Liver Resection vs Nonsurgical Treatments for Patients With Early Multinodular Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Importance: The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm currently discourages liver resection (LR) for patients with multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presenting with 2 or 3 nodules that are each 3 cm or smaller. Objective: To compare the efficacy of liver resection (LR), percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with multinodular HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a retrospective analysis conducted using data from the HE.RC.O.LE.S register (n = 5331) for LR patients and the ITA.LI.CA database (n = 7056) for PRFA and TACE patients. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) method was applied to balance data and potential confounding factors between the 3 groups. Included were patients from multiple centers from 2008 to 2020; data were analyzed from January to December 2023. Interventions: LR, PRFA, or TACE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were calculated. Cox MAIC-weighted multivariable analysis and competing risk analysis were used to assess outcomes. Results: A total of 720 patients with early multinodular HCC were included, 543 males (75.4%), 177 females (24.6%), and 350 individuals older than 70 years (48.6%). There were 296 patients in the LR group, 240 who underwent PRFA, and 184 who underwent TACE. After MAIC, LR exhibited 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 89.11%, 70.98%, and 56.44%, respectively. PRFA showed rates of 94.01%, 65.20%, and 39.93%, while TACE displayed rates of 90.88%, 48.95%, and 29.24%. Multivariable Cox survival analysis in the weighted population showed a survival benefit over alternative treatments (PRFA vs LR: hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.86; P = .01; TACE vs LR: HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.29-2.68; P = .001). Competing risk analysis confirmed a lower risk of cancer-related death in LR compared with PRFA and TACE. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option, followed by PRFA and TACE when LR is not feasible. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in this patient population.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on short-term outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score matched and coarsened exact matched study.

BACKGROUND: In the last three decades, minimally invasive liver resection has been replacing conventional open approach in liver surgery. More recently, developments in neoadjuvant chemotherapy have led to increased multidisciplinary management of colorectal liver metastases with both medical and surgical treatment modalities. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections remains poorly understood. METHODS: A multicenter, international, database of 4998 minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases was used to compare surgical outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone. To correct for baseline imbalance, propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed. RESULTS: 2546 patients met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching there were 759 patients in both groups and 383 patients in both groups after coarsened exact matching. Baseline characteristics were equal after both matching strategies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with statistically significant worse surgical outcomes of minimally invasive minor hepatectomy. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no statistically significant impact on short-term surgical outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

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.

Autogenic splenic implantation versus splenectomy in patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the distal pancreas: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RESTORE).

BACKGROUND: The spleen plays a significant role in the clearance of circulating microorganisms. Sequelae of splenectomy, especially immunodeficiency, can have a deleterious effect on a patient's health and even lead to death. Hence, splenectomy should be avoided and spleen preservation during elective surgery has become a treatment goal. However, this cannot be achieved in every patient due to intraoperative technical difficulties or oncological reasons. Autogenic splenic implantation (ASI) is currently the only possible way to preserve splenic function when a splenectomy is necessary. Experience largely stems from trauma patients with a splenic rupture. Splenic immune function can be measured by the body's clearing capacity of encapsulated bacteria. The aim of this study is to assess the splenic immune function after ASI was performed during minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. METHODS: This is the protocol for a multicentre, randomized, open-labelled trial. Thirty participants with benign or low-grade malignant lesions of the distal pancreas requiring minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy will be allocated to either additional intraoperative ASI (intervention) or no further intervention (control). An additional 15 patients who will undergo spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy serve as the control group with normal splenic function. Six months postoperatively, after assumed restoration of splenic function, patients will be given a Salmonella typhi (Typhim Vi™) vaccine. The Salmonella typhi vaccine is a polysaccharide vaccine. The specific antibody titres immediately before and 4 to 6 weeks after vaccination will be measured. The ratio between pre- and post-vaccination antibody count is the primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measures include intraoperative details, length of hospital stay, 30-day mortality and morbidity. DISCUSSION: This study will investigate the splenic immune function of patients who undergo ASI during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy. The splenic immune function will be measured using the surrogate outcome of specific antibody titre after vaccination with a Salmonella typhi vaccine. The results will reveal details about splenic function after ASI and guide further treatment options for patients when a splenectomy cannot be avoided. It might eventually lead to a new standard of care making sometimes more demanding and time-consuming spleen-preserving procedures redundant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN10171587. Prospectively registered on 18 February 2019.

Trends in the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open resections for benign liver lesions: An international multicenter retrospective cohort study of 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Solid benign liver lesions (BLL) are increasingly discovered, but clear indications for surgical treatment are often lacking. Concomitantly, laparoscopic liver surgery is increasingly performed. The aim of this study was to assess if the availability of laparoscopic surgery has had an impact on the characteristics and perioperative outcomes of patients with BLL. METHODS: This is a retrospective international multicenter cohort study, including patients undergoing a laparoscopic or open liver resection for BLL from 19 centers in eight countries. Patients were divided according to the time period in which they underwent surgery (2008-2013, 2014-2016, and 2017-2019). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted (using logistic regression) time-trend analyses were performed. The primary outcome was textbook outcome (TOLS), defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥ grade 2, bile leak ≥ grade B, severe complications, readmission and 90-day or in-hospital mortality, with the absence of a prolonged length of stay added to define TOLS+. RESULTS: In the complete dataset comprised of patients that underwent liver surgery for all indications, the proportion of patients undergoing liver surgery for benign disease remained stable (12.6% in the first time period, 11.9% in the second time period and 12.1% in the last time period, p = 0.454). Overall, 845 patients undergoing a liver resection for BLL in the first (n = 374), second (n = 258) or third time period (n = 213) were included. The rates of ASA-scores≥3 (9.9%-16%,p < 0.001), laparoscopic surgery (57.8%-77%,p < 0.001), and Pringle maneuver use (33.2%-47.2%,p = 0.001) increased, whereas the length of stay decreased (5 to 4 days,p < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the TOLS rate (86.6%-81.3%,p = 0.151), while the TOLS + rate increased from 41.7% to 58.7% (p < 0.001). The latter result was confirmed in the risk-adjusted analyses (aOR 1.849,p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The surgical treatment of BLL has evolved with an increased implementation of the laparoscopic approach and a decreased length of stay. This evolution was paralleled by stable TOLS rates above 80% and an increase in the TOLS + rate.

Survival benefit of second line therapies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: repeated hepatectomy, thermoablation and second-line transplant referral in a real life national scenario.

BACKGROUND: Despite second-line transplant(SLT) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma(rHCC) leads to the longest survival after recurrence(SAR), its real applicability has never been reported. The aim was to compare the SAR of SLT versus repeated hepatectomy and thermoablation(CUR group). METHODS: Patients were enrolled from the Italian register HE.RC.O.LE.S. between 2008 and 2021. Two groups were created: CUR versus SLT. A propensity score matching (PSM) was run to balance the groups. RESULTS: 743 patients were enrolled, CUR = 611 and SLT = 132. Median age at recurrence was 71(IQR 6575) years old and 60(IQR 53-64, p < 0.001) for CUR and SLT respectively. After PSM, median SAR for CUR was 43 months(95%CI = 37 - 93) and not reached for SLT(p < 0.001). SLT patients gained a survival benefit of 9.4 months if compared with CUR. MilanCriteria(MC)-In patients were 82.7% of the CUR group. SLT(HR 0.386, 95%CI = 0.23 - 0.63, p < 0.001) and the MELD score(HR 1.169, 95%CI = 1.07 - 1.27, p < 0.001) were the only predictors of mortality. In case of MC-Out, the only predictor of mortality was the number of nodules at recurrence(HR 1.45, 95%CI= 1.09 - 1.93, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: It emerged an important transplant under referral in favour of repeated hepatectomy or thermoablation. In patients with MC-Out relapse, the benefit of SLT over CUR was not observed.

Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon's Experience.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH. METHODS: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. CONCLUSION: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.

Use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery in the European E-MIPS registry.

BACKGROUND: The European registry for minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (E-MIPS) collects data on laparoscopic and robotic MIPS in low- and high-volume centers across Europe. METHODS: Analysis of the first year (2019) of the E-MIPS registry, including minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) and minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 959 patients from 54 centers in 15 countries were included, 558 patients underwent MIDP and 401 patients MIPD. Median volume of MIDP was 10 (7-20) and 9 (2-20) for MIPD. Median use of MIDP was 56.0% (IQR 39.0-77.3%) and median use of MIPD 27.7% (IQR 9.7-45.3%). MIDP was mostly performed laparoscopic (401/558, 71.9%) and MIPD mostly robotic (234/401, 58.3%). MIPD was performed in 50/54 (89.3%) centers, of which 15/50 (30.0%) performed ≥20 MIPD annually. This was 30/54 (55.6%) centers and 13/30 (43%) centers for MIPD respectively. Conversion rate was 10.9% for MIDP and 8.4% for MIPD. Overall 90 day mortality was 1.1% (n = 6) for MIDP and 3.7% (n = 15) for MIPD. CONCLUSION: Within the E-MIPS registry, MIDP is performed in about half of all patients, mostly using laparoscopy. MIPD is performed in about a quarter of patients, slightly more often using the robotic approach. A minority of centers met the Miami guideline volume criteria for MIPD.

Simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: what determines the risk of unfavorable outcomes? An international multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes. METHODS: To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region.

BACKGROUND: Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM. METHODS: Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents. RESULTS: Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input.

Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Machine Learning Predictive Model to Guide Treatment Allocation for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Surgery.

Importance: Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking. Objective: To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021. Exposures: Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival after recurrence was the end point. Results: A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation. Conclusions and Relevance: The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.

The Effect of a Liver Transplant Program on the Outcomes of Resectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Nationwide Multicenter Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a liver transplantation (LT) program on the outcomes of resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of HCC includes both hepatic resection (HR) and LT. However, the presence of cirrhosis and the possibility of recurrence make the management of this disease complex and probably different according to the presence of a LT program. METHODS: Patients undergoing HR for HCC between January 2005 and December 2019 were identified from a national database of HCC. The main study outcomes were major surgical complications according to the Comprehensive Complication Index, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality, overall survival, and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were salvage liver transplantation (SLT) and postrecurrence survival. RESULTS: A total of 3202 patients were included from 25 hospitals over the study period. Three of 25 (12%) had an LT program. The presence of an LT program within a center was associated with a reduced probability of PHLF (odds ratio=0.38) but not with overall survival and disease-free survival. There was an increased probability of SLT when HR was performed in a transplant hospital (odds ratio=12.05). Among transplant-eligible patients, those who underwent LT had a significantly longer postrecurrence survival. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the presence of a LT program was associated with decreased PHLF rates and an increased probability to receive SLT in case of recurrence.

Indications, trends, and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive and open liver surgery in non-obese and obese patients: An international multicentre propensity score matched retrospective cohort study of 9963 patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite the worldwide increase of both obesity and the use of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS), evidence regarding the safety and eventual benefits of MILS in obese patients is scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the outcomes of non-obese and obese patients (BMI 18.5-29.9 and BMI≥30, respectively) undergoing MILS and OLS, and to assess trends in MILS use among obese patients. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients operated at 20 hospitals in eight countries (2009-2019) were included and the characteristics and outcomes of non-obese and obese patients were compared. Thereafter, the outcomes of MILS and OLS were compared in both groups after propensity-score matching (PSM). Changes in the adoption of MILS during the study period were investigated. RESULTS: Overall, 9963 patients were included (MILS: n = 4687; OLS: n = 5276). Compared to non-obese patients (n = 7986), obese patients(n = 1977) were more often comorbid, less often received preoperative chemotherapy or had a history of previous hepatectomy, had longer operation durations and more intraoperative blood loss (IOBL), paralleling significantly higher rates of wound- and respiratory-related complications. After PSM, MILS, compared to OLS, was associated, among both non-obese and obese patients, with less IOBL (200 ml vs 320 ml, 200 ml vs 400 ml, respectively), lower rates of transfusions (6.6% vs 12.8%, 4.7% vs 14.7%), complications (26.1% vs 35%, 24.9% vs 34%), bile leaks(4% vs 7%, 1.8% vs 4.9%), liver failure (0.7% vs 2.3%, 0.2% vs 2.1%), and a shorter length of stay(5 vs 7 and 4 vs 7 days). A cautious implementation of MILS over time in obese patients (42.1%-53%, p < .001) was paralleled by stable severe morbidity (p = .433) and mortality (p = .423) rates, despite an accompanying gradual increase in surgical complexity. CONCLUSIONS: MILS is increasingly adopted and associated with perioperative benefits in both non-obese and obese patients.

Benchmarking postoperative outcomes after open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in a national cohort.

BACKGROUND: Benchmark analysis for open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still undefined. METHODS: Patients were identified from the Italian national registry HE.RC.O.LE.S. The Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) method was employed to identify the benchmarks. The outcomes assessed were the rate of complications, major comorbidities, post-operative ascites (POA), post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality. Benchmarking was stratified for surgical complexity (CP1, CP2 and CP3). RESULTS: A total of 978 of 2698 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 431 (44.1%) patients were treated with CP1 procedures, 239 (24.4%) with CP2 and 308 (31.5%) with CP3 procedures. Patients submitted to CP1 had a worse underlying liver function, while the tumor burden was more severe in CP3 cases. The ABC for complications (13.1%, 19.2% and 28.1% for CP1, CP2 and CP3 respectively), major complications (7.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%) and 90-day mortality (0%, 3.3%, 3.6%) increased with the surgical difficulty, but not POA (4.4%, 3.3% and 2.6% respectively) and PHLF (0% for all groups). CONCLUSION: We propose benchmarks for open liver resections in HCC cirrhotic patients, stratified for surgical complexity. The difference between the benchmark values and the results obtained during everyday practice reflects the room for potential growth, with the aim to encourage constant improvement among liver surgeons.

The largest western experience on salvage hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score-matched analysis on behalf of He.RC.O.Le.Study Group.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate, in a large Western cohort, perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of salvage hepatectomy (SH) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) after primary hepatectomy (PH) or locoregional treatments. METHODS: Data were collected from the Hepatocarcinoma Recurrence on the Liver Study Group (He.RC.O.Le.S.) Italian Registry. After 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis (PSM), two groups were compared: the PH group (patients submitted to resection for a first HCC) and the SH group (patients resected for intrahepatic rHCC after previous HCC-related treatments). RESULTS: 2689 patients were enrolled. PH included 2339 patients, SH 350. After PSM, 263 patients were selected in each group with major resected nodule median size, intraoperative blood loss and minimally invasive approach significantly lower in the SH group. Long-term outcomes were compared, with no difference in OS and DFS. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed only microvascular invasion as an independent prognostic factor for OS. CONCLUSION: SH proved to be equivalent to PH in terms of safety, feasibility and long-term outcomes, consistent with data gathered from East Asia. In the awaiting of reliable treatment-allocating algorithms for rHCC, SH appears to be a suitable alternative in patients fit for surgery, regardless of the previous therapeutic modality implemented.

Precision vascular anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is increasingly performed worldwide; however, the surgical anatomy required to safely perform MIDP has not yet been fully considered. This review evaluated the literature concerning peripancreatic vascular anatomy, which is considered important to conduct safe MIDP. METHODS: A database search of PubMed and Ichushi (Japanese) was conducted. Qualified studies investigating the anatomical variations of peripancreatic vessels related to MIDP were evaluated using SIGN methodology. RESULTS: Of 701 articles yielded by our search strategy, 76 articles were assessed in this systematic review. The important vascular anatomy required to recognize MIDP included the pancreatic parenchymal coverage on the root and the running course of the splenic artery, branching patterns of the splenic artery, confluence positions of the left gastric vein and the inferior mesenteric vein, forms of pancreatic veins including the centro-inferior pancreatic vein, characteristics of the left renal vein, and collateral routes perfusing the spleen following Warshaw's technique. Very few articles evaluating the relationship between the anatomical variations and surgical outcomes of MIDP were found. CONCLUSIONS: The precise knowledge of peripancreatic vessels is important to adequately complete MIDP. More detailed anatomic analyses and descriptions will benefit surgeons and their patients who are facing these operations.

International Expert Consensus on Precision Anatomy for minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy: PAM-HBP Surgery Project.

BACKGROUND: Surgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy-based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021). METHODS: Twenty-five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting. RESULTS: Four clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts. CONCLUSIONS: The expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.

Hepatectomy for Metabolic Associated Fatty Liver Disease (MAFLD) related HCC: Propensity case-matched analysis with viral- and alcohol-related HCC.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We investigated the clinical impact of the newly defined metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) in patients undergoing hepatectomy for HCC (MAFLD-HCC) comparing the characteristics and outcomes of patients with MAFLD-HCC to viral- and alcoholic-related HCC (HCV-HCC, HBV-HCC, A-HCC). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients included in the He.RC.O.Le.S. Group registry was performed. The characteristics, short- and long-term outcomes of 1315 patients included were compared according to the study group before and after an exact propensity score match (PSM). RESULTS: Among the whole study population, 264 (20.1%) had MAFLD-HCC, 205 (15.6%) had HBV-HCC, 671 (51.0%) had HCV-HCC and 175 (13.3%) had A-HCC. MAFLD-HCC patients had higher BMI (p < 0.001), Charlson Comorbidities Index (p < 0.001), size of tumour (p < 0.001), and presence of cirrhosis (p < 0.001). After PSM, the 90-day mortality and severe morbidity rates were 5.9% and 7.1% in MAFLD-HCC, 2.3% and 7.1% in HBV-HCC, 3.5% and 11.7% in HCV-HCC, and 1.2% and 8.2% in A-HCC (p = 0.061 and p = 0.447, respectively). The 5-year OS and RFS rates were 54.4% and 37.1% in MAFLD-HCC, 64.9% and 32.2% in HBV-HCC, 53.4% and 24.7% in HCV-HCC and 62.0% and 37.8% in A-HCC (p = 0.345 and p = 0.389, respectively). Cirrhosis, multiple tumours, size and satellitosis seems to be the independent predictors of OS. CONCLUSION: Hepatectomy for MAFLD-HCC seems to have a higher but acceptable operative risk. However, long-term outcomes seems to be related to clinical and pathological factors rather than aetiological risk factors.

International expert consensus on precision anatomy for minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy: PAM-HBP surgery project.

BACKGROUND: The anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD. METHODS: Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting. RESULTS: Three clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection. CONCLUSIONS: MIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.