Harmonizing Definitions and Perspectives in Extreme Liver Surgery: A Delphi Experts Consensus.

OBJECTIVE: To propose to our community a common language about extreme liver surgery. BACKGROUND: The lack of a clear definition of extreme liver surgery prevents convincing comparisons of results among centers. METHODS: We used a two-round Delphi methodology to quantify consensus among liver surgery experts. For inclusion in the final recommendations, we established a consensus when the positive responses (agree and totally agree) exceeded 70%. The study steering group summarized and reported the recommendations. In general, a five-point Likert scale with a neutral central value was used, and in a few cases multiple choices. Results are displayed as numbers and percentages. RESULTS: A two-round Delphi study was completed by 38 expert surgeons in complex hepatobiliary surgery. The surgeon´s median age was 58 years old (52-63) and the median years of experience was 25 years (20-31). For the proposed definitions of total vascular occlusion, hepatic flow occlusion and inferior vein occlusion, the degree of agreement was 97%, 81% and 84%, respectively. In situ approach (64%) was the preferred, followed by ante situ (22%) and ex situ (14%). Autologous or cadaveric graft for hepatic artery or hepatic vein repair were the most recommended (89%). The use of veno-venous bypass or portocaval shunt revealed the divergence depending on the case. Overall, 75% of the experts agreed with the proposed definition for extreme liver surgery. CONCLUSION: Obtaining a consensus on the definition of extreme liver surgery is essential to guarantee the correct management of patients with highly complex hepatobiliary oncological disease. The management of candidates for extreme liver surgery involves comprehensive care ranging from adequate patient selection to the appropriate surgical strategy.

Parenchyma-Preserving Hepatectomy in Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: A Chance for Critical Patients?

Introduction: Surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) is associated with high rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Extended liver resection (EXT) increases R0 resection rate and survival; however, patients with high perioperative risk are not suitable for extended resection. This study aimed to compare overall survival and surgical morbidity in patients with extended liver resection and parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy (PPH). Methods: Between January 2010 and November 2020, 113 consecutive patients with pCCA underwent surgery at our institution. Eighty-two patients were resected in curative intent. Sixty-four patients received extended liver resection, and 18 patients PPH. Outcomes of resections were evaluated. Results: There was no significant difference in overall survival in patients with PPH compared to extended liver resection (log-rank p = 0.286). Patients with PPH experienced lower rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. There was no case of in-house mortality in PPH-resected patients compared to 10 cases (16%) in patients that received EXT (p = 0.073). Conclusion: PPH shows similar overall survival with lower rates of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our findings support the role of a PPH, in selected patients with pCCA, that are not suitable for extended resection due to increased perioperative risk.

Comparison of the LiMAx test vs. the APRI+ALBI score for clinical utility in preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing liver surgery - A European multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the main reason for short-term mortality after liver surgery. APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), score and the liver function maximum capacity test (LiMAx) are both established preoperative (preop) liver function tests. The aim of this study was to compare both tests for their predictive potential for clinically significant PHLF grade B and C (B+C). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 352 patients were included from 4 European centers. Patients had available preop APRI+ALBI scores and LiMAx results. Predictive potential for PHLF, PHLF B+C and 90-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Published cutoffs of ≥ -2.46 for APRI+ALBI and of <315 for LiMAx were assessed using chi-squared test. RESULTS: APRI+ALBI showed superior predictive potential for PHLF B+C (N = 34; AUC = 0.766), PHLF grade C (N = 20; AUC = 0.782) and 90-day mortality (N = 15; AUC = 0.750). When comparing the established cutoffs of both tests, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx in prediction of PHLF B+C (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: Positive predictive value (PPV) = 19%, negative predictive value (NPV) = 97%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 3%, NPV = 90%) and 90-day mortality (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: PPV = 12%, NPV = 99%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 0%, NPV = 94%) CONCLUSION: In our analysis, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx measurement in the preop prediction of PHLF B+C and postoperative mortality, at a fraction of the costs, manual labor and invasiveness.

Textbook outcome in patients with biliary duct injury during cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy is associated with a complex and heterogeneous management owing to the burden of morbidity until their definitive treatment. This study aimed to define the textbook outcomes (TOs) after BDI with the purpose to indicate the ideal treatment and to improve it management. METHODS: We collected data from patients with an BDI between 1990 and 2022 from 27 hospitals. TO was defined as a successful conservative treatment of the iatrogenic BDI or only minor complications after BDI or patients in whom the first repair resolves the iatrogenic BDI without complications or with minor complications. RESULTS: We included 808 patients and a total of 394 patients (46.9%) achieved TO. Overall complications in TO and non-TO groups were 11.9% and 86%, respectively (P < .001). Major complications and mortality in the non-TO group were 57.4% and 9.2%, respectively. The use of end-to-end bile duct anastomosis repair was higher in the non-TO group (23.1 vs 7.8, P < .001). Factors associated with achieving a TO were injury in a specialized center (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.01; 95% CI, 2.68-5.99; P < .001), transfer for a first repair (aOR, 5.72; 95% CI, 3.51-9.34; P < .001), conservative management (aOR, 5.00; 95% CI, 1.63-15.36; P = .005), or surgical management (aOR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.50-4.00; P < .001). CONCLUSION: TO largely depends on where the BDI is managed and the type of injury. It allows hepatobiliary centers to identify domains of improvement of perioperative management of patients with BDI.