Critical appraisal of surgical margins according to KRAS status in liver resection for colorectal liver metastases: Should surgical strategy be influenced by tumor biology?

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation is a negative prognostic factor for colorectal liver metastases. Several studies have investigated the resection margins according to KRAS status, with conflicting results. The aim of the study was to assess the oncologic outcomes of R0 and R1 resections for colorectal liver metastases according to KRAS status. METHODS: All patients who underwent resection for colorectal liver metastases between 2010 and 2015 with available KRAS status were enrolled in this multicentric international cohort study. Logistic regression models were used to investigate the outcomes of R0 and R1 colorectal liver metastases resections according to KRAS status: wild type versus mutated. The primary outcomes were overall survival and disease-free survival. RESULTS: The analysis included 593 patients. KRAS mutation was associated with shorter overall survival (40 vs 60 months; P = .0012) and disease-free survival (15 vs 21 months; P = .003). In KRAS-mutated tumors, the resection margin did not influence oncologic outcomes. In multivariable analysis, the only predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival was primary tumor location (P = .03 and P = .03, respectively). In KRAS wild-type tumors, R0 resection was associated with prolonged overall survival (74 vs 45 months, P < .001) and disease-free survival (30 vs 17 months, P < .001). The multivariable model confirmed that R0 resection margin was associated with prolonged overall survival (hazard ratio = 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-2.03) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 1.42; 95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS-mutated colorectal liver metastases showed more aggressive tumor biology with inferior overall survival and disease-free survival after liver resection. Although R0 resection was not associated with improved oncologic outcomes in the KRAS-mutated tumors group, it seems to be of paramount importance for achieving prolonged long-term survival in KRAS wild-type tumors.

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.

Early experience with pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: comparison with open donor hepatectomy and non-donor laparoscopic hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (L-DH) has seen a rise in uptake in recent years following the popularization of minimally invasive modality for major hepatobiliary surgery. Our study aimed to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-DH with open donor hepatectomy (O-DH) and laparoscopic non donor hepatectomy (L-NDH) based on our single institution experience. METHODS: Eighty of 113 laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomies performed between 2015 and 2022 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were L-DH. PSM in a 1:2 ratio of L-DH versus L-NDH and 1:1 ratio of L-DH versus O-DH were performed, identifying patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. RESULTS: After 2:1 matching, the L-DH cohort were significantly younger (P < 0.001) and had lower ASA scores (P < 0.001) than the L-NDH cohort. L-DH was associated with a longer median operating time (P < 0.001) and shorter median postoperative stay (P < 0.001) than L-NDH. After 1:1 matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic between the L-DH and O-DH cohorts. L-DH was associated with lower median blood loss (P = 0.040) and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in recipient outcomes for both cohorts. CONCLUSION: L-DH can be adopted safely by surgeons experienced in L-NDH and ODH. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH.

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

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

Tissue engineering of decellularized pancreas scaffolds for regenerative medicine in diabetes.

Diabetes mellitus is a global disease requiring long-term treatment and monitoring. At present, pancreas or islet transplantation is the only reliable treatment for achieving stable euglycemia in Type I diabetes patients. However, the shortage of viable pancreata for transplantation limits the use of this therapy for the majority of patients. Organ decellularization and recellularization is emerging as a promising solution to overcome the shortage of viable organs for transplantation by providing a potential alternative source of donor organs. Several studies on decellularization and recellularization of rodent, porcine, and human pancreata have been performed, and show promise for generating usable decellularized pancreas scaffolds for subsequent recellularization and transplantation. In this state-of-the-art review, we provide an overview of the latest advances in pancreas decellularization, recellularization, and revascularization. We also discuss clinical considerations such as potential transplantation sites, donor source, and immune considerations. We conclude with an outlook on the remaining work that needs to be done in order to realize the goal of using this technology to create bioengineered pancreata for transplantation in diabetes patients. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Pancreas or islet transplantation is a means of providing insulin-independence in diabetes patients. However, due to the shortage of viable pancreata, whole-organ decellularization and recellularization is emerging as a promising solution to overcome organ shortage for transplantation. Several studies on decellularization and recellularization of rodent, porcine, and human pancreata have shown promise for generating usable decellularized pancreas scaffolds for subsequent recellularization and transplantation. In this state-of-the-art review, we highlight the latest advances in pancreas decellularization, recellularization, and revascularization. We also discuss clinical considerations such as potential transplantation sites, donor source, and immune considerations. We conclude with future work that needs to be done in order to realize clinical translation of bioengineered pancreata for transplantation in diabetes patients.

Minimally invasive pancreatic anastomosis after pancreaticoduodenectomy: multi-institutional step by step video description of the technique.

Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is attracting increased interest in the pancreatic surgical community with more and more teams reporting their experience worldwide. The pancreatic anastomosis (PA) is one of the key steps and challenging manoeuvre of this procedure. Since the introduction of the minimally invasive approach for PD, several PA types have been proposed, ranging from high to low complexity, but none of them have been proven unequivocally superior to the others. Therefore, definitive consensus has not been reached yet. In the present multimedia manuscript, we report the most commonly adopted minimally invasive PA and we propose a "complexity classification" to guide the choice accordingly to different characteristics of the pancreatic stump. We describe five possible different PA that might be tailored to each different case, depending mainly on texture of pancreatic stump (soft/hard, lean/fatty) and the size and visibility of main duct. This manuscript presents a step-by-step portfolio of the most commonly used mini-invasive PA. This technique requires experience in pancreatic surgery and advanced minimally invasive skills. Knowledge of and proficiency in different types of PA could help reducing the incidence of postoperative pancreatic fistula.

Intraoperative blood transfusion does not impact overall and recurrence-free survival after curative hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity-score-matched and inverse probability of treatment-weighted study.

INTRODUCTION: Our primary objective was to determine if receiving intraoperative blood transfusion was a significant prognostic factor for overall and recurrence-free survival after curative resection of hepatic cellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODOLOGY: Between 2001 and 2018, 1092 patients with histologically proven primary HCC who underwent curative liver resection were retrospectively reviewed. Primary study endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). The main analysis was undertaken using propensity-score matching (PSM) to minimize confounding and selection biases in the comparison of patients with or without transfusion. RESULTS: There were 220 patients who received and 666 patients who did not receive intraoperative blood transfusion. The PSM cohort consisted of 163 pairs of patients. After PSM, the only perioperative outcome that appeared to significantly affect whether patients would receive blood transfusion was median blood loss (p = 0.001). In the PSM cohort, whether patients received blood transfusion was neither associated with OS (p = 0.759) nor RFS (p = 0.830). When the volume of blood transfusion was analyzed as a continuous variable, no significant dose-response relationship between blood transfusion volume and HR for OS and RFS was noted. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative blood transfusion had no significant impact on the survival outcomes in patients who receive curative resection in primary HCC.

Association of standardized liver volume and body mass index with outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections.

INTRODUCTION: While minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have demonstrated advantages in improved post-operative recovery, widespread adoption is hampered by inherent technical difficulties. Our study attempts to analyze the role of anthropometric measures in MILR-related outcomes. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2020, 676 consecutive patients underwent MILR at the Singapore General Hospital of which 565 met study criteria and were included. Patients were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) as well as Standardized Liver Volumes (SLV). Associations between BMI and SLV to selected peri-operative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: A BMI of ≥ 29 was associated with increase in blood loss [Mean difference (MD) 69 mls, 95% CI 2 to 137] as well as operative conversions [Relative Risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.62] among patients undergoing MILR while a SLV of 1600 cc or higher was associated with an increase in blood loss (MD 30 mls, 95% CI 10 to 49). In addition, a BMI of ≤ 20 was associated with an increased risk of major complications (RR 2.25, 95% 1.16 to 4.35). The magnitude of differences observed in these findings increased with each unit change in BMI and SLV. CONCLUSION: Both BMI and SLV were useful anthropometric measures in predicting peri-operative outcomes in MILR and may be considered for incorporation in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Poor utility of current nomograms assessing the risk of intraoperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma and proposal of a new model.

BACKGROUND: The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram, the predictive scoring system of Yamamoto et al, and the 3-point transfusion risk score of Lemke et al are models used to determine the probability of receiving intraoperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing liver resection. However, the external validity of these models remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate their predictive performance in an external cohort of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We also aimed to identify predictors of blood transfusion and develop a new predictive model for blood transfusion. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of our prospective database of 1,081 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma from 2001 to 2018. The predictive performance of current prediction models was evaluated using C statistics. Demographic and clinical variables as predictors of blood transfusion were assessed. Using logistic regression, an alternative model was created. RESULTS: The Lemke transfusion risk score performed better than the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomogram (0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.73 vs 0.66, 95% liver resection 0.62-0.69) (P < .001). The model from Yamamoto et al performed comparably with no statistically significant differences found through pairwise comparison. In our alternative model, hemoglobin level, albumin level, liver resection type, and tumor size were independent predictors of blood transfusion. The new HATS model obtained a C statistic of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.78), performing significantly better than the previous 3 models (P ≤ 0.001 for all). CONCLUSION: The existing Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Yamamoto et al, and Lemke et al had nomograms with the suboptimal accuracy of predicting risk of intraoperative blood transfusion in patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The proposed HATS model was more accurate at predicting patients at risk of blood transfusion.

Long-Term Outcomes of Perioperative Versus Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: An International Multicentre Propensity-Score Matched Analysis with Stratification by Contemporary Risk-Scoring.

BACKGROUND: There is still debate regarding the principal role and ideal timing of perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) for patients with upfront resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study assesses long-term oncological outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant CTx only versus those receiving neoadjuvant combined with adjuvant therapy (perioperative CTx). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM undergoing liver resection between 2010 and 2015. Characteristics and outcomes were compared before and after propensity score matching (PSM). Primary endpoints were long-term oncological outcomes, such as recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, stratification by the tumour burden score (TBS) was applied. RESULTS: Of 967 patients undergoing hepatectomy, 252 were analysed, with a median follow-up of 45 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a bias towards patients with neoadjuvant CTx presenting with more high-risk patients (p = 0.045) and experiencing increased postoperative complications ≥Clavien-Dindo III (20.9% vs. 8%, p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis showed that perioperative CTx was associated with significantly improved RFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.579, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.420-0.800, p = 0.001) and OS (HR 0.579, 95% CI 0.403-0.834, p = 0.003). After PSM (n = 180 patients), the two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics. The perioperative CTx group presented with a significantly prolonged RFS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.76, p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.87, p = 0.010) in both low and high TBS patients. CONCLUSIONS: When patients after resection of CRLM are able to tolerate additional postoperative CTx, a perioperative strategy demonstrates increased RFS and OS in comparison with neoadjuvant CTx only in both low and high-risk situations.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of outcomes after open, mini-laparotomy, hybrid, totally laparoscopic, and robotic living donor right hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed to compare outcomes after living donor right hepatectomy via the following techniques: conventional open (Open), mini-laparotomy (Minilap), hybrid (Hybrid), totally laparoscopic (Lap), and robotic living donor right hepatectomy (Robotic). METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2021 for comparative studies of patients who underwent living donor right hepatectomy. RESULTS: Nineteen studies comprising 2,261 patients were included. Operation time was longer in Lap versus Minilap and Open (mean difference 65.09 min, 95% confidence interval 3.40-126.78 and mean difference 34.81 minutes, 95% confidence interval 1.84-67.78), and in Robotic versus Hybrid, Lap, Minilap, and Open (mean difference 144.72 minutes, 95% confidence interval 89.84-199.59, mean difference 113.24 minutes, 95% confidence interval 53.28-173.20, mean difference 178.33 minutes, 95% confidence interval 105.58-251.08 and mean difference 148.05 minutes, 95% confidence interval 97.35-198.74, respectively). Minilap and Open were associated with higher blood loss compared to Lap (mean difference 258.67 mL, 95% confidence interval 107.00-410.33 and mean difference 314.11 mL, 95% confidence interval 143.84-484.37) and Robotic (mean difference 205.60 mL, 95% confidence interval 45.92-365.28 and mean difference 261.04 mL, 95% confidence interval 84.26-437.82). Open was associated with more overall complications compared to Minilap (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.11-6.08). Recipient biliary complication rate was higher in Minilap and Open versus Hybrid (odds ratio 3.91, 95% confidence interval 1.13-13.55 and odds ratio 11.42, 95% confidence interval 2.27-57.49), and lower in Open versus Minilap (OR 0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.34). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive donor right hepatectomy via the various techniques is safe and feasible when performed in high-volume centers, with no major differences in donor complication rates and comparable recipient outcomes once surgeons have mounted the learning curve.

Minimally-invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomies with vascular resection: A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison study.

Background: Minimally invasive pancreatic pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) is increasingly adopted worldwide and its potential advantages include reduced hospital stay and decrease pain. However, evidence supporting the role of MIPD for tumours requiring vascular reconstruction remains limited and requires further evaluation. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of MIPD with vascular resection (MIPDV) by performing a 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) comparison with open pancreatoduodenectomy with vascular resection (OPDV) based on a single surgeon's experience. Methods: This is a retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent PDV between 2011 and 2020 by a single surgeon. After PSM, the comparison was made between 13 MIPDV and 13 OPDV. Results: Thirty-six patients underwent venous reconstruction (VR) only and 5 underwent arterial reconstruction of which 4 had concomitant VR. The types of VR included 22 wedge resections with primary repair, 8 segmental resections with primary anastomosis and 11 requiring interposition grafts. Post-operative pancreatic fistula (POPF) occurred in 3 (7.3%) patients. Major complications (>Grade 2) occurred in 16 (39%) patients, of which 7 were due to delayed gastric emptying requiring nasojejunal tube placement. There was 1 (2.4%) 30-day mortality (OPDV). Of the 13 MIPDV, there were 3 (23.1%) open conversions. PSM comparison demonstrated that MIPDV was associated with longer median operative time (720 min vs. 485 min (P = 0.018). There was no statistically significant difference in other key perioperative outcomes such as intra-operative blood loss, overall morbidity, major morbidity rate, POPF and length of stay. Conclusion: Our initial experience with the adoption MIPDV has demonstrated it to be safe with comparable outcomes to OPDV despite the longer operation time.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies. METHODS: Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies). RESULTS: Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH. CONCLUSION: Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

Effect of age on the short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing curative liver resection for HCC.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the outcomes of curative liver resection (LR) in octogenarian patients, analysed cancer-specific survival (CSS) with HCC-related death or explored the age-varying effect of HCC-related death in elderly patients undergoing LR. We aim to determine the effect of age on the short and long-term outcomes of LR for HCC. METHODOLOGY: Between 2000 and 2018, 1,092 patients with primary HCC who underwent LR with curative intent were retrospectively reviewed. The log-rank test and Gray's test were used to assess the equality of survivor functions and competing risk-adjusted cumulative incidence functions between patients in the three age categories respectively. Regression adjustment was used to control for confounding bias via a Principal Component Analysis. Quantile, Firth logistic, Cox, and Fine-Gray competing risk regression were used to analyse continuous, binary, time-to-event, and cause-specific survival respectively. Restricted cubic splines were used to illustrate the dose-effect relationship between age and patient outcomes. RESULTS: The study comprised of 764 young patients (<70 years), 278 septuagenarians (70-79 years old) and 50 octogenarians (≥80 years). Compared to young patients, octogenarians had significantly lower 5-year OS(62.1% vs 37.7%, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in 1-year RFS(73.1% vs 67.0%, p = 0.774) or 5-year CSS (5.4% vs 15.2%, p = 0.674). Every 10-year increase in age was significantly associated with an increase length of stay (p < 0.001), postoperative complications (p = 0.004) and poorer OS(p = 0.018) but not significantly associated with major complications (p = 0.279), CSS(p = 0.338) or RFS(p = 0.941). CONCLUSION: Age by itself was associated with OS after LR for HCC but was not a significant risk factor for HCC-related death.

Liver resection in elderly patients with extensive CRLM: Are we offering an adequate treatment? A propensity score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on the management of elderly patients with extensive colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are scarce and conflicting. This study assesses differences in management and long-term oncological outcomes between older and younger patients with CRLM and a high Tumour Burden Score (TBS). METHODS: International multicentre retrospective study on patients with CRLM and a category 3 TBS, submitted to liver resection. Patients were divided into two groups according to their age (younger and older than 75) and were compared using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and multivariable regression models. Differences in management and oncological outcomes including recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: The study included 386 patients, median follow-up was 48 months. The unmatched comparison revealed a higher ASA score (p = 0.035), less synchronous CRLM (47% vs 68%, p = 0.003), a lower median number of lesions (1 vs 3, p = 0.004) and less perioperative chemotherapy (CTx) (66% vs 88%, p < 0.001) in the elderly group. Despite the absence of CTx being an independent predictor of decreased RFS and OS (HR 0.760, p = 0.044 and HR 0.719, p = 0.049, respectively), the elderly group still received less CTx (OR 0.317, p = 0.001) than the younger group. After PSM (n = 100 patients), the two groups were comparable, however, CTx administration was still significantly lower in the elderly group. CONCLUSION: Liver resection should be considered in patients aged 75 and older, even if they present with extensive liver disease. Despite CTx being associated with improved oncological outcomes, a large percentage of elderly patients with CRLM are undertreated.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study.

INTRODUCTION: The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates. RESULTS: MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Propensity-Score Matched Analyses Comparing Clinical Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Distal Pancreatectomies: A Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is being adopted increasingly worldwide. This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of patients who underwent MIDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent a DP in our institution between 2005 and 2019 was performed. Propensity score matching based on relevant baseline factors was used to match patients in the ODP and MIDP groups in a 1:1 manner. Outcomes reported include operative duration, blood loss, postoperative length of stay, morbidity, mortality, postoperative pancreatic fistula rates, reoperation and readmission. RESULTS: In total, 444 patients were included in this study. Of 122 MIDP patients, 112 (91.8%) could be matched. After matching, the median operating time for MIDP was significantly longer than ODP [260 min (200-346.3) vs 180 (135-232.5), p < 0.001], while postoperative stay for MIDP was significantly shorter [median 6 days (5-8) versus 7 days (6-9), p = 0.015]. There were no significant differences noted in any of the other outcomes measured. Over time, we observed a decrease in the operation times of MIDP performed at our institution. CONCLUSION: Adoption of MIDP offers advantages over ODP in terms of a shorter postoperative hospital stay, without an increase in morbidity and/or mortality but at the expense of a longer operation time.