Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemihepatectomy: The ORANGE II PLUS Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after laparoscopic versus open major liver resection (hemihepatectomy) mainly for primary or metastatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was time to functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, quality of life (QoL), and for those with cancer, resection margin status and time to adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, patient-blinded, superiority trial on adult patients undergoing hemihepatectomy. Patients were recruited from 16 hospitals in Europe between November 2013 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomly assigned patients, 332 patients (94.3%) underwent surgery (laparoscopic, n = 166 and open, n = 166) and comprised the analysis population. The median time to functional recovery was 4 days (IQR, 3-5; range, 1-30) for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy versus 5 days (IQR, 4-6; range, 1-33) for open hemihepatectomy (difference, -17.5% [96% CI, -25.6 to -8.4]; P < .001). There was no difference in major complications (laparoscopic 24/166 [14.5%] v open 28/166 [16.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; P = .58). Regarding QoL, both global health status (difference, 3.2 points; P < .001) and body image (difference, 0.9 points; P < .001) scored significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. For the 281 (84.6%) patients with cancer, R0 resection margin status was similar (laparoscopic 106 [77.9%] v open 122 patients [84.1%], OR, 0.60; P = .14) with a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy in the laparoscopic group (46.5 days v 62.8 days, hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a shorter time to functional recovery compared with open surgery. In addition, it was associated with a better QoL, and in patients with cancer, a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy with no adverse impact on cancer outcomes observed.

Liver regeneration after portal and hepatic vein embolization improves overall survival compared with portal vein embolization alone: mid-term survival analysis of the multicentre DRAGON 0 cohort.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare 3-year overall survival after simultaneous portal (PVE) and hepatic vein (HVE) embolization versus PVE alone in patients undergoing liver resection for primary and secondary cancers of the liver. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, all DRAGON 0 centres provided 3-year follow-up data for all patients who had PVE/HVE or PVE, and were included in DRAGON 0 between 2016 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis was undertaken to assess 3-year overall and recurrence/progression-free survival. Factors affecting survival were evaluated using univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 199 patients were included from 7 centres, of whom 39 underwent PVE/HVE and 160 PVE alone. Groups differed in median age (P = 0.008). As reported previously, PVE/HVE resulted in a significantly higher resection rate than PVE alone (92 versus 68%; P = 0.007). Three-year overall survival was significantly higher in the PVE/HVE group (median survival not reached after 36 months versus 20 months after PVE; P = 0.004). Univariable and multivariable analyses identified PVE/HVE as an independent predictor of survival (univariable HR 0.46, 95% c.i. 0.27 to 0.76; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Overall survival after PVE/HVE is substantially longer than that after PVE alone in patients with primary and secondary liver tumours.

The Effect of Microwave and Radiofrequency Ablation (MWA/RFA) on Liver Volume in Patients with Primary and Secondary Liver Tumours: A Retrospective Analysis.

PURPOSE: It is known that thermal liver ablation can induce liver hypertrophy. However, exact impact in liver volume remains unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the influence of radiofrequency or microwave ablation (RFA/MWA) on liver volume in patients with primary and secondary liver lesions. Findings can be relevant in assessing the potential extra benefit of thermal liver ablation in preoperatively performed liver hypertrophy inducing procedures, such as portal vein embolization (PVE). METHODS: Between January 2014-May 2022, 69 invasive treatment naïve patients with primary (n = 43) or secondary/metastatic (n = 26) liver lesions (in all segments, except in segments II/III) treated percutaneously by RFA/MWA were included. Total liver volume (TLV), segment II + III volume (serving as "distant liver volume"), ablation zone volume and absolute liver volume (ALV, calculated by subtracting the ablation zone volume from the TLV) were the study outcomes. RESULTS: ALV in patients with secondary liver lesions increased to a median percentage of 106.87% (IQR = 99.66-113.03%, p = 0.016), volume of segments II/III increased to a median percentage of 105.81% (IQR = 100.06-115.65%, p = 0.003). ALV and segments II/III in patients with primary liver tumours remained stable, with a median percentage of 98.72% (IQR = 92.99-108.35%, p = 0.856) and 100.43% (IQR = 92.85-109.41%, p = 0.699), respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with secondary liver tumours, ALV and segments II/III increased after MWA/RFA by an average of approximately 6%, while ALV in patients with primary liver lesions remained unchanged. Besides the curative intent, these findings indicate the potential added benefit of thermal liver ablation on FLR hypertrophy inducing procedures in patients with secondary liver lesions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, non-controlled retrospective cohort study.

Influence of cholestasis on portal vein embolization-induced hypertrophy of the future liver remnant.

PURPOSE: In the pre-clinical setting, hepatocellular bile salt accumulation impairs liver regeneration following partial hepatectomy. Here, we study the impact of cholestasis on portal vein embolization (PVE)-induced hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). METHODS: Patients were enrolled with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) undergoing PVE before a (extended) right hemihepatectomy. Volume of segments II/III was considered FLR and assessed on pre-embolization and post-embolization CT scans. The degree of hypertrophy (DH, percentual increase) and kinetic growth rate (KGR, percentage/week) were used to assess PVE-induced hypertrophy. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (31 CRLM, 19 pCCA) were included. After PVE, the DH and KGR were similar in patients with CRLM and pCCA (5.2 [3.3-6.9] versus 5.7 [3.2-7.4] %, respectively, p = 0.960 for DH; 1.4 [0.9-2.5] versus 1.9 [1.0-2.4] %/week, respectively, p = 0.742 for KGR). Moreover, pCCA patients with or without hyperbilirubinemia had comparable DH (5.6 [3.0-7.5] versus 5.7 [2.4-7.0] %, respectively, p = 0.806) and KGR (1.7 [1.0-2.4] versus 1.9 [0.8-2.4] %/week, respectively, p = 1.000). For patients with pCCA, unilateral drainage in FLR induced a higher DH than bilateral drainage (6.7 [4.9-7.9] versus 2.7 [1.5-4.2] %, p = 0.012). C-reactive protein before PVE was negatively correlated with DH (ρ = - 0.539, p = 0.038) and KGR (ρ = - 0.532, p = 0.041) in patients with pCCA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no influence of cholestasis on FLR hypertrophy in patients undergoing PVE. Bilateral drainage and inflammation appeared to be negatively associated with FLR hypertrophy. Further prospective studies with larger and more homogenous patient cohorts are desirable.

Long-term follow-up of a randomized trial of biliary drainage in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The DRAINAGE trial was a randomized controlled trial comparing preoperative endoscopic (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with potentially resectable, perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Patients were randomized in four tertiary referral centers. Follow-up data were available for all included patients. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were readmissions, and re-interventions not including in-trial interventions. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were randomized; 27 in both groups. Median follow-up for both groups was 62 months (95% CI 54-70). The median OS was 13 months (95% CI 7.9-18.1) in the EBD and 7 months (95% CI 0.0-17.2) in the PTBD group (P = 0.28). Twenty (37%, n = 8 EBD vs n = 12 PTBD, P = 0.43) of 54 patients were readmitted at least once, mostly due to drainage-related complications (n = 13, 24%). Of note, 14 out of the 54 patients died within the trial. A total of 76 drainage procedures (32 EBD and 44 PTBD) were performed in 28 patients. The median number of stent or drain placements was 2 (2-4) for the EBD group and 2 (1-3) for the PTBD group (P = 0.77). DISCUSSION: Although this follow-up study represented a small cohort, no long-term differences in survival, readmissions, and drainage procedures for EBD and PTBD were found, even when comparing the resected and unresected group. However, this study demonstrates the complexity of biliary drainage for patients with potentially resectable pCCA, even in tertiary referral centers.

Resectability of bilobar liver tumours after simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization versus portal vein embolization alone: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with bi-lobar liver tumours are not eligible for liver resection due to an insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). To reduce the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure and the primary cause of death, regenerative procedures intent to increase the FLR before surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to provide an overview of the available literature and outcomes on the effectiveness of simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) versus portal vein embolization (PVE) alone. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to September 2022. The primary outcome was resectability and the secondary outcome was the FLR volume increase. RESULTS: Eight studies comparing PVE/HVE with PVE and six retrospective PVE/HVE case series were included. Pooled resectability within the comparative studies was 75 per cent in the PVE group (n = 252) versus 87 per cent in the PVE/HVE group (n = 166, OR 1.92 (95% c.i., 1.13-3.25)) favouring PVE/HVE (P = 0.015). After PVE, FLR hypertrophy between 12 per cent and 48 per cent (after a median of 21-30 days) was observed, whereas growth between 36 per cent and 67 per cent was reported after PVE/HVE (after a median of 17-31 days). In the comparative studies, 90-day primary cause of death was similar between groups (2.5 per cent after PVE versus 2.2 per cent after PVE/HVE), but a higher 90-day primary cause of death was reported in single-arm PVE/HVE cohort studies (6.9 per cent, 12 of 175 patients). CONCLUSION: Based on moderate/weak evidence, PVE/HVE seems to increase resectability of bi-lobar liver tumours with a comparable safety profile. Additionally, PVE/HVE resulted in faster and more pronounced hypertrophy compared with PVE alone.

The orange-III study: the use of preoperative laxatives prior to liver surgery in an enhanced recovery programme, a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the effect of preoperative macrogol on gastrointestinal recovery and functional recovery after liver surgery combined with an enhanced recovery programme in a randomized controlled setting. METHODS: Patients were randomized to either 1 sachet of macrogol a day, one week prior to surgery versus no preoperative laxatives. Postoperative management for all patients was within an enhanced recovery programme. The primary outcome was recovery of gastrointestinal function, defined as Time to First Defecation. Secondary outcomes included Time to Functional Recovery. RESULTS: Between August 2012 and September 2016, 82 patients planned for liver resection were included in the study, 39 in the intervention group and 43 in the control group. Median Time to First Defecation was 4.0 days in the intervention group (IQR 2.8-5.0) and 4.0 days in the control group (IQR 2.9-5.0), P = 0.487. Median Time to Functional Recovery was day 6 (IQR 4.0-8.0) in the intervention group and day 5 (IQR 4.0-7.5) in the control group, P = 0.752. No significant differences were seen in complication rate, reinterventions or mortality. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial showed no advantages of 1 sachet of macrogol preoperatively combined with an enhanced recovery programme, for patients undergoing liver surgery.