Costs of complications following distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019). RESULTS: Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.

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.

Pure laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: a critical assessment and realistic expectations - a propensity score-based analysis of right and left hemihepatectomies from nine European tertiary referral centers.

INTRODUCTION: A stronger evidence level is needed to confirm the benefits and limits of laparoscopic hemihepatectomies. METHODS: Laparoscopic and open hemihepatectomies from nine European referral centers were compared after propensity score matching (right and left hemihepatectomies separately, and benign and malignant diseases sub-analyses). RESULTS: Five hundred and forty-five laparoscopic hemihepatectomies were compared with 545 open. Laparoscopy was associated with reduced blood loss (P < 0.001), postoperative stay (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.002), supported by a lower Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (P = 0.035). Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomies were associated with lower ascites (P = 0.016), bile leak (P = 0.001) and wound infections (P = 0.009). Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomies exhibited a lower incidence of bile leak and cardiovascular complications (P = 0.024; P = 0.041), lower minor and major morbidity (P = 0.003; P = 0.044) and reduced CCI (P = 0.002). Laparoscopic major hepatectomies (LMH) for benign disease were associated with lower blood loss (P = 0.001) and bile leaks (P = 0.037) and shorter total stay (P < 0.001). LMH for malignancy were associated with lower blood loss (P < 0.001) and minor morbidity (P = 0.027) supported by a lower CCI (P = 0.021) and shorter stay (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study confirms some associated advantages of laparoscopic left and right hemihepatectomies in malignant and benign conditions highlighting the need for realistic expectations of the minimally invasive approach based on the resected hemiliver and the patients treated.

Stepwise introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery: validation of guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) could compromise postoperative outcomes. A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training is advised. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of such a stepwise introduction. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center case series assessing short term outcomes of all consecutive LLS in the period November 2006-January 2017. The technique was implemented in a stepwise fashion. To evaluate the impact of this stepwise approach combined with structured training, outcomes of LLS before and after a laparoscopic HPB fellowship were compared. RESULTS: A total of 135 laparoscopic resections were performed. Overall conversion rate was 4% (n = 5), clinically relevant complication rate 13% (n = 18) and mortality 0.7% (n = 1). A significant increase in patients with major LLS, multiple liver resections, previous abdominal surgery, malignancies and lesions located in posterior segments was observed after the fellowship as well as a decrease in the use of hand-assistance. Increasing complexity in the post fellowship period was reflected by an increase in operating times, but without comprising other surgical outcomes. CONCLUSION: A stepwise introduction of LLS combined with structured training reduced the clinical impact of the learning curve, thereby confirming guideline recommendations.

Laparoscopic left pancreatectomy: current concepts.

The minimally invasive approach has been slow to gain acceptance in the field of pancreatic surgery even though its advantages over the open approach have been extensively documented in the medical literature. The reasons for the reluctant use of the technique are manifold. Laparoscopic distal or left sided pancreatic resections have slowly become the standard approach to lesions of the pancreatic body and tail as a result of evolution in technology and experience. A number of studies have shown the potential advantages of the technique in terms of safety, blood loss, oncological and economic feasibility, hospital stay and time to recovery from surgery. This review aims to provide an overview of the recent advances in the field of laparoscopic left pancreatectomy (LLP) and discuss potential future developments.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a clinical and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is being increasingly performed with some concerns regarding the cost of the minimally invasive approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of LDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: A retrospective clinical and cost-comparison analysis was performed for patients who underwent LDP vs. OPD between 2005 and 2011. Data considered for the comparison analysis were: operative costs (surgical procedure, operative time, blood transfusions), postoperative costs (laboratory testing, hospital stay, complication management, readmissions), and overall costs. RESULTS: Fifty-one distal pancreatectomies (laparoscopic = 35, open = 16) were performed during the study period. The median operative time was 200 (range, 120-420) min for LDP vs. 225 (range, 120-460) min for ODP (p = 0.93). Median blood loss was 200 (range, 50-900) mL for LDP vs. 394 (range, 75-2000) mL for ODP (p = 0.038). Median hospital stay was 7 (range, 3-25) days in the laparoscopic group vs. 11 (range, 5-46) days in the open group (p = 0.007). Complication rate was 40% for LDP vs. 69% in ODP (p = 0.075). Postoperative intervention was required in 11% of patients after LDP vs. 31% after ODP (p = 0.12). The average operative, postoperative, and overall cost was £6039 (range, £4276-£9500), £4547 (range, £1299-£13937), £10587 (range, £6508-£20303) vs. £5231 (range, £3409-£9330), £10094 (range, £2665-£39291), £15324 (range, £7209-£47484) for the LDP and ODP groups, respectively (p = 0.033; p = 0.006; p = 0.197). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that LDP is feasible and safe without having a negative impact on cost. Extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery is required to optimize surgical outcomes.

Short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic and open hepatic resection: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a feasible alternative to open liver resection (OLR) in selected patients. Nevertheless studies comparing LLR and OLR are few and concerns remain about long-term oncological equivalence. The present study compares outcomes with LLR vs. OLR using meta-analytical methods. METHODS: Electronic literature searches were conducted to identify studies comparing LLR and OLR. Short-term outcomes evaluated included operating time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, peri-operative morbidity and resection margin status. Longer-term outcomes included local and distant recurrence, and overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method and Cohen's d method, with results expressed as odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria with a population of 1678 patients. LLR resulted in longer operating time, but reduced blood loss, portal clamp time, overall and liver-specific complications, ileus and length of stay. No difference was found between LLR and OLR for oncological outcomes. DISCUSSION: LLR has short-term advantages and seemingly equivalent long-term outcomes and can be considered a feasible alternative to open surgery in experienced hands.