Risk-adjusted benchmarks in laparoscopic liver surgery in a national cohort

Graduated Autonomy of Laparoscopic Liver Resection Based on Liver Resection Complexity: a Western and Eastern Bi-Institution Study for Learning Curve

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) requires a high degree of expertise in both hepatobiliary and minimally invasive surgery. Our group previously reportwed a 3-level LLR complexity classification based on intrapostoperative outcomes: grade I (low), grade II (intermediate), and grade III (high). We evaluated the learning curve effect in each complexity grade to assess the experience needed for a surgeon to safely progress through the grades.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients who underwent LLR during 1994 to 2020 at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and the University of Tokyo during 2008 to 2023 were included in the study. The learning curve for operating time was evaluated using the standardized (cumulative sum) analysis for each complexity grade.

RESULTS

A total of 503 patients (grade I, 198; grade II, 87; and grade III, 218) at the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris and 221 patients (grade I, 135; grade II, 57; and grade III, 29) at the University of Tokyo met the inclusion criteria. The cumulative sum analysis showed that the deviation of operating time was found up to 40 cases for grade I resections, 30 cases for grade II resections, and 50 cases for grade III resections. By dividing cohorts based on these numbers for each group and each institution and labeling these cases as the prelearning groups and the remaining as the postlearning group, surgical outcomes and postoperative complications were generally improved in the postlearning groups in both institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

A gradual progression in LLR per complexity grade as follow: 40 cases of low grade I procedures before starting intermediate complexity grade II procedures, and 30 cases of intermediate complexity grade II procedures before starting high complexity grade III procedures may ensure a safe implementation of high complexity LLR procedures.

Is prolonged operative time associated with postoperative complications in liver surgery? An international multicentre cohort study of 5424 patients

BACKGROUND

The relation between operative time and postoperative complications in liver surgery is unclear. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of operative time on the development of postoperative complications in patients who underwent minimally invasive or open liver resections of various anatomical extent and technical difficulty levels.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients that underwent a right hemihepatectomy (RH), technically major resection (anatomically minor resection in segment 1, 4a, 7 or 8; TMR) or left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) between 2000 and 2022 were extracted from a multicenter database comprising the prospectively maintained databases of 31 centers in 13 countries. Minimally invasive procedures performed during the learning curve were omitted. Logistic regression models, performed separately for 9 different groups based on stratification by procedure type and allocated surgical approach, were used to assess the association between the fourth quartile of operative time (25% of patients with the longest operative time) and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 5424 patients were included: 1351 underwent RH (865 open, 373 laparoscopic and 113 robotic), 2821 TMR (1398 open, 1225 laparoscopic and 198 robotic), and 1252 LLS (241 open, 822 laparoscopic and 189 robotic). After adjusting for potential confounders (age, BMI, gender, ASA grade, previous abdominal surgery, disease type and extent, blood loss, Pringle, intraoperative transfusions and incidents), the fourth quartile of operative time, compared to the first three quartiles, was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications after open, laparoscopic and robotic TMR (aOR 1.35, p = 0.031; aOR 1.74, p = 0.001 and aOR 3.11, p = 0.014, respectively), laparoscopic and robotic RH (aOR 1.98, p = 0.018 and aOR 3.28, p = 0.055, respectively) and solely laparoscopic LLS (aOR 1.69, p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

A prolonged operative time is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications, although it remains to be defined if this is a causal relationship.

Gradual expansion of the indications for minimally invasive liver resection to include highly complex procedures may improve postoperative outcomes

Aim: Liver resection is performed in patients with benign and malignant liver tumors. Advancements in surgical instruments and improved perioperative management have enabled safe laparoscopic and robotic liver resections. Herein, we aimed to evaluate the patients who underwent minimally invasive liver resection (MISLR) and compare their short-term outcomes with those of patients who underwent open liver resection (OLR), according to surgical complexity.

Methods: Data of patients who underwent liver resection at our institution from January 2011 to August 2023 were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. We gradually expanded the indications for MISLR from technically less demanding procedures to intermediate- and high-complexity MISLRs. The procedures were categorized into three grades (low, intermediate, and high) according to the liver resection complexity classification.

Results: Of the 1,866 patients who underwent liver resection, 953 were included in the analysis. Of the 953 patients, 781 underwent OLR and 172 underwent MISLR. The operative time and estimated blood loss increased with the increase in surgical complexity in the MISLR group, which was similar to finding in the OLR group. The complication rate also increased with the increase in surgical complexity in the OLR group (low complexity vs. high complexity, 34.8% vs. 50.1%). However, the complication rate was steadily low and approximately 10% across all complexity grades in the MISLR group.

Conclusion: Careful selection and gradual expansion of the indications of MISLR may facilitate improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing highly complex MISLRs.

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

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been growing interest in laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and the audit of the results of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to define reference values for LLR in segments 7 and 8.

STUDY DESIGN

Data on LLR in segments 7 and 8 between January 2000 and December 2020 were collected from 19 expert centers. Reference cases were defined as no previous hepatectomy, American Society of Anesthesiologists score less than 3, BMI less than 35 kg/m 2 , no chronic kidney disease, no cirrhosis and portal hypertension, no COPD (forced expiratory volume 1 <80%), and no cardiac disease. Reference values were obtained from the 75th percentile of the medians of all reference centers.

RESULTS

Of 585 patients, 461 (78.8%) met the reference criteria. The overall complication rate was 27.5% (6% were Clavien-Dindo 3a or more) with a mean Comprehensive Complication Index of 7.5 ± 16.5. At 90-day follow-up, the reference values for overall complication were 31%, Clavien-Dindo 3a or more was 7.4%, conversion was 4.4%, hospital stay was less than 6 days, and readmission rate was <8.33%. Patients from Eastern centers categorized as low risk had a lower rate of overall complication (20.9% vs 31.2%, p = 0.01) with similar Clavien-Dindo 3a or more (5.5% and 4.8%, p = 0.83) compared with patients from Western centers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the need to establish standards for the postoperative outcomes in LLR based on the complexity of the resection and the location of the lesions.

Benchmarking in pancreatic surgery: a systematic review of metric development and validation

Benchmarking in healthcare, particularly in the context of complex surgical procedures like pancreatic surgery, plays a pivotal role in comparing and evaluating the quality of care provided to patients. There is a growing body of evidence validating existent metrics and introducing new ones in the pursuit of safety and excellence in pancreatic surgery. A systematic review adhering to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted on metric development and validation across multiple databases, including PUBMED Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science, until February 2024. The extracted data were categorized into three domains according to the Donabedian model: structure, process, and outcomes. Thirty-four studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in this review. Among these articles, 20 contributed to metric development, while 14 studies validated them. A total of 234 metrics were identified across the 34 studies, of which 185 were included in the analysis. Thirty-three of these metrics were relative to structure, 79 to processes, and 73 to outcomes. The distribution of metric domains across the included studies revealed that structure, process, and outcome domains were reported in 12, 26, and 26 studies, respectively. In conclusion, this systematic review underscores the heterogeneity in metric development methodologies and the varying degrees of consensus among different quality indicators, despite the growing interest in benchmarking in pancreatic surgery. This review aims to inform future research efforts and contribute to the ongoing pursuit of excellence in pancreatic surgical care.

A critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators in hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery: From crude mortality to composite outcomes

BACKGROUND

Indicators of surgical outcomes are designed to objectively evaluate surgical performance, enabling comparisons among surgeons and institutions. In recent years, there has been a surge in complex indicators of perioperative short-term and long-term outcomes. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview and a critical analysis of surgical outcomes indicators, with a special emphasis on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review of outcome measures was conducted using a combined text and MeSH search strategy to identify relevant articles focused on perioperative outcomes, specifically within HPB surgery.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 624 records, and 94 studies were included in the analysis. Included papers were classified depending on whether they assessed intraoperative or postoperative specific or composite outcomes, and whether they assessed purely clinical or combined clinical and socio-economic indicators. Specific indicators included in composite outcomes were categorized into three main domains: intraoperative metrics, postoperative outcomes, and oncological outcomes. While postoperative mortality, complications, hospital stay and readmission were the indicators most frequently included in composite outcomes, oncological outcomes were rarely considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of surgical outcomes has shifted from the simplistic assessment of crude mortality rates to complex composite outcomes. Whether the recent explosion of publications on these topics has a clinical impact in real life is questionable. Outcomes from the patient perspective, integrating social and financial indicators, are not yet integrated into most of these composite analytical tools but should not be underestimated.

6,126 hepatectomies in 2022: current trend of outcome in Italy

PURPOSE

Whether hospital volume affects outcome of patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery, and whether the centralization of such procedures is justified remains to be investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of liver surgery in Italy in relationship of hospital volume.

METHODS

This is a nationwide retrospective observational study conducted on data collected by the National Italian Registry "Piano Nazionale Esiti" (PNE) 2023 that included all liver procedures performed in 2022. Outcome measure were case volume and 30-day mortality. Hospitals were classified as very high-volume (H-Vol), intermediate-volume (I-Vol), low-volume (L-Vol) and very low-volume (VL-VoL). A review on centralization process and outcome measures was added.

RESULTS

6,126 liver resections for liver tumors were performed in 327 hospitals in 2022. The 30-day mortality was 2.2%. There were 14 H-Vol, 19 I-Vol, 31 L-Vol and 263 VL-Vol hospitals with 30-day mortality of 1.7%, 2.2%, 2.6% and 3.6% respectively (P < 0.001); 220 centers (83%) performed less than 10 resections, and 78 (29%) centers only 1 resection in 2022. By considering the geographical macro-areas, the median count of liver resection performed in northern Italy exceeded those in central and southern Italy (57% vs. 23% vs. 20%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume has been confirmed to be associated to better outcome after hepatobiliary surgical procedures. Further studies are required to detail the factors associated with mortality. The centralization process should be redesigned and oversight.

Benchmarks in Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Benchmarking in surgery has been proposed as a means to compare results across institutions to establish best practices. We sought to define benchmark values for hepatectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) across an international population.

METHODS

Patients who underwent liver resection for ICC between 1990 and 2020 were identified from an international database, including 14 Eastern and Western institutions. Patients operated on at high-volume centers who had no preoperative jaundice, ASA class <3, body mass index <35 km/m2, without need for bile duct or vascular resection were chosen as the benchmark group.

RESULTS

Among 1193 patients who underwent curative-intent hepatectomy for ICC, 600 (50.3%) were included in the benchmark group. Among benchmark patients, median age was 58.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 49.0-67.0), only 28 (4.7%) patients received neoadjuvant therapy, and most patients had a minor resection (n = 499, 83.2%). Benchmark values included ≥3 lymph nodes retrieved when lymphadenectomy was performed, blood loss ≤600 mL, perioperative blood transfusion rate ≤42.9%, and operative time ≤339 min. The postoperative benchmark values included TOO achievement ≥59.3%, positive resection margin ≤27.5%, 30-day readmission ≤3.6%, Clavien-Dindo III or more complications ≤14.3%, and 90-day mortality ≤4.8%, as well as hospital stay ≤14 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Benchmark cutoffs targeting short-term perioperative outcomes can help to facilitate comparisons across hospitals performing liver resection for ICC, assess inter-institutional variation, and identify the highest-performing centers to improve surgical and oncologic outcomes.

An attempt to establish and apply global benchmarks for liver resection of malignant hepatic tumors

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is a process of continuous self-evaluation and comparison with best-in-class hospitals to guide quality improvement initiatives. We sought to define global benchmarks relative to liver resection for malignancy and to assess their achievement in hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

Patients who underwent curative-intent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or colorectal or neuroendocrine liver metastases between 2000 and 2019 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance baseline characteristics between open and minimally invasive approaches. Best-in-class hospitals were defined relative to the achievement rate of textbook oncologic outcomes and case volume. Benchmark values were established relative to best-in-class institutions. The achievement of benchmark values among hospitals in the National Cancer Database was then assessed.

RESULTS

Among 2,624 patients treated at 20 centers, a majority underwent liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1,609, 61.3%), followed by colorectal liver metastases (n = 650, 24.8%), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 299, 11.4%), and neuroendocrine liver metastases (n = 66, 2.5%). Notably, 1,947 (74.2%) patients achieved a textbook oncologic outcome. After propensity score matching, 6 best-in-class hospitals with the highest textbook oncologic outcome rates (≥75.0%) were identified. Benchmark values were calculated for margin positivity (≤11.7%), 30-day readmission (≤4.1%), 30-day mortality (≤1.6%), minor postoperative complications (≤24.7%), severe complications (≤12.4%), and failure to achieve the textbook oncologic outcome (≤22.8%). Among the National Cancer Database hospitals, global benchmarks for margin positivity, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, severe complications, and textbook oncologic outcome failure were achieved in 62.9%, 27.1%, 12.1%, 7.1%, and 29.3% of centers, respectively.

CONCLUSION

These global benchmarks may help identify hospitals that may benefit from quality improvement initiatives, aiming to improve patient safety and surgical oncologic outcomes.

Performance evaluation of a North American center using the established global benchmark for laparoscopic liver resections: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The global benchmark cut-offs were set for laparoscopic liver resection procedures: left lateral sectionectomy, left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy. We aimed to compare the performance of our North American center with the established global benchmarks.

METHODS

This is a single-center study of adults who underwent laparoscopic liver resection between 2010 to 2022 at the Toronto General Hospital. Fourteen benchmarking outcomes were assessed: operation time, intraoperative blood transfusion, estimated blood loss, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood loss ≥1000mL, open-conversion, postoperative length of stay, return to operation, postoperative morbidity, postoperative major-morbidity, 30-day mortality, 90-day mortality, R1 resection, and failure to rescue. Low-risk benchmark cases were defined as follows: patients aged 18 to 70 years, American Society of Anesthesiologist score ≤ 2, tumor size <10 cm, and Child-Pugh score ≤A. Cases involving bilio-enteric anastomosis, hilar dissection, or concomitant major procedures were excluded from the low-risk category. Cases that did not meet the criteria for low-risk selection were considered high-risk cases.

RESULTS

A total of 178 laparoscopic liver resection cases were analyzed (109 left lateral sectionectomies, 45 left hepatectomies, 24 right hepatectomies). Forty-four (25%) cases qualified as low-risk cases (23 left lateral sectionectomies, 16 left hepatectomies, 5 right hepatectomies). The postoperative major morbidity and 90-day mortality after left lateral sectionectomy, left hepatectomy, and right hepatectomy for the low-risk cases were 0%, 0%, and 0%, and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. For the high-risk cases post-2017, the outcomes in the same order were 0%, 0%, and 12%; 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. For the high-risk cases operated pre2017, the outcomes in the same order were 9%∗, 16%∗, and 18%; 2%∗, 0%, and 9%∗ (asterisks indicate not meeting the global cut-off), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A North American center was able to achieve outcomes comparable to the established global benchmark for laparoscopic liver resection.

Ten years of Italian mini-invasiveness: the I Go MILS registry as a tool of dissemination, characterization and networking

Purposes of this study are to evaluate the main changes that have occurred in the Italian MILS activity in the last decade in terms of indications, approaches and outcomes as reported in the national registry and to provide specific details on the main areas of development of MILS. Data from patients undergoing minimally invasive liver resections at centers included in the I Go MILS Registry from its start-up (November 2014) to March 2023 were analyzed for the purposes of this study. The registry is intention-to-treat and prospective. Global recruitment trends stratified by indication to surgery and type of approach were analysed. 7413 MILS procedures were performed across all centers (median number of procedures per center: 63). Years (2020-2023) displayed a significantly higher proportion of treated patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (38.2% vs. 28.9% and 33.9%, p < 0.001) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.7% vs. 6.5% and 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to the preceding triennial periods. Additionally, technical complexity demonstrated an increased prominence in Years (2019-2023) with a significantly higher percentage of grade III cases compared to the earlier periods (39.3% vs. 21.7% and 25.6%, p < 0.001). Annual case trends focusing on laparoscopic and robotic techniques demonstrated a steadily increase in the use of these techniques for complex case mix of indications. Overall, attitude and attention to MILS approach has evolved, so that currently indications to hepatic mini-invasiveness have expanded and surgical technique has been refined: Areas mainly involved in increasing growth trends are hepatocellular carcinoma, possible applications of MILS in transplant setting, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and robotic approach.

Textbook Outcomes After Open Live Donor Right Hepatectomy and Open Right Hepatic Lobectomy for Cancer in 686 patients: Redefining the Benchmark

OBJECTIVE

To compare textbook outcomes (TO) of open live donor right hepatectomy (RH) versus open right hepatic lobectomy for cancer in a single Western center and to identify clinical factors associated with failure to achieve a TO.

BACKGROUND

TO, a composite quality measure that captures multiple aspects of perioperative care, has not been thoroughly studied in open RH. We hypothesized that TO rates after RH for live donor transplant could represent the "best-achievable" results of this operation and could serve as the benchmark for RH performed for an oncologic indication.

METHODS

A prospective database was reviewed to compare TO rates after RH for live donor purposes versus RH for cancer at a single center from 2010 to 2020. A TO was defined as achieving 7 metrics: no perioperative transfusion, no major postoperative complications, no significant bile leak, no unplanned transfer to the ICU, no 30-day mortality, no 30-day readmission, and no R1 margins for cancer cases.

RESULTS

Among 686 RH patients (371 live donor and 315 cancer cases), a TO was achieved in 92.2% of RH donors and 53.7% of RH cancer cases. Live donor patients tended to be younger, healthier, and thinner. Among donors, increased intraoperative blood loss, and in cancer cases, male sex, tumor size, and increased intraoperative blood loss were associated with TO failure.

CONCLUSIONS

A TO can be achieved in over 90% of patients undergoing living donor RH and in approximately half of RH cancer cases. These metrics represent a new benchmark for "real-world" TO after open RH.

Benchmarking outcomes for distal pancreatectomy: critical evaluation of four multicenter studies

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking is a validated tool for outcome assessment and international comparison of best achievable surgical outcomes. The methodology is increasingly applied in pancreatic surgery and the aim of the review was to critically compare available benchmark studies evaluating distal pancreatectomy (DP).

METHODS

A literature search of English articles reporting on benchmarking DP was conducted of the electronic databases MEDLINE and Web of Science (until April 2023). Studies on open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic DP (RDP) were included.

RESULTS

Four retrospective multicenter studies were included. Studies reported on outcomes of minimally invasive DP only (n = 2), ODP and LDP (n = 1), and RDP only (n = 1). Either the Achievable Benchmark of Care™ method or the 75th percentile from the median was selected to define benchmark cutoffs. Robust and reproducible benchmark values were provided by the four studies for intra- and postoperative short-term outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking DP is a valuable tool for obtaining internationally accepted reference outcomes for open and minimally invasive DP approaches with only minor variances in four international cohorts. Benchmark cutoffs allow for outcome comparisons between institutions, surgeons, and to monitor the introduction of novel minimally invasive DP techniques.

Defining Global Benchmarks for Laparoscopic Liver Resections: An International Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To establish global benchmark outcomes indicators after laparoscopic liver resections (L-LR).

BACKGROUND

There is limited published data to date on the best achievable outcomes after L-LR.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 11,983 patients undergoing L-LR in 45 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2020. Three specific procedures: left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), left hepatectomy (LH), and right hepatectomy (RH) were selected to represent the 3 difficulty levels of L-LR. Fifteen outcome indicators were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs.

RESULTS

There were 3519 L-LR (LLS, LH, RH) of which 1258 L-LR (40.6%) cases performed in 34 benchmark expert centers qualified as low-risk benchmark cases. These included 659 LLS (52.4%), 306 LH (24.3%), and 293 RH (23.3%). The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, and 90-day mortality after LLS, LH, and RH were 209.5, 302, and 426 minutes; 2.1%, 13.4%, and 13.0%; 3.2%, 20%, and 47.1%; 0%, 7.1%, and 10.5%; 11.1%, 20%, and 50%; 0%, 7.1%, and 20%; and 0%, 0%, and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study established the first global benchmark outcomes for L-LR in a large-scale international patient cohort. It provides an up-to-date reference regarding the "best achievable" results for L-LR for which centers adopting L-LR can use as a comparison to enable an objective assessment of performance gaps and learning curves.

Benchmarking: a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons in surgery

INTRODUCTION

Benchmarking, a novel measuring tool for outcome comparisons, is a recent concept in surgery. The objectives of this review are to examine the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking and its application in surgery.

METHODS

The literature about benchmarking was reviewed through an ever-narrowing search strategy, commencing from the concept, definition, and evolution of benchmarking to the application of benchmarking and experiences of benchmarking in surgery. PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Science Direct databases were searched until 20 September 2022, in the English language according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

In the first phase of the literature search, the development of benchmarking was identified. The definitions of benchmarking evolved from a surveying term to a novel quality-improvement tool to assess the best achievable results in surgery. In the second phase, a total of 23 studies were identified about benchmarking in surgery, including esophagectomy, hepatic surgery, pancreatic surgery, rectum resection, and bariatric surgery. All studies were multicenter analyses from national, international, or global expert centers. Most studies (87.0%) adopted the definition that benchmark was the 75th percentile of the median values of centers. Performance metrics to define benchmarks were clinically relevant intraoperative and postoperative outcome indicators.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking in surgery is a novel quality-improvement tool to define and measure the best achievable results, establishing a meaningful reference to evaluate surgical performance.

Multiple Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Over the past decades, liver cancer's minimally invasive approach has primarily become as a new standard of oncological care. Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are one of the most developed indications of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). CRLM resection is still the best treatment known in terms of survival. As multiple CRLM are found in up to 80% of cases at diagnosis (Manfredi S. and al, Annals of Surgery 2006), a lot of possible technical management approaches are described. With the development of the parenchymal-sparing strategy, multiple concomitant laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) are gaining acceptance. However, no recommendation is available regarding its indications and feasibility. Also, laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy is developing for bilobar CRLM, and this also does not have established recommendation. The purpose of this paper was to highlight novelty and updates in the field of multiple minimally invasive liver resections. A review of the international literature was performed. The feasibility of laparoscopic concomitant multiple LLR and two-stage hepatectomy for CRLM as well as their outcomes were discussed. These clarifications could further guide the implementation of minimal resection in multiple colorectal liver metastases therapies.

Textbook outcomes and benchmarks of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy across North America

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive approach represents the gold standard for the resection of the left lateral section of the liver. Recently, the American Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (AMILES) registry has become available to track outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic liver resection in the Americas. The aim of the present study is to determine the benchmark performance of MILLS throughout the AMILES database.

METHODS

The AMILES registry was interrogated for cases of minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomies (MILLS). Centers with best practices according to the achievement of textbook outcomes (TOs) were identified and were used to define benchmark performances.

RESULTS

Seven institutions from US and Canada entered 1665 minimally invasive liver resections, encompassing 203 MILLS. Overall, 49% of cases of MILLS satisfied contemporarily all textbook outcomes. While all centers obtained TOs with different rates of success, the outcomes of the top-ranking centers were used for benchmarking. Benchmark performance metrics of MILLS across North America are: conversion rate ≤ 3.7%, blood loss ≤ 200 ml, OR time ≤ 199 min, transfusion rate ≤ 4.5%, complication rate ≤ 7.9%, LOS ≤ 4 days.

CONCLUSION

Benchmark performances of MILLS have been defined on a large multi-institutional database in North America. As more institutions join the collaboration and more prospective cases accrue, benchmark for additional procedures and approaches will be defined.

Resection type is a predictor of postoperative complications in laparoscopic partial liver resection

BACKGROUND

Partial laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a procedure that can have varying levels of surgical difficulty depending on the tumor status and procedure. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the surgical outcomes of partial LLR using a new resection classification system.

METHODS

From January 2009 to May 2021, 156 patients underwent LLR; of them, 87 patients who underwent pure partial LLR were included in this study. They were classified according to the IWATE criteria as the low (n = 56) and intermediate (n = 31) difficulty groups and reclassified according to the resection type as the edge (ER, n = 45), bowl-shaped (BSR, n = 27), and dome-shaped resection (DSR, n = 15) groups. The following surgical outcomes were comparatively analyzed among the groups: intraoperative blood loss, the operation time, and complication rates. Preoperative risk factors for intraoperative blood transfusion and complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the IWATE criteria-based analysis, the intermediate-difficulty group had significantly higher intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.005), operation time (p = 0.005), and Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade-based complication rates (CD grade 2 or higher, p = 0.03) than the low-difficulty group. When analyzing the resection type, the CD grade-based complication rate (p = 0.013) and surgical site infection (SSI, p = 0.005) were significantly higher and the postoperative hospitalization was significantly longer (p = 0.028) in the bowl-shaped resection (BSR) group than in the edge- (ER) and dome-shaped resection (DSR) groups. The tumor size (p = 0.011) and IWATE criteria score (p = 0.006) were independent risk factors for intraoperative blood transfusion in the multivariate analysis. The tumor depth (p = 0.011) and BSR (p = 0.002) were independent risk factors for complications of CD grade 2 or higher in the multivariate analysis. BSR was an independent risk factor for SSI in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

Resection type could predict the rate of postoperative complications, while the IWATE criteria could predict the intraoperative surgical difficulty.

Benchmarking of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy: European multicentre study

Background

Benchmarking is the process to used assess the best achievable results and compare outcomes with that standard. This study aimed to assess best achievable outcomes in minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy with splenectomy (MIDPS).

Methods

This retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing MIDPS for any indication, between 2003 and 2019, in 31 European centres. Benchmarks of the main clinical outcomes were calculated according to the Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC™) method. After identifying independent risk factors for severe morbidity and conversion, risk-adjusted ABCs were calculated for each subgroup of patients at risk.

Results

A total of 1595 patients were included. The ABC was 2.5 per cent for conversion and 8.4 per cent for severe morbidity. ABC values were 160 min for duration of operation time, 8.3 per cent for POPF, 1.8 per cent for reoperation, and 0 per cent for mortality. Multivariable analysis showed that conversion was associated with male sex (OR 1.48), BMI exceeding 30 kg/m2 (OR 2.42), multivisceral resection (OR 3.04), and laparoscopy (OR 2.24). Increased risk of severe morbidity was associated with ASA fitness grade above II (OR 1.60), multivisceral resection (OR 1.88), and robotic approach (OR 1.87).

Conclusion

The benchmark values obtained using the ABC method represent optimal outcomes from best achievable care, including low complication rates and zero mortality. These benchmarks should be used to set standards to improve patient outcomes.

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

BACKGROUND

Benchmark analysis for open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still undefined.

METHODS

Patients were identified from the Italian national registry HE.RC.O.LE.S. The Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) method was employed to identify the benchmarks. The outcomes assessed were the rate of complications, major comorbidities, post-operative ascites (POA), post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality. Benchmarking was stratified for surgical complexity (CP1, CP2 and CP3).

RESULTS

A total of 978 of 2698 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 431 (44.1%) patients were treated with CP1 procedures, 239 (24.4%) with CP2 and 308 (31.5%) with CP3 procedures. Patients submitted to CP1 had a worse underlying liver function, while the tumor burden was more severe in CP3 cases. The ABC for complications (13.1%, 19.2% and 28.1% for CP1, CP2 and CP3 respectively), major complications (7.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%) and 90-day mortality (0%, 3.3%, 3.6%) increased with the surgical difficulty, but not POA (4.4%, 3.3% and 2.6% respectively) and PHLF (0% for all groups).

CONCLUSION

We propose benchmarks for open liver resections in HCC cirrhotic patients, stratified for surgical complexity. The difference between the benchmark values and the results obtained during everyday practice reflects the room for potential growth, with the aim to encourage constant improvement among liver surgeons.

Variations in risk-adjusted outcomes following 4318 laparoscopic liver resections

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Quality measures in surgery are important to establish appropriate levels of care and to develop improvement strategies. The purpose of this study was to provide risk-adjusted outcome measures after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).

METHODS

Data from a prospective, multicenter database involving 4318 patients submitted to LLRs in 41 hospitals from an intention-to-treat approach (2014-2020) were used to analyze heterogeneity (I2 ) among centers and to develop a risk-adjustment model on outcome measures through multivariable mixed-effect models to account for confounding due to case-mix.

RESULTS

Involved hospitals operated on very different patients: the largest heterogeneity was observed for operating in the presence of previous abdominal surgery (I2 :79.1%), in cirrhotic patients (I2 :89.3%) suffering from hepatocellular carcinoma (I2 :88.6%) or requiring associated intestinal resections (I2 :82.8%) and in regard to technical complexity (I2 for the most complex LLRs: 84.1%). These aspects determined substantial or large heterogeneity in overall morbidity (I2 :84.9%), in prolonged in-hospital stay (I2 :86.9%) and in conversion rate (I2 :73.4%). Major complication had medium heterogeneity (I2 :46.5%). The heterogeneity of mortality was null. Risk-adjustment accounted for all of this variability and the final risk-standardized conversion rate was 8.9%, overall morbidity was 22.1%, major morbidity was 5.1% and prolonged in-hospital stay was 26.0%. There were no outliers among the 41 participating centers. An online tool was provided.

CONCLUSIONS

A benchmark for LLRs including all eligible patients was provided, suggesting that surgeons can act accordingly in the interest of the patient, modifying their approach in relation to different indications and different experience, but finally providing the same quality of care.

Validation of the IMM classification in laparoscopic repeat liver resections for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

To validate the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification as a difficulty scoring system applicable to laparoscopic repeat liver resections and identify risk-factors of unexpected difficulty.

METHODS

From a prospectively collected database between 2000 and 2019, patients undergoing laparoscopic repeat liver resections were classified according to the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification. Doubly robust estimators (weighted regressions) were used to assess the effect of factors on intra- and postoperative outcomes and allowed for strong adjustment on age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, carcinoembryonic antigen, number, and size of lesions. Unexpected difficulty was defined as a composite indicator which included substantial blood loss and/or substantial operative time and/or conversion.

RESULTS

Of 205 laparoscopic repeat liver resections patients, 87, 25, and 93 procedures were classified as grade 1, 2, and 3 laparoscopic repeat liver resections, respectively. After doubly robust adjustment, the IMM classification was associated with blood loss (Cohen f² 0.12; P = 0.001), operative time (Cohen f² 0.07; P = .001), and length of stay (Cohen f² 0.13; P = .001), as well as with the risk of both minor and severe complications (odd ratio = 2.94; 95% confidence interval: 2.06-4.20) and the chances of achieving textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.57; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.81). Independently from the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification, a first major hepatectomy (relative risk = 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-1.29) as well as sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (relative risk = 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.41) were independent risk factors of unexpected difficulty. A first major resection was associated with decreased chances of textbook outcome (relative risk = 0.53; 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.85).

CONCLUSION

The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification is a valuable difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic repeat liver resections procedures, while previous major resection and presence of sinusoidal obstruction syndrome are likely to jeopardize the outcomes.

Probability of Postoperative Complication after Liver Resection: Stratification of Patient Factors,Operative Complexity, and Use of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery

BACKGROUND

The current study aimed to assess the performance of the 3-level complexity classification that stratified liver resection procedures into 3 complexity grades (grade I, low; grade II, intermediate; and grade III, high complexity) and to evaluate whether the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol improves postoperative outcomes for each complexity grade.

STUDY DESIGN

Consecutive patients undergoing open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection at Lausanne University Hospital during 2010 to 2020 were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 437 patients were included. Operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay increased significantly, with a stepwise increase of the grades from I to III in open liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection (all, p < 0.05). The same trend for Comprehensive Complication Index was found in open liver resection (p < 0.005). Age (p = 0.004), 3-level complexity classification (grade II vs I; p = 0.001; grade III vs I; p < 0.001), no use of the ERAS protocol (p = 0.016), and biliary reconstruction (p < 0.001) were significant predictors for postoperative complication, defined as Comprehensive Complication Index ≥ 26.2 in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. The prediction model incorporating the 4 factors had a calculated Concordance Index of 0.735 and 0.742 based on the bootstrapping method. The use of ERAS protocol was associated with lower probability of postoperative complication for each complexity grade and age.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ERAS protocol can decrease the probability of postoperative complication for each surgical complexity of liver resection and patient age. This finding emphasized the importance of tailoring perioperative management according to surgical complexity and patient age to improve outcomes after liver resection.

Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive hepatectomy (MIH) has become an important option for the treatment of various liver tumours. A major concern is the learning curve required. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and summarize current literature analysing the learning curve for MIH.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature pertaining to learning curves in MIH to July 2019 was performed using PubMed and Scopus databases. All original full-text articles published in English relating to learning curves for both laparoscopic liver resection (LLR), robotic liver resection (RLR), or a combination of these, were included. To explore quantitatively the learning curve for MIH, a meta-regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Forty studies relating to learning curves in MIH were included. The median overall number of procedures required in studies utilizing cumulative summative (CUSUM) methodology for LLR was 50 (range 25-58) and for RLR was 25 (16-50). After adjustment for year of adoption of MIH, the CUSUM-derived caseload to surmount the learning curve for RLR was 47.1 (95 per cent c.i. 1.2 to 71.6) per cent; P = 0.046) less than that required for LLR. A year-on-year reduction in the number of procedures needed for MIH was observed, commencing at 48.3 cases in 1995 and decreasing to 23.8 cases in 2015.

CONCLUSION

The overall learning curve for MIH decreased steadily over time, and appeared less steep for RLR compared with LLR.

Benchmarking a new tertiary referral center for hepato-biliary surgery through a critical systematic review of available literature

BACKGROUND

Studies reporting benchmark values for surgical procedures should provide instruments for comparison, gap analysis and adoption of corrective measures to improve the outcome.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed to identify articles containing the MESH terms "benchmarking" AND "hepatectomy". An Institutional Review Board-approved database of all hepato-biliary surgical procedures, performed in a new tertiary referral surgical unit was used for benchmarking results with the values reported in the literature.

RESULTS

Five articles were suitable for benchmarking: 3 based benchmark values (BMV) on the 75th percentiles of surgical outcomes among high-volume centers, one study provided BMV on the "Achievable Bench-mark of Care" and one study provided BMV on the 75th percentiles through a Bayesian prediction. When we benchmarked our surgical experience of 320 hepatic resections, we found margins for improvement for open major hepatectomies and for laparoscopic multiple resections/concomitant bowel resections but it was impossible to compare homogeneous sub-groups of patients for most of the procedures due to the lack of high-quality literature data.

CONCLUSION

Benchmarking a surgical experience with the BMV provided in literature was attempted but unfortunately the lack of a standardized way for conducting benchmark analysis did not allow, at present, reliable quality comparison and improvement.

Influence of surgical approach and quality of resection on the probability of cure for early-stage HCC occurring in cirrhosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The quality of surgical care of patients with HCC is associated with improved long-term prognosis and may also be influenced by the type of surgical approach. The present study aimed at evaluating the role of the laparoscopic approach on quality of surgical care and long-term prognosis in optimal HCC surgical candidates.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing open (OLR) or laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for early-stage HCC in cirrhosis (METAVIR F4) at 5 French expert hepato-pancreatico-biliary centres between 2010 and 2018 were enrolled. Quality of surgical care was defined by textbook outcome (TO), a combination of 6 criteria representing ideal hospitalisation. Factors associated with TO were determined on multivariate analysis. Comparison between LLR and OLR was performed after propensity score matching (PSM). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Statistical cure was modelled using a non-mixture model.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 patients were included. Median follow-up was 42.0 months. LLR was performed in 267 (62.8%) patients. TO was achieved in 140 (32.9%) patients. LLR was independently associated with TO (odds ratio [OR] 2.81; 95% CI 1.29-6.12; p = 0.009). After PSM, LLR patients cumulated higher number of TO criteria than OLR patients (5 vs. 4; p = 0.012). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year DFS of LLR patients with and without TO were 82.3%, 64.4%, and 62.5%, and 76.9%, 51.4%, and 30.2%, respectively (p = 0.003). On multivariable Cox regression, TO was independently associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio 0.34; p = 0.001). The cure fraction of the whole population was 24.4%. Patients achieving TO had increased cure fraction than patients not achieving TO (32.6% vs. 18.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Quality of surgical care improves the prognosis of patients with early-stage HCC and is promoted by the laparoscopic approach.

LAY SUMMARY

The overall quality of surgical care, as measured by TO, plays a pivotal role in the prognosis and, in particular, on the probability of statistical cure of patients with resectable early-stage HCC occurring in cirrhosis. By influencing TO, laparoscopy has an indirect impact on the probability of cure and long-term management of these patients. This study strongly supports the promising curative role of mini-invasive treatments for early-stage HCC, such as low-difficulty LLR.

Surgical Resection: Old Dog, Any New Tricks?

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have many treatment options. For patients with surgical indication, consideration of future liver remnant and the surgical complexity of the procedure is essential. A new 3-level complexity classification categorizing 11 liver resection procedures predicts surgical complexity and postoperative morbidity better than reported classifications. Preoperative portal vein embolization can mitigate the risk of hepatic insufficiency. For small HCCs, both liver resection and ablation are effective. New medical treatment options are promising and perioperative use of these drugs may further improve outcomes for patients undergoing liver resection and lead to changes in current treatment guidelines.

Benchmark performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy in expert centers

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Herein, we aimed to establish benchmark values - based on a composite indicator of healthcare quality - for the performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) and laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) using data from expert centers.

METHODS

Data from a nationwide multicenter survey including all patients undergoing LLLS and LRH between 2000 and 2017 were analyzed. Textbook outcome (TO) completion was considered in patients fulfilling all 6 of the following characteristics: negative margins, no transfusion, no complication, no prolonged hospital stay, no readmission and no mortality. For each procedure, a cut-off laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) volume by center was associated with TO on multivariable analysis. These cut-offs defined the expert centers. The benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median outcomes among these expert centers.

RESULTS

Among 4,400 LLRs performed in 29 centers, 855 patients who underwent LLLS and 488 who underwent LRH were identified. The overall incidences of TO after LLLS and LRH were 43.7% and 23.8%, respectively. LLR volume cut-offs of 25 LLR/year (odds ratio [OR] 2.45; bootstrap 95% CI 1.65-3.69; p = 0.001) and 35 LLR/year (OR 2.55; bootstrap 95% CI 1.34-5.63; p = 0.003) were independently associated with completion of TO after LLLS and LRH, respectively. Eight centers for LLLS and 6 centers for LRH, including 516 and 346 patients undergoing LLLS/LRH respectively, reached these cut-offs and were identified as expert centers. After LLLS, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were defined as ≤5.3%, ≤1.2% and ≥46.6%, respectively. After LRH, benchmark values of severe complication, mortality and TO completion were ≤20.4%, ≤2.8% and ≥24.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an up-to-date reference on the benchmark performance of LLLS and LRH in expert centers.

LAY SUMMARY

In a nationwide French survey of laparoscopic liver resection, expert centers were defined according to the completion of a textbook outcome, which is a composite indicator of healthcare quality. Benchmark values regarding intra-operative details and outcomes were established using data from 516 patients with laparoscopic left lateral sectionectiomy and 346 patients with laparoscopic right hepatectomy from expert centers. These values should be used as a reference point to improve the quality of laparoscopic resections.

Anatomic Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Scenario of the Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: To assess the impact of the laparoscopic anatomic resections (LARs) on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, analyzing the pooled short- and long-term outcomes of this technique and comparing it with the standard open approach [open anatomic resections (OAR)]. Material and Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between 2010 and 2020 concerning LAR for HCC. Results: After screening 311 articles, 10 studies with a total of 398 patients who underwent LAR for HCC were included. The pooled cohort included mostly male (76.6%), Child A (98.2%), with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related disease (60.5%). The pooled conversion rate was 7.3%. The pooled overall complication rate was 10.2 with a mortality rate of 1.0%. In the pooled analyses of only comparative studies, LAR group included 378 versus 455 in OAR. Operative time was longer in the LAR group (329 minutes versus 248; P = .001). Blood loss (179 versus 331 mL; P = .018) was lower in the LAR group. The pooled mean length of hospital stay was 8.4 days in LARs and 11.3 in OARs (P = .002). The pooled rate of postoperative complications was higher in the OAR group (25.3 versus 13.8; P = .009), while mortality rates were similar. The LAR group had a pooled 3- and 5-year overall survival of 90.1 and 81.9 versus 83.5 and 80.7 of the OARs (P > .05), respectively. Conclusions: In conclusion, the LAR for HCC is safe and associated with decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Survival rates are comparable with those of the conventional open approach.

ERAS Protocol for Perioperative Care of Patients Treated with Laparoscopic Nonanatomic Liver Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The ISMETT Experience

Background: Liver resection (LR) remains the best therapeutic option for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with preserved hepatic function and who are not eligible for liver transplantation. After its inception, the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol was widely used for treating patients with liver cancer, although there are still no clear indications for improving upon it in both open and laparoscopic surgery. Objective: This study aims to describe our institute's experience in the application of the ERAS protocol in a cohort of HCC patients, and to explore possible factors that could have an impact on postoperative outcomes. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed our experience with LR performed from September 2017 to January 2020 in patients treated with ERAS protocol, focusing on describing impact on postoperative nutrition, analgesic requirements, and length of hospitalization. Demographics, operative factors, and postoperative complications of patients were reviewed. Results: During the study period, 89 HCC patients were eligible for LR, and 75% of patients presented with liver cirrhosis. The most prevalent among etiologic factors was hepatitis C virus infection (53 patients out of 89, 60%), followed by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (18 patients, 20%). The median age was 70 years. Liver cirrhosis did not have an impact on postoperative course of patients. Patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery and nonanatomic LR experienced low complication rates, shorter length of stay, and shorter time of intravenous analgesic requirements. Conclusions: Continual refinement with ERAS protocol for treating HCC patients based on perioperative counseling and surgical decision-making is crucial to guarantee low complication rates, and reduce patient morbidity and time for recovery.