Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization: international multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly used for more challenging procedures. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and oncological safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization. METHODS: This was an international retrospective multicentre study of patients with colorectal liver metastases who underwent open or laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy after portal vein embolization between 2004 and 2020. The perioperative and oncological outcomes for patients who underwent laparoscopic and open approaches were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of 338 patients, 84 patients underwent a laparoscopic procedure and 254 patients underwent an open procedure. Patients in the laparoscopic group less often underwent extended right hepatectomy (18% versus 34.6% (P = 0.004)), procedures in the setting of a two-stage hepatectomy (42% versus 65% (P < 0.001)), and major concurrent procedures (4% versus 16.1% (P = 0.003)). After propensity score matching, 78 patients remained in each group. The laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating and Pringle times (330 versus 258.5 min (P < 0.001) and 65 versus 30 min (P = 0.001) respectively) and a shorter length of stay (7 versus 8 days (P = 0.011)). The R0 resection rate was not different (71% for the laparoscopic approach versus 60% for the open approach (P = 0.230)). The median disease-free survival was 12 (95% c.i. 10 to 20) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 20 (95% c.i. 13 to 31) months for the open approach (P = 0.145). The median overall survival was 28 (95% c.i. 22 to 48) months for the laparoscopic approach versus 42 (95% c.i. 35 to 52) months for the open approach (P = 0.614). CONCLUSION: The advantages of a laparoscopic over an open approach for (extended) right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases after portal vein embolization are limited.

Global benchmarks in primary robotic bariatric surgery redefine quality standards for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Whether the benefits of the robotic platform in bariatric surgery translate into superior surgical outcomes remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish the 'best possible' outcomes for robotic bariatric surgery and compare them with the established laparoscopic benchmarks. METHODS: Benchmark cut-offs were established for consecutive primary robotic bariatric surgery patients of 17 centres across four continents (13 expert centres and 4 learning phase centres) using the 75th percentile of the median outcome values until 90 days after surgery. The benchmark patients had no previous laparotomy, diabetes, sleep apnoea, cardiopathy, renal insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, immunosuppression, history of thromboembolic events, BMI greater than 50 kg/m2, or age greater than 65 years. RESULTS: A total of 9097 patients were included, who were mainly female (75.5%) and who had a mean(s.d.) age of 44.7(11.5) years and a mean(s.d.) baseline BMI of 44.6(7.7) kg/m2. In expert centres, 13.74% of the 3020 patients who underwent primary robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and 5.9% of the 4078 patients who underwent primary robotic sleeve gastrectomy presented with greater than or equal to one complication within 90 postoperative days. No patient died and 1.1% of patients had adverse events related to the robotic platform. When compared with laparoscopic benchmarks, robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass had lower benchmark cut-offs for hospital stay, postoperative bleeding, and marginal ulceration, but the duration of the operation was 42 min longer. For most surgical outcomes, robotic sleeve gastrectomy outperformed laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy with a comparable duration of the operation. In robotic learning phase centres, outcomes were within the established benchmarks only for low-risk robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSION: The newly established benchmarks suggest that robotic bariatric surgery may enhance surgical safety compared with laparoscopic bariatric surgery; however, the duration of the operation for robotic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is longer.

Robotic liver parenchymal transection using the SynchroSeal.

BACKGROUND: There is much heterogeneity in the instrumentation used for parenchymal transection in minimally invasive liver surgery. Instruments specifically designed for robotic parenchymal transection of the liver are lacking. We aim to gain insight into the safety and effectiveness of the SynchroSeal (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA), a novel bipolar electrosurgical device, in the context of liver surgery. METHODS: The present study is a post-hoc analysis of prospectively collected data from patients undergoing robotic liver resection (RLR) using the SynchroSeal in two high-volume centres. The results of the SynchroSeal were compared with that of the previous generation bipolar-sealer; Vessel Sealer Extend (Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) using propensity score matching, after excluding the first 25 Vessel Sealer procedures per center. RESULTS: During the study period (February 2020-March 2023), 155 RLRs meeting the eligibility criteria were performed with the SynchroSeal (after implementation in June 2021) and 145 RLRs with the Vessel Sealer. Excellent outcomes were achieved when performing parenchymal transection with the SynchroSeal; low conversion rate (n = 1, 0.6%), small amounts of intraoperative blood loss (median 40 mL [IQR 10-100]), short hospital stays (median 3 days [IQR 2-4]), and adequate overall morbidity (19.4%) as well as severe morbidity (11.0%). In a matched comparison (n = 94 vs n = 94), the SynchroSeal was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (48 mL [IQR 10-143] vs 95 mL [IQR 30-200], p = 0.032) compared to the Vessel Sealer. Other perioperative outcomes were similar between the devices. CONCLUSION: The SynchroSeal is a safe and effective device for robotic liver parenchymal transection.

Is prolonged operative time associated with postoperative complications in liver surgery? An international multicentre cohort study of 5424 patients.

BACKGROUND: The relation between operative time and postoperative complications in liver surgery is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of operative time on the development of postoperative complications in patients who underwent minimally invasive or open liver resections of various anatomical extent and technical difficulty levels. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients that underwent a right hemihepatectomy (RH), technically major resection (anatomically minor resection in segment 1, 4a, 7 or 8; TMR) or left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) between 2000 and 2022 were extracted from a multicenter database comprising the prospectively maintained databases of 31 centers in 13 countries. Minimally invasive procedures performed during the learning curve were omitted. Logistic regression models, performed separately for 9 different groups based on stratification by procedure type and allocated surgical approach, were used to assess the association between the fourth quartile of operative time (25% of patients with the longest operative time) and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall, 5424 patients were included: 1351 underwent RH (865 open, 373 laparoscopic and 113 robotic), 2821 TMR (1398 open, 1225 laparoscopic and 198 robotic), and 1252 LLS (241 open, 822 laparoscopic and 189 robotic). After adjusting for potential confounders (age, BMI, gender, ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, disease type and extent, blood loss, Pringle, intraoperative transfusions and incidents), the fourth quartile of operative time, compared to the first three quartiles, was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after open, laparoscopic and robotic TMR (aOR 1.35, p = 0.031; aOR 1.74, p = 0.001 and aOR 3.11, p = 0.014, respectively), laparoscopic and robotic RH (aOR 1.98, p = 0.018 and aOR 3.28, p = 0.055, respectively) and solely laparoscopic LLS (aOR 1.69, p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: A prolonged operative time is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications, although it remains to be defined if this is a causal relationship.

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

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

Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). METHODS: All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.

Morbidity and survival after laparoscopic versus open pancreatoduodenectomy: propensity score matched comparison.

PURPOSE: Technical challenges and a perceived higher risk of complications hinder a wide adoption of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy. We aim to further define the place of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy by comparison with the traditional open approach. METHODS: A comparison of the surgical outcomes and survival after laparoscopic (LPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) was retrospectively performed from a prospectively kept database. To reduce the effect of bias and confounding, baseline characteristics of both groups were matched using propensity score matching (NCT05110573; Nov 8, 2021; retrospectively registered). RESULTS: From a total of 67 LPD and 105 OPD patients, propensity score matching resulted in two balanced groups of 38 patients. In both groups, 87% of surgeries were performed for cancer. In the LPD group, conversion rate was 22.4%. Mean operative time was significantly longer after LPD versus OPD (320.1 ± 53.8 vs. 277.7 ± 63.8 min; p = .008). Hospital stay was significantly shorter after LPD versus OPD (median 13.5 vs. 17.0 days; p = .039). No significant differences were observed in blood loss, total complication rate (73.7% vs. 86.8%; p = .249), major complication rate (26.5% vs. 10.5%; p = .137), postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (13.2% vs. 7.9%; p = .711), 90-day mortality rate (5.3% vs. 0%; p = .493), R0 resection rate (85.4% vs. 85.8%), or number of lymph nodes (median 10.0 vs. 8.5; p = .273). In cancer patients, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (median 27.1 vs. 23.9 months; p = .693), disease-free survival, or recurrence rate. CONCLUSION: LPD provided acceptable short-term and oncological outcomes. Compared to OPD, we noted a higher major complication rate, without compromising surgical safety or oncological outcomes.

The role of the laparoscopic approach in two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: In selected patients, laparoscopic liver surgery for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) leads to better short-term outcomes and comparable oncologic outcomes in comparison with an open approach. However, its role in two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) remains poorly explored. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed to evaluate the role of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in the first and second stage of TSH. Demographic data, comorbid factors, perioperative outcomes, and short-term outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Between September 2011 and May 2020, 23 patients were planned to undergo a TSH. The first stage hepatectomy (FSH) was performed laparoscopically in 22 patients (96%) without need for conversion. The median blood loss was 50 cc (IQR 30-100 cc) and postoperative length of hospital stay was 4 days (IQR 2.5-5 days). R0 resections were obtained in 18 FSHs (78%), while all others were R1 vascular (22%). Fourteen patients (61%) underwent a second stage hepatectomy (SSH). All SSHs were anatomically major hepatectomies. SSH was performed laparoscopically in 7 patients (50%), with need for conversion in 1 case (14%). The median blood loss was slightly lower in the open liver resection (OLR) group compared to the LLR group (200 cc (IQR 110-375 cc) vs. 240 cc (IQR 150-400 cc), respectively. The median postoperative length of hospital stay was 3 days shorter in the LLR group compared to the OLR group (4 days (IQR 3.5-4 days) vs. 7 days (IQR 4.5-8.5 days), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The already proven advantages of LLR in the treatment of CRLM favor the role of a laparoscopic approach in TSH for CRLM. In first stage minor or technically major hepatectomy, LLR is progressively becoming the gold standard. Laparoscopic second stage anatomically major hepatectomy is feasible in experienced hands, but should be limited to selected cases and should be performed in expert centers.

One-stage laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resection for bilobar colorectal liver metastases: safety, recurrence patterns and oncologic outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are challenging and the safety and long-term outcomes are unclear. In this study, the short- and long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns of one-stage LLR for bilobar CRLM were compared to single laparoscopic resection for CRLM. METHODS: This single-center study consisted of all patients who underwent a parenchymal sparing LLR for CRLM between October 2011 and December 2018. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, short-term outcomes, oncologic outcomes and recurrence patterns were compared. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. RESULTS: Thirty six patients underwent a LLR for bilobar CRLM and ninety patients underwent a single LLR. Demographics were similar among groups. More patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the bilobar group (55.6% vs 34.4%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in conversion rate, R0 resection and transfusion rate. Blood loss and operative time were higher in the bilobar group (250 ml (IQR 150-450) vs 100 ml (IQR 50-250), P < 0.001 and 200 min (IQR 170-230) vs 130 min (IQR 100-165), P < 0.001) and hospital stay was longer (5 days (IQR 4-7) vs 4 days (IQR 3-6), P = 0.015). The bilobar group had more technically major resections (88.9% vs 56.7%, P < 0.001). Mortality was nil in both groups and major morbidity was similar (2.8% vs 3.3%, P = 1.0). There was no difference in recurrence pattern. Overall survival (OS) was similar (1 yr: 96% in both groups and 5 yr 76% vs 66%, P = 0.49), as was recurrence-free survival (RFS) (1 yr: 64% vs 73%, 3 yr: 38 vs 42%, 5 yr: 38% vs 28%, P = 0.62). CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, LLR for bilobar CRLM can be performed safely with similar oncologic outcomes as patients who underwent a single LLR for CRLM.

A Comparative Study of an Integrated Ultrasonic/Bipolar Sealing Device Versus an Articulating Bipolar Sealing Device for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Sealing devices (SD) seal and cut tissue through different energy modalities, and are routinely used in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). The aim of this study is to compare the outcome of Thunderbeat (TB), an integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD, versus Enseal (ES), an articulating bipolar SD, in LLS. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in a single center from December 2013 to September 2020. The primary endpoint was difference in blood loss (BL) between ES and TB. Secondary endpoints were complications, operative time, hospital stay, and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: 352 patients were identified: TB (n = 105) and ES (n = 247). Median BL was significantly lower with TB (50 mL [20-120]) compared to ES (100 mL [50-250]) (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were identified for median operative time (TB 115 min [45-300]) vs. ES 140 min [40-370]; p = 0.0008) and median hospital stay (TB 2 days [1-4] vs. ES 4 days [3-6]; p < 0.0001). No major differences were encountered for postoperative bleeding (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 0.5574), biliary leak (TB 1% vs. ES 2%; p = 1.0000), and 90-day mortality (TB 0% vs. ES 1%; p = 1.0000). CONCLUSION: The integrated ultrasonic/bipolar SD is superior to the articulating bipolar SD in LLS for intraoperative BL without an increase in complications.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: retrospective analysis of prognostic factors and oncological outcomes in a single-center cohort.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained acceptance as an effective treatment for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) in selected patients, providing similar oncologic outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR). The aim of this study was to determine prognostic factors for survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM. METHODS: A single-center retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. The inclusion period ranged from September 2011 until mid-March 2020. RESULTS: Two hundred consecutive LLRs were included. The 5-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates equalled 54.8% and 49%, respectively. A pushing (HR = 5.42, 95% CI 1.56-18.88, p = 0.008), as well as a replacement (3.87, 1.05-14.2, p = 0.04) growth pattern of the CRLM, poor differentiation of the primary colorectal cancer (CRC) (3.72, 1.72-8.07, p < 0.001) and administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (2.95, 1.28-6.8, p = 0.01) were identified as independent predictors of a worse OS. Requirement of more than 6 cycles of NAC (6.17, 2.37-16.03, p < 0.001), a replacement (4.96, 1.91-12.87, p < 0.001), as well as a pushing (4.3, 1.68-11, p = 0.002) growth pattern of the CRLM and poor differentiation of the primary CRC (2.61, 1.31-5.2, p = 0.006) were identified as independent predictors of a worse DFS. CONCLUSION: LLR for CRLM offers adequate long-term oncologic outcomes. OS and DFS rates are negatively affected by the administration of NAC and by pathological features, including the differentiation grade of the primary CRC and the histological growth pattern of the CRLM.

Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy: single-center experience and technical aspects.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (LRPS) is a technically demanding procedure. The aim of this article is to share our experience with LRPS and to highlight technical aspects of this procedure. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent LRPS between September 2011 and October 2017. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Video-in-picture (VIP) technology is used to facilitate and to highlight the technical aspects of this procedure. RESULTS: In total, 18 patients underwent LRPS. Indication for surgery was mainly liver metastases (n = 11) and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 6). The Glissonean approach for inflow control was used in 13 patients. Median operative time was 162 (140-190) minutes. Median blood loss was 325 mL (IQR: 150-450). One conversion (5.5%) was required. There were two minor complications and one major complication. Median hospital stay was 6 days (range 5-8 days). All patients had an R0 resection. There was no 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: The results of our experience in LRPS add weight to the feasibility and safety of this approach.

Pain Intensity in Hospitalized Adults: A Multilevel Analysis of Barriers and Facilitators of Pain Management.

BACKGROUND: Despite an enhanced interest and evolution in pain management, prevalence remains high. Interventions to optimize pain-related care can only be effective if barriers are identified and accounted for. AIM: To assess pain intensity and examine its association with patient- (including health literacy defined in this study as "requiring help to read health information"), nurse-, and system-related (including social capital defined as "the importance of network and norms at work") barriers/facilitators to pain management. METHODS: A two-center, cross-sectional study was performed between October 2012 and April 2013. The study included patients and nurses of 39 noncritical wards of two hospitals in Belgium. Patients who were 18 years of age or older and without impaired cognition or consciousness were eligible to take part. All nurses working in the included ward were invited to participate. Pain intensity and patient-related barriers were collected by a structured and standardized questionnaire, completed in dialogue with the patient. Nurses completed the questionnaire on the nurse- and system-related barriers and the social capital scale. Multilevel analysis was used to analyze the data because of the hierarchical structure of the data. RESULTS: The average pain of all patients across all wards on a 0-10 scale was 2.2 (SD = 3.6). The multilevel analysis indicates that pain intensity can be explained by variables at patient and ward levels. A significant independent association was found between higher pain intensity and younger age, receiving pain medication, the conviction of patients that pain medication does not improve pain, inadequate health literacy in patients, nurses without advanced education, and nurse's concerns about side effects. Social capital did not emerge as predictor of pain intensity. DISCUSSION: Patient and nurse level factors should be taken into account in hospitals when setting up strategies to improve pain management.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy: a pan-European multicenter propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: The use of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy is increasing, yet large adjusted analyses that can be generalized internationally are lacking. This study aimed to compare outcomes after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy in a pan-European cohort. METHODS: An international multicenter retrospective study including patients after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy from 50 centers in 12 European countries (2009-2020). Propensity score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo ≥III). RESULTS: Among 2,082 patients undergoing minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy, 1,006 underwent robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and 1,076 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. After matching 812 versus 812 patients, the rates of major morbidity (31.9% vs 29.6%; P = .347) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 4.6%; P = .904) did not differ significantly between robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy, respectively. Robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate (6.7% vs 18.0%; P < .001) and higher lymph node retrieval (16 vs 14; P = .003). Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with shorter operation time (446 minutes versus 400 minutes; P < .001), and lower rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C (19.0% vs 11.7%; P < .001), delayed gastric emptying grade B/C (21.4% vs 7.4%; P < .001), and a higher R0-resection rate (73.2% vs 84.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This European multicenter study found no differences in overall major morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality after robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. Further, laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection, shorter length of stay, and a higher R0 resection rate than robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy. In contrast, robot-assisted pancreatoduodenectomy was associated with a lower conversion rate and a higher number of retrieved lymph nodes as compared with laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy.

Combined Ablation and Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Minimally Invasive Surgical Era.

BACKGROUND: Thermal ablation is an accepted treatment modality for small and central liver tumors. In extensive colorectal liver metastatic disease (CRLM), hepatectomy can be combined with ablation, resulting in a parenchymal-sparing strategy. This may increase salvageability rates in case of recurrence. METHODS: All patients with advanced CRLM that underwent combined ablation and resection between April 2012 and April 2021, were retrospectively analyzed from a prospectively maintained database. Primary endpoints include postoperative 30-day morbidity and ablation-site recurrence (ASR). The surgical approaches were compared. Ablated lesions were screened for ASR on postoperative follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Of 54 patients that underwent combined ablation and resection, 32 (59.3%) were performed through a minimally invasive approach. Eleven (20.4%) were minor resections, 32 (59.3%) were technically major and 11 (20.4%) were anatomically major resections. Twelve complications occurred (22.2%), among which 2 (3.8%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥IIIa). Ninety-day mortality rate was 1.9%. Out of 82 ablated lesions, 6 ASRs (11.1%) occurred. Median blood loss was significantly lower in the minimally invasive group, compared with open [90 mL (32.5 to 200) vs. 200 mL (100 to 400), P =0.005]. Pringle maneuver was significantly performed less in the minimally invasive group [8 (25.0%) vs. 16 (72.7%), P =0.001], but took more time [36.1 min (±15.6) vs. 21.6 (±9.9); P =0.011]. Short-term (1 y) overall and disease-free survival were respectively 81.4% and 50.0%. CONCLUSION: Combining microwave ablation and liver resection is a feasible and safe parenchymal-sparing technique, through both minimally invasive and open approach for treating extended CRLM disease. It has a low ablation-related complication rate and acceptable ablation-site recurrence rate.

Laparoscopic liver resection for colorectal liver metastases - short- and long-term outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For well-selected patients and procedures, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has become the gold standard for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) when performed in specialized centers. However, little is currently known concerning patient-related and peri-operative factors that could play a role in survival outcomes associated with LLR for CRLM. AIM: To provide an extensive summary of reported outcomes and prognostic factors associated with LLR for CRLM. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library using the keywords "colorectal liver metastases", "laparoscopy", "liver resection", "prognostic factors", "outcomes" and "survival". Only publications written in English and published until December 2019 were included. Furthermore, abstracts of which no accompanying full text was published, reviews, case reports, letters, protocols, comments, surveys and animal studies were excluded. All search results were saved to Endnote Online and imported in Rayyan for systematic selection. Data of interest were extracted from the included publications and tabulated for qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Out of 1064 articles retrieved by means of a systematic and grey literature search, 77 were included for qualitative analysis. Seventy-two research papers provided data concerning outcomes of LLR for CRLM. Fourteen papers were eligible for extraction of data concerning prognostic factors affecting survival outcomes. Qualitative analysis of the collected data showed that LLR for CRLM is safe, feasible and provides oncological efficiency. Multiple research groups have reported on the short-term advantages of LLR compared to open procedures. The obtained results accounted for minor LLR, as well as major LLR, simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and liver resection, LLR of posterosuperior segments, two-stage hepatectomy and repeat LLR for CRLM. Few research groups so far have studied prognostic factors affecting long-term outcomes of LLR for CRLM. CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, LLR for CRLM provides good short- and long-term outcomes, independent of the complexity of the procedure.

Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Tumors in the Posterosuperior Segments: A Single-center Experience of 174 Consecutive Cases.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic posterosuperior liver resection is a technically difficult and complex surgery. These patients are seen as poor candidates for laparoscopic surgery. This study aimed to show the safe and effective applicability of the posterosuperior segment resections by experienced surgeons in advanced centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent laparoscopic posterosuperior liver resection between October 2011 and October 2019 at the Groeninge Hospital were evaluated retrospectively. Demographic and perioperative data were obtained from the prospectively maintained database. Resection of at least 3 consecutive Couinaud segments was accepted as a major surgery (trisegmentectomy). Postoperative complications were registered according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: The median age of the 174 patients was 68 years [interquartile range (IQR): 60 to 75]. The semiprone position was used in the majority of operations (82.2%). Nonanatomic resection was performed in more than half of the operations (55.1%). A total of 5 patients underwent major hepatic resection. The median time of surgery was 150 (IQR: 120 to 190) minutes. Median blood loss was determined to be 150 (IQR: 50 to 300) mL. Malignancy was detected in 95% of the cases. The surgical margin was reported to be R0 in 93.3% of the specimens. The median hospitalization time was 4 (IQR: 3 to 6) days. The major complication rate was 1.7%, and only 1 patient died. Overall survival rates for patients who underwent a resection for colorectal liver metastases in the first and fifth years were 97.5% and 62.2%, and disease-free survival rates were 69.8% and 35.5%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resections in the posterosuperior segments can be performed safely in experienced hands with good short and long term (oncologial) outcomes.

Laparoscopic liver resection for liver tumours in proximity to major vasculature: A single-center comparative study.

BACKGROUND: With growing popularity and experience in laparoscopic liver surgery, the options for more difficult procedures increase. Only small case series have been published regarding laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for tumours in proximity to major vessels (MVs). The aim was to compare outcomes of LLR for tumours located less or more than 15 mm from MVs. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of consecutive LLR (October 2011-August 2017). Proximity to MVs (PMV) was defined as lesions located within 15 mm to the caval vein, hepatic veins and portal vein (main trunk and first branches). The control group were all lesions located more than 15 mm from MVs. RESULTS: Some 60/235 LLR were performed for lesions in proximity to major vasculature (24%). In the PMV group, median IWATE Difficulty Score was higher (8.5 (IQR: 6.0-9.0) VS 5.0 (IQR: 3.0-6.0), p < 0.001) as was the use of CUSA® (45.0% VS 8.6%, p < 0.001) and Pringle manoeuvre (8.3% VS 1.7%; p = 0.028). Operative time was longer (180min (IQR: 140-210) VS 120min (IQR: 75-150), p < 0.001) and blood loss was higher (190 ml (IQR: 100-325) VS 75 ml (IQR: 50-220), p < 0.001) in the PMV group. There was no difference in perioperative blood transfusion (3.3% VS 1.7%, p = 0.60) or postoperative morbidity (15.0% VS 14.3%, p = 0.89). There was no mortality in both groups. On mean follow-up of 21 months, no significant differences could be found in disease free (p = 0.77) and overall survival (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: In experienced hands, LLR of lesions in proximity to MVs is safe and feasible with acceptable short and long-term results.

Stepwise implementation of laparoscopic pancreatic surgery. Case series of a single centre's experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatic surgery still represents a challenge for surgeons. However, in recent decades the experience is expanding. Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that laparoscopic pancreatic resection (LPR) is safe, feasible and worthwhile. This study analyses the first 100 consecutive LPRs in our centre. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of the first 100 LPRs in a single supra-regional Belgian centre, performed between January 2012 and January 2019. Pre-, peri- and postoperative data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. All procedures were performed laparoscopically by two attending surgeons, specialized in minimally invasive and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery. RESULTS: Of 100 procedures, 62 laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomies (LPD) and 36 laparoscopic distal pancreatectomies (LDP) were performed, along with 1 enucleation and 1 central pancreatectomy. Indication was malignancy in 70%. Conversion rate was 24,2% in LPD and 11% in LDP. Median operative time was 330 min (IQR 300-360) in LPD and 150 min (IQR 142.5-210) in LDP. Median blood loss was 200 mL (IQR 100-487.5) in LPD and 150 mL (IQR 50-500) in LDP, transfusion rate was 22.6% and 8.3% respectively. Median length of stay (LOS) was 13 days (IQR 10-19.25) in LPD and 9 days (IQR 9-14) in LDP. R0 resection rate was 88.6% (62/70). Major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) was 12%. Thirty-day mortality was 0%, 90-day mortality was 2%. CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that LPR is a feasible and safe alternative to open pancreatic surgery. Safe implementation with a clear strategy is fundamental to gain experience and overcome the learning curve of this technically demanding procedures.