Outcomes of parenchyma-preserving hepatectomy and right hepatectomy for solitary small colorectal liver metastasis: A LiverMetSurvey study

Laparoscopic versus open parenchymal sparing liver resections for high tumour burden colorectal liver metastases: a propensity score matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has proved effective in the treatment of oligometastatic disease (1 or 2 colorectal liver metastases CRLM) with similar long-term outcomes and improved short-term results compared to open liver resection (OLR). Feasibility of parenchymal sparing LLR for high tumour burden diseases is largely unknown. Aim of the study was to compare short and long-term results of LLR and OLR in patients with ≥ 3 CRLM.

METHODS

Patients who underwent first LR of at least two different segments for ≥ 3 CRLM between 01/2012 and 12/2021 were analysed. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1:1 matching was based on relevant prognostic factors.

RESULTS

277 out of 673 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria (47 LLR and 230 OLR). After match two balanced groups of 47 patients with a similar mean number of CRLM (5 in LLR vs 6.5 in OLR, p = 0.170) were analysed. The rate of major hepatectomy was similar between the two group (10.6% OLR vs. 12.8% LLR). Mortality (2.1% OLR vs 0 LLR) and overall morbidity rates (34% OLR vs 23.4% LLR) were comparable. Length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the LLR group (5 vs 9 days, p = 0.001). No differences were observed in median overall (41.1 months OLR vs median not reached LLR) and disease-free survival (18.3 OLR vs 27.9 months LLR).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic approach should be considered in selected patients scheduled to parenchymal sparing LR for high tumour burden disease as associated to shorter LOS and similar postoperative and long-term outcomes compared to the open approach.

Volumetric Remodeling of the Left Liver After Right Hepatectomy: Analysis of Factors Predicting Degree of Hypertrophy and Post-hepatectomy Liver Failure

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the volumetric remodeling of the left liver after right hepatectomy looking for factors predicting the degree of hypertrophy and severe post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).

METHODS

In a cohort of 121 right hepatectomies, we performed CT volumetrics study of the future left liver remnant (FLR) preoperatively and postoperatively. Factors influencing FLR degree of hypertrophy and severe PHLF were identified by multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

After right hepatectomy, the mean degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate of the left liver remnant were 25% and 3%/day respectively. The mean liver volume recovery rate was 77%. Liver remodeling volume was distributed for 79% on segments 2 and 3 and 21% on the segment 4 (p<0.001). Women showed a greater hypertrophy of segments 2 and 3 compared with men (p=0.002). The degree of hypertrophy of segment 4 was lower in case of middle hepatic vein resection (p=0.004). Left liver remnant kinetic growth rate was associated with the standardized future liver remnant (sFLR) (p<0.001) and a two-stage hepatectomy (p=0.023). Severe PHLF were predicted by intraoperative transfusion (p=0.009), biliary tumors (p=0.013), and male gender (p=0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Volumetric remodeling of the left liver after right hepatectomy is not uniform and is mainly influenced by gender and sacrifice of middle hepatic vein. Male gender, intraoperative transfusion, and biliary tumors increase the risk of postoperative liver failure after right hepatectomy.

The impact of recurrence timing and tumor burden score on overall survival among patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 15% of patients experience a resectable intrahepatic recurrence after an index curative-intent hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). We sought to investigate the impact of recurrence timing and tumor burden score (TBS) at the time of recurrence on overall survival among patients undergoing repeat hepatectomy.

METHODS

Patients with CRLM who experienced recurrent intrahepatic disease after initial hepatectomy between 2000 and 2020 were identified from an international multi-institutional database. The impact of time-TBS, defined as TBS divided by the time interval of recurrence, was assessed relative to overall survival.

RESULTS

Among 220 patients, the median age was 60.9 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 53.0-69.0), and 144 (65.5%) patients were male. Most patients experienced multiple recurrences (n = 120, 54.5%) within 12 months after the initial hepatectomy (n = 139, 63.2%). The median tumor size of the recurrent CRLM was 2.2 cm (IQR: 1.5-3.0 cm) with a median TBS of 3.5 (2.3-4.9) at the time of recurrence. Overall, 121 (55.0%) patients underwent repeat hepatectomy, whereas 99 (45.0%) individuals were treated with systemic chemotherapy or other nonsurgical treatments; repeat hepatectomy was associated with better postrecurrence survival (PRS) (p < 0.001). Three-year PRS incrementally worsened (low time-TBS: 71.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 57.9-88.8 vs. medium: 63.6%, 95% CI, 47.7-84.8 vs. high: 49.2%, 95% CI, 31.1-77.7, p = 0.02) as time-TBS values increased. Each unit increase in time-TBS score was independently associated with a 41% higher possibility of death (hazard ratio: 1.41; 95% CI, 1.04-1.90, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Time-TBS was associated with long-term outcomes after repeat hepatectomy for recurrent CRLM. Time-TBS may be an easy tool to help select patients who may benefit the most from repeat hepatic resection of recurrent CRLM.

Clinical outcomes of parenchymal-sparing versus anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The advantages of parenchymal-sparing resection (PSR) over anatomic resection (AR) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) remain controversial. Here, we aim to evaluate their safety and efficacy.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term perioperative outcomes and long-term oncological outcomes for PSR and AR were performed by searching Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were considered eligible (totally 7228 patients: AR, n = 3154 (43.6%) vs. PSR, n = 4074 (56.4%)). Overall survival (OS, HR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22, P = 0.245) and disease-free survival (DFS, HR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.94-1.28, P = 0.259) were comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences in 3-year OS, 5-year OS, 3-year DFS, 5-year DFS, 3-year liver recurrence-free survival (liver-RFS) and 5-year liver-RFS. In terms of perioperative outcome, patients undergoing AR surgery were associated with prolonged operation time (WMD = 51.48 min, 95% CI: 29.03-73.93, P < 0.001), higher amount of blood loss (WMD = 189.92 ml, 95% CI: 21.39-358.45, P = 0.027), increased intraoperative blood transfusion rate (RR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.54-3.26, P < 0.001), prolonged hospital stay (WMD = 1.00 day, 95% CI: 0.34-1.67, P = 0.003), postoperative complications (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.88-2.77, P < 0.001), and 90-day mortality (RR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.88-5.03, P < 0.001). While PSR surgery was associated with positive resection margins (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.61-0.97, P = 0.024), intrahepatic recurrence (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.82-0.98, P = 0.021) and repeat hepatectomy (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.76, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Considering relatively acceptable heterogeneity, PSR had better perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological long-term outcomes. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted, requiring more supporting evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023445332.

Imaging Features of Main Hepatic Resections: The Radiologist Challenging

Liver resection is still the most effective treatment of primary liver malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), and of metastatic disease, such as colorectal liver metastases. The type of liver resection (anatomic versus non anatomic resection) depends on different features, mainly on the type of malignancy (primary liver neoplasm versus metastatic lesion), size of tumor, its relation with blood and biliary vessels, and the volume of future liver remnant (FLT). Imaging plays a critical role in postoperative assessment, offering the possibility to recognize normal postoperative findings and potential complications. Ultrasonography (US) is the first-line diagnostic tool to use in post-surgical phase. However, computed tomography (CT), due to its comprehensive assessment, allows for a more accurate evaluation and more normal findings than the possible postoperative complications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and/or hepatospecific contrast agents remains the best tool for bile duct injuries diagnosis and for ischemic cholangitis evaluation. Consequently, radiologists should be familiar with the surgical approaches for a better comprehension of normal postoperative findings and of postoperative complications.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Parenchymsparende Operationen oder anatomische Resektionen bei Lebermetastasen des kolorektalen Karzinoms?

Darmkrebs ist eine der häufigsten Todesursachen in der westlichen Welt. Die Hälfte der Patienten entwickelt kolorektale Lebermetastasen (CRLM), dabei weisen weniger als 30% der Patienten zum Zeitpunkt der Diagnose eine chirurgisch resektable Metastasierung auf. Im Falle einer Resektabilität bietet die klassische anatomische (Major-)Hepatektomie eine hohe R0-Resektionsrate, allerdings bei gleichzeitig erhöhter Morbidität und Mortalität. In den letzten 2 Jahrzehnten wurden die potenziellen Vorteile der parenchymsparenden Hepatektomie (PSH) in Bezug auf die onkologischen Gesamtergebnisse, das Überleben und die Re-Resektion im Falle eines Rezidivs („Salvageability“) nachgewiesen. Der Beitrag fasst die aktuellen Erkenntnisse zur PSH als chirurgische Therapieoption zusammen und diskutiert den aktuellen „state of the art“ in verschiedenen Szenarien.

Upper transversal hepatectomy with double hepatic vein resection and reconstruction to treat colorectal cancer liver metastases at the hepatocaval confluence: a strategy to achieve R0 liver-sparing resection

BACKGROUND

Repeated hepatectomies in the therapeutic route of patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) may improve their long term survival. Hepatic vein (HV) resection and reconstruction allows parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) and R0 resections for CRLM in contact with one HV. We aimed at verifying the feasibility of PSH with double HV resection and direct reconstruction for CRLM in contact with two HVs at the hepatocaval confluence.

METHODS

Out of 106 consecutive PSH performed for CRLM deep-located in segments I-IVa-VII-VIII, four (3.7%) PSH were performed with resection of CRLM en bloc with two adjacent HVs which were both reconstructed with double direct HV anastomosis: 3 cases between right-HV and middle-HV and 1 case between middle-HV and left-HV. Two patients had previously undergone liver resection. Three patients had one single lesion and one had 5 CRLMs.

RESULTS

Median size of CRLMs in contact with HVs was 25 mm (range 22-30 mm). At histological examination, all resections were R0 except one R1-vascular (detachment from glissonean pedicle): in all cases at least one HV and in 1 case both HVs were infiltrated by the tumor cells. After median follow-up of 18 (range 3.5-41.2) months, all HVs were patent. All patients were alive and in good general conditions, and 3 patients were disease free (one of them following a liver re-resection). One patient experienced a grade IIIa complication. Median hospital-stay was 11 (range 9-13) days.

CONCLUSION

In patients with CRLMs involving two adjacent HVs at the hepatocaval confluence, liver resection with double HV resection and direct reconstruction is feasible and may be considered to guarantee oncological radicality (R0) and spare health parenchyma.

Technique of vessel-skeletonized parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for the oncological treatment of bilobar colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

To aid in the oncological management of multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs), we describe a new surgical procedure, VEssel-Skeletonized PArenchyma-sparing Hepatectomy (VESPAH).

STUDY DESIGN

Of 152 patients with CRLMs treated with hepatectomy, 33 patients had multiple bilobar liver metastases (≥8 liver metastases); their surgical procedures and clinical outcomes were retrospectively summarized and compared between those who underwent VESPAH and those who underwent major hepatectomy (Major Hx).

RESULTS

Of the 33 patients, 20 patients were resected by VESPAH (the VESPAH group) and 13 patients by major hepatectomy (Major Hx group). The median number of CRLMs was 13 (range, 8-53) in the VESPAH group and 10 (range, 8-41) in the Major Hx group (P=0.511). No operative mortality nor severe morbidity was observed in either group. The VESPAH group showed earlier recovery of remnant liver function after surgery than the Major Hx group; the incidence of grade B/C post hepatectomy liver failure was 5% in the VESPAH group and 38% in the Major Hx group, P=0.048). Intrahepatic tumor recurrence was confirmed in 14 (70%) and 7 (54%) patients in the VESPAH and Major Hx groups, respectively (P=0.416). There was no significant difference in median overall survival (OS) after hepatectomy between the two groups; the median OS was 47 months in the VESPAH group and 33 months in the Major Hx group (P=0.481). The VESPAH group showed the higher induction rate of adjuvant chemotherapy within 2 months after surgery (P=0.002) and total number of repeat hepatectomy for intrahepatic recurrence (P=0.060) than the Major Hx group.

CONCLUSIONS

VESPAH enables us to clear surgical navigation by hepatic vessel skeletonization and may enhance patient tolerability of not only adjuvant chemotherapy but also repeat hepatectomies during the patients' lifetimes.

Recurrence after Curative Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: How to Predict the Chance of Repeat Hepatectomy?

(1) Background: Tumor recurrence after liver resection (LR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is common. Repeat liver resection (RLR) for recurrent ICC results in good survival outcomes in selected patients. The aim of this study was to investigate factors affecting the chance of resectability of recurrent ICC. (2) Methods: LR for ICC performed between January 2001 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had undergone first LR were considered for the study. Data on recurrences were analyzed. A logistic regression model was used for multivariable analysis of factors related to RLR rate. (3) Results: In total, 140 patients underwent LR for ICC. Major/extended hepatectomies were required in 105 (75%) cases. The 90-day mortality was 5.7%, Clavien–Dindo grade 3, 4 complications were 9.3%, N+ disease was observed in 32.5%, and the median OS was 38.3 months. Recurrence occurred in 91 patients (65%). The site of relapse was the liver in 53 patients (58.2%). RLR was performed in 21 (39.6%) patients. Factors that negatively affected RLR were time to recurrence ≤12 months (OR 7.4, 95% CI 1.68–33.16, p = 0.008) and major hepatectomy (OR 16.7, 95% CI 3.8–73.78, p < 0.001) at first treatment. Survival after recurrence was better in patients who underwent RLR as compared with not resected patients (31 vs. 13.2 months, p = 0.02). (4) Conclusions: Patients with ICC treated at first resection with major hepatectomy and those who recurred in ≤12 months had significantly lower probability to receive a second resection for recurrence.

Is percutaneous destruction of a solitary liver colorectal metastasis as effective as a resection?

Backgrounds/Aims

Surgical resection remains the gold standard in the treatment of colorectal liver metastasis. However, when a patient presents with a deep solitary colorectal liver metastasis (S-CLM), the balance between the hepatic volume sacrificed and the S-CLM volume is sometimes clearly unappropriated. Thus, alternatives to surgery, such as operative and percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), have been developed. This study aimed to identify the prognostic factors affecting survival of patients with S-CLM who undergo curative-intent liver resection or local destruction (RFA or MWA).

Methods

We retrospectively identified 211 patients with synchronous or metachronous S-CLM who underwent either surgical resection (n=182) or local destruction (RFA or MWA; n=29) according to the S-CLM size, location, and surrounding Glissonian structures.

Results

Patients who underwent RFA or MWA had S-CLM of a smaller size than those who underwent resection (mean 19.7 vs. 37.3 mm, p<.01). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 97.4%, 84.9%, and 74.9%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 77.9%, 47%, and 38.9%, respectively. S-CLM located in the left liver (p=.04), S-CLM KRAS mutation (p<.01), and extra-hepatic recurrence (p<.01) were identified as independent poor risk factors for overall survival (OS); the OS and DFS were comparable in patients with surgical procedure or percutaneous MWA.

Conclusions

In eligible S-CLM cases, percutaneous MWA seems to be as oncologically efficient as surgical resection and should be include in the decision-tree for treatment strategies.

Feasibility and outcomes of multiple simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons often remain reluctant to consider laparoscopic approach in multiple liver tumors. This study assessed feasibility and short-term results of patients who had more than 3 simultaneous laparoscopic liver resections (LLR).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent LLR for primary or secondary malignancies between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. After exclusion of major LLR, patients were divided into three groups: less than three (Group A), between three and five (Group B), and more than five resections (Group C) in the same procedure. Intraoperative details, postoperative outcomes, and textbook outcome (TO) were compared in the 3 groups.

RESULTS

During study period, 463 patients underwent minor LLR. Among them, 412 (88.9%) had less than 3 resections, 38 (8.2%) between 3 and 5 resections, and 13 (2.8%) more than 5 resections. Despite a difficulty score according to IMM classification comparable in the 3 groups (with high difficulty grade 3 procedures of 16.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 23.1% in Group A, B, and C, respectively, p = 0.124), mean operative time was significantly longer in Group C (p = 0.039). Blood loss amount (p = 0.396) and conversion rate (p = 0.888) were similar in the 3 groups. Rate of R1 margins was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.078). Achievement of TO was not different between groups (p = 0.741). In multivariate analysis, non-achievement of TO was associated with difficulty according to IMM classification (OR = 2.29 (1.33-3.98)).

CONCLUSION

Since intra- and post-operative outcomes and quality of resection are comparable, multiple liver resections should not preclude the laparoscopic approach.

One-stage laparoscopic parenchymal sparing liver resection for bilobar colorectal liver metastases: safety, recurrence patterns and oncologic outcomes

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are challenging and the safety and long-term outcomes are unclear. In this study, the short- and long-term outcomes and recurrence patterns of one-stage LLR for bilobar CRLM were compared to single laparoscopic resection for CRLM.

METHODS

This single-center study consisted of all patients who underwent a parenchymal sparing LLR for CRLM between October 2011 and December 2018. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, short-term outcomes, oncologic outcomes and recurrence patterns were compared. Data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database.

RESULTS

Thirty six patients underwent a LLR for bilobar CRLM and ninety patients underwent a single LLR. Demographics were similar among groups. More patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the bilobar group (55.6% vs 34.4%, P = 0.03). There was no difference in conversion rate, R0 resection and transfusion rate. Blood loss and operative time were higher in the bilobar group (250 ml (IQR 150-450) vs 100 ml (IQR 50-250), P < 0.001 and 200 min (IQR 170-230) vs 130 min (IQR 100-165), P < 0.001) and hospital stay was longer (5 days (IQR 4-7) vs 4 days (IQR 3-6), P = 0.015). The bilobar group had more technically major resections (88.9% vs 56.7%, P < 0.001). Mortality was nil in both groups and major morbidity was similar (2.8% vs 3.3%, P = 1.0). There was no difference in recurrence pattern. Overall survival (OS) was similar (1 yr: 96% in both groups and 5 yr 76% vs 66%, P = 0.49), as was recurrence-free survival (RFS) (1 yr: 64% vs 73%, 3 yr: 38 vs 42%, 5 yr: 38% vs 28%, P = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

In experienced hands, LLR for bilobar CRLM can be performed safely with similar oncologic outcomes as patients who underwent a single LLR for CRLM.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of liver metastases from extrahepatic primary cancers 2021

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.

METHODS

Eight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two. A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher-quality evidence.

Influence of diabetes on short-term outcome after major hepatectomy: an underestimated risk?

BACKGROUND

Patient-related risk factors such as diabetes mellitus and obesity are increasing in western countries. At the same time the indications for liver resection in both benign and malignant diseases have been significantly extended in recent years. Major liver resection is performed more frequently in a patient population of old age, comorbidity and high rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether diabetes mellitus, obesity and overweight are risk factors for the short-term post-operative outcome after major liver resection.

METHODS

Four hundred seventeen major liver resections (≥ 3 segments) were selected from a prospective database. Exclusion criteria were prior liver resection in patient's history and synchronous major intra-abdominal procedures. Overweight was defined as BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and < 30 kg/m2 and obesity as BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2. Primary end point was 90-day mortality and logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. Secondary end points included morbidity, complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification, unplanned readmission, bile leakage, and liver failure. Morbidity was defined as occurrence of a post-operative complication during hospital stay or within 90 days postoperatively.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients had diabetes mellitus (14.1%), 48 were obese (11.6%) and 147 were overweight (35.5%). There were no statistically significant differences in mortality rates between the groups. In the multivariate analysis, diabetes was an independent predictor of morbidity (OR = 2.44, p = 0.02), Clavien-Dindo grade IV complications (OR = 3.6, p = 0.004), unplanned readmission (OR = 2.44, p = 0.04) and bile leakage (OR = 2.06, p = 0.046). Obese and overweight patients did not have an impaired post-operative outcome compared patients with normal weight.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes has direct influence on the short-term postoperative outcome with an increased risk of morbidity but not mortality. Preoperative identification of high-risk patients will potentially decrease complication rates and allow for individual patient counseling as part of a shared decision-making process. For obese and overweight patients, major liver resection is a safe procedure.

Simultaneous colorectal and parenchymal-sparing liver resection for advanced colorectal carcinoma with synchronous liver metastases: Between conventional and mini-invasive approaches

The optimal timing of surgery in case of synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases is still under debate. Staged approach, with initial colorectal resection followed by liver resection (LR), or even the reverse, liver-first approach in specific situations, is traditionally preferred. Simultaneous resections, however, represent an appealing strategy, because may have perioperative risks comparable to staged resections in appropriately selected patients, while avoiding a second surgical procedure. In patients with larger or multiple synchronous presentation of colorectal cancer and liver metastases, simultaneous major hepatectomies may determine worse perioperative outcomes, so that parenchymal-sparing LR should represent the most appropriate option whenever feasible. Mini-invasive colorectal surgery has experienced rapid spread in the last decades, while laparoscopic LR has progressed much slower, and is usually reserved for limited tumours in favourable locations. Moreover, mini-invasive parenchymal-sparing LR is more complex, especially for larger or multiple tumours in difficult locations. It remains to be established if simultaneous resections are presently feasible with mini-invasive approaches or if we need further technological advances and surgical expertise, at least for more complex procedures. This review aims to critically analyze the current status and future perspectives of simultaneous resections, and the present role of the available mini-invasive techniques.

Parenchyma sparing multicomponent liver resection strategy for multiple bilobar synchronous colorectal cancer metastasis

A two-stage multicomponent parenchymal sparing surgical strategy (anatomical extended on left hepatic vein 2-nd segment liver resection and R1vascular approach) allows the successful resection of synchronous multiple bilobar CRC metastases.

Laparoscopic Parenchymal-Sparing Hepatectomy for Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases Improves Outcomes and Salvageability: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) is regarded as the standard of care for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) in open surgery. However, the surgical and oncological benefits of laparoscopic PSH compared with laparoscopic major hepatectomy (MH) have not been fully documented.

METHODS

A total of 269 patients who underwent initial laparoscopic liver resections with curative intent for CRLMs between 2004 and 2017 were enrolled. Preoperative patient characteristics and tumor burden were adjusted with propensity score matching, and laparoscopic PSH was compared with laparoscopic MH after matching.

RESULTS

PSH was performed in 148 patients, while MH was performed in 121 patients. After propensity score matching, 82 PSH and 82 MH patients showed similar preoperative characteristics. PSH was associated with lower rates of major postoperative complications compared with MH (6.1 vs. 15.9%; p = 0.046). Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and liver-specific RFS rates were comparable between both groups (p = 0.595 and 0.683). Repeat hepatectomy for liver recurrence was more frequently performed in the PSH group (63.9 vs. 36.4%; p = 0.022), and the PSH group also showed a trend toward a higher overall survival (OS) rate (5-year OS 79.4 vs. 64.3%; p = 0.067). Multivariate analyses revealed that initial MH was one of the risk factors to preclude repeat hepatectomy after liver recurrence (hazard ratio 2.39, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic PSH provided surgical and oncological benefits for CRLMs, with less complications, similar recurrence rates, and increased salvageability through repeat hepatectomy, compared with laparoscopic MH. PSH should be the standard approach, even in laparoscopic procedures.

Parenchymal-sparing versus extended hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To assess the safety and efficacy of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) as a treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CLM).

METHODS

A comprehensive medical literature search was performed. Perioperative and long-term survival outcomes were pooled. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed to identify potential sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies comprising 7081 CLM patients were eligible for this study. The PSH was performed on 3974 (56.1%) patients. We found that the OS (overall survival; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.94-1.08) and RFS (recurrence-free survival; HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94-1.07) were comparable between non-PSH and PSH group. The perioperative outcomes were better in PSH than in non-PSH group. Non-PSH group was significantly associated with longer operative time (standard mean difference [SMD] = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.33-2.00), increased estimated blood loss (SMD = 1.36, 95% CI: 0.64-2.07), higher intraoperative transfusion rate (risk ratio [RR] = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.60-3.23), and more postoperative complications (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.16-1.66). Meta-regression analyses revealed that no variable influenced the association between surgical types and the survival outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that PSH is associated with better perioperative outcomes without compromising oncological outcomes. Given the increasing incidence of hepatic parenchyma, the PSH treatment offers a greater opportunity of repeat resection for intrahepatic recurrent tumors. It should be considered as an effective surgical approach for CLM.

Laparoscopic liver resection for patients with cardiac disease

Introduction

The gravest problem facing medicine is caring for an aging society and the comorbidities that develop with age, including an increasing prevalence of cardiac disease. Unrecognized or untreated cardiac disease increases the risk of complications in patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). We herein describe the preoperative status, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative courses of patients with or without cardiac disease who undergo LLR.

Material and methods

The data of 339 patients who underwent LLR at a single institution between 2010 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Their preoperative status, surgical outcomes, and postoperative courses were analyzed.

Results

Of 339 patients who underwent LLR, one was excluded for pre-existing severe valvular disease. Of the remaining 338 patients, 16 had coexisting cardiac disease and 322 did not. The patients with coexisting cardiac disease had a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 66% (22–74%). LLR was performed after cardiac function was controlled in the patients with cardiac disease; there were no instances of increased central venous pressure (CVP) or destabilized vital signs during surgery. Intraoperative CVP did not differ between the groups (p = 0.521). There were no significant differences in the demographics except for age, operative characteristics, and surgical outcomes between the groups.

Conclusions

Patients with non-severe or controlled severe cardiac disease do not exhibit different postoperative courses compared to patients without coexisting cardiac disease. Uncontrolled severe cardiac disease can lead to unstable vital signs during surgery, such as increased CVP. In such cases, treating the cardiac disease should be prioritized.

Outcomes of left trisectionectomy and right hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Right hepatectomy (RH) is the standard surgical procedure for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) with right-sided predominance in many centers. Although left trisectionectomy (LT) is aggressively performed for PHC with left-sided predominance in high-volume centers, the surgical and survival outcomes of LT are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of LT and RH for PHC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for PHC at Chiba University Hospital from 2008 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. The outcomes of patients with PHC who underwent LT were compared with those who underwent RH following one-to-one propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of 171 consecutive PHC resection patients, 111 were eligible for the study; 41 (37%) underwent LT, and 70 (63%) underwent RH. In a matched cohort (LT: n = 27, RH: n = 27), major complication rates (67% vs. 52%; p = 0.42), 90-day mortality rates (15% vs. 0%; p = 0.11) and R0 resection rates (56% vs. 44%; p = 0.58) were similar in both groups. The 3-year recurrence-free survival rates (27% vs. 47%; p = 0.27) and overall survival rates (45% vs. 60%; p = 0.17) were also similar in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with PHC, LT could achieve similar surgical and survival outcomes as RH.

Preoperative Chemotherapy May Not Influence the Remnant Liver Regenerations and Outcomes After Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Various chemotherapy regimens have been shown to improve outcomes when administered before tumor excision surgery. However, there is no consensus on the utility of multidisciplinary treatment with preoperative chemotherapy for treating colorectal liver metastasis (CLM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred-fifty patients who underwent hepatectomy were retrospectively analyzed using propensity score matching. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated with a focus on the effect of pre-hepatectomy chemotherapy on regeneration of the remnant liver in patients with CLM. The remnant liver volumes (RLVs) were postoperatively measured with multidetector computed tomography on days 7 and months 1, 2, 5, and 12 after the operation.

RESULTS

RLV regeneration and blood test results did not significantly differ between patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy versus those who did not immediately after surgery or at any time point from postoperative day 7 to postoperative month 12. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates for all patients were 94.6, 86.2, and 79.9%, respectively; the corresponding disease-free survival (RFS) rates were 49.3, 38.6, and 33.7%, respectively. There were no significant differences in OS and RFS between the two groups after hepatic resection. The recurrence rates, including marginal and intrahepatic recurrences, as well as resection frequency of the remnant liver were not significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative chemotherapy may have no appreciable benefit for patients with CLM in terms of perioperative and long-term outcomes.

Simultaneous curative resection of double colorectal carcinoma with synchronous bilobar liver metastases

Synchronous colorectal carcinoma (SCRC) indicates more than one primary colorectal carcinoma (CRC) discovered at the time of initial presentation, accounts for 3.1%-3.9% of CRC, and may occur either in the same or in different colorectal segments. The accurate preoperative diagnosis of SCRC is difficult and diagnostic failures may lead to inappropriate treatment and poorer prognosis. SCRC requires colorectal resections tailored to individual patients, based on the number, location, and stage of the tumours, from conventional or extended hemicolectomies to total colectomy or proctocolectomy, when established predisposing conditions exist. The overall perioperative risks of surgery for SCRC seem to be higher than for solitary CRC. Simultaneous colorectal and liver resection represents an appealing surgical strategy in selected patients with CRC and synchronous liver metastases (CRLM), even though the cumulative risks of the two procedures need to be adequately evaluated. Simultaneous resections have the noticeable advantage of avoiding a second laparotomy, give the opportunity of an earlier initiation of adjuvant therapy, and may significantly reduce the hospital costs. Because an increasing number of recent studies have shown good results, with morbidity, perioperative hospitalization, and mortality rates comparable to staged resections, simultaneous procedures can be selectively proposed even in case of complex colorectal resections, including those for SCRC and rectal cancer. However, in patients with multiple bilobar CRLM, major hepatectomies performed simultaneously with colorectal resection have been associated with significant perioperative risks. Conservative or parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies reduce the extent of hepatectomy while preserving oncological radicality, and may represent the best option for selected patients with multiple CRLM involving both liver lobes. Parenchymal-sparing liver resection, instead of major or two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar disease, seemingly reduces the overall operative risk of candidates to simultaneous colorectal and liver resection, and may represent the most appropriate surgical strategy whenever possible, also for patients with advanced SCRC and multiple bilobar liver metastases.

R1 Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: a Survey Questioning Surgeons about Its Incidence, Clinical Impact, and Management

BACKGROUND

A ≥ 1-mm margin is standard for resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, R1 resection is not rare (10-30%), and chemotherapy could mitigate its impact. The possibility of detaching CLM from vessels (R1 vascular margin) has been described. A reappraisal of R1 resection is needed.

METHODS

A 19-question survey regarding R1 resection for CLM was sent to hepatobiliary surgeons worldwide. Seven clinical cases were included.

RESULTS

In total, 276 surgeons from 52 countries completed the survey. Ninety percent reported a negative impact of R1 resection (74% local recurrence, 31% hepatic recurrence, and 36% survival), but 50% considered it sometimes required for resectability. Ninety-one percent of responders suggested that the impact of R1 resection is modulated by the response to chemotherapy and/or CLM characteristics. Half considered the risk of R1 resection to be an indication for preoperative chemotherapy in patients who otherwise underwent upfront resection, and 40% modified the chemotherapy regimen when the tumor response did not guarantee R0 resection. Nevertheless, 80% scheduled R1 resection for multiple bilobar CLM that responded to chemotherapy. Forty-five percent considered the vascular margin equivalent to R0 resection. However, for lesions in contact with the right hepatic vein, right hepatectomy remained the standard. Detachment from the vein was rarely considered (10%), but 27% considered detachment in the presence of multiple bilobar CLM.

CONCLUSIONS

A negative margin is still standard for CLM, but R1 resection is no longer just a technical error. R1 resection should be part of the modern multidisciplinary, aggressive approach to CLM.