Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection. RESULTS: Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la cirrosis en los resultados a corto plazo después de la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) en un estudio de cohortes multicéntrico nacional. MÉTODOS: Este estudio retrospectivo incluyó todos los pacientes sometidos a LLR en 27 centros entre 2000 y 2017. La cirrosis se definió como fibrosis F4 en el examen histopatológico. Los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes con hígado cirrótico (cirrhotic liver CL) (pacientes CL) y los pacientes con hígado no cirrótico (non-cirrhotic liver, NCL) (pacientes NCL) se compararon después de realizar un emparejamiento por puntaje de propension del volumen del centro, las características demográficas y del tumor, y la extensión de la resección. RESULTADOS: Del total de 3.150 pacientes incluidos, se realizó LLR en 774 (24,6%) pacientes CL y en 2.376 (75,4%) pacientes NCL. Las tasas de complicaciones graves y mortalidad en el grupo de pacientes CL fueron del 10,6% y 2,6%, respectivamente. La insuficiencia hepática posterior a la hepatectomía (post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF) fue la principal causa de mortalidad (55% de los casos) y se produjo en el 3,6% de los casos en pacientes CL. Después del emparejamiento, los pacientes CL tendieron a tener tasas más altas de complicaciones graves (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,74; i.c. del 95% 0,92-0,41; P = 0,096) y de PHLF (OR 7,13; i.c. del 95% 0,91-323,10; P = 0,068) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL estuvieron expuestos a un mayor riesgo de mortalidad (OR 5,13; i.c. del 95% 1,08-48,6; P = 0,039) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL presentaron tasas similares de complicaciones cardiorrespiratorias graves (P = 0,338), de fuga biliar (P = 0,286) y de reintervenciones (P = 0,352) que los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL tuvieron una estancia hospitalaria más larga (11 versus 8 días; P = 0,018) que los pacientes NCL. La experiencia del centro fue un factor protector independiente de PHLF (OR 0,33; i.c. del 95% 0,14-0,76; P = 0,010) pacientes CL. CONCLUSIÓN: La presencia de cirrosis subyacente sigue siendo un factor de riesgo independiente de peores resultados en pacientes sometidos a resección hepática laparoscópica, incluso en centros con experiencia.

Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.