Harmonizing Definitions and Perspectives in Extreme Liver Surgery: A Delphi Experts Consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To propose to our community a common language about extreme liver surgery. BACKGROUND: The lack of a clear definition of extreme liver surgery prevents convincing comparisons of results among centers. METHODS: We used a two-round Delphi methodology to quantify consensus among liver surgery experts. For inclusion in the final recommendations, we established a consensus when the positive responses (agree and totally agree) exceeded 70%. The study steering group summarized and reported the recommendations. In general, a five-point Likert scale with a neutral central value was used, and in a few cases multiple choices. Results are displayed as numbers and percentages. RESULTS: A two-round Delphi study was completed by 38 expert surgeons in complex hepatobiliary surgery. The surgeon´s median age was 58 years old (52-63) and the median years of experience was 25 years (20-31). For the proposed definitions of total vascular occlusion, hepatic flow occlusion and inferior vein occlusion, the degree of agreement was 97%, 81% and 84%, respectively. In situ approach (64%) was the preferred, followed by ante situ (22%) and ex situ (14%). Autologous or cadaveric graft for hepatic artery or hepatic vein repair were the most recommended (89%). The use of veno-venous bypass or portocaval shunt revealed the divergence depending on the case. Overall, 75% of the experts agreed with the proposed definition for extreme liver surgery. CONCLUSION: Obtaining a consensus on the definition of extreme liver surgery is essential to guarantee the correct management of patients with highly complex hepatobiliary oncological disease. The management of candidates for extreme liver surgery involves comprehensive care ranging from adequate patient selection to the appropriate surgical strategy.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy/H67: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish global benchmark outcomes indicators for L-RPS/H67. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections has seen an increase in uptake in recent years. Over time, challenging procedures as laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies (L-RPS)/H67 are also increasingly adopted. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 854 patients undergoing minimally invasive RPS (MI-RPS) in 57 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2021. There were 651 pure L-RPS and 160 robotic RPS (R-RPS). Sixteen outcome indicators of low-risk L-RPS cases were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. The 75th percentile of individual center medians for a given outcome indicator was set as the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: There were 573 L-RPS/H67 performed in 43 expert centers, of which 254 L-RPS/H67 (44.3%) cases qualified as low risk benchmark cases. The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, 90-day mortality and textbook outcome after L-RPS were 350.8 minutes, 12.5%, 53.8%, 22.9%, 23.8%, 2.8%, 0% and 4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study established the first global benchmark values for L-RPS/H6/7. The benchmark provided an up-to-date reference of best achievable outcomes for surgical auditing and benchmarking.

Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Factors Associated with and Impact of Open Conversion in Laparoscopic and Robotic Minor Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study of 10,541 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR). BACKGROUND: There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. RESULTS: There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

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.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. METHODS: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Contemporary practice and perception of autologous blood salvage in hepato-pancreatico-biliary operations: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess contemporary knowledge, attitudes and behaviors around transfusion of intraoperative salvaged blood (sRBCt) during hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) operations. Findings are meant to inform the design of future studies that address provider concerns to change behaviors and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: A survey was designed and assessed for relevance, readability and content, and distributed to an international audience of surgeons performing HPB operations. RESULTS: The 237 respondents were predominantly distributed across North America (37.55%), Europe (27.43%) and Asia (19.83%). Roughly one-half (52.74%) of respondents had used sRBCt in HPB surgery before. Transplantation surgeons were more likely than HPB surgeons to have previously used sRBCt [odds ratio = 5.18 (95% CI 1.89-14.20)]. More respondents believed sRBCt was safe for non-cancer versus cancer operations (68.57% vs. 24.17%, p < 0.0001). Less than half (45.71%) of respondents believed that sRBCt was safe in clean-contaminated fields. Most did not utilize preoperative strategies to avoid donor transfusion. CONCLUSION: Practices related to sRBCt in HPB operations vary widely and there is no consensus on its use. Concerns seem primarily related to cancer-specific and infectious outcomes. While further studies are pursued, surgeons may increase their utilization of preoperative strategies to boost hemoglobin levels for at risk patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring.

BACKGROUND: There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied. RESULTS: Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients. CONCLUSIONS: When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

Utility of the Iwate difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy: do surgical outcomes differ for tumors in segments VI and VII?

INTRODUCTION: The Iwate Score (IS) have not been well-validated for specific procedures, especially for right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). In this study, the utility of the IS was determined for laparoscopic (L)RPS and the effect of tumor location on surgical outcomes was investigated. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of 647 L-RPS performed in 40 international centers of which 596L-RPS cases met the inclusion criteria. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients stratified based on the Iwate score were compared to determine whether a correlation with surgical difficulty existed. A 1:1 Mahalanobis distance matching was utilized to investigate the effect of tumor location on L-RPS outcomes. RESULTS: The patients were stratified into 3 levels of difficulty (31 intermediate, 143 advanced, and 422 expert) based on the IS. When using a stepwise increase of the IS excluding the tumor location score, only Pringle's maneuver was more frequently used in the higher surgical difficulty level (35.5%, 54.6%, and 65.2%, intermediate, advanced, and expert levels, respectively, Z = 3.34, p = 0.001). Other perioperative results were not associated with a statistical gradation toward higher difficulty level. 80 of 85 patients with a segment VI lesion and 511 patients with a segment VII lesion were matched 1:1. There were no significant differences in the perioperative outcomes of the two groups including open conversion, operating time, blood loss, intraoperative blood transfusion, postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing L-RPS, the IS did not significantly correlate with most outcome measures associated with intraoperative difficulty and postoperative outcomes. Similarly, tumor location had no effect on L-RPS outcomes.

Pure Laparoscopic Anatomic Resection of the Segment 8 Dorsal Area Using the Dorsal Approach of the Right Hepatic Vein.

BACKGROUND: Anatomical resection of segment 8 (s8) is a challenging procedure. S8 can be subdivided into two areas: ventral (s8v) and dorsal (s8d). In the last years, different approaches for performing laparoscopic resection of s8 or any of its subsegments have been described, i.e. the hilar extrafascial approach, transfissural approach for s8v, transparenchymal approach for s8d, and the intrahepatic Glissonean approach. We recently described the dorsal approach of the right hepatic vein (RHV) for anatomical segment 7 resection. This video report describes the approach to a dorsal s8 pedicle using the RHV dorsal approach. METHODS: A 50-year-old woman with a history of morbid obesity and sleep apnea was diagnosed after episodes of hematochezia sigmoid cancer and a 2-cm liver metastases in the s8d, according to vascular reconstruction (Cella Medical Solutions, Murcia, Spain). The surgical technique started with mobilization of the right liver until the root of the RHV was identified and exposed in a craniocaudal fashion and until the s8d Glissonean pedicle was identified and clamped. Indocyanine green counterstaining depicted an intersegmental plane between the s8d and segment 5 and s8v. Transection continued until the anterior fissural vein was exposed at its root, as a landmark of the medial plane. RESULTS: Operative time lasted 265 min. Transection was carried out using the intermittent Pringle maneuver over a period of 81 min. Estimated blood loss was 252 cc. There were no postoperative complications and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 2. CONCLUSIONS: In some cases, the RHV dorsal approach can be used as the landmark for the s8d Glissonean pedicle, allowing anatomical resection of this particular area.

Liver-First Approach for Synchronous Colorectal Metastases: Analysis of 7360 Patients from the LiverMetSurvey Registry.

BACKGROUND: The liver-first approach in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) has gained wide consensus but its role is still to be clarified. We aimed to elucidate the outcome of the liver-first approach and to identify patients who benefit at most from this approach. METHODS: Patients with synchronous CRLM included in the LiverMetSurvey registry between 2000 and 2017 were considered. Three strategies were analyzed, i.e. liver-first approach, colorectal resection followed by liver resection (primary-first), and simultaneous resection, and three groups of patients were analyzed, i.e. solitary metastasis, multiple unilobar CRLM, and multiple bilobar CRLM. In each group, patients from the three strategy groups were matched by propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 7360 patients were analyzed: 4415 primary-first, 552 liver-first, and 2393 simultaneous resections. Compared with the other groups, the liver-first group had more rectal tumors (58.0% vs. 31.2%) and higher hepatic tumor burden (more than three CRLMs: 34.8% vs. 24.0%; size > 50 mm: 35.6% vs. 22.8%; p < 0.001). In patients with solitary and multiple unilobar CRLM, survival was similar regardless of treatment strategy, whereas in patients with multiple bilobar metastases, the liver-first approach was an independent positive prognostic factor, both in unmatched patients (3-year survival 65.9% vs. primary-first 60.4%: hazard ratio [HR] 1.321, p = 0.031; vs. simultaneous resections 54.4%: HR 1.624, p < 0.001) and after propensity score matching (vs. primary-first: HR 1.667, p = 0.017; vs. simultaneous resections: HR 2.278, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In patients with synchronous CRLM, the surgical strategy should be decided according to the hepatic tumor burden. In the presence of multiple bilobar CRLM, the liver-first approach is associated with longer survival than the alternative approaches and should be evaluated as standard.

Preoperative hepatic artery embolization before distal pancreatectomy plus celiac axis resection does not improve surgical results: A Spanish multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy with celiac axis resection (DP-CAR) is a surgical procedure with high morbidity and mortality performed in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Preoperative embolization of hepatic artery (PHAE) has been postulated as a technical option to increase resection rate. OBJECTIVE: comparison of morbidity and mortality at 90 days, operative time, hospital stay and survival between patients that performed DP-CAR with and without PHAE. METHODS: Observational retrospective multicentre study. INCLUSION CRITERIA: patient operated in Spanish centers with DP-CAR for pancreatic cancer from April 2004 until 23 June 2018. Preoperative (PHAE, neodjuvant treatment), intraoperative (operative time and blood loss) and postoperative data (morbidity, hospital stay, R0 and survival) were studied. Complications were measured with Clavien classification at 90 days. Specific pancreatic complications were measured using ISGPS classifications. Data were analyzed using R version 3.1.3 (http://www.r-project.org). Level of significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: 41 patients were studied. 26 patients were not embolized (NO-PHAE group) and 15 patients received PHAE. Preoperative BMI and percentage of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were the only preoperative variables different between both groups. The operative time in the PHAE group was shorter (343 min) than in the non-PHAE group (411 min) (p < 0.06). Major morbidity (Clavien > IIIa) and mortality at 90 days were higher in the PHAE group than in the non-PHAE group (60% vs 23% and 26.6% vs 11.6% respectively) (p < 0.004). No statistical difference in overall survival was observed between both groups (p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: In our study PHAE is not related with less postoperative morbidity. Even more, major morbidity (Clavien III-IV) and mortality was higher in PHAE group.

Perioperative chemotherapy versus surgery alone for resectable colorectal liver metastases: an international multicentre propensity score matched analysis on long-term outcomes according to established prognostic risk scores.

BACKGROUND: There is still uncertainty regarding the role of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), especially in those with a low-risk of recurrence. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010-2015. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received perioperative CTx or not and were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. Then, they were stratified according to prognostic risk scores, including: Clinical Risk Score (CRS), Tumour Burden Score (TBS) and Genetic And Morphological Evaluation (GAME) score. RESULTS: The study included 967 patients with a median follow-up of 68 months. After PSM analysis, patients with perioperative CTx presented prolonged overall survival (OS) in comparison with the surgery alone group (82.8 vs 52.5 months, p = 0.017). On multivariable analysis perioperative CTx was an independent predictor of increased OS (HR 0.705, 95%CI 0.705-0.516, p = 0.029). The benefits of perioperative CTx on survival were confirmed in patients with CRS and TBS scores ≤2 (p = 0.022 and p = 0.020, respectively) and in patients with a GAME score ≤1 (p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Perioperative CTx demonstrated an increase in OS in patients with CRLM. Patients with a low-risk of recurrence seem to benefit from systemic treatment.

[Impact of SARS-COV-2 pandemic on elective and emergency surgery in a university hospital]. / Estudio del impacto de la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2 en la práctica quirúrgica urgente y electiva en un hospital de tercer nivel.

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has caused an important impact in our country and elective surgery has been postponed in most cases. There's not known information about the decreasing and impact on surgery. Mortality of surgical patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is estimated to be around 20%. Methods: We conducted prospective data recruitment of people inpatient in our Digestive and General Surgery section of Girona's University Hospital Dr. Josep Trueta from 03/14 to 05/11. Our objective is to analyze the impact that SARS-CoV-2 pandemic over elective and urgent surgery. Results: During the peak occupation of our center Intensive Care Unit (303.8%) there was a reduction on elective (93.8%) and urgent (72.7%) surgery. Mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent surgery (n = 10) is estimated to be a 10%. An 80% of these patients suffer complications (sever complications in 30%). Conclusions: The actual study shows a global reduction of the surgical activity (elective and urgent) during de SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Global mortality of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection are low, but the severe complications have been over the usual.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Child-Pugh A Patients With and Without Portal Hypertension: A Multicentre Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) may improve outcomes for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal hypertension (PHT). The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes after LLR for HCC in cirrhotic patients with and without PHT. METHODS: This multicentric study included 96 HCC patients who underwent LLR. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) was defined by a hepatic venous pressure gradient ≥10 mmHg. Short-term outcomes and liver-specific complications including post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), ascites and encephalopathy were compared between patients with and without CSPH. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients (32%) had CSPH. The CSPH group had higher post-operative morbidity (52% vs. 15%; p < 0.001), PHLF (10% vs. 0%; p = 0.03) and encephalopathy (10% vs. 0%; p = 0.03). There was no difference in terms of post-operative ascites between the two groups (CSPH: 16% vs. no CPSH: 8%, p = 0.28). The length of stay was longer in patients with CSPH than in those without CSPH (6 vs. 4 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach is feasible in selected HCC patients with CSPH, at the price of significant increases in liver-specific complications and length of stay.

Impact on Oncological Outcomes and Intent-to-Treat Survival of Resection Margin for Transplantable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in All-Comers and in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of liver resection (LR) with a narrow margin in patients with transplantable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have not been studied. The aim was to assess whether narrow margin following up-front LR impacts the incidence, timing, pattern, and transplantability of tumor recurrence in patients with initially transplantable HCC. METHODS: All initially transplantable HCC patients undergoing hepatectomy with either narrow (<10 mm) or wide (≥10 mm) margins from 2007 to 2016 at four Western university centers were compared in terms of recurrence, transplantability of recurrence, recurrence-free survival (RFS), and intention-to-treat overall survival (ITT-OS). Independent predictors of non-transplantability of recurrence were assessed. RESULTS: This study included 187 patients (narrow group, n = 107 vs. wide group, n = 80). Recurrence was significantly more frequent in the narrow margin group (44% vs. 26%; p = 0.01) with a shorter RFS (p = 0.03). The transplantability of recurrence and ITT-OS were, however, not different between the two groups. The presence of satellite nodules on the resected specimens emerged as the sole independent predictor of non-transplantability of tumor recurrence. The stratification of the analysis according to the presence of cirrhosis achieved essentially the same results as in the whole study population. CONCLUSIONS: Narrow margin was associated with a higher tumor recurrence rate and a shorter RFS for patients with initially transplantable HCC. However, transplantability of recurrence and long-term ITT-OS were not impaired.

Does the Artery-first Approach Improve the Rate of R0 Resection in Pancreatoduodenectomy?: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of R0 resection in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic and periampullary malignant tumors by means of standard (ST-PD) versus artery-first approach (AFA-PD). BACKGROUND: Standardized histological examination of PD specimens has shown that most pancreatic resections thought to be R0 resections are R1. "Artery-first approach" is a surgical technique characterized by meticulous dissection of arterial planes and clearing of retropancreatic tissue in an attempt to achieve a higher rate of R0. To date, studies comparing AFA-PD versus ST-PD are retrospective cohort or case-control studies. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 10 University Hospitals (NCT02803814, ClinicalTrials.gov). Eligible patients were those who presented with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and periampullary tumors (ampulloma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, duodenal adenocarcinoma). Assignment to each group (ST-PD or AFA-PD) was randomized by blocks and stratified by centers. The primary end-point was the rate of tumor-free resection margins (R0); secondary end-points were postoperative complications and mortality. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-nine patients were assessed for eligibility and 176 randomized. After exclusions, the final analysis included 75 ST-PD and 78 AFA-PD. R0 resection rates were 77.3% (95% CI: 68.4-87.4) with ST-PD and 67.9% (95% CI: 58.3-79.1) with AFA-PD, P=0.194. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rates, overall 73.3% versus 67.9%, and perioperative mortality 4% versus 6.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite theoretical oncological advantages associated with AFA-PD and evidence coming from low-level studies, this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial has found no difference neither in R0 resection rates nor in postoperative complications in patients undergoing ST-PD versus AFA-PD for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and other periampullary tumors.