Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

Impact of enhanced recovery program implementation on postoperative outcomes after liver surgery: a monocentric retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

It is still unclear whether enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) reduce postoperative morbidity after liver surgery. This study investigated the effect on liver surgery outcomes of labeling as a reference center for ERP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Perioperative data from 75 consecutive patients who underwent hepatectomy in our institution after implementation and labeling of our ERP were retrospectively compared to 75 patients managed before ERP. Length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and adherence to protocol were examined.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, comorbidities, and intraoperative data were similar in the two groups. Our ERP resulted in shorter length of stay (3 days [1-6] vs. 4 days [2-7.5], p = 0.03) and fewer postoperative complications (24% vs. 45.3%, p = 0.0067). This reduction in postoperative morbidity can be attributed exclusively to a lower rate of minor complications (Clavien-dindo grade < IIIa), and in particular to a lower rate of postoperative ileus, after labeling. (5.3% vs. 25.3%, p = 0.0019). Other medical and surgical complications were not significantly reduced. Adherence to protocol improved after labeling (17 [16-18] vs. 14 [13-16] items, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The application of a labeled enhanced recovery program for liver surgery was associated with a significant shortening of hospital stay and a halving of postoperative morbidity, mainly ileus.

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.

Changes of long-term survival of resection and liver transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma throughout the years: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) still is one of the most detrimental malignant diseases in the world. As two curative surgical therapies exist, the discussion whether to opt for liver resection (LR) or transplantation (LT) is ongoing, especially as novel techniques to improve outcome have emerged for both. The aim of the study was to investigate how the utilization and outcome of the respective modalities changed through time.

METHODS

We searched Medline and PubMed for relevant publications comparing LT and LR in HCC patients during the time period from 1990 to 2022, prior to March 31, 2023. A total of 63 studies involving 19,804 patients - of whom 8178 patients received a liver graft and 11,626 underwent partial hepatectomy - were included in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

LT is associated with significantly better 5-year overall survival (OS) (64.83%) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (70.20%) than LR (OS: 50.83%, OR: 1.79, p < 0.001; RFS: 34.46%, OR: 5.32, p < 0.001). However, these differences are not as evident in short-term intervals. Older cohorts showed comparable disparities between the outcome of the respective modalities, as did newer cohorts after 2005. This might be due to the similar improvement in survival rates that were observed for both, LT (15-23%) and LR (12-20%) during the last 30 years.

CONCLUSION

LT still outperforms LR in the therapy of HCC in terms of long-term survival rates. Yet, LR outcome has remarkably improved which is of major importance in reference to the well-known limitations that occur in LT.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The advantages of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy (LLH) for treating hepatolithiasis in terms of the time to postoperative length of hospital stay (LOS), morbidity, long-term abdominal wall hernias, hospital costs, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus have not been confirmed by a randomized controlled trial. The aim of this trial is to compare the safety and effectiveness of LLH with open left-sided hepatectomy (OLH) for the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis eligible for left-sided hepatectomy will be recruited. The experimental design will produce two randomized arms (laparoscopic and open hepatectomy) at a 1:1 ratio and a prospective registry. All patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme. The prospective registry will be based on patients who cannot be randomized because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon or because of ineligibility (not meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria) for randomization in this trial. The primary outcome is the LOS. The secondary outcomes are percentage readmission, morbidity, mortality, hospital costs, long-term incidence of incisional hernias, residual stone rate, and recurrence of calculus. It will be assumed that, in patients undergoing LLH, the length of hospital stay will be reduced by 1 day. A sample size of 86 patients in each randomization arm has been calculated as sufficient to detect a 1-day reduction in LOS [90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)]. The trial is a randomized controlled trial that will provide evidence for the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resection within an ERAS programme.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the outcomes of LLH have been proven to be comparable to those of OLH in retrospective studies, the use of LLH remains restricted, partly due to the lack of short- and long-term informative RCTs pertaining to patients with hepatolithiasis in ERAS programmes. To evaluate the surgical and long-term outcomes of LLH, we will perform a prospective RCT to compare LLH with OLH for hepatolithiasis within an ERAS programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03958825. Registered on 21 May 2019.

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy on Operative Time, Oncological Outcomes, Bleeding, Morbidity, and Mortality

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) has gained popularity as an alternative to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), but comparative outcomes remain debated. The objective is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LPD and OPD on operative time, oncologic outcomes, bleeding, morbidity, and mortality. The inclusion criteria were comparative studies on LPD vs. OPD. Outcomes were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. A total of 27 studies were included, and LPD had a substantially longer operative duration compared to the OPD procedure, with a mean increase of 56 minutes, but blood loss was reduced by an average of 123 mL in patients who underwent LPD. Morbidity, mortality, margin status, and lymph node yields were similar between LPD and OPD. This study found comparable oncologic outcomes between LPD and OPD. LPD appears safe but requires longer operative time. High-quality randomized trials are still needed.

Minimally invasive versus open pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic and peri-ampullary neoplasm (DIPLOMA-2): study protocol for an international multicenter patient-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD) aims to reduce the negative impact of surgery as compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) and is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice for selected patients worldwide. However, the safety of MIPD remains a topic of debate and the potential shorter time to functional recovery needs to be confirmed. To guide safe implementation of MIPD, large-scale international randomized trials comparing MIPD and OPD in experienced high-volume centers are needed. We hypothesize that MIPD is non-inferior in terms of overall complications, but superior regarding time to functional recovery, as compared to OPD.

METHODS/DESIGN

The DIPLOMA-2 trial is an international randomized controlled, patient-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 14 high-volume pancreatic centers in Europe with a minimum annual volume of 30 MIPD and 30 OPD. A total of 288 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for pre-malignant and malignant disease, eligible for both open and minimally invasive approach, are randomly allocated for MIPD or OPD in a 2:1 ratio. Centers perform either laparoscopic or robot-assisted MIPD based on their surgical expertise. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI®), measuring all complications graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification up to 90 days after surgery. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 2.5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected difference of the mean CCI® score of 0 points between MIPD and OPD, and a non-inferiority margin of 7.5 points. The main secondary outcome is time to functional recovery, which will be analyzed for superiority. Other secondary outcomes include post-operative 90-day Fitbit™ measured activity, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, conversion to open surgery, surgeon-reported outcomes), oncological findings in case of malignancy (e.g., R0-resection rate, time to adjuvant treatment, survival), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications), healthcare resource utilization (length of stay, readmissions, intensive care stay), quality of life, and costs. Postoperative follow-up is up to 36 months.

DISCUSSION

The DIPLOMA-2 trial aims to establish the safety of MIPD as the new standard of care for this selected patient population undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy in high-volume centers, ultimately aiming for superior patient recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN27483786. Registered on August 2, 2023.

Operative and Hepatic Function Outcomes of Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Liver resection is a pivotal treatment for various liver diseases, and the choice between laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) methods is debatable. This study aims to compare their respective complications and hepatic outcomes comprehensively, providing critical insights to guide clinical decisions and optimize patient results. We conducted a comprehensive review across PubMed, SCOPUS, WOS, and the Cochrane Library until September 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic (LR) and open (OR) liver resections were included. Data screening, extraction, and quality assessments utilized the Risk of Bias (ROB-2). We conducted our analysis using Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) software, and the data were presented as risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our comprehensive research yielded 3,192 relevant records, and 9 RCTs were finally included. LR exhibited reduced operative bleeding (MD = -82.87 ml, 95% CI: -132.45 to -33.30, P=0.001) and shorter hospital stays (MD = -2.32 days, 95% CI: -3.65 to -0.98, P=0.0007). The risk of complications was significantly lower in the LR group (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.43-0.76, P<0.0001), especially in Clavian-Dindo classification degree 1 and 2 complications (RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.79, P=0.005). LR patients also had lower postoperative AST levels at one day (MD = -123.16 U/L, 95% CI: -206.08 to -40.24, P=0.004) and three days (MD = -35.95 U/L, 95% CI: -65.83 to -6.06, P=0.02). These findings underscore LR's superiority, emphasizing its potential to significantly enhance patient outcomes, reduce complications, and improve recovery in liver resection procedures.

Impact of liver cirrhosis, the severity of cirrhosis, and portal hypertension on the outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies

BACKGROUND

The impact of cirrhosis and portal hypertension on perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies remains unclear. We aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes between patients with preserved and compromised liver function (noncirrhotics versus Child-Pugh A) when undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies. In addition, we aimed to determine if the extent of cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A versus B) and the presence of portal hypertension had a significant impact on perioperative outcomes.

METHODS

This was an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,526 patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies for primary liver malignancies at 60 centers worldwide between 2004 and 2021. In the study, 1,370 patients met the inclusion criteria and formed the final study group. Baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were compared. To minimize confounding factors, 1:1 propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching were performed.

RESULTS

The study group comprised 559, 753, and 58 patients who did not have cirrhosis, Child-Pugh A, and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis, respectively. Six-hundred and thirty patients with cirrhosis had portal hypertension, and 170 did not. After propensity score matching and coarsened exact matching, Child-Pugh A patients with cirrhosis undergoing minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies had longer operative time, higher intraoperative blood loss, higher transfusion rate, and longer hospital stay than patients without cirrhosis. The extent of cirrhosis did not significantly impact perioperative outcomes except for a longer duration of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Liver cirrhosis adversely affected the intraoperative technical difficulty and perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter propensity score analysis of short- term outcomes

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic surgery (LS) has been increasingly applied in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). In this study, we intend to compare the short-term outcomes of LS versus open operation (OP) for pCCA in a multicentric practice in China.

METHODS

This real-world analysis included 645 pCCA patients receiving LS and OP at 11 participating centers in China between January 2013 and January 2019. A comparative analysis was performed before and after propensity score matching (PSM) in LS and OP groups, and within Bismuth subgroups. Univariate and multivariate models were performed to identify significant prognostic factors of adverse surgical outcomes and postoperative length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Among 645 pCCAs, 256 received LS and 389 received OP. Reduced hepaticojejunostomy (30.89% vs 51.40%, P = 0.006), biliary plasty requirement (19.51% vs 40.16%, P = 0.001), shorter LOS (mean 14.32 vs 17.95 d, P < 0.001), and lower severe complication (CD ≥ III) (12.11% vs. 22.88%, P = 0.006) were observed in the LS group compared with the OP group. Major postoperative complications such as hemorrhage, biliary fistula, abdominal abscess, and hepatic insufficiency were similar between LS and OP (P > 0.05 for all). After PSM, the short-term outcomes of two surgical methods were similar, except for shorter LOS in LS compared with OP (mean 15.19 vs 18.48 d, P = 0.0007). A series subgroup analysis demonstrated that LS was safe and had advantages in shorting LOS.

CONCLUSION

Although the complex surgical procedures, LS generally seems to be safe and feasible for experienced surgeons.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05402618 (date of first registration: 02/06/2022).

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after open hepatectomy compared to minimally invasive liver resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Even though the risk of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) after liver resection is well recognized, the association between surgical approach and VTE risk is unknown. This study aims to compare VTE rates following open liver resection (OLR) and minimally invasive liver resection (MILR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web Of Sciences and EMBASE databases were interrogated to identify eligible studies published between February 2016 and August 2022. Studies were considered suitable if they reported a comparison between OLR and MILR (including laparoscopic liver resection [LLR] or robotic liver resection [RLR]).

RESULTS

Fourteen studies including 11 356 patients met the inclusion criteria. 5622 patients underwent OLR and 5734 patients underwent MILR. The VTE rate was higher among patients who underwent OLR compared to MILR (2.8% vs 1.4%, OR (95% CI) = 1.84, p=<00001). Similarly, the subgroup analysis showed a higher rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) (1.4% vs 0.7%, OR (95% CI) = 1.98, p = 0.02) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (1.3% vs 0.7%, OR (95% CI) = 1.88, p = 0.002) in patients who underwent OLR compared to MILR.

DISCUSSION

Patients who undergo open hepatectomy have a higher incidence of postoperative VTE when compared to those undergoing minimally invasive liver resection. This finding was consistent for both DVT and PE.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy with intracorporeal ileal conduit diversion versus open radical cystectomy with ileal conduit for bladder cancer in an ERAS setup (BORARC): protocol for a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Radical cystectomy (RC) with urinary diversion is the recommended treatment for selected cases of non-metastatic high-risk non-muscle-invasive and muscle-invasive bladder cancer. It remains unknown whether robot-assisted laparoscopic cystectomy (RARC) offers any advantage in terms of safety compared to open cystectomy (ORC) in an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) setup. Blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) between RARC versus ORC have never been conducted in cystectomy patients. We will investigate the feasibility of conducting a double-blinded RCT comparing ORC with RARC with intra-corporal ileal conduit (iRARC) in an ERAS setup.

METHODS

This is a single-centre, double-blinded, randomised (1:1) clinical feasibility study for patients with non-metastatic high-risk non-muscle-invasive or muscle-invasive bladder cancer scheduled for cystectomy. All participants are recruited from Rigshospitalet, Denmark. The planned sample size is 50 participants to investigate whether blinding of the surgical technique is feasible. Participants and postoperative caring physicians and nurses are blinded using a pre-study designed abdominal dressing and blinding of the patient's electronic health record. Study endpoints are assessed 90 days postoperatively. The primary aim is to study the frequency and pattern of unplanned unblinding after surgery and the number of participants who cannot guess the surgical technique at the day of discharge. Eleven secondary endpoints are assessed: length of stay, days alive and out of hospital, in-hospital complication rate, 30-day complication rate, 90-day complication rate, readmission rate, quality of life, blood loss, pain, rate of moderate/severe post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) complications, and delirium. Participants are managed in an ERAS setup in both arms of the trial.

DISCUSSION

We report on the design and objectives of a novel experimental feasibility study investigating whether blinding of the surgical technique in cystectomy patients is possible. This information is essential for the design of future blinded trials comparing ORC to RARC. There is a continued need to compare RARC and ORC in terms of both efficacy, safety, and oncological outcomes. Estimated end of study is March 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03977831. Registered on the 6th of June 2019.

Recent Advances in Minimally Invasive Liver Resection for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases-A Review

Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to liver resection have been increasingly adopted into use for surgery on colorectal cancer liver metastases. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the outcomes when comparing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), and open liver resection (OLR) for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in 39 studies (2009-2022) that include a case-matched series, propensity score analyses, and three randomized clinical trials. LLR is associated with less intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospital stay compared with OLR. LLR can be performed with comparable operative time. LLR has similar rates of perioperative complications and mortality as OLR. There were no significant differences in 5-year overall or disease-free survival between approaches. Robotic liver resection (RLR) has comparable perioperative safety to LLR and may improve rates of R0 resection in certain patients. Finally, MIS approaches to the hepatic resection of CRLM reduce the time from liver resection to initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy. Thus, MIS liver surgery should be considered in the array of options for patients with CRLM, though thoughtful patient selection and surgeon experience should be part of that decision.

Impact of Frailty on Short-Term Outcomes After Laparoscopic and Open Hepatectomy

Background

Although laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) is associated with improved short-term outcomes compared to open hepatectomy (OH), it is unknown whether frail patients also benefit from LH. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of frailty on post-operative outcomes after LH and OH.

Patients and methods

Consecutive patients who underwent LH and OH between January 2011 and December 2018 were identified from a prospective database. Frailty was assessed using the modified Frailty Index (mFI), with patients scoring mFI ≥ 1 deemed to be frail.

Results

Of 1826 patients, 34.7% (N = 634) were frail and 18.6% (N = 340) were elderly (≥ 75 years). Frail patients had significantly higher 90-day mortality (6.6% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001) and post-operative complications (36.3% vs. 26.1%, p < 0.001) than those who were not frail, effects that were independent of patient age on multivariate analysis. For those undergoing minor resections, the benefits of LH vs. OH were similar for frail and non-frail patients. Length of hospital stay was 53% longer in OH (vs. LH) in frail patients, compared to 58% longer in the subgroup of non-frail patients.

Conclusions

Frailty is independently associated with inferior post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, the benefits of laparoscopic (compared to open) hepatectomy are similar for frail and non-frail patients. Frailty should not be a contraindication to laparoscopic minor hepatectomy in carefully selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for resectable HCC with BCLC stage B: a propensity score-matched analysis

To date, there is little knowledge about the value of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B. Thus, this study was performed to assess the perioperative and oncological outcomes of LLR for these patients by comparison with open liver resection (OLR). Between April 2015 and October 2018, a total of 217 resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B were eligible for this study. Patients were divided into the LLR group and the OLR group according to different procedures. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to adjust for known confounders. Short- and long-term outcomes were compared between the two groups. LLR was performed in 75 of the 217 included patients. After PSM, 72 patients with well-balanced baseline levels were enrolled into each group. Although the operative time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 237.5 vs. 210 min, P = 0.024), the intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the LLR group than in the OLR group (median, 200 vs. 350 ml, P = 0.005). Patients in the LLR group had fewer complications than those in the OLR group (P = 0.035). Furthermore, overall survival (OS, P = 0.827) and recurrence-free survival (RFS, P = 0.694) were comparable between the two groups. LLR for resectable HCC patients with BCLC stage B is safe and feasible in carefully selected patients and has superior perioperative outcomes and similar survival rates compared with OLR.

Laparoscopic versus open resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery programme (ORANGE Segments): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A shift towards parenchymal-sparing liver resections in open and laparoscopic surgery emerged in the last few years. Laparoscopic liver resection is technically feasible and safe, and consensus guidelines acknowledge the laparoscopic approach in the posterosuperior segments. Lesions situated in these segments are considered the most challenging for the laparoscopic approach. The aim of this trial is to compare the postoperative time to functional recovery, complications, oncological safety, quality of life, survival and costs after laparoscopic versus open parenchymal-sparing liver resections in the posterosuperior liver segments within an enhanced recovery setting.

METHODS

The ORANGE Segments trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial conducted in centres experienced in laparoscopic liver resection. Eligible patients for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo laparoscopic or open resections in an enhanced recovery setting. Patients and ward personnel are blinded to the treatment allocation until postoperative day 4 using a large abdominal dressing. The primary endpoint is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints include intraoperative outcomes, length of stay, resection margin, postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, quality of life and overall survival. Laparoscopic liver surgery of the posterosuperior segments is hypothesised to reduce time to functional recovery by 2 days in comparison with open surgery. With a power of 80% and alpha of 0.04 to adjust for interim analysis halfway the trial, a total of 250 patients are required to be randomised.

DISCUSSION

The ORANGE Segments trial is the first multicentre international randomised controlled study to compare short- and long-term surgical and oncological outcomes of laparoscopic and open resections in the posterosuperior segments within an enhanced recovery programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03270917 . Registered on September 1, 2017. Before start of inclusion.

PROTOCOL VERSION

version 12, May 9, 2017.

Robotic versus Open Pancreatoduodenectomy for Pancreatic and Periampullary Tumors (PORTAL): a study protocol for a multicenter phase III non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatoduodenectomy is a complex and challenging procedure that requires meticulous tissue dissection and proficient suturing skills. Minimally invasive surgery with the utilization of robotic platforms has demonstrated advantages in perioperative patient outcomes in retrospective studies. The development of robotic pancreatoduodenectomy (RPD) in specific has progressed significantly, since first reported in 2003, and high-volume centers in pancreatic surgery are reporting large patient series with improved pain management and reduced length of stay. However, prospective studies to assess objectively the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to open pancreatoduodenectomy (OPD) are currently lacking.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PORTAL trial is a multicenter randomized controlled, patient-blinded, parallel-group, phase III non-inferiority trial performed in seven high-volume centers for pancreatic and robotic surgery in China (> 20 RPD and > 100 OPD annually in each participating center). The trial is designed to enroll and randomly assign 244 patients with an indication for elective pancreatoduodenectomy for malignant periampullary and pancreatic lesions, as well as premalignant and symptomatic benign periampullary and pancreatic disease. The primary outcome is time to functional recovery postoperatively, measured in days. Secondary outcomes include postoperative morbidity and mortality, as well as perioperative costs. A sub-cohort of 128 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will also be compared to assess the percentage of patients who undergo postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy within 8 weeks, in each arm. Secondary outcomes in this cohort will include patterns of disease recurrence, recurrence-free survival, and overall survival.

DISCUSSION

The PORTAL trial is designed to assess the feasibility and safety of RPD compared to OPD, in terms of functional recovery as described previously. Additionally, this trial will explore whether RPD allows increased access to postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, in a sub-cohort of patients with PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04400357 . Registered on May 22, 2020.

ROBOCOP II (ROBOtic assisted versus conventional open partial nephrectomy) randomised, controlled feasibility trial: clinical trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials comparing robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) and open PN (OPN) are lacking. Therefore, we aim to report the study protocol and a trial update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing RAPN versus OPN for renal neoplasms.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The ROBOtic assisted versus conventional Open Partial nephrectomy II trial is designed as a single-centre, randomised, open-label, feasibility trial. Participation will be offered to patients with renal neoplasms and deemed feasible for both, OPN and RAPN. We aim to enrol 50 patients within 15 months using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary endpoint of the trial is feasibility of recruitment and will be successful if one third of eligible patients agree to participate. Secondary endpoints include perioperative results, health-related quality of life, inflammatory response as well as surgical ergonomics of the operating team. If the primary outcome, feasibility of recruitment, is successful, the secondary results of the trial will be used for planning a confirmative phase III trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the local institutional review board (Ethik-Kommission II at Heidelberg University: 2020-542N). Results will be made publicly available in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at appropriate congresses and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04534998.

THERE ARE NO ADVANTAGES BETWEEN LAPAROSCOPIC AND OPEN LIVER RESECTIONS WITHIN AN ENHANCED RECOVERY PROGRAM (ERAS)

BACKGROUND

The use of a successful Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) in colorectal surgery favored its application in other organs, and hepatic resections were not excluded from this tendency. Some authors suggest that the laparoscopic approach is a central element to obtain better results.

AIM

To compare the laparoscopic vs. open hepatic resections within an ERAS to evaluate if there are any differences between them.

METHODS

In a descriptive study 80 hepatic resections that were divided into two groups, regarding to whether they were submitted to laparoscopy or open surgery. Demographic data, those referring to the hepatectomy and the ERAS was analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-seven resections were carried out in open surgery and the rest laparoscopically; in the first group there was only one conversion to open surgery. Of the total, 17 resections were major hepatectomies and in 18 simultaneous resections. There were no differences between procedures regarding hospital stay and number of complications. There was a greater adherence to the ERAS (p=0.046) and a faster ambulation (p=0.001) in the open surgery.

CONCLUSION

The procedure, whether open or laparoscopically done in hepatic resections, does not seem to show differences in an ERAS evaluation.

Open vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy (BORARC): a double-blinded, randomised feasibility study

OBJECTIVE

To examine surgical outcomes and feasibility of blinding patients and care providers to the surgical technique of radical cystectomy (RC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-centre, parallel-group, double-blinded, randomised feasibility study of open RC (ORC) vs robot-assisted RC with intracorporeal urinary diversion (iRARC) in an 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' setup. A total of 50 patients aged ≥18 years with bladder cancer planned for RC with an ileal conduit were included. Patients with previous major abdominal/pelvic surgery, pelvic radiation or anaesthesiological contraindications were excluded. Primary outcomes were proportion of unblinded patients and success of blinding using Bang's Blinding Index. Secondary outcomes included length of stay (LOS), complication rates, blood loss, pain, and opioid consumption.

RESULTS

A total of 26% of the patients were unblinded before discharge. We demonstrated that patients and doctors remained blinded for the allocated treatment, but nurses did not. Blood loss was greater in the ORC group as was operative time in the iRARC group. We found no difference in complication rate, LOS, or use of analgesics.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that blinding of surgical technique in RC is possible. The results of secondary outcomes are consistent with the findings of previous unblinded randomised controlled trials. Our study highlights that it is possible to perform a blinded phase III study to explore the optimal surgical technique in RC.

Objectively measured preoperative physical activity is associated with time to functional recovery after hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer surgery: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is currently the cornerstone of hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancer treatment. A low preoperative aerobic fitness level has been identified as a modifiable risk factor associated with complications after major abdominal surgery. A person's aerobic fitness is influenced by performing moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA). This study aims to determine the activity monitor measured levels of MVPA performed among patients on the waiting list for HPB cancer surgery and their association with postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

A prospective, observational multi-center cohort pilot study was conducted. Patients enlisted for resection surgery on suspicion of HPB (pre)malignancy were enrolled. Performed MVPA was measured by an Actigraph wGT3X-BT. Additionally, aerobic fitness was measured via the Incremental Shuttle Walk Test, and (post)operative variables were collected from the electronic patient files. The association between MVPA and the pre- and postoperative variables was determined by univariate and multivariable (logistic) robust regression.

RESULTS

A total of 38 participants, median age 66.0 (IQR 58.25-74.75) years, were enrolled. The median daily MVPA was 10.7 (IQR 6.9-18.0) min; only 8 participants met the Dutch MVPA guidelines. Participant's age and aerobic fitness were associated with MVPA by multivariable statistical analysis. Time to functional recovery was 8 (IQR 5-12) days and was associated with MVPA and type of surgery (major/minor) in multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-six percent of patients enlisted for resection of HPB (pre)malignancy performed insufficient MVPA. A higher level of MVPA was associated with a shorter time to functional recovery.

Does minimally invasive liver resection improve long-term survival compared to open resection for hepatocellular carcinoma? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma has gained widespread interest as an alternative to conventional open liver surgery. However, long-term survival benefits of this approach seem unclear. This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate long-term survival following minimally invasive liver surgery.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after minimally invasive liver surgery and open liver surgery until January 2020. The I² test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias was assessed using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year mortality, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year mortality. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study factors (region, design), annual center volume, patient factors (American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, gender, age, body mass index, cirrhosis, tumor size, and number), and resection extent. Sensitivity analyses were performed on studies by study year, region, annual center volume, and resection type.

RESULT

The review identified 50 relevant studies including 13,731 patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma of which 4071 (25.8%) underwent minimally invasive liver surgery. Pooled analysis revealed similar all-cause (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% confidence interval: 0.70-1.11, p = 0.3) and disease-specific (odds ratio: 0.93, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-1.09, p = 0.4) 5-year mortality after minimally invasive liver surgery compared with open liver surgery. Sensitivity analysis of published studies from 2010 to 2019 demonstrated a significantly lower disease-specific 3-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.59-0.96, p = 0.022) and all-cause 5-year mortality (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.50-0.81, p = 0.002). Meta-regression identified no confounding factors in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement in minimally invasive liver surgery techniques over the past decade appears to demonstrate superior disease-specific mortality with minimally invasive liver surgery compared to open liver surgery. Therefore, minimally invasive liver surgery can be recommended as an alternative surgical approach for hepatocellular carcinoma.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open liver resection

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been based on non-randomized studies and reviews of these. Aim of this study was to evaluate if the randomized evidence comparing LLR to open liver resection (OLR) supports these findings.

METHODS

A prospectively registered (reviewregistry866) systematic review and meta-analysis following Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines comparing LLR to OLR for benign and malignant diseases was performed via Medline, Web of Science, CENTRAL up to 31.12.2020. The main outcome was postoperative complications. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0, certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 2080 results. 13 RCTs assessing mostly minor liver resections with 1457 patients were included. There were reduced odds of experiencing any complication (Odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0·42 [0·30, 0·58]) and severe complications (OR[CI]: 0·51 [0·31, 0·84]) for patients undergoing LLR. LOS was shorter (Mean difference (MD) [CI]: -2·90 [-3·88, -1·92] days), blood loss was lower (MD: [CI]: -115·41 [-146·08, -84·75] ml), and functional recovery was better for LLR. All other outcomes showed no significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

LLR shows significant postoperative benefits. RCTs assessing long-term outcomes and major resections are needed.

Minimally invasive versus open distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (DIPLOMA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Recently, the first randomized trials comparing minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) for non-malignant and malignant disease showed a 2-day reduction in time to functional recovery after MIDP. However, for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), concerns have been raised regarding the oncologic safety (i.e., radical resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival) of MIDP, as compared to ODP. Therefore, a randomized controlled trial comparing MIDP and ODP in PDAC regarding oncological safety is warranted. We hypothesize that the microscopically radical resection (R0) rate is non-inferior for MIDP, as compared to ODP.

Methods/design

DIPLOMA is an international randomized controlled, patient- and pathologist-blinded, non-inferiority trial performed in 38 pancreatic centers in Europe and the USA. A total of 258 patients with an indication for elective distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy because of proven or highly suspected PDAC of the pancreatic body or tail will be randomly allocated to MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the microscopically radical resection margin (R0, distance tumor to pancreatic transection and posterior margin ≥ 1 mm), which is assessed using a standardized histopathology assessment protocol. The sample size is calculated with the following assumptions: 5% one-sided significance level (α), 80% power (1-β), expected R0 rate in the open group of 58%, expected R0 resection rate in the minimally invasive group of 67%, and a non-inferiority margin of 7%. Secondary outcomes include time to functional recovery, operative outcomes (e.g., blood loss, operative time, and conversion to open surgery), other histopathology findings (e.g., lymph node retrieval, perineural- and lymphovascular invasion), postoperative outcomes (e.g., clinically relevant complications, hospital stay, and administration of adjuvant treatment), time and site of disease recurrence, survival, quality of life, and costs. Follow-up will be performed at the outpatient clinic after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months postoperatively.

Discussion

The DIPLOMA trial is designed to investigate the non-inferiority of MIDP versus ODP regarding the microscopically radical resection rate of PDAC in an international setting.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN44897265. Prospectively registered on 16 April 2018.

Minimally invasive liver surgery: the Charité experience

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) was established as last abdominal surgical specialty through the 1990s. With a shift from mainly benign to malignant indications, MILS was shown to be equal to open liver surgery in terms of oncological outcomes, with benefits in intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain, postoperative complication rates, hospital length of stay and quality of life. With colorectal liver metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma as the most common indications, most liver resection can be performed minimally invasive nowadays, including patients with liver cirrhosis. Initially perceived limitations of laparoscopic liver surgery were weakened by gaining experience, technical progress and pioneering of new resection approaches. Lately robotic liver surgery was adopted to the field of MILS to further push the limits. To simplify first resections, technical variations of the minimally invasive approach can be utilized, and difficulty scores help to select resections suitable to the level of experience. We hereby give an overview of the establishing of a minimally invasive liver surgery program at our center.

Risk factors of delayed recovery from general anesthesia in patients undergoing radical biliary surgery: What can we prevent

Delayed recovery (DR) is very commonly seen in the patients undergoing laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, we aimed to investigate the potential risk factors of DR in the patients undergoing radical biliary surgery, to provide evidences into the management of DR.Patients who underwent radical biliary surgery from January 1, 2018 to August 31, 2020 were identified. The clinical characteristics and treatment details of DR and no-DR patients were compared and analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential influencing factors for DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery.We included a total of 168 patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, the incidence of postoperative DR was 25%. There were significant differences on the duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, and use of intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (all P < .05), and there were not significant differences on American Society of Anesthesiologists, New York Heart Association, tumor-lymph node- metastasis, and estimated blood loss between DR group and control group (all P > .05). Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that age ≥70 years (odd ratio [OR] 1.454, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.146-1.904), body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 1.303, 95% CI 1.102-1.912), alcohol drinking (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.336-3.085), smoking (OR 1.128, 95% CI 1.007-2.261), duration of surgery ≥220 minutes (OR 1.239, 95% CI 1.039-1.735), duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes (OR 1.223, 95% CI 1.013-1.926), intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (OR 1.207, 95% CI 1.008-1.764) were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery (all P < .05).It is clinically necessary to take early countermeasures against various risk factors to reduce the occurrence of DR, and to improve the prognosis of patients.

Proposal for a revised system for classifying difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate a revised classification system for predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone initial laparoscopic partial liver resection for a solitary lesion from January 2012 to February 2021were classified into two groups according to the type of procedure performed, "scooping-out" versus "cutting." The participants were then further divided into "small" and "large" subgroups according to the tumor's depth and diameter. Finally, they were categorized into two groups, namely "standard" and "advanced." Operative outcomes were compared between the two groups and the proposed revised system for classifying difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection compared with the existing scoring system.

RESULTS

Of the 65 procedures assessed, 40 were categorized as standard and 25 as advanced. Tumor size (P < 0.001), operation time (P < 0.001), volume of intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.001), rate of the Pringle maneuver (P = 0.044), and resected liver weight (P < 0.001) were significantly greater in the advanced than in the standard group. Differences in operation time and intraoperative blood loss were not identified by the existing difficulty scoring system.

CONCLUSION

The proposed revised classification is useful for predicting the difficulty of laparoscopic partial liver resection.

International multicenter propensity score matched study on laparoscopic versus open left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Despite a lack of high-level evidence, current guidelines recommend laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) as the routine approach over open LLS (OLLS). Randomized studies and propensity score matched studies on LLLS vs OLLS for all indications, including malignancy, are lacking.

METHODS

This international multicenter propensity score matched retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing LLLS or OLLS in six centers from three European countries (January 2000-December 2016). Propensity scores were calculated based on nine preoperative variables and LLLS and OLLS were matched in a 1:1 ratio. Short-term operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included. Out of 200 LLLS, 139 could be matched to 139 OLLS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. LLLS was associated with shorter operative time (144 (110-200) vs 199 (138-283) minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 (50-300) vs 350 (100-750) mL, P = 0.005) and a 3-day shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 (3-7) vs 7 (5-9) days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This international multicenter propensity score matched study confirms the superiority of LLLS over OLLS based on shorter postoperative hospital stay, operative time, and less blood loss thus validating current guideline advice.

Surgical strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma located in the left lateral lobe: A propensity score-matched and prognostic nomogram study

PURPOSE

For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in the left lateral lobe, the optimal surgical procedure is still controversial. This study aimed to optimize surgical strategies and to construct a nomogram to predict the postoperative survival of patients with HCC.

METHODS

Between 1 January 2005 and 30 September 2018, a total of 493 patients were enrolled. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between the left lateral lobectomy (LLL) and left hepatectomy (LH) groups (1:1). The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and safety. A nomogram was generated using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model. The discriminative ability and calibration of the nomogram were evaluated using C-statistics and calibration plots.

RESULTS

After matching, 87 pairs were included. The LH group had better 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates than the LLL group (88%, 73%, and 69% vs. 73%, 57%, and 49%, respectively; p = 0.017). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates of the LH group were similar to those of the LLL group (64%, 49%, and 46% vs. 63%, 51%, and 42%, respectively; p = 0.652). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications. Eight factors were integrated into the nomogram and it had good discriminative ability and calibration.

CONCLUSION

Our data revealed that compared to LLL, LH may result in better OS and have similar postoperative complications for HCC. The nomogram may serve as a practical tool for the individual prognostic evaluation of patients with HCC.

Comparison of clinical and economic outcomes between minimally invasive liver resection and open liver resection: a propensity-score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) has gained momentum in recent years. This study of contemporary data compares economic and clinical outcomes between MILR and open liver resection (OLR).

METHODS

We extracted data for patients undergoing liver resection between October 2015-September 2018 from the Premier Healthcare Database. We conducted a propensity score matched analysis to compare complications, in-hospital mortality, inpatient readmissions, discharge to institutional post-acute care, operating room time (ORT), length of stay (LOS), and total hospital cost between MILR and OLR patients.

RESULTS

From the eligible OLR (n = 3349) and MILR (n = 1367) patients, we propensity score matched 1261 from each cohort at a 1:1 ratio. After matching, MILR was associated with lower rates of complications (bleeding: 8.2% vs. 17.4%; respiratory failure: 5.5% vs. 10.9%; intestinal obstruction: 3.6% vs. 6.0%, and pleural effusion: 1.9% vs. 4.9%), in-hospital mortality (0.5% vs. 3.0%), 90-day inpatient readmissions (10.4% vs. 14.3%), discharge to institutional post-acute care (6.9% vs. 12.3%), shorter ORT (257 vs. 308 min) and LOS (4.3 vs. 7.2 days), and lower hospital costs ($19463 vs. $29119) (all P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

MILR was associated with lower risk of complications and reduced hospital resource utilizations as compared with OLR.

Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Chinese Patients Receiving Hepatectomy With or Without Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Strategy

Purposes: For the first time in China, the current study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes between Chinese patients receiving hepatectomy with or without the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategy. Methods: The current study enrolled 250 patients who would receive hepatectomy. Patients were randomized into two groups: ERAS group (n = 125, ERAS strategy) and control (n = 125, conventional care). Mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and complications were assessed over 30 days after the operation. Results: The average age of the whole cohort was 65 (63-68) years, with 152 males (60.8%). There was no difference between two groups in baseline features, such as age, sex, medical history, Child-Pugh hepatic function, American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status, operative type, hepatectomy type, and hepatic pathology (P > 0.05 for all). There was no occurrence of death in the two groups. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly less occurrence of post-operative complications and a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.05 for all). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in seven patients in the control group, but did not occur in the ERAS group (P < 0.05). Patients in the two groups had similar occurrence of readmission (P > 0.05). Conclusions: ERAS strategy significantly decreased the occurrence of operative complications and shortened the length of hospital stay without any increase in mortality or readmission in Chinese patients receiving hepatectomy.

Robotic ICG guided anatomical liver resection in a multi-centre cohort: an evolution from "positive staining" into "negative staining" method

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic major anatomical liver resection is challenging. The robotic liver resection (RLR) approach, with Firefly indocyanine green (ICG) imaging, was proposed to overcome the limitations of laparoscopy. The aim of this multi-centre international study was to evaluate the use of Firefly ICG imaging in anatomical RLR.

METHODS

A retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing RLR anatomical resection with intra-operative ICG administration from January 2015 to July 2018 were enrolled. Patients who underwent simultaneous or en-bloc resections of other organs were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were recruited of which 32 patients were healthy donors, 17 with malignancy and 3 for benign conditions. 12 patients had cirrhosis. 28 patients underwent a right hepatectomy (53.8%) with left hepatectomy performed with 18 patients. 40 patients underwent negative staining and 12 patients via direct portal vein injection for positive staining. ICG demarcation line was visualized in 43 patients and was clearer than the ischaemic demarcation line in 29 patients. All resections for malignancy had clear margins. There were no 30-day/inpatient mortalities.

CONCLUSION

Robotic ICG guided hepatectomy technique for anatomical liver resection is safe, feasible and has the benefit for improved visualization in healthy donors and cirrhotic patients.

Landmarks to identify segmental borders of the liver: A review prepared for PAM-HBP expert consensus meeting 2021

BACKGROUND

In preparation for the upcoming consensus meeting in Tokyo in 2021, this systematic review aimed to analyze the current available evidence regarding surgical anatomy of the liver, focusing on useful landmarks, strategies and technical tools to perform precise anatomic liver resection (ALR).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed for English articles and on Ichushi database for Japanese articles until September 2020. The quality assessment of the articles was performed in accordance with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

RESULTS

A total of 3169 manuscripts were obtained, 1993 in English and 1176 in Japanese literature. Subsequently, 63 English and 20 Japanese articles were selected and reviewed. The quality assessment of comparative series and case series was revealed to be usually low; only six articles were qualified as high quality. Forty-two articles focused on analyzing intersegmental/sectional planes and their relationship with specific hepatic landmark veins. In 12 articles, the authors aimed to investigate liver surface anatomic structures, while 36 articles aimed to study technological tools and contrast agents for surgical segmentation during ALR. Although Couinaud's classification has remained the cornerstone in daily diagnostic/surgical practices, it does not always portray the realistic liver segmentation and there has been no standardization on which a single strategy should be followed to perform precise ALR.

CONCLUSIONS

A global consensus should be pursued in order to establish clear guidelines and proper recommendations to perform ALR in the era of minimally invasive surgery.

Minimal-Invasive Versus Open Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Bicentric Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Minimal-invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has been increasingly performed for benign and malignant liver lesions with most promising short-term results. However, the oncological role of MIH in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) needs further investigation. Clinicopathological data of patients who underwent liver resection for CRLM between 2012 and 2017 at the Department of Surgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and the Inselspital Bern were assessed. Postoperative outcomes und long-term survivals of patients following MIH were compared with those after conventional open hepatectomy (OH) after 1:1 propensity score matching. During the study period, 229 and 91 patients underwent liver resection for CRLM at the Charité Berlin and the Inselspital Bern, respectively. Patients who underwent MIH in one of the two centers (n = 69) were compared with a matched cohort of patients who underwent OH. MIH was associated with lower complication rates (23% vs. 44%, p = 0.011), shorter length of intensive care unit stay (ICU, 1 vs. 2 days, p = 0.043), shorter length of hospital stay (7 vs. 11 days, p < 0.0001), and a reduced need for intraoperative transfusions (12% vs. 25%, p = 0.047) compared to OH. R0 status was achieved in 93% and 75% of patients after MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.005). After a median follow-up of 31 months, MIH resulted in similar five-year overall survival (OS) rate (56% vs. 48%, p = 0.116) in comparison to OH. MIH for CRLM is associated with lower postoperative morbidity, shorter length of ICU and hospital stay, reduced need for transfusions, and comparable oncologic outcomes compared to the established OH. Our findings suggest that MIH should be considered as the preferred method for the treatment of curatively resectable CRLM.

Colorectal liver metastases: Current management and future perspectives

The liver is the commonest site of metastatic disease for patients with colorectal cancer, with at least 25% developing colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) during the course of their illness. The management of CRLM has evolved into a complex field requiring input from experienced members of a multi-disciplinary team involving radiology (cross sectional, nuclear medicine and interventional), Oncology, Liver surgery, Colorectal surgery, and Histopathology. Patient management is based on assessment of sophisticated clinical, radiological and biomarker information. Despite incomplete evidence in this very heterogeneous patient group, maximising resection of CRLM using all available techniques remains a key objective and provides the best chance of long-term survival and cure. To this end, liver resection is maximised by the use of downsizing chemotherapy, optimisation of liver remnant by portal vein embolization, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and combining resection with ablation, in the context of improvements in the functional assessment of the future remnant liver. Liver resection may safely be carried out laparoscopically or open, and synchronously with, or before, colorectal surgery in selected patients. For unresectable patients, treatment options including systemic chemotherapy, targeted biological agents, intra-arterial infusion or bead delivered chemotherapy, tumour ablation, stereotactic radiotherapy, and selective internal radiotherapy contribute to improve survival and may convert initially unresectable patients to operability. Currently evolving areas include biomarker characterisation of tumours, the development of novel systemic agents targeting specific oncogenic pathways, and the potential re-emergence of radical surgical options such as liver transplantation.

Definition and Prospective Assessment of Functional Recovery After Liver Transplantation: A New Objective Consensus-Based Metric for Safe Discharge

Standardized discharge criteria are critical to reduce premature discharge and avoid unnecessary hospital stays. No such criteria exist for patients undergoing liver transplantation (LT). To achieve a consensus-based checklist of criteria for safe patient discharge after LT, this mixed-method study included the following: a systematic literature review and expert discussion to draft a first checklist of post-LT discharge criteria, defining patient recovery and indications for hospital discharge (functional recovery); an exploratory online electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) study; a single-center pilot study to test checklist feasibility; and a final e-Delphi study with an extended interdisciplinary expert panel to validate the final checklist. The first round provided a 10-point discharge checklist with 5 patient-centered items derived from discharge criteria after liver surgery and 5 graft-centered items derived from expert discussion. The restricted panel (9 experts) e-Delphi provided 100% consensus after the second round, with slight modifications to the criteria. During the pilot study, 19 of 45 (42.2%) patients included fulfilled the complete checklist (100% of 10 items) after median (IQR) 16 (8-21) days (functional recovery) and a length of stay of 20 (9-24) days. The item with the lowest completion rate was minimum serum tacrolimus level in the target on 2 consecutive blood samples (n = 21; 47%), achieved at 13 (9-15) days. The extended panel (66 experts) e-Delphi provided 95%-98% consensus after the third round, with slight modifications of the criteria. This study provided substantial consensus on discharge criteria after LT. We anticipate that these criteria will be useful in clinical practice to guide patient discharge and increase the comparability of results between future studies.

Long-term abdominal wall benefits of the laparoscopic approach in liver left lateral sectionectomy: a multicenter comparative study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy is nowadays considered as the standard approach for hepatic left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), but its value in the prevention of incisional hernia (IH) has not been demonstrated.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2017, patients undergoing laparoscopic (LLLS) or open LLS (OLLS) in 8 centers were compared. Patients undergoing a simultaneous major abdominal procedure were excluded. The incidence of IH was assessed clinically and morphologically on computed tomography (CT) using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

After IPTW, 84 LLLS were compared to 48 OLLS. Compared to OLLS, LLLS patients had reduced blood loss (100 [IQR: 50-200] ml vs. 150 [IQR: 50-415] ml, p = 0.023) and shorter median hospital stay (5 [IQR: 4-7] days vs. 7 [6-9] days, p < 0.001), but experienced similar rate of postoperative complications (mean comprehensive complication index: 12 ± 19 after OLLS versus 13 ± 20 after LLLS, p = 0.968). Long-term radiological screening was performed with a median follow-up of 27.4 (12.1-44.9) months. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of clinically relevant IH (10.7% [n = 9] after LLLS, 8.3% [n = 4] after OLLS, p = 0.768). The rate of IH detected on computed tomography was lower after LLLS than after OLLS (11.9% [n = 10] versus 29.2% [n = 14], p = 0.013). On multivariable analysis, the laparoscopic approach was the only independent factor influencing the risk of morphological IH (OR = 0.290 [95% CI: 0.094-0.891], p = 0.031). The 2 preferential sites for specimen extraction after LLLS were Pfannenstiel and midline incisions, with rates of IH across the extraction site of 2.3% [n = 1/44] and 23.8% [n = 5/21], respectively (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

The laparoscopic approach for LLS decreases the risk of long-term IH as evidenced on morphological examinations, with limited clinical impact. Pfannenstiel's incision should be preferred to midline incision for specimen extraction after LLLS.

The impact of enhanced recovery on open and laparoscopic liver resections

Enhanced recovery after surgery programs (ERP) have been implemented in many surgical specialties. Their impact in liver surgery is poorly understood and approach-specific ERPs have not yet been assessed. This retrospective study aims to analyse the effect of such programs on liver resection. All patients undergoing liver resection at a tertiary referral centre between January 2009 and April 2019 were identified. Primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS), secondary outcomes were functional recovery, complications and readmission rates. Patients in the ERP with different protocols for open, laparoscopic, major and minor resections were compared to a historical cohort. Of 1056 patients, 644 were treated within the ERP. A comparable duration of hospital stay [7 days (IQR (interquartile range) 6-12) vs 7 days (IQR 5-9) p = 0.047] and faster functional recovery with fewer complications was found in the ERP group [94 (50.5%) vs 103 (35.9%) p < 0.002]. Those advantages were smaller after open minor compared to open major resection. In patients undergoing laparoscopic resection no differences were observed except for a lower readmission rate [21 (9.3%) vs 13 (3.6%) p = 0.005]. Multivariable analysis showed that laparoscopy was associated with a shorter LOS. ERPs offer significant advantages in open liver surgery. Those advantages are less evident after laparoscopic resection.

Survival Advantage of Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection For Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials and Propensity-score Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

To perform an individual participant data meta-analysis using randomized trials and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies which compared laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials and PSM studies constitute the highest level of evidence in addressing the long-term oncologic efficacy of laparoscopic versus open resection for CLM. However, individual studies are limited by the reporting of overall survival in ways not amenable to traditional methods of meta-analysis, and violation of the proportional hazards assumption.

METHODS

Survival information of individual patients was reconstructed from the published Kaplan-Meier curves with the aid of a computer vision program. Frequentist and Bayesian survival models (taking into account random-effects and nonproportional hazards) were fitted to compare overall survival of patients who underwent laparoscopic versus open surgery. To handle long plateaus in the tails of survival curves, we also exploited "cure models" to estimate the fraction of patients effectively "cured" of disease.

RESULTS

Individual patient data from 2 randomized trials and 13 PSM studies involving 3148 participants were reconstructed. Laparoscopic resection was associated with a lower hazard rate of death (stratified hazard ratio = 0.853, 95% confidence interval: 0.754-0.965, P = 0.0114), and there was evidence of time-varying effects (P = 0.0324) in which the magnitude of hazard ratios increased over time. The fractions of long-term cancer survivors were estimated to be 47.4% and 18.0% in the laparoscopy and open surgery groups, respectively. At 10-year follow-up, the restricted mean survival time was 8.6 months (or 12.1%) longer in the laparoscopy arm (P < 0.0001). In a subgroup analysis, elderly patients (≥65 years old) treated with laparoscopy experienced longer 3-year average life expectancy (+6.2%, P = 0.018), and those who live past the 5-year milestone (46.1%) seem to be cured of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-level meta-analysis of high-quality studies demonstrated an unexpected survival benefit in favor of laparoscopic over open resection for CLM in the long-term. From a conservative viewpoint, these results can be interpreted to indicate that laparoscopy is at least not inferior to the standard open approach.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy: comprehensive comparison of complications and costs at 90 days using a propensity method

Laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LHH) may offer advantages over open hemihepatectomy (OHH) in blood loss, recovery, and hospital stay. The aim of this study is to evaluate our recent experience performing hemihepatectomy and compare complications and costs up to 90 days following laparoscopic versus open procedures. Retrospective evaluation of patients undergoing hemihepatectomy at our center 01/2010–12/2018 was performed. Patient, tumor, and surgical characteristics; 90-day complications; and costs were analyzed. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance covariates. A total of 141 hemihepatectomies were included: 96 OHH and 45 LHH. While operative times were longer for LHH, blood loss and transfusions were less. At 90 days, there were similar rates of liver-specific and surgical complications but fewer medical complications following LHH. Medical complications that arose with greater frequency following OHH were primarily pulmonary complications and urinary and central venous catheter infections. Complications at 90 days were lower following LHH (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ III OHH 23%, LHH 11%, p = 0.130; Comprehensive Complication Index OHH 20.0 ± 16.1, LHH 10.9 ± 14.2, p = 0.001). While operating costs were higher, costs for hospital stay and readmissions were lower with LHH. Patients undergoing LHH experience a significant reduction in postoperative medical complications and costs, resulting in 90-day cost equity compared with OHH.

Gastrointestinal motility has more of an impact on postoperative recovery than you might expect

PURPOSE

While patient's reported autonomy (PRA) may help the physician to adapt the day of discharge, the link between postoperative ileus and length of stay and PRA is not known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the evolution of the PRA score during the postoperative period and to determine the factors possibly influencing such an evolution.

METHODS

This retrospective study on a prospective database took place in a single centre over 14 months. PRA was defined by the by using part I of the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale known as activity of daily life [from 9 (best) to 45 (worst)].

RESULTS

Among the 101 patients operated on for elective or emergent colorectal surgery, 80% of the patients had recovered their preoperative PRA (±5 points) before discharge and maintained their PRA during the 2 days preceding discharge. While PRA was significantly decreased by surgery (P<0.0001), each postoperative day allowed for its progressive recovery. Interestingly, the day of recovery of GI transit was associated with a significant increase of PRA (-6.96 points, P<0.0001). Despite high variability of baseline autonomy level, patients presented very similar recovery processes, which were represented by very low slope variability in the linear mixed model. Laparoscopy reduced the decrease of postoperative PRA (P=0.03) while ASA score>2 increased PRA (P=0.03). Age, emergency surgery and the occurrence of postoperative morbidity did not affect postoperative autonomy. Finally, enhanced recovery programs (ERP) tended to improve postoperative autonomy recovery (P=0.09).

CONCLUSION

PRA may be used as a means of optimising a patient's day of discharge following colorectal surgery.

Effectiveness of terlipressin for prevention of complications after major liver resection - A randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated portal pressure in response to major liver resection is associated with impaired liver regeneration and increased postoperative complications. Terlipressin, a splanchnic vasoconstrictor used for treatment of hepatorenal syndrome, was tested for reduction of complications and renal protection after liver resection.

METHODS

A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial including patients undergoing elective major liver resection was performed. Terlipressin was administered to patients in the intervention group for five days. The primary outcome parameter was the incidence of a clinical composite endpoint of following liver specific complications 6 weeks after surgery: liver failure, ascites, bile leakage, intra-abdominal abscess and operative mortality. Postoperative kidney function was assessed as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

150 patients (mean age 63.4 years, 73.3% male) were included. No difference was found in the composite endpoint between the placebo and intervention group (32.8% versus 30.8%, relative risk 1.066, 95%CI 0.643 to 1.769, p = 0.85). Patients receiving terlipressin showed a significant lower decrease in postoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate compared to placebo (two way ANOVA, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Perioperative administration of terlipressin during major liver surgery did not affect a composite endpoint of liver specific complications, but significantly protected from postoperative deterioration of kidney function compared to placebo. CLINICALTRIALS.

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT01921985.

ERAS in minimally invasive hepatectomy

Open hepatectomy is associated with significant post-operative morbidity and mortality profile. The use of minimally invasive approach for hepatectomy can reduce the post-operative complication profile and total length of hospital stay. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs involve evidence-based multimodal care pathways designed to achieve early recovery for patients undergoing major surgery. This review will discuss the published evidence, challenges and future directions for ERAS in minimally invasive hepatectomy.

Total laparoscopic vs. open liver resection: comparative study with propensity score matching analysis

Background:

There have been an increasing number of articles that demonstrate the potential benefits of minimally invasive liver surgery in recent years. Most of the available evidence, however, comes from retrospective observational studies susceptible to bias, especially selection bias. In addition, in many series, several modalities of minimally invasive surgery are included in the same comparison group.

Aim:

To compare the perioperative results (up to 90 days) of patients submitted to total laparoscopic liver resection with those submitted to open liver resection, matched by propensity score matching (PSM).

Method:

Consecutive adult patients submitted to liver resection were included. PSM model was constructed using the following variables: age, gender, diagnosis (benign vs. malignant), type of hepatectomy (minor vs. major), and presence of cirrhosis. After matching, the groups were redefined on a 1:1 ratio, by the nearest method.

Results:

After matching, 120 patients were included in each group. Those undergoing total laparoscopic surgery had shorter operative time (286.8±133.4 vs. 352.4±141.5 minutes, p<0.001), shorter ICU stay (1.9±1.2 vs. 2.5±2.2days, p=0.031), shorter hospital stay (5.8±3.9 vs. 9.9±9.3 days, p<0.001) and a 45% reduction in perioperative complications (19.2 vs. 35%, p=0.008).

Conclusion:

Total laparoscopic liver resections are safe, feasible and associated with shorter operative time, shorter ICU and hospital stay, and lower rate of perioperative complications.

A propensity-matched study of full laparoscopic versus hand-assisted minimal-invasive liver surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The implications of multi-incision (MILS) and hand-assisted (HALS) laparoscopic techniques for minimally invasive liver surgery with regard to perioperative outcomes are not well defined. The purpose of this study was to compare MILS and HALS using propensity score matching.

METHODS

309 patients underwent laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) between January 2013 and June 2018. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed after a 1:1 propensity score match. Subgroup analyses of matched groups, i.e., radical lymphadenectomy (LAD) as well as resections of posterosuperior segments (VII and/or VIII), were performed.

RESULTS

MILS was used in 187 (65.2%) and HALS in 100 (34.8%) cases, with a significant decrease of HALS resections over time (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences with regard to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Score, previous abdominal surgery and cirrhosis between both groups. Patients scheduled for HALS were characterized by a significantly higher rate of malignant tumors (p < 0.001) and major resections (p < 0.001). After propensity score matching (PMS), 70 cases remained in each group and all preoperative variables as well as resection extend were well balanced. A significantly higher rate of radical LAD (p = 0.039) and posterosuperior resections was found in the HALS group (p = 0.021). No significant differences between the matched groups were observed regarding operation time, conversion rate, frequency of major complications, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, overall hospital stay and R1 rate.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests MILS and HALS to be equivalent regarding postoperative outcomes. HALS might be particularly helpful to accomplish complex surgical procedures during earlier stages of the learning curve.

Pure Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Hepatectomy Including the Middle Hepatic Vein for Living Donor Liver Transplantation

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (PLDH) has become increasingly accepted in the era of minimally invasive surgeries. However, the outcomes of pure laparoscopic donor left hepatectomy (PLDLH) are relatively less known than for left lateral sectionectomy or right hepatectomy. This study aimed to report our experience with and the outcomes of PLDLH including the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and to compare these outcomes with conventional donor left hepatectomy (CDLH). The medical records of living liver donors between January 2010 and January 2018 at Seoul National University Hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Donors who underwent left hepatectomy including the MHV were included. To minimize selection bias, donors who underwent CDLH after the initiation of the PLDH program were excluded. Finally, there were 18 donors who underwent CDLH and 8 who underwent PLDLH. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) warm ischemia time (11 [10-16] minutes versus 4 [2-7] minutes; P = 0.001) was longer in the PLDLH group than the CDLH group. The total operation time (333 [281-376] minutes versus 265 [255-308] minutes; P = 0.09) and time to remove the liver (245 [196-276] minutes versus 182 [172-205] minutes; P = 0.08) were also longer in PLDLH although not statistically significant. The length of postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the PLDLH group (7 [7-8] days versus 9 [8-10] days; P = 0.01). There were no postoperative complications in the PLDLH group. The rate of complications in recipients was similar in both groups. In conclusion, PLDLH including the MHV appears to be safe and feasible. Further analysis including longterm outcomes is needed.

Enhanced recovery protocol in laparoscopic liver surgery

Introduction

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) accelerate recovery and shorten postoperative hospital stay. This increased knowledge of ERPs has also gradually implemented into liver surgery. However, in laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS), the experience of optimized perioperative care protocols is still limited.

Methods

We prospectively studied the implementation of multimodal ERP principles to LLS in the first 100 consecutive patients. Opioid-sparing multimodal pain management was applied together with early mobilization already in the postoperative care unit (PACU). Drains and catheters were avoided and per oral intake was initiated promptly. Primary pain control was achieved with iv NSAIDS, low-dose opioid and corticosteroids. Combination of per oral ibuprofen and long-acting tramadol was routinely administered shortly after operation. The multiprofessional adherence to the protocol was also evaluated.

Results

Investigated LLS was performed during Aug 2016–Apr 2019. Operations were done due to malignancy in 83 (83%) of cases, mostly for colorectal liver metastases (n = 52, 52%). Forty-eight (48%) of the operated patients were female. Median age was 65 years (range 17–91). The American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA) classification median was three. Median postoperative hospital stay was 2 days (range 1–8 days). More than seventy percent of patients were discharged by the second postoperative day and nearly ninety percent by the third postoperative day. Complications after surgery were few. The new ERP elements were adopted in most of the cases.

Conclusions

ERP was introduced safely and effectively after LLS. The adherence to the ERP was good. Routine discharge 1–2 days after LLS is realistic and achievable.

Laparoscopic liver resection in cirrhotics: feasibility and short-term outcomes compared to non-cirrhotics

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is increasingly common worldwide but its suitability in patients with cirrhosis is not clearly defined. There are minimal data in the western literature on this topic and previous work has compared LLR to open hepatectomy rather than to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients. This study compared short-term outcomes of LLR in cirrhotic patients to LLR in non-cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of minor LLR at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh from January 2006 to January 2018 was conducted. Patients were stratified by whether they had cirrhosis - defined as per radiological appearances and liver function tests. Variables of interest included baseline clinicopathological information with short-term outcomes (length of stay and complications) regarded as the primary outcome of interest.

RESULTS

Out of 1207 liver resections in the study period, there were 120 LLR with 30 patients having cirrhosis. Patients with cirrhosis were more likely to be male and have higher median American Society of Anesthesiologists scores (3 versus 2; P < 0.01). The most common operation was left lateral sectionectomy (n = 67). There was no difference in duration of surgery (cirrhosis 88 min versus no cirrhosis 99 min; P = 0.64) and patients in the cirrhosis arm had no conversions to open (0% versus 12%; P = 0.06). There was no difference in complications (12% versus 13%; P = 0.75) or median length of stay (4 versus 4 days; P = 0.14) and no difference in survival between both groups.

CONCLUSION

With careful patient selection, LLR is feasible in patients with cirrhosis and provides comparable outcomes to non-cirrhotic patients undergoing LLR.