Laparoscopic Versus Open Hemihepatectomy: The ORANGE II PLUS Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes after laparoscopic versus open major liver resection (hemihepatectomy) mainly for primary or metastatic cancer. The primary outcome measure was time to functional recovery. Secondary outcomes included morbidity, quality of life (QoL), and for those with cancer, resection margin status and time to adjuvant systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled, patient-blinded, superiority trial on adult patients undergoing hemihepatectomy. Patients were recruited from 16 hospitals in Europe between November 2013 and December 2018. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomly assigned patients, 332 patients (94.3%) underwent surgery (laparoscopic, n = 166 and open, n = 166) and comprised the analysis population. The median time to functional recovery was 4 days (IQR, 3-5; range, 1-30) for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy versus 5 days (IQR, 4-6; range, 1-33) for open hemihepatectomy (difference, -17.5% [96% CI, -25.6 to -8.4]; P < .001). There was no difference in major complications (laparoscopic 24/166 [14.5%] v open 28/166 [16.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; P = .58). Regarding QoL, both global health status (difference, 3.2 points; P < .001) and body image (difference, 0.9 points; P < .001) scored significantly higher in the laparoscopic group. For the 281 (84.6%) patients with cancer, R0 resection margin status was similar (laparoscopic 106 [77.9%] v open 122 patients [84.1%], OR, 0.60; P = .14) with a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy in the laparoscopic group (46.5 days v 62.8 days, hazard ratio, 2.20; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing hemihepatectomy, the laparoscopic approach resulted in a shorter time to functional recovery compared with open surgery. In addition, it was associated with a better QoL, and in patients with cancer, a shorter time to adjuvant systemic therapy with no adverse impact on cancer outcomes observed.

Global Outcomes Benchmarks in Laparoscopic Liver Surgery for Segments 7 and 8: International Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been growing interest in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and the audit of the results of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to define reference values for LLR in segments 7 and 8. METHODS: Data on LLR in segments 7 and 8 between January 2000 and December 2020 were collected from 19 expert centers. Reference cases were defined as no prior hepatectomy, ASA <3, body mass index <35 kg/m2, no chronic kidney disease, no cirrhosis and portal hypertension, no chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (FEV1<80%), and no cardiac disease. Reference values were obtained from the 75th percentile of the medians of all reference centers. RESULTS: Of 585 patients, 461 (78.8%) met the reference criteria. The overall complication rate was 27.5% (6% were Clavien-Dindo≥3a) with a mean CCI of 7.5 ± 16.5. At 90-day follow-up, the references values for overall complications were 31%, Clavien≥3a 7.4%, conversion 4.4%, hospital stay < 6 days, and readmission rate < 8.33%, respectively. Eastern centers patients categorized as low risk had a lower rate of overall complications (20.9% vs 31.2%, p=0.01) with similar Clavien-Dindo≥3a (5.5% and 4.8%, p=0.83) compared to Western centers, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study shows the need to establish standards for the postoperative outcomes in LLR based on the complexity of the resection and the location of the lesions.

Differences in Lymph Node Metastases Patterns Among Non-pancreatic Periampullary Cancers and Histologic Subtypes: An International Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Standard lymphadenectomy for pancreatoduodenectomy is defined for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and adopted for patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC), ampullary adenocarcinoma (AAC), distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA), or duodenal adenocarcinoma (DAC). This study aimed to compare the patterns of lymph node metastases among the different NPPCs in a large series and in a systematic review to guide the discussion on surgical lymphadenectomy and pathology assessment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for NPPC with at least one lymph node metastasis (2010-2021) from 24 centers in nine countries. The primary outcome was identification of lymph node stations affected in case of a lymph node metastasis per NPPC. A separate systematic review included studies on lymph node metastases patterns of AAC, dCCA, and DAC. RESULTS: The study included 2367 patients, of whom 1535 had AAC, 616 had dCCA, and 216 had DAC. More patients with pancreatobiliary type AAC had one or more lymph node metastasis (67.2% vs 44.8%; P < 0.001) compared with intestinal-type, but no differences in metastasis pattern were observed. Stations 13 and 17 were most frequently involved (95%, 94%, and 90%). Whereas dCCA metastasized more frequently to station 12 (13.0% vs 6.4% and 7.0%, P = 0.005), DAC metastasized more frequently to stations 6 (5.0% vs 0% and 2.7%; P < 0.001) and 14 (17.0% vs 8.4% and 11.7%, P = 0.015). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively demonstrate the differences and similarities in lymph node metastases spread among NPPCs, to identify the existing research gaps, and to underscore the importance of standardized lymphadenectomy and pathologic assessment for AAC, dCCA, and DAC.

International consensus guidelines on robotic pancreatic surgery in 2023.

Background: With the rapid development of robotic surgery, especially for the abdominal surgery, robotic pancreatic surgery (RPS) has been applied increasingly around the world. However, evidence-based guidelines regarding its application, safety, and efficacy are still lacking. To harvest robust evidence and comprehensive clinical practice, this study aims to develop international guidelines on the use of RPS. Methods: World Health Organization (WHO) Handbook for Guideline Development, GRADE Grid method, Delphi vote, and the AGREE-II instrument were used to establish the Guideline Steering Group, Guideline Development Group, and Guideline Secretary Group, formulate 19 clinical questions, develop the recommendations, and draft the guidelines. Three online meetings were held on 04/12/2020, 30/11/2021, and 25/01/2022 to vote on the recommendations and get advice and suggestions from all involved experts. All the experts focusing on minimally invasive surgery from America, Europe and Oceania made great contributions to this consensus guideline. Results: After a systematic literature review 176 studies were included, 19 questions were addressed and 14 recommendations were developed through the expert assessment and comprehensive judgment of the quality and credibility of the evidence. Conclusions: The international RPS guidelines can guide current practice for surgeons, patients, medical societies, hospital administrators, and related social communities. Further randomized trials are required to determine the added value of RPS as compared to open and laparoscopic surgery.

Are enhanced recovery protocols after pancreatoduodenectomy still efficient when applied in elderly patients? A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis investigated the effects of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols compared to conventional care on postoperative outcomes in patients aged 70 years or older undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched. Comparative studies with available individual patient data (IPD) were included. The main outcomes were postoperative morbidity, length of stay, readmission and postoperative functional recovery elements. To assess an age-dependent effect, the group was divided in septuagenarians (70-79 years) and older patients (≥80 years). RESULTS: IPD were obtained from 15 of 31 eligible studies comprising 1109 patients. The overall complication and major complication rates were comparable in both groups (OR 0.92 [95% CI: 0.65-1.29], p = .596 and OR 1.22 [95% CI: 0.61-2.46], p = .508). Length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the ERAS group compared to the conventional care group (-0.14 days [95% CI: -0.29 to 0.01], p = .071) while readmission rates were comparable and the total length of stay including days in hospital after readmission tended to be shorter in the ERAS group (-0.28 days [95% CI: -0.62 to 0.05], p = .069). In the subgroups, the length of stay was shorter in octogenarians treated with ERAS (-0.36 days [95% CI: -0.71 to -0.004], p = .048). The readmission rate increased slightly but not significantly while the total length of stay was not longer in the ERAS group. CONCLUSION: ERAS in the elderly is safe and its benefits are preserved in the care of even in patients older than 80 years. Standardized care protocol should be encouraged in all pancreatic centers.

MRI in addition to CT in patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal liver metastases (CAMINO): an international, multicentre, prospective, diagnostic accuracy trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines are inconclusive on whether contrast-enhanced MRI using gadoxetic acid and diffusion-weighted imaging should be added routinely to CT in the investigation of patients with colorectal liver metastases who are scheduled for curative liver resection or thermal ablation, or both. Although contrast-enhanced MRI is reportedly superior than contrast-enhanced CT in the detection and characterisation of colorectal liver metastases, its effect on clinical patient management is unknown. We aimed to assess the clinical effect of an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI on local treatment plan in patients with colorectal liver metastases amenable to local treatment, based on contrast-enhanced CT. METHODS: We did an international, multicentre, prospective, incremental diagnostic accuracy trial in 14 liver surgery centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Italy. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histological proof of colorectal cancer, a WHO performance status score of 0-4, and primary or recurrent colorectal liver metastases, who were scheduled for local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. All patients had contrast-enhanced CT and liver contrast-enhanced MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid as a contrast agent before undergoing local therapy. The primary outcome was change in the local clinical treatment plan (decided by the individual clinics) on the basis of liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings, analysed in the intention-to-image population. The minimal clinically important difference in the proportion of patients who would have change in their local treatment plan due to an additional liver contrast-enhanced MRI was 10%. This study is closed and registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, NL8039. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2019, and July 31, 2021, 325 patients with colorectal liver metastases were assessed for eligibility. 298 patients were enrolled and included in the intention-to-treat population, including 177 males (59%) and 121 females (41%) with planned local therapy based on contrast-enhanced CT. A change in the local treatment plan based on liver contrast-enhanced MRI findings was observed in 92 (31%; 95% CI 26-36) of 298 patients. Changes were made for 40 patients (13%) requiring more extensive local therapy, 11 patients (4%) requiring less extensive local therapy, and 34 patients (11%) in whom the indication for curative-intent local therapy was revoked, including 26 patients (9%) with too extensive disease and eight patients (3%) with benign lesions on liver contrast-enhanced MRI (confirmed by a median follow-up of 21·0 months [IQR 17·5-24·0]). INTERPRETATION: Liver contrast-enhanced MRI should be considered in all patients scheduled for local treatment for colorectal liver metastases on the basis of contrast-enhanced CT imaging. FUNDING: The Dutch Cancer Society and Bayer AG - Pharmaceuticals.

International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023.

The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.

The clinical implication of minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for non-pancreatic periampullary cancer: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) combine patients with pancreatic and periampullary cancers even though there is substantial heterogeneity between these tumors. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the role of MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) in patients with non-pancreatic periampullary cancer (NPPC). METHODS: A systematic review of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed by two independent reviewers to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD for NPPC (ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenal adenocarcinoma) (01/2015-12/2021). Individual patient data were required from all identified studies. Primary outcomes were (90-day) mortality, and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3a-5). Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), delayed gastric emptying (DGE), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), blood-loss, length of hospital stay (LOS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Overall, 16 studies with 1949 patients were included, combining 928 patients with ampullary, 526 with distal cholangio, and 461 with duodenal cancer. In total, 902 (46.3%) patients underwent MIPD, and 1047 (53.7%) patients underwent OPD. The rates of 90-day mortality, major morbidity, POPF, DGE, PPH, blood-loss, and length of hospital stay did not differ between MIPD and OPD. Operation time was 67 min longer in the MIPD group (P = 0.009). A decrease in DFS for ampullary (HR 2.27, P = 0.019) and distal cholangio (HR 1.84, P = 0.025) cancer, as well as a decrease in OS for distal cholangio (HR 1.71, P = 0.045) and duodenal cancer (HR 4.59, P < 0.001) was found in the MIPD group. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with NPPC suggests that MIPD is not inferior in terms of short-term morbidity and mortality. Several major limitations in long-term data highlight a research gap that should be studied in prospective maintained international registries or randomized studies for ampullary, distal cholangio, and duodenum cancer separately. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021277495) on the 25th of October 2021.

Learning Curves of Minimally Invasive Distal Pancreatectomy in Experienced Pancreatic Centers.

Importance: Understanding the learning curve of a new complex surgical technique helps to reduce potential patient harm. Current series on the learning curve of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are mostly small, single-center series, thus providing limited data. Objective: To evaluate the length of pooled learning curves of MIDP in experienced centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This international, multicenter, retrospective cohort study included MIDP procedures performed from January 1, 2006, through June 30, 2019, in 26 European centers from 8 countries that each performed more than 15 distal pancreatectomies annually, with an overall experience exceeding 50 MIDP procedures. Consecutive patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic distal pancreatectomy for all indications were included. Data were analyzed between September 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022. Exposures: The learning curve for MIDP was estimated by pooling data from all centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The learning curve was assessed for the primary textbook outcome (TBO), which is a composite measure that reflects optimal outcome, and for surgical mastery. Generalized additive models and a 2-piece linear model with a break point were used to estimate the learning curve length of MIDP. Case mix-expected probabilities were plotted and compared with observed outcomes to assess the association of changing case mix with outcomes. The learning curve also was assessed for the secondary outcomes of operation time, intraoperative blood loss, conversion to open rate, and postoperative pancreatic fistula grade B/C. Results: From a total of 2610 MIDP procedures, the learning curve analysis was conducted on 2041 procedures (mean [SD] patient age, 58 [15.3] years; among 2040 with reported sex, 1249 were female [61.2%] and 791 male [38.8%]). The 2-piece model showed an increase and eventually a break point for TBO at 85 procedures (95% CI, 13-157 procedures), with a plateau TBO rate at 70%. The learning-associated loss of TBO rate was estimated at 3.3%. For conversion, a break point was estimated at 40 procedures (95% CI, 11-68 procedures); for operation time, at 56 procedures (95% CI, 35-77 procedures); and for intraoperative blood loss, at 71 procedures (95% CI, 28-114 procedures). For postoperative pancreatic fistula, no break point could be estimated. Conclusion and Relevance: In experienced international centers, the learning curve length of MIDP for TBO was considerable with 85 procedures. These findings suggest that although learning curves for conversion, operation time, and intraoperative blood loss are completed earlier, extensive experience may be needed to master the learning curve of MIDP.

Two decades of surgical randomized controlled trials: worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality.

BACKGROUND: RCTs are essential in guiding clinical decision-making but are difficult to perform, especially in surgery. This review assessed the trend in volume and methodological quality of published surgical RCTs over two decades. METHODS: PubMed was searched systematically for surgical RCTs published in 1999, 2009, and 2019. The primary outcomes were volume of trials and RCTs with a low risk of bias. Secondary outcomes were clinical, geographical, and funding characteristics. RESULTS: Some 1188 surgical RCTs were identified, of which 300 were published in 1999, 450 in 2009, and 438 in 2019. The most common subspecialty in 2019 was gastrointestinal surgery (50.7 per cent). The volume of surgical RCTs increased mostly in Asia (61, 159, and 199 trials), especially in China (7, 40, and 81). In 2019, countries with the highest relative volume of published surgical RCTs were Finland and the Netherlands. Between 2009 and 2019, the proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias increased from 14.7 to 22.1 per cent (P = 0.004). In 2019, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias was highest in Europe (30.5 per cent), with the UK and the Netherlands as leaders in this respect. CONCLUSION: The volume of published surgical RCTs worldwide remained stable in the past decade but their methodological quality improved. Considerable geographical shifts were observed, with Asia and especially China leading in terms of volume. Individual European countries are leading in their relative volume and methodological quality of surgical RCTs.

An RCT is a form of research in which patients are divided randomly into two or more treatment groups to allow a fair and unbiased comparison of both treatments. RCTs are essential in guiding clinical decision-making, but are difficult to perform, especially in surgery. This review assessed the trend in volume and quality of published surgical RCTs over two decades. Surgical RCTs published in 1999, 2009, and 2019 were identified. The main outcome measures were volume of RCTs and trials with a low risk of bias. Different forms of bias can occur when research results are influenced by external factors. Some 1188 surgical RCTs were identified, of which 300 were published in 1999, 450 in 2009, and 438 in 2019. The volume of surgical RCTs published in these years increased mostly in Asia (61, 159, and 199 RCTs), especially in China (7, 40, and 81). In 2019, the countries with highest relative volume of published surgical RCTs were Finland and the Netherlands. Between 2009 and 2019, the proportion of RCTs with a low risk of bias increased from 14.7 to 22.1 per cent (P = 0.004). In 2019, the proportion of trials with a low risk of bias was highest in Europe (30.5 per cent), with the UK and the Netherlands as leaders in this respect. The volume of published surgical RCTs worldwide remained stable in the past decade but their methodological quality improved. Considerable geographical shifts were observed, with Asia and especially China leading in terms of volume. Individual European countries are leading in their relative volume and methodological quality of surgical RCTs.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is scarce and limited to non-randomized studies. This study aimed to compare oncological and surgical outcomes after MIPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for patients after resectable PDAC from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify RCTs comparing MIPD and OPD including PDAC (Jan 2015-July 2021). Individual data of patients with PDAC were requested. Primary outcomes were R0 rate and lymph node yield. Secondary outcomes were blood-loss, operation time, major complications, hospital stay and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 4 RCTs (all addressed laparoscopic MIPD) with 275 patients with PDAC were included. In total, 128 patients underwent laparoscopic MIPD and 147 patients underwent OPD. The R0 rate (risk difference(RD) -1%, P = 0.740) and lymph node yield (mean difference(MD) +1.55, P = 0.305) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. Laparoscopic MIPD was associated with less perioperative blood-loss (MD -91ml, P = 0.026), shorter length of hospital stay (MD -3.8 days, P = 0.044), while operation time was longer (MD +98.5 min, P = 0.003). Major complications (RD -11%, P = 0.302) and 90-day mortality (RD -2%, P = 0.328) were comparable between laparoscopic MIPD and OPD. CONCLUSIONS: This individual patient data meta-analysis of MIPD versus OPD in patients with resectable PDAC suggests that laparoscopic MIPD is non-inferior regarding radicality, lymph node yield, major complications and 90-day mortality and is associated with less blood loss, shorter hospital stay, and longer operation time. The impact on long-term survival and recurrence should be studied in RCTs including robotic MIPD.

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.

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.

Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic, Robotic, and Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Distal Cholangiocarcinoma: An International Propensity Score-matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare surgical and oncological outcomes after minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) versus open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) for distal cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA). BACKGROUND: A dCCA might be a good indication for MIPD, as it is often diagnosed as primary resectable disease. However, multicenter series on MIPD for dCCA are lacking. METHODS: This is an international multicenter propensity score-matched cohort study including patients after MIPD or OPD for dCCA in 8 centers from 5 countries (2010-2021). Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and disease-free interval (DFI). Secondary outcomes included perioperative and postoperative complications and predictors for OS or DFI. Subgroup analyses included robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) and laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD). RESULTS: Overall, 478 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy for dCCA were included of which 97 after MIPD (37 RPD, 60 LPD) and 381 after OPD. MIPD was associated with less blood loss (300 vs 420 mL, P =0.025), longer operation time (453 vs 340 min; P <0.001), and less surgical site infections (7.8% vs 19.3%; P =0.042) compared with OPD. The median OS (30 vs 25 mo) and DFI (29 vs 18) for MIPD did not differ significantly between MIPD and OPD. Tumor stage (Hazard ratio: 2.939, P <0.001) and administration of adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio: 0.640, P =0.033) were individual predictors for OS. RPD was associated with a higher lymph node yield (18.0 vs 13.5; P =0.008) and less major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo 3b-5; 8.1% vs 32.1%; P =0.005) compared with LPD. DISCUSSION: Both surgical and oncological outcomes of MIPD for dCCA are acceptable as compared with OPD. Surgical outcomes seem to favor RPD as compared with LPD but more data are needed. Randomized controlled trials should be performed to confirm these findings.

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.

Figures do matter: A literature review of 4587 robotic pancreatic resections and their implications on training.

BACKGROUND: The use of robotic assistance in minimally invasive pancreatic resection is quickly growing. METHODS: We present a systematic review of the literature regarding all types of robotic pancreatic resection (RPR). Our aim is to show for which procedures there is enough experience to permit safe training and provide an estimation of how many centers could serve as teaching institutions. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies reporting on 4587 RPRs were analyzed. A total of 2598 pancreatoduodenectomies (PD) were reported by 28 centers from Europe (6/28; 21.4%), the Americas (11/28; 39.3%), and Asia (11/28; 39.3%). Six studies reported >100 robot PD (1694/2598; 65.2%). A total of 1618 distal pancreatectomies (DP) were reported by 29 centers from Europe (10/29; 34.5%), the Americas (10/29; 34.5%), and Asia (9/29; 31%). Five studies reported >100 robotic DP (748/1618; 46.2%). A total of 154 central pancreatectomies were reported by six centers from Europe (1/6; 16.7%), the Americas (2/6; 33.3%), and Asia (3/6; 50%). Only 49 total pancreatectomies were reported. Finally, 168 enucleations were reported in seven studies (with a mean of 15.4 cases per study). A single center reported on 60 enucleations (35.7%). Results of each type of robotic procedure are also presented. CONCLUSIONS: Experience with RPR is still quite limited. Despite high case volume not being sufficient to warrant optimal training opportunities, it is certainly a key component of every successful training program and is a major criterion for fellowship accreditation. From this review, it appears that only PD and DP can currently be taught at few institutions worldwide.

Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.