Full Robotic Whole Graft Liver Transplantation: A Step Into The Future.

OBJECTIVE: To report the first European series of full robotic whole liver transplantation (RLT) with technical details and future perspectives. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Few cases of liver transplantation with a minimally invasive approach using partial grafts have been reported so far, and no cases of robotic whole liver transplantation have been reported in the scientific literature. METHODS: The adopted technique was full robotic liver hepatectomy, followed by robotic implantation after graft introduction through a small midline incision. Patients presenting with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) in liver cirrhosis with a small caudate lobe, low degree of portal hypertension, no porto-mesenteric thrombosis, as well as low MELD patients have been considered ideal candidates. RESULTS: Six patients underwent RLT between February and March 2024 at Lisbon and Modena University Liver Transplant Centers. Warm ischemia time during RLT ranged between 55 and 90 min, with a total surgery duration between 440 and 710 min. The median total operative time was 595 (±111,3) minutes. Only one recipient had prolonged hyperbilirubinemia, which was safely treated. The median in-hospital stay was 7.5 days, (±4.8 days). CONCLUSIONS: RLT is a promising technique to further reduce the impact of liver transplantation thanks to smaller incision, gentle tissue manipulation, high magnification and precision for vascular and biliary anastomosis, and reduced postoperative pain. This is the first step toward the demonstration of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in liver transplantation, although further selection and technical refinements are needed to improve reproducibility.

Predictors of solid extra-hepatic non-skin cancer in liver transplant recipients and analysis of survival: A long-term follow-up study.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: De novo malignancies represent an important cause of death for liver transplant recipients. Our aim was to analyze predictors of extra-hepatic non-skin cancer (ESNSC) and the impact of ESNSC on the long-term outcome. PATIENTS: We examined data from patients transplanted between 2000 and 2005 and followed-up in five Italian transplant clinics with a retrospective observational cohort study. Cox Regression was performed to identify predictors of ESNSC. A 1:2 cohort sub-study was developed to analyze the impact of ESNSC on 10-year survival. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 367 subjects (median follow-up: 15 years). Patients with ESNSC (n = 47) more often developed post-LT diabetes mellitus (DM) (57.4% versus 35,9%, p = 0.004). At multivariate analysis, post-LT DM independently predicted ESNSC (HR 1.929, CI 1.029-3.616, p = 0.040). Recipients with ESNSC showed a lower 10-year survival than matched controls (46,8% versus 68,1%, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Post-LT DM seems to be a relevant risk factor for post-LT ESNSC. ESNSC could have a noteworthy impact on the long-term survival of LT recipients.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the first meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has gained increasing acceptance for surgical treatment of malignant and benign liver tumors. LLR for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not commonly performed because of the concern for the frequent need for major hepatectomy, vascular-biliary reconstructions, and lymph node dissection (LND). The aim of this present meta-analysis is to compare surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR) for ICC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library database of published studies comparing LLR and OLR up to October 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. Dichotomous data were calculated by odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were calculated by mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Four retrospective observational studies describing 204 patients met the inclusion criteria. With respect to surgical outcomes, laparoscopic compared with open liver resection was associated with lower blood loss [MD - 173.86, (95% CI - 254.82, -92.91) p < 0.0001], less requirement of blood transfusion [OR 0.34, (95% CI 0.14, 0.82) p = 0.02], less need for Pringle maneuver [OR 0.17, (95% CI 0.07, 0.43) p = 0.0002], shorter hospital stay [MD - 3.77, (95% CI - 5.09, - 2.44; p < 0.0001], and less morbidity [OR 0.44, (95% CI 0.21, 0.94) p = 0.03]. With respect to oncological outcomes, the LLR group was prone to lower rates of lymphadenectomy [OR 0.12, (95% CI 0.06, 0.25) p < 0.0001], but surgical margins R0 and recurrence rate were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic liver resection for ICC seems to achieve better surgical outcomes, providing short-term benefits without negatively affecting oncologic adequacy in terms of R0 resections and disease recurrence. However, a higher LND rate was observed in the open group. Due to the risk of bias and the statistical heterogeneity between the studies included in this review, further RCTs are needed to reach stronger scientific conclusions.

Not just minor resections: robotic approach for cystic echinococcosis of the liver.

INTRODUCTION: Human echinococcosis is among the 17 neglected tropical diseases recognized by the World Health Organization. It is responsible for over $3 billion of health costs every year being endemic in large areas worldwide, and liver is affected in 70% of the cases. Surgery associated to medical treatment is the gold standard and robotic approach may be a valuable tool to achieve safe, parenchyma sparing resections. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of patients that underwent robotic radical surgical treatment for hydatid liver disease, from prospectively maintained databases of three Italian centers. RESULTS: 15 patients were included in this study, median age 51 years (24-76). 1 right hepatectomy, 2 left lateral sectionectomies, 5 segmentectomies (including 1 caudatectomy), 3 wedge resections and 5 cyst-pericystectomies were performed. Median estimated blood loss was of 100 ml (50-550 ml), and median operative time including docking was 210 min (95-590 min), with no need for conversion to open. Median hospital stay was 4 days, with only one readmission for fever. Only one patient experienced recurrence in a different liver segment. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, robotic approach for cystic echinococcosis of the liver proved to be a safe and effective strategy also in the so-called "difficult segments", with short post-operative stay and quick return to daily activities, along with the absence of surgical site recurrences. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest report of robotic approach to hydatid liver disease.

Predictors of Re-bleeding and Mortality Among Patients with Refractory Variceal Bleeding Undergoing Salvage Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS).

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) has proven clinical efficacy as rescue therapy for cirrhotic patients with acute portal hypertensive bleeding who fail endoscopic treatment. AIMS: To investigate predictive factors of 6-week and 1-year mortality in patients undergoing salvage TIPS for refractory portal hypertensive bleeding. METHODS: A total of 144 consecutive patients were retrospectively evaluated. Three logistic regression multivariate models were estimated to individualize prognostic factors for 6-week and 12-month mortality. Log-rank test was used to evaluate survival according to Child-Pugh classes and Bureau's criteria. RESULTS: Mean age 51 ± 10 years, 66% male, mean MELD 18.5 ± 8.3, Child-Pugh A/B/C 8%/38%/54%. TIPS failure occurred in 23(16%) patients and was associated with pre-TIPS portal pressure gradient and pre-TIPS intensive care unit stay. Six-week and 12-month mortality was 36% and 42%, respectively. Pre-TIPS intensive care unit stay, MELD, and Child-Pugh score were independently associated with mortality at 6 weeks. Independent predictors of mortality at 12 months were pre-TIPS intensive care unit stay and Child-Pugh score. CONCLUSIONS: In this large cohort of patients undergoing salvage TIPS, MELD and Child-Pugh scores were predictive of short- and long-term mortality, respectively. Pre-TIPS intensive care unit stay was independently associated with TIPS failure and mortality at 6 weeks and 12 months. Salvage TIPS is futile in patients with Child-Pugh score of 14-15.

Value of HCC-MELD Score in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Liver Transplantation.

CONTEXT: Liver transplantation (LT) is considered the ideal therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) having cirrhosis but the shortage of liver donors and the risk of dropout from the wait list due to tumor progression severely limit transplantation. A new prognostic score, the HCC-model for end-stage liver disease (HCC-MELD), was developed by combining α-fetoprotein (AFP), MELD, and tumor size, to improve risk stratification of dropout in patients with HCC. OBJECTIVES: In this study, we investigated the ability of the HCC-MELD score in predicting the posttransplant for patients fulfilling Milan criteria (MC). DESIGN: Two hundred patients with stage II tumor were retrospectively reviewed from a total of 1290 transplants performed at our institution from October 1997 through April 2015. Cox regression analysis was performed to identify the prognostic factors impacting the posttransplant survival. RESULTS: Overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 89.3%, 71.1%, and 67.2%, whereas disease-free survival was 86.4%, 66.5%, and 52.4%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed HCC-MELD score (hazard ratio [HR] 39.6, P < .001) and microvascular invasion (HR 2.41, P = .002) to be independent risk factors for recurrence, whereas HCC diameter (HR 1.15, P = .041), HCC-MELD (HR 15.611, P = .006), and grading (HR 2.17, P = .03) proved to be predictive factors of poor overall survival. CONCLUSION: Our study showed the validity of the HCC-MELD equation in the evaluation of patients undergoing LT for HCC. This score offers a reliable method to assess the risk of waiting list dropout and predict posttransplantation outcomes.

Robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: an up-to-date meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) reduces postoperative morbidity, hospital stay and recovery as compared with open distal pancreatectomy. Many authors believe that robotic surgery can overcome the difficulties and technical limits of LDP thanks to improved surgical manipulation and better visualization. Few studies in the literature have compared the two methods in terms of surgical and oncological outcome. The aim of this study was to compare the results of robotic (RDP) and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of control studies published up to December 2016 comparing LDP and RDP. Two Reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the studies. The meta-analysis was conducted using either the fixed-effect or the random-effect model. RESULTS: Ten studies describing 813 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis shows that the RDP group had a significantly higher rate of spleen preservation [OR 2.89 (95% confidence interval 1.78-4.71, p < 0.0001], a lower rate of conversion to open OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.12-0.92), p = 0.003] and a shorter hospital stay [MD -0.74; (95% CI -1.34 -0.15), p = 0.01] but a higher cost than the LDP group, while other surgical outcomes did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the RDP procedure is safe and comparable in terms of surgical results to LDP. However, even if the RDP has a higher cost compared to LDP, it increases the rate of spleen preservation, reduces the risk of conversion to open surgery and is associated to shorter length of hospital stay.

Results of salvage liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Salvage liver transplantation (SLT) is an attractive sequential strategy which combines liver resection (LR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), followed by liver transplant (LT) in the event of HCC recurrence or progressive liver deterioration. To compare the long-term results of SLT with primary liver transplant (PLT). METHODS: Between 2000 and 2011, 125 patients (72 transplantable) underwent LR and 226 underwent LT in our unit. The outcome of SLT was analysed in a two-step fashion: firstly, SLT (n = 28) was compared with PLT (n = 198), secondly an intention-to-treat analysis was performed on all transplantable HCC patients who underwent LR (LRT group = 72) compared to PLT (n = 198). RESULTS: The five-year overall survival (OS) was 65.4% vs. 49.2% (P = 0.63), and disease-free survival (DFS) was 89.7% vs. 80.6% (P = 0.31) for PLT and SLT respectively. Predictive factors for DFS after LT included HCC total diameter [hazard ratio (HR) 1.29 P = 0.003], alpha-foetoprotein (HR 1.002 P < 0.001) and number of HCC nodules (HR 1.317 P = 0.035), whereas viral hepatitis C positivity (HR 1.911 P = 0.03) and outside Up-to-seven criteria (HR 2.652 P < 0.001) were negative independent prediction factors of OS. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that OS at 5 years was improved in PLT vs. LRT (LRT n = 72 including SLT plus LR group) and was 69.4% vs. 42.2% (P < 0.004), with an additional increase in DFS (89.2% vs. 54.5% respectively P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Salvage liver transplantation is a safe treatment strategy, as it does not impair long-term survival. At intention-to-treat analysis, PLT showed improved survival compared with LRT.

Wound infiltration with local anaesthetic agents for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered to be less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery resulting in overnight stay following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not known. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of local anaesthetic wound infiltration in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and to identify the best method of local anaesthetic wound infiltration with regards to the type of local anaesthetic, dosage, and time of administration of the local anaesthetic. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until February 2013 to identify studies of relevance to this review. We included randomised clinical trials for benefit and quasi-randomised and comparative non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, trials comparing different local anaesthetic agents for local anaesthetic wound infiltration, and trials comparing the different times of local anaesthetic wound infiltration were considered for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analysis models using RevMan. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-six trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. All the 26 trials except one trial of 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Nineteen of the trials with 1263 randomised participants provided data for this review. Ten of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control. One of the 19 trials compared local anaesthetic wound infiltration with two inactive controls, normal saline and no intervention. Two of the 19 trials had four arms comparing local anaesthetic wound infiltration with inactive controls in the presence and absence of co-interventions to decrease pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Four of the 19 trials had three or more arms that could be included for the comparison of local anaesthetic wound infiltration versus inactive control and different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration. The remaining two trials compared different methods of local anaesthetic wound infiltration.Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Seventeen trials randomised a total of 1095 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration (587 participants) versus no local anaesthetic wound infiltration (508 participants). Various anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine was the commonest local anaesthetic used. There was no mortality in either group in the seven trials that reported mortality (0/280 (0%) in local anaesthetic infiltration group versus 0/259 (0%) in control group). The effect of local anaesthetic on the proportion of people who developed serious adverse events was imprecise and compatible with increase or no difference in serious adverse events (seven trials; 539 participants; 2/280 (0.8%) in local anaesthetic group versus 1/259 (0.4%) in control; RR 2.00; 95% CI 0.19 to 21.59; very low quality evidence). None of the serious adverse events were related to local anaesthetic wound infiltration. None of the trials reported patient quality of life. The proportion of participants who were discharged as day surgery patients was higher in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than in the no local anaesthetic infiltration group (one trial; 97 participants; 33/50 (66.0%) in the local anaesthetic group versus 20/47 (42.6%) in the control group; RR 1.55; 95% CI 1.05 to 2.28; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the length of hospital stay was compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the length of hospital stay between the two groups (four trials; 327 participants; MD -0.26 days; 95% CI -0.67 to 0.16; very low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (0 to 10 cm) were lower in the local anaesthetic infiltration group than the control group at 4 to 8 hours (13 trials; 806 participants; MD -1.33 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -1.54 to -1.12; very low quality evidence) and 9 to 24 hours (12 trials; 756 participants; MD -0.36 cm on the VAS; 95% CI -0.53 to -0.20; very low quality evidence). The effect of local anaesthetic on the time taken to return to normal activity between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with a decrease, increase, or no difference in the time taken to return to normal activity (two trials; 195 participants; MD 0.14 days; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.87; very low quality evidence). None of the trials reported on return to work.Four trials randomised a total of 149 participants to local anaesthetic wound infiltration prior to skin incision (74 participants) versus local anaesthetic wound infiltration at the end of surgery (75 participants). Two trials randomised a total of 176 participants to four different local anaesthetics (bupivacaine, levobupivacaine, ropivacaine, neosaxitoxin). Although there were differences between the groups in some outcomes the changes were not consistent. There was no evidence to support the preference of one local anaesthetic over another or to prefer administration of local anaesthetic at a specific time compared with another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic wound infiltration (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that infiltration reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials at low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: While laparoscopic cholecystectomy is generally considered less painful than open surgery, pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after day surgery and overnight stay laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The safety and effectiveness of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials of relevance to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review with regards to benefits while we considered quasi-randomised studies and non-randomised studies for treatment-related harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 58 trials, of which 48 trials with 2849 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (1558 participants) versus control (1291 participants) contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. All the trials except one trial with 30 participants were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Various intraperitoneal local anaesthetic agents were used but bupivacaine in the liquid form was the most common local anaesthetic used. There were considerable differences in the methods of local anaesthetic instillation including the location (subdiaphragmatic, gallbladder bed, or both locations) and timing (before or after the removal of gallbladder) between the trials. There was no mortality in either group in the eight trials that reported mortality (0/236 (0%) in local anaesthetic instillation versus 0/210 (0%) in control group; very low quality evidence). One participant experienced the outcome of serious morbidity (eight trials; 446 participants; 1/236 (0.4%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 0/210 (0%) in the control group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.13 to 67.06; very low quality evidence). Although the remaining trials did not report the overall morbidity, three trials (190 participants) reported that there were no intra-operative complications. Twenty trials reported that there were no serious adverse events in any of the 715 participants who received local anaesthetic instillation. None of the trials reported participant quality of life, return to normal activity, or return to work.The effect of local anaesthetic instillation on the proportion of participants discharged as day surgery between the two groups was imprecise and compatible with benefit and no difference of intervention (three trials; 242 participants; 89/160 (adjusted proportion 61.0%) in local anaesthetic instillation group versus 40/82 (48.8%) in control group; RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.58; very low quality evidence). The MD in length of hospital stay was 0.04 days (95% CI -0.23 to 0.32; five trials; 335 participants; low quality evidence). The pain scores as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS) were significantly lower in the local anaesthetic instillation group than the control group at four to eight hours (32 trials; 2020 participants; MD -0.99 cm; 95% CI -1.10 to -0.88 on a VAS scale of 0 to 10 cm; very low quality evidence) and at nine to 24 hours (29 trials; 1787 participants; MD -0.53 cm; 95% CI -0.62 to -0.44; very low quality evidence). Various subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to investigate the influence of the different local anaesthetic agents, different methods of local anaesthetic instillation, and different controls on the effectiveness of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation were inconsistent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events were rare in studies evaluating local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation (very low quality evidence). There is very low quality evidence that it reduces pain in low anaesthetic risk people undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the clinical importance of this reduction in pain is unknown and likely to be small. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation may decrease pain in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, the optimal method to administer the local anaesthetic is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal local anaesthetic agent, the optimal timing, and the optimal delivery method of the local anaesthetic agent used for intraperitoneal instillation in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal (WHO ICTRP) to March 2013 to identify randomised clinical trials for assessment of benefit and comparative non-randomised studies for the assessment of treatment-related harms. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status) comparing different methods of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation during laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors collected the data independently. We analysed the data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models using Review Manager 5 analysis. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials with 798 participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy randomised to different methods of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Most trials included only people with low anaesthetic risk. The comparisons included in the trials that met the eligibility criteria were the following; comparison of one local anaesthetic agent with another local anaesthetic agent (three trials); comparison of timing of delivery (six trials); comparison of different methods of delivery of the anaesthetic agent (two trials); comparison of location of the instillation of the anaesthetic agent (one trial); three trials reported mortality and morbidity.There were no mortalities or serious adverse events in either group in the following comparisons: bupivacaine (0/100 (0%)) versus lignocaine (0/106 (0%)) (one trial; 206 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/55 (0%)) versus end of surgery (0/55 (0%)) (two trials; 110 participants); just after creation of pneumoperitoneum (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants); end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) versus after the end of surgery (0/15 (0%)) (one trial; 30 participants).None of the trials reported quality of life, the time taken to return to normal activity, or the time taken to return to work. The differences in the proportion of people who were discharged as day-surgery and the length of hospital stay were imprecise in all the comparisons included that reported these outcomes (very low quality evidence). There were some differences in the pain scores on the visual analogue scale (1 to 10 cm) but these were neither consistent nor robust to fixed-effect versus random-effects meta-analysis or sensitivity analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence is inadequate to determine the effects of one method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation compared with any other method of local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation in low anaesthetic risk individuals undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Further randomised clinical trials of low risk of systematic and random errors are necessary. Such trials should include important clinical outcomes such as quality of life and time to return to work in their assessment.

Robotic ALPPS for primary and metastatic liver tumours: short-term outcomes versus open approach.

Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) is one of the strategies available for patients initially unresectable. High risk of peri-operative morbidity and mortality limited its application and diffusion. We aimed to analyse short-term outcomes of robotic ALPPS versus open approach, to assess safety and reproducibility of this technique. A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases at University of Modena and Reggio Emilia on patients that underwent ALPPS between January 2015 and September 2022 was conducted. The main aim of the study was to evaluate safety and feasibility of robotic approach, either full robotic or only first-stage robotic, compared to a control group of patients who underwent open ALPPS in the same Institution. 23 patients were included. Nine patients received a full open ALPPS (O-ALPPS), 7 received a full robotic ALPPS (R-ALPPS), and 7 underwent a robotic approach for stage 1, followed by an open approach for stage 2 (R + O-ALPPS). PHLF grade B-C after stage 1 was 0% in all groups, rising to 58% in the R + O-ALPPS group after stage 2 and remaining 0% in the R-ALPPS group. 86% of R-ALPPS cases were discharged from the hospital between stages 1 and 2, and median total in-hospital stay and ICU stay favoured full robotic approach as well. This contemporary study represents the largest series of robotic ALPPS, showing potential advantages from full robotic ALPPS over open approach, resulting in reduced hospital stay and complications and lower incidence of 90-day mortality.

Minimally Invasive Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Elderly versus Younger Patients: A Meta-Analysis.

(1) Background: With ageing, the number of pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD) for benign or malignant disease is expected to increase in elderly patients. However, whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) should be performed in the elderly is not clear yet and it is still debated. (2) Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted including seven published articles comparing the technical and post-operative outcomes of MIPD in elderly versus younger patients up to December 2022. (3) Results: In total, 1378 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In term of overall and Clavien-Dindo I/II complication rates, post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) grade > A rates and biliary leakage, abdominal collection, post-operative bleeding and delayed gastric emptying rates, no differences emerged between the two groups. However, this study showed slightly higher intraoperative blood loss [MD 43.41, (95%CI 14.45, 72.38) p = 0.003], Clavien-Dindo ≥ III complication rates [OR 1.87, (95%CI 1.13, 3.11) p = 0.02] and mortality rates [OR 2.61, (95%CI 1.20, 5.68) p = 0.02] in the elderly compared with the younger group. Interestingly, as a minor endpoint, no differences in terms of the mean number of harvested lymphnode and of R0 resection rates were found. (4) Conclusion: MIPD seems to be relatively safe; however, there are slightly higher major morbidity, lung complication and mortality rates in elderly patients, who potentially represent the individuals that may benefit the most from the minimally invasive approach.

Current role and perspectives of living donor liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review of the past 20 years.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) poses a significant global health challenge, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the best curative option. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged as a potential solution to organ scarcity, reducing waitlist times. This comprehensive review explores LDLT practices, focusing on patient selection criteria and oncologic outcomes. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines included 50 studies (2004-2023) with 8062 patients. Data encompassed baseline characteristics, HCC features, and oncologic outcomes. Further analysis categorized results by geography and publication year. Heterogeneity in patient demographics, tumor burden, and transplant characteristics was observed. Recent LDLT series demonstrated a shift towards refined selection criteria, increased neoadjuvant treatment, and improved oncologic outcomes. Geographic disparities revealed unique challenges in Eastern and Western practices. LDLT proves effective for HCC, addressing donor shortages. Evolving practices highlight the importance of refining inclusion criteria and optimizing tumor management. While geographic differences exist, LDLT, when judiciously applied, offers promising outcomes.

Surveillance strategies following curative resection and non-operative approach of rectal cancer: How and how long? Review of current recommendations.

Different follow-up strategies are available for patients with rectal cancer following curative treatment. A combination of biochemical testing and imaging investigation, associated with physical examination are commonly used. However, there is currently no consensus about the types of tests to perform, the timing of the testing, and even the need for follow-up at all has been questioned. The aim of this study was to review the evidence of the impact of different follow-up tests and programs in patients with non-metastatic disease after definitive treatment of the primary. A literature review was performed of studies published on MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to November 2022. Current published guidelines from the most authoritative specialty societies were also reviewed. According to the follow-up strategies available, the office visit is not efficient but represents the only way to maintain direct contact with the patient and is recommended by all authoritative specialty societies. In colorectal cancer surveillance, carcinoembryonic antigen represents the only established tumor marker. Abdominal and chest computed tomography scan is recommended considering that the liver and lungs are the most common sites of recurrence. Since local relapse in rectal cancer is higher than in colon cancer, endoscopic surveillance is mandatory. Different follow-up regimens have been published but randomized comparisons and meta-analyses do not allow to determine whether intensive or less intensive follow-up had any significant influence on survival and recurrence detection rate. The available data do not allow the drawing of final conclusions on the ideal surveillance methods and the frequency with which they should be applied. It is very useful and urgent for clinicians to identify a cost-effective strategy that allows early identification of recurrence with a special focus for high-risk patients and patients undergoing a "watch and wait" approach.