Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomies with vascular resection: A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison study.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly adopted worldwide and its potential advantages include reduced hospital stay and decrease pain. However, evidence supporting the role of MIPD for tumours requiring vascular reconstruction remains limited and requires further evaluation. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of MIPD with vascular resection (MIPDV) by performing a 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection (OPDV) based on a single surgeon's experience. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent PDV between 2011 and 2020 by a single surgeon. After PSM, the comparison was made between 13 MIPDV and 13 OPDV. Results: Thirty-six patients underwent venous reconstruction (VR) only and 5 underwent arterial reconstruction of which 4 had concomitant VR. The types of VR included 22 wedge resections with primary repair, 8 segmental resections with primary anastomosis and 11 requiring interposition grafts. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 3 (7.3%) patients. Major complications (>Grade 2) occurred in 16 (39%) patients, of which 7 were due to delayed gastric emptying requiring nasojejunal tube placement. There was 1 (2.4%) 30-day mortality (OPDV). Of the 13 MIPDV, there were 3 (23.1%) open conversions. PSM comparison demonstrated that MIPDV was associated with longer median operative time (720 min vs. 485 min (P = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as intra-operative blood loss, overall morbidity, major morbidity rate, POPF and length of stay. Conclusion: Our initial experience with the adoption MIPDV has demonstrated it to be safe with comparable outcomes to OPDV despite the longer operation time.

Impact of introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol on the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resections: A propensity-score matched study.

BACKGROUND: Presently, data on the impact of enhanced recovery protocols on the outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection remain limited. We performed propensity matched analysis comparing the outcomes between patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection before and after the introduction of an enhanced recovery protocol. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2019, 462 consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection by 3 surgeons of which 360 met the study inclusion criteria. There were 89 patients who underwent surgery under an enhanced recovery protocol and 271 without an enhanced recovery protocol. One-to-one propensity matched analysis was performed for 84 enhanced recovery protocol patients and 84 nonenhanced recovery protocol patients. RESULTS: Comparisons between propensity matched cohorts revealed that patients who received laparoscopic liver resection with enhanced recovery protocol had reduced median blood loss (200 vs 300 mL, P = .013), postoperative stay (3 vs 4 days, P = .003), and lower open conversion rates (0% vs 8.3%, P = .008). There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as operation time, postoperative morbidity, postoperative major morbidity, and 30-day readmission rates. CONCLUSION: A combined approach of enhanced recovery protocol and laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved perioperative outcomes as opposed to laparoscopic liver resection alone.

Evolution and trends in the adoption of laparoscopic liver resection in Singapore: Analysis of 300 cases.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of laparoscopic surgery has changed abdominal surgery. We evaluated the evolution and changing trends associated with adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and the experience of a surgeon without prior LLR experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of 310 patients who underwent LLR performed by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2020 was conducted. Exclusion criteria were patients who underwent laparoscopic liver surgeries such as excision biopsy, local ablation, drainage of abscesses and deroofing of liver cysts. There were 300 cases and the cohort was divided into 5 groups of 60 patients. RESULTS: There were 288 patients who underwent a totally minimally invasive approach, including 28 robotic-assisted procedures. Open conversion occurred for 13 (4.3%) patients; the conversion rate decreased significantly from 10% in the initial period to 3.3% subsequently. There were 83 (27.7%) major resections and 131 (43.7%) resections were performed for tumours in the difficult posterosuperior location. There were 152 (50.7%) patients with previous abdominal surgery, including 52 (17.3%) repeat liver resections for recurrent tumours, and 60 patients had other concomitant operations. According to the Iwate criteria, 135 (44.7%) were graded as high/expert difficulty. Major morbidity (>grade 3a) occurred in 12 (4.0%) patients and there was no 30-day mortality. Comparison across the 5 patient groups demonstrated a significant trend towards older patients, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, increasing frequency of LLR with previous abdominal surgery, increasing frequency of portal hypertension and huge tumours, decreasing blood loss and decreasing transfusion rate across the study period. Surgeon experience (≤60 cases) and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) high grade resections were independent predictors of open conversion. Open conversion was associated with worse perioperative outcomes such as increased blood loss, transfusion rate, morbidity and length of stay. CONCLUSION: LLR can be safely adopted for resections of all difficulty grades, including major resections and for tumours located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, with a low open conversion rate.

Laparoscopic liver resection for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma: A coarsened exact-matched single-surgeon study.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly being utilised worldwide for the management of both benign and malignant liver tumours. However, there is limited data to date regarding the safety and feasibility of this approach for huge (≥10 cm) hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). We present here our early experience performing LLR for huge HCCs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 280 consecutive patients who underwent LLR by a single surgeon from 2012 to August 2020.15 patients had a preoperative radiological diagnosis of huge (≥10 cm) HCC. Coarsened exact-matched (CEM) weighting was used to compare them to 101 patients who underwent LLR for non-huge HCC. RESULTS: After CEM-weighting, both groups were well-balanced for baseline variables. There was no difference in the rates of open conversion. The huge HCC patients had a higher mean Iwate difficulty score than the non-huge HCC patients (9.13 vs 6.53, p = 0.007). As such, the median operating time for the huge HCC group was longer (360 min vs 240min, p = 0.049). However, there were no significant differences in estimated blood loss, proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion, utilization of Pringle maneuver or median Pringle duration. Post-operatively, there were no significant differences in median LOS, overall and major morbidity rates, and 90-day mortality rates between both groups. Median resection margins were also similar for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: LLR may be performed successfully for selected patients with huge HCC, with encouraging perioperative outcomes and no compromise in oncologic efficacy.

Analysis of perioperative outcomes following laparoscopic repeat liver resection compared to laparoscopic primary liver resection based on a single surgeon's experience: A 1:2 propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: We report a single surgeon experience with laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR), and analyse short-term outcomes relative to laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR). METHODS: Two-hundred and twenty-two laparoscopic liver resections were performed from 2012 to 2019 of which 33 were LRLR. 1:2 propensity-score matching was done to compare 32 LRLR with 64 LPLR cohort. We further analyzed the first 16 LRLR cases compared to the subsequent 17 cases. RESULTS: 32 LRLR cases were matched to 64 LPLR cases. Apart from a higher frequency of Pringle maneuver in the LPLR cohort (p = 0.006), there were no differences in other perioperative outcomes. There were more posterosuperior located tumours (75.0% vs 17.6%, p = 0.003) and higher median difficulty score (8.50 vs 5.00, p = 0.025) in the initial 16 LRLR cases compared to the next 17. The earlier group had higher median blood loss (250.00 ml vs 50.00 ml, p = 0.012), but other outcomes were similar. CONCLUSION: LRLR may be safely performed in selected patients with no difference in key perioperative outcomes compared to LPLR.

Critical appraisal of the learning curve of minimally invasive hepatectomy: experience with the first 200 cases of a Southeast Asian early adopter.

BACKGROUND: A recent study analysing the experience of fellowship-trained early adopting surgeons during stage 3 of the IDEAL paradigm demonstrated that the learning curve (LC) of minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) can be shortened compared to the long steep LC of pioneering surgeons. In this study, we aimed to critically appraise the contemporary learning experience with MIH of a 'self-taught' early adopter during stage 3 of the IDEAL paradigm. METHODS: A review of the first 200 patients who underwent MIH over an 88-month period since 2011 by a single surgeon who had no prior training in MIH was conducted. The cohort was divided into four groups of 50 patients. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis of the LC was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred patients underwent MIH and there were 13 (6.5%) open conversions. There were 55 (27.5%) major resections and 94 (47.0%) were graded as high/expert difficulty according to the Iwate criteria. Fifty-one (25.5%) patients had cirrhosis and 98 (49%) had previous abdominal surgery including 28 (14%) with previous liver resections. There were five (2.5%) major (Grade 3b-5) morbidities, zero 30-day mortality and one (0.5%) 90-day mortality. Comparison across the four groups demonstrated a significant trend towards increased adoption of total MIH, increased multifocal tumours, increased performance of major hepatectomies and decreased blood loss. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum analysis demonstrated that the LC in terms of blood loss, blood transfusion rate, open conversion rate, operation time and post-operative length of stay to be 65 cases. The LC for MIH of Iwate low/intermediate difficulty and of Iwate high/expert difficulty were 35 and 30 cases, respectively. CONCLUSION: MIH of all difficulty levels is feasible and can be safely adopted today even by surgeons with no prior formal training. The LC of the 'self-taught' early adopter is about 65 cases.

Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally-invasive pancreato-biliary surgery: Contemporary experience of a 'self-taught' early adopter in Southeast Asia.

BACKGROUND: Minimally-invasive pancreato-biliary surgery (MIPBS) is increasingly reported worldwide. This study examines the changing trends, safety and outcomes associated with the adoption of MIPBS based on a contemporary experience of an early adopter in Southeast Asia. METHODS: Retrospective review of 114 consecutive patients who underwent MIPBS by a single surgeon over 86 months from 2011. The study population was stratified into three equal groups of 38 patients. Comparison was also performed between minimally-invasive pancreato surgery (MIPS) and minimally-invasive biliary surgery (MIBS). RESULTS: There were 70 MIPS and 44 MIBS. Sixty-three cases (55.3%) were performed using robotic assistance and fourteen (12.3%) were hybrid procedures with open reconstruction. Forty-four (38.6%) procedures were performed for malignancy. There were 8 (7.0%) open conversions and median operation time was 335 (range, 60-930) min. There were nine extended pancreatectomies including seven involving vascular reconstructions. Major morbidity (>Grade 2) occurred in 20 (17.5%) patients including 6 (5.3%) reoperations and there was no mortality. Comparison across the three groups demonstrated that with increasing experience, there was a significant trend in a higher proportion of higher ASA score patients, increasing frequency of procedures requiring anastomosis and increasing the use of robotic assistance without significant difference in key perioperative outcomes such as open conversion rate, morbidity and hospital stay. Comparison between MIPS and MIBS demonstrated that MIPS was associated with significantly longer operation time, increased blood loss, increased transfusion rate, longer hospital stay, increased readmission rate and increased morbidity. CONCLUSION: MIPBS can be safely adopted today with a low open conversion rate.