Comparison and validation of three difficulty scoring systems in laparoscopic liver surgery: a retrospective analysis on 300 cases

Sub-classification of laparoscopic left hepatectomy based on hierarchic interaction of tumor location and size with perioperative outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this multicentric study was to investigate the impact of tumor location and size on the difficulty of Laparoscopic-Left Hepatectomy (L-LH).

METHODS

Patients who underwent L-LH performed across 46 centers from 2004 to 2020 were analyzed. Of 1236 L-LH, 770 patients met the study criteria. Baseline clinical and surgical characteristics with a potential impact on LLR were included in a multi-label conditional interference tree. Tumor size cut-off was algorithmically determined.

RESULTS

Patients were stratified into 3 groups based on tumor location and dimension: 457 in antero-lateral location (Group 1), 144 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size ≤40 mm (Group 2), and 169 in postero-superior segment (4a) with tumor size >40 mm (Group 3). Patients in the Group 3 had higher conversion rate (7.0% vs. 7.6% vs. 13.0%, p-value .048), longer operating time (median, 240 min vs. 285 min vs. 286 min, p-value <.001), greater blood loss (median, 150 mL vs. 200 mL vs. 250 mL, p-value <.001) and higher intraoperative blood transfusion rate (5.7% vs. 5.6% vs. 11.3%, p-value .039). Pringle's maneuver was also utilized more frequently in Group 3 (66.7%), compared to Group 1 (53.2%) and Group 2 (51.8%) (p = .006). There were no significant differences in postoperative stay, major morbidity, and mortality between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

L-LH for tumors that are >40 mm in diameter and located in PS Segment 4a are associated with the highest degree of technical difficulty. However, post-operative outcomes were not different from L-LH of smaller tumors located in PS segments, or tumors located in the antero-lateral segments.

Analysis of Clinical Outcomes After Robotic Hepatectomy Applying the Western-Model Southampton Laparoscopic Difficulty Scoring System. An Experience From a Tertiary US Hepatobiliary Center

BACKGROUND

Identification of resections with high risk of intraoperative complications is critical in guiding case selection for minimally invasive liver surgery. Several Japanese and European difficulty scoring systems have been proposed for laparoscopic liver surgery. However, the applicability of these systems for robotic liver resections has not been fully investigated. This study considers the Southampton system and examines its validity when applied to robotic hepatectomies.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of 372 patients who underwent robotic hepatectomies for various indications between 2013 and 2022. Of these patients, 63 operations were classified as low risk, 91 as moderate risk, 198 as high risk and 20 as extremely high risk based on Southampton criteria. Patient outcomes were compared by utilizing an ANOVA of repeated measures. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD).

RESULTS

The Southampton difficulty scoring system was a strong predictor of intraoperative variables including tumor size, operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), and incidence of major vs minor resection (all P < .0001). In contrast, the Southampton system was a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality (P = .15), length of stay (P = .13), and readmissions within 30 days (P = .38).

CONCLUSION

The Southampton difficulty scoring system is a valid system for classifying robotic liver resections and is a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes. However, the system was found to be a weaker predictor of postoperative outcomes. This finding may suggest the need for proposal of a new difficulty scoring system for robotic hepatectomies.

The difficulty grade of laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma correlates with long-term outcomes

The tremendous development of laparoscopic hepatectomy helps to relieve the difficulties encountered during open hepatectomy. Therefore, a difficulty scoring system was produced to assess the difficulty grade of laparoscopic hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to explore whether the IWATE-DSS is comparable to the long-term outcomes of LH for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma at the Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Hangzhou, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of the operations was graded using the IWATE-DSS. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level. A total of 300 patients underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC during the study period. The perioperative and postoperative outcomes were significantly different between the groups according to the IWATE-DSS. There were significant differences in both the intraoperative (bleeding control p = 0.000; surgical time p = 0.000; estimated blood loss p = 0.033) and postoperative variables (postoperative hospital stay p = 0.005) among these four groups. The 5-year disease-free survival decreased significantly along with the LH difficulty score (p = 0.000). The 5-year overall survival also decreased significantly along with the LH difficulty score (p = 0.000). IWATE-DSS was significantly correlated with short- and long-term outcomes in patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy for HCC.

A machine learning analysis of difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver surgery

INTRODUCTION

In the last decade, several difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been proposed to predict technical difficulty in laparoscopic liver resections (LLR). The present study aimed to investigate the ability of four DSS for LLR to predict operative, short-term, and textbook outcomes.

METHODS

Patients who underwent LLR at a single tertiary referral center from January 2014 to June 2020 were included in the present study. Four DSS for LLR (Halls, Hasegawa, Kawaguchi, and Iwate) were investigated to test their ability to predict operative and postoperative complications. Machine learning algorithms were used to identify the most important DSS associated with operative and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 346 patients were included in the analysis, 28 (8.1%) patients were converted to open surgery. A total of 13 patients (3.7%) had severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) complications; the incidence of prolonged length of stay (> 5 days) was 39.3% (n = 136). No patients died within 90 days after the surgery. According to Halls, Hasegawa, Kawaguchi, and Iwate scores, 65 (18.8%), 59 (17.1%), 57 (16.5%), and 112 (32.4%) patients underwent high difficulty LLR, respectively. In accordance with a random forest algorithm, the Kawaguchi DSS predicted prolonged length of stay, high blood loss, and conversions and was the best performing DSS in predicting postoperative outcomes. Iwate DSS was the most important variable associated with operative time, while Halls score was the most important DSS predicting textbook outcomes. No one of the DSS investigated was associated with the occurrence of complication.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our results DDS are significantly related to surgical complexity and short-term outcomes, Kawaguchi and Iwate DSS showed the best performance in predicting operative outcomes, while Halls score was the most important variable in predicting textbook outcome. Interestingly, none of the DSS showed any correlation with or importance in predicting overall and severe postoperative complications.

Factors Influencing the Difficulty and Need for External Help during Laparoscopic Appendectomy: Analysis of 485 Procedures from the Resident-1 Multicentre Trial

Purpose: To identify preoperative predictive factors for technically challenging laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and the need for external help to laparoscopically complete the procedure. Methods: We analysed data from a two-year data lock on the Resident-1 multicentre registry. The operator classified each procedure following a five-grade Likert scale to define technical difficulty. We performed univariate analysis comparing Grade 1−3 versus 4−5 procedures and then built a logistic regression model to identify independent predictors of Grade 4−5 procedures defined as needing external help to complete a LA. Results: 561 patients were recruited from 2019 to 2021, and 485 patients were included in the final analysis due to missing data. A BMI > 30 kg/m2, preoperative CT scan, and the AIR score were independent preoperative predictors of complex LA with the need for external help to be completed. Patients undergoing such procedures were more affected by CA, had longer operative times, and had the worst postoperative outcomes. Conclusion: The preoperative identification of technically demanding LA could be helpful in optimising the preoperative planning, maximise surgeons’ preparedness, and include expert surgeons in the procedure earlier. Creating a scoring system for the technical difficulty of LA is desirable.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection and Risk Factors for Adverse Events

PURPOSE

The perioperative outcomes and risk factors associated with adverse events (AEs) after initial laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are unclear. We studied the outcomes of LLR and identified the predictive factors for AEs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from 100 adults who underwent LLR between April 2014 and February 2020 were reviewed. Baseline characteristics, surgery details, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were tabulated. The AEs included conversion to open surgery, morbidity, and mortality.

RESULTS

Major and minor LLRs accounted for 16% and 84% of cases, respectively. Of the indications for LLR, 88% were malignancies. Conversion to open surgery was necessary for 7% of the patients, the overall morbidity rate was 21%, the major morbidity rate was 7%, and the 90-day mortality rate was 1%. Although the incidence of AEs was higher after major LLR (37.5%) than after minor LLR (21.4%), the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.095); the rate of AEs in the resection of posterosuperior segments (43.7%) did not significantly differ from that of the anteroinferior segments (19.2%; P=0.095). Multivariable analysis revealed that the significant predictors of AEs included American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III (odds ratio, 5.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.74-19.1; P=0.003) and an operative time longer than 5 hours (odds ratio, 9.20; 95% confidence interval, 2.41-35.07; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

To improve outcomes in LLR, patients with ASA class III and those in whom surgery is expected to last longer than 5 hours should be taken into account for better patient selection.

External validation of different difficulty scoring systems of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Several difficulty scoring systems (DSSs) have been proposed for evaluating difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and no study has validated their performance in a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-only cohort at the same time.

METHODS

All cases with HCC that underwent LLR from January 2015 to December 2020 in our center were retrospectively collected. Performance of the IWATE-DSS, Halls-DSS, Hasegawa-DSS, and Kawaguchi-DSS in predicting perioperative outcomes was evaluated. Subgroup analyses were conducted to compare perioperative outcomes between surgeons on the learning curve and surgeons that have gone through the learning curve.

RESULTS

For all four DSSs, there were significant distributions of applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay among different groups of each DSS (P all < 0.05). Conversion to laparotomy or not was significantly distributed in different groups of the IWATE-DSS (P = 0.006) and Halls-DSS (P = 0.022), while it was not in the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.056) and Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.183). Trend tests showed that the conversion rates increased with higher DSS points in the IWATE-DSS (P < 0.001) and the Kawaguchi-DSS (P = 0.021), while not in the Halls-DSS (P = 0.064) and the Hasegawa-DSS (P = 0.068). In the medium and advanced/expert difficulty-level subgroups defined by the IWATE-DSS, there were larger estimated blood loss (P in medium-difficulty group = 0.009; P in the advanced/expert difficulty group = 0.004) and longer postoperative hospital stay (P in the medium-difficulty group = 0.012; P in the advanced/expert group = 0.035) in the learner-performed cases.

CONCLUSIONS

All DSSs performed well in predicting applying bleeding control, surgical time, estimated blood loss, postoperative major complications, and postoperative hospital stay, while only the IWATE-DSS was able to predict whether conversion to laparotomy or not for HCC patients underwent LLR. The IWATE-DSS was also able to help surgeons on the LLR learning curve choose cases and guide clinical practices.

First 100 minimally invasive liver resections in a new tertiary referral centre for liver surgery

Background

In the last decades, there has been an exponential diffusion of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate our initial experience of 100 patients undergoing MILS resection comparing their outcomes with the standard open procedures.

Materials and Methods

One hundred consecutive MILS from 2016 to 2019 were included. Clinicopathological data were reviewed to evaluate outcomes. Standard open resections were used as the control group and compared exploiting propensity score matching.

Results

In total, 290 patients were included. The rate of MILS has been constantly increasing throughout years, representing the 48% in 2019. Of 100 (34.5%) MILS patients, 85 could be matched. After matching, the MILS conversion rate was 5.8% (n = 5). The post-operative complication rates were higher in the open group (45.9% vs. 31.8%, P = 0.004). Post-operative blood transfusions were less common in the MILS group (4.7% vs. 16.5%, P = 0.021). Biliary leak occurred in 2 (2.4) MILS versus 13 (15.3) open. The median comprehensive complication index was higher in the open group (8.7 [0-28.6] vs. 0 [0-10.4], P = 0.0009). The post-operative length of hospital stay was shorter after MILS (median 6 [5-8] vs 8 [7-13] days, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

The rate of MILS has been significantly increasing throughout the years. The benefits of MILS over the traditional open approach were confirmed. The main advantages include lower rates of post-operative complications, blood transfusions, bile leaks and a significantly decreased hospital stay.

Comparison of robotic and laparoscopic liver resection in ordinary cases of left lateral sectionectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopy was considered the standard method of left lateral sectionectomy. The robotic approach showed advantages in complex cases of left lateral sectionectomy. However, the impact of the robotic system on ordinary cases is still unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive robotic left lateral sectionectomy (R-LLS) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L-LLS) from January 2015 to December 2019. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the effects of surgical method and surgical complexity on postoperative length of stay, surgical and overall cost.

RESULTS

258 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive left lateral sectionectomy were analyzed. L-LLS had comparable outcomes and decreased surgery (USD 2416.3 vs 4624.5; p < 0.001) and overall costs (USD 8004.5 vs 11897.1; p < 0.001) compared with R-LLS in the ordinary-case group, whereas R-LLS was associated with shorter postoperative LOS (5.0 vs 3.5 days; p = 0.004) in the complex-case group. On multivariable analysis, R-LLS was predictive of shorter postoperative LOS [odds ratio (OR) 0.388, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.198-0.760, p = 0.006], whereas R-LLS was predictive of higher surgery (OR 65.640, 95% CI 17.406-247.535, p < 0.001) and overall costs (OR 102.233, 95% CI 22.241-469.931, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of this study showed no clinical benefit to the R-LLS compared with L-LLS in ordinary cases. R-LLS had potential advantages in selected complex cases.

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.

Validation of the IWATE criteria as a laparoscopic liver resection difficulty score in a single North American cohort

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) involves a difficult learning curve, for which multiple difficulty scores have been proposed to assist with safe adaptation. The IWATE Criteria is a 4-level difficulty score shown to correlate with conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time in Japanese and French cohorts. We set out to validate the IWATE Criteria in a North American cohort, describe the evolution of our LLR program, and analyze the IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery.

METHODS

Patients that underwent LLR between January 2006 and December 2019 were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Difficulty outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, EBL, operative time, and post-operative complications were analyzed according to IWATE difficulty level, both overall and between chronological eras. The IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 426 patients met inclusion criteria. Operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery increased in concordance with low to advanced IWATE difficulty. ROC analysis for conversion to open surgery demonstrated an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.694. Predictive performance was superior during the first two eras, with AUCs of 0.771 and 0.775; predictive value decreased as the LLR program gained experience, with AUCs of 0.708 and 0.551 for eras three and four.

CONCLUSIONS

This study validated the IWATE Criteria in a North American population distinct from previous Japanese and French cohorts, based on its correlation with operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery. The IWATE Criteria may be of utility for identification of LLR cases appropriate for surgeon experience, as well as determination of laparoscopic feasibility. Interval difficulty score recalibration may be warranted as surgeon perception of difficulty evolves.

Validation and comparison of the Iwate, IMM, Southampton and Hasegawa difficulty scoring systems for primary laparoscopic hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Various difficulty scoring systems (DSS) have been formulated to grade the complexity of laparoscopic hepatectomies (LH). This study aims to externally validate and compare 4 contemporary DSS including the Iwate, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), Southampton and Hasegawa DSS in predicting the intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes after LH.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 548 consecutive patients who underwent LH of which 455 met the study inclusion criteria. Outcomes measures of technical difficulty included operation time, Pringles maneuver, blood loss and blood transfusion rate. Postoperative outcomes measured included morbidity, major morbidity and postoperative hospital stay.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant progressive increase in blood loss, blood transfusion rate, operation time and postoperative stay associated with all 4 DSS. There was also good calibration with respect to blood loss, operation time, Pringles maneuver, open conversion rate, postoperative morbidity, postoperative major morbidity and postoperative stay for all 4 DSS. The Southampton score demonstrated the poorest calibration in terms of operation time and discrimination in terms of application of Pringles maneuver and major morbidity amongst all 4 systems.

CONCLUSION

All 4 DSS significantly correlated with outcome measures associated with intraoperative technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes. The Southampton DSS was the poorest system in our cohort of patients.

Factors that make Bariatric Surgery Technically Challenging: A Survey of 370 Bariatric Surgeons

BACKGROUND

There is no published data on the factors bariatric surgeons think make bariatric surgery challenging. This study aimed to identify factors that bariatric surgeons feel and increase the technical complexity of bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Bariatric surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in a questionnaire-based survey on Survey Monkey®. An Average Weighted Score was calculated for each factor. A score of < 1.0 meant that the factor was perceived to make surgery technically easier.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 59 countries completed the survey. The top 10 factors that our respondents felt were most important for determining the technical difficulty of a procedure were inappropriate trocar placement (AWS 3.44), BMI above 60 (AWS 3.41), open bariatric surgery (AWS 3.26), less experienced bariatric anesthetist (AWS 3.18), liver cirrhosis (AWS 3), large liver (AWS 2.99), less experienced bariatric assistant (AWS 2.97), lower surgeon total bariatric surgery volume (AWS 2.95), lower surgeon specific procedure volume (AWS 2.85) and previous laparotomy (AWS 2.83), respectively. Respondents also felt that the younger patients (AWS 0.78), dedicated operating team (AWS 0.67), BMI less than 35 (AWS 0.54), and French position (AWS 0.45) actually make the surgery easier.

CONCLUSION

This survey is the first attempt to understand the factors which make bariatric surgery more difficult. Knowing the factors made the operation more challenging, led to better scheduling the potentially difficult patients to reduce the complications.

Robotic and laparoscopic liver resection-comparative experiences at a high-volume German academic center

Purpose

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany.

Methods

The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters.

Results

We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53).

Conclusion

Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.

Robotic Resection of Postero-Superior Liver Segments (7,8) (with Video)

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases. Parenchyma-sparing technique should always be attemptedto prevent postoperative liver failure and increase the opportunity to perform repeated resections in cases of recurrent malignancy. Postero-superior liverresection is defined as the anatomical removal of liver segments 7 and 8, however, minimally invasive resection of postero-superior liver segments isconsidered a difficult and complex operation and thus is rarely reported.

METHODS

We present the video of a robotic postero-superior liver resection in a 54-year-old male patient with a synchronous, single, and large colorectal metastasis in the postero-superior liver sector. The Da Vinci Xi system was used. The right liver was mobilized with exposure of the inferior vena cava (IVC), following by intraoperative ultrasound, used to locate the tumor and establish its relationship to the right hepatic vein and portal pedicles fromsegments 7 and 8. A thick hepatic vein draining directly to the IVC was controlled with hem-o-lock and the right hepatic vein was divided using anendoscopic stapler. The surgical specimen was removed through a supra-pubic incision.

RESULTS

Operative time was 205 minutes, and the estimated blood loss was 310 mL. The patient's recovery was uneventful with no need for admission tothe intensive care unit or for blood transfusion. Pathology confirmed colorectal metastasis with free surgical margins.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic resection of postero-superior liver segments is feasible and safe and may have some advantages over laparoscopic and openapproaches. This video may help gastrointestinal surgeons perform this complex procedure.

Surgical outcomes of 118 complex laparoscopic liver resections: a single- center experience

BACKGROUND

Indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are continuously expanding. The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery defines highly difficult hepatectomy as a procedure involving one or more sections (except for left lateral sectionectomy) or anatomical segmentectomy. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of complex LLR procedures and compare their technical difficulties, about which only a little is known to date.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of the operative outcomes of 118 consecutive patients who underwent pure laparoscopic complex hepatectomy. The surgical outcomes, including operative times, blood loss amounts, and postoperative morbidity rates, were compared among complex LLR procedures.

RESULTS

The overall median operative time was 280 minutes, and the median intraoperative blood loss was 86 mL. Two patients required conversion to open laparotomy (1.7%). The postoperative major morbidity rate was 11.0% Posterosuperior segmentectomy, right hemihepatectomy, and anterior sectionectomy required the longest operative times. Anterior and posterior sectionectomy resulted in the highest blood loss, and right hemihepatectomy and anterior sectionectomy resulted in the most complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical difficulties associated with complex LLR procedures vary. It is critical to recognize the specific risks and cautionary points to ensure patient safety and provide proper systemic training to surgeons.

Impact of anthropometric data on technical difficulty of laparoscopic liver of resections of segments 7 and 8: the CHALLENGE index

BACKGROUND

The high technical difficulty of using a laparoscopic approach to reach the posterosuperior liver segments is mainly associated with their poor accessibility. This study was performed to analyze correlations between anthropometric data and intraoperative outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients who underwent segmentectomy or wedge laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of segments seven and/or eight from June 2012 to November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The exclusion criteria were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, associated resection, multiple concomitant LLR, redo resection, and lack of preoperative imaging. Anthropometric data were correlated with intraoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients (wedge resection, n = 32; segmentectomy, n = 9) were analyzed. A strong correlation was found between the craniocaudal liver diameter (CCliv) and liver volume (r = 0.655, p < 0.001). The anteroposterior liver diameter was moderately correlated with both the laterolateral abdominal diameter (LLabd) (r = 0.372, p = 0.008) and anteroposterior abdominal diameter (r = 0.371, p = 0.008). The body mass index (BMI) was not correlated with liver diameters. Women had a longer CCliv (p = 0.002) and shorter LLabd (p < 0.001) than men. The liver and abdominal measurements were combined to reduce this sex-related disparity. The CCliv/LLabd ratio (CHALLENGE index) was significantly correlated with the time of transection (r = 0.382, p = 0.037) and blood loss (r = 0.352, p = 0.029). The association between the CHALLENGE index and intraoperative blood loss was even stronger when considering only anatomical resection (r = 0.577, p = 0.048). A CHALLENGE index of > 0.4 (area under the curve, 0.757; p = 0.046) indicated a higher bleeding risk. The BMI predicted no intraoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Anthropometric data rather than the BMI can help anticipate the difficulty of LLR of segments seven and eight.

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.