Study of Risk Factors for Readmission After Pancreatectomy for Cancer: Analysis of Nationwide Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer and to assess their impact on the 1-year mortality in a French multicentric population. BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a complex procedure with high morbidity that increases the length of hospital stay and jeopardizes survival. Hospital readmissions lead to increased health system costs, making this a topic of great interest. METHODS: Data collected from patients who underwent pancreatectomy for cancer between 2011 and 2019 were extracted from a French national medico-administrative database. A descriptive analysis was conducted to evaluate the association of baseline variables, including age, sex, liver-related comorbidities, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tumor localization, and use of neoadjuvant therapy, along with hospital type and volume, with readmission status. Centers were divided into low and high volumes according to the cutoff of 26 cases/year. Logistic regression models were developed to determine whether the identified bivariate associations persisted after adjusting for the patient characteristics. The mortality rates during readmission and at 1 year postoperatively were also determined. RESULTS: Of 22,935 patients who underwent pancreatectomy, 9129 (39.3%) were readmitted within 6 months. Readmission rates by year did not vary over the study period, and mean readmissions occurred within 20 days after discharge. Multivariate analysis showed that male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 1.12], age >70 years (OR = 1.16), comorbidities (OR = 1.21), distal pancreatectomy (OR = 1.11), and major postoperative complications (OR = 1.37) were predictors of readmission. Interestingly, readmission and surgery in low-volume centers increased the risk of death at 1 year by a factor of 2.15 [(2.01-2.31), P < 0.001] and 1.31 [(1.17-1.47), P < 0.001], respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Readmission after pancreatectomy for cancer is high with an increased rate of 1-year mortality.

Somatostatin Versus Octreotide for Prevention of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula: The PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial: A FRENCH 007-ACHBT Study.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatectomy is open to debate. The present study compares clinically significant POPF rates in patients randomized between somatostatin versus octreotide as prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Multicentric randomized controlled open study in patient's candidate for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or distal pancreatectomy (DP) comparing somatostatin continuous intravenous infusion for 7 days versus octreotid 100 µg, every 8 hours subcutaneous injection for 7 days, stratified by procedure (PD vs DP) and size of the main pancreatic duct (>4 mm) on grade B/C POPF rates at 90 days based on an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Of 763 eligible patients, 651 were randomized: 327 in the octreotide arm and 324 in the somatostatin arm, with comparable the stratification criteria - type of surgery and main pancreatic duct dilatation. Most patients had PD (n=480; 73.8%), on soft/normal pancreas (n=367; 63.2%) with a nondilated main pancreatic duct (n=472; 72.5%), most often for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=311; 47.8%). Almost all patients had abdominal drainage (n=621; 96.1%) and 121 (19.5%) left the hospital with the drain in place (median length of stay=16 days). A total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Continuous intravenous somatostatin is not statistically different from subcutaneous octreotide in the prevention of grade B/C POPF after pancreatectomy. FINDINGS: In the PREFIPS Randomized Clinical Trial including 651 patients, a total of 153 patients (23.5%) developed a grade B/C POPF with no significant difference between both groups: 24.1%: somatostatin arm and 22.9%: octreotide arm (χ 2 test, P =0.73, ITT analysis). Absence of statistically significant difference persisted after adjustment for stratification variables and in per-protocol analysis.

Prognosis of a Heterogeneous TRG Pathological Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients who Undergo Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) is based on a combination of chemotherapy and surgical resection. The tumor regression grade (TRG) score is a histological scoring system to evaluate response to chemotherapy. The prognosis of a heterogeneous response in cases of multiple metastases has not been evaluated according to the TRG score. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection for multiple CRLM after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in two tertiary centers from January 2015 to April 2019 were retrospectively included. Oncological characteristics and outcome between TRG 1-2-3 (good response group), TRG 4-5 (poor response group) and heterogeneous TRG (good and poor TRG among different lesions within the same patient) groups were compared. RESULTS: Among the 327 patients included, 134 (41.0%) had good response (TRG 1-2-3), 120 (36.7%) had poor response (TRG 4-5), and 73 (22.3%) had heterogeneous response. The type and number of cycles of chemotherapy, k-Ras mutational status, and tumor number or size did not differ between the three groups. Use of irinotecan-based and anti-VEGF neoadjuvant therapy was associated with better TRG response [irinotecan-based: hazard ratio (OR) = 1.744; p = 0.045; anti-VEGF neoadjuvant therapy: 2.054; p = 0.005). Overall survival (OS) was higher in the 1-2-3 TRG group than in the heterogeneous TRG group (2-year OS = 81.3% vs. 60.3%, respectively; p = 0.003) and the 4-5 TRG group (2-year OS = 81.3% vs. 55.0%, respectively; p = 0.012) and similar between the heterogeneous and 4-5 TRG groups. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of heterogeneous pathological response according to TRG is 22.3%, and the prognosis is comparable to that of poor pathological response.

Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization. METHODS: This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614). CONCLUSION: The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

Evolution of minimally invasive liver surgery in France over the last decade.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence of benefits on postoperative outcomes, minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) had a very low diffusion up to 2014, and recent evolution is unknown. Our aim was to analyze the recent diffusion and adoption of MILS and compare the trends in indications, extent of resection, and institutional practice with open liver surgery (OLS). METHODS: We analyzed the French nationwide, exhaustive cohort of all patients undergoing a liver resection in France between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2022. Average annual percentage changes (AAPC) in the incidence of MILS and OLS were compared using mixed-effects log-linear regression models. Time trends were analyzed in terms of extent of resection, indication, and institutional practice. RESULTS: MILS represented 25.2% of 74,671 liver resections and year incidence doubled from 16.5% in 2013 to 35.4% in 2022. The highest AAPC were observed among major liver resections [+ 22.2% (19.5; 24.9) per year], primary [+ 10.2% (8.5; 12.0) per year], and secondary malignant tumors [+ 9.9% (8.2; 11.6) per year]. The highest increase in MILS was observed in university hospitals [+ 14.7% (7.7; 22.2) per year] performing 48.8% of MILS and in very high-volume (> 150 procedures/year) hospitals [+ 12.1% (9.0; 15.3) per year] performing 19.7% of MILS. OLS AAPC decreased for all indications and institutions and accelerated over time from - 1.8% (- 3.9; - 0.3) per year in 2013-2018 to - 5.9% (- 7.9; - 3.9) per year in 2018-2022 (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first reported trend reversal between MILS and OLS. MILS has considerably increased at a national scale, crossing the 20% tipping point of adoption rate as defined by the IDEAL framework.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Definite Biliary Drainage in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma Laparoscopic Resection: A Hybrid Minimal-Invasive Technique.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Laparoscopic approach of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is still challenging. We report the original use of a endoscopic hepaticogastrostomy (EHG) for definite biliary drainage in order to avoid biliary reconstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 70-year-old man presenting with jaundice was referred for resection of a Bismuth type IIIa PHC. Repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failed to drain the future liver remnant, enabling only right anterior liver section drainage. EHG was performed three weeks before surgery. A hepatogastric anastomosis was created, placing a half-coated self-expanding endoprosthesis between biliary duct of segment 2 and the lesser gastric curvature. RESULTS: A laparoscopic right hepatectomy extended to segment 1, common bile duct, and hepatic pedicle lymphadenectomy was performed. The left hepatic duct was sectioned and ligated downstream to the biliary confluence of segment 2-3 and 4 allowing exclusive biliary flow through the EHG. The patient was disease free at 12 months, postoperative outcomes were uneventful except three readmissions for acute cholangitis due to prosthesis obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: EHG may be used as definite biliary drainage technique in laparoscopic PHC resection, at the expense of prosthesis obstruction and cholangitis.

Comparing indications, complexity and outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection between centers with and without a liver transplant program: a French nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: There are no data to evaluate the difference in populations and impact of centers with liver transplant programs in performing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: This was a multicenter study including patients undergoing LLR for benign and malignant tumors at 27 French centers from 1996 to 2018. The main outcomes were postoperative severe morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3154 patients were included, and 14 centers were classified as transplant centers (N = 2167 patients, 68.7 %). The transplant centers performed more difficult LLRs and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who more frequently had cirrhosis. A higher rate of performing the Pringle maneuver, a lower rate of blood loss and a higher rate of open conversion (all p < 0.05) were observed in the transplant centers. There was no association between the presence of a liver transplant program and either postoperative severe morbidity (<10 % in each group; p = 0.228) or mortality (1 % in each group; p = 0.915). CONCLUSIONS: Most HCCs, difficult LLRs, and cirrhotic patients are treated in transplant centers. We show that all centers can achieve comparable safety and quality of care in LLR independent of the presence of a liver transplant program.

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.

No changes in clinical presentation, treatment strategies and survival of pancreatic cancer cases during the SARS-COV-2 outbreak: A retrospective multicenter cohort study on real-world data.

The SARS-COV-2 pandemic disrupted healthcare systems. We assessed its impact on the presentation, care trajectories and outcomes of new pancreatic cancers (PCs) in the Paris area. We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study on the data warehouse of Greater Paris University Hospitals (AP-HP). We identified all patients newly referred with a PC between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2021, and excluded endocrine tumors. Using claims data and health records, we analyzed the timeline of care trajectories, the initial tumor stage, the treatment categories: pancreatectomy, exclusive systemic therapy or exclusive best supportive care (BSC). We calculated patients' 1-year overall survival (OS) and compared indicators in 2019 and 2020 to 2021. We included 2335 patients. Referral fell by 29% during the first lockdown. The median time from biopsy and from first MDM to treatment were 25 days (16-50) and 21 days (11-40), respectively. Between 2019 and 2020 to 2021, the rate of metastatic tumors (36% vs 33%, P = .39), the pTNM distribution of the 464 cases with upfront tumor resection (P = .80), and the proportion of treatment categories did not vary: tumor resection (32% vs 33%), exclusive systemic therapy (49% vs 49%), exclusive BSC (19% vs 19%). The 1-year OS rates in 2019 vs 2020 to 2021 were 92% vs 89% (aHR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.82-2.48), 52% vs 56% (aHR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.73-1.08), 13% vs 10% (aHR = 1.00; 95% CI, 0.78-1.25), in the treatment categories, respectively. Despite an initial decrease in the number of new PCs, we did not observe any stage shift. OS did not vary significantly.

Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Versus Open Total Pancreatectomy: A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess postoperative 90-day outcomes after minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robot-assisted) total pancreatectomy (MITP) in selected patients versus open total pancreatectomy (OTP) among European centers. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive pancreatic surgery is becoming increasingly popular but data on MITP are scarce and multicenter studies comparing outcomes versus OTP are lacking. It therefore remains unclear if MITP is a valid alternative. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective propensity-score matched study including consecutive adult patients undergoing MITP or OTP for all indications at 16 European centers in 7 countries (2008-2017). Patients after MITP were matched (1:1, caliper 0.02) to OTP controls. Missing data were imputed. The primary outcome was 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥3a). Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, and survival. RESULTS: Of 361 patients (99MITP/262 OTP), 70 MITP procedures (50 laparoscopic, 15 robotic, 5 hybrid) could be matched to 70 OTP controls. After matching, MITP was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (17% MITP vs. 31% OTP, P = 0.022). The 90-day mortality (1.4% MITP vs. 7.1% OTP, P = 0.209) and median hospital stay (17 [IQR 11-24] MITP vs. 12 [10-23] days OTP, P = 0.876) did not differ significantly. Among 81 patients with PDAC, overall survival was 3.7 (IQR 1.7-N/A) versus 0.9 (IQR 0.5-N/ A) years, for MITP versus OTP, which was nonsignificant after stratification by T-stage. CONCLUSION: This international propensity score matched study showed that MITP may be a valuable alternative to OTP in selected patients, given the associated lower rate of major morbidity.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis. BACKGROUND: Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain. METHODS: This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

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.

E-AHPBA-ESSO-ESSR Innsbruck consensus guidelines for preoperative liver function assessment before hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. RESULTS: Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2- to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. CONCLUSION: These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

Liver surgery is an effective treatment for liver tumours. Liver failure is a major problem in patients with a poor liver quality or having large operations. The treatment options for liver failure are limited, with high death rates. To estimate patient risk, assessing liver function before surgery is important. Many methods exist for this purpose, including functional, blood, and imaging tests. This guideline summarizes the available literature and expert opinions, and aids clinicians in planning safe liver surgery.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR. METHODS: This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR. RESULTS: 5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate). CONCLUSION: LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.

BACKGROUND: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.

Right Colectomy with Intracorporeal Anastomosis: A European Multicenter Propensity Score Matching Retrospective Study of Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Procedures.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic (RRC-IA) versus laparoscopic (LRC-IA) right colectomy with intracorporeal anastomosis using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis based on a large European multicentric cohort of patients with nonmetastatic right colon cancer. METHODS: Elective curative-intent RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed between 2014 and 2020 were selected from the MERCY Study Group database. The two PSM-groups were compared for operative and postoperative outcomes, and survival rates. RESULTS: Initially, 596 patients were selected, including 194 RRC-IA and 402 LRC-IA patients. After PSM, 298 patients (149 per group) were compared. There was no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA in terms of operative time, intraoperative complication rate, conversion to open surgery, postoperative morbidity (19.5% in RRC-IA vs. 26.8% in LRC-IA; p = 0.17), or 5-yr survival (80.5% for RRC-IA and 74.7% for LRC-IA; p = 0.94). R0 resection was obtained in all patients, and > 12 lymph nodes were harvested in 92.3% of patients, without group-related differences. RRC-IA procedures were associated with a significantly higher use of indocyanine green fluorescence than LRC-IA (36.9% vs. 14.1%; OR: 3.56; 95%CI 2.02-6.29; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Within the limitation of the present analyses, there is no statistically significant difference between RRC-IA and LRC-IA performed for right colon cancer in terms of short- and long-term outcomes.

Interobserver Variability and Accuracy of Preoperative CT and MRI in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Size Estimation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Purpose: To assess interobserver variability and accuracy of preoperative computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) size estimation using surgical specimens as standard of reference. Methods: Patients with PDAC who underwent preoperative CT and MRI examinations before surgery were included. PDAC largest axial dimension was measured by 2 readers on 8 MRI sequence and 2 CT imaging phases (pancreatic parenchymal and portal venous). Measurements were compared to actual tumour size at pathologic examination. Interobserver variability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Differences in tumour size (Δdiameter) between imaging and actual tumour size were searched using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: Twenty-nine patients (16 men; median age, 70 years) with surgically resected PDAC were included. Interobserver reproducibility was good to excellent for all MRI sequences and the 2 CT imaging phases with ICCs between .862 (95%CI: .692-.942) for fat-saturated in-phase T1-weighted sequence and .955 (95%CI: .898-.980) for portal venous phase CT images. Best accuracy in PDAC size measurement was obtained with pancreatic parenchymal phase CT images with median Δdiameters of -2 mm for both readers, mean relative differences of -9% and -6% and no significant differences with dimensions at histopathological analysis (P = .051). All MRI sequences led to significant underestimation of PDAC size (median Δdiameters, -6 to -1 mm; mean relative differences, -21% to -11%). Conclusions: Most accurate measurement of PDAC size is obtained with CT images obtained during the pancreatic parenchymal phase. MRI results in significant underestimation of PDAC size.

Educational Scoring System in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Is It the Right Time to Standardize?

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide. Procedure difficulty and patient outcomes depend on several factors which are not considered in the current literature, including the learning curve, generating confusing and subjective results. This study aims to create a scoring system to calculate the learning curve of LC based on hepatobiliopancreatic (HPB) experts' opinions during an educational course. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to the panel of experts attending the HPB course at Research Institute against Digestive Cancer-IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) from 27-29 October 2022. Experts scored the proposed variables according to their degree of importance in the learning curve using a Likert scale from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Variables were included in the composite scoring system only if more than 75% of experts ranked its relevance in the learning curve assessment ≥4. A positive or negative value was assigned to each variable based on its effect on the learning curve. Results: Fifteen experts from six different countries attended the IRCAD HPB course and filled out the questionnaire. Ten variables were finally included in the learning curve scoring system (i.e., patient body weight/BMI, patient previous open surgery, emergency setting, increased inflammatory levels, presence of anatomical bile duct variation(s), and appropriate critical view of safety (CVS) identification), which were all assigned positive values. Minor or major intraoperative injuries to the biliary tract, development of postoperative complications related to biliary injuries, and mortality were assigned negative values. Conclusions: This is the first scoring system on the learning curve of LC based on variables selected through the experts' opinions. Although the score needs to be validated through future studies, it could be a useful tool to assess its efficacy within educational programs and surgical courses.

Assessing textbook outcome after single large hepatocellular carcinoma resection.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the impact and predictors of an ideal surgical care following SLHCC resection. METHODS: SLHCC patients who underwent LR in two tertiary hepatobiliary centers between 2000 and 2021 were retrieved from prospectively maintained databases. The quality of surgical care was measured by the textbook outcome (TO). Tumor burden was defined by the tumor burden score (TBS). Factors associated with TO were determined on multivariate analysis. The impact of TO on oncological outcomes was assessed using Cox regressions. RESULTS: Overall, 103 SLHCC patients were included. Laparoscopic approach was considered in 65 (63.1%) patients and 79 (76.7%) patients presented with moderate TBS. TO was achieved in 54 (52.4%) patients. Laparoscopic approach was independently associated with TO (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.64; p = 0.045). Within 19 (6-38) months of median follow up, patients who achieved TO had better OS compared to non-TO patients (1-year OS: 91.7% vs. 66.9%; 5-year OS: 83.4% vs. 37.0%, p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, TO was independently associated with improved OS, especially in non-cirrhotic patients (HR 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.52, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: TO achievement could be a relevant surrogate marker of improved oncological care following SLHCC resection in non-cirrhotic patients.