Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis has been demonstrated as beneficial. However, the role of laparoscopy in Child-Pugh B cirrhosis is undetermined. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare open and laparoscopic resection for HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. METHODS: Data on liver resections were gathered from 17 centres. A 1 : 1 propensity score matching was performed according to 17 predefined variables. RESULTS: Of 382 available liver resections, 100 laparoscopic and 100 open resections were matched and analysed. The 90-day postoperative mortality rate was similar in open and laparoscopic groups (4.0 versus 2.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.687). Laparoscopy was associated with lower blood loss (median 110 ml versus 400 ml in the open group; P = 0.004), less morbidity (38.0 versus 51.0 per cent respectively; P = 0.041) and fewer major complications (7.0 versus 21.0 per cent; P = 0.010), and ascites was lower on postoperative days 1, 3 and 5. For laparoscopic resections, patients with portal hypertension developed more complications than those without (26 versus 12 per cent respectively; P = 0.002), and patients with a Child-Pugh B9 score had higher morbidity rates than those with B8 and B7 (7 of 8, 10 of 16 and 21 of 76 respectively; P < 0.001). Median hospital stay was 7.5 (range 2-243) days for laparoscopic liver resection and 18 (3-104) days for the open approach (P = 0.058). The 5-year overall survival rate was 47 per cent for open and 65 per cent for laparoscopic resection (P = 0.142). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 32 and 37 per cent respectively (P = 0.742). CONCLUSION: Patients without preoperative portal hypertension and Child-Pugh B7 cirrhosis may benefit most from laparoscopic liver surgery.

Risk-adjusted benchmarks in laparoscopic liver surgery in a national cohort.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the best achievable outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) after risk adjustment based on surgical technical difficulty using a national registry. METHODS: LLRs registered in the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery registry from November 2014 to March 2018 were considered. Benchmarks were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). LLRs at each centre were divided into three clusters (groups I, II and III) based on the Kawaguchi classification. ABCs for overall and major morbidity were calculated in each cluster. Multivariable analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for overall and major morbidity. Significant variables were used in further risk adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 1752 of 2263 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 1096 (62·6 per cent) in group I, 435 (24·8 per cent) in group II and 221 (12·6 per cent) in group III. The ABCs for overall morbidity (7·8, 14·2 and 26·4 per cent for grades I, II and II respectively) and major morbidity (1·4, 2·2 and 5·7 per cent) increased with the difficulty of LLR. Multivariable analysis showed an increased risk of overall morbidity associated with multiple LLRs (odds ratio (OR) 1·35), simultaneous intestinal resection (OR 3·76) and cirrhosis (OR 1·83), and an increased risk of major morbidity with intestinal resection (OR 4·61). ABCs for overall and major morbidity were 14·4 and 3·2 per cent respectively for multiple LLRs, 30 and 11·1 per cent for intestinal resection, and 14·9 and 4·8 per cent for cirrhosis. CONCLUSION: Overall morbidity benchmarks for LLR ranged from 7·8 to 26·4 per cent, and those for major morbidity from 1·4 to 5·7 per cent, depending on complexity. Benchmark values should be adjusted according to multiple LLRs or simultaneous intestinal resection and cirrhosis.

ANTECEDENTES: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar los mejores resultados que se pueden conseguir en la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) después del ajuste por riesgos basado en la dificultad de la técnica quirúrgica utilizando un registro nacional. MÉTODOS: Se consideraron las LLRs incluidas en el Registro del Grupo Italiano de Cirugía Hepática Mínimamente Invasiva desde 11/2014 a 03/2018. Los resultados de referencia (benchmarks) se calcularon de acuerdo con el Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™). Las LLRs de cada uno de los centros se dividieron en 3 grupos (Grupo I, II y III) en base a la clasificación de Kawaguchi. Se calculó el ABC de la morbilidad global y de la morbilidad mayor para cada grupo. Se realizó un análisis multivariable para identificar los factores independientes de riesgos para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor. Se utilizaron variables significativas para realizar ajustes de riesgo adicionales. RESULTADOS: Un total de 1.752 pacientes de los 2.263 cumplían los criterios de inclusión, de los cuales 1.096 (62,6%) se incluyeron en el Grupo I, 435 (24,8%) en el Grupo II y 221 (12,6%) en el Grupo III. El ABC de la morbilidad global (7,8%, 14,2%, 26,4%) y de la morbilidad mayor (1,4%, 2,2%, 5,7%) aumentó del Grupo I al Grupo III. El análisis multivariable mostró un incremento del riesgo para la morbilidad global asociada con múltiples LLRs (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,349), resección intestinal simultánea (OR 3,760) y cirrosis (OR 1,825), y para la morbilidad mayor con la resección intestinal (OR 4,606). Los ABC de la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor fueron 14,4% y 3,2% para las LLR múltiples, 30% y 11% para la resección intestinal, y 14,9% y 4,8% para la cirrosis, respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: Los resultados de referencia (benchmark) para la morbilidad global y morbilidad mayor en la LLR variaron entre un 8% y un 26% y entre un 1,4% y un 5,7%, dependiendo de la complejidad. Los valores de referencia deberían ajustarse de acuerdo con la práctica de LLRs múltiples o resección intestinal simultánea y cirrosis.

Comparison of laparoscopic and open intraoperative ultrasonography for staging liver tumours.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery must reproduce open surgical steps. Intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) is mandatory, but reliability of laparoscopic IOUS has been poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic versus open IOUS in staging liver tumours. METHODS: All patients scheduled for liver resection between September 2009 and March 2011 were considered. Inclusion criteria were primary and metastatic tumours. Exclusion criteria were: hilar/gallbladder cholangiocarcinoma, ten or more lesions, repeat resection, laparoscopic hepatectomy, adhesions and unresectability. Following percutaneous ultrasonography and thoracoabdominal computed tomography (CT), and on indication contrast-enhanced (CE) liver magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT, patients were scheduled for laparoscopy, laparoscopic IOUS, then laparotomy, open IOUS and Partial hepatectomy. Data were collected prospectively. Reference standards were final pathology and 6-month follow-up results. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included, who had a median of 3 preoperative imaging studies (ultrasonography/CT 100 per cent, CE-MRI 67 per cent, PET-CT 54 per cent). A total of 119 lesions were diagnosed. Laparoscopic IOUS detected 22 additional lesions (+18·5 per cent) in 14 patients. Open IOUS detected two additional lesions, but did not confirm four lesions; overall 20 additional lesions (+16·8 per cent) were detected in ten patients. Pathology confirmed 14 newly detected malignant nodules (+11·8 per cent) in eight patients. After 6 months ten new nodules were identified in six patients. The sensitivity of preoperative imaging, laparoscopic IOUS and open IOUS was 83·1, 92·3 and 93·0 per cent respectively; accuracy was 79, 82 and 88 per cent. In comparison with open IOUS, the sensitivity and accuracy of laparoscopic IOUS were 98·6 and 94 per cent. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic IOUS is a reliable tool for staging liver tumours with a performance similar to that of open IOUS in detecting new nodules.

Impact of primary cancer features on behaviour of colorectal liver metastases and survival after hepatectomy.

Background: Markers of tumour biology may be valuable prognostic indicators after hepatic resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLMs). Identification of the aggressiveness of these metastases might inform the appropriateness of hepatic surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing liver resection for CRLMs between January 2001 and July 2013 in four tertiary hospitals were reviewed. A mathematical model to estimate CRLM doubling times was constructed for patients with metachronous metastases. Tumour doubling time was investigated in relation to the features of colorectal cancer, including KRAS status. The hazard rate for recurrence and death following hepatectomy was explored through the Kernel-smoothed estimator. Results: Of 1063 patients undergoing liver resection for CRLMs, 361 with metachronous metastases undergoing single-stage hepatectomy were analysed. The mean doubling time in patients not receiving chemotherapy between surgery for colorectal cancer and CRLM was 71·4 days. Tumour doubling time was shorter in patients with more advanced primary tumour stages, with mutant KRAS and in those who did not receive chemotherapy. For fast-growing CRLMs (doubling time less than 48 days), the risk of recurrence was highest within the first postoperative year, and was about 7 per cent per month. Conclusion: Primary features of colorectal cancer were linked to aggressiveness of CRLMs as measured by doubling time.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis: short- and middle-term results.

BACKGROUND: Liver surgery, especially for cirrhotic patients, is one of the last areas of resistance to progress in laparoscopic surgery. This study compares the postoperative results and the 2-year patient outcomes between laparoscopic and open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with histologically proven cirrhosis. METHODS: From May 2000 to October 2004, 23 consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for HCC were compared in a retrospective analysis with a historic group of 23 patients who underwent open hepatectomy (OH). The two groups were well matched for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class, tumor location and size, type of liver resection, and severity of cirrhosis. The selection criteria for both groups specified a small (size < 5 cm), exophytic, or subcapsular tumor located in the left or peripheral right segments of the liver (II-VI segments, Couinaud); a well-compensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A); and an ASA score lower than 3. In the LH group, 15 subsegmentectomies, 3 segmentectomies, and 5 left lateral sectionectomies were performed, as compared with 12 subsegmentectomies, 5 segmentectomies, and 6 left lateral sectionectomies in the OH group. RESULTS: One patient in the LH group (4.3%) underwent conversion to laparotomy for inadequate exposition. The mean operative time was statistically longer for the LH group (LH, 148 min; OH, 125 min; p = 0.016), whereas blood transfusions (LH, 0%; OH, 17.3%; p = 0.036), Pringle maneuver (LH, 0%; OH, 21.73%; p = 0.017), mean hospital stay (LH, 8.3 days; OH, 12 days; p = 0.047), and postoperative complications (LH, 13%; OH, 47.8%; p = 0.010) were significantly greater in OH group. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality and 2-year survival rates between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows that LH for HCC in properly selected cirrhotic patients results in fewer early postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than the traditional OH. The 2-year survival rate was the same for LH and OH.

Survival prognostic factors of gastro-enteric-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors after primary tumor resection in a single tertiary center: Comparison of gastro-enteric and pancreatic locations.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluated prognostic factors of patients with GEP-NETs after primary tumor resection comparing pancreatic and gastro-enteric locations. METHODS: Patients undergone surgery for primary GEP-NETs between 01/2000 and 03/2012 were considered. All specimens were reclassified according to the WHO 2010 scheme. RESULTS: A total of 83 patients were considered: 37 pancreatic NETs (pNET) and 46 gastroenteric NETs (GE-NET). The two groups were similar in terms of age, sex and tumors size. A higher rate of patients with pNETs had Ki67 score ≥3 (64.8% vs. 39%, p = 0.027) while the rates of Mitotic Index ≥2x10HPF (62% pNET vs. 50% GE-NET, p = 0.374) and diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma NEC (16.2% pNET vs. 17.3% GE-NET, p = 0.100) were similar. The rates of distant metastases (GE-NETs 30.4% vs. p-NETs 29.7%, p = 0.944) and liver metastases (19.5% GE-NET vs. 27% pNET, p = 0.421) were comparable. Radical resection was achieved in a similar proportion in both groups [33 patients (89.1%) pNET vs. 36 (78.2%) GE-NET, p = 0.393]. After a median follow-up of 47.1 months overall 3, 5 and 10-years survival rates of whole patients were 88.1%, 81.2% and 76.7%. There was not difference on 5-years overall survival between pNET (81.4%) and GE-NET (81%, p = 0.901). At multivariate analysis age ≥70 [OR 4.177 (CI 95% 1.26-13.8), p = 0.019] and NEC [OR 5.932 (CI 95% 1.81-19.40), p < 0.001] were negative prognostic factors of survival. CONCLUSION: Overall survival of GEP-NET after resection of primary tumors seems to be correlated to patient's age and WHO 2010 staging system but not to primary tumor site.

Locally advanced gallbladder cancer: which patients benefit from resection?

OBJECTIVES: Patients with T3-4 gallbladder cancers (GBCs) often require extended surgical procedures, and up to 30% of patients have N2 metastases. This study investigated which patients with T3-4 GBC benefit from resection. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 78) with T3-4 GBC who underwent resection between 1990 and 2011 were analysed (38 before 2003, 40 in 2003-2011). Forty patients required common bile duct (CBD) resection, 10 pancreatoduodenectomy, 4 right colectomy and 2 gastric resection. Fifty-two (67%) patients had LN metastases, including 22 with N2 metastases. RESULTS: The in-hospital mortality rate was 8%, 11% before 2003 vs. 5% in 2003-2011. The morbidity rate (47%) remained stable during the study. Undergoing liver and pancreatic resection did not increase severe morbidity (0%) or mortality (10%). Sixty-seven (86%) patients had R0 resection. The 5-year survival rate was 17% (median follow-up, 65 months). Survival improved after 2002 (26% vs. 9%, p = 0.04). R1 patients had poor 3-year survival (0% vs. 32%, p = 0.001). N+ patients also had low survival (5-year survival, 10% vs. 32% in N0, p = 0.019), but N1 and N2 patients had similar outcomes. CBD resection and major hepatectomy did not worsen prognosis. Patients requiring pancreatoduodenectomy, gastric or colonic resection had 0% 3-year survival (p = 0.036 in multivariate analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Resection of T3-4 GBC is worthwhile only if R0 surgery is achievable. Outcomes improved in most recent years. N2 metastases should not preclude surgery. Good results are possible even with CBD resection or major hepatectomy, while benefits from surgery are doubtful if pancreatoduodenectomy or other organ resection is needed.

Impact of perioperative symbiotic therapy on infectious morbidity after Hpb Surgery in jaundiced patients: a randomized controlled trial.

This study aimed at evaluating whether the administration of symbiotic therapy in jaundiced patients could reduce their postoperative infectious complications. The study was conducted between November 2008 and February 2011. Jaundiced patients scheduled for elective extrahepatic bile duct resection without liver cirrhosis, intestinal malabsorption or intolerance to symbiotic therapy were randomly assigned to receive [Group A] or not [Group B] symbiotics perioperatively. The primary endpoint was the infectious morbidity rate. Forty patients were included in the analysis (20 in each group). The patients in Group B presented a higher overall morbidity (70 vs 50%) and infectious morbidity rate (50 vs 25%), but the differences were not significant. Eleven patients in Group A (Group ndA) and 13 in Group B (Group ndB) did not receive preoperative biliary drainage. The results of the two groups were comparable. Infectious complications were higher in Group B [5 (34%) vs 0, p = 0.030], while the prevalence of natural killer (NK) cells was higher in Group ndA the day before surgery (17% ± 5.1 vs 10% ± 5.3, p < 0.01) and on post-operative day (POD) 7 (13.1% ± 4.1 vs 7.7% ± 3.4, p < 0.01). The rates of lymph node colonization were similar. The symbiotic therapy failed to reduce the rate of infectious morbidity in jaundiced patients. Further studies investigating the place of symbiotic in no-drainage patients are required.