Impact of pancreas transection site on incidence of pancreatic fistula after distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy (DP) is performed for lesions in the body and tail of the pancreas. The morbidity profile is considerable, mainly due to clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF). This study aims to investigate potential differences in CR-POPF related to transection site. METHODS: An observational cohort study from a prospectively maintained database was performed. Subtotal distal pancreatectomy (SDP) was defined as transection over the superior mesenteric vein, and DP was defined as transection lateral to this point. Propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:1 fashion was applied based on demographical and perioperative variables. RESULTS: Six hundred and six patients were included in the analysis (1997-2020). Four hundred twenty (69.3%) underwent DP, while 186 (30.7%) underwent SDP. The rate of CR-POPF was 19.3% after DP and 20.4% after SDP (p = 0.74). SDP was associated with older age (63.1 vs 60.1 years, p = 0.016), higher occurrence of ductal adenocarcinoma (37.1 vs 17.6%, p = 0.001) and more frequent use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (3.8 vs 0.7%, p = 0.012). After PSM, 155 patients were left in each group. The difference in CR-POPF between DP and SDP remained statistically non-significant (20.6 vs 18.7%, p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: This study found no difference in CR-POPF related to transection site during distal pancreatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy in the treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains unclear. This multicenter study examined the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for ICC. METHODS: Patients with ICC who had undergone laparoscopic or open liver resection between 2012 and 2019 at four European expert centers were included in the study. Laparoscopic and open approaches were compared in terms of surgical and oncological outcomes. Propensity score matching was used for minimizing treatment selection bias and adjusting for confounders (age, ASA grade, tumor size, location, number of tumors and underlying liver disease). RESULTS: Of 136 patients, 50 (36.7%) underwent laparoscopic resection, whereas 86 (63.3%) had open surgery. Median tumor size was larger (73.6 vs 55.1 mm, p = 0.01) and the incidence of bi-lobar tumors was higher (36.6 vs 6%, p < 0.01) in patients undergoing open surgery. After propensity score matching baseline characteristics were comparable although open surgery was associated with a larger fraction of major liver resections (74 vs 38%, p < 0.01), lymphadenectomy (60 vs 20%, p < 0.01) and longer operative time (294 vs 209 min, p < 0.01). Tumor characteristics were similar. Laparoscopic resection resulted in less complications (30 vs 52%, p = 0.025), fewer reoperations (4 vs 16%, p = 0.046) and shorter hospital stay (5 vs 8 days, p < 0.01). No differences were found in terms of recurrence, recurrence-free and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection seems to be associated with improved short-term and with similar long-term outcomes compared with open surgery in patients with ICC. However, possible selection criteria for laparoscopic surgery are yet to be defined.

Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A National Registry-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative inflammatory markers were shown to be associated with prognosis following surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer. Yet little evidence exists about their role in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aimed to examine the association between selected preoperative inflammatory markers and outcomes of liver resection for CRLM. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian National Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NORGAST) was used to capture all liver resections performed in Norway within the study period (November 2015-April 2021). Preoperative inflammatory markers were Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR). The impact of these on postoperative outcomes, as well as on survival were studied. RESULTS: Liver resections for CRLM were performed in 1442 patients. Preoperative GPS ≥ 1 and mGPS ≥ 1 were present in 170 (11.8%) and 147 (10.2%) patients, respectively. Both were associated with severe complications but became non-significant in the multivariable model. GPS, mGPS, CAR were significant predictors for overall survival in the univariable analysis, but only CAR remained such in the multivariable model. When stratified by the type of surgical approach, CAR was a significant predictor for survival after open but not laparoscopic liver resections. CONCLUSIONS: GPS, mGPS and CAR have no impact on severe complications after liver resection for CRLM. CAR outperforms GPS and mGPS in predicting overall survival in these patients, especially following open resections. The prognostic significance of CAR in CRLM should be tested against other clinical and pathology parameters relevant for prognosis.

Laparoscopic vs open repair for primary midline ventral hernia: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal operative treatment for umbilical and epigastric hernia, i.e., primary midline ventral hernia (PMVH), is debatable. The most common techniques are the primary suture and open repair with mesh, while laparoscopic approach using intraperitoneally placed onlay mesh (IPOM) is less frequent. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of IPOM in PMVH. Perioperative results, recurrence, pain, and functional status were studied. METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study included consecutive patients with PMVH operated between September 2006 and December 2015. Systematic follow-up was conducted 6 months and 2 and 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-four patients underwent PMVH repair. Open repair without mesh, open repair with mesh, and IPOM were performed in 251 (34.9%), 273 (38%), and 195 (27.1%) patients, respectively. In the unmatched cohort, the incidence of postoperative complications was similar except postoperative seroma, which was more frequent after IPOM. The latter was also associated with longer length of stay. Open repair with mesh was associated with significantly lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM (5.2 vs 18.2 vs 13.8%, p=0.001, respectively). No differences were seen between the groups in terms of visual analog scale used for registering postoperative pain. These observations persisted after applying propensity score matching. In the multivariable analysis, open repair without mesh and IPOM significantly correlated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In PMVH, open repair with mesh is associated with lower recurrence compared with open repair without mesh and IPOM. Pain, postoperative complications (except for seroma), and functional status are similar.

Prognostic Impact of Resection Margin Status in Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Resection margin status is considered one of the few surgeon-controlled parameters affecting prognosis in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While studies mostly focus on resection margins in pancreatoduodenectomy, little is known about their role in distal pancreatectomy (DP). This study aimed to investigate resection margins in DP for PDAC. METHODS: Patients who underwent DP for PDAC between October 2004 and February 2020 were included (n = 124). Resection margins and associated parameters were studied in two consecutive time periods during which different pathology examination protocols were used: non-standardized (period 1: 2004-2014) and standardized (period 2: 2015-2020). Microscopic margin involvement (R1) was defined as ≤1 mm clearance. RESULTS: Laparoscopic and open resections were performed in 117 (94.4%) and 7 (5.6%) patients, respectively. The R1 rate for the entire cohort was 73.4%, increasing from 60.4% in period 1 to 83.1% in period 2 (p = 0.005). A significantly higher R1 rate was observed for the posterior margin (35.8 vs. 70.4%, p < 0.001) and anterior pancreatic surface (based on a 0 mm clearance; 18.9 vs. 35.4%, p = 0.045). Pathology examination period, poorly differentiated PDAC, and vascular invasion were associated with R1 in the multivariable model. Extended DP, positive anterior pancreatic surface, lymph node ratio, perineural invasion, and adjuvant chemotherapy, but not R1, were significant prognostic factors for overall survival in the entire cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Pathology examination is a key determinant of resection margin status following DP for PDAC. A high R1 rate is to be expected when pathology examination is meticulous and standardized. Involvement of the anterior pancreatic surface affects prognosis.

Implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: 23-year experience from a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Distal pancreatectomy is the most common procedure in minimally-invasive pancreatic surgery. Data in the literature suggest that the learning curve flattens after performing up to 30 procedures. However, the exact number remains unclear. METHODS: The implementation and training with laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) in a high-volume center were studied between 1997 and 2020. Perioperative outcomes and factors related to conversion were assessed. The individual experiences of four different surgeons (pioneer and adopters) performing LDP on a regular basis were examined. RESULTS: Six hundred forty LDPs were done accounting for 95% of all distal pancreatectomies performed throughout the study period. Conversion was needed in 14 (2.2%) patients due to intraoperative bleeding or tumor adherence to the major vasculature. Overall morbidity and mortality rates were 35 and 0.6%, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes did not change for any of the surgeons within their first 40 cases. Operative time significantly decreased after the first 80 cases for the pioneer surgeon and did not change afterwards although the proportion of ductal adenocarcinoma increased. Tumor size increased after the first 80 cases for the first adopter without affecting the operative time. CONCLUSIONS: In this nearly unselected cohort, no significant changes in surgical outcomes were observed throughout the first 40 LDPs for different surgeons. The exact number of procedures required to overcome the learning curve is difficult to determine as it seems to depend on patient selection policy and specifics of surgical training at the corresponding center.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in patients with poor physical status.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is advantageous over open surgery in the treatment of benign pancreatic lesions and low-grade malignancies. Yet the evidence on the relationship between comorbidities and the outcomes of LDP remains scarce. METHODS: Patients who had undergone LDP for all indications between April 1997 and December 2019 were included. Preoperative physical status was defined according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) criteria. Perioperative outcomes were compared between the patients with high (ASA III-IV) and low/moderate anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). RESULTS: A total of 605 patients were eligible for analysis including 190 with ASA III-IV and 415 with ASA I-II. The former was associated with older age, male gender, preexisting medical conditions, greater total number of comorbidities and red blood cell transfusion. The rate of medical complications was significantly higher in high-risk patients. Multivariable analysis identified ASA III-IV and operative time as independent predictors for medical complications. Overall/severe morbidity, surgical complications and mortality rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Poor physical status defined as ASA grades III-IV predicts medical complications, but has a limited impact on surgical complications and severe morbidity of LDP. Thus, it should not be considered as a contraindication for LDP.

Does tumor size influence the outcome of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy?

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is a safe procedure, but its role in resection of large pancreatic lesions has been questioned. METHODS: Patients who underwent LDP for pancreatic solitary tumors in 1997-2017 were included in this study. The patients were divided into three groups in accordance with tumor size: <3.5 cm (group I); from 3.5 cm to 7.0 cm (group II), and ≥7 cm (group III). RESULTS: 218, 146 and 58 patients were identified in the groups I, II and III. Median tumor size in the groups I, II and III was 20, 47 and 81.5 mm (p < 0.001). Nine procedures (2.1%) were converted including 1(0.5%), 5(3.4%) and 3(5.2%) in the groups I, II and III (p = 0.036). Median operative time was longer in the group III compared with the groups I and II - 195 vs 158 and 159 min (p = 0.005). Median blood loss did not differ. Regression analysis revealed correlation between tumor size and operative time (R = 0.103; P = 0.035) and no correlation between tumor size and blood loss (R = 0.075; P = 0.125). Hospital stay was 5 days, similar in all groups.Postoperative morbidity was similar - 38.5, 32 and 34% in the group I, II and III. CONCLUSION: LDP can be safely performed laparoscopically with outcomes similar to those for smaller tumors.

Trends in management and outcome of cystic pancreatic lesions - analysis of 322 cases undergoing surgical resection.

Background: Several guidelines for the management of cystic pancreatic lesions (CPL) exists. From 2013, Oslo University Hospital adapted the European consensus guidelines (ECG) in the decision-making as to whether patients should be advised to have resection or observation for CPL. The aims of the study were to assess changes over time in the workup and diagnostic accuracy of resected CPL, and the short-term surgical outcome. Methods: Preoperative radiological workup, clinicopathological characteristics, and perioperative outcomes were retrospectively reviewed in three consecutive time periods (early: 2004-2008, intermediate: 2009-2012, late: 2013-2016). The rate of concordance between the ECG recommendations for resection (ECG+) or observation (ECG-) and the final histological diagnosis were assessed. Results: A total of 322 consecutive patients underwent resection for CPL (early: n = 89, intermediate: n = 108, late: n = 125). The most common diagnoses were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN, 36.0%), serous cystic neoplasm (SCN, 23.9%), mucinous cystic neoplasm (10.6%), pseudocyst (9.6%), solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (7.8%), and cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour (5.3%). The proportion of ECG+ CPL undergoing surgery increased significantly (42.7% vs. 60.7% vs. 70.4%, p < .001). The relative proportion of patients undergoing resection for SCN decreased (38.2% vs. 21.3% vs. 16.0%), whereas it increased for IPMN (31.5% vs. 30.6% vs. 44.0%). The use of magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasound increased. There were no differences in postoperative severe complications (23.0% vs. 23.6%) or 90-day mortality (2.3% vs. 0.8%) between ECG+ and ECG- patients. Conclusion: Several changes in the management of CPL were revealed during time. Adherence to guidelines is important in order to avoid unnecessary surgery for CPL.

Nasogastric Tube on Demand is Rarely Necessary After Pancreatoduodenectomy Within an Enhanced Recovery Pathway.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines for enhanced recovery (ERAS) pathways after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) are available. Routine use of nasogatric tube (NGT) after PD is not recommended. This study aims to evaluate the need for NGT reinsertion after PD performed within an ERAS setting. METHODS: It is a prospective observational study of all patients undergoing PD in a tertiary referral hospital within the study period from 2015 throughout 2016. Pre- and postoperative variables were collected. Patients requiring NGT reinsertion were identified. Comparative analysis of patients with and without a NGT reinsertion was performed, as well as multivariate analysis for risk factors for on-demand NGT reinsertion. RESULTS: Two-hundred and one patients were included. In total, 45 (22.4%) patients required NGT reinsertion after PD. A total of 32 (15.9%) patients underwent a relaparotomy. Reinsertion of NGT in patients not undergoing a relaparotomy occurred in 26 (15.4%) patients. The presence of a major postoperative complication was a risk factor for reinsertion of NGT, OR 5.27 (2.54-10.94, p = 0.001). Patients with the need for a NGT reinsertion had a higher frequency of major postoperative complications and relaparotomy compared to patients without the need of a NGT reinsertion, 26 (57.8%) versus 32 (20.5%), p < 0.001 and 19 (42.2%) versus 13 (8.3%), p < 0.001, respectively. CONCLUSION: Routine use of NGT after PD is not justified within an ERAS setting. Immediate removal of the NGT after the procedure can be performed safely, and reinsertion on demand is rarely necessary in uncomplicated courses.

Laparoscopic liver resection for non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine metastases: perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Liver resection is a treatment of choice for colorectal and neuroendocrine liver metastases, and laparoscopy is an accepted approach for surgical treatment of these patients. The role of liver resection for patients with non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastases (NCNNLM), however, is still disputable. Outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection for this group of patients have not been analyzed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection for NCNNLM at Oslo University Hospital between April 2000 and January 2018 were analyzed. Perioperative and oncologic data of these patients were examined. Postoperative morbidity was classified using the Accordion classification. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Median follow-up was 26 (IQR, 12-41) months. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were identified from a prospectively collected database. The histology of primary tumors was classified as adenocarcinoma (n = 16), sarcoma (n = 4), squamous cell carcinoma (n = 4), melanoma (n = 16), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 9), and adrenocortical carcinoma (n = 2). The median operative time was 147 (IQR, 95-225) min, while the median blood loss was 200 (IQR, 50-500) ml. Nine (18%) patients experienced postoperative complications. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. Thirty-five (68%) patients developed disease recurrence or progression. Seven (14%) patients underwent repeat surgical procedure for recurrent liver metastases. One-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates were 85%, 52%, and 38%, respectively. The median overall survival was 37 (95%CI, 25 to 49) months. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection for NCNNLM results in good outcomes and should be considered in patients selected for surgical treatment.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection in the posterosuperior segments: a sub-group analysis from the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments is technically challenging. This study aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes for laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal liver metastases located in the posterosuperior segments. METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial, where 280 patients were randomly assigned to open or laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resections of colorectal metastases. Patients with tumors in the posterosuperior segments were identified, and perioperative outcomes and health related quality of life (HRQoL) were compared. RESULTS: We identified a total of 136 patients, 62 in the laparoscopic and 74 in the open group. The postoperative complication rate was 26% in the laparoscopic and 31% in the open group. The blood loss was less in the open group (500 vs. 250 ml, P = 0.006), but the perioperative transfusion rate was similar. The operative time was similar, while postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (2 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). HRQoL was significantly better after laparoscopy at 1 month. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing laparoscopic or open liver resection of colorectal liver metastases in the posterosuperior segments, laparoscopic surgery was associated with shorter hospital stay and comparable perioperative outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Stage IV metastatic melanoma carries a poor prognosis. In the case of melanoma liver metastasis (MLM), surgical resection may improve survival and represents a therapeutic option, with varying levels of success. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for metastatic melanoma is poorly studied. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcomes of LLR in patients with MLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2000 and August 2013, 11 (1 cutaneous, 9 ocular and 1 unknown primary) patients underwent LLR for MLM at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet and 13 procedures in total were carried out. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. Postoperative morbidity was classified using the Accordion classification. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 23 liver specimens were resected. The median operative time was 137 (65-470) min, while the median blood loss was less than 50 (<50-900) ml. No intraoperative unfavorable incidents and 30-day mortality occurred. Median follow-up was 33 (9-92) months. Ten patients (91%) developed recurrence within a median of 5 months (2-18 months) and two patients underwent repeat LLR for recurrent liver metastases. One-, three-, and five-year overall survival rates were 82, 45 and 9%, respectively. The median overall survival was 30 (9-92) months. CONCLUSION: Perioperative morbidity and long-term survival after LLR for MLM seems to be comparable to open liver resection. Thus, LLR may be preferred over open liver resection due to the well-known advantages of laparoscopy, such as reduced pain and improved possibility for repeated resections.

Incidence and management of arterial injuries during pancreatectomy.

PURPOSE: The incidence of intraoperative arterial injury during pancreatectomy is not well described. This study aims to evaluate the incidence, management, and outcome of arterial injuries during pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of 1535 consecutive patients undergoing pancreatectomy between 2006 and 2016 at Oslo University Hospital. The type of arterial injury and potential contributing factors were analyzed. Short-term outcomes were compared between patients with arterial injury and patients undergoing a planned arterial resection due to tumor involvement. RESULTS: Arterial injury was diagnosed in 14 patients (incidence 0.91%), while planned arterial resection was performed in 22 patients. The injuries were located in the superior mesenteric artery (n = 5), right hepatic artery (n = 5), common hepatic artery (n = 2), left hepatic artery (n = 1), and celiac trunk (n = 2). The artery was reconstructed in all except one patient. In 11 patients with injury, peripancreatic inflammation, aberrant arterial anatomy, close relationship between tumor and injured artery, or a combination of the three were found. Median estimated blood loss was 1100 ml in both groups. Rate of severe complications (≥ Clavien grade IIIa), comprehensive complication index, and 90-day mortality for patients with intraoperative arterial injury vs planned arterial resection were 43 vs 45% (p = 0.879), median 35.9 vs 21.8 (p = 0.287), and 14.3 vs 4.5% (p = 0.551), respectively. CONCLUSION: Arterial injury during pancreatectomy is an infrequent and manageable complication. Early recognition and primary repair in order to restore arterial liver perfusion may improve outcome. However, the morbidity is high and comparable to patients undergoing a planned arterial resection.

Extended laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for adenocarcinoma in the body and tail of the pancreas: a single-center experience.

PURPOSE: Extended resection is required for pancreatic adenocarcinoma infiltrating adjacent organs and structures. The role of laparoscopy in this setting is unclear. In this study, the outcomes of extended laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (ELDP) for pancreatic body/tail adenocarcinoma were examined. METHODS: Perioperative and oncologic data were analyzed in patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for adenocarcinoma at Oslo University Hospital. ELDP was defined as suggested by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery. The outcomes of ELDP were compared to those following standard LDP (SLDP). RESULTS: From August 2001 to June 2016, 460 consecutive patients underwent LDP for pancreatic neoplasms including 116 (25%) adenocarcinoma. SLDP and ELDP were applied in 78 and 31 patients, respectively. The adrenal gland (33%) and colon (21%) were the most frequently resected organs during ELDP. The latter was associated with larger tumor size (5.5 vs 4 cm, p = 0.03), longer operative time (236 vs 158 min, p = 0.001) and higher conversion rate (16 vs 3%, p = 0.019) compared with SLDP. Morbidity and 90-day mortality were similar. Median follow-up was 18 months. In patients with ductal adenocarcinoma, ELDP (n = 22) was associated with significantly shorter recurrence-free and overall survival than SLDP (n = 59) (6.2 vs 9.6 months, p = 0.047 and 12.9 vs 27 months, p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although technically challenging, ELDP is feasible in patients with adenocarcinoma providing acceptable surgical outcomes. ELDP for ductal adenocarcinoma is associated with worse prognosis than SLDP, while its potential benefits over palliative care deserve further scrutiny.

Can standardized pathology examination increase the lymph node yield following laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy for ductal adenocarcinoma?

BACKGROUND: Lymph node yield (LNY) is an indicator of oncological adequacy of surgery in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Our hypothesis is that standardized pathology examination (SPE) aimed at accurate staging can increase the LNY without changing surgical technique. METHODS: After the introduction of SPE for distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens at Oslo University Hospital, prospective data were collected on patients with PDAC undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy (LDP). Their data were compared with retrospective data from specimens examined in a non-standardized way (NSPE). RESULTS: SPE and NSPE were applied to 20 and 33 specimens, respectively. SPE was associated with a higher LNY and a higher median number of positive lymph nodes (PLN) in the specimen (18 vs 7, P = 0.001 and 4 vs 1, P = 0.005, respectively). In the stepwise regression model, SPE and younger age resulted in an increased LNY. In the logistic regression model, increased LNY and larger tumor size positively correlated with the presence of PLN. CONCLUSION: SPE of distal pancreatosplenectomy specimens is associated with higher LNY in patients with PDAC, which increases the likelihood of detecting PLN and reduces the risk of understaging. These findings also indicate that the LDP technique provides an adequate LNY in patients with PDAC.

Laparoscopic Parenchyma-sparing Liver Resection for Colorectal Metastases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is increasingly performed in specialized centers. While there is a trend towards a parenchyma-sparing strategy in multimodal treatment for CLM, its role is yet unclear. In this study we present short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (LPSLR) at a single center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LLR were performed in 951 procedures between August 1998 and March 2017 at Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Patients who primarily underwent LPSLR for CLM were included in the study. LPSLR was defined as non-anatomic hence the patients who underwent hemihepatectomy and sectionectomy were excluded. Perioperative and oncologic outcomes were analyzed. The Accordion classification was used to grade postoperative complications. The median follow-up was 40 months. RESULTS: 296 patients underwent primary LPSLR for CLM. A single specimen was resected in 204 cases, multiple resections were performed in 92 cases. 5 laparoscopic operations were converted to open. The median operative time was 134 minutes, blood loss was 200 ml and hospital stay was 3 days. There was no 90-day mortality in this study. The postoperative complication rate was 14.5%. 189 patients developed disease recurrence. Recurrence in the liver occurred in 146 patients (49%), of whom 85 patients underwent repeated surgical treatment (liver resection [n = 69], ablation [n = 14] and liver transplantation [n = 2]). Five-year overall survival was 48%, median overall survival was 56 months. CONCLUSIONS: LPSLR of CLM can be performed safely with the good surgical and oncological results. The technique facilitates repeated surgical treatment, which may improve survival for patients with CLM.

Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic neoplasms: the European association for endoscopic surgery clinical consensus conference.

BACKGROUND: Introduced more than 20 years ago, laparoscopic pancreatic surgery (LAPS) has not reached a uniform acceptance among HPB surgeons. As a result, there is no consensus regarding its use in patients with pancreatic neoplasms. This study, organized by the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES), aimed to develop consensus statements and clinical recommendations on the application of LAPS in these patients. METHODS: An international panel of experts was selected based on their clinical and scientific expertise in laparoscopic and open pancreatic surgery. Each panelist performed a critical appraisal of the literature and prepared evidence-based statements assessed by other panelists during Delphi process. The statements were further discussed during a one-day face-to-face meeting followed by the second round of Delphi. Modified statements were presented at the plenary session of the 24th International Congress of the EAES in Amsterdam and in a web-based survey. RESULTS: LAPS included laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD), enucleation, central pancreatectomy, and ultrasound. In general, LAPS was found to be safe, especially in experienced hands, and also advantageous over an open approach in terms of intraoperative blood loss, postoperative recovery, and quality of life. Eighty-five percent or higher proportion of responders agreed with the majority (69.5%) of statements. However, the evidence is predominantly based on retrospective case-control studies and systematic reviews of these studies, clearly affected by selection bias. Furthermore, no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published to date, although four RCTs are currently underway in Europe. CONCLUSIONS: LAPS is currently in its development and exploration stages, as defined by the international IDEAL framework for surgical innovation. LDP is feasible and safe, performed in many centers, while LPD is limited to few centers. RCTs and registry studies are essential to proceed with the assessment of LAPS.

Role of laparoscopic enucleation in the treatment of pancreatic lesions: case series and case-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies report successful application of laparoscopic pancreatic enucleation (LPE). However, the evidence is limited to small series. This study aimed to evaluate the indications, technique and outcome of LPE at a tertiary care institution. METHODS: Between February 1998 and April 2016, 45 consecutive LPEs were performed at Oslo University Hospital-Rikshospitalet. Twenty-four (53.3 %) patients subjected to right-sided LPE (RLPE) were compared with 21 (46.7 %) patients who had undergone left-sided LPE (LLPE). A case-matched analysis (1:2) was performed to compare the outcomes following LLPE and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). RESULTS: Patient demographics, BMI, ASA score and pathological characteristics were similar between the RLPE and LLPE groups. Operative time was slightly longer for RLPE [123 (53-320) vs 102 (50-373) min, P = 0.09]. The rates of severe morbidity (≥Accordion grade III) and clinically relevant pancreatic fistula (grades B/C) were comparable, although with a trend for higher rate of complications following LLPE (16.7 vs 33.3 %; P = 0.19 and 20.8 vs 33.3 %, P = 0.34, respectively). The hospital stay was similar between RLPE and LLPE [5 (2-80) vs 7 (2-52), P = 0.49]. A case-matched analysis demonstrated shorter operating time [145 (90-350) vs 103 (50-233) min, P = 0.02], but higher readmission rate following LLPE (25 vs 3.1 %, P = 0.037). CONCLUSION: LLPE seems to be associated with a higher risk of postoperative morbidity and readmission rates than LDP. RLPE is a feasible, safe approach and a reasonable alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy in selected patients with pancreatic lesions.