Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres.

BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

A multicenter cohort analysis of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobe resection.

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe (LRCL) requires a high level of expertise due to its challenging anatomical area. Only case reports, case series, and single-center cohort studies have been published. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of this laparoscopic procedure. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective cohort study including all patients who underwent LRCL in 4 high-volume hepatobiliary units between January 2000 and May 2018 was performed. Perioperative, postoperative, and survival outcomes were assessed. Postoperative morbidity was stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification with severe complications defined by grade III or more. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. RESULTS: A total of 32 patients were included, including 22 (68.8%) with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM), one (3.1%) with cholangiocarcinoma, four (12.5%) with other malignancies, and five (15.6%) with symptomatic benign lesions. Simultaneous colorectal and/or additional liver resection was performed in 20 (62.5%) patients. The median (IQR) operative time was 155 (121-280) minutes, blood loss was 100 (50-275) ml, conversion rate was 9.4% (n = 3), severe complications were observed in 2 patients (6.3%), and median (range) length of hospital stay was 3 [1-39] days. No 90-day postoperative mortality was noticed. The median (IQR) follow-up for the CRLM group was 14 [10-23] months. Five-year overall survival rate was 82% in this subgroup. Small interinstitutional differences were observed without major impact on surgical outcomes. CONCLUSION: LRCL is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers. Profound anatomical knowledge, advanced laparoscopic skills, and mastering intraoperative ultrasound are essential. No major interinstitutional differences were ascertained.

Minimally invasive surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review.

Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is quickly becoming mainstream in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery because of presumed advantages. Surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is highly demanding which may hamper the feasibility and safety of MIS in this setting. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature on MIS for PHC. A systematic literature review was performed according to the PRISMA statement. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and all studies describing MIS in patients with PHC were included. Data extraction and risk of bias were assessed by two independent researchers. Overall, 21 studies reporting on a total of 142 MIS procedures for PHC were included. These included 82 laparoscopic, 59 robot-assisted and 1 hybrid procedure(s). Risk of bias was deemed substantial. Pooled conversion rate was 7/142 (4.9%), pooled morbidity 30/126 (23.8%), and pooled mortality rate 4/126 (3.2%). The only comparative study, comparing 10 robot-assisted procedures to 32 open procedures, reported a significant increased operative time and higher morbidity rate with MIS. The available evidence on MIS for PHC is limited and generally of poor quality. This systematic review shows that the implementation of MIS for patients with PHC is still in its infancy.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests. RESULTS: Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR. CONCLUSION: LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

Laparoscopic combined resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer: a multicenter, case-matched study using propensity scores.

BACKGROUND: Combined laparoscopic resection of liver metastases and colorectal cancer (LLCR) may hold benefits for selected patients but could increase complication rates. Previous studies have compared LLCR with liver resection alone. Propensity score-matched studies comparing LLCR with laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection (LCR) alone have not been performed. METHODS: A multicenter, case-matched study was performed comparing LLCR (2009-2016, 4 centers) with LCR alone (2009-2016, 2 centers). Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated with the following preoperative variables: age, sex, ASA grade, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, type of colorectal resection and T and N stage of the primary tumor. Outcomes were compared using paired tests. RESULTS: Out of 1020 LCR and 64 LLCR procedures, 122 (2 × 61) patients could be matched. All 61 laparoscopic liver resections were minor hepatectomies, mostly because of a solitary liver metastasis (n = 44, 69%) of small size (≤ 3 cm) (n = 50, 78%). LLCR was associated with a modest increase in operative time [206 (166-308) vs. 197 (148-231) min, p = 0.057] and blood loss [200 (100-700) vs. 75 (5-200) ml, p = 0.011]. The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher complications [9 (15%) vs. 13 (21%), p = 0.418], anastomotic leakage [5 (8%) vs. 4 (7%), p = 1.0], conversion rate [3 (5%) vs. 5 (8%), p = 0.687] and 30-day mortality [0 vs. 1 (2%), p = 1.0] did not differ between LLCR and LCR. CONCLUSION: In selected patients requiring minor hepatectomy, LLCR can be safely performed without increasing the risk of postoperative morbidity compared to LCR alone.