Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript: Training, Accreditation, Implementation and Safety Evaluation of Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization (PVE/HVE) to Accelerate Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Hypertrophy.

STUDY PURPOSE: The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. METHODS: The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. RESULTS: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres.

BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

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.

The SMART-ALPPS Protocol: Strategy to Minimize ALPPS Risks by Targeting Invasiveness.

BACKGROUND: The range of procedures with documented feasibility by laparoscopic approach is widening in the setting of liver resections. Many technical limits have been overcome in the attempt to reduce the biological impact of major procedures [1-8]. Similarly, associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS)-which could be assumed as the paradigm of maxi-invasiveness-has recently been proposed in a minimally invasive fashion to reduce the impact of this procedure [9-12]. Technical insights to perform laparoscopic ALPPS are provided. METHODS: Perioperative and intraoperative tips for laparoscopic ALPPS are provided within a SMART (Strategy to Minimize ALPPS Risks by Targeting invasiveness) protocol. Stage 1: After volumetric and functional assessment, partial liver transection is performed, keeping intact both the hilum and the caval plane (to prevent adhesions), therefore avoiding portal ligation. No inert material is left inside the abdominal cavity at the end of procedure to keep the liver surfaces apart. Radiologic portography with portal vein embolization is scheduled on postoperative day (POD) 1. Liver volume (pre-PVE: 29%; post-PVE: 52%) and liver function measured through a Technetium-99 hepatobiliary scintigraphy [13] (pre-PVE: 2.15%/min/sqm; post-PVE: 3.67%/min/sqm) of the future remnant liver are reassessed within 10 days to verify whether size and function are adequate. Stage 2: After 2 weeks from the first stage, laparoscopic right hepatectomy is performed following an anterior approach. RESULTS: No conversion to open was required. Operative time was 100 and 300 minutes for stage 1 and 2, respectively. Intraoperative blood loss was 50 and 300 ml for the two procedures. Postoperative course was uneventful; patient was discharged on POD 6 of the second operation. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a perioperative protocol to prevent the risk of liver failure by both assessing volume and function of FLR and targeting the invasiveness of the surgical procedure may allow to minimize and control risks of a maximally invasive procedure, such as ALPPS.

Multicentre evaluation of case volume in minimally invasive hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Surgical outcomes may be associated with hospital volume and the influence of volume on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not known. METHODS: Patients entered into the prospective registry of the Italian Group of MILS from 2014 to 2018 were considered. Only centres with an accrual period of at least 12 months and stable MILS activity during the enrolment period were included. Case volume was defined by the mean number of minimally invasive liver resections performed per month (MILS/month). RESULTS: A total of 2225 MILS operations were undertaken by 46 centres; nine centres performed more than two MILS/month (1376 patients) and 37 centres carried out two or fewer MILS/month (849 patients). The proportion of resections of anterolateral segments decreased with case volume, whereas that of major hepatectomies increased. Left lateral sectionectomies and resections of anterolateral segments had similar outcome in the two groups. Resections of posterosuperior segments and major hepatectomies had higher overall and severe morbidity rates in centres performing two or fewer MILS/month than in those undertaking a larger number (posterosuperior segments resections: overall morbidity 30·4 versus 18·7 per cent respectively, and severe morbidity 9·9 versus 4·0 per cent; left hepatectomy: 46 versus 22 per cent, and 19 versus 5 per cent; right hepatectomy: 42 versus 34 per cent, and 25 versus 15 per cent). CONCLUSION: A volume-outcome association existed for minimally invasive hepatectomy. Complex and major resections may be best managed in high-volume centres.

ANTECEDENTES: Los resultados quirúrgicos pueden estar relacionados con el volumen de casos del hospital, pero no se conoce la influencia en la cirugía mínimamente invasiva del hígado (minimally­invasive liver surgery, MILS). MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron los pacientes registrados en el registro prospectivo del grupo italiano de MILS desde 2014 a 2018. Solo se consideraron centros con extensión de ≥ 12 meses y actividad estable de MILS durante el periodo de reclutamiento. El volumen de casos se definió como el número de MILS efectuado por mes. RESULTADOS: Se llevaron a cabo un total de 2.225 MILS en 46 centros, 9 de ellos con > 2 MILS/mes (n = 1.376 pacientes) y 37 centros con ≤ 2 MILS/mes (n = 849). La proporción de resecciones de segmentos anterolaterales disminuyó con el volumen de casos, mientras que la proporción de hepatectomías mayores aumentó. Los resultados para ambos grupos fueron similares en las seccionectomías lateral izquierda y en las resecciones del segmento anterolateral. Las resecciones del segmento posterosuperior y las hepatectomías mayores presentaron tasas más altas de morbilidad global y morbilidad grave en centros que realizaban ≤ 2 MILS/mes que en los que realizaban > 2 MILS/mes (resecciones del segmento posterosuperior, morbilidad global 30,4 versus 18,7%, morbilidad grave 9,9 versus 4,0%; hepatectomía izquierda, 46,2 versus 22,0%, 19,2 versus 5,5%; hepatectomía derecha, 41,7 versus 33,8%, 25,0 versus 14.9%). CONCLUSIÓN: Se observó una asociación volumen­resultado para la resección hepática mínimamente invasiva. Las resecciones complejas y mayores se pueden manejar mejor en centros de gran volumen.

Hepatocellular carcinoma tumour burden score to stratify prognosis after resection.

BACKGROUND: Although the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system has been largely adopted in clinical practice, recent studies have emphasized the need for further refinement and subclassification of this system. METHODS: Patients who underwent hepatectomy with curative intent for BCLC-0, -A or -B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between 2000 and 2017 were identified using a multi-institutional database. The tumour burden score (TBS) was calculated, and overall survival (OS) was examined in relation to TBS and BCLC stage. RESULTS: Among 1053 patients, 63 (6·0 per cent) had BCLC-0, 826 (78·4 per cent) BCLC-A and 164 (15·6 per cent) had BCLC-B HCC. OS worsened incrementally with higher TBS (5-year OS 77·9, 61 and 39 per cent for low, medium and high TBS respectively; P < 0·001). No differences in OS were noted among patients with similar TBS, irrespective of BCLC stage (61·6 versus 58·9 per cent for BCLC-A/medium TBS versus BCLC-B/medium TBS, P = 0·930; 45 versus 13 per cent for BCLC-A/high TBS versus BCLC-B/high TBS, P = 0·175). Patients with BCLC-B HCC and a medium TBS had better OS than those with BCLC-A disease and a high TBS (58·9 versus 45 per cent; P = 0·005). On multivariable analysis, TBS remained associated with OS among patients with BCLC-A (medium TBS: hazard ratio (HR) 2·07, 95 per cent c.i. 1·42 to 3·02, P < 0·001; high TBS: HR 4·05, 2·40 to 6·82, P < 0·001) and BCLC-B (high TBS: HR 3·85, 2·03 to 7·30; P < 0·001) HCC. TBS could also stratify prognosis among patients in an external validation cohort (5-year OS 79, 51·2 and 28 per cent for low, medium and high TBS respectively; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: The prognosis of patients with HCC varied according to the BCLC stage but was largely dependent on the TBS.

ANTECEDENTES: Aunque el sistema de estadificación del Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) ha sido adoptado en gran medida en la práctica clínica, estudios recientes han enfatizado la necesidad de un mayor refinamiento y subclasificación del sistema BCLC. MÉTODOS: Los pacientes con carcinoma hepatocelular (hepatocellular cancer, HCC) BCLC-0, A y B que se sometieron a una hepatectomía con intención curativa entre 2000 y 2017 fueron identificados utilizando una base de datos multi-institucional. Se calculó la puntuación de carga tumoral (tumour burden score, TBS) y se examinó la supervivencia global (overall survival, OS) en relación con la TBS y los estadios BCLC. RESULTADOS: En la serie de 1.053 pacientes, 63 (6%) tenían HCC BCLC-0, 826 (78,4%) HCC BCLC-A y 164 (15,6%) HCC BCLC-B. La OS disminuyó de forma incremental en función de la mayor TBS (OS a 5 años; TBS baja: 77,9% versus TBS media: 61% versus TBS alta: 39%, P < 0,001). No se observaron diferencias en la OS entre pacientes con una puntuación TBS similar, independientemente del estadio BCLC (BCLC-A/TBS media: 61,6% versus BCLC-B/TBS media: 58,9%, P = 0,93; BCLC-A/TBS alta: 45,1% versus BCLC-B/TBS alta: 12,8%, P = 0,175). Los pacientes con BCLC-B/TBS media tuvieron una mejor OS que los pacientes con BCLC-A/TBS alta (58,9% versus 45,1%, P = 0,005). En el análisis multivariable, la TBS se mantuvo asociada a la OS en el caso de BCLC-A (TBS media: cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio, HR = 2,07, i.c. del 95%: 1,42-3,02, P < 0,001; TBS alta: HR = 4,05, i.c. del 95%: 2,40-6,82, P < 0,001) y BCLC-B pacientes (TBS alta: HR = 3,85, i.c. del 95%: 2,03-7,30, P < 0,001). La TBS también pudo estratificar el pronóstico entre pacientes en una cohorte de validación externa (OS a 5 años; TBS baja: 78,7% versus TBS media: 51,2% versus TBS alta: 27,6%, P = 0,01). CONCLUSIÓN: El pronóstico de los pacientes con HCC varió según el estadio BCLC, pero dependió en gran medida de la TBS.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score-based study.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of randomized controlled data and even propensity-matched data, indications for, and outcomes of, laparoscopic repeat liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the current indications for laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC, and to evaluate outcomes. METHODS: Forty-two liver surgery centres around the world registered patients who underwent repeat liver resection for HCC. Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumour characteristics, surgical method, and short- and long-term outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Analyses showed that the laparoscopic procedure was generally used in patients with relatively poor performance status and liver function, but favourable tumour characteristics. Intraoperative blood loss (mean(s.d.) 254(551) versus 748(1128) ml; P < 0·001), duration of operation (248(156) versus 285(167) min; P < 0·001), morbidity (12·7 versus 18·1 per cent; P = 0·006) and duration of postoperative hospital stay (10·1(14·3) versus 11·8(11·8) days; P = 0·013) were significantly reduced for laparoscopic compared with open procedures, whereas survival time was comparable (median 10·04 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·297). Propensity score matching showed that laparoscopic repeat liver resection for HCC resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (268(730) versus 497(784) ml; P = 0·001) and a longer operation time (272(187) versus 232(129); P = 0·007) than the open approach, and similar survival time (12·55 versus 8·94 years; P = 0·086). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repeat liver resection is feasible in selected patients with recurrent HCC.

ANTECEDENTES: Dado que no existen ensayos clínicos controlados ni estudios de datos emparejados por puntaje de propensión, todavía hay dudas sobre las indicaciones y los resultados de la resección iterativa laparocópica de un carcinoma hepatocelular (hepatocellular carcinoma, HCC). Este estudio tuvo como objetivo esclarecer las indicaciones actuales y los resultados de la resección hepática laparoscópica iterativa del HCC. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron los pacientes de 42 centros de cirugía hepática a nivel mundial en los que se había realizado una resección hepática iterativa por HCC. Se analizaron las características del paciente, la función hepática preoperatoria, las características del tumor, el abordaje quirúrgico y los resultados a corto y largo plazo. RESULTADOS: El análisis demostró que la vía laparoscópica generalmente se utilizaba en pacientes con carácteristicas tumorales favorables, pero con estado funcional y función hepatica relativamente peores. La pérdida de sangre intraoperatoria (254,3 ± 551,2 versus 748,0 ± 1127,7 mL, P < 0,001), la duración de la intervención (247,6 ± 155,8 versus 285,1 ± 167,0 minutos, P < 0,001), la morbilidad (12,7 versus 18,1%, P = 0,005) y la estancia hospitalaria postoperatoria (10,07 ± 14,29 versus 11,80 ± 11,79 días, P = 0,010) fueron significativamente menores para los pacientes tratados por via laparoscópica en comparacion con la vía abierta, mientra que el tiempo de supervivencia fue comparable (mediana 10,04 versus 8,94 años, P = 0,297). El estudio de emparejamiento por puntaje de propensión mostró que la resección hepática iterativa por vía laparoscópica de un HCC (frente a la vía abierta) conllevaba una menor pérdida sanguínea intraoperatoria (268,0 ± 730,2 versus 496,5 ± 784,2 mL, P = 0,01), una mayor duración de la intervención (272,1 ± 187,2 versus 231,8 ± 129,1 minutos , P = 0,07) y un tiempo de supervivencia similar (mediana 12,55 versus 8,94 años, P = 0,0855). CONCLUSIÓN: La resección hepática iterativa por vía laparoscópica es factible en pacientes seleccionados con HCC recidivado.

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.

Multicentre analysis of the learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection demands expertise and a long learning curve. Resection of the posterosuperior segments is challenging, and there are no data on the learning curve. The aim of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for laparoscopic resection of the posterosuperior segments. METHODS: A cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis of the difficulty score for resection was undertaken using patient data from four specialized centres. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis of duration of operation, blood loss and conversions was performed, adjusting for the difficulty score of the procedures. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to identify the completion of the learning curve. RESULTS: According to the CUSUM analysis of 464 patients, the learning curve showed an initial decrease in the difficulty score followed by an increase and, finally, stabilization. More patients with cirrhosis or previous surgery were operated in the latest phase of the learning curve. A smaller number of wedge resections and a larger number of anatomical resections were performed progressively. Dissection using a Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator and the Pringle manoeuvre were used more frequently with time. Risk-adjusted CUSUM analysis showed a progressive decrease in operating time. Blood loss initially increased slightly, then stabilized and finally decreased over time. A similar trend was found for conversions. The learning curve was estimated to be 40 procedures for wedge and 65 for anatomical resections. CONCLUSION: The learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection of the posterosuperior segments consists of a stepwise process, during which accurate patient selection is key.

ANTECEDENTES: La resección hepática laparoscópica exige experiencia y una larga curva de aprendizaje. La resección de los segmentos posterosuperiores (PS) es un reto, y no hay datos acerca de la curva de aprendizaje (learning curve, LC). El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la LC de la resección laparoscópica de los segmentos PS. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un análisis CUSUM de la puntuación de dificultad (difficulty score, DS) de la resección en pacientes de 4 centros especializados. La técnica CUSUM se ajustó al riesgo (risk-adjusted CUSUM, RA-CUSUM) para el tiempo operatorio, la pérdida de sangre y las conversiones a cirugía abierta ajustando según la DS de los procedimientos. Se utilizó una curva ROC para identificar el momento en el que se consideró que la LC había sido completada. RESULTADOS: De acuerdo con el análisis CUSUM de los 464 pacientes incluidos, se observó una DS baja al inicio, que posteriormente se fue incrementando hasta llegar a una estabilización. En la última fase de la LC se operaron más pacientes con cirrosis o cirugía previa. De forma progresiva se fueron reduciendo el número de resecciones hepáticas en cuña y aumentando el de resecciones anatómicas. A lo largo del tiempo se introdujo el CUSA y la maniobra de Pringle con mayor frecuencia. El RA-CUSUM mostró una reducción progresiva del tiempo operatorio. La pérdida de sangre inicialmente aumentó ligeramente, luego se estabilizó y finalmente disminuyó con el tiempo. Una tendencia similar se observó para las conversiones. La LC se estimó en 40 casos para las resecciones en cuña y en 65 casos para las resecciones anatómicas. CONCLUSIÓN: La LC de la resección hepática laparoscópica de los segmentos PS es un proceso paso a paso durante el cual la selección del paciente es clave.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Pure Laparoscopic Versus Hand-Assisted/Hybrid Major Hepatectomy at Two Western Centers.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy is expanding, but little data exist comparing surgical approaches. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pure laparoscopic liver resection (PLAP) has advantages over hand-assisted (HALS) or hybrid (HYB) resection for major hemi-hepatectomy at two western centers. METHODS: Using propensity score matching, 65 cases of HALS + HYB (18 hand-assisted and 47 hybrid) were matched to 65 cases of PLAP. Baseline characteristics were well matched for gender, age, ASA score, Childs A cirrhosis, right/left hepatectomy, malignancy, tumor size, and type between the groups. RESULTS: The HALS + HYB group had 27 right and 38 left major hepatectomies (n = 65) versus 29 right and 36 left (n = 65) in the PLAP group (p = NS). The median number of lesions resected was 1 in each group, with median size 5.6 cm (HALS + HYB) versus 6.0 cm (PLAP), (p = NS). The HALS + HYB group had shorter OR time (240 versus 330 min, p < 0.01), and less blood loss (EBL 150 ml vs. 300 ml, p < 0.01) versus the PLAP group, respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4 days with HALS + HYB versus 5 days in the PLAP group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in use of the Pringle maneuver, transfusion rate, ICU stay, post-op morbidity, liver-specific complications, or R0 resection. Pain regimen/usage in each group is provided. There were no 30/90-day deaths in either group. CONCLUSION: This is the first reported series of propensity score matching of HALS + HYB versus PLAP for major hepatectomy. The HALS + HYB group had non-inferior OR time, blood loss, and LOS versus the PLAP group, while the other perioperative parameters were comparable. We conclude that minimally invasive liver resection with either PLAP or HALS + HYB technique yields excellent results.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests. RESULTS: Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR. CONCLUSION: LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

Theory of Relativity for Posterosuperior Segments of the Liver.

BACKGROUND: The accessibility to posterosuperior segments of the liver has traditionally constituted a restrain to adopt the laparoscopic approach in this setting. To overcome this challenge, multiple approaches have been reported in literature. Total transabdominal approach has been previously described for this purpose, even though the rationale to standardly adopt it and a technical depiction of how to achieve an optimal mobilization has never been specifically addressed. METHODS: Total transabdominal purely laparoscopic approach to posterosuperior segments of the liver is presented, with detailed emphasis to the rotational motions targeted in laparoscopy. A literature review is presented to summarize all other possible accesses to posterosuperior area of the liver. The institutional series for the laparoscopic approach to Sg 7, Sg 6+7, and Sg8 is retrospectively described. RESULTS: Three rotational motions of the liver are specifically addressed in a video presentation and described for the laparoscopic total-transabdominal approach; the local institutional series using this approach is presented. Other miscellaneous approaches identified from literature encompassing variations in operative position, transabdominal, transthoracic, and combined approaches are described. CONCLUSIONS: Complete mobilization of the ligaments of the liver leads to a rotation of the transection line in front of the operator's view, allowing to achieve a safe total trans-abdominal laparoscopic approach to the posterosuperior ligaments of the liver, without compromising the vascular inflow control, the possibility to convert to open approach, nor requiring potentially harmful decubitus.

Development and validation of a difficulty score to predict intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that patient, surgical, tumour and operative variables affect the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections. However, current difficulty scoring systems address only tumour factors. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for the risk of intraoperative complications during laparoscopic liver resections. METHODS: The prospectively maintained databases of seven European tertiary referral liver centres were compiled. Data from two-thirds of the patients were used for development and one-third for validation of the model. Intraoperative complications were based on a modified Satava classification. Using the methodology of the Framingham Heart Study, developed to identify risk factors that contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease, factors found to predict intraoperative complications independently were assigned points, and grouped into low-, moderate-, high- and extremely high-risk groups based on the likelihood of intraoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 2856 patients were included. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, lesion type and size, classification of resection and previous open liver resection were found to be independent predictors of intraoperative complications. Patients with intraoperative complications had a longer duration of hospital stay (5 versus 4 days; P < 0·001), higher complication rates (32·5 versus 15·5 per cent; P < 0·001), and higher 30-day (3·0 versus 0·3 per cent; P < 0·001) and 90-day (3·8 versus 0·8 per cent; P < 0·001) mortality rates than those who did not. The model was able to predict intraoperative complications (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) 0·677, 95 per cent c.i. 0·647 to 0·706) as well as postoperative 90-day mortality (AUC 0·769, 0·681 to 0·858). CONCLUSION: This comprehensive scoring system, based on patient, surgical and tumour factors, and developed and validated using a large multicentre European database, helped estimate the risk of intraoperative complications.

Trends in use of lymphadenectomy in surgery with curative intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The role of routine lymph node dissection (LND) in the surgical treatment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains controversial. The objective of this study was to investigate the trends of LND use in the surgical treatment of ICC. METHODS: Patients undergoing curative intent resection for ICC in 2000-2015 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Use of lymphadenectomy was evaluated over time and by geographical region (West versus East); LND use and final nodal status were analysed relative to AJCC T categories. RESULTS: Among the 1084 patients identified, half (535, 49·4 per cent) underwent concomitant hepatic resection and LND. Between 2000 and 2015, the proportion of patients undergoing LND for ICC nearly doubled: 44·4 per cent in 2000 versus 81·5 per cent in 2015 (P < 0·001). Use of LND increased over time among both Eastern and Western centres. The odds of LND was associated with the time period of surgery and the extent of the tumour/T status (referent T1a: OR 2·43 for T2, P = 0·001; OR 2·13 for T3, P = 0·016). Among the 535 patients who had LND, lymph node metastasis (LNM) was noted in 209 (39·1 per cent). Specifically, the incidence of LNM was 24 per cent in T1a disease, 22 per cent in T1b, 42·9 per cent in T2, 48 per cent in T3 and 66 per cent in T4 (P < 0·001). AJCC T3 and T4 categories, harvesting of six or more lymph nodes, and presence of satellite lesions were independently associated with LNM. CONCLUSION: The rate of LNM was high across all T categories, with one in five patients with T1 disease having nodal metastasis. The trend in increased use of LND suggests a growing adoption of AJCC recommendations in the treatment of ICC.

Tips and Tricks for a Laparoscopic Approach to Paracaval Liver Segments.

BACKGROUND: A dramatic spread of laparoscopic liver surgery has been experienced over the last years. The approach to paracaval liver segments 1 and 9 is still poorly described in literature, mainly due to its technical demands. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article was to introduce a safe and effective approach to paracaval liver segments through laparoscopy. METHODS: A minimally invasive approach to resection of Segments 1 and 9 is presented, and an operative set-up is depicted. A step-by-step technique describing the inferior vena cava (IVC) with left and right hepatic venous junction exposure, segmental pedicle isolation, and parenchymal transection is shown through a video document. RESULTS: Postoperative courses were uneventful, and patients were discharged on postoperative day 3. DISCUSSION: The approach to paracaval liver segments requires accurate preoperative case selection, technical, surgical, and anesthesiological expertise in laparoscopic liver surgery, and adequate instrumentary. CONCLUSION: Paracaval segments of the liver can be approached safely through laparoscopy by teams with extensive expertise in the field of laparoscopic liver surgery; however, suspected malignant infiltration of the IVC or unclear preoperative anatomy still contraindicate this approach.

Early versus late recurrence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after resection with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the characteristics, treatment and prognosis of early versus late recurrence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) after hepatic resection. METHODS: Patients who underwent resection with curative intent for ICC were identified from a multi-institutional database. Data on clinicopathological characteristics, initial operative details, timing and sites of recurrence, recurrence management and long-term outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were included. With a median follow-up of 22 months, 685 patients (73·4 per cent) experienced recurrence of ICC; 406 of these (59·3 per cent) developed only intrahepatic disease recurrence. The optimal cutoff value to differentiate early (540 patients, 78·8 per cent) versus late (145, 21·2 per cent) recurrence was defined as 24 months. Patients with early recurrence had extrahepatic disease more often (44·1 per cent versus 28·3 per cent in those with late recurrence; P < 0·001), whereas late recurrence was more often only intrahepatic (71·7 per cent versus 55·9 per cent for early recurrence; P < 0·001). From time of recurrence, overall survival was worse among patients who had early versus late recurrence (median 10 versus 18 months respectively; P = 0·029). In multivariable analysis, tumour characteristics including tumour size, number of lesions and satellite lesions were associated with an increased risk of early intrahepatic recurrence. In contrast, only the presence of liver cirrhosis was independently associated with an increased likelihood of late intrahepatic recurrence (hazard ratio 1·99, 95 per cent c.i. 1·11 to 3·56; P = 0·019). CONCLUSION: Early and late recurrence after curative resection for ICC are associated with different risk factors and prognosis. Data on the timing of recurrence may inform decisions about the degree of postoperative surveillance, as well as help counsel patients with regard to their risk of recurrence.

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided. METHODS: In this multicentre double-blind RCT, patients (aged 18-80 years with a BMI of 18-35 kg/m2 and ASA fitness grade of III or below) requiring left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) were assigned randomly to OLLS or LLLS within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. All randomized patients, ward physicians and nurses were blinded to the procedure undertaken. A parallel prospective registry (open non-randomized (ONR) versus laparoscopic non-randomized (LNR)) was used to monitor patients who were not enrolled for randomization because of doctor or patient preference. The primary endpoint was time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS), readmission rate, overall morbidity, composite endpoint of liver surgery-specific morbidity, mortality, and reasons for delay in discharge after functional recovery. RESULTS: Between January 2010 and July 2014, patients were recruited at ten centres. Of these, 24 patients were randomized at eight centres, and 67 patients from eight centres were included in the prospective registry. Owing to slow accrual, the trial was stopped on the advice of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board in the Netherlands. No significant difference in median (i.q.r.) time to functional recovery was observed between laparoscopic and open surgery in the randomized or non-randomized groups: 3 (3-5) days for OLLS versus 3 (3-3) days for LLLS; and 3 (3-3) days for ONR versus 3 (3-4) days for LNR. There were no significant differences with regard to LOS, morbidity, reoperation, readmission and mortality rates. CONCLUSION: This RCT comparing open and laparoscopic LLS in an ERAS setting was not able to reach a conclusion on time to functional recovery, because it was stopped prematurely owing to slow accrual. Registration number: NCT00874224 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Outcome after laparoscopic and open resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection of posterosuperior (PS) segments of the liver is hindered by limited visualization and curvilinear resection planes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after open and laparoscopic liver resections of PS segments. METHODS: Patients who underwent minor open liver resection (OLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) between 2006 and 2014 were identified from the institutional databases of seven tertiary referral European hepatobiliary surgical units. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to match groups for known confounders. Perioperative outcomes including complications were assessed using the Dindo-Clavien classification, and the comprehensive complication index was calculated. Survival was analysed with the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Some 170 patients underwent OLR and 148 had LLR. After propensity score-matched analysis, 86 patients remained in both groups. Overall postoperative complication rates were significantly higher after OLR compared with LLR: 28 versus 14 per cent respectively (P = 0·039). The mean(s.d.) comprehensive complication index was higher in the OLR group, although the difference was not statistically significant (26·7(16·6) versus 18·3(8·0) in the LLR group; P = 0·108). The mean(s.d.) duration of required analgesia and the median (range) duration of postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LLR group: 3·0(1·1) days versus 1·6(0·8) days in the OLR group (P < 0·001), and 6 (3-44) versus 4 (1-11) days (P < 0·001), respectively. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (37 per cent for OLR versus 30 per cent for LLR; P = 0·534) and those with colorectal liver metastases (36 versus 36 per cent respectively; P = 0·440) were not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: LLR of tumours in PS segments is feasible in selected patients. LLR is associated with fewer complications and does not compromise survival compared with OLR.