Implementation and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy in Europe: a registry-based retrospective study - a critical appraisal of the first 3 years of the E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: International multicenter audit-based studies focusing on the outcome of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) are lacking. The European Registry for Minimally Invasive Pancreatic Surgery (E-MIPS) is the E-AHPBA endorsed registry aimed to monitor and safeguard the introduction of MIPD in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A planned analysis of outcomes among consecutive patients after MIPD from 45 centers in 14 European countries in the E-MIPS registry (2019-2021). The main outcomes of interest were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 1336 patients after MIPD were included [835 robot-assisted (R-MIPD) and 501 laparoscopic MIPD (L-MIPD)]. Overall, 20 centers performed R-MIPD, 15 centers L-MIPD, and 10 centers both. Between 2019 and 2021, the rate of centers performing L-MIPD decreased from 46.9 to 25%, whereas for R-MIPD this increased from 46.9 to 65.6%. Overall, the rate of major morbidity was 41.2%, 30-day/in-hospital mortality 4.5%, conversion rate 9.7%, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C 22.7%, and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C 10.8%. Median length of hospital stay was 12 days (IQR 8-21). A lower rate of major morbidity, postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C, postpancreatectomy hemorrhage grade B/C, delayed gastric emptying grade B/C, percutaneous drainage, and readmission was found after L-MIPD. The number of centers meeting the Miami Guidelines volume cut-off of ≥20 MIPDs annually increased from 9 (28.1%) in 2019 to 12 (37.5%) in 2021 ( P =0.424). Rates of conversion (7.4 vs. 14.8% P <0.001) and reoperation (8.9 vs. 15.1% P <0.001) were lower in centers, which fulfilled the Miami volume cut-off. CONCLUSION: During the first 3 years of the pan-European E-MIPS registry, morbidity and mortality rates after MIPD were acceptable. A shift is ongoing from L-MIPD to R-MIPD. Variations in outcomes between the two minimally invasive approaches and the impact of the volume cut-off should be further evaluated over a longer time period.

Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.

Post-operative Day 1 Serum Transaminase Levels in Relation to Morbidity After Liver Resection.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative serum transaminases have been proposed as possible early predictors of morbidity after liver resection. This study aimed to verify the clinical value of post-operative serum transaminases. METHODS: Clinical data from 2001 to 2016 in a single non-academic referral HPB center were collected from a prospectively held database. Post-operative day 1 serum aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) were tested for their relationship with post-operative major morbidity, defined by a Clavien-Dindo score 3 or higher, and mortality. RESULTS: For this analysis, 371 patients were included, including 149 (40%) undergoing major liver resections. In total, 17% of the patients developed major morbidity. Stepwise logistic regression demonstrated that AST, and not ALT, is an independent predictor for major morbidity (p = 0.017). The probability of major morbidity significantly increased with increasing AST values. A threshold value of 242 U/L was found to be predictive for one or more major complications. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, post-operative serum AST on day 1 was a predictive factor for major morbidity after liver resection. For patients with low AST value, early discharge could be considered. However, because of the substantial inter-individual variability of AST values, more studies are needed to translate these results into clinical practice.

Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo futile surgery, and R0 resection rates are higher, thereby possibly improving overall survival (OS). Two recent randomized trials have suggested benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery, both including single-agent chemotherapy regimens. Potentially, the multi-agent FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) may further improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting for localized pancreatic cancer, but randomized studies are needed. The PREOPANC-2 trial investigates whether neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves OS compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: This nationwide multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial includes patients with pathologically confirmed resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with a WHO performance score of 0 or 1. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial and ≤ 90 degrees venous involvement; borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as ≤90 degrees arterial and ≤ 270 degrees venous involvement without occlusion. Patients receive 8 cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by surgery without adjuvant treatment (arm A), or 3 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with hypofractionated radiotherapy (36 Gy in 15 fractions) during the second cycle, followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine (arm B). The primary endpoint is OS by intention-to-treat. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, resection rate, and R0 resection rate. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after inclusion of 368 eligible patients assuming an accrual period of 3 years and 1.5 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: The PREOPANC-2 trial directly compares two neoadjuvant regimens for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Our study will provide evidence on the neoadjuvant treatment of choice for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: EudraCT: 2017-002036-17 . Date of registration: March 6, 2018. Secondary identifying numbers: The Netherlands National Trial Register - NL7094 , NL61961.078.17, MEC-2018-004.

Preoperative imaging for colorectal liver metastases: a nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) preoperative imaging may include contrast-enhanced (ce) MRI and [18 F]fluorodeoxyglucose (18 F-FDG) PET-CT. This study assessed trends and variation between hospitals and oncological networks in the use of preoperative imaging in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data for all patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2018 were retrieved from a nationwide auditing database. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess use of ceMRI, 18 F-FDG PET-CT and combined ceMRI and 18 F-FDG PET-CT, and trends in preoperative imaging and hospital and oncological network variation. RESULTS: A total of 4510 patients were included, of whom 1562 had ceMRI, 872 had 18 F-FDG PET-CT, and 1293 had combined ceMRI and 18 F-FDG PET-CT. Use of ceMRI increased over time (from 9·6 to 26·2 per cent; P < 0·001), use of 18 F-FDG PET-CT decreased (from 28·6 to 6·0 per cent; P < 0·001), and use of both ceMRI and 18 F-FDG PET-CT 16·9 per cent) remained stable. Unadjusted variation in the use of ceMRI, 18 F-FDG PET-CT, and combined ceMRI and 18 F-FDG PET-CT ranged from 5·6 to 100 per cent between hospitals. After case-mix correction, hospital and oncological network variation was found for all imaging modalities. DISCUSSION: Significant variation exists concerning the use of preoperative imaging for CRLM between hospitals and oncological networks in the Netherlands. The use of MRI is increasing, whereas that of 18 F-FDG PET-CT is decreasing.

ANTECEDENTES: En pacientes con metástasis hepáticas colorrectales (colorrectal liver metastases, CRLM), los estudios de imagen preoperatorios pueden incluir resonancia magnética con contraste (ce)MRI y 18 F-FDG-PET-CT. Este estudio evaluó las tendencias y la variación entre los hospitales y las redes oncológicas en el uso de estudios de imagen preoperatorios en los Países Bajos. MÉTODOS: Todos los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección hepática por CRLM en los Países Bajos entre 2014 y 2018 fueron seleccionados a partir de una base de datos a nivel nacional auditada. El análisis de regresión logística multivariable se utilizó para evaluar el uso de ceMRI, de 18 F-FDG-PET-CT y de ceMRI combinado con 18 F-FDG-PET-CT, así como para determinar las tendencias en los estudios de imagen preoperatorios y las variaciones hospitalarias y de la red oncológica. RESULTADOS: En total, se incluyeron 4.510 pacientes, de los cuales 1.562 se sometieron a ceMRI, 872 a 18 F-FDG-PET-CT y 1.293 a ceMRI combinado con 18 F-FDG-PET-CT. El uso de ceMRI aumentó con el tiempo del 9,6% al 26,2% (P < 0,001), el uso de 18 F-FDG-PET-CT disminuyó (25% a 6,0%, P < 0,001) y el uso de ceMRI y 18 F-FDG-PET- CT (17%) se mantuvo estable. La variación no ajustada entre hospitales en el uso de ceMRI, 18 F-FDG-PET-CT y la combinación de ceMRI y 18 F-FDG-PET-CT oscilaba del 5% al 10%. Después de la corrección por case-mix, la variación hospitalaria y de la red oncológica persistía en todas las pruebas de imagen. CONCLUSIÓN: En los Países Bajos existe una variación significativa entre hospitales y redes oncológicas respecto al uso de pruebas de imagen preoperatorias para el CRLM. El uso de MRI está aumentando, mientras que el uso de 18 F-FDG-PET-CT está disminuyendo.

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. DISCUSSION: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018.

Volume-outcome relationship of liver surgery: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for an association between hospital volume and outcomes for liver surgery is abundant. The current Dutch guideline requires a minimum volume of 20 annual procedures per centre. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between hospital volume and postoperative outcomes using data from the nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit. METHODS: This was a nationwide study in the Netherlands. All liver resections reported in the Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit between 2014 and 2017 were included. Annual centre volume was calculated and classified in categories of 20 procedures per year. Main outcomes were major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIA or higher) and 30-day or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 5590 liver resections were done across 34 centres with a median annual centre volume of 35 (i.q.r. 20-69) procedures. Overall major morbidity and mortality rates were 11·2 and 2·0 per cent respectively. The mortality rate was 1·9 per cent after resection for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), 1·2 per cent for non-CRLMs, 0·4 per cent for benign tumours, 4·9 per cent for hepatocellular carcinoma and 10·3 per cent for biliary tumours. Higher-volume centres performed more major liver resections, and more resections for hepatocellular carcinoma and biliary cancer. There was no association between hospital volume and either major morbidity or mortality in multivariable analysis, after adjustment for known risk factors for adverse events. CONCLUSION: Hospital volume and postoperative outcomes were not associated.

ANTECEDENTES: La asociación entre el volumen hospitalario y los resultados de la cirugía hepática no está clara. Según la recomendación actual de las guías holandesas se requiere un volumen mínimo de 20 procedimientos anuales por centro. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar la asociación entre el volumen hospitalario con los resultados postoperatorios en la auditoría hepatobiliar obligatoria holandesa a nivel nacional. MÉTODOS: Se realizó un estudio a nivel nacional en los Países Bajos. Se incluyeron todas las resecciones hepáticas registradas en la auditoría hepatobiliar holandesa entre 2014 y 2017. El volumen anual del centro se calculó y se clasificó en categorías de 20 procedimientos por año. Los objetivos principales fueron la morbilidad de mayor grado (Clavien-Dindo grado IIIA o superior) y la mortalidad hospitalaria o la mortalidad a los 30 días. RESULTADOS: Se realizaron un total de 5.590 resecciones en 34 centros con una mediana (rango intercuartílico) de volumen anual de 35 procedimientos (20-69). La tasa global de morbilidad mayor fue del 11% y la mortalidad del 2%. La mortalidad fue de 1,9% después de la resección por metástasis hepáticas colorrectales (colorectal liver metastases, CRLM), 1,2% para no CRLM, 0,4% para tumores benignos, 4,9% para carcinoma hepatocelular, y 10,3% para tumores biliares. Los centros de mayor volumen realizaron más resecciones hepáticas mayores y más resecciones por carcinoma hepatocelular y cáncer biliar. En el análisis multivariable después de ajustar por factores de riesgo conocidos de eventos adversos, no se observó ninguna asociación entre el volumen hospitalario y la morbilidad o mortalidad mayor. CONCLUSIÓN: No hubo asociación entre el volumen hospitalario y los resultados postoperatorios de la cirugía hepática en los Países Bajos.

Nationwide Outcome of Gastrectomy with En-Bloc Partial Pancreatectomy for Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Radical gastrectomy is the cornerstone of the treatment of gastric cancer. For tumors invading the pancreas, en-bloc partial pancreatectomy may be needed for a radical resection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gastrectomies with partial pancreatectomy for gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients who underwent gastrectomy with or without partial pancreatectomy for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer between 2011 and 2015 were selected from the Dutch Upper GI Cancer Audit (DUCA). Outcomes were resection margin (pR0) and Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III postoperative complications and survival. The association between partial pancreatectomy and postoperative complications was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Overall survival of patients with partial pancreatectomy was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Of 1966 patients that underwent gastrectomy, 55 patients (2.8%) underwent en-bloc partial pancreatectomy. A pR0 resection was achieved in 45 of 55 patients (82% versus 85% in the group without additional resection, P = 0.82). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III complications occurred in 21 of 55 patients (38% versus 17%, P < 0.001). Median overall survival [95% confidence interval] was 15 [6.8-23.2] months. For patients with and without perioperative systemic therapy, median survival was 20 [12.3-27.7] and 10 [5.7-14.3] months, and for patients with pR0 and pR1 resection, it was 20 [11.8-28.3] and 5 [2.4-7.6] months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Gastrectomy with partial pancreatectomy is not only associated with a pR0 resection rate of 82% but also with increased postoperative morbidity. It should only be performed if a pR0 resection is feasible.

Possible Preventable Causes of Unplanned Readmission After Elective Liver Resection, Results from a Non-academic Referral HPB Center.

INTRODUCTION: Unplanned readmission is a common event after liver resection, and it is a burden for both patients and healthcare policy makers. This study evaluates the incidence of and reasons for unplanned readmission after liver resection, in order to identify possible preventable causes. METHODS: In this single-center cohort study, data from patients who underwent liver resection for both malignant and benign indications from 2001 to 2016 at our institute were collected from a database with prospective data. Readmissions were analyzed for their reasons and risk factors. Patients with general complaints with no specific complications were categorized as failure to thrive. RESULTS: In 406 patients, the readmission rate was 11.6%. Most patients were readmitted because of failure to thrive (35%), deep and superficial surgical site infection (28%), or cardiopulmonary complications (15%). A multivariate analysis revealed that unplanned readmission was associated with the occurrence of complications during index admission-with an odds ratio of 4.69 (CI 2.41-9.12, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Readmission occurs in more than 1 in 10 patients after liver resection, and it is associated with a complicated course during index admission. One-third of readmissions occur because of failure to thrive and might be preventable. Future research in strategies to reduce readmission rates should focus on both the prevention of complications during index admission and programs at the interface between primary and secondary care.

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

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

Portal vein embolisation prior to extended right-sided hepatic resection.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether preoperative portal vein embolisation improves the operative outcome of patients undergoing extended right-sided hepatic resection for hepatobiliary malignancy. DESIGN: Prospective non-randomised study. SETTING: University teaching hospital, Hong Kong. PATIENTS: Ninety-two patients underwent extended right-sided hepatic resection for hepatobiliary malignancy during a 45-month period (January 2000 to September 2003). Among them, 15 (16%) underwent portal vein embolisation via a percutaneous ipsilateral approach (n=9) or through the ileocolic vein with a mini-laparotomy (n=6). The remaining 77 (84%) patients underwent hepatic resection without portal vein embolisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Patients undergoing portal vein embolisation were older (69 years vs 55 years; P=0.009), and had significantly worse preoperative renal function (creatinine, 96 micromol/L vs 86 micromol/L; P=0.039) and liver function (bilirubin, 23 micromol/L vs 12 micromol/L; P<0.001). Portal vein embolisation resulted in an increase in the future liver remnant of 9% (interquartile range, 7-13%) of the estimated standard liver volume. The operating time for patients receiving portal vein embolisation was significantly longer (medium, 660 min vs 420 min; P<0.001) with more complicated surgery performed in terms of concomitant caudate lobectomy and hepaticojejunostomy. There was no hospital mortality in patients who underwent portal vein embolisation whereas five without the treatment died (P=0.587). The operative morbidity of patients who underwent portal vein embolisation and those who did not was 20% and 30%, respectively (P=0.543). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients who have worse preoperative liver and renal functions, portal vein embolisation enhances the possibility to perform extended right-sided hepatic resection for hepatobiliary malignancies with potentially lower operative mortality and morbidity.

[Partial liver resections: mortality, morbidity and risk factors for postoperative complications in 133 patients/137 operations; Utrecht University Medical Center 1991/2000]. / Partiële leverresecties: sterfte, morbiditeit en risicofactoren voor postoperatieve complicaties bij 133 patiënten/137 operaties; Universitair Medisch Centrum Utrecht, 1991/'00.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the results of partial liver resections for both benign and malignant abnormalities and the identification of risk factors for the development of complications. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective. METHOD: All consecutive partial liver resections performed between January 1991 and October 2000 at the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands, were reviewed for preoperative, peroperative and postoperative parameters. Risk factors were determined by means of a univariate analysis and a multiple logistic regression analysis. The 5-year survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients (71 men and 62 women; median age: 58 years (range: 17-79)) underwent 137 hepatic resections for benign (n = 29) and malignant (n = 108) liver abnormalities. In total, 74 procedures (54%) were considered to be major hepatic resections and blood transfusion was required in 97 patients (71%). A total of 43 complications was observed in 32 patients (32/137; 23%). Eight patients died as a result of postoperative complications (8/137; 5.8%). Independent risk factors associated with the development of major complications were a major resection (OR: 3.6) and more than 2 peroperative units of packed cells (OR: 5.0). The principal indication for liver resection were colorectal metastases (n = 69). The 5-year survival rate after liver resection for colorectal metastases was 38% (95% CI: range 21-54) with a 5-year disease-free survival rate of 25% (range 10-41). The postoperative mortality in this group was 2.9%. CONCLUSION: After partial liver resection for benign and malignant lesions the mortality was 5.8% and the morbidity 23%. The risk of postoperative morbidity was related to the number of peroperative units of packed cells and the extent of the resection.