Differential involvement of mitochondria in post-tetanic potentiation at intracortical excitatory synapses of the medial prefrontal cortex.

Post-tetanic Ca2+ release from mitochondria produces presynaptic residual calcium, which contributes to post-tetanic potentiation. The loss of mitochondria-dependent post-tetanic potentiation is one of the earliest signs of Alzheimer's model mice. Post-tetanic potentiation at intracortical synapses of medial prefrontal cortex has been implicated in working memory. Although mitochondrial contribution to post-tetanic potentiation differs depending on synapse types, it is unknown which synapse types express mitochondria-dependent post-tetanic potentiation in the medial prefrontal cortex. We studied expression of mitochondria-dependent post-tetanic potentiation at different intracortical synapses of the rat medial prefrontal cortex. Post-tetanic potentiation occurred only at intracortical synapses onto layer 5 corticopontine cells from commissural cells and L2/3 pyramidal neurons. Among post-tetanic potentiation-expressing synapses, L2/3-corticopontine synapses in the prelimbic cortex were unique in that post-tetanic potentiation depends on mitochondria because post-tetanic potentiation at corresponding synapse types in other cortical areas was independent of mitochondria. Supporting mitochondria-dependent post-tetanic potentiation at L2/3-to-corticopontine synapses, mitochondria-dependent residual calcium at the axon terminals of L2/3 pyramidal neurons was significantly larger than that at commissural and corticopontine cells. Moreover, post-tetanic potentiation at L2/3-corticopontine synapses, but not at commissural-corticopontine synapses, was impaired in the young adult Alzheimer's model mice. These results would provide a knowledge base for comprehending synaptic mechanisms that underlies the initial clinical signs of neurodegenerative disorders.

Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. BACKGROUND: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. CONCLUSIONS: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR.

Propensity Score-matched Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Minor Liver Resections of the Anterolateral Segments: an International Multi-center Study of 10,517 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of robotic minor liver resections (RMLR) versus laparoscopic (L) MLR of the anterolateral segments. BACKGROUND: Robotic liver surgery has been gaining prominence over the years with increasing usage for a myriad of hepatic resections. Robotic liver resections(RLR) has demonstrated non-inferiority to laparoscopic(L)LR while illustrating advantages over conventional laparoscopy especially for technically difficult and major LR. However, the advantage of RMLR for the anterolateral(AL) (segments II, III, IVb, V and VI) segments, has not been clearly demonstrated. METHODS: Between 2008 to 2022, 15,356 of 29,861 patients from 68 international centres underwent robotic(R) or laparoscopic minor liver resections (LMLR) for the AL segments Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for matched analysis. RESULTS: 10,517 patients met the study criteria of which 1,481 underwent RMLR and 9,036 underwent LMLR. A PSM cohort of 1,401 patients in each group were identified for analysis. Compared to the LMLR cohort, the RMLR cohort demonstrated significantly lower median blood loss (75ml vs. 100ml, P<0.001), decreased blood transfusion (3.1% vs. 5.4%, P=0.003), lower incidence of major morbidity (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P=0.004), lower proportion of open conversion (1.2% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001), shorter post operative stay (4 days vs. 5 days, P<0.001), but higher rate of 30-day readmission (3.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.042). These results were then validated by a 1:2 PSM analysis. In the subset analysis for 3,614 patients with cirrhosis, RMLR showed lower median blood loss, decreased blood transfusion, lower open conversion and shorter post operative stay than LMLR. CONCLUSION: RMLR demonstrated statistically significant advantages over LMLR even for resections in the AL segments although most of the observed clinical differences were minimal.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Right Posterior Sectionectomy/H67: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish global benchmark outcomes indicators for L-RPS/H67. BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections has seen an increase in uptake in recent years. Over time, challenging procedures as laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies (L-RPS)/H67 are also increasingly adopted. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 854 patients undergoing minimally invasive RPS (MI-RPS) in 57 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2021. There were 651 pure L-RPS and 160 robotic RPS (R-RPS). Sixteen outcome indicators of low-risk L-RPS cases were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. The 75th percentile of individual center medians for a given outcome indicator was set as the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: There were 573 L-RPS/H67 performed in 43 expert centers, of which 254 L-RPS/H67 (44.3%) cases qualified as low risk benchmark cases. The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, 90-day mortality and textbook outcome after L-RPS were 350.8 minutes, 12.5%, 53.8%, 22.9%, 23.8%, 2.8%, 0% and 4% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present study established the first global benchmark values for L-RPS/H6/7. The benchmark provided an up-to-date reference of best achievable outcomes for surgical auditing and benchmarking.

Factors Associated with and Impact of Open Conversion in Laparoscopic and Robotic Minor Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study of 10,541 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the increasing widespread adoption and experience in minimally invasive liver resections (MILR), open conversion occurs not uncommonly even with minor resections and as been reported to be associated with inferior outcomes. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes of open conversion in patients undergoing minor hepatectomies. We also studied the impact of approach (laparoscopic or robotic) on outcomes. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of 20,019 patients who underwent RLR and LLR across 50 international centers between 2004-2020. Risk factors for and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analysed. Multivariate and propensity score-matched analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Finally, 10,541 patients undergoing either laparoscopic (LLR; 89.1%) or robotic (RLR; 10.9%) minor liver resections (wedge resections, segmentectomies) were included. Multivariate analysis identified LLR, earlier period of MILR, malignant pathology, cirrhosis, portal hypertension, previous abdominal surgery, larger tumor size, and posterosuperior location as significant independent predictors of open conversion. The most common reason for conversion was technical issues (44.7%), followed by bleeding (27.2%), and oncological reasons (22.3%). After propensity score matching (PSM) of baseline characteristics, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with successful MILR cases as evidenced by longer operative times, more blood loss, higher requirement for perioperative transfusion, longer duration of hospitalization and higher morbidity, reoperation, and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors were associated with conversion of MILR even for minor hepatectomies, and open conversion was associated with significantly poorer perioperative outcomes.

Impact of Liver Cirrhosis, Severity of Cirrhosis, and Portal Hypertension on the Difficulty and Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Robotic Major Liver Resections for Primary Liver Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) offer potential benefits such as reduced blood loss and morbidity compared with open liver resections. Several studies have suggested that the impact of cirrhosis differs according to the extent and complexity of resection. Our aim was to investigate the impact of cirrhosis on the difficulty and outcomes of MILR, focusing on major hepatectomies. METHODS: A total of 2534 patients undergoing minimally invasive major hepatectomies (MIMH) for primary malignancies across 58 centers worldwide were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score (PSM) and coarsened exact matching (CEM) were used to compare patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 1353 patients (53%) had no cirrhosis, 1065 (42%) had Child-Pugh A and 116 (4%) had Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. Matched comparison between non-cirrhotics vs Child-Pugh A cirrhosis demonstrated comparable blood loss. However, after PSM, postoperative morbidity and length of hospitalization was significantly greater in Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, but these were not statistically significant with CEM. Comparison between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis demonstrated the latter had significantly higher transfusion rates and longer hospitalization after PSM, but not after CEM. Comparison of patients with cirrhosis of all grades with and without portal hypertension demonstrated no significant difference in all major perioperative outcomes after PSM and CEM. CONCLUSIONS: The presence and severity of cirrhosis affected the difficulty and impacted the outcomes of MIMH, resulting in higher blood transfusion rates, increased postoperative morbidity, and longer hospitalization in patients with more advanced cirrhosis. As such, future difficulty scoring systems for MIMH should incorporate liver cirrhosis and its severity as variables.

Extracellular PPM1A promotes mineralization of osteoblasts differentiation in ankylosing spondylitis via the FOXO1A-RUNX2 pathway.

Protein phosphatase magnesium-dependent 1A (PPM1A), serine/threonine protein phosphatase, in sera level was increased in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Preosteoblasts were differentiated actively to matured osteoblasts by intracellular PPM1A overexpression. However, it was unclear whether extracellular PPM1A contributes to the excessive bone-forming activity in AS. Here, we confirmed that PPM1A and runt-related transcription factor 2 (RUNX2) were increased in facet joints of AS. During osteoblasts differentiation, exogenous PPM1A treatment showed increased matrix mineralization in AS-osteoprogenitor cells accompanied by induction of RUNX2 and factor forkhead box O1A (FOXO1A) protein expressions. Moreover, upon growth condition, exogenous PPM1A treatment showed an increase in RUNX2 and FOXO1A protein expression and a decrease in phosphorylation at ser256 of FOXO1A protein in AS-osteoprogenitor cells, and positively regulated promoter activity of RUNX2 protein-binding motif. Mechanically, exogenous PPM1A treatment induced the dephosphorylation of transcription factor FOXO1A protein and translocation of FOXO1A protein into the nucleus for RUNX2 upregulation. Taken together, our results suggest that high PPM1A concentration promotes matrix mineralization in AS via the FOXO1A-RUNX2 pathway.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR). BACKGROUND: There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. RESULTS: There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Multidimensional Nomogram to Predict Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is an inherently severe risk of pancreatic resection. Previous research has proposed models that identify risk factors and predict CR-POPF, although these are rarely applicable to minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This study aimed to evaluate the individual risks of CR-POPF and to propose a nomogram for predicting POPF in MIPD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 429 patients who underwent MIPD. In the multivariate analysis, the Akaike information criterion stepwise logistic regression method was used to select the final model to develop the nomogram. RESULTS: Of 429 patients, 53 (12.4%) experienced CR-POPF. On multivariate analysis, pancreatic texture (p = 0.001), open conversion (p = 0.008), intraoperative transfusion (p = 0.011), and pathology (p = 0.048) were identified as independent predictors of CR-POPF. The nomogram was developed based on patient, pancreatic, operative, and surgeon factors by using the following four additional clinical factors as variables: American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ III, size of pancreatic duct, type of surgical approach, and < 40 cases of MIPD experience. CONCLUSIONS: A multidimensional nomogram was developed to predict CR-POPF after MIPD. This nomogram and calculator can help surgeons anticipate, select, and manage critical complications.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. METHODS: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Does minimally invasive surgery have a different impact on recurrence and overall survival in patients with pancreatic head versus body/tail cancer?

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) on recurrence and overall survival between patients with pancreatic head versus body/tail cancers. METHODS: The risk factors associated with recurrence and long-term outcomes were analyzed according to tumor location and operative modality. RESULTS: A total of 288 and 87 patients underwent surgical resection for pancreatic head cancer and body/tail cancer, respectively. The perioperative outcomes and histopathologic results were comparable in open and MIS approach in both head and body/tail groups. There was no difference in local or systemic recurrence patterns and disease-free and overall survival rates according to primary tumor location and surgical modality. During subgroup analysis by stage; however, patients with stage III pancreatic head cancer in the MIS group had a decreased disease-free survival compared with those in the open surgery group (p = 0.020). On multivariate analysis, MIS was not a risk factor of total or local recurrences. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence patterns and overall survival rates of patients did not differ according to tumor location and surgical approach. However, patients with stage III pancreatic head cancer in the MIS group showed inferior disease-free survival relative to patients who underwent open surgery.

Which one is better? Laparoscopic versus robotic reconstruction in the remnant soft pancreas with a small pancreatic duct following pancreaticoduodenectomy: a multicenter study with propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct. METHOD: Among 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study. RESULTS: Sixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUMOT), two surgeons who performed both L-recon and R-recon procedures reached their first peak in the CUSUMOT graph earlier for the R-recon group than for the L-recon group (i.e., 20th L-recon case and third R-recon case of surgeon A and 43rd L-recon case and seventh R-recon case of surgeon B). Surgeon C, who only performed R-recon, demonstrated the first peak in the 22nd case. The multivariate regression analysis for risk factors of CR-POPF showed that the MIPD procedure type, as well as other factors, did not have any significant effect. CONCLUSION: Postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons.

Residents perform better technically, have less stress and workload, and prefer robotic to laparoscopic technique during inanimate simulation.

INTRODUCTION: With the widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery, there is a growing need for surgical residents to be trained by a procedure-specific curriculum. This study aimed to evaluate the technical performance and feedback of surgical residents undergoing the robotic and laparoscopic hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) biotissue modules. METHODS: A total of 23 PGY-3 surgical residents participated in this study and performed the laparoscopic and robotic HJ and GJ drills, which were recorded and scored by two independent graders using the modified objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS). After completing each drill, all participants filled out the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), Borg Exertion Scale, and Edwards Arousal Rating Questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-two (95.7%) residents had already received fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery certification. Eighteen (78.3%) residents had robotic virtual simulation training and the median (range) number of robotic surgery console experience was 4 (0-30). In the HJ comparison of the six OSATS domains, the robotic system was superior in Gentleness (p = 0.031). In the GJ comparison, the robotic system was superior in Time and Motion (p < 0.001), Instrument Handling (p = 0.001), Flow of Operation (p = 0.002), Tissue Exposure (p = 0.013), and Summary (p < 0.001). Participants answered significantly higher demand scores for laparoscopy on all six facets of NASA-TLX for both HJ and GJ (p < 0.05). The Borg Level of Exertion was > 2 points higher for laparoscopic HJ and GJ (p < 0.001). Residents rated more Nervousness and Anxiety for laparoscopic compared to robotic (p < 0.05) HJ and GJ. Additionally, when asked to score preference for robotic and laparoscopic approach in terms of technique and ergonomics, residents scored robot as better (laparoscopy worse) for both HJ and GJ in both domains. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic surgical system provided a more favorable environment for trainees with less mental and physical burden for minimally invasive HJ and GJ curriculum.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR. METHODS: This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR. RESULTS: 5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate). CONCLUSION: LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.

BACKGROUND: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. METHODS: This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS: In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. CONCLUSION: Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.

Hybrid-Type Transparent Organic Light Emitting Diode with High Contrast Using Switchable Windows.

Transparent organic light emitting diode (OLED) display is one of the most promising devices among next-generation information displays because of beneficial characteristics, such as self-emissive and optically clear properties. Nevertheless, in conventional transparent OLED display devices, there are serious intrinsic problems in terms of the transmittance in the dark state because of empty windows in the cell, so the contrast ratio of the transparent OLED display would be deteriorated even though it can exhibit excellent bright state. In general, the transparent mode using the OLED device applies an empty area in each pixel because an emitting device could never reveal the background image, so the transparent OLED should contain the empty area in the pixel for transparent images. This may cause the optical degradation in the dark state. To solve this problem, we propose hybrid-type transparent OLED display modes that apply a liquid crystal (LC) to the transparent window part of the empty space. In this paper, we applied two dichroic LC modes- which use an electrically controlled birefringence (ECB) mode (Heilmeier type) for the polarized mode and a cholesteric LC mode (Guest-Host mode) for the non-polarized mode-to the empty area. In each hybrid mode, we have observed optical performance, including the transmittance in the dark/bright state, contrast ratio and response time as a function of cell parameters. As a result, we confirmed that the dark state and the contrast ratio could be improved by applying the proposed modes without serious decay of the transmittance in the bright state.

Robotic Central Bisectionectomy for Centrally Located Hepatic Malignant Tumor.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic hepatectomies for centrally located tumors are classified as advanced and complex surgical procedures.1-3 Because of some limitations in robotic liver surgery,4,5 robotic central bisectionectomy has rarely been performed.6,7 We introduce useful tips for robotic central bisectionectomy in this multimedia article. METHODS: A 67-year-old male with a 4.4-cm-sized, hepatocellular carcinoma involving segments IV and VIII underwent robotic central bisectionectomy. This video demonstrates technique of determination of resection line,3 traction methods,8 effective use of robotic instruments for parenchymal transection, application of Pringle's maneuver, and indocyanine-green fluorescence image in robotic central bisectionectomy. RESULTS: Total operative time was 320 min and intraoperative blood loss was 200 ml without transfusion. The postoperative course was uneventful and the patient was discharged on the seventh postoperative day in good condition. Pathological assessment indicated that the mass was a hepatocellular carcinoma 4.5 cm in size with a surgical margin of 1.5 cm. CONCLUSIONS: Central bisectionectomy is one of the most demanding surgical procedures with long operative times. However, robotic central bisectionectomy can be safely performed with proper exposure technique and an appropriate combination of several useful technical tips.