Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Laparoscopic Caudate Resection: How to Safely Manage the Spiegel/IVC Interface.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive caudate lobectomy, or even paracaval caudate resection, can be associated with significant bleeding due to its abutment of inferior vena cava (IVC), portal pedicle and hepatic veins.1-3 This risk can be magnified by cirrhosis as well as response to neoadjuvant therapy (a common phenomenon after excellent response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy), leading to obliteration or even fusion of the hepato-caval space.4-7 PATIENT: A 68-year-old female with stage IVa colorectal adenocarcinoma was found to have a single liver metastasis (3.8 × 3.1 cm) in the paracaval caudate lobe. The patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, leading to inflammatory fusion of the hepato-caval space. Despite this, the patient underwent a safe laparoscopic Spiegel process resection. TECHNIQUE: Prior to surgery, three-dimensional liver and port site modeling was performed to optimize the understanding of the spatial relationship between the tumor, IVC, and portal-hepatic veins. Following inflow control of portal veinous branches, the fused hepato-caval space was dissected. The adhesions were then sharply dissected to mobilize the paracaval caudate lobe off the IVC. Using scissors rather than an energy device reduced the risk of inadvertent thermal injury to the IVC. CONCLUSION: Preoperative virtual hepatectomy facilitates surgical planning, increasing the understanding of the tumor/vessel relationship and port placement. In case of a fused hepato-caval space, low central venous pressure and judicious management of short hepatic vein branches are the key for a successful dissection. Moreover, anticipation of a fused hepato-caval space and its strategic management are paramount when performing a minimally invasive caudate resection.

Laparoscopic Total Pancreatectomy After Laparoscopic Whipple.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of a second de novo pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) among patients with prior cancer has been reported to be 6%.1,2 however, as survival increases through improvements in systemic therapy, this incidence of a de novo PDAC after prior PDAC may become more prevalent.3-8 In this context, a structured and stepwise approach to a total pancreatectomy for a second de novo PDAC after a prior PDAC treated with a pancreaticoduodenectomy is detailed. PATIENTS: We present two similar cases. The first patient was a 71-year-old female with de novo body PDAC, and the second was a 50-year-old female with de novo tail PDAC. To rule out recurrence, immunohistochemical staining as well as the review of biopsies by two experienced pathologists were employed. Both patients had undergone a laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy for PDAC 4 and 3 years prior. Each patient received four cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent a safe laparoscopic total pancreatectomy. TECHNIQUE: Prior to surgery, three-dimensional anatomic and port site modeling is performed to optimize the understanding of the spatial relationship between the tumor, blood vessels, and adjacent organs involved. The port site modeling (including pneumoperitoneum simulation) focuses on the optimal port set-up for dissecting the biliopancreatic limb off the portal vein. Following complete mobilization of the biliopancreatic limb, the biliopancreatic limb is staple-divided between the hepatico- and pancreaticojejunostomy. Great care must be taken to avoid accidental staple injury to the hepatic artery or celiac trunk. The remainder of the dissection is akin to a standard distal pancreaticosplenectomy. CONCLUSION: Virtual pancreatectomy modeling facilitates an optimal set-up for the critical step of this case, i.e. dissection of the pancreaticojejunostomy off the portal vein. Early division of the biliopancreatic limb between hepatico- and pancreatojejunostomy is crucial to facilitating the remainder of the dissection. Laparoscopic total pancreatectomy for a de novo PDAC after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy may become more common as survival of patients with prior PDAC improves over time.

Laparoscopic Dissection of Lymph Node Station 16-Why and How?

BACKGROUND: Dissection of para-aortic lymph nodes (Station 16) provides an important prognosticator for patients with gastrointestinal, colorectal, and hepatobiliary cancers.1-4 For example, a positive Station 16 lymph node has been shown to lead to 2-year survival of 3% in patients with pancreas adenocarcinoma, akin to stage IV disease.5,6 Thereby, Station 16 involvement can help with the risk/benefit stratification of the decision to move forward with radical surgery.7-9 Furthermore, it has been shown for gallbladder cancer that involvement of Station 16 cannot necessarily be predicted from the dissection of the hepatoduodenal ligament lymph nodes only.10,11 TECHNIQUE: With the patient in the French position, a complete Kocherization and a Cattel-Braasch maneuver is performed, allowing for visualization of LN station 16b. Station 16b is the inferior border of the station 16 compartment. The left renal vein (LRV) serves as an important landmark to identify the superior border of the dissection comprised by Stations 16a2 and 16b1. Station 16a2 dissection may be associated with a traction injury of the left renal vein or damage of right renal or suprarenal arteries and is dissected if there are specific concerns regarding involvement. CONCLUSIONS: While station 16 provides important prognostic information for risk stratification, a strategic and stepwise approach is needed for a safe sampling. This is accomplished by wide mobilization of the duodenum, implementation of thermal fusion to minimize chyle leak, and careful dissection below the left renal vein.

Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas: Is Enucleation Safe?

BACKGROUND: While solid pseudopapillary tumor (SPT) of the pancreas are oncologically low-risk tumors, their resection with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) or partial pancreatectomy (PP) carries a significant risk for morbidity. To balance the favorable prognosis with the surgical morbidity of pancreas resection, this study explores the oncologic safety of enucleation (EN). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for resected SPT from January 2004 through December 2020. Perioperative outcomes and survival were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Kaplan-Meier analysis (with log-rank test). Survival analysis was performed to compare patients with and without lymph node (LN) metastases and binary logistic regression for predictors of LN metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 922 patients met inclusion criteria; 18 patients (2%) underwent EN, 550 (59.6%) underwent PP, and 354 (38.4%) underwent PD. Mean tumor size was 57.6 mm. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for EN compared with PP and PD groups (3.8 versus 6.2 versus 9.4 days, p < 0.001). There was a nonsignificant improvement in unplanned readmission [0% versus 8% versus 10.7% (p = 0.163)], 30-day mortality [0% versus 0.5% versus 0% (p = 0.359)], and 90-day mortality [0% versus 0.5% versus 0% (p = 0.363)] between EN, PP, and PD groups. Survival analyses showed no difference in OS when comparing EN versus PP (p = 0.443), and EN versus PD (p = 0317). Patients with LN metastases (p < 0.001) fared worse, and lymphovascular invasion, higher T category (T3-4) and M1 status were found as predictors for LN metastasis. CONCLUSIONS: EN may be considered for select patients leading to favorable outcomes. Because survival was worse in the rare cohort of patients with LN metastases, the predictors for LN metastasis identified here may aid in stratifying patients to EN versus resection.

An International Expert Delphi Consensus on Defining Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS).

OBJECTIVE: To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method. BACKGROUND: Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking. METHODS: This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS. RESULTS: In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Anatomic Laparoscopic Partial Hepatectomy of a Segment 4a B-Catenin Mutated Adenoma.

BACKGROUND: Although a ß-catenin mutated hepatocellular adenoma (HCA) is a benign liver tumor, it can cause bleeding, obstruction, pain, and hepatocellular carcinoma.1-3 Because surgery needs to balance these risks with its morbidity, a minimally invasive approach may be well suited.4-6 In this report, a strategic approach to minimally invasive resection of HCA encompassing segment 4a (S4a) is reviewed. PATIENT: A 22-year-old woman with abdominal pain was found to have two liver lesions involving segment 4a (5 cm) and segment 8 (S8) (4.5 cm). Liver biopsy confirmed a ß-catenin mutated HCA in the S4a lesion. After embolization, an anatomic S4a segmentectomy and a partial S8 resection were planned. TECHNIQUE: Three-dimensional modeling was used to perform a preoperative virtual hepatectomy; to visualize the spatial relationship between the HCA, the portal bifurcation, and the hepatic veins; and to preplan the port sites.7 With the patient in the French position, after port placement, intraoperative ultrasound was performed to identify the transection plane.8 The main left portal pedicle and Rex's recessus were exposed, and the branches of S4a were dissected out, clipped, and divided. Using ultrasound, the middle hepatic vein was exposed to define the lateral border of the dissection plane. CONCLUSION: Although a ß-catenin mutated HCA in S4a does not necessitate a formal segmentectomy, understanding the anatomic structures outlining its borders can facilitate the resection, especially for a large HCA. Virtual hepatectomy helps to achieve a detailed comprehension of the complex borders of segment 4a. Preoperative embolization can firm up the tumor and minimize the risk of intraoperative rupture from manipulation.

Clinical outcomes and cost of open, laparoscopic, and percutaneous ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Open (OA), laparoscopic (LA), and percutaneous (PA) ablation are all ablation approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) utilized in the United States today. However, it remains unclear today which approach is (A) most effective, (B) cost-efficient, and (C) nationally practiced. METHODS: In-hospital mortality and cost were collected from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for patients undergoing liver ablation from 2011 to 2018. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, disposition, and perioperative composite complications. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to adjust for differences in patient and hospital baseline characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand and one hundred and twenty-five LA, 1221 OA, and 1068 PA liver ablations were analyzed. After IPTW, in-hospital mortality risk was significantly lower in PA versus OA cohorts (0.57% vs. 2.90%, p < 0.001) and reduced among PA patients, yet not significantly different from the LA cohort (0.57% vs. 1.64%, p = 0.056). The median length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the PA and LA group compared to OA (2 days vs. 6 days, p < 0.001). The median hospitalization costs were significantly lower for PA ($44,884 vs. $90,187, p < 0.001) and LA ($61,445 vs. $90,187, p < 0.001) compared to OA. Moreover, we found significant regional differences regarding the use of each ablation approach, with the Midwest having the lowest rates of PA and LA. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized after ablation for HCC, PA leads to the lowest hospital cost. Both PA and LA result in lower peri-operative morbidity and mortality relative to OA. Despite these reported advantages, there are significant regional differences with respect to ablation availability suggesting the need to promote the standardization of best practices.

Subsegmental approaches to S7: anatomic laparoscopic transdiaphragmatic and nonanatomic robotic transthoracic.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery of postero-superior segments (S4a, S7, S8) remains a challenge. The caudal view, an increased distance between trocars and the operative field, and the liver fulcrum limiting the view, contribute to the difficulty [1, 2]. We and other groups have previously reported the use of intercostal trocars to access subdiaphragmatic tumors (transdiaphragmatic approach) [3-5], only few reports on a laparoscopic total transthoracic approach, none (to our knowledge) dynamic manuscripts of a total transthoracic robotic approach, and none (to our knowledge) that use preoperative port site and anatomic modelling exist. Further, we developed a total transthoracic (thoracoscopic) approach to avoid a hostile abdomen, while bringing viewing axis and instruments close to the target [6-10]. In this context, this report details the advantages of a laparoscopic vs. robotic transthoracic approach. According to institutional protocol, reports of individual cases in print or video format do not require institutional review board approval. PATIENT: A 68-year-old male on peritoneal dialysis with left colon adenocarcinoma and a single synchronous liver metastasis in S6-7 close to the root of the right hepatic vein underwent a laparoscopic transdiaphragmatic metastasectomy. Two years later, the patient developed a recurrent 1.5 cm liver metastasis in S7, which lend itself to a robotic transthoracic approach. TECHNIQUE: Following 3-D modelling and virtual port placement planning, the first metastasectomy was performed laparoscopically using a transdiaphragmatic approach. The recurrence was managed transthoracically due to more apical, subdiaphragmatic location. For this operation, a robotic approach was optimal as robotic wrist articulation facilitates manipulation via the limited intercostal space. This was particularly helpful during the diaphragmatic reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Total transthoracic liver surgery is certainly an advanced procedure requiring superior MIS liver skills. Recommendations for starting with a total transthoracic approach are not unlike from starting a standard, none-transthoracic liver surgery. Early on in the experience we recommend advanced liver MIS skills, and single, small, subdiaphragmatic tumors away from major vessels. Nonetheless, when these recommendations are followed a total transthoracic approach may be safer and result in less access trauma, than traversing a hostile abdomen to reach the posterior-superior liver. Both laparoscopic and robotic transthoracic approaches can facilitate the resection of subdiaphragmatic tumors, especially in patients with hostile abdomens. While the laparoscopic approach has advantages due to a broader spectrum of available surgical tools (flexible tip camera, parenchymal dissection, and energy devices), the robotic wrist articulation facilitates manipulation via the restricted intercostal space.

Educational Scoring System in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Is It the Right Time to Standardize?

Background and Objectives: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most performed surgeries worldwide. Procedure difficulty and patient outcomes depend on several factors which are not considered in the current literature, including the learning curve, generating confusing and subjective results. This study aims to create a scoring system to calculate the learning curve of LC based on hepatobiliopancreatic (HPB) experts' opinions during an educational course. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was submitted to the panel of experts attending the HPB course at Research Institute against Digestive Cancer-IRCAD (Strasbourg, France) from 27-29 October 2022. Experts scored the proposed variables according to their degree of importance in the learning curve using a Likert scale from 1 (not useful) to 5 (very useful). Variables were included in the composite scoring system only if more than 75% of experts ranked its relevance in the learning curve assessment ≥4. A positive or negative value was assigned to each variable based on its effect on the learning curve. Results: Fifteen experts from six different countries attended the IRCAD HPB course and filled out the questionnaire. Ten variables were finally included in the learning curve scoring system (i.e., patient body weight/BMI, patient previous open surgery, emergency setting, increased inflammatory levels, presence of anatomical bile duct variation(s), and appropriate critical view of safety (CVS) identification), which were all assigned positive values. Minor or major intraoperative injuries to the biliary tract, development of postoperative complications related to biliary injuries, and mortality were assigned negative values. Conclusions: This is the first scoring system on the learning curve of LC based on variables selected through the experts' opinions. Although the score needs to be validated through future studies, it could be a useful tool to assess its efficacy within educational programs and surgical courses.

Is minimally invasive surgery for large gastric GIST actually safe? A comparative analysis of short- and long-term outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: While minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is frequently utilized to remove small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), MIS surgery for tumors ≥ 5 cm is currently not endorsed by national guidelines as standard of care due to concerns of safety and inferior oncologic outcomes. Hence this study investigates the perioperative and long-term outcomes of MIS for T3 gastric GIST measuring 5-10 cm. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) 2017 was queried for gastric GIST measuring 5-10 cm or T3 category. Inclusion criteria were known: stage, size, comorbidities, grade, lymphovascular invasion, type of surgery, approach, conversion info, margin status, mitotic rate, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, hospital stay, readmission, 30- and 90-day mortality, complete follow-up, type of institution, and hospital gastric surgery case volume. Binary logistic regression, linear regression models, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used. RESULTS: In 3765 patients, mean tumor size was 67.3 mm; 26.3% MIS; and 73.8% open. Median hospital stay was shorter for MIS (4.77 vs 7.04 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in incidence of R1 margins [2.9% MIS vs. 3.1% open (p = 0.143)], unplanned readmission [2.9% MIS and 4.1% open (OR 0.474 p = 0.025)], 30-day mortality [0.5% MIS vs 1.2% open (OR 0.325, p = 0.031)], and 90-day mortality [0.9% MIS vs 2.1% open (OR 0.478 p = 0.036)]. Cox regression models for OS showed no difference in survival (p = 0.137, HR 0.808). CONCLUSION: This analysis provides substantial evidence that MIS for gastric GIST ≥ 5-10 cm may not only offer improved postoperative morbidity but also oncologic safety. Moreover, as both approaches lead to similar long-term survival, national guidelines may need to incorporate this new information.

Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database.

BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) vs. open approach (OLR) has been shown to be safe, the perioperative and oncologic safety for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) specifically, necessitating often complex hepatectomy and extended lymphadenectomy, remains ill-defined. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with ICC undergoing liver resection from 2010 to 2016. After 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests were applied to compare short-term outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and Cox multivariable regression were performed. RESULTS: 988 patients met inclusion criteria: 140 (14.2%) MILR and 848 (85.8%) OLR resulting in 115 patients MILR and OLR after 1:1 PSM with c-index of 0.733. MILR had lower unplanned 30-day readmission [OR 0.075, P = 0.014] and positive margin rates [OR 0.361, P = 0.011] and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) [OR 0.941, P = 0.026], but worse lymph node yield [1.52 vs 2.07, P = 0.001]. No difference was found for 30/90-day mortality. Moreover, multivariate analysis revealed that MILR was associated with poorer overall survival compared to OLR [HR 2.454, P = 0.001]. Subgroup analysis revealed that survival differences from approach were dependent on major hepatectomy, tumor size > 4 cm, or negative margins. CONCLUSION: MILR vs. OLR is associated with worse lymphadenectomy and survival in patients with ICC greater than 4 cm requiring major hepatectomy. Hence, MILR major hepatectomy for ICC should only be approached selectively and if surgeons are able to perform an appropriate lymphadenectomy.

Poorly differentiated hepatocellular carcinoma: resection is equivalent to transplantation in patients with low liver fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Organ allocation criteria for liver transplantation focus on tumor size and multifocality while tumor differentiation and existing liver damage are omitted. This study analyzes the impact of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) grade and liver fibrosis comparing resection (SX) to transplantation (LT). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried between 2004 and 2016 for solitary HCC meeting Milan criteria undergoing SX vs LT. Two groups were created: low fibrosis (LF) vs high fibrosis (HF) and stratified by grade. Cox multivariable regression models, Kaplan-Meier survival analyses and log-rank tests were performed. RESULTS: 1515 patients were identified; 780 had LT and 735 had SX. Median overall survival (mOS) was 39.7 months; LT mOS was 47.9 months vs SX mOS of 34.9 months (P < .001). Multivariate analysis revealed SX, no chemotherapy, longer hospital stays, and age to be associated with worse survival. However, while transplantation conferred survival benefit for well-moderately differentiated tumors, SX vs LT did not impact survival for poorly differentiated HCC in LF patients, independent of tumor size. DISCUSSION: HCC differentiation and liver fibrosis, but not size, synergistically determine efficacy of SX vs LT. Therefore, current HCC transplantation criteria should incorporate tumor grade or liver fibrosis for optimal organ allocation.

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.

Failure to Cure Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Impact of the Liver Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Lack of a liver surgeon (LS) may lead to failure to cure in patients with possibly resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aims to quantify the failure-to-cure rate due to noninclusion of an LS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent chemotherapy with palliative intent for CRLM at a community oncology network between 2010 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained cancer registry. Two LS blinded to patient management and outcome reviewed pretreatment imaging and assigned each scan a newly developed resectability score. Nominal group technique and independent scores were combined to determine probability of curative-intent resection. Interobserver agreement was calculated using κ testing. RESULTS: This study included 72 palliative CRLM patients. Demographic factors were: 44 (59%) male, median age 68 years (range 36-94 years), 23 (32%) rectal primary, 24 (33%) receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Of the 72 patients with CRLM, 6 had left-sided metastases only. The median number of CRLM was 6 (1-8). Agreement on resectability was achieved in 32 (44%) patients for the entire cohort and 17 (54%) in patients without extrahepatic disease. A lower median number of CRLM was found in the group considered to be resectable by the two LS (2 versus 8; p = 0.001). Substantial agreement was found between liver surgeons in the group of patients without extrahepatic disease (κ = 0.9043). CONCLUSIONS: Over 44% of patients who were assigned palliative chemotherapy at tumor boards without an LS were considered potentially resectable upon independent LS review.

Laparoscopic Pancreatic Head Preserving Total Duodenectomy: The Parenchymal Sparing Alternative to a Whipple.

BACKGROUND: When endoscopic options fail, laparoscopic pancreatic head-preserving duodenectomy (LPHPD) for benign duodenal lesions is a parenchymal sparing and safe alternative to a pancreaticoduodenectomy.1-3 LPHPD may be the optimal "amount" of surgery, because such lesions are at risk for undertreatment (partial endoscopic resection associated with recurrence) or overtreatment (Whipple associated with morbidity and loss of pancreatic parenchyma).4,5 PATIENT: A 80-year-old, healthy female patient was diagnosed endoscopically with two, flat, symptomatic adenomas (7-cm D2; 2-cm D3). She had no family history of polyposis. Germline testing, tumor markers, and colonoscopy did not show any abnormality. TECHNIQUE: With the patient in French position, a wide laparoscopic Kocherization was performed past IVC and aorta. Following prepyloric gastric transection, the entire duodenum was carefully dissected off the pancreas. After transection of the proximal jejunum, the reconstruction begins. A two-layer, duct-to-mucosa, ampullary-jejunal anastomosis and a type II Billroth gastrojejunostomy were performed. CONCLUSIONS: LPHPD avoids under- or overtreatment of benign duodenal lesions unamenable to an endoscopic approach. If the stepwise approach described in this video is followed, LPHPD represents a safe and parenchymal-sparing alternative to pancreaticoduodenectomy for benign duodenal lesions with reduced morbidity.

Does a Laparoscopic Approach to Distal Pancreatectomy for Cancer Contribute to Optimal Adjuvant Chemotherapy Utilization?

BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) versus open approaches (ODP) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with reduced morbidity, its impact on optimal adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) utilization remains unclear. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether oncologic resection quality markers are equivalent between approaches. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried between 2010 and 2016 for PDAC patients undergoing DP. Effect of LDP vs ODP and institutional case volumes on margin status, hospital stay, 30-day and 90-day mortality, administration of and delay to AC, and 30-day unplanned readmission were analyzed using binary and linear logistic regression. Cox multivariable regression was used to correct for confounders. RESULTS: The search yielded 3411 patients; 996 (29.2%) had LDP and 2415 (70.8%) had ODP. ODP had higher odds of readmission [odds ratio (OR) 1.681, p = 0.01] and longer hospital stay [ß 1.745, p = 0.004]. No difference was found for 30-day mortality [OR 1.689, p = 0.303], 90-day mortality [OR 1.936, p = 0.207], and overall survival [HR 1.231, p = 0.057]. The highest-volume centers had improved odds of AC [OR 1.275, p = 0.027] regardless of approach. LDP conferred lower margin positivity [OR 0.581, p = 0.005], increased AC use [3rd quartile: OR 1.844, p = 0.026; 4th quartile; OR 2.144, p = 0.045], and fewer AC delays [4th quartile: OR 0.786, p = 0.045] in higher-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: In selected patients, LDP offers an oncologically safe alternative to ODP for PDAC independent of institutional volume. However, additional oncologic benefit due to optimal AC utilization and lower positive margin rates in higher volume centers suggests that LDP by experienced teams can achieve best possible cancer outcomes.

Western population-based study of oncologic surgical quality and outcomes of laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: While studies have reported improved morbidity of laparoscopic (LG) compared with open gastrectomy (OG), it remains unclear whether comparable oncologic outcomes can be achieved. This study aims at comparing not only short-term outcomes, including 30- and 90-day mortality, but also survival of LG vs OG. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was searched for adult patients with histologically proven gastric cancer and complete information regarding M0 disease, tumor size, differentiation grade, T stage, nodal status, comorbidities, type of hospital, hospital stay, type of surgery, oncological treatment and survival data were included. Logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze margin status, 30- and 90-day mortality, and 30-day re-admission rate. Linear regression was performed for length of hospital stay and lymph node yield. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were performed to evaluate median survival. Cox multivariable regression models were created to correct for confounders and identify factors affecting survival. RESULTS: A query of the National Cancer Database identified 13,538 patients with complete dataset. A significant regression equation favoring LG for lymph node yield, hospital stay, and unplanned re-admission rate was identified. There was no significant effect of surgical approach on R1 margin rate, 30-day mortality, or 90-day mortality. Median survival was comparable between LG and OG (44.8 vs 40.2 months, p = 0.804). CONCLUSION: LG offers a safe surgical approach to gastric cancer with shorter hospital stay and lower re-admission rates than OG, and also similar and sometimes improved operative oncologic quality parameters (margin, lymph node yield). More importantly, this Western series demonstrates that equivalent long-term outcomes of LG vs. OG are being achieved.

Laparoscopic pancreatectomy for cancer in high volume centers is associated with an increased use and fewer delays of adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between hospital case volume, surgical approach and AC-use in patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: Patients were divided into quartiles by institutional pancreatectomy case volume, resection type (pancreaticoduodenectomy [PD], distal pancreatectomy [DP], or total pancreatectomy [TP]) and surgical approach (laparoscopic vs. open). The rates and contributing factors of AC administration and delay >90 days were compared among volume quartiles and surgical approaches. RESULTS: This study identified 23,494 patients who had undergone pancreatectomy for PDAC between 2010 and 2016 and met inclusion criteria. After correcting for confounders, compared to low volume hospitals patients at high-case-volume hospitals had the highest rates of AC administration after PD and DP. Moreover, compared to open surgery for all resection types, laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of AC use at high and highest-case-volume hospitals and less delay to chemotherapy at high-volume hospitals. For DP, laparoscopic approach had a positive impact on AC delay >90-day at the highest volume institutions only. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic surgery for pancreatic cancer leads to higher utilization and lower probability of delay of AC in high and highest volume hospitals.