Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. BACKGROUND: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. METHODS: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: (1) minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or (2) posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and (3) major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After propensity score matching, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs 71.8%, P < 0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs 50.4%, P = 0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs 47.1%, P < 0.001), blood loss (100 vs 200 milliliters, P < 0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs 7.9%, P = 0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P < 0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs 25.7%, P < 0.001), and microscopically irradical resection margins (10.1% vs. 13.8%, P = 0.015), and shorter operative times (190 vs 210 minutes, P = 0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared with LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n = 431 per group, 75.9% vs 71.2%, P = 0.184) and major resections (n = 321 per group, 72.9% vs 67.5%, P = 0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: While both produce excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Surgical prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy: Is cephalosporin still the drug of choice in patients with biliary stents in situ?

BACKGROUND: Universal surgical prophylaxis for pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is practiced, with cephalosporins recommended in most guidelines. Recent studies suggest piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) prophylaxis in biliary-stented patients is superior in preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). This study aims to refine surgical prophylaxis recommendations based on the local microbial profile and evaluate the clinical outcomes of biliary-stented compared with non-stented patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all consecutive PD patients at Singapore General Hospital between January 2013 to December 2019. The primary outcome was post-operative SSI rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of ceftriaxone-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Enterococcus species from intraoperative bile cultures and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: There were 130 biliary-stented and 211 non-stented patients included. Majority of biliary-stented patients received ceftriaxone ± metronidazole prophylaxis (83/130, 63.8 %) while 30/130 (23.8 %) received PTZ. Most non-stented patients received ceftriaxone ± metronidazole prophylaxis (163/211, 77.3 %). Between biliary-stented and non-stented patients, post-operative SSIs (40.8 % vs 38.4 %, p = 0.662), and 30-day mortality rates (1.5 % vs 1.4 %, p = 1.000) were comparable. The adjusted odds of post-operative SSIs was significantly lower in biliary-stented patients prescribed PTZ as compared to non-PTZ prophylaxis (0.29, 95 % CI (0.10-0.79), p = 0.015). Ceftriaxone-resistant Klebsiella spp. and/or Escherichia coli (27.6 % vs 3.8 %, p < 0.001) as well as Enterococcus species (46.1 % vs 11.5 %, p < 0.001), were more prevalent in intraoperative bile cultures of biliary-stented patients, while frequencies in non-stented patients were low. CONCLUSION: PTZ prophylaxis effectively reduced SSIs in stented patients post-pancreatoduodenectomy. Based on the local microbial profile, ceftriaxone prophylaxis may be used for prophylaxis in non-stented patients.

Robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for gallbladder cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive oncological resections have become increasingly widespread in the surgical management of cancers. However, the role of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for gallbladder cancer (GBC) remains unclear. We aim to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of existing literature to evaluate the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and robotic surgery in the management of GBC compared to open surgery (OS) by comparing outcomes. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed/MEDLINE (2000 to December 2021) and EMBASE (2000 to December 2021) databases was conducted. The primary outcome studied was overall survival, and secondary outcomes studied were postoperative morbidity, severe complications, incidence of bile leak, length of hospital stay, operation time, R0 resection rate, local recurrence and lymph node yield. RESULTS: Thirty-two full-text articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis with a total of 5883 patients undergoing either OS or MIS (laparoscopic or robotic) for GBC. 1- and 2-stage meta-analyses did not reveal any significant differences between OS, laparoscopic and robotic surgery in terms of overall survival, R0 resection, lymph node harvest, local recurrence and post-operative complications. Patients who underwent OS had significantly longer hospitalization stay and intra-operative blood loss compared to those who underwent laparoscopic or robotic surgery. Network meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences between post-operative and survival outcomes of laparoscopic vs robotic surgery groups. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis suggests that both laparoscopic and robotic surgery are safe and effective approaches in the surgical management of GBC, with post-operative and survival outcomes comparable to OS. An MIS approach may also lead to shorter hospitalization stay, less intraoperative blood loss and post-operative complications compared to OS. There was no obvious benefit of either MIS approach (laparoscopic versus robotic) over the other.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Explainable artificial intelligence prediction-based model in laparoscopic liver surgery for segments 7 and 8: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more useful as a decision-making and outcomes predictor tool. We have developed AI models to predict surgical complexity and the postoperative course in laparoscopic liver surgery for segments 7 and 8. METHODS: We included patients with lesions located in segments 7 and 8 operated by minimally invasive liver surgery from an international multi-institutional database. We have employed AI models to predict surgical complexity and postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, we have applied SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to make the AI models interpretable. Finally, we analyzed the surgeries not converted to open versus those converted to open. RESULTS: Overall, 585 patients and 22 variables were included. Multi-layer Perceptron (MLP) showed the highest performance for predicting surgery complexity and Random Forest (RF) for predicting postoperative outcomes. SHAP detected that MLP and RF gave the highest relevance to the variables "resection type" and "largest tumor size" for predicting surgery complexity and postoperative outcomes. In addition, we explored between surgeries converted to open and non-converted, finding statistically significant differences in the variables "tumor location," "blood loss," "complications," and "operation time." CONCLUSION: We have observed how the application of SHAP allows us to understand the predictions of AI models in surgical complexity and the postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver surgery in segments 7 and 8.

Evaluation of the American College of Surgeons risk calculator in hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer in a Southeast Asian population.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) calculator in predicting outcomes after hepatectomy for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastasis in a Southeast Asian population. METHODS: Predicted and actual outcomes were compared for 166 patients undergoing hepatectomy for CRC liver metastasis identified between 2017 and 2022, using receiver operating characteristic curves with area under the curve (AUC) and Brier score. RESULTS: The ACS-NSQIP calculator accurately predicted most postoperative complications (AUC > 0.70), except for surgical site infection (AUC = 0.678, Brier score = 0.045). It also exhibited satisfactory performance for readmission (AUC = 0.818, Brier score = 0.011), reoperation (AUC = 0.945, Brier score = 0.002), and length of stay (LOS, AUC = 0.909). The predicted LOS was close to the actual LOS (5.9 vs. 5.0 days, P = 0.985). CONCLUSION: The ACS-NSQIP calculator demonstrated generally accurate predictions for 30-day postoperative outcomes after hepatectomy for CRC liver metastasis in our patient population.

Simultaneous laparoscopic colectomy and liver metastasectomy with natural orifice specimen extraction: A proof-of-concept study.

Background, Natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) via the anus or vagina is an alternative to conventional transabdominal specimen extraction in laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. NOSE has been shown to be safe and effective, resulting in decreased postoperative pain, analgesia use, and improved recovery, without oncological compromise. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of NOSE for combined colectomy with liver metastasectomy. Methods, From July 2022 to April 2024, all cases of laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection and synchronous liver metastasectomy with NOSE were included in the study. Selection criteria included a maximum specimen diameter of less than 5 cm and patient body mass index of less than 35 kg/m2. Results, Over the 22-month duration, four consecutive patients (two males, two females) underwent combined resection with NOSE. Mean age and BMI were 74.8 (range 63-81) years and 20.9 (range 19.5-22.3) kg/m2 respectively. Patient A and D underwent anterior resection for sigmoid cancer, Patient B underwent D3 right hemicolectomy for cecal cancer, and Patient C underwent subtotal colectomy for synchronous cecal and descending colon cancer. All patients underwent liver metastasectomy at the same sitting. Patient A and D had transanal NOSE while Patients B and C underwent transvaginal NOSE. Mean operative time and blood loss was 416 (range 330-535) minutes and 338 (range 50-500) ml respectively. All patients recovered gastrointestinal function within the first two postoperative days. Infected seroma of the liver bed occurred in one patient requiring percutaneous drainage. The average maximum colon tumor diameter was 2.9 (range 1.3-4.0) cm. All resection margins were clear. Mean duration of follow-up was 7.5 (range 2-12) months. Conclusions, Simultaneous colectomy and liver metastasectomy with NOSE for colorectal cancer is feasible and safe in highly selected patients, resulting in good postoperative outcomes. This proof-of-concept analysis paves the way for larger studies to draw definitive conclusions.

Predictive modeling algorithms for liver metastasis in colorectal cancer: A systematic review of the current literature.

This study aims to assess the quality and performance of predictive models for colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRCLM). A systematic review was performed to identify relevant studies from various databases. Studies that described or validated predictive models for CRCLM were included. The methodological quality of the predictive models was assessed. Model performance was evaluated by the reported area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Of the 117 articles screened, seven studies comprising 14 predictive models were included. The distribution of included predictive models was as follows: radiomics (n = 3), logistic regression (n = 3), Cox regression (n = 2), nomogram (n = 3), support vector machine (SVM, n = 2), random forest (n = 2), and convolutional neural network (CNN, n = 2). Age, sex, carcinoembryonic antigen, and tumor staging (T and N stage) were the most frequently used clinicopathological predictors for CRCLM. The mean AUCs ranged from 0.697 to 0.870, with 86% of the models demonstrating clear discriminative ability (AUC > 0.70). A hybrid approach combining clinical and radiomic features with SVM provided the best performance, achieving an AUC of 0.870. The overall risk of bias was identified as high in 71% of the included studies. This review highlights the potential of predictive modeling to accurately predict the occurrence of CRCLM. Integrating clinicopathological and radiomic features with machine learning algorithms demonstrates superior predictive capabilities.

Evaluation of the impact of prospective payment systems on cholecystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the impact of prospective payment systems (PPSs) on cholecystectomy. A comprehensive literature review was conducted, examining studies published until December 2023. The review process focused on identifying research across major databases that reported critical outcomes such as length of stay (LOS), mortality, complications, admissions, readmissions, and costs following PPS for cholecystectomy. The studies were specifically selected for their relevance to the impact of PPS or the transition from fee-for-service (FFS) to PPS. The study analyzed six papers, with three eligible for meta-analysis, to assess the impact of the shift from FFS to PPS in laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy procedures. Our findings indicated no significant changes in LOS and mortality rates following the transition from FFS to PPS. Complication rates varied and were influenced by the diagnosis-related group categorization and surgeon cost profiles under episode-based payment. There was a slight increase in admissions and readmissions, and mixed effects on hospital costs and financial margins, suggesting varied responses to PPS for cholecystectomy procedures. The impact of PPS on cholecystectomy is nuanced and varies across different aspects of healthcare delivery. Our findings indicate a need for adaptable, patient-centered PPS models that balance economic efficiency with high-quality patient care. The study emphasizes the importance of considering specific surgical procedures and patient demographics in healthcare payment reforms.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. RESULTS: Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Critical appraisal of surgical margins according to KRAS status in liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: Should surgical strategy be influenced by tumor biology?

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation is a negative prognostic factor for colorectal liver metastases. Several studies have investigated the resection margins according to KRAS status, with conflicting results. The aim of the study was to assess the oncologic outcomes of R0 and R1 resections for colorectal liver metastases according to KRAS status. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2010 and 2015 with available KRAS status were enrolled in this multicentric international cohort study. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the outcomes of R0 and R1 colorectal liver metastases resections according to KRAS status: wild type versus mutated. The primary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: The analysis included 593 patients. KRAS mutation was associated with shorter overall survival (40 vs 60 months; P = .0012) and disease-free survival (15 vs 21 months; P = .003). In KRAS-mutated tumors, the resection margin did not influence oncologic outcomes. In multivariable analysis, the only predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival was primary tumor location (P = .03 and P = .03, respectively). In KRAS wild-type tumors, R0 resection was associated with prolonged overall survival (74 vs 45 months, P < .001) and disease-free survival (30 vs 17 months, P < .001). The multivariable model confirmed that R0 resection margin was associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.03) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS-mutated colorectal liver metastases showed more aggressive tumor biology with inferior overall survival and disease-free survival after liver resection. Although R0 resection was not associated with improved oncologic outcomes in the KRAS-mutated tumors group, it seems to be of paramount importance for achieving prolonged long-term survival in KRAS wild-type tumors.

A machine learning predictive model for recurrence of resected distal cholangiocarcinoma: Development and validation of predictive model using artificial intelligence.

INTRODUCTION: Distal Cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) represents a challenge in hepatobiliary oncology, that requires nuanced post-resection prognostic modeling. Conventional staging criteria may oversimplify dCCA complexities, prompting the exploration of novel prognostic factors and methodologies, including machine learning algorithms. This study aims to develop a machine learning predictive model for recurrence after resected dCCA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective multicentric observational study included patients with dCCA from 13 international centers who underwent curative pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). A LASSO-regularized Cox regression model was used to feature selection, examine the path of the coefficient and create a model to predict recurrence. Internal and external validation and model performance were assessed using the C-index score. Additionally, a web application was developed to enhance the clinical use of the algorithm. RESULTS: Among 654 patients, LNR (Lymph Node Ratio) 15, neural invasion, N stage, surgical radicality, and differentiation grade emerged as significant predictors of disease-free survival (DFS). The model showed the best discrimination capacity with a C-index value of 0.8 (CI 95 %, 0.77%-0.86 %) and highlighted LNR15 as the most influential factor. Internal and external validations showed the model's robustness and discriminative ability with an Area Under the Curve of 92.4 % (95 % CI, 88.2%-94.4 %) and 91.5 % (95 % CI, 88.4%-93.5 %), respectively. The predictive model is available at https://imim.shinyapps.io/LassoCholangioca/. CONCLUSIONS: This study pioneers the integration of machine learning into prognostic modeling for dCCA, yielding a robust predictive model for DFS following PD. The tool can provide information to both patients and healthcare providers, enhancing tailored treatments and follow-up.