curative-intent treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: are we making progress?

BACKGROUND: Liver-directed treatments - ablative therapy (AT), surgical resection (SR), liver transplantation (LT), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) - improve the overall survival of patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although racial and socioeconomic disparities affect access to liver-directed therapies, the temporal trends for the curative-intent treatment of HCC remain to be elucidated. METHODS: This study performed chi-square, logistic regression, and temporal trends analyses on data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2011 to 2019. The outcome of interest was the rate of AT, SR, LT (curative-intent treatments), and TACE utilization, and the primary predictors were racial/ethnic group and socioeconomic status (SES; insurance status). RESULTS: African American and Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving AT (African American: odds ratio [OR], 0.78; P < .001; Hispanic: OR, 0.84; P = .005) and SR (African American: OR, 0.71; P < .001; Hispanics: OR, 0.64; P < .001) than White patients. Compared with White patients, the odds of LT was lower in African American patients (OR, 0.76; P < .001) but higher in Hispanic patients (OR, 1.25; P = .001). Low SES was associated with worse odds of AT (OR, 0.79; P = .001), SR (OR, 0.66; P < .001), and LT (OR, 0.84; P = .028) compared with high SES. Although curative-intent treatments showed significant upward temporal trends among White patients (10.6%-13.9%; P < .001) and Asian and Pacific Islander/other patients (14.4%-15.7%; P = .007), there were nonsignificant trends among African American patients (10.9%-10.1%; P = .825) or Hispanic patients (12.2%-13.7%; P = .056). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated concerning disparities in the utilization of curative-intent treatment for HCC based on race/ethnicity and SES. Moreover, racial/ethnic disparities have widened rather than improved over time.