Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic extended hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy: a single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) remains restricted to a few specialized centers and poses a challenge to surgeons performing laparoscopic resections. Laparoscopic extended resections are even more complex and rarely conducted. METHODS: From a single-institution database, we compared the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent major and extended laparoscopic resections, stratifying the entire retrospective cohort into four groups: right hepatectomy, left hepatectomy, right extended hepatectomy, and left extended hepatectomy. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, operative variables, and especially postoperative outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: 250 patients underwent major and extended laparoscopic liver resections, including 160 right, 31 right extended, 36 left, and 23 left extended laparoscopic hepatectomies. The most common indication for resection was colorectal liver metastases (64%). Laparoscopic extended hepatectomy (LEH) showed significantly longer operative time, more blood loss, need for Pringle maneuver, conversion to open surgery, higher rates of liver failure, postoperative ascites, and intra-abdominal hemorrhage, R1 margins and length of stay when compared with the LMH group. Mortality rates were similar between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed intraoperative blood transfusion (OR = 5.1[CI-95%: 1.15-6.79]; p = 0.02) as an independent predictor for major complications. CONCLUSIONS: LEH showed to be feasible, however with higher blood loss and significantly associated to major complications.

Debulking hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastasis: Analysis of risk factors for progression free survival.

BACKGROUND: The study explores the role of liver debulking surgery in cases of unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), challenging the traditional notion that surgery is not a valid option in such scenarios. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced but resectable disease who underwent surgery with a curative intent (Group I) and those with advanced incompletely resectable disease who underwent a "debulking" hepatectomy (Group II) were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in the intra-operative and post-operative results between the two groups. The 3-year and 5-year OS rates were 69% and 47% for group 1 vs 64% and 35% for group 2 respectively (p = 0.14). The 3-year and 5-year PFS rates were 32% and 21% for group 1 vs 12% and 8% for group 2 respectively (p = 0.009). Independent predictors of PFS in the debulking group were bilobar metastases (HR = 2.70; p = 0.02); the presence of extrahepatic metastasis (HR = 2.65, p = 0.03) and the presence of more than 9 metastases (HR = 2.37; p = 0.04). Iterative liver surgery for CRLM was a significant protective factor (HR = 0.34, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: An aggressive palliative surgical approach may offer a survival benefit for selected patients with unresectable CRLM, without increasing the morbidity. The decision for surgery should be made on a case-by-case basis.

Factors of oncological failure in two stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) has increased the chance of surgical resections for bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Nevertheless, drop-out between stages and early recurrence rates raise the question of surgical futility in some situations. This study aimed to identify factors of TSH oncological failure. METHODS: Patients with bilobar CRLM eligible for TSH in three tertiary centers between 2010 and 2021 were included, and divided in Failure and Success groups. Oncological failure was defined as failure of the second stage hepatectomy for tumor progression or recurrence within 6 months after resection. RESULTS: Among 95 patients, 18 (18.9%) had hepatic progression between the two stages, and 7 (7.4%) failed to complete the second stage hepatectomy. After TSH, 31 (32.6%) patients experienced early recurrence. Overall, 38 (40.0%) patients experienced oncological failure (Failure group). The Failure group had lower median DFS (3 vs. 32 months, p < 0.001) and median OS (29 vs. 70 months, p = 0.045) than the Success group. On multivariable analysis, progression between the two stages in the future liver remnant (OR = 15.0 (3.22-113.0), p = 0.002), and maximal tumor size ≥40 mm in the future liver remnant (OR = 13.1 (2.12-117.0), p = 0.009) were independent factors of oncological failure. CONCLUSION: Recurrence between the two stages and maximal tumor size ≥40 mm in the future liver remnant were associated with TSH failure for patients with bilobar CRLM.

Oncological Outcome After Laparoscopic 'No-touch' RAMPS Versus 'Touch' Left Pancreatectomy for Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The validity of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in left-sided pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is still unclear. However, a meticulous surgical dissection through a "no-touch" technique might allow a radical oncological resection with minimal risk of tumor dissemination and seeding. This study aimed to evaluate the oncological outcomes of the laparoscopic "no touch" technique versus the "touch" technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2001 to 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 45 patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) for PDAC in two centers. Factors associated with overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were identified. RESULTS: The OS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 95% vs. 78% (1-year OS); 50% vs. 50% (3-year OS), respectively (p=0.60). The DFS rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 72 % vs. 57% (1-year DFS); 32% vs. 28% (3-year DFS), respectively (p=0.11). The TTR rates in the 'no-touch' and 'touch' groups were 77% vs. 61% (1-year TTR); 54% vs. 30% (3-year TTR); 46% vs. 11% (5-year TTR); respectively (p=0.02) In multivariate analysis the only factors were Touch technique [odds ratio (OR)=2.62, p=0.02] and lymphovascular emboli (OR=4.8; p=0.002). CONCLUSION: We advise the 'no-touch' technique in patients with resectable PDAC in the pancreatic body and tail. Although this study does not provide definitive proof of superiority, no apparent downsides are present for the 'no-touch' technique in this setting although there could be oncological benefits.

Pure abdominal laparoscopic approach versus thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic approach: What is the best technique for liver resection in segment 7 and segment 8? An answer from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris experience with short- and long-term outcome evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Lesions in segments 7 and 8 are a challenge during standard laparoscopic liver resection. The addition of transthoracic trocars could be useful in the standard abdominal approach for laparoscopic liver resection. We report our experience with a thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach for liver resection with the aim of comparing short- and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed 1,003 laparoscopic liver resections in a prospectively maintained, single-institution database. We compared patient outcomes intraoperatively and postoperatively. We analyzed the long-term outcomes of the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. Propensity score matching 1:1 was performed based on the following variables: age, American Society of Anesthesiologists, body mass index, previous abdominal surgery, multiple or single liver resection, lesion >50 mm or <50 mm, presence of solitary or multiple lesions, T stage, and N stage. RESULTS: The standard abdominal approach was used in 110 laparoscopic liver resections, and the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was used in 62 laparoscopic liver resections. The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was associated with better intraoperative results (less blood loss and no need for conversion to open surgery). The R1s rate for segmentectomy 7 and 8 was lower in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in the entire group and in the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup. In the colorectal liver metastasis subgroup, the 3- and 5-year overall survival was 90% and 80% in the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach group and 76% and 52% in the standard abdominal approach group, respectively (P = .02). In univariate and multivariate analysis, the thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach was a significant factor that positively affected disease-free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: The thoraco-abdominal laparoscopic combined approach in laparoscopic liver resection in segments 7 and 8 is safe and feasible, and it has demonstrated better oncologic outcomes than the pure abdominal approach, especially in segmentectomy.

Conditional cumulative incidence of postoperative complications stratified by complexity classification for laparoscopic liver resection: Optimization of in-hospital observation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal in-hospital observation periods associated with minimal risks of complications and unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection are unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in the risks of postoperative complications over time. METHODS: Surgical complexity of laparoscopic liver resection was stratified into grades I (low complexity), II (intermediate), and III (high) using our 3-level complexity classification. The cumulative incidence rate and conditional probability of postoperative complication and risk factors for complication Clavien-Dindo grade ≥II (defined as treatment-requiring complications) were assessed. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of treatment-requiring complications was higher in patients undergoing grade III resection than in patients undergoing grade I resection (32.3% vs 10.4%, P < .001) and grade II resection (32.3% vs 20.7%, P = .019). The conditional probability of postoperative complication stratified by our complexity classification decreased over time and was <10% for patients undergoing grade I resection on postoperative day 1, grade II resection on postoperative day 4, and grade III resection on postoperative day 10. CONCLUSION: The conditional cumulative incidence of treatment-requiring complications for patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection is well stratified based on the 3-level complexity classification. Conditional complication risk analysis stratified by the 3 complexity grades may be useful for optimizing in-hospital observation after laparoscopic liver resection.

Prognostic role of infracentimetric colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The number of lesions and the size of the largest (CRLMmax) have been widely investigated as prognostic factors in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The aim of the present study was to assess whether, in patients undergoing curative liver resection, the presence of infracentimetric lesions could affect recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Patients who underwent a liver resection for CRLM between 2001 and 2019 were included. The size of CRLM was measured on the surgical specimen. The best cut-off of the smallest lesion (CRLMmin) associated with RFS was determined through the time-dependent ROC analysis. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Overall, 227 patients were included. Median follow-up time was 50 months [IQR 26-84]. Recurrence occurred for 151 (66.5%) patients (liver recurrence in 67.5%, while exclusive extra-hepatic recurrence in 32.5%). The best cut-off for CRLMmin associated with RFS was 9 mm, with 12- and 24-month td-AUC 0.56 and 0.52 respectively. CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was found to be an independent prognostic factor that impairs RFS at multivariate analysis (HR 1.534 (1.02-2.32), p = 0.042). In particular, CRLMmin ≤ 9 mm was correlated with impaired hepatic RFS (HR 1.860 (1.15-3.01), p = 0.011), but not extra-hepatic RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Infracentimetric metastases (≤ 9 mm) are an independent prognostic factor that impairs hepatic RFS. This result suggests the potential benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CT) also in selected patients with initially resectable lesions, in case of CRLM ≤ 9 mm on preoperative imaging.

Risk Factors of Positive Resection Margin in Laparoscopic and Open Liver Surgery for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A New Perspective in the Perioperative Assessment: A European Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk factors associated with R1 resection in patients undergoing OLS and LLS for CRLMs. BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of R1 resection in liver surgery for CRLMs has been continuously appraised, but R1 risk factors have not been clearly defined yet. METHODS: A cohort study of patients who underwent OLS and LLS for CRLMs in 9 European high-volume referral centers was performed. A multivariate analysis and the receiver operating characteristic curves were used to investigate the risk factors for R1 resection. A model predicting the likelihood of R1 resection was developed. RESULTS: Overall, 3387 consecutive liver resections for CRLMs were included. OLS was performed in 1792 cases whereas LLS in 1595; the R1 resection rate was 14% and 14.2%, respectively. The risk factors for R1 resection were: the type of resection (nonanatomic and anatomic/nonanatomic), the number of nodules and the size of tumor. In the LLS group only, blood loss was a risk factor, whereas the Pringle maneuver had a protective effect. The predictive size of tumor for R1 resection was >45 mm in OLS and >30 mm in LLS, > 2 lesions was significative in both groups and blood loss >350 cc in LLS. The model was able to predict R1 resection in OLS (area under curve 0.712; 95% confidence interval 0.665-0.739) and in LLS (area under curve 0.724; 95% confidence interval 0.671-0.745). CONCLUSIONS: The study describes the risk factors for R1 resection after liver surgery for CRLMs, which may be used to plan better the perioperative strategies to reduce the incidence of R1 resection during OLS and LLS.

Postoperative Outcomes After Laparoscopic Liver Resections in Low and High-Volume Centers: A Multicentric Case-Matched Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is the gold standard for liver resections. Despite its feasibility and safety in high-volume centers (HVC), its performance is controversial in low-volume centers (LVCs). We aimed to evaluate the results of LLR performed in LVC. METHODS: Patients who underwent LLR between 2013 and 2019 in three LVCs were compared after case-matching with those in an HVC using the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris LLR Difficulty Score (IMMLDS). RESULTS: Seventy-six patients treated in three LVCs were matched to 152 in HVCs for age, body mass index, and resection type. The incidence of LLR significantly increased in LVCs over time (2013-2016 vs. 2017-2019) (21.2% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.002 and) while abdominal drainage rate decreased (77.4% vs. 51.1%; p = 0.003). In IMMLDS group I (60 vs. 120 patients), higher Pringle maneuver (43.3% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.0001), median blood loss (175 ml vs. 50 ml; p < 0.0001), abdominal drainage (58.3% vs. 6.6%; p < 0.0001), and conversion rate (8.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.04) were observed in LVCs. The overall postoperative morbidity was comparable (Clavien I-II: p = 0.54; Clavien > II: p = 0.71). In IMMLDS groups II-III, Pringle maneuver (56.5% vs. 3.1%; p < 0.0001), blood loss (350 ml vs. 175 ml; p = 0.02), and abdominal drainage (75% vs. 28.3%; p = 0.004) were different; however, postoperative morbidity was not. The surgical difficulty notwithstanding, length of stay (group I: p = 0.13; group II-III: p = 0.93) and R0 surgical margin (group I: p = 0.3; group II-III p = 0.39) were not different between LVCs and HVCs. CONCLUSIONS: LLR performed at an LVC can be feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity.

Predictors of discharge timing and unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to determine the predictors of discharge timing and 90-day unplanned readmission after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). METHODS: Consecutive LLR performed at the "Institut Mutualiste Montsouris" between 2000 and 2019 were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. Length of stay (LOS) was stratified according to surgical difficulty and was categorized as early (LOS<25th percentile), routine (25th percentile<75th percentile), and delayed discharge otherwise. Uni-and-multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the factors associated with the time of discharge and 90-day unplanned readmission. RESULTS: Early discharge occurred in 15.7% patients whereas delayed discharge occurred in 20.6% patients. Concomitant pancreatic resections (OR 26.8, 95% CI 5.75-125, p < 0.0001) and removal of colorectal primary tumors (OR 7.14, 95% CI 3.98-12.8, p < 0.0001) were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge whereas ERP implementation was the strongest predictor of early discharge (OR 7.4, 95% CI 4.60-11.9, p < 0.0001). Unplanned readmission rate was lower among early discharged patients (7.4% vs. 23.8%, p < 0.0001). Bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.12-15.8, p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Concomitant colorectal or pancreatic resections were the strongest predictors of delayed discharge. Postoperative bile leakage was the strongest predictor of 90-day unplanned readmission following LLR.

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.

Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Even though minimally invasive esophageal surgery (MIE) is spreading, questions remain regarding its oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of oncological resection criteria in MIE. METHODS: All patients undergoing a two-way Ivor Lewis esophagectomy for esophageal or junctional cancer between 2010 and 2020 in a single tertiary upper gastrointestinal surgery ward were analyzed retrospectively. The following oncological criteria were analyzed: lymph node (LN) harvest and location, positive lymph node rate, margins, and R0 rates. They were compared between the MIE group (thoracoscopy + laparoscopy) and the hybrid group (H/O, thoracotomy + laparoscopy). RESULTS: Among the 240 patients included, 34 (14%) had MIE and 206 a hybrid esophagectomy. Main surgical indication was lower thoracic adenocarcinoma and the rate of neoadjuvant treatments administered (chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) was comparable between both groups (p = 1.0). LN harvest was significantly higher in the MIE group (31 ± 9 vs. 28 ± 9, p = 0.04) as well as thoracic LN harvest (14 ± 7 vs. 11 ± 5, p = 0.002). When analyzing patients according to T stage and response to neoadjuvant treatments, patients with T1 and T2 tumors and patients with a poor pathological response (TRG3, 4, 5) had a significantly higher LN harvest when undergoing a minimally invasive approach (p = 0.021 and p = 0.01, respectively). Positive LN rates (1.26 ± 3.63 in the MIE group vs. 1.60 ± 2.84 in the H/O group, p = 0.061), R0 rates (97% vs. 98.5%, p = 0.46) as well as proximal (p = 0.083), distal (p = 0.063), and lateral (p = 0.15) margins were comparable between both approaches. CONCLUSION: MIE seems oncologically safe and may even be better than the open approach in terms of LN harvest especially in patients with T1 and T2 tumors and in poor responders.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups. RESULTS: During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)). CONCLUSION: Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

Incomplete Carney Triad: A Surgical Case of a Rare Syndrome.

We describe a 36-year-old woman with multiple gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors, hepatic and lymphatic metastasis, and a mediastinal paraganglioma as a presentation of an incomplete Carney triad. We present our therapeutic approach, with emphasis on the surgical and oncologic specificities of this syndrome.

Team Strategy Optimization in Combined Resections for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases. A Comparative Study with Bootstrapping Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate perioperative outcomes and to evaluate factors influencing rative morbidity and adoption of minimally invasive technique in 1-team (1-T) versus two teams (2-T) management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Within four referral centers, a group of 234 patients treated in 1-T centers was identified and compared with a group of 253 patients treated in 2-T. A nonparametric bootstrap process was applied to the original cohorts of 1-T group and 2-T group as a resampling method to obtain bootstrapped cohorts (155 patients per group). RESULTS: 33.5% of patients in 1-T boot group and 38.1% in the 2-T boot group were operated by laparoscopic approach. Multivariate analysis revealed that approach to primary tumor (laparoscopic or open) and intraoperative blood loss were independent prognostic factors for morbidity. Team approach did not show any significant correlation with incidence of postoperative complications nor with choice for laparoscopic approach. CONCLUSION: The optimization of team strategy for patients with SCRLM is not solely based on the adoption of a 1-T or 2-T approach, but should instead be based on the implementation of a standard protocol for management of these patients.

Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty. METHODS: From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion. RESULTS: Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f2 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f2 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f2 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85). CONCLUSION: The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.