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

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

Risk Factors of Positive Resection Margin in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A New Perspective in the Perioperative Assessment: A European Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk factors associated with R1 resection in patients undergoing OLS and LLS for CRLMs. BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of R1 resection in liver surgery for CRLMs has been continuously appraised, but R1 risk factors have not been clearly defined yet. METHODS: A cohort study of patients who underwent OLS and LLS for CRLMs in 9 European high-volume referral centers was performed. A multivariate analysis and the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the risk factors for R1 resection. A model predicting the likelihood of R1 resection was developed. RESULTS: Overall, 3387 consecutive liver resections for CRLMs were included. OLS was performed in 1792 cases whereas LLS in 1595; the R1 resection rate was 14% and 14.2%, respectively. The risk factors for R1 resection were: the type of resection (nonanatomic and anatomic/nonanatomic), the number of nodules and the size of tumor. In the LLS group only, blood loss was a risk factor, whereas the Pringle maneuver had a protective effect. The predictive size of tumor for R1 resection was >45 mm in OLS and >30 mm in LLS, > 2 lesions was significative in both groups and blood loss >350 cc in LLS. The model was able to predict R1 resection in OLS (area under curve 0.712; 95% confidence interval 0.665-0.739) and in LLS (area under curve 0.724; 95% confidence interval 0.671-0.745). CONCLUSIONS: The study describes the risk factors for R1 resection after liver surgery for CRLMs, which may be used to plan better the perioperative strategies to reduce the incidence of R1 resection during OLS and LLS.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections.

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

Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Even though minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) is spreading, questions remain regarding its oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of oncological resection criteria in MIE. METHODS: All patients undergoing a two-way Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a single tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery ward were analyzed retrospectively. The following oncological criteria were analyzed: lymph node (LN) harvest and location, positive lymph node rate, margins, and R0 rates. They were compared between the MIE group (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy) and the hybrid group (H/O, thoracotomy + laparoscopy). RESULTS: Among the 240 patients included, 34 (14%) had MIE and 206 a hybrid esophagectomy. Main surgical indication was lower thoracic adenocarcinoma and the rate of neoadjuvant treatments administered (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) was comparable between both groups (p = 1.0). LN harvest was significantly higher in the MIE group (31 ± 9 vs. 28 ± 9, p = 0.04) as well as thoracic LN harvest (14 ± 7 vs. 11 ± 5, p = 0.002). When analyzing patients according to T stage and response to neoadjuvant treatments, patients with T1 and T2 tumors and patients with a poor pathological response (TRG3, 4, 5) had a significantly higher LN harvest when undergoing a minimally invasive approach (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Positive LN rates (1.26 ± 3.63 in the MIE group vs. 1.60 ± 2.84 in the H/O group, p = 0.061), R0 rates (97% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.46) as well as proximal (p = 0.083), distal (p = 0.063), and lateral (p = 0.15) margins were comparable between both approaches. CONCLUSION: MIE seems oncologically safe and may even be better than the open approach in terms of LN harvest especially in patients with T1 and T2 tumors and in poor responders.

Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Liver Resections in Low and High-Volume Centers: A Multicentric Case-Matched Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is the gold standard for liver resections. Despite its feasibility and safety in high-volume centers (HVC), its performance is controversial in low-volume centers (LVCs). We aimed to evaluate the results of LLR performed in LVC. METHODS: Patients who underwent LLR between 2013 and 2019 in three LVCs were compared after case-matching with those in an HVC using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris LLR Difficulty Score (IMMLDS). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients treated in three LVCs were matched to 152 in HVCs for age, body mass index, and resection type. The incidence of LLR significantly increased in LVCs over time (2013-2016 vs. 2017-2019) (21.2% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.002 and) while abdominal drainage rate decreased (77.4% vs. 51.1%; p = 0.003). In IMMLDS group I (60 vs. 120 patients), higher Pringle maneuver (43.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), median blood loss (175 ml vs. 50 ml; p < 0.0001), abdominal drainage (58.3% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001), and conversion rate (8.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.04) were observed in LVCs. The overall postoperative morbidity was comparable (Clavien I-II: p = 0.54; Clavien > II: p = 0.71). In IMMLDS groups II-III, Pringle maneuver (56.5% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.0001), blood loss (350 ml vs. 175 ml; p = 0.02), and abdominal drainage (75% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.004) were different; however, postoperative morbidity was not. The surgical difficulty notwithstanding, length of stay (group I: p = 0.13; group II-III: p = 0.93) and R0 surgical margin (group I: p = 0.3; group II-III p = 0.39) were not different between LVCs and HVCs. CONCLUSIONS: LLR performed at an LVC can be feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity.

Prognostic role of infracentimetric colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The number of lesions and the size of the largest (CRLMmax) have been widely investigated as prognostic factors in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of the present study was to assess whether, in patients undergoing curative liver resection, the presence of infracentimetric lesions could affect recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Patients who underwent a liver resection for CRLM between 2001 and 2019 were included. The size of CRLM was measured on the surgical specimen. The best cut-off of the smallest lesion (CRLMmin) associated with RFS was determined through the time-dependent ROC analysis. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 227 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 50 months [IQR 26-84]. Recurrence occurred for 151 (66.5%) patients (liver recurrence in 67.5%, while exclusive extra-hepatic recurrence in 32.5%). The best cut-off for CRLMmin associated with RFS was 9 mm, with 12- and 24-month td-AUC 0.56 and 0.52 respectively. CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was found to be an independent prognostic factor that impairs RFS at multivariate analysis (HR 1.534 (1.02-2.32), p = 0.042). In particular, CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was correlated with impaired hepatic RFS (HR 1.860 (1.15-3.01), p = 0.011), but not extra-hepatic RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Infracentimetric metastases (≤ 9 mm) are an independent prognostic factor that impairs hepatic RFS. This result suggests the potential benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) also in selected patients with initially resectable lesions, in case of CRLM ≤ 9 mm on preoperative imaging.

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

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

Strategic response to bleeding in laparoscopic hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: an intraoperative checklist.

BACKGROUND: The aim is to develop and test the utility of an event-initiated, team-based check list to optimize the response to bleeding during laparoscopic HPB surgery. METHODS: To build a checklist for managing bleeding events, we conducted a systematic review. Using nominal group technique (NGT), a checklist consisting of four domains was developed. Following team-based training of anesthesia and surgical staff, the checklist was implemented. HPB cases before and after implementation of the checklist were compared for adverse outcomes, bleeding complications, and transfusions. RESULTS: NGT identified four domains: Communicate Control, Expose, and Repair under which the checklist was organized. Supplemental Video for a detailed review of how each domain was applied to a specific case example. We compared 169 HPB cases before to 53 cases after implementation. We found a significant decrease in mean EBL (from 518 ± 852.8 to 151.5 ± 221.7 ml (P = 0.001)) for cases performed after implementation of the checklist and a trends toward less volume of pRBC transfused (2.7 ± 2.5 vs 2.3 ± 1.7 units/per patient, P = 0.611) and transfusion rates (22% vs 11%, P = 0.703). CONCLUSION: An event-initiated, team-based response to an adverse bleeding event during laparoscopic HPB surgery correlates with positive effects on bleeding management, and transfusion rates.

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

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

The initiation, standardization and proficiency (ISP) phases of the learning curve for minimally invasive liver resection: comparison of a fellowship-trained surgeon with the pioneers and early adopters.

BACKGROUND: Using the Ideal Development Exploration Assessment and Long-term study (IDEAL) paradigm, Halls et al. created risk-adjusted cumulative sum (RA-CUSUM) curves concluding that Pioneers (P) and Early Adopters (EA) of minimally invasive (MI) liver resection obtained similar results after fewer cases. In this study, we applied this framework to a MI Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary fellowship-trained surgeon (FT) in order to assess where along the curves this generation fell. METHODS: The term FT was used to designate surgeons without previous independent operative experience who went from surgical residency directly into fellowship. Three phases of the learning curve were defined using published data on EAs and Ps of MI Hepatectomy, including phase 1 (initiation) (i.e., the first 17 or 50), phase 2 (standardization) (i.e., cases 18-46 or 1-50) and phase 3 (proficiency) (i.e., cases after 46, 50 or 135). Data analysis was performed using the Social Science Statistics software ( www.socscistatistics.com ). Statistical significance was defined as p < .05. RESULTS: From November 2007 until April 2018, 95 MI hepatectomies were performed by a FT. During phase 1, the FT approached larger tumors than the EA group (p = 0.002), that were more often malignant (94.1%) when compared to the P group (52.5%) (p < 0.001). During phase 2, the FT operated on larger tumors and more malignancies (93.1%) when compared to the Ps (p = 0.004 and p = 0.017, respectively). However, there was no difference when compared to the EA. In the phase 3, the EAs tended to perform more major hepatectomies (58.7) when compared to either the FT (30.6%) (p = 0.002) or the P's cases 51-135 and after 135 (35.3% and 44.3%, respectively) (both p values < 0.001). When compared to the Ps cases from 51-135, the FT operated on more malignancies (p = 0.012), but this was no longer the case after 135 cases by the Ps (p = 0.164). There were no statistically significant differences when conversions; major complications or 30- and 90-day mortality were compared among these 3 groups. DISCUSSION: Using the IDEAL framework and RA-CUSUM curves, a FT surgeon was found to have curves similar to EAs despite having no previous independent experience operating on the liver. As in our study, FTs may tend to approach larger and more malignant tumors and do more concomitant procedures in patients with higher ASA classifications than either of their predecessors, without statistically significant increases in major morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSION: It is possible that the ISP (i.e., initiation, standardization, proficiency) model could apply to other innovative surgical procedures, creating different learning curves depending on where along the IDEAL paradigm surgeons fall.

The experience of the minimally invasive (MI) fellowship-trained (FT) hepatic-pancreatic and biliary (HPB) surgeon: could the outcome of MI pancreatoduodenectomy for peri-ampullary tumors be better than open?

BACKGROUND: Although early series focused on benign disease, minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) might be particularly suited for malignancy. Unlike their predecessors, fellowship-trained (FT) Hepatic-Pancreatic and Biliary (HPB) surgeons usually have equal skills in approaching peri-ampullary tumors (PT) either openly or via minimally invasive (MI) techniques. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed a MI-HPB-FT surgeon's 10-year experience with PD. A sub-analysis of malignant PT was also done (MIPD-PT vs. OPD-PT). The primary endpoint was to assess postoperative mortality and morbidity. Secondary endpoints included operative parameters, length of hospital stay, and survival analysis. Moreover, we addressed practice pattern changes for a surgeon straight out of training with no previous experience of independent surgery. RESULTS: From December 2007-February 2018, one MI-HPB-FT performed a total of 100 PDs, including 57 MIPDs and 43 open PDs (OPDs). In both groups, over 70% of PDs were undertaken for malignancy. Eight patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal cancer (PDC) were in the OPD-PT group (as compared to only 2 in the MIPD-PT group) (p = 0.07). Estimated mean blood loss and length of stay were less in the MIPD-PT group (345 mL and 12 days) as compared to the OPD-PT group (971 mL and 16 days), p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively. However, the mean operative time was longer for the MIPD-PT (456 min) as compared to the OPD-PT (371 min), p < 0.001. Thirty and 90-day mortality was 2.6%/5.1% after MIPD-PT compared to 0%/3.2% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 1. Overall 30-/90-day morbidity rates were similar at 41.0%/43.6% after MIPD-PT and 35.5%/41.9% after OPD-PT, respectively, p = 0.8 and 1. Complete resection (R0) rates were not statistically different, 97.4% after MIPD-PT compared to 87.0% after OPD-PT (p = 0.2). After MIPD and OPD for malignant PT, overall 1, 3 and 5-year survival rates, and median survival were 82.5%, 59.6% and 46.3% and 38 months as compared to 52.5%, 15.7% and 10.5% and 13 months, respectively (p = 0.01). In the MIDP-PT group, recurrence free survival (RFS) at 1, 3 and 5 years and median RFS were 69.1%, 41.9% and 33.5% and 26 months as compared to 50.4%, 6.3% and 6.3% and 13 months, in the OPD-PT group, respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: FT HPB Surgeons who begin their practice with the ability to do both MI and OPD may preferentially approach resectable peri-ampullary tumors minimally invasively. This may result in decreased blood loss decreased length of hospital stays. Despite longer operative time, the improved visualization of MI techniques may enable superior R0 rates when compared to historical open controls. Moreover, combined with quicker initiation of adjuvant chemotherapeutic treatments, this may eventually result in improved survival.

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

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

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

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

Benchmark performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy in expert centers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Herein, we aimed to establish benchmark values - based on a composite indicator of healthcare quality - for the performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) and laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) using data from expert centers. METHODS: Data from a nationwide multicenter survey including all patients undergoing LLLS and LRH between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. Textbook outcome (TO) completion was considered in patients fulfilling all 6 of the following characteristics: negative margins, no transfusion, no complication, no prolonged hospital stay, no readmission and no mortality. For each procedure, a cut-off laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) volume by center was associated with TO on multivariable analysis. These cut-offs defined the expert centers. The benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median outcomes among these expert centers. RESULTS: Among 4,400 LLRs performed in 29 centers, 855 patients who underwent LLLS and 488 who underwent LRH were identified. The overall incidences of TO after LLLS and LRH were 43.7% and 23.8%, respectively. LLR volume cut-offs of 25 LLR/year (odds ratio [OR] 2.45; bootstrap 95% CI 1.65-3.69; p = 0.001) and 35 LLR/year (OR 2.55; bootstrap 95% CI 1.34-5.63; p = 0.003) were independently associated with completion of TO after LLLS and LRH, respectively. Eight centers for LLLS and 6 centers for LRH, including 516 and 346 patients undergoing LLLS/LRH respectively, reached these cut-offs and were identified as expert centers. After LLLS, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were defined as ≤5.3%, ≤1.2% and ≥46.6%, respectively. After LRH, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were ≤20.4%, ≤2.8% and ≥24.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an up-to-date reference on the benchmark performance of LLLS and LRH in expert centers. LAY SUMMARY: In a nationwide French survey of laparoscopic liver resection, expert centers were defined according to the completion of a textbook outcome, which is a composite indicator of healthcare quality. Benchmark values regarding intra-operative details and outcomes were established using data from 516 patients with laparoscopic left lateral sectionectiomy and 346 patients with laparoscopic right hepatectomy from expert centers. These values should be used as a reference point to improve the quality of laparoscopic resections.

Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections for non-colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Liver is a common metastatic site not only of colorectal but of non-colorectal neoplasms, as well. However, resection of non-colorectal liver metastases (NCRLMs) remains controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for NCRLMs. METHODS: From a prospectively maintained database between 2000 and 2018, patients undergoing LLR for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) and NCRLMs were selected. Clinicopathologic, operative, short- and long-term outcome data were collected, analyzed, and compared among patients with CRLMs and NCRLMs. RESULTS: The primary tumor was colorectal in 354 (82.1%), neuroendocrine in 21 (4.9%), and non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine in the remaining 56 (13%) patients. Major postoperative morbidities were 12.7%, 19%, and 3.6%, respectively (p = 0.001), whereas the mortality was 0.6% for patients with CRLMs and zero for patients with NCRLMs. The rate of R1 surgical margin was comparable (p = 0.432) among groups. According to the survival analysis, 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 76.1% and 64.3% in the CRLM group, 57.1% and 42.3% in the neuroendocrine liver metastase (NELM) group, 33% and 20.8% in the non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine liver metastase (NCRNNELM) group (p = 0.001), respectively. Three- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 88.3% and 82.7% in the CRLM group, 85.7% and 70.6% in the NELM group, 71.4% and 52.9% in the NCRNNELM group (p = 0.001), respectively. In total, 113 out of 354 (31.9%) patients with CRLMs, 2 out of 21(9.5%) with NELMs, and 8 out of 56 (14.3%) patients with NCRNNELMs underwent repeat LLR for recurrent metastatic tumors. CONCLUSION: LLR is safe and feasible in the context of a multimodal management where an aggressive surgical approach, necessitating even complex procedures for bilobar multifocal metastases and repeat hepatectomy for recurrences, is the mainstay and may be of benefit in the long-term survival, in selected patients with NCRNNELMs.

Safety and feasibility of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection: a matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative outcomes of repeat laparoscopic colorectal resection (LCRR) have not been extensively reported. METHODS: Patients who underwent LCRR from 2010 to 2018 in an expert center were retrieved from a prospectively collected database and compared to 2:1 matched sample. Matching was based on demographics, surgical indication [colorectal cancer (CRC) or benign condition], and type of resection (right-sided resection or left-sided resection or proctectomy). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients underwent repeat LCRR with a median time of 36 months between the primary and the repeat LCRR. They were 12 (52%) men with a mean age of 64.9 years (31-87) and a median BMI of 21.4 kg/m2 (17.7-34). Indication for repeat LCRR was CRC, dysplasia, anastomotic stricture, and inflammatory bowel disease in 11 (48%), 5 (22%), 4 (17%), and 3 (13%) patients, respectively. A right-sided resection, a left-sided resection, and proctectomy were reported in 11 (48%), 8 (35%), and 4 (17%) patients, respectively. Median blood loss reached 211 mL (range 0-2000 mL). Thirteen (57%) patients required conversion to laparotomy including 12 for intense adhesions. The median length of hospital stay was 7.5 days (5-20). Two (9%) major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) were reported: 1 (4%) anastomotic fistula and 1 (4%) postoperative hemorrhage, without mortality. Among patients who underwent repeat LCRR for CRC, histopathological examination showed R0 resection in all patients, with at least 12 lymph nodes harvested in ten (91%) patients. After matched case-control analysis that compared to primary LCRR, conversion rate (p = 0.03), operative time (p = 0.03), and intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.0016) were significantly increased in repeat LCRR, without impact on postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat LCRR seems to be feasible and safe in expert hands without compromising the oncologic outcomes. Intense postoperative adhesions and misidentification of blood supply might lead to conversion to laparotomy. Real benefits of laparoscopic approach for repeat LCRR should be assessed in further studies.

Validation and performance of three-level procedure-based classification for laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: A procedure-based laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) classification (IMM classification) stratified 11 different LLR procedures into 3 grades. IMM classification assessed the difficulty of LLR differently than an index-based LLR classification (IWATE criteria), which scored each procedure on an index scale of 12. We validated the difference of 3 IMM grades using an external cohort, evaluated the IMM classification using the scores of the IWATE criteria, and compared the performance of IMM classification with the IWATE criteria and the minor/major classification. METHODS: Patients undergoing LLR without simultaneous procedures were selected from a prospectively maintained database at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM cohort) and from the database of 43 Japanese institutions (JMI cohort). Surgical and postoperative outcomes were evaluated according to the 3 IMM grades using the JMI cohort. The 11 LLR procedures included in the IMM classification were scored according to the IWATE criteria. The area under the curves (AUCs) for surgical and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: In the JMI (n = 1867) cohort, operative time, blood loss, conversion rate, and major complication rate were significantly associated with a stepwise increase in grades from I to III (all, P < 0.001). In the IMM (n = 433) and JMI cohorts, IMM grades I, II, and III corresponded to three low-scoring, two intermediate-scoring, and six high-scoring LLR procedures as per the IWATE criteria, respectively. Mean ± standard deviation among the IMM grades were significantly different: 3.7 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 7.5 ± 1.7 (grade II) versus 10.2 ± 1.0 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the IMM cohort and 3.6 ± 1.4 (grade I) versus 6.7 ± 1.5 (grade II) versus 9.3 ± 1.4 (grade III) (P < 0.001) in the JMI cohort. The AUCs for surgical and postoperative outcomes are higher for the 3-level IMM classification than for the minor/major classification. CONCLUSIONS: The difference of 3 IMM grades with respect to surgical and postoperative outcomes was validated using an external cohort. The 3-level procedure-based IMM classification was in accordance with the index-based IWATE criteria. The IMM classification performed better than the minor/major classification for stratifying LLR procedures.

Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: Do Not Underestimate the Impact of Specimen Extraction Site.

BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic major hepatectomy, analysis of outcomes according to specimen extraction site remains poorly described. The aim was to compare postoperative outcomes according to specimen extraction site. METHODS: From 2000 to 2017, all laparoscopic major hepatectomies were reviewed and postoperative outcomes were analyzed according to specimen extraction site: subcostal (Group 1), midline (Group 2), or suprapubic (Group 3) incision. RESULTS: Among 163 patients, 15 (9.2%) belonged to Group 1, 49 (30.1%) in Group 2, and 99 (60.7%) in Group 3. The proportion of right-sided, left-sided, or central hepatectomies, mortality, and overall and severe complications were comparable between groups. Group 1 had larger tumors (61 vs. 38 vs. 47 mm; P = 0.014), higher operative time (338 vs. 282 vs. 260 min; P < 0.008), higher adjacent organ resection rate (46.6 vs. 16.3 vs. 7.1%; P < 0.001), and tended to increase pulmonary complications (40.0 vs. 12.2 vs. 18.2%; P = 0.064). In Group 2, a previous midline incision scar was more frequently used for specimen extraction site (65.3 vs. 26.6 and 30.3%, Group 1 and 3; P < 0.001). Postoperative incisional hernia was observed in 16.4% (n = 23) and was more frequent in Group 2 (26.6 vs. 6.6% and 10.1%, Group 1 and Group 3; P = 0.030). Finally, Group 2 (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.41-3.53; P = 0.032) was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: While using a previous incision makes sense, the increased risk of postoperative incisional hernia after midline incision promotes the suprapubic incision.

Laparoscopic versus open unisegmentectomy in two specialized centers. Feasibility and short-term results.

BACKGROUND: Anatomical segmentectomy is defined as the complete removal of the Couinaud's segment. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic (LS) versus open (OS) unisegmentectomy in two high volume centers. METHODS: A retrospective review of all consecutive unisegmentectomies from 2007 to 2017 was performed at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and at the Hepatobiliary Center of Paul Brousse Hospital. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients underwent unisegmentectomy: 58 LS vs 52 OS in the anterolateral segments, 33 LS vs 34 OS in the posterosuperior segments. HCC were more frequent in the OS group, whereas colorectal liver metastases were more frequently treated with LS. Blood loss (200 vs. 400 ml, p = 0.006), operative time (238 vs. 267 min, p = 0.048) and median length of stay (6 vs. 8 days, p = 0.036) were significantly lower in the LS group. The resection margins (4 mm vs. 2 mm, p = 0.763) and the overall morbidity did not differ between the two groups. In the posterosuperior segment, OS group had more pulmonary complications (9 vs. 29%, p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic anatomical unisegmentectomies for selected patients, even with postero-superior based tumors, in specialized centers seems to be safe and feasible.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Distal Pancreatectomy for Ductal Adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): A Pan-European Propensity Score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. METHODS: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. RESULTS: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60-400) vs 300 mL (150-500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6-12) vs 9 (7-14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8-22) vs 22 (14-31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22-34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26-36) months (P = 0.929). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.