RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the use of a self-expandable absorbable biliary stent (SEABS) to reduce biliary complications in liver transplant (LT). BACKGROUND: Complications related to biliary anastomosis are a still a challenge in LT with a high impact on the patient outcomes and hospital costs. METHODS: This non-randomized prospective study was conducted between July 2019 and September 2023 in adult LT patients with duct-to-duct biliary anastomoses. The primary endpoint was to assess early biliary complications at 90 days in LT patients with intraoperative SEABS versus no SEABS. We also compared overall biliary complications, costs and SEABS- adverse effects related. RESULTS: A total of 158 patients were included, 78 with SEABS and 80 no-SEABS (22 T-tube and 58 no-stent). There were no adverse effects related to SEABS. Early biliary complications (23.8 vs 2.6%, P <0.001) and hospital stay (19 vs 15 days, P= 0.001) were higher in no-SEABS. No-SEABS group required 63 ERCPs and 13 surgeries (including 2 LT) versus 35 ERCPs and 2 surgeries in SEABS group. After PSM between SEABS (n=58) vs no-SEABS (n=58), early biliary complications (40% vs 0%, P<.001) were higher in no-SEABS group. T-tube had more early biliary complications (22.7% vs 5%, P=0.23) compared SEABS high-risk biliary anastomosis. SEABS excess cost per patient was lower compared to T-Tube and no-stent (6.988 vs 17.992 vs 36.364, P=0.036 and P=0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: SEABS during biliary anastomosis in LT is feasible with no adverse effects and avoid the T-tube in high-risk biliary anastomoses. It use has been associated with less early biliary complications, hospital costs and reoperations or interventional treatments for biliary complications resolution.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Studies comparing hand-assisted laparoscopic (HALS)/Hybrid and pure laparoscopic (PLS) resection for colorectal cancer liver metastasis have focused on short-term results, while long-term oncological outcomes remain understudied. METHODS: We established a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study from four centers with experience in minimally invasive surgery between 2004 and 2020. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Other endpoints analyzed were intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to minimize baseline differences. RESULTS: A total of 219 HALS/Hybrid (57.8%) and 160 PLS (42.2%) patients were included. After PSM, 155 patients remained in each group. Operative time (182 vs. 248 min, p = 0.012), use of intraoperative ablation (12.3 vs. 4.5%, p = 0.024), positive resection margin (4.5 vs 13.2%, p = 0.012), and pringle time (21 vs. 37 min, p = 0.001) were higher in PLS group. DFS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 65.4%, 39.3%, 37.5%, and 36.3% vs. 64.9%, 38.0%, 33.1%, and 33.1%, respectively (p = 0.84). OS at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years in HALS/Hybrid and PLS groups were 94.5%, 71.4%, 54.3%, and 46.0% vs. 96.0%, 68.5%, 51.2%, and 41.2%, respectively (p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests no differences in long-term oncologic outcomes between the two techniques. We discovered that longer total operative, pringle time, higher rates of intraoperative ablation, and positive resection margins were associated with PLS. These differences in favor of HALS/Hybrid could be due to a shorter learning curve and a greater ability to control hemorrhage.