Augmented reality in liver surgery.

INTRODUCTION: During an operation, augmented reality (AR) enables surgeons to enrich their vision of the operating field by means of digital imagery, particularly as regards tumors and anatomical structures. While in some specialties, this type of technology is routinely ustilized, in liver surgery due to the complexity of modeling organ deformities in real time, its applications remain limited. At present, numerous teams are attempting to find a solution applicable to current practice, the objective being to overcome difficulties of intraoperative navigation in an opaque organ. OBJECTIVE: To identify, itemize and analyze series reporting AR techniques tested in liver surgery, the objectives being to establish a state of the art and to provide indications of perspectives for the future. METHODS: In compliance with the PRISMA guidelines and availing ourselves of the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, we identified English-language articles published between January 2020 and January 2022 corresponding to the following keywords: augmented reality, hepatic surgery, liver and hepatectomy. RESULTS: Initially, 102 titles, studies and summaries were preselected. Twenty-eight corresponding to the inclusion criteria were included, reporting on 183patients operated with the help of AR by laparotomy (n=31) or laparoscopy (n=152). Several techniques of acquisition and visualization were reported. Anatomical precision was the main assessment criterion in 19 articles, with values ranging from 3mm to 14mm, followed by time of acquisition and clinical feasibility. CONCLUSION: While several AR technologies are presently being developed, due to insufficient anatomical precision their clinical applications have remained limited. That much said, numerous teams are currently working toward their optimization, and it is highly likely that in the short term, the application of AR in liver surgery will have become more frequent and effective. As for its clinical impact, notably in oncology, it remains to be assessed.

Risk factors for major complications after liver resection: A large liver resection study from Morocco and audit of a non-Eastern/non-Western experience.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In developing countries, endemic indications, blood shortages, and the scarcity of liver surgeons and intensive care providers can affect liver resection (LR) outcomes, but these have been rarely addressed in the literature. Therefore, in this study we determined risk factors for major complications after LR in a North African general surgery and teaching department. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2010 to December 2015, 213 consecutive LRs were performed on 203 patients. All patients underwent a postoperative follow-up of >90 days. Postoperative complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) classification of surgical complications. A score of CD ≥III is considered as major postoperative complications. In this study, we analyzed the variables assumed to affect these complications. RESULTS: The overall 90-day complication rate was 35.7% (n = 76), including a CD ≥III of 14% (n = 30) and a mortality rate of 6.1% (n = 14). According to the multivariate analysis, a preoperative performance status (PS) of ≥2 (P = 0.011; odds ratios [OR], 6.8; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.55-29.8), an estimated intraoperative blood loss of >500 ml (P = 0.002; OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.23-11.20), and bilioenteric anastomosis (P < 0.004; OR, 7.76; 95% CI, 1.5-3.89) were independent risk factors for major complications after LR. CONCLUSION: We recommend that, in the setting of a non-Eastern/non-Western general surgery and teaching department, patients with a PS of ≥2 should undergo a specific selection and preoperative optimization protocol; intermittent clamping indications should be extended; and special attention should paid to patients undergoing LR associated with biliary reconstruction, such as for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Laparoscopic versus open resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: The relevance of laparoscopic resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains debated. The aim of this study was to compare laparoscopic (LLR) and open (OLR) liver resection for ICC, with specific focus on textbook outcome and lymph node dissection (LND). METHODS: Patients undergoing LLR or OLR for ICC were included from two French, nationwide hepatopancreatobiliary surveys undertaken between 2000 and 2017. Patients with negative margins, and without transfusion, severe complications, prolonged hospital stay, readmission or death were considered to have a textbook outcome. Patients who achieved both a textbook outcome and LND were deemed to have an adjusted textbook outcome. OLR and LLR were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total, 548 patients with ICC (127 LLR, 421 OLR) were included. Textbook-outcome and LND completion rates were 22.1 and 48.2 per cent respectively. LLR was independently associated with a decreased rate of LND (odds ratio 0.37, 95 per cent c.i. 0.20 to 0.69). After matching, 109 patients remained in each group. LLR was associated with a decreased rate of transfusion (7.3 versus 21.1 per cent; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 7 versus 14 days; P = 0.001), but lower rate of LND (33.9 versus 73.4 per cent; P = 0.001). Patients who underwent LLR had lower rate of adjusted TO completion than patients who had OLR (6.5 versus 17.4 per cent; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach did not substantially improve quality of care of patients with resectable ICC.

Impact of cirrhosis in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection in a nationwide multicentre survey.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyse the impact of cirrhosis on short-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a multicentre national cohort study. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients undergoing LLR in 27 centres between 2000 and 2017. Cirrhosis was defined as F4 fibrosis on pathological examination. Short-term outcomes of patients with and without liver cirrhosis were compared after propensity score matching by centre volume, demographic and tumour characteristics, and extent of resection. RESULTS: Among 3150 patients included, LLR was performed in 774 patients with (24·6 per cent) and 2376 (75·4 per cent) without cirrhosis. Severe complication and mortality rates in patients with cirrhosis were 10·6 and 2·6 per cent respectively. Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) developed in 3·6 per cent of patients with cirrhosis and was the major cause of death (11 of 20 patients). After matching, patients with cirrhosis tended to have higher rates of severe complications (odds ratio (OR) 1·74, 95 per cent c.i. 0·92 to 3·41; P = 0·096) and PHLF (OR 7·13, 0·91 to 323·10; P = 0·068) than those without cirrhosis. They also had a higher risk of death (OR 5·13, 1·08 to 48·61; P = 0·039). Rates of cardiorespiratory complications (P = 0·338), bile leakage (P = 0·286) and reoperation (P = 0·352) were similar in the two groups. Patients with cirrhosis had a longer hospital stay than those without (11 versus 8 days; P = 0·018). Centre expertise was an independent protective factor against PHLF in patients with cirrhosis (OR 0·33, 0·14 to 0·76; P = 0·010). CONCLUSION: Underlying cirrhosis remains an independent risk factor for impaired outcomes in patients undergoing LLR, even in expert centres.

ANTECEDENTES: El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la cirrosis en los resultados a corto plazo después de la resección hepática laparoscópica (laparoscopic liver resection, LLR) en un estudio de cohortes multicéntrico nacional. MÉTODOS: Este estudio retrospectivo incluyó todos los pacientes sometidos a LLR en 27 centros entre 2000 y 2017. La cirrosis se definió como fibrosis F4 en el examen histopatológico. Los resultados a corto plazo de los pacientes con hígado cirrótico (cirrhotic liver CL) (pacientes CL) y los pacientes con hígado no cirrótico (non-cirrhotic liver, NCL) (pacientes NCL) se compararon después de realizar un emparejamiento por puntaje de propension del volumen del centro, las características demográficas y del tumor, y la extensión de la resección. RESULTADOS: Del total de 3.150 pacientes incluidos, se realizó LLR en 774 (24,6%) pacientes CL y en 2.376 (75,4%) pacientes NCL. Las tasas de complicaciones graves y mortalidad en el grupo de pacientes CL fueron del 10,6% y 2,6%, respectivamente. La insuficiencia hepática posterior a la hepatectomía (post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF) fue la principal causa de mortalidad (55% de los casos) y se produjo en el 3,6% de los casos en pacientes CL. Después del emparejamiento, los pacientes CL tendieron a tener tasas más altas de complicaciones graves (razón de oportunidades, odds ratio, OR 1,74; i.c. del 95% 0,92-0,41; P = 0,096) y de PHLF (OR 7,13; i.c. del 95% 0,91-323,10; P = 0,068) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL estuvieron expuestos a un mayor riesgo de mortalidad (OR 5,13; i.c. del 95% 1,08-48,6; P = 0,039) en comparación con los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL presentaron tasas similares de complicaciones cardiorrespiratorias graves (P = 0,338), de fuga biliar (P = 0,286) y de reintervenciones (P = 0,352) que los pacientes NCL. Los pacientes CL tuvieron una estancia hospitalaria más larga (11 versus 8 días; P = 0,018) que los pacientes NCL. La experiencia del centro fue un factor protector independiente de PHLF (OR 0,33; i.c. del 95% 0,14-0,76; P = 0,010) pacientes CL. CONCLUSIÓN: La presencia de cirrosis subyacente sigue siendo un factor de riesgo independiente de peores resultados en pacientes sometidos a resección hepática laparoscópica, incluso en centros con experiencia.

Prevention of biliary fistula after partial hepatectomy by transcystic biliary drainage: randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Biliary fistula is one of the most common complications after hepatectomy. This study evaluated the effect of transcystic biliary drainage during hepatectomy on the occurrence of postoperative biliary fistula. METHODS: This multicentre RCT was carried out from 2009 to 2016 in nine centres. Patients were randomized to transcystic biliary drainage or no transcystic drainage (control). Patients underwent hepatectomy (more than 2 segments) of non-cirrhotic livers. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of biliary fistula after surgery. Secondary endpoints were morbidity, postoperative mortality, duration of hospital stay, reoperation, readmission to hospital, and complications caused by catheters. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were randomized. In intention-to-treat analysis, there were 158 patients in the transcystic group and 149 in the control group. Seven patients were removed from the per-protocol analysis owing to protocol deviations. The biliary fistula rate was 5·9 per cent in intention-to-treat and 6·0 per cent in per-protocol analyses. The rate was similar in the transcystic and control groups (5·7 versus 6·0 per cent; P = 1·000). There were no differences in terms of morbidity (49·4 versus 46·3 per cent; P = 0·731), mortality (2·5 versus 4·7 per cent; P = 0·367) and reoperations (4·4 versus 10·1 per cent; P = 1·000). Median duration of hospital stay was longer in the transcystic group (11 versus 10 days; P = 0·042). The biliary fistula risk was associated with the width and length of the hepatic cut surface. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial did not demonstrate superiority of transcystic drainage during hepatectomy in preventing biliary fistula. The use of transcystic drainage during hepatectomy to prevent postoperative biliary fistula is not recommended. Registration number: NCT01469442 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La fístula biliar es una de las complicaciones más comunes después de la hepatectomía. Este estudio evalúa el efecto del drenaje biliar transcístico durante la hepatectomía en la aparición de una fístula biliar postoperatoria. MÉTODOS: Este ensayo prospectivo aleatorizado y multicéntrico (Clinical Trial NCT01469442) con dos grupos de estudio (grupo transcístico versus grupo control) se llevó a cabo de 2009 a 2016 en 9 centros. Los pacientes fueron sometidos a una hepatectomía (≥ 2 segmentos) en hígados no cirróticos. El resultado principal fue la aparición de una fístula biliar después de la cirugía. Los resultados secundarios fueron la morbilidad, la mortalidad postoperatoria, la duración de la estancia hospitalaria, la reintervención, la necesidad de reingreso y las complicaciones causadas por los catéteres. Se realizaron análisis por intención de tratamiento y por protocolo. RESULTADOS: Un total de 310 pacientes fueron randomizados. Por intención de tratamiento, 158 pacientes fueron aleatorizados al grupo transcístico y 149 al grupo control. Siete pacientes fueron excluidos del análisis por protocolo por desviaciones del protocolo. La tasa de fístula biliar fue del 5,9% en el análisis por intención de tratamiento y del 6,0% en el análisis por protocolo. Esta tasa fue similar para el grupo transcístico y para el grupo control: 5,7% versus 6,0% (P = 1). No hubo diferencias en términos de morbilidad (49,4% versus 46,9%, P = 0,731), mortalidad (2,5% versus 4,7%, P = 0,367) y reintervenciones (4,4% versus 10,1%, P = 1). La mediana de la duración de la estancia hospitalaria fue mayor para el grupo transcístico (11 versus 10 días, P = 0,042). El riesgo de fístula biliar se correlacionó con el grosor y la longitud de la transección hepática. CONCLUSIÓN: Este ensayo aleatorizado no demuestra la superioridad del drenaje transcístico durante la hepatectomía para prevenir la fístula biliar. No se recomienda el uso de drenaje transcístico durante la hepatectomía para prevenir la fístula biliar postoperatoria.

Multicentre study of perioperative versus adjuvant chemotherapy for resectable colorectal liver metastases.

Background: It is not known whether perioperative chemotherapy, compared with adjuvant chemotherapy alone, improves disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of neoadjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) on DFS in patients with upfront resectable CLM. Methods: Consecutive patients who presented with up to five resectable CLM at two Japanese and two French centres in 2008-2015 were included in the study. Both French institutions favoured perioperative FOLFOX, whereas the two Japanese groups systematically preferred upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and Cox regression multivariable models were used to adjust for confounding. The primary outcome was DFS. Results: Some 300 patients were included: 151 received perioperative chemotherapy and 149 had upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy. The weighted 3-year DFS rate was 33·5 per cent after perioperative chemotherapy compared with 27·1 per cent after upfront surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0·85, 95 per cent c.i. 0·62 to 1·16; P = 0·318). For the subgroup of 165 patients who received adjuvant FOLFOX successfully (for at least 3 months), the adjusted effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not significant (HR 1·19, 0·74 to 1·90; P = 0·476). No significant effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy was observed in multivariable regression analysis. Conclusion: Compared with adjuvant chemotherapy, perioperative FOLFOX does not improve DFS in patients with resectable CLM, provided adjuvant chemotherapy is given successfully.

Antecedentes: Se desconoce si la quimioterapia perioperatoria en comparación con la quimioterapia adyuvante sola mejora la supervivencia libre de enfermedad (disease­free survival, DFS) en pacientes con metástasis hepáticas de origen colorrectal (colorectal liver metastases, CLM) resecables de inicio. El objetivo de este estudio fue estimar el impacto de la neoadyuvancia con 5­fluorouracilo, leucovorina y oxaliplatino (FOLFOX) sobre la DFS en pacientes con CLM resecables desde el principio. Métodos: Se incluyeron pacientes consecutivos que presentaban hasta cinco CLM resecables en dos centros japoneses y dos centros franceses entre 2008 a 2015. Ambas instituciones francesas favorecían FOLFOX perioperatorio, mientras que los dos grupos japoneses utilizaban sistemáticamente la cirugía de entrada y quimioterapia adyuvante. Se utilizaron la probabilidad inversa del tratamiento ponderado (Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting, IPTW) y el modelo multivariable de regresión de Cox para ajustar por factores de confusión. El resultado primario fue la DFS. Resultados: Se incluyeron 300 pacientes (grupo de quimioterapia perioperatoria n = 151 y grupo de cirugía de entrada más quimioterapia adyuvante n = 149). La DFS a los 3 años ponderada fue del 33% después de quimioterapia perioperatoria versus 27% tras cirugía de entrada (cociente de riesgos instantáneos, hazard ratio HR: 0,85; i.c. del 95% (0,62­1,16); P = 0,32). Cuando se consideró el subgrupo de pacientes que (n = 165) de manera efectiva (al menos 3 meses) recibieron FOLFOX adyuvante, el efecto ajustado de la quimioterapia neoadyuvante no fue significativo (HR: 1,19 (0,74­1,90); P = 0,48). No se observó un efecto significativo de la quimioterapia neoadyuvante en el análisis de regresión multivariable. Conclusión: En comparación con la quimioterapia adyuvante, el FOLFOX perioperatorio no mejora la DFS en CLM resecables siempre y cuando la quimioterapia adyuvante se administre de forma efectiva.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy response influences outcomes in non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Indications for surgical resection of non-colorectal, non-neuroendocrine (NCNNE) liver metastases are unclear. This study analysed the influence of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the presence of extrahepatic disease (EHD) on outcomes. METHODS: Patients who underwent hepatic resection for NCNNE liver metastases and who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at a single centre between 1982 and 2016 were analysed retrospectively. Patients were classified as having no EHD, controlled EHD or non-controlled EHD. RESULTS: Hepatic resection was performed in 199 patients (81·2 per cent) after partial or complete response to chemotherapy or disease stabilization, and 46 patients (18·8 per cent) after tumour progression. Patients with progressive disease after chemotherapy had worse overall survival than those without (23 versus 50·4 per cent at 5 years; P = 0·004). Median survival was 63·6 (range 31·1-94·8) months for patients without EHD, 34·8 (19·2-49·2) months for those with controlled EHD and 7·2 (1·2-13·2) months for patients with non-controlled EHD (P = 0·004). In multivariable analysis, EHD (P = 0·004), response to chemotherapy (P = 0·004) and resection margins (P = 0·002) were all independent predictors of overall survival, regardless of primary tumour site. CONCLUSION: The prognosis of patients with NCNNE liver metastases is influenced by preoperative chemotherapy and resectability.

Large hepatocellular carcinoma: Does fibrosis really impact prognosis after resection?

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy remains the standard treatment for large hepatocellular carcinoma (LHCC) ≥5cm. Fibrosis may constitute a contraindication for resection because of high risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure, but its impact on patient outcome and cancer recurrence remains ill defined. Our aim was to compare predictors of survival in patients with and without cirrhosis following hepatectomy for LHCC. METHODS: The data on consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for LHCC in two tertiary centres between 2012 and 2016 were reviewed. The outcomes of cirrhotic (F4) and non-cirrhotic (F0-F3) patients were compared. Patients with perioperative medical (sorafenib) or radiological (transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency) treatments were excluded. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included. Preoperative and intraoperative features were identical between both groups. Cirrhotics (n=15) presented more satellite nodules on specimens (73% vs. 44%; P=0.073) but better differentiated lesions than non-cirrhotics (P=0.041). The median overall survival of cirrhotics was 34 vs. 29months for non-cirrhotics (P=0.8), and their disease-free survival was 14 versus 18 months (P=0.9). Fibrosis stage did not impact overall (P=0.2) nor disease-free survivals (P=0.6). CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy for LHCC in cirrhotics can achieve acceptable oncological results when compared to non-cirrhotic patients. Curative resection of LHCC should be attempted if liver function is acceptable, whatever the fibrosis stage.

Use of aspirin and bleeding-related complications after hepatic resection.

BACKGROUND: The operative risk of hepatectomy under antiplatelet therapy is unknown. This study sought to assess the outcomes of elective hepatectomy performed with or without aspirin continuation in a well balanced matched cohort. METHODS: Data were retrieved from a multicentre prospective observational study. Aspirin and control groups were compared by non-standardized methods and by propensity score (PS) matching analysis. The main outcome was severe (Dindo-Clavien grade IIIa or more) haemorrhage. Other outcomes analysed were intraoperative transfusion, overall haemorrhage, major morbidity, comprehensive complication index (CCI) score, thromboembolic complications, ischaemic complications and mortality. RESULTS: Before matching, there were 118 patients in the aspirin group and 1685 in the control group. ASA fitness grade, cardiovascular disease, previous history of angina pectoris, angioplasty, diabetes, use of vitamin K antagonists, cirrhosis and type of hepatectomy were significantly different between the groups. After PS matching, 108 patients were included in each group. There were no statistically significant differences between the aspirin and control groups in severe haemorrhage (6·5 versus 5·6 per cent respectively; odds ratio (OR) 1·18, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 3·62), intraoperative transfusion (23·4 versus 23·7 per cent; OR 0·98, 0·51 to 1·87), overall haemorrhage (10·2 versus 12·0 per cent; OR 0·83, 0·35 to 1·94), CCI score (24 versus 28; P = 0·520), major complications (23·1 versus 13·9 per cent; OR 1·82, 0·92 to 3·79) and 90-day mortality (5·6 versus 4·6 per cent; OR 1·21, 0·36 to 4·09). CONCLUSION: This observational study suggested that aspirin continuation is not associated with a higher rate of bleeding-related complications after elective hepatic surgery.

Risk score to predict biliary leakage after elective liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Biliary leakage remains a major cause of morbidity after liver resection. Previous prognostic studies of posthepatectomy biliary leakage (PHBL) lacked power, population homogeneity, and model validation. The present study aimed to develop a risk score for predicting severe PHBL. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study, patients who underwent liver resection without hepaticojejunostomy in one of nine tertiary centres between 2012 and 2015 were randomly assigned to a development or validation cohort in a 2 : 1 ratio. A model predicting severe PHBL (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C) was developed and further validated. RESULTS: A total of 2218 procedures were included. PHBL of any severity and severe PHBL occurred in 141 (6·4 per cent) and 92 (4·1 per cent) patients respectively. In the development cohort (1475 patients), multivariable analysis identified blood loss of at least 500 ml, liver remnant ischaemia time 45 min or more, anatomical resection including segment VIII, transection along the right aspect of the left intersectional plane, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as predictors of severe PHBL. A risk score (ranging from 0 to 5) was built using the development cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·85) and tested successfully in the validation cohort (AUROC 0·70, 0·60 to 0·80). A score of at least 3 predicted an increase in severe PHBL (19·4 versus 2·6 per cent in the development cohort, P < 0·001; 15 versus 3·1 per cent in the validation cohort, P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: The present risk score reliably predicts severe PHBL. It represents a multi-institutionally validated prognostic tool that can be used to identify a subset of patients at high risk of severe PHBL after elective hepatectomy.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for initially unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Locoregional extension of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) at the time of diagnosis results in a low resectability rate and poor prognosis. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced ICC. METHODS: All consecutive patients with ICC between 2000 and 2013 were included prospectively in a single-centre database and analysed retrospectively. Patients with locally advanced ICC considered as initially unresectable received primary chemotherapy, followed by surgery in those with secondary resectability. Results of patients who underwent surgery for locally advanced ICC were compared with those of patients with initially resectable ICC treated by surgery alone. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included in the study. Of 74 patients with locally advanced ICC, 39 (53 per cent) underwent secondary resection after a median of six chemotherapy cycles. Patients in this group were younger (P = 0·030) and had more advanced disease than those who had surgery alone, and presented more frequently with lymphadenopathy (P = 0·010) and vascular invasion (P = 0·010). Postoperative morbidity and mortality were no different between the groups. The median survival of patients who had surgery after chemotherapy was 24·1 months, and that of patients who had surgery alone was 25·7 months (P = 0·391). CONCLUSION: Patients with locally advanced ICC treated by surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy had similar short- and long-term results to patients with initially resectable ICC who had surgery alone. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for locally advanced ICC may be an effective downstaging option, facilitating secondary resectability in patients with initially unresectable disease.

Outcomes of surgical shunts and transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunts for complicated portal hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Transjugular intrahepatic portasystemic stent shunt (TIPSS), instead of surgical shunt, has become the standard treatment for patients with complicated portal hypertension. This study compared outcomes in patients who underwent TIPSS or surgical shunting for complicated portal hypertension. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all consecutive patients who received portasystemic shunts from 1994 to 2014 at a single institution. Patients who underwent surgical shunting were compared with those who had a TIPSS procedure following one-to-one propensity score matching. The primary study endpoints were overall survival and shunt failure, defined as major variceal rebleeding, relapse of refractory ascites, irreversible shunt occlusion, liver failure requiring liver transplantation, or death. RESULTS: A total of 471 patients received either a surgical shunt or TIPSS. Of these, 334 consecutive patients with cirrhosis who underwent elective surgical shunting (34) or TIPSS (300) for repeated variceal bleeding or refractory ascites were evaluated. Propensity score matching yielded 31 pairs of patients. There were no between-group differences in morbidity and 30-day mortality rates. However, shunt failure was less frequent after surgical shunting than TIPSS (6 of 31 versus 16 of 31; P = 0·016). The 5-year shunt failure-free survival (77 versus 15 per cent; P = 0·008) and overall survival (93 versus 42 per cent; P = 0·037) rates were higher for patients with surgical shunts. Multivariable analysis revealed that a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score exceeding14 and TIPSS were independently associated with shunt failure. In patients with MELD scores of 14 or less, the 5-year overall survival rate remained higher after surgical shunting than TIPSS (100 versus 40 per cent; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Surgical shunting achieved better results than TIPSS in patients with complicated portal hypertension and low MELD scores.

Long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation combined with hepatectomy compared with hepatectomy alone for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Combining radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with hepatectomy may enable treatment with curative intent for patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). However, the oncological outcomes in comparison with resection alone remain to be clarified. METHODS: Patients who underwent a first hepatectomy between 2001 and 2012 for CRLM were enrolled. Short- and long-term outcomes of patients who underwent hepatectomy plus RFA were compared with those of patients who had hepatectomy alone using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of a total of 553 patients, hepatectomy + RFA and hepatectomy alone were performed in 37 and 516 respectively. Before matching, patients in the hepatectomy + RFA group were characterized primarily by a larger tumour burden. After matching of 31 patients who underwent hepatectomy + RFA with 93 who had hepatectomy alone, background characteristics were well balanced. In the matched cohort, overall and disease-free survival in the hepatectomy + RFA group were no different from those among patients who had hepatectomy alone (5-year overall survival rate 57 versus 61 per cent, P = 0·649; 5-year disease-free survival rate 19 versus 17 per cent, P = 0·865). Local recurrence at the ablated site was observed in four of 31 patients (13 per cent). Although overall local recurrence (ablated site and/or cut surface) was more frequent in the hepatectomy + RFA group (9 of 31 (29 per cent) versus 11 of 93 (12 per cent); P = 0·032), there was no difference in intrahepatic disease-free survival between the two groups (P = 0·705). CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy + RFA achieved outcomes comparable to hepatectomy alone. Combining RFA with hepatectomy should be considered as an option to achieve cure.

Liver transplantation for "very early" intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: International retrospective study supporting a prospective assessment.

UNLABELLED: The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that "very early" iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with "very early" iCCA and those with "advanced" disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the "very early" iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the "advanced" group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the "advanced" group (3.1 [2.5-4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5-1.8]). After a median follow-up of 35 (13.5-76.4) months, the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. CONCLUSION: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (Hepatology 2016;64:1178-1188).

Outcome after associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy and conventional two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been increasingly adopted by many centres, the oncological outcome for colorectal liver metastases compared with that after two-stage hepatectomy is still unknown. METHODS: Between January 2010 and June 2014, all consecutive patients who underwent either ALPPS or two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in a single institution were included in the study. Morbidity, mortality, disease recurrence and survival were compared. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable in terms of clinicopathological characteristics. ALPPS was completed in all 17 patients, whereas the second-stage hepatectomy could not be completed in 15 of 41 patients. Ninety-day mortality rates for ALPPS and two-stage resection were 0 per cent (0 of 17) versus 5 per cent (2 of 41) (P = 0·891). Major complication rates (Clavien grade at least III) were 41 per cent (7 of 17) and 39 per cent (16 of 41) respectively (P = 0·999). Overall survival was significantly lower after ALPPS than after two-stage hepatectomy: 2-year survival 42 versus 77 per cent respectively (P = 0·006). Recurrent disease was more often seen in the liver in the ALPPS group. Salvage surgery was less often performed after ALPPS (2 of 8 patients) than after two-stage hepatectomy (10 of 17). CONCLUSION: Although major complication and 90-day mortality rates of ALPPS were similar to those of two-stage hepatectomy, overall survival was significantly lower following ALPPS.

Drop-out between the two liver resections of two-stage hepatectomy. Patient selection or loss of chance?

BACKGROUND: Two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) is the present standard for multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CLM), but 25-35% of patients fail to complete the scheduled procedure (drop-out). To elucidate if drop-out of TSH is a patient selection (as usually considered) or a loss of chance. METHODS: All the consecutive patients scheduled for a TSH at the Paul Brousse Hospital between 2000 and 2012 were considered. TSH patients were matched 1:1 with patients receiving a one-stage ultrasound-guided hepatectomy (OSH) at the Humanitas Research Hospital in the same period. Matching criteria were: primary tumor N status; timing of CLM diagnosis; CLM number and distribution into the liver. RESULTS: Sixty-three pairs of patients were analyzed. Demographic and tumor characteristics were similar (median 7 CLM), except for more chemotherapy lines and adjuvant chemotherapy in TSH. Drop-out rate of TSH was 38.1% (0% of OSH). The two groups had similar R0 resection rate (19.0% OSH vs. 15.9% TSH). OSH and completed TSH had similar five-year survival (from CLM diagnosis 49.8% vs. 49.7%, from liver resection 36.1% vs. 44.3%), superior to drop-out (10% three-year survival, p < 0.001). OSH and completed TSH had similar recurrence-free survival (at three years 21.7% vs. 20.5%) and recurrence sites. The completion of resection (drop-out vs. OSH/completed TSH) was the only independent prognostic factor (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Drop-out of TSH could be a loss of chance rather than a criteria for patient selection. "Unselected" OSH patients had the same outcomes of selected patients who completed TSH. A complete resection is the main determinant of prognosis.

Nomogram for prediction of prognosis in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Although recent advances in surgery and chemotherapy have increasingly enabled hepatectomy in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), not all such patients benefit from surgery. The aim of this study was to develop a nomogram to predict survival after hepatectomy for initially unresectable CRLM. METHODS: Patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with chemotherapy followed by hepatectomy between 1990 and 2012 were included in the study. A nomogram to predict survival was developed based on a multivariable Cox model. The predictive performance of the model was assessed according to the C-statistic, Kaplan-Meier curve and calibration plots. RESULTS: Of a total of 439 patients, liver and globally completed surgery was achieved in 380 (86·6 per cent) and 335 (76·3 per cent) patients respectively. The 5-year overall and disease-free survival rates were 39·9 and 10·0 per cent respectively. Based on the Cox model, the following five factors were selected for the nomogram and assigned specific scores: node-positive primary, 5; more than six metastases at hepatectomy, 7; carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level at hepatectomy above 37 units/ml, 10; disease progression during first-line chemotherapy, 9; and presence of extrahepatic disease, 4. The model achieved relatively good discrimination and calibration, with a C-statistic of 0·66. The overall survival rate for patients with a score greater than 16 was significantly worse than that for patients with a score of 16 or less (5-year survival rate 4 versus 46·3 per cent respectively; P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: The nomogram facilitates personalized assessment of prognosis for patients with initially unresectable CRLM treated with chemotherapy and with planned resection.