Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. BACKGROUND: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. CONCLUSIONS: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR.

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.

Propensity Score-matched Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minor Liver Resections of the Anterolateral Segments: an International Multi-center Study of 10,517 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of robotic minor liver resections (RMLR) versus laparoscopic (L) MLR of the anterolateral segments. BACKGROUND: Robotic liver surgery has been gaining prominence over the years with increasing usage for a myriad of hepatic resections. Robotic liver resections(RLR) has demonstrated non-inferiority to laparoscopic(L)LR while illustrating advantages over conventional laparoscopy especially for technically difficult and major LR. However, the advantage of RMLR for the anterolateral(AL) (segments II, III, IVb, V and VI) segments, has not been clearly demonstrated. METHODS: Between 2008 to 2022, 15,356 of 29,861 patients from 68 international centres underwent robotic(R) or laparoscopic minor liver resections (LMLR) for the AL segments Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for matched analysis. RESULTS: 10,517 patients met the study criteria of which 1,481 underwent RMLR and 9,036 underwent LMLR. A PSM cohort of 1,401 patients in each group were identified for analysis. Compared to the LMLR cohort, the RMLR cohort demonstrated significantly lower median blood loss (75ml vs. 100ml, P<0.001), decreased blood transfusion (3.1% vs. 5.4%, P=0.003), lower incidence of major morbidity (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P=0.004), lower proportion of open conversion (1.2% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001), shorter post operative stay (4 days vs. 5 days, P<0.001), but higher rate of 30-day readmission (3.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.042). These results were then validated by a 1:2 PSM analysis. In the subset analysis for 3,614 patients with cirrhosis, RMLR showed lower median blood loss, decreased blood transfusion, lower open conversion and shorter post operative stay than LMLR. CONCLUSION: RMLR demonstrated statistically significant advantages over LMLR even for resections in the AL segments although most of the observed clinical differences were minimal.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies. METHODS: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

A simple model to predict early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver resection.

PURPOSE: Multiple studies have reported models for predicting early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver resection (LR). However, these models are too complex to use in daily practice. We aimed to develop a simple model. METHOD: We enrolled 1133 patients with newly diagnosed HCC undergoing LR. The Kaplan - Meier method and log-rank test were used for survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis to identify prognostic factors associated with early recurrence (i.e., recurrence within two years after LR). RESULTS: Early recurrence was identified in 403 (35.1%) patients. In multivariate analysis, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) 20-399 vs. < 20 ng/ml (HR = 1.282 [95% confidence interval = 1.002-1.639]; p = 0.048); AFP ≥ 400 vs. < 20 ng/ml (HR = 1.755 [1.382-2.229]; p < 0.001); 7th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage 2 vs. 1 (HR = 1.958 [1.505-2.547]; p < 0.001); AJCC stage 3 vs. 1 (HR = 4.099 [3.043-5.520]; p < 0.001); and pathology-defined cirrhosis (HR = 1.46 [1.200-1.775]; p < 0.001) were associated with early recurrence. We constructed a predictive model with these variables, which provided three risk strata for recurrence-free survival (RFS): low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk, with two-year RFS of 79%, 57%, and 35%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We developed a simple model to predict early recurrence risk for patients undergoing LR for HCC.

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.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

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.

Tumor Necrosis Is an Indicator of Poor Prognosis Among Hepatoma Patients Undergoing Resection.

INTRODUCTION: Tumor necrosis has been associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver resection (LR). However, more evidence is needed to clarify this issue. METHODS: Patients who underwent upfront LR between 2010 and 2018 for newly diagnosed HCC without undergoing neoadjuvant therapy were enrolled in this retrospective study. Tumor necrosis was classified as present or absent according to retrospective examinations. The association between tumor necrosis, pathologic characteristics, overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 756 patients who underwent LR for HCC, tumor necrosis was present in 279 (36.9%) patients. Compared with patients without tumor necrosis, patients with tumor necrosis had higher proportions of tumors sized >5.0 cm (P < 0.001), multiple tumors (P < 0.001), microvascular or macrovascular invasion (P < 0.001), poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumors (P < 0.001), and T stage 3 or 4 (P < 0.001) on pathological examination. The presence of tumor necrosis was associated with worse OS and RFS compared with the absence of tumor necrosis: 5-y OS was 56% versus 78% (P < 0.001); 5-y RFS was 42% versus 55% (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, the presence of tumor necrosis was an independent factor associated with worse OS (hazard ratio: 1.956; 95% confidence interval: 1.409-2.716; P < 0.001) and RFS (hazard ratio: 1.422; 95% confidence interval: 1.085-1.865; P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor necrosis was associated with worse OS and RFS among patients who underwent LR for HCC.

Overall survival among patients who undergo resection does not differ significantly between T1a and T1b hepatocellular carcinoma based on the 8th American Joint Commission on Cancer.

PURPOSE: The 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been used since 2018. However, whether any significant difference in overall survival (OS) exists between patients with T1a and T1b HCC who undergo resection has been controversial. We aim to clarify this issue. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled newly diagnosed HCC patients who underwent liver resection (LR) from 2010 to 2020 at our institution. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Prognostic factors for OS were identified by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: This study enrolled 1250 newly diagnosed HCC patients who underwent LR. No significant differences in OS were identified between patients with T1a and T1b tumors among all patients (p = 0.694), cirrhotic patients (p = 0.753), non-cirrhotic patients (p = 0.146), patients with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) > 20 ng/ml (p = 0.562), patients with AFP ≤ 20 ng/ml (p = 0.967), patients with Edmondson grade 1 or 2 (p = 0.615), patients with Edmondson grade 3 or 4 (p = 0.825), patients positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg; p = 0.308), in patients positive for anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody (p = 0.781), or patients negative for both HBsAg and anti-HCV antibody (p = 0.125). Using T1a as the reference, multivariate analysis showed that T1b is not a significant predictive factor for OS (hazard ratio (HR): 1.338; 95% confidence interval (CI):0.737-2.431; p = 0.339). CONCLUSION: No significant difference in OS was observed between patients who underwent LR to treat T1a and T1b HCC tumors.

Radiographic tumor burden score is useful for stratifying the overall survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing resection at different Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages.

PURPOSE: The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system has been recommended for prognostic prediction. However, prognosis is variable at different BCLC stages. We aimed to evaluate whether the radiographic tumor burden score (TBS) could be used to stratify prognosis in different BCLC stages. METHODS: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver resection (LR) at BCLC-0, -A, or -B stage in our institution in 2007-2018 were divided into derivation and validation cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed according to the TBS and BCLC stage. TBS cutoff values for OS were determined with X-tile. RESULTS: Of the 749 patients in the derivation cohort, 138 (18.4%) had BCLC-0, 542 (72.3%) BCLC-A, and 69 (9.2%) BCLC-B HCC; 76 (10.1%) had a high TBS (> 7.9), 477 (63.7%) a medium TBS (2.6-7.9), and 196 (26.2%) a low TBS (< 2.6). OS worsened progressively with increasing TBS in the cohort (p < 0.001) and in BCLC-A (p = 0.04) and BCLC-B (p = 0.002) stages. Multivariate analysis showed that the TBS was associated with OS of patients with BCLC-A (medium vs. low TBS: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.390, 95% CI = 1.024-5.581, p = 0.04; high vs. low TBS: HR = 3.885, 95% CI = 1.443-10.456, p = 0.007) and BCLC-B (high vs. medium TBS: HR = 2.542, 95% CI = 1.077-6.002, p = 0.033) HCC. The TBS could also be used to stratify the OS of patients in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The TBS could be used to stratify the OS of the entire cohort and BCLC stages A and B of HCC patients undergoing LR.

Inflow control can be safely used in laparoscopic subsegmentectomy of the liver: a single-center 10-year experience.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques have been developed to reduce blood loss in liver resection. The half-Pringle and Pringle maneuvers are commonly used for inflow control. This study compared the outcomes of different inflow control techniques in laparoscopic subsegmentectomy. METHODS: From October 2010 to December 2020, a total of 362 laparoscopic liver resections were performed by a single surgeon (C.C. Yong) in our institute. We retrospectively enrolled 133 patients who underwent laparoscopic subsegmentectomy during the same period. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: The 133 patients were divided into 3 groups: no inflow control (n = 49), half-Pringle maneuver (n = 46), and Pringle maneuver (n = 38). A lower proportion of patients with cirrhosis were included in the half-Pringle maneuver group (P = .02). Fewer patients in the half-Pringle maneuver group had undergone previous abdominal (P = .01) or liver (P = .02) surgery. The no inflow control group had more patients with tumors located in the anterolateral segments (P = .001). The no inflow control group had a shorter operation time (P < .001) and less blood loss (P = .03). The need for blood transfusion, morbidity, and hospital days did not differ among the 3 groups. The overall survival did not significantly differ among the 3 groups (P = .89). CONCLUSIONS: The half-Pringle and Pringle maneuvers did not affect perioperative or long-term outcomes during laparoscopic subsegmentectomy. The inflow control maneuvers could be safely performed in laparoscopic subsegmentectomy.

A simple preoperative model to predict overall survival of patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma ≥10 cm.

BACKGROUND: Studies have rarely reported on preoperative predictors of prognosis of patients undergoing liver resection (LR) for HCC ≥10 cm. We developed a simple model to predict overall survival (OS) of these patients. METHODS: We enrolled 305 patients with HCC ≥10 cm undergoing LR. Cirrhosis and imaging-defined AJCC stage were used to develop a preoperative model. Patients were divided into three groups based on the Kaplan-Meier estimator. RESULTS: Group 1 included patients with AJCC stage 1 and no cirrhosis (n = 86), group 2 those with AJCC stage 1 and cirrhosis plus those with AJCC stage 2 or 3 and no cirrhosis (n = 166), and group 3 those with AJCC stage 2 or 3 and cirrhosis (n = 51). The five-year OS of group 1, 2, and 3 was 55%, 32%, and 25%, respectively (p < 0.001). With group 1 as the reference, multivariate analysis of OS showed that group 2 (HR = 2.043; 95% CI = 1.332-3.134; p = 0.001) and group 3 (HR = 2.740; 95% CI = 1.645-4.564; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of OS. CONCLUSION: We developed a simple model to predict OS of patients undergoing LR for HCC ≥10 cm.

Extremity risk factors of sepsis for gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis is a well-known risk factor of sepsis after emergent gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Elective GI endoscopy before living donor liver transplantation (LDLT), however, may also carry the septic risk among these patients. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 642 cirrhotic recipients who underwent GI endoscopy from 2008 to 2016. We analyzed the incidence and risk factors of post-endoscopy sepsis during 2008-2012 (experience cohort). Our protocol changed after 2013 (validation cohort) to include antibiotic prophylaxis. RESULTS: In experience cohort, 36 cases (10.5%) of the 342 LDLT candidates experienced sepsis within 48 h after endoscopy. The sepsis rate was significantly higher in patients with hepatic decompensation than patients without (22.2% vs. 9.6% vs. 2.6% in Child C/B/A groups respectively; ×2 = 20.97, P < 0.001). Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the factors related to post-endoscopy sepsis were the Child score (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.24-1.71), Child classes B and C (OR 3.80 and 14.13; 95% CI 1.04-13.95 and 3.97-50.23, respectively), hepatic hydrothorax (OR 4.85; 95% CI 1.37-17.20), and use of antibiotic prophylaxis (OR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.64). In validation cohort, antibiotics were given routinely, and all cases of hepatic hydrothorax (n = 10) were drained. Consequently, 4 (1.3%) episodes of sepsis occurred among 300 LDLT candidates, and the incidence was significantly lower than before (1.3% vs. 10.5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with decompensated cirrhosis and hepatic hydrothorax have higher risk of sepsis following endoscopy. In advanced cirrhotic patients, antibiotic prophylaxis and drainage of hydrothorax may be required to prevent sepsis before elective GI endoscopy.

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.

The Impact of Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapy on the Risk of Recurrence after Curative Resection in Patients with Hepatitis-C-Virus-Related Early Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background and Objectives: The impact of direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimens on the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after successful curative hepatectomy is controversial. Aims: This study aimed to assess the association between DAAs treatment and recurrence risk in HCC after resection. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively assessed 152 cases of early stage (BCLC stage 0/A) hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related HCC (HCV-HCC) that underwent resection with curative intent between 2001 and 2019 at Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital; 48 cases achieved a sustained virological response (SVR) by DAA, and 104 cases were not treated with any antiviral therapy (non-treatment group). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) following curative resection was analyzed by using the log-rank test and Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze the factors that impacted RFS and OS. Results: Five patients (10.4%) experienced HCC recurrence after DAA therapy. The cumulative HCC recurrence rate was significantly lower in the DAA group than the non-treatment group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed a significant difference in RFS between the non-treatment group and DAA group (p = 0.001; hazard ratio (HR), 4.978; 95% CI, 1.976-12.542); liver cirrhosis (p = 0.005; HR, 2.062; 95% CI, 1.247-3.410), microvascular invasion (p = 0.001; HR, 2.331; 95% CI, 1.408-3.860) and AFP > 15 ng/mL (p = 0.022; HR, 1.799; 95% CI, 1.089-2.970) were also independent factors for HCC recurrence. ALBI stage II/III (p = 0.005; HR, 3.249; 95% CI, 1.418-7.443) and microvascular invasion (p < 0.001; HR, 4.037 95% CI, 2.071-7.869) were independent factors for OS; no significant difference in OS was observed between the DAA and no DAA treatment groups. Conclusions: DAA treatment could reduce the risk of recurrence after curative treatment for early stage HCC.

Excellent Outcome in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Treating Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a fatal condition, and liver transplantation (LT) is a vital option for these patients. However, the result of living donor LT (LDLT) for ACLF is not well investigated. This study investigated the outcomes of LDLT in patients with ACLF compared with patients without ACLF. This was a single-center, retrospective, matched case-control study. From July 2002 to March 2017, a total of 112 patients with ACLF who underwent LDLT were enrolled according to the consensus of the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver. A total of 224 patients were selected for control comparison (non-ACLF) with demographic factors (sex, age, and body mass index) matched (1:2). Patients with ACLF were stratified into ACLF 1, 2, and 3 categories according to the number of organ failures based on the Chronic Liver Failure-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Survival and surgical outcomes after LDLT were analyzed. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease and Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores in the ACLF group were significantly higher than those in the non-ACLF group (P < 0.001). The 90-day, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates in the ACLF and non-ACLF groups were 97.3%, 95.5%, 92.9%, respectively, and 96.9%, 94.2%, and 91.1%, respectively (P = 0.58). There was more intraoperative blood loss in the ACLF group than in the non-ACLF group (P < 0.001). The other postoperative complications were not significantly different between the groups. A total of 20 patients (17.9%) in the ACLF group presented with 3 or more organ system dysfunctions (ACLF 3), and the 90-day, 3-year, and 5-year survival rates were comparable with those of ACLF 1 and ACLF 2 (P = 0.25). In carefully selected patients, LDLT gives excellent outcomes in patients with ACLF regardless of the number of organs involved. Comprehensive perioperative care and timely transplantation play crucial roles in saving the lives of patients with ACLF.

Microscopic portal vein invasion is a powerful predictor of prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have undergone liver resection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A recent study proposed simple classifications of microscopic vascular invasion (MVI): microscopic portal vein invasion (MPVI) and microvessel invasion (MI). We aim to validate these classifications of MVI. METHODS: This retrospective study consecutively enrolled 514 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0, A, and B naïve hepatocellular carcinoma patients who underwent liver resection in our institution from 2011 to 2017. RESULTS: Among these 514 patients, 240 patients were classified as having no MVI at all (designated as no vascular invasion, NVI), 157 patients were classified as having MI only, and 117 patients were classified as having MPVI. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate in the MI-only group was 83.3%, which was not significantly different from that of the NVI group (87.2%), p = .20. Using NVI as a reference, multivariate analysis showed that MI-only is not an independent variable associated with OS. The 5-year OS in the MPVI group was 59.2%, which was significantly lower than those for MI-only (p < .001) and NVI groups (p < .001). Using NVI as a reference, multivariate analysis showed that MPVI is an independent variable associated with OS (HR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.80-5.40; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study validate the simple MVI classifications to be clinically useful.

Preoperative ALBI grade predicts the outcomes in non-B non-C HCC patients undergoing primary curative resection.

BACKGROUND: The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade has been validated as a significant prognostic predictor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there is little information about the ALBI grade in patients with non-B non-C HCC (NBNC-HCC) receiving surgery. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of the ALBI grade in patients with NBNC-HCC after primary curative resection. METHOD: From January 2010 to April 2016, 2137 patients with HCC who received hepatectomy were screened for study eligibility. Finally, a total of 168 NBNC-HCC patients who received primary curative resection were analyzed. The impacts of the ALBI grade on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by multivariate analysis. RESULTS: There were 66 (39.3%), 98 (58.3%), and 4 (2.4%) patients with an ALBI grade of I, II, and III, respectively. Patients with an ALBI grade II/III were older (p = 0.002), more likely to have hypoalbuminemia (p < 0.001), and more commonly had Child-Pugh class B (p = 0.009) than patients with an ALBI grade I. After a median follow-up of 76 months, 74 (44%) patients experienced recurrence, and 72 (42.9%) patients died. Multivariate analysis revealed that alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) > 200 ng/mL (p = 0.021), number of tumors (p = 0.001), and tumor stage (p = 0.007) were independent prognostic factors for DFS. Additionally, AFP > 200 ng/mL (p = 0.002), ALBI grade II/III (p = 0.002), and tumor stage (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for poor OS. CONCLUSION: The preoperative ALBI grade can be used to predict mortality in patients with NBNC-HCC after primary curative resection.

Short-term outcomes after minimally invasive versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy in elderly patients: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date, the evidence on the safety and benefits of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in elderly patients is still controversy. This study aim to compare the risk and benefit between MIPD and open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in elderly patients. METHODS: From 2016 to 2020, we retrospective enrolled 26 patients underwent MIPD and other 119 patients underwent OPD. We firstly compared the baseline characteristics, 90-day mortality and short-term surgical outcomes of MIPD and OPD. Propensity score matching was applied for old age patient (≥ 65-year-old vs. < 65-year-old) for detail safety and feasibility analysis. RESULTS: Patients received MIPD is significantly older, had poor performance status, less lymph node harvest, longer operation time, less postoperative hospital stay (POHS) and earlier drain removal. After 1:2 propensity score matching analysis, elderly patients in MIPD group had significantly poor performance status (P = 0.042) compared to OPD group. Patients receiving MIPD had significantly shorter POHS (18 vs. 25 days, P = 0.028), earlier drain removal (16 vs. 21 days, P = 0.012) and smaller delay gastric empty rate (5.9 vs. 32.4% P = 0.036). There was no 90-day mortality (0% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.186) and pulmonary complications (0% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.075) in MIPD group, and the major complication rate is comparable to OPD group (17.6% vs. 29.4%, P = 0.290). CONCLUSION: For elderly patients, MIPD is a feasible and safe option even in patients with inferior preoperative performance status. MIPD might also provide potential advantage for elderly patients in minimizing pulmonary complication and overall mortality over OPD.