Invited Editorial: The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Innovation to Implementation

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

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Perceptions of opioid use and prescribing habits in oncologic surgery: A survey of the society of surgical oncology membership

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess current perceptions surrounding opioid prescribing in surgical oncology to inform perioperative quality improvement initiatives.

METHODS

After the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) approval, a survey was distributed to its membership. Five sample procedures were used to assess provider perceptions and prescribing habits. Data were summarized and compared by self-reported demographics.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-five participants completed the survey: 149 (85%) faculty, 24 (14%) trainees, and 2 (1%) advanced practice providers. Most participants (76%) practiced in academic programs and 21% practiced in non-US locations. Few differences were identified based on clinical role, academic rank, or practice years. Compared with non-US providers, US providers expected higher pain scores at discharge, recommended greater opioid prescriptions, and estimated more days of opioid use for almost every procedure. More non-US providers believed discharge opioids should not be distributed to patients who are opioid-free in their last 24 inpatient hours (80% vs 50%, P = .001). All providers ranked education as "very important" for reducing opioid prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with their international counterparts, US surgical oncology providers expected greater opioid needs and recommended higher prescription numbers. Educating providers on multimodal opioid-sparing bundles, accelerated weaning protocols, and standardized discharge prescribing habits could have a positive impact the US opioid epidemic.

Detours on the Road to Recovery: What Factors Delay Readiness to Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy (RIOT) After Liver Resection for Malignancy?

BACKGROUND

Poor recovery after oncologic hepatic resection delays Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy (RIOT) and shortens survival. In order to identify at-risk patients, this study was designed to determine which psychosocial and perioperative factors are associated with delayed RIOT readiness.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database was queried to identify consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for malignancy from 2015 to 2017. Perioperative factors were compared between patients with early (≤ 28 postoperative days) vs. delayed (> 28 postoperative days) clearance to RIOT. Univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

Of 114 patients, 76 patients (67%) had an open surgical approach, 32 (28%) had a major hepatectomy, and 6 (5%) had a major complication, with no mortalities. Eighty-two patients (72%) had early and 32 patients (28%) had delayed RIOT readiness. Patients with high preoperative symptom burden were more likely to have delayed RIOT readiness (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.4, p = 0.024). On multivariable analysis, open surgical approach (OR 6.9, 95% CI 1.4-34.7, p = 0.018), length of stay > 5 days (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.4-9.4, p = 0.010), and any complication (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.1-10.7, p = 0.033) were associated with delayed RIOT readiness. Postoperative factors associated with delayed RIOT readiness included nutritional and wound-healing parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the previously under-described importance of preoperative patient symptom burden on delayed postoperative recovery. As a cancer patient's return to oncologic therapy after hepatectomy has a substantial impact on survival, it is critical to adhere to enhanced recovery principles and address all other modifiable factors that delay recovery.