Comparison of the LiMAx test vs. the APRI+ALBI score for clinical utility in preoperative risk assessment in patients undergoing liver surgery - A European multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains the main reason for short-term mortality after liver surgery. APRI+ALBI, aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio (APRI) combined with albumin-bilirubin grade (ALBI), score and the liver function maximum capacity test (LiMAx) are both established preoperative (preop) liver function tests. The aim of this study was to compare both tests for their predictive potential for clinically significant PHLF grade B and C (B+C). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 352 patients were included from 4 European centers. Patients had available preop APRI+ALBI scores and LiMAx results. Predictive potential for PHLF, PHLF B+C and 90-day mortality was compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and calculation of the area under the curve (AUC). Published cutoffs of ≥ -2.46 for APRI+ALBI and of <315 for LiMAx were assessed using chi-squared test. RESULTS: APRI+ALBI showed superior predictive potential for PHLF B+C (N = 34; AUC = 0.766), PHLF grade C (N = 20; AUC = 0.782) and 90-day mortality (N = 15; AUC = 0.750). When comparing the established cutoffs of both tests, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx in prediction of PHLF B+C (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: Positive predictive value (PPV) = 19%, negative predictive value (NPV) = 97%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 3%, NPV = 90%) and 90-day mortality (APRI+ALBI ≥2.46: PPV = 12%, NPV = 99%; LiMAx <315: PPV = 0%, NPV = 94%) CONCLUSION: In our analysis, APRI+ALBI outperformed LiMAx measurement in the preop prediction of PHLF B+C and postoperative mortality, at a fraction of the costs, manual labor and invasiveness.

Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined. METHODS: In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After PSM, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs. 71.8%, P<0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs. 50.4%, P=0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs. 47.1%, P<0.001), blood loss (100 vs. 200 milliliters, P<0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P<0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001) and R0 resection margins (89.8% vs. 86%, P=0.015), but longer operative times (190 vs. 210 min, P=0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared to LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n=431 per group, 75.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.184) and major resections (n=321 per group, 72.9% vs. 67.5%, P=0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: While both producing excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Propensity Score-Matching Analysis Comparing Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Limited Liver Resections of the Posterosuperior Segments: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments. BACKGROUND: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset. CONCLUSIONS: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR.

Cyclosporine vs. tacrolimus after liver transplantation for primary sclerosing cholangitis - a propensity score-matched intention-to-treat analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is controversy regarding the optimal calcineurin inhibitor type after liver transplant(ation) (LT) for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). We compared tacrolimus with cyclosporine in a propensity score-matched intention-to-treat analysis based on registries representing nearly all LTs in Europe and the US. METHODS: From the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), we included adult patients with PSC undergoing a primary LT between 2000-2020. Patients initially treated with cyclosporine were propensity score-matched 1:3 with those initially treated with tacrolimus. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival rates. RESULTS: The propensity score-matched sample comprised 399 cyclosporine-treated and 1,197 tacrolimus-treated patients with PSC. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years (IQR 2.3-12.8, 12,579.2 person-years), there were 480 deaths and 231 re-LTs. The initial tacrolimus treatment was superior to cyclosporine in terms of patient and graft survival, with 10-year patient survival estimates of 72.8% for tacrolimus and 65.2% for cyclosporine (p <0.001) and 10-year graft survival estimates of 62.4% and 53.8% (p <0.001), respectively. These findings were consistent in the subgroups according to age, sex, registry (ELTR vs. SRTR), time period of LT, MELD score, and diabetes status. The acute rejection rates were similar between groups. In the multivariable Cox regression analysis, tacrolimus (hazard ratio 0.72, p <0.001) and mycophenolate use (hazard ratio 0.82, p = 0.03) were associated with a reduced risk of graft loss or death, whereas steroid use was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Tacrolimus is associated with better patient and graft survival rates than cyclosporine and should be the standard calcineurin inhibitor used after LT for patients with PSC. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The optimal calcineurin inhibitor to use after liver transplantation in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis has yet to be firmly established. Since randomized trials with long follow-up are unlikely to be performed, multicontinental long-term registry data are essential in informing clinical practices. Our study supports the practice of using tacrolimus instead of cyclosporine in the initial immunosuppressive regimen after liver transplantation for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. The retrospective registry-based design is a limitation.

Pushing the boundaries of innovation: the potential of ex vivo organ perfusion from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Ex vivo machine perfusion (EVMP) is an emerging technique for preserving explanted solid organs with primary application in allogeneic organ transplantation. EVMP has been established as an alternative to the standard of care static-cold preservation, allowing for prolonged preservation and real-time monitoring of organ quality while reducing/preventing ischemia-reperfusion injury. Moreover, it has paved the way to involve expanded criteria donors, e.g., after circulatory death, thus expanding the donor organ pool. Ongoing improvements in EVMP protocols, especially expanding the duration of preservation, paved the way for its broader application, in particular for reconditioning and modification of diseased organs and tumor and infection therapies and regenerative approaches. Moreover, implementing EVMP for in vivo-like preclinical studies improving disease modeling raises significant interest, while providing an ideal interface for bioengineering and genetic manipulation. These approaches can be applied not only in an allogeneic and xenogeneic transplant setting but also in an autologous setting, where patients can be on temporary organ support while the diseased organs are treated ex vivo, followed by reimplantation of the cured organ. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the differences and similarities in abdominal (kidney and liver) and thoracic (lung and heart) EVMP, focusing on the organ-specific components and preservation techniques, specifically on the composition of perfusion solutions and their supplements and perfusion temperatures and flow conditions. Novel treatment opportunities beyond organ transplantation and limitations of abdominal and thoracic EVMP are delineated to identify complementary interdisciplinary approaches for the application and development of this technique.

Results from the european survey on preoperative management and optimization protocols for PeriHilar cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Major surgery, along with preoperative cholestasis-related complications, are responsible for the increased risk of morbidity and mortality in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). The aim of the present survey is to provide a snapshot of current preoperative management and optimization strategies in Europe. METHODS: 61 European centers, experienced in hepato-biliary surgery completed a 59-questions survey regarding pCCA preoperative management. Centers were stratified according to surgical caseload (<5 and ≥ 5 cases/year) and preoperative management protocols' application. RESULTS: The overall case volume consisted of 6333 patients. Multidisciplinary discussion was routinely performed in 91.8% of centers. Most respondents (96.7%) recognized the importance of a well-structured preoperative protocol. The preferred method for biliary drainage was percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (60.7%) while portal vein embolization was the preferred technique for liver hypertrophy (90.2%). Differences in preoperative pathologic confirmation of malignancy (35.8% vs 28.7%; p < 0.001), number of mismanaged referred patients (88.2% vs 50.8%; p < 0.001), biliary drainage (65.1% vs 55.6%; p = 0.015) and liver function evaluation (37.2% vs 5.6%; p = 0.001) were found between centers according to groups' stratification. CONCLUSION: The importance of a correct preoperative management is recognized. Nevertheless, the current lack of guidelines leads to wide heterogeneity of behaviors among centers. This survey can provide recommendations to improve pCCA perioperative outcomes.

A surgical strategy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma - the hilar first concept.

PURPOSE: The present study assesses long-term overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) after curative resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICCA) depending on resection margin (RM) status and lymph node (LN) status. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutively resected patients with ICCA at a single high-volume center between 2005 and 2018 were collected. Minimum follow-up was 36 months. Perioperative and long-term oncological outcome was assessed. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-two cases were included in the analysis. Thirty- and 90-day-mortality was 5.2% (n = 10) and 10.9% (n = 21). OS was 26 months with 1-, 2-, and 5-year-OS rates of 72%, 53%, and 26%. One-, 2-, and 5-year-DFS rates were 54%, 42%, and 35% (N0 vs. N1: 29 vs. 9 months, p = 0.116). R1 was not found to be an independent risk factor for reduced survival in the overall cohort (p = 0.098). When differentiating according to the LN status, clear resection margins were significantly associated with increased DFS for N0 cases (50 months vs. 9 months, p = 0.004). For N1 cases, no significant difference in DFS was calculated for R0 compared to R1 cases (9 months vs. 9 months, p = 0.88). For N0 cases, clear resection margins > 10 mm were associated with prolonged OS (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: For N1 cases, there was no significant survival benefit when comparing R0 versus R1, while the complication rate remained high for the extended resection types. In view of merging multimodal treatment, the hilar first concept assesses locoregional LN status for optimal surgical therapy.

Impact of Tumor Size on the Difficulty of Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although tumor size (TS) is known to affect surgical outcomes in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), its impact on laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH) is not well studied. The objectives of this study were to investigate the impact of TS on the perioperative outcomes of L-MH and to elucidate the optimal TS cutoff for stratifying the difficulty of L-MH. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of 3008 patients who underwent L-MH at 48 international centers. A total 1396 patients met study criteria and were included. The impact of TS cutoffs was investigated by stratifying TS at each 10-mm interval. The optimal cutoffs were determined taking into consideration the number of endpoints which showed a statistically significant split around the cut-points of interest and the magnitude of relative risk after correction for multiple risk factors. RESULTS: We identified 2 optimal TS cutoffs, 50 mm and 100 mm, which segregated L-MH into 3 groups. An increasing TS across these 3 groups (≤ 50 mm, 51-100 mm, > 100 mm), was significantly associated with a higher open conversion rate (11.2%, 14.7%, 23.0%, P < 0.001), longer operating time (median, 340 min, 346 min, 365 min, P = 0.025), increased blood loss (median, 300 ml,  ml, 400 ml, P = 0.002) and higher rate of intraoperative blood transfusion (13.1%, 15.9%, 27.6%, P < 0.001). Postoperative outcomes such as overall morbidity, major morbidity, and length of stay were comparable across the three groups. CONCLUSION: Increasing TS was associated with poorer intraoperative but not postoperative outcomes after L-MH. We determined 2 TS cutoffs (50 mm and 10 mm) which could optimally stratify the surgical difficulty of L-MH.

Impact of body mass index on perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic major hepatectomies.

BACKGROUND: Data on the effect of body mass index on laparoscopic liver resections are conflicting. We performed this study to investigate the association between body mass index and postoperative outcomes after laparoscopic major hepatectomies. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 4,348 laparoscopic major hepatectomies at 58 centers between 2005 and 2021, of which 3,383 met the study inclusion criteria. Concomitant major operations, vascular resections, and previous liver resections were excluded. Associations between body mass index and perioperative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. Modeled effect sizes were visually rendered and summarized. RESULTS: A total of 1,810 patients (53.5%) had normal weight, whereas 1,057 (31.2%) were overweight and 392 (11.6%) were obese. One hundred and twenty-four patients (3.6%) were underweight. Most perioperative outcomes showed a linear worsening trend with increasing body mass index. There was a statistically significant increase in open conversion rate (16.3%, 10.8%, 9.2%, and 5.6%, P < .001), longer operation time (320 vs 305 vs 300 and 266 minutes, P < .001), increasing blood loss (300 vs 300 vs 295 vs 250 mL, P = .022), and higher postoperative morbidity (33.4% vs 26.3% vs 25.0% vs 25.0%, P = .009) in obese, overweight, normal weight, and underweight patients, respectively (P < .001). However, postoperative major morbidity demonstrated a "U"-shaped association with body mass index, whereby the highest major morbidity rates were observed in underweight and obese patients. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic major hepatectomy was associated with poorer outcomes with increasing body mass index for most perioperative outcome measures.

Robotic versus laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy - an analysis of costs and postoperative outcomes in a single-center setting.

PURPOSE: In the era of minimal-invasive surgery, the introduction of robotic liver surgery (RS) was accompanied by concerns about the increased financial expenses of the robotic technique in comparison to the established laparoscopic (LS) and conventional open surgery (OS). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of RS, LS and OS for major hepatectomies in this study. METHODS: We analyzed financial and clinical data on patients who underwent major liver resection for benign and malign lesions from 2017 to 2019 at our department. Patients were grouped according to the technical approach in RS, LS, and OS. For better comparability, only cases stratified to the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) H01A and H01B were included in this study. Financial expenses were compared between RS, LS, and OS. A binary logistic regression model was used to identify parameters associated with increased costs. RESULTS: RS, LS and OS accounted for median daily costs of 1,725 €, 1,633 € and 1,205 €, respectively (p < 0.0001). Median daily (p = 0.420) and total costs (16,648 € vs. 14,578 €, p = 0.076) were comparable between RS and LS. Increased financial expenses for RS were mainly caused by intraoperative costs (7,592 €, p < 0.0001). Length of procedure (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-16.9, p = 0.004), length of stay (HR [95% CI] = 8.8 [1.9-41.6], p = 0.006) and development of major complications (HR [95% CI] = 2.9 [1.7-5.1], p < 0.0001) were independently associated with higher costs. CONCLUSIONS: From an economic perspective, RS may be considered a valid alternative to LS for major liver resections.

Risk Factors and Outcomes of Open Conversion During Minimally Invasive Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study on 3880 Procedures Comparing the Laparoscopic and Robotic Approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in minimally invasive (MI) liver surgery, most major hepatectomies (MHs) continue to be performed by open surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors and outcomes of open conversion during MI MH, including the impact of the type of approach (laparoscopic vs. robotic) on the occurrence and outcomes of conversions. METHODS: Data on 3880 MI conventional and technical (right anterior and posterior sectionectomies) MHs were retrospectively collected. Risk factors and perioperative outcomes of open conversion were analyzed. Multivariate analysis, propensity score matching, and inverse probability treatment weighting analysis were performed to control for confounding factors. RESULTS: Overall, 3211 laparoscopic MHs (LMHs) and 669 robotic MHs (RMHs) were included, of which 399 (10.28%) had an open conversion. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that male sex, laparoscopic approach, cirrhosis, previous abdominal surgery, concomitant other surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score 3/4, larger tumor size, conventional MH, and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification III procedures were associated with an increased risk of conversion. After matching, patients requiring open conversion had poorer outcomes compared with non-converted cases, as evidenced by the increased operation time, blood transfusion rate, blood loss, hospital stay, postoperative morbidity/major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality. Although RMH showed a decreased risk of conversion compared with LMH, converted RMH showed increased blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative major morbidity and 30/90-day mortality compared with converted LMH. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple risk factors are associated with conversion. Converted cases, especially those due to intraoperative bleeding, have unfavorable outcomes. Robotic assistance seemed to increase the feasibility of the MI approach, but converted robotic procedures showed inferior outcomes compared with converted laparoscopic procedures.

Propensity score-matched analysis of laparoscopic-assisted and hand-assisted laparoscopic liver resection versus pure laparoscopic liver resection: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted (LALR) and hand-assisted (HALR) liver resections have been utilized during the early adoption phase by surgeons when transitioning from open surgery to pure LLR. To date, there are limited data reporting on the outcomes of LALR or HALR compared to LLR. The objective was to compare the perioperative outcomes after LALR and HALR versus pure LLR. METHODS: This is an international multicentric analysis of 6609 patients undergoing minimal-invasive liver resection at 21 centers between 2004 and 2019. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after propensity score matching (PSM) comparison between LALR and HALR versus LLR. RESULTS: 5279 cases met study criteria of whom 5033 underwent LLR (95.3%), 146 underwent LALR (2.8%) and 100 underwent HALR (1.9%). After 1:4 PSM, LALR was associated with inferior outcomes as evidenced by the longer postoperative stay, higher readmission rate, higher major morbidity rate and higher in-hospital mortality rate. Similarly, 1:6 PSM comparison between HALR and LLR also demonstrated poorer outcomes associated with HALR as demonstrated by the higher open conversion rate and higher blood transfusion rate. All 3 approaches technical variants demonstrated the same oncological radicality (R1 rate). CONCLUSION: LALR and HALR performed during the learning curve was associated with inferior perioperative outcomes compared to pure LLR.

Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). BACKGROUND: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. CONCLUSIONS: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.

Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP to localize bile leakage after liver trauma and surgery: impact on treatment and outcome.

OBJECTIVES: Bile leakage (BL) is a challenging complication after hepatobiliary surgery and liver trauma. Gadolinium ethoxybenzyl (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is used to diagnose BL non-invasively. We assessed the value of Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP in the detection of postoperative and post-traumatic BL hypothesizing that exact identification of the leakage site is pivotal for treatment planning and outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 39 trauma and postoperative patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP for suspected BL. Three readers rated the presence of BL and leakage site (intraparenchymal, central, peripheral ± aberrant or disconnected ducts). Imaging findings were compared to subsequent interventional procedures and their complexity and outcome. RESULTS: BL was detected in Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP in 25 of patients and was subsequently confirmed. Sites of BL differed significantly between postoperative (central [58%] and peripheral [42%]) and trauma patients (intraparenchymal [100%]; p < 0.001). Aberrant or disconnected ducts were diagnosed in 8%/26% of cases in the postoperative subgroup. Inter-rater agreement for the detection and localization of BL was almost perfect (Κ = 0.85 and 0.88; p < 0.001). Intraparenchymal BL required significantly less complex interventional procedures (p = 0.002), whereas hospitalization and mortality did not differ between the subgroups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP reliably detects and exactly locates BL in postoperative and trauma patients. Exact localization of biliary injuries enables specific treatment planning, as intraparenchymal leakages, which occur more frequently after trauma, require less complex interventions than central or peripheral leaks in the postoperative setting. As a result of specific treatment based on exact BL localization, there was no difference in the duration of hospitalization or mortality. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP is a reliable diagnostic tool for exactly localizing iatrogenic and post-traumatic biliary leakage. Its precise localization helps tailor local therapies for different injury patterns, resulting in comparable clinical outcomes despite varying treatments. KEY POINTS: • Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRCP enables adequate detection and localization of bile leakages in both postoperative and post-traumatic patients. • The site of bile leakage significantly impacts the complexity of required additional interventions. • Intraparenchymal bile leakage is commonly seen in patients with a history of liver trauma and requires less complex interventions than postoperative central or peripheral bile leakages, while hospitalization and mortality are similar.

Simplifying minimally invasive right hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Extrahepatic transection of the right hepatic artery and right portal vein before parenchymal dissection is a widely used standard for minimal invasive right hepatectomy. Hereby, hilar dissection represents a technical difficulty. We report our results of a simplified approach in which the hilar dissection is omitted and the line of dissection is defined with ultrasound. METHODS: Patients undergoing minimally invasive right hepatectomy were included. Ultrasound-guided hepatectomy (UGH) was defined by the following main steps: (1) ultrasound-guided definition of the transection line, (2) dissection of the liver parenchyma according to the caudal approach, (3) intraparenchymal transection of the right pedicle and (4) of the right liver vein, respectively. Intra- and postoperative outcomes of UGH were compared to the standard technique. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for parameters of perioperative risk. RESULTS: Median operative time was 310 min in the UGH group compared to 338 min in the control group (p = 0.013). No differences were observed for Pringle maneuver duration (35 min vs. 25 min; p = ns) nor postoperative transaminases levels (p = ns). There was a trend toward a lower major complication rate in the UGH group (13 vs. 25%) and a shorter median hospital stay (8 days vs. 10 days); however, both being short of statistical significance (p = ns). Bile leak was observed in zero cases of UGH compared to 9 out of 32 cases (28%) for the control group (p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: UGH appears to be at least comparable to the standard technique in terms of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Accordingly, transection of the right hepatic artery and right portal vein prior to the transection phase can be omitted, at least in selected cases. These results need to be confirmed in a prospective and randomized trial.

Postoperative infectious complications are associated with diminished overall survival of patients undergoing resection for colorectal liver metastases.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative infectious complications (PIC) remain one of the most common complications after surgery. The influence of PIC on long-term survival for patients after liver surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) needs further investigation. METHODS: Data of patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin were evaluated. Overall survival (OS) was stratified according to the development of PIC. Independent predictors of PIC and diminished survival were identified using regression models. RESULTS: Of 270 patients, eighty-four (31%) patients developed PIC including intraabdominal infections (n = 51, 61%), cholangitis (n = 5, 6%), pneumonia (n = 12, 14%), wound infections (n = 28, 33%), urinary tract infections (n = 5, 6%), or central line-associated bloodstream infections (n = 4, 5%). PIC were associated with a significantly diminished five-year OS (30% vs. 43%, p = 0.008). Age >65 years (p = 0.016, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2-4.0), comorbidity (p = 0.019, HR [95% CI] = 2.4 [1.2-4.9]), simultaneous resection of primary tumor (p = 0.005, HR [95% CI] = 4.3 [1.6-11.9]), biliary drainage (p < 0.001, HR [95% CI] = 4.1 [2.0-8.5]), and length of procedure ≥272 min (p = 0.012, HR [95% CI] = 2.2 [1.2-4.1]) were independent predictors for the development of PIC. Body-mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (p = 0.002, HR [95% CI] = 2.4 [1.4-4.0]), postoperative major complications (p = 0.003, HR [95% CI] = 2.2 [1.3-3.8]), and 3- or 4-MRGN bacteria (p = 0.001, HR [95% CI] = 7.7 [2.2-27.3]) were independently associated with diminished OS. CONCLUSIONS: PIC are associated with diminished OS after resection for CRLM. Age >65 years, comorbidities, simultaneous resection of the primary tumor, and biliary drainages were identified as independent risk factors for the development of PIC. High BMI, postoperative major morbidity and 3-/4-MRGN bacteria were independently predictive of worse OS. These factors need to be considered in perioperative management for patients with CRLM.

Validation of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) society recommendations for liver surgery: a prospective, observational study.

Background: Twenty-three recommendations were summarized by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society for liver surgery. The aim was to validate the protocol especially with regard to adherence and the impact on morbidity. Methods: Using the ERAS Interactive Audit System (EIAS), ERAS items were evaluated in patients undergoing liver resection. Over a period of 26 months, 304 patients were prospectively enrolled in an observational study (DRKS00017229). Of those, 51 patients (non-ERAS) were enrolled before and 253 patients (ERAS) after the implementation of the ERAS protocol. Perioperative adherence and complications were compared between the two groups. Results: Overall adherence increased from 45.2% in the non-ERAS group to 62.7% in the ERAS group (P<0.001). This was associated with significant improvements in the preoperative and postoperative phase (P<0.001), rather than in the outpatient and intraoperative phase (both P>0.05). Overall complications decreased from 41.2% (n=21) in the non-ERAS group to 26.5% (n=67) in the ERAS group (P=0.0423), which was mainly due to the reduction of grade 1-2 complications from 17.6% (n=9) to 7.6% (n=19) (P=0.0322). As for patients undergoing open surgery, implementation of ERAS lead to a reduction of overall complications in patients scheduled for minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) (P=0.036). Conclusions: Implementation of the ERAS protocol for liver surgery according to the ERAS guidelines of the ERAS Society reduced Clavien-Dindo grade 1-2 complications particularly in patients who underwent MILS. The ERAS guidelines are beneficial for the outcome, while adherence to the various items has not yet been satisfactorily defined.

An international multicentre propensity score matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy.

BACKGROUND: Left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) is one of the most commonly performed minimally invasive liver resections. While laparoscopic (L)-LLS is a well-established technique, over traditional open resection, it remains controversial if robotic (R)-LLS provides any advantages of L-LLS. METHODS: A post hoc analysis of 997 patients from 21 international centres undergoing L-LLS or R-LLS from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. A total of 886 cases (214 R-LLS, 672 L-LLS) met study criteria. 1:1 and 1:2 propensity score matched (PSM) comparison was performed between R-LLS & L-LLS. Further subset analysis by Iwate difficulty was also performed. Outcomes measured include operating time, blood loss, open conversion, readmission rates, morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Comparison between R-LLS and L-LLS after PSM 1:2 demonstrated statistically significantly lower open conversion rate in R-LLS than L-LLS (0.6% versus 5%, p = 0.009) and median blood loss was also statistically significantly lower in R-LLS at 50 (80) versus 100 (170) in L-LLS (p = 0.011) after PSM 1:1 although there was no difference in the blood transfusion rate. Pringle manoeuvre was also found to be used more frequently in R-LLS, with 53(24.8%) cases versus to 84(12.5%) L-LLS cases (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the other key perioperative outcomes such as operating time, length of stay, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity and 90-day mortality between both groups. CONCLUSION: R-LLS was associated with similar key perioperative outcomes compared to L-LLS. It was also associated with significantly lower blood loss and open conversion rates compared to L-LLS.

Robotic Liver Surgery: Technical Advantages Over Laparoscopic Technique Based on Parameters of Surgical Complexity and Perioperative Outcomes.

Introduction: In view of the limited availability, our study addresses the issue of optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery over standard laparoscopy offering an in-detail analysis of intra- and postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: Clinical and technical data of all consecutive cases of robotic liver surgery of a single high-volume center from 2018 to 2020 were collected prospectively. Second, we performed a retrospective analysis of all laparoscopic liver resections from 2015 to 2020. Parameters of surgical complexity were extracted and descriptive analysis and statistical hypothesis testing were performed to assess parameters of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 121 robotic resections were compared with 435 laparoscopic resections. Shorter robotic operating times were shown for segmentectomies of the right liver lobe compared with laparoscopic procedures (P = .003) with an according trend for extended resections. A shorter duration of applied Pringle's maneuver was observed for robotic procedures. This advantage was further enhanced in cases with close proximity of the tumor to major vessels. There were no significant differences in postoperative morbidity and mortality between both groups. Conclusion: Our study offers the first in-detail analysis of intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery depending on established parameters of surgical complexity. The results indicate potential technical advantages of robotic technology in liver surgery based on parameters that can be studied before the operation. When evaluating robotic technology, future studies should focus not only at overall postoperative outcomes, but rather at potential technical intraoperative advantages to allow optimal case selection for robotic liver surgery. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00017229.