Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic extended hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains restricted to a few specialized centers and poses a challenge to surgeons performing laparoscopic resections. Laparoscopic extended resections are even more complex and rarely conducted. METHODS: From a single-institution database, we compared the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent major and extended laparoscopic resections, stratifying the entire retrospective cohort into four groups: right hepatectomy, left hepatectomy, right extended hepatectomy, and left extended hepatectomy. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative variables, and especially postoperative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: 250 patients underwent major and extended laparoscopic liver resections, including 160 right, 31 right extended, 36 left, and 23 left extended laparoscopic hepatectomies. The most common indication for resection was colorectal liver metastases (64%). Laparoscopic extended hepatectomy (LEH) showed significantly longer operative time, more blood loss, need for Pringle maneuver, conversion to open surgery, higher rates of liver failure, postoperative ascites, and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, R1 margins and length of stay when compared with the LMH group. Mortality rates were similar between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed intraoperative blood transfusion (OR = 5.1[CI-95%: 1.15-6.79]; p = 0.02) as an independent predictor for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: LEH showed to be feasible, however with higher blood loss and significantly associated to major complications.

Defining Benchmark Outcomes for Distal Pancreatectomy: Results of a French Multicentric Study.

OBJECTIVE: Defining robust and standardized outcome references for distal pancreatectomy (DP) by using Benchmark analysis. BACKGROUND: Outcomes after DP are recorded in medium or small-sized studies without standardized analysis. Therefore, the best results remain uncertain. METHODS: This multicenter study included all patients undergoing DP for resectable benign or malignant tumors in 21 French expert centers in pancreas surgery from 2014 to 2018. A low-risk cohort defined by no significant comorbidities was analyzed to establish 18 outcome benchmarks for DP. These values were tested in high risk, minimally invasive and benign tumor cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 1188 patients were identified and 749 low-risk patients were screened to establish Benchmark cut-offs. Therefore, Benchmark rate for mini-invasive approach was ≥36.8%. Benchmark cut-offs for postoperative mortality, major morbidity grade ≥3a and clinically significant pancreatic fistula rates were 0%, ≤27%, and ≤28%, respectively. The benchmark rate for readmission was ≤16%. For patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cut-offs were ≥75%, ≥69.5%, and ≥66% for free resection margins (R0), 1-year disease-free survival and 3-year overall survival, respectively. The rate of mini-invasive approach in high-risk cohort was lower than the Benchmark cut-off (34.1% vs ≥36.8%). All Benchmark cut-offs were respected for benign tumor group. The proportion of benchmark cases was correlated to outcomes of DP. Centers with a majority of low-risk patients had worse results than those operating complex cases. CONCLUSION: This large-scale study is the first benchmark analysis of DP outcomes and provides robust and standardized data. This may allow for comparisons between surgeons, centers, studies, and surgical techniques.

Assessing textbook outcome after single large hepatocellular carcinoma resection.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the impact and predictors of an ideal surgical care following SLHCC resection. METHODS: SLHCC patients who underwent LR in two tertiary hepatobiliary centers between 2000 and 2021 were retrieved from prospectively maintained databases. The quality of surgical care was measured by the textbook outcome (TO). Tumor burden was defined by the tumor burden score (TBS). Factors associated with TO were determined on multivariate analysis. The impact of TO on oncological outcomes was assessed using Cox regressions. RESULTS: Overall, 103 SLHCC patients were included. Laparoscopic approach was considered in 65 (63.1%) patients and 79 (76.7%) patients presented with moderate TBS. TO was achieved in 54 (52.4%) patients. Laparoscopic approach was independently associated with TO (OR 2.57; 95% CI 1.03-6.64; p = 0.045). Within 19 (6-38) months of median follow up, patients who achieved TO had better OS compared to non-TO patients (1-year OS: 91.7% vs. 66.9%; 5-year OS: 83.4% vs. 37.0%, p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, TO was independently associated with improved OS, especially in non-cirrhotic patients (HR 0.11; 95% CI 0.02-0.52, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: TO achievement could be a relevant surrogate marker of improved oncological care following SLHCC resection in non-cirrhotic patients.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups. RESULTS: During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)). CONCLUSION: Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

Predictors of discharge timing and unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of discharge timing and 90-day unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: Consecutive LLR performed at the "Institut Mutualiste Montsouris" between 2000 and 2019 were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Length of stay (LOS) was stratified according to surgical difficulty and was categorized as early (LOS<25th percentile), routine (25th percentile<75th percentile), and delayed discharge otherwise. Uni-and-multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with the time of discharge and 90-day unplanned readmission. RESULTS: Early discharge occurred in 15.7% patients whereas delayed discharge occurred in 20.6% patients. Concomitant pancreatic resections (OR 26.8, 95% CI 5.75-125, p < 0.0001) and removal of colorectal primary tumors (OR 7.14, 95% CI 3.98-12.8, p < 0.0001) were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge whereas ERP implementation was the strongest predictor of early discharge (OR 7.4, 95% CI 4.60-11.9, p < 0.0001). Unplanned readmission rate was lower among early discharged patients (7.4% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.0001). Bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.12-15.8, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Concomitant colorectal or pancreatic resections were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge. Postoperative bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission following LLR.

Predictive ability of preoperative CT scan for the intraoperative difficulty and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: The surgical difficulty and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are related to the size of the cut liver surface. This study assessed whether the estimated parenchymal transection surface area could predict intraoperative difficulty and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: LLRs performed between 2008 and 2018, for whom a preoperative CT scan was available for 3D review, were included in the study. The area of scheduled parenchymal transection was measured on the preoperative CT scan and cut-off values that could predict intraoperative difficulty were analyzed. RESULTS: 152 patients who underwent left lateral sectionectomy (n = 27, median estimated area 30.1 cm2 [range 16.6-65.9]), left/right hepatectomy (n = 17 and n = 70, 76.8 cm2 [range 43.9-150.9] and 72.2 cm2 [range 39.4-124.9], respectively), right posterior sectionectomy (n = 7, 113.3 cm2 [range 102.1-136.3]), central hepatectomy (n = 11, 109.1 cm2 [range 66.1-186.1]) and extended left/right hepatectomy (n = 6 and n = 14, 115.3 cm2 [range 92.9-128.9] and 50.7 cm2 [range 13.3-74.9], respectively) were included. An estimated parenchymal transection surface area ≥ 100 cm2 was associated with significant increase in operative time (AUC 0.81, 95% CI [0.70, 0.93], p < 0.001) and estimated blood loss (AUC 0.92, 95% CI [0.86, 0.97], p < 0.001), as well as a higher conversion rate (22.2% vs. 4.0%, p < 0.001). Overall (p = 0.017) and major morbidity (p = 0.003), biliary leakage (p < 0.001) and pulmonary complications (p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with an estimated parenchymal transection surface area ≥ 100 cm2. CONCLUSIONS: An estimated parenchymal transection surface area ≥ 100 cm2 is a relevant indicator of surgical difficulty and postoperative complications in LLR.

Analysis of economic impact of laparoscopic liver resection according to surgical difficulty.

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are well known, but their financial costs are poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic impact of surgical difficulty on LLR costs, and to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. METHODS: All patients who underwent LLR from 2014 to 2018 in a single French center were included. The IMM classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from group I through group III. The costing method was done combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were included (Group I: n = 136 (50%), Group II: n = 60 (22%), Group III: n = 74 (28%)). Total expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III, but there was no difference regarding financial income (p = 0.133). Technical platform expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III and represented the main expense among all costs with a total of 4 930 ± 2 601€. Among technical platform expenses, the anesthesia platform represented the main expense. In multivariate analysis, the four clinical factors that affected global charges in the whole study population were operating time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), admission in ICU (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of major complication (p < 0.05). An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that affected most global charges, as an ICU stay had a 39.1% increase effect on global charges in the whole study population. CONCLUSION: LLR is a cost-effective procedure. The more complex is the LLR, the higher is the hospital cost. An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that most affected global charges.

Team Strategy Optimization in Combined Resections for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases. A Comparative Study with Bootstrapping Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes and to evaluate factors influencing rative morbidity and adoption of minimally invasive technique in 1-team (1-T) versus two teams (2-T) management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Within four referral centers, a group of 234 patients treated in 1-T centers was identified and compared with a group of 253 patients treated in 2-T. A nonparametric bootstrap process was applied to the original cohorts of 1-T group and 2-T group as a resampling method to obtain bootstrapped cohorts (155 patients per group). RESULTS: 33.5% of patients in 1-T boot group and 38.1% in the 2-T boot group were operated by laparoscopic approach. Multivariate analysis revealed that approach to primary tumor (laparoscopic or open) and intraoperative blood loss were independent prognostic factors for morbidity. Team approach did not show any significant correlation with incidence of postoperative complications nor with choice for laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSION: The optimization of team strategy for patients with SCRLM is not solely based on the adoption of a 1-T or 2-T approach, but should instead be based on the implementation of a standard protocol for management of these patients.

Local excision of low rectal cancer treated by chemoradiotherapy: is it safe for all patients with suspicion of complete tumor response?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to assess if local excision (LE) could be proposed if suspicion of complete tumor response (CR) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for low rectal cancer (LRC) and this despite a potential risk of nodes (N+) or other tumor deposits (OTD) left in place. The aim was to assess in patients with LRC treated by CRT: (a) pathologic results of LE and total mesorectal excision (TME) in case of preoperative suspicion of CR and (b) the risk of N+ or OTD on TME if ypT0-Tis-T1 tumor. PATIENTS: Among 202 patients with LRC after CRT, 33 (16 %) with suspicion of CR underwent LE (n = 20) because of comorbidities and/or indication of definitive stoma or TME (n = 13). Pathologic examination of LE and TME specimens and oncological outcomes were assessed. Furthermore, 40/202 patients with pathologic CR on TME specimen (ypT0-Tis-T1) were assessed for possible N+ or OTD. RESULTS: In the 33 patients with suspicion of CR: (a) after LE, tumor was ypT0-Tis-T1 in only 15/20 cases (75 %); (b) after TME, tumor was ypT0-Tis-T1 in only 7/13 cases (54 %). Among 40 patients with ypT0-Tis-T1 tumor on TME specimen, 4 (10 %) presented N+ and/or OTD. CONCLUSION: In LRC with suspicion of CR after CRT, LE deserves a word of caution: 25 % of patients have in fact ypT2-T3 tumors. Furthermore, in patients with ypT0-Tis or T1 on TME specimen, a 10 % risk of N+ and/or ODT is observed. Thus, patient with suspicion of CR after CRT and treated by LE is exposed to a possible incomplete oncologic treatment.

Debulking hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: Analysis of risk factors for progression free survival.

BACKGROUND: The study explores the role of liver debulking surgery in cases of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), challenging the traditional notion that surgery is not a valid option in such scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced but resectable disease who underwent surgery with a curative intent (Group I) and those with advanced incompletely resectable disease who underwent a "debulking" hepatectomy (Group II) were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in the intra-operative and post-operative results between the two groups. The 3-year and 5-year OS rates were 69% and 47% for group 1 vs 64% and 35% for group 2 respectively (p = 0.14). The 3-year and 5-year PFS rates were 32% and 21% for group 1 vs 12% and 8% for group 2 respectively (p = 0.009). Independent predictors of PFS in the debulking group were bilobar metastases (HR = 2.70; p = 0.02); the presence of extrahepatic metastasis (HR = 2.65, p = 0.03) and the presence of more than 9 metastases (HR = 2.37; p = 0.04). Iterative liver surgery for CRLM was a significant protective factor (HR = 0.34, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: An aggressive palliative surgical approach may offer a survival benefit for selected patients with unresectable CRLM, without increasing the morbidity. The decision for surgery should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Predictive value of C-reactive protein for postoperative liver-specific surgical site infections.

BACKGROUND: C-reactive protein is a useful biological tool to predict infectious complications, but its predictive value in detecting organ-specific surgical site infection after liver resection has never been studied. We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of c-reactive protein and determine the cut-off values to detect postoperative liver resection-surgical site infection. METHODS: A multicentric analysis of consecutive patients with liver resection between 2018 and 2021 was performed. The predictive value of postoperative day 1, postoperative day 3, and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein levels was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Cut-off values were determined using the Youden index in a 500-fold bootstrap resampling of 500 patients treated at 3 centers, who comprised the development cohort and were tested in an external independent validation cohort of 166 patients at a fourth center. RESULTS: Among the 500 patients who underwent liver resection of the development cohort, liver resection-surgical site infection occurred in 66 patients (13.2%), and the median time to diagnosis was 6.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0-9.0) days. Median C-reactive protein levels were significantly higher on postoperative day 1, postoperative day 3, and postoperative day 5 in the liver resection-surgical site infection group compared with the non-surgical site infection group (50.5 vs 34.5 ng/mL, 148.0 vs 72.5 ng/mL, and 128.4 vs 35.2 ng/mL, respectively; P < .001). Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein-level area under the curve values were 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.88, P < .001) and 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.92, P < .001), respectively. Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 optimal cut-off values of 100 mg/L and 87.0 mg/L could be used to rule out liver resection-surgical site infection, with a negative predictive value of 87.0% (interquartile range, 70.2-93.8) and 76.0% (interquartile range, 65.0-88.0), respectively, in the validation cohort. CONCLUSION: Postoperative day 3 and postoperative day 5 C-reactive protein levels may be valuable predictive tools for liver resection-surgical site infection and aid in hospital discharge decision-making in the absence of other liver-related complications.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A propensity score matched multicentric comparative French study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery has gained momentum for left pancreatic resections. However, debate remains about whether it has any advantage over open surgery for distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: This retrospective review examined pancreatectomies performed for resectable pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors at 21 centers in France between January 2014 and December 2018. Short and long-term outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching based on tumor size, sex, age, body mass index, center, and method of pancreatic transection. RESULTS: During the period study, 274 patients underwent left pancreatic resection for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [109 underwent distal splenopancreatectomy, and 165 underwent spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy [(splenic vessel preservation (n = 97; 58.7%)/splenic vessel resection (n = 68; 41.3%)]. Before propensity score matching, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a lower rate of major morbidity (P = .004), lower rate of postoperative delayed gastric emptying (P = .04), and higher rate of "textbook" outcomes (P = .04). After propensity score matching, there were 2 groups of 54 patients (n = 30 distal splenopancreatectomy; n = 78 spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with less blood loss (P = .05), decreased rate of major morbidity (6% vs. 24%; P = .02), less delayed gastric emptying (P = .05) despite similar rates of postoperative fistula, hemorrhage, and reoperation (P > .05). The 5-year overall survival (79% vs. 75%; P = .74) and recurrence-free survival (10% vs 17%; P = .39) were similar. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgery for left pancreatic resection can be safely proposed for patients with resectable left pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Minimally invasive surgery decreases the rate of major complications while providing comparable long-term oncologic outcomes.

Conditional cumulative incidence of postoperative complications stratified by complexity classification for laparoscopic liver resection: Optimization of in-hospital observation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal in-hospital observation periods associated with minimal risks of complications and unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection are unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in the risks of postoperative complications over time. METHODS: Surgical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection was stratified into grades I (low complexity), II (intermediate), and III (high) using our 3-level complexity classification. The cumulative incidence rate and conditional probability of postoperative complication and risk factors for complication Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II (defined as treatment-requiring complications) were assessed. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of treatment-requiring complications was higher in patients undergoing grade III resection than in patients undergoing grade I resection (32.3% vs 10.4%, P < .001) and grade II resection (32.3% vs 20.7%, P = .019). The conditional probability of postoperative complication stratified by our complexity classification decreased over time and was <10% for patients undergoing grade I resection on postoperative day 1, grade II resection on postoperative day 4, and grade III resection on postoperative day 10. CONCLUSION: The conditional cumulative incidence of treatment-requiring complications for patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection is well stratified based on the 3-level complexity classification. Conditional complication risk analysis stratified by the 3 complexity grades may be useful for optimizing in-hospital observation after laparoscopic liver resection.

Pure abdominal laparoscopic approach versus thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic approach: What is the best technique for liver resection in segment 7 and segment 8? An answer from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris experience with short- and long-term outcome evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lesions in segments 7 and 8 are a challenge during standard laparoscopic liver resection. The addition of transthoracic trocars could be useful in the standard abdominal approach for laparoscopic liver resection. We report our experience with a thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach for liver resection with the aim of comparing short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed 1,003 laparoscopic liver resections in a prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We compared patient outcomes intraoperatively and postoperatively. We analyzed the long-term outcomes of the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. Propensity score matching 1:1 was performed based on the following variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, multiple or single liver resection, lesion >50 mm or <50 mm, presence of solitary or multiple lesions, T stage, and N stage. RESULTS: The standard abdominal approach was used in 110 laparoscopic liver resections, and the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was used in 62 laparoscopic liver resections. The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was associated with better intraoperative results (less blood loss and no need for conversion to open surgery). The R1s rate for segmentectomy 7 and 8 was lower in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in the entire group and in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. In the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup, the 3- and 5-year overall survival was 90% and 80% in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach group and 76% and 52% in the standard abdominal approach group, respectively (P = .02). In univariate and multivariate analysis, the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was a significant factor that positively affected disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in laparoscopic liver resection in segments 7 and 8 is safe and feasible, and it has demonstrated better oncologic outcomes than the pure abdominal approach, especially in segmentectomy.

Oncological Outcome After Laparoscopic 'No-touch' RAMPS Versus 'Touch' Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The validity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still unclear. However, a meticulous surgical dissection through a "no-touch" technique might allow a radical oncological resection with minimal risk of tumor dissemination and seeding. This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic "no touch" technique versus the "touch" technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 45 patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC in two centers. Factors associated with overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were identified. RESULTS: The OS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 95% vs. 78% (1-year OS); 50% vs. 50% (3-year OS), respectively (p=0.60). The DFS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 72 % vs. 57% (1-year DFS); 32% vs. 28% (3-year DFS), respectively (p=0.11). The TTR rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 77% vs. 61% (1-year TTR); 54% vs. 30% (3-year TTR); 46% vs. 11% (5-year TTR); respectively (p=0.02) In multivariate analysis the only factors were Touch technique [odds ratio (OR)=2.62, p=0.02] and lymphovascular emboli (OR=4.8; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: We advise the 'no-touch' technique in patients with resectable PDAC in the pancreatic body and tail. Although this study does not provide definitive proof of superiority, no apparent downsides are present for the 'no-touch' technique in this setting although there could be oncological benefits.

Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty. METHODS: From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion. RESULTS: Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f2 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f2 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f2 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85). CONCLUSION: The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.

When Should We Propose Liver Transplant After Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Comparison of Salvage and De Principe Strategies.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare survival outcomes in patients enlisted for liver transplantation following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma before or at recurrence. METHODS: All patients enlisted for liver transplantation following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma from 1996 to 2013 were included and compared according to their status at the time of enlistment: before (de principe) or at (salvage) recurrence. Primary end-point was survival since resection. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-one patients were enlisted for liver transplantation following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ten patients enlisted for cirrhosis decompensation were excluded from the analysis. Sixty-three patients were enlisted de principe, and 48 for a salvage transplantation. Eleven patients dropped-out. According to per-protocol analysis, the mean diameter of the largest tumor was the only different pathological characteristic of initial resection between groups (31.6 mm in the de principe group versus 48.3 in the salvage, p = 0.017). The 5-year overall survival rate was significantly increased in the de principe group compared to salvage (84.6 versus 74.8%, p = 0.017). In a multivariate analysis, the salvage strategy was the only independent prognostic factor for death (p = 0.040; OR = 2.5 [1.1-5.8]). CONCLUSION: De principe enlistment for liver transplantation following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma is associated with greater survival.