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

Perioperative and recurrence-free survival outcomes after laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases using indocyanine green fluorescence imaging: an inverse probability treatment weighted analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently metastasizes to the liver, significantly worsening patient outcomes. While hepatectomy offers the best curative option for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), margin recurrence remains a major challenge post-surgery. Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) aids tumor identification and margin determination, but its limitations in laparoscopic surgery necessitate additional methods. Indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICGFI) has emerged as a promising tool for tumor localization and margin assessment in CRLM. However, existing studies lack large cohorts and long-term outcomes. This study evaluates perioperative and long-term results of ICGFI-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy in CRLM patients.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was performed on CRLM patients who underwent liver resection at our single center. The study population was divided into three groups: the L-ICG group (laparoscopic hepatectomy with ICGFI), the L-Non-ICG group (laparoscopic hepatectomy without ICGFI), and the open group (open liver resection). Robust statistical methods including multiple imputations and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were employed to minimize bias.

RESULTS

A total of 340 CRLM patients who underwent hepatectomy were analyzed. The L-ICG group had a higher rate of neoadjuvant therapy and smaller tumor sizes compared to the open group. The L-ICG group also demonstrated shorter operative times, less blood loss, and a higher microscopically margin-negative (R0) resection rate than other two groups. Recurrence occurred in 70% of patients, with 77% being intrahepatic. Margin recurrence was significantly lower in the L-ICG group compared to the L-Non-ICG group (15.3% vs. 45.7%, p = 0.001). Median recurrence-free survival and overall survival did not differ significantly among groups after IPTW adjustment.

CONCLUSION

ICGFI improves R0 resection rates, perioperative outcomes, and reduces margin recurrence in CRLM patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy, though it does not significantly impact OS or RFS.

Robotic-Assisted Versus Open Hemi-Hepatectomy: A Propensity Score Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The robotic-assisted surgical system has been widely used in hepatectomy. However, the effectiveness and feasibility of robotic-assisted hemi-hepatectomy (RH) has not been well-documented.

METHODS

Patients who underwent RH or open hemi-hepatectomy (OH) performed by a single surgeon at our hospital between January 2010 and August 2023 were included in this study. A stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of the 163 consecutive patients identified, 60 underwent RH, and 103 underwent OH. After stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment, RH demonstrated less blood loss than OH. In subgroup analyses, robotic-assisted left hemi-hepatectomy was associated with a shorter postoperative stay, a lower postoperative complication rate, and less blood loss compared with open left hemi-hepatectomy. While robotic-assisted right hemi-hepatectomy (RRH) was associated with less blood loss and a lower intraoperative blood transfusion rate, but a longer operation time compared with open right hemi-hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

RH is a safe and effective technique. In addition to less blood loss, robotic-assisted left hemi-hepatectomy had advantages in postoperative complications and postoperative stay, while RRH had advantages in intraoperative blood transfusions. However, operation time was longer for RRH than for open right hemi-hepatectomy.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for colorectal liver metastasis: an umbrella review

Introduction

This study comprehensively compared laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) to open liver resection (OLR) in treating colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM).

Methods

A systematic review of relevant literature was conducted to assess a range of crucial surgical and oncological outcomes.

Results

Findings indicate that minimally invasive surgery (MIS) did not significantly prolong the duration of surgery compared to open liver resection and notably demonstrated lower blood transfusion rates and reduced intraoperative blood loss. While some studies favored MIS for its lower complication rates, others did not establish a statistically significant difference. One study identified a lower post-operative mortality rate in the MIS group. Furthermore, MIS consistently correlated with shorter hospital stays, indicative of expedited post-operative recovery. Concerning oncological outcomes, while certain meta-analyses reported a lower rate of cancer recurrence in the MIS group, others found no significant disparity. Overall survival and disease-free survival remained comparable between the MIS and open liver resection groups.

Conclusion

The analysis emphasizes the potential advantages of LLR in terms of surgical outcomes and aligns with existing literature findings in this field.

Systematic review registration

[website], identifier [registration number].

The Impact of Portal Hypertension Assessment Method on the Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection: A Meta-Analysis of Matched Cohort and Prospective Studies

OBJECTIVE

Examine portal hypertension (PHT) impact on postoperative and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after liver resection (LR), specifically exploring distinctions between indirect signs and invasive measurements of PHT.

BACKGROUND

PHT has historically discouraged LR in individuals with HCC due to the elevated risk of morbidity, including liver decompensation (LD).

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using 3 databases to identify prospective-controlled and matched cohort studies until December 28, 2022. Focus on comparing postoperative outcomes (mortality, morbidity, and liver-related complications) and overall survival in HCC patients with and without PHT undergoing LR. Three meta-analysis models were utilized: for aggregated data (fixed-effects inverse variance model), for patient-level survival data (one-stage frequentist meta-analysis with gamma-shared frailty Cox proportional hazards model), and for pooled data (Freeman-Tukey exact and double arcsine method).

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 1124 patients were analyzed. Indirect signs of PHT were not significantly associated with higher mortality, overall complications, PHLF or LD. However, LR in patients with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) ≥10 mm Hg significantly increased the risk of overall complications, PHLF, and LD. Despite elevated risks, the procedure resulted in a 5-year overall survival rate of 55.2%. Open LR significantly increased the risk of overall complications, PHLF, and LD. Conversely, PHT did not show a significant association with worse postoperative outcomes in minimally invasive LR.

CONCLUSIONS

LR in the presence of indirect signs of PHT poses no increased risk of complications. Yet, in HVPG ≥10 mm Hg patients, LR increases overall morbidity and liver-related complications risk. Transjugular HVPG assessment is crucial for LR decisions. Minimally invasive approach seems to be vital for favorable outcomes, especially in HVPG ≥10 mm Hg patients.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on short-term outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: A propensity-score matched and coarsened exact matched study

BACKGROUND

In the last three decades, minimally invasive liver resection has been replacing conventional open approach in liver surgery. More recently, developments in neoadjuvant chemotherapy have led to increased multidisciplinary management of colorectal liver metastases with both medical and surgical treatment modalities. However, the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the surgical outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections remains poorly understood.

METHODS

A multicenter, international, database of 4998 minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases was used to compare surgical outcomes in patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with surgery alone. To correct for baseline imbalance, propensity score matching, coarsened exact matching and inverse probability treatment weighting were performed.

RESULTS

2546 patients met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching there were 759 patients in both groups and 383 patients in both groups after coarsened exact matching. Baseline characteristics were equal after both matching strategies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not associated with statistically significant worse surgical outcomes of minimally invasive minor hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy had no statistically significant impact on short-term surgical outcomes after simple and complex minimally invasive minor hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

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.

Laparoscopic versus open gastrectomy for nonmetastatic T4a gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies

BACKGROUND

​The applicability of laparoscopy to nonmetastatic T4a patients with gastric cancer remains unclear due to the lack of high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival rates of laparoscopic gastrectomy (LG) versus open gastrectomy (OG) for these patients through a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data from propensity score-matched studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library and CNKI were examined for relevant studies without language restrictions through July 25, 2023. Individual participant data on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were extracted from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. One-stage and two-stage meta-analyses were performed. In addition, data regarding surgical outcomes and recurrence patterns were also collected, which were meta-analyzed using traditional aggregated data.

RESULTS

Six studies comprising 1860 patients were included for analysis. In the one-stage meta-analyses, the results demonstrated that LG was associated with a significantly better DFS (Random-effects model: P = 0.027; Restricted mean survival time [RMST] up to 5 years: P = 0.033) and a comparable OS (Random-effects model: P = 0.135; RMST up to 5 years: P = 0.053) than OG for T4a gastric cancer patients. Two-stage meta-analyses resulted in similar results, with a 13% reduced hazard of cancer-related death (P = 0.04) and 10% reduced hazard of overall mortality (P = 0.11) in the LG group. For secondary outcomes, the pooled results showed an association of LG with less estimated blood loss, faster postoperative recovery and more retrieved lymph nodes.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic surgery for patients with nonmetastatic T4a disease is associated with a potential survival benefit and improved surgical outcomes.

A meta-analysis between robotic hepatectomy and conventional open hepatectomy

Current meta-analysis was performed to compare robotic hepatectomy (RH) with conventional open hepatectomy (OH) in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were all searched up for comparative studies between RH and OH. RevMan5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were used for statistical analysis. Nineteen studies with 1747 patients who received RH and 23,633 patients who received OH were included. Pooled results indicated that patients who received RH were generally younger than those received OH (P < 0.00001). Moreover, RH was associated with longer operative time (P = 0.0002), less intraoperative hemorrhage (P < 0.0001), lower incidence of intraoperative transfusion (P = 0.003), lower incidence of postoperative any morbidity (P < 0.00001), postoperative major morbidity (P = 0.0001), mortalities with 90 days after surgery (P < 0.0001), and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.00001). Comparable total hospital costs were acquired between RH and OH groups (P = 0.46). However, even at the premise of comparable R0 rate (P = 0.86), RH was associated with smaller resected tumor size (P < 0.00001). Major hepatectomy (P = 0.02) and right posterior hepatectomy (P = 0.0003) were less frequently performed in RH group. Finally, we concluded that RH was superior to OH in terms of peri-operative and postoperative outcomes. RH could lead to less intraoperative hemorrhage, less postoperative complications and an enhanced postoperative recovery. However, major hepatectomy and right posterior hepatectomy were still less frequently performed via robotic approach. Future more powerful well-designed studies are required for further exploration.

Early experience with pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy: comparison with open donor hepatectomy and non-donor laparoscopic hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Pure laparoscopic donor hepatectomy (L-DH) has seen a rise in uptake in recent years following the popularization of minimally invasive modality for major hepatobiliary surgery. Our study aimed to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-DH with open donor hepatectomy (O-DH) and laparoscopic non donor hepatectomy (L-NDH) based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Eighty of 113 laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomies performed between 2015 and 2022 met study inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 were L-DH. PSM in a 1:2 ratio of L-DH versus L-NDH and 1:1 ratio of L-DH versus O-DH were performed, identifying patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics.

RESULTS

After 2:1 matching, the L-DH cohort were significantly younger (P < 0.001) and had lower ASA scores (P < 0.001) than the L-NDH cohort. L-DH was associated with a longer median operating time (P < 0.001) and shorter median postoperative stay (P < 0.001) than L-NDH. After 1:1 matching, there were no significant differences in baseline demographic between the L-DH and O-DH cohorts. L-DH was associated with lower median blood loss (P = 0.040) and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH (P = 0.004). There were no significant differences in recipient outcomes for both cohorts.

CONCLUSION

L-DH can be adopted safely by surgeons experienced in L-NDH and ODH. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter length of stay compared to O-DH.

Simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: current state-of-the-art

BACKGROUND

A large proportion of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) presents with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) at diagnosis. Surgical approaches for patients with sCRLM have evolved over the past decades. Simultaneous resection (SR) of CRC and sCRLM for selected patients has emerged as a safe and efficient alternative approach to traditional staged resections.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science databases with the end of search date October 30, 2023. The MeSH terms "simultaneous resections" and "combined resections" in combination with "colorectal liver metastases," "colorectal cancer," "liver resection," and "hepatectomy" were searched in the title and/or abstract.

RESULTS

SRs aim to achieve maximal tumor clearance, minimizing the risk of disease progression and optimizing the potential for long-term survival. Improvements in perioperative care, advances in surgical techniques, and a better understanding of patient selection criteria have collectively contributed to reducing morbidity and mortality associated with these complex procedures. Several studies have demonstrated that SR are associated with reduced overall length of stay and lower costs with comparable morbidity and long-term outcomes. In light of these outcomes, the proportion of patients undergoing SR for CRC and sCRLM has increased substantially over the past 2 decades.

CONCLUSION

For patients with sCRLM, SR represents an attractive alternative to the traditional staged approach and should be selectively used; however, the decision on whether to proceed with a simultaneous versus staged approach should be individualized based on several patient- and disease-related factors.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Surgery for liver metastases from primary breast cancer: A reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, the outcomes of standard-of-care palliative treatment for BCLM remain poor. Recent literature has shown promising results of hepatic resection, however, not all studies concur. Given the lack of standardized international guidelines in this field, the aim of this study is to provide gold-standard evidence for breast cancer liver metastases (BCLM) through a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis approach.

METHODS

Four databases were searched for articles comparing surgical and non-surgical treatment for BCLM. One-stage meta-analysis was performed using patient-level survival data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves with plot digitizer software. Shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints.

RESULTS

Four propensity-score matched (PSM) studies involving 205 surgical and 291 non-surgical patients for BCLM were included. There was a significant difference between both groups for overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.40, 95%CI 0.32-0.51). Sensitivity analyses for hormone receptor status of breast cancer (HR = 0.41, 95%CI 0.31-0.55) and type of resection performed (HR = 0.45, 95%CI 0.33-0.61) yielded HRs in favor of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis concludes that surgery offers superior OS outcomes, compared to non-surgery, in a select group of patients. Future randomized controlled trials and PSM studies are warranted, using this study as a point of reference for similar parameters.

CT-based radiomics analysis to predict local progression of recurrent colorectal liver metastases after microwave ablation

The objective of this study is to establish and validate a radiomics nomogram for prediction of local tumor progression (LTP) after microwave ablation (MWA) for recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) after hepatic resection. We included 318 consecutive recurrent CRLM patients (216 of training while 102 of validation cohort) with contrast-enhanced computerized tomography images treated with MWA between January 2014 and October 2018. Support vector machine-generated radiomics signature was incorporated together with clinical information to establish a radiomics nomogram. Our constructed radiomics signature including 15 features (first-order intensity statistics features, shape and size-based features, gray level size zone/dependence matrix features) performed well in assessing LTP for both cohorts. With regard to its predictive performance, its C-index was 0.912, compared to the clinical or radiomics models only (c-statistic 0.89 and 0.75, respectively) in the training cohort. In the validation cohort, the radiomics nomogram had better performance (area under the curve = 0.89) compared to the radiomics and clinical models (0.85 and 0.69). According to decision curve analysis, our as-constructed radiomics nomogram showed high clinical utility. As revealed by survival analysis, LTP showed worse progression-free survival (3-year progression-free survival 42.6% vs 78.4%, P < .01). High-risk patients identified using this radiomics signature exhibited worse LTP compared with low-risk patients (3-year LTP 80.2% vs 48.6%, P < .01). A radiomics-based nomogram of pre-ablation computerized tomography imaging may be the precious biomarker model for predicting LTP and personalized risk stratification for recurrent CRLM after hepatic resection treated by MWA.

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.

Preoperative Inflammatory Markers in Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A National Registry-Based Study

BACKGROUND

Preoperative inflammatory markers were shown to be associated with prognosis following surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary cancer. Yet little evidence exists about their role in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aimed to examine the association between selected preoperative inflammatory markers and outcomes of liver resection for CRLM.

METHODS

Data from the Norwegian National Registry for Gastrointestinal Surgery (NORGAST) was used to capture all liver resections performed in Norway within the study period (November 2015-April 2021). Preoperative inflammatory markers were Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) and C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR). The impact of these on postoperative outcomes, as well as on survival were studied.

RESULTS

Liver resections for CRLM were performed in 1442 patients. Preoperative GPS ≥ 1 and mGPS ≥ 1 were present in 170 (11.8%) and 147 (10.2%) patients, respectively. Both were associated with severe complications but became non-significant in the multivariable model. GPS, mGPS, CAR were significant predictors for overall survival in the univariable analysis, but only CAR remained such in the multivariable model. When stratified by the type of surgical approach, CAR was a significant predictor for survival after open but not laparoscopic liver resections.

CONCLUSIONS

GPS, mGPS and CAR have no impact on severe complications after liver resection for CRLM. CAR outperforms GPS and mGPS in predicting overall survival in these patients, especially following open resections. The prognostic significance of CAR in CRLM should be tested against other clinical and pathology parameters relevant for prognosis.

The impact of primary tumor resection for asymptomatic colorectal cancer patients with unresectable metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether patients with asymptomatic primary tumors and unresectable metastases of colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo primary tumor resection (PTR) remains controversial. This study aims to determine the appropriateness of PTR for these individuals by evaluating a number of outcome measures.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Outcome measures included overall survival, emergency surgery rates, incidence of postoperative complications, time to initiate chemotherapy, conversion rates, and chemotherapy-related toxicities.

RESULTS

Patients who received PTR in addition to chemotherapy had a better overall survival rate than those who only received chemotherapy (HR = 0.62, 95%CI, 0.50-0.78, I2 = 84%, p < 0.00001). In the RCT subgroup, there were no significant differences with a HR of 0.72 (95%CI, 0.45-1.13, I2 = 17%, p = 0.15). More patients in the chemotherapy alone group could be converted to resectable status (OR = 0.47, 95%CI, 0.27-0.82, I2 = 0%, p = 0.008), but the incidence of emergency surgery was 23% (95%CI, 17-29%, I2 = 14%). The risk of chemotherapy-related toxicity was not significantly higher in the PTR group (OR = 1.5, 95%CI, 0.94-2.43, p = 0.09, I2 = 0%), with a 7% incidence of postoperative complications (95%CI, 0-14%, p = 0.05, I2 = 0%). The time to initiate chemotherapy after PTR was approximately 33.06 days (95%CI, 25.55-40.58, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

PTR plus chemotherapy may be associated with improved survival in asymptomatic CRC patients with unresectable metastases. However, PTR did not provide a significant survival benefit in the subgroup of RCTs. Additionally, PTR did not result in a significantly increased risk of chemotherapy-related toxicity, with a postoperative complication rate of approximately 7%, and chemotherapy could be initiated at approximately 33.06 days after PTR. Compared with the PTR plus chemotherapy, chemotherapy alone could result in a significantly higher conversion rate. However, about 23% of patients receiving chemotherapy alone required emergency surgery for primary tumor-related symptoms. The above results needed to be validated in future larger prospective randomized trials.

Association of Laparoscopic Surgery with Improved Perioperative and Survival Outcomes in Patients with Resectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis from Propensity-Score Matched Studies

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have associated laparoscopic surgery with better overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The potential benefits of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) over open liver resection (OLR) have not been demonstrated in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC).

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed to search studies comparing OS and perioperative outcome for patients with resectable iCC. Propensity-score matched (PSM) studies published from database inception to May 1, 2022 were eligible. A frequentist, patient-level, one-stage meta-analysis was performed to analyze the differences in OS between LLR and OLR. Second, intraoperative, postoperative, and oncological outcomes were compared between the two approaches by using a random-effects DerSimonian-Laird model.

RESULTS

Six PSM studies involving data from 1.042 patients (530 OLR vs. 512 LLR) were included. LLR in patients with resectable iCC was found to significantly decrease the hazard of death (stratified hazard ratio [HR]: 0.795 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.638-0.992]) compared with OLR. Moreover, LLR appears to be significantly associated with a decrease in intraoperative bleeding (- 161.47 ml [95% CI - 237.26 to - 85.69 ml]) and transfusion (OR = 0.41 [95% CI 0.26-0.69]), as well as with a shorter hospital stay (- 3.16 days [95% CI - 4.98 to - 1.34]) and a lower rate of major (Clavien-Dindo ≥III) complications (OR = 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

This large meta-analysis of PSM studies shows that LLR in patients with resectable iCC is associated with improved perioperative outcomes and, being conservative, yields similar OS outcomes compared with OLR.

Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis in the Ukrainian State Center

Background Minimally invasive liver resections for metastatic colorectal cancer have been increasingly performed all over the world with promising results. We planned the current study to review our experience on this matter and compare short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and open liver resection (OLR) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM). Materials and methods This is a single-center retrospective analysis of patients with CRLM who underwent laparoscopic (n=86) and open (n=96) surgical treatment for metastatic liver lesions between March 2016 and November 2022. Tumor characteristics, intra- and postoperative results, overall survival (OS), and disease-free survival (DFS) were analyzed and compared. Results LLR was associated with significantly shorter surgery duration (180 minutes versus 295 minutes, p=0.03). There was no significant difference in blood loss between the two groups (100 mL versus 350 mL, p=0.061). Additionally, the laparoscopic approach was associated with significantly shorter hospital stays (6 days versus 9 days, p=0.004). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ 3) was lower in the LLR group (5.8% versus 16.6%, p=0.037). There was no mortality in the LLR group, and in the OLR group, one lethal case was induced by mesenteric thrombosis on the fifth postoperative day. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the OS rate between the two groups at one, three, and five years: 97.3%, 74.7%, and 43.4%, respectively, in the OLR group and 95.1%, 70.3%, and 49.5%, respectively, in the LLR group (p=0.53). DFS at one, three, and five years were 88.7%, 52.3%, and 25.5%, respectively, in the LLR group and 71.9%, 53.1%, and 19.3%, respectively, in the OLR group (p=0.66). Conclusions This study showed that laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective method of CRLM treatment in our center. LLR was associated with a decrease in major morbidity, shorter surgery duration, and reduced postoperative hospital stay. Minimally invasive liver resections showed similar oncological outcomes to the open approach in terms of overall and disease-free survival.

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.

Global survey on the surgical management of patients affected by colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: impact of surgical specialty and geographic region

BACKGROUND

Consensus on the best surgical strategy for the management of synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has not been achieved. This study aimed to assess the attitudes of surgeons involved in the treatment of sCRLM.

METHODS

Surveys designed for colorectal, hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB), and general surgeons were disseminated through representative societies. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare responses between specialties and continents.

RESULTS

Overall, 270 surgeons (57 colorectal, 100 HPB and 113 general surgeons) responded. Specialist surgeons more frequently utilized minimally invasive surgery (MIS) than general surgeons for colon (94.8% vs. 71.7%, p < 0.001), rectal (91.2% vs. 64.6%, p < 0.001), and liver resections (53% vs. 34.5%, p = 0.005). In patients with an asymptomatic primary, the liver-first two-stage approach was preferred in most respondents' centres (59.3%), while the colorectal-first approach was preferred in Oceania (83.3%) and Asia (63.4%). A substantial proportion of the respondents (72.6%) had personal experience with minimally invasive simultaneous resections, and an expanding role for this procedure was foreseen (92.6%), while more evidence was desired (89.6%). Respondents were more reluctant to combine a hepatectomy with low anterior (76.3%) and abdominoperineal resections (73.3%), compared to right (94.4%) and left hemicolectomies (90.7%). Colorectal surgeons were less inclined to combine right or left hemicolectomies with a major hepatectomy than HPB and general surgeons (right: 22.8% vs. 50% and 44.2%, p = 0.008; left: 14% vs. 34% and 35.4%, p = 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The clinical practices and viewpoints on the management of sCRLM differ between continents, and between and within surgical specialties. However, there appears to be consensus on a growing role for MIS and a need for evidence-based input.

Outcomes and Patient Selection in Laparoscopic vs. Open Liver Resection for HCC and Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) are the two most common malignant tumors that require liver resection. While liver transplantation is the best treatment for HCC, organ shortages and high costs limit the availability of this option for many patients and make resection the mainstay of treatment. For patients with CRLM, surgical resection with negative margins is the only potentially curative option. Over the last two decades, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been increasingly adopted for the resection of a variety of tumors and was found to have similar long-term outcomes compared to open liver resection (OLR) while offering the benefits of improved short-term outcomes. In this review, we discuss the current literature on the outcomes of LLR vs. OLR for patients with HCC and CRLM. Although the use of LLR for HCC and CRLM is increasing, it is not appropriate for all patients. We describe an approach to selecting patients best-suited for LLR. The four common difficulty-scoring systems for LLR are summarized. Additionally, we review the current evidence behind the emerging robotically assisted liver resection technology.

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection for large (≥ 50 mm) colorectal metastases

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, patients with large liver tumors (≥ 50 mm) have been considered for anatomic major hepatectomy. Laparoscopic resection of large liver lesions is technically challenging and often performed by surgeons with extensive experience. The current study aimed to evaluate the surgical and oncologic safety of laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection in patients with large colorectal metastases.

METHODS

Patients who primarily underwent laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing liver resection (less than 3 consecutive liver segments) for colorectal liver metastases between 1999 and 2019 at Oslo University Hospital were analyzed. In some recent cases, a computer-assisted surgical planning system was used to better visualize and understand the patients' liver anatomy, as well as a tool to further improve the resection strategy. The surgical and oncologic outcomes of patients with large (≥ 50 mm) and small (< 50 mm) tumors were compared. Multivariable Cox-regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for survival.

RESULTS

In total 587 patients met the inclusion criteria (large tumor group, n = 59; and small tumor group, n = 528). Median tumor size was 60 mm (range, 50-110) in the large tumor group and 21 mm (3-48) in the small tumor group (p < 0.001). Patient age and CEA level were higher in the large tumor group (8.4 μg/L vs. 4.6 μg/L, p < 0.001). Operation time and conversion rate were similar, while median blood loss was higher in the large tumor group (500 ml vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001). Patients in the large tumor group had shorter 5 year overall survival (34% vs 49%, p = 0.027). However, in the multivariable Cox-regression analysis tumor size did not impact survival, unlike parameters such as age, ASA score, CEA level, extrahepatic disease at liver surgery, and positive lymph nodes in the primary tumor.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic parenchyma-sparing resections for large colorectal liver metastases provide satisfactory short and long-term outcomes.

Association of standardized liver volume and body mass index with outcomes of minimally invasive liver resections

INTRODUCTION

While minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have demonstrated advantages in improved post-operative recovery, widespread adoption is hampered by inherent technical difficulties. Our study attempts to analyze the role of anthropometric measures in MILR-related outcomes.

METHODS

Between 2012 and 2020, 676 consecutive patients underwent MILR at the Singapore General Hospital of which 565 met study criteria and were included. Patients were stratified based on Body Mass Index (BMI) as well as Standardized Liver Volumes (SLV). Associations between BMI and SLV to selected peri-operative outcomes were analyzed using restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

A BMI of ≥ 29 was associated with increase in blood loss [Mean difference (MD) 69 mls, 95% CI 2 to 137] as well as operative conversions [Relative Risk (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.62] among patients undergoing MILR while a SLV of 1600 cc or higher was associated with an increase in blood loss (MD 30 mls, 95% CI 10 to 49). In addition, a BMI of ≤ 20 was associated with an increased risk of major complications (RR 2.25, 95% 1.16 to 4.35). The magnitude of differences observed in these findings increased with each unit change in BMI and SLV.

CONCLUSION

Both BMI and SLV were useful anthropometric measures in predicting peri-operative outcomes in MILR and may be considered for incorporation in future difficulty scoring systems for MILR.

Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Multimodal Therapy

Despite a steady decline in incidence and mortality rates, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cancer diagnosis in women and the third most common in men worldwide. Notably, the liver is recognized as the most common site of CRC metastasis, and metastases to the liver remain the primary driver of disease-specific mortality for patients with CRC. Although hepatic resection is the backbone of curative-intent treatment, management of CRLM has become increasingly multimodal during the last decade and includes the use of downstaging chemotherapy, ablation techniques, and locoregional therapy, each of which are reviewed herein.

Outcomes of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis After Liver Transplantation: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the fastest growing indication of liver transplantation (LT) and is projected to be the leading cause of LT in the near future. The systemic pathogenesis of NASH increases risks of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with NASH receiving LT. Thus, this study aimed to conduct a time-dependent survival analysis between LT recipients with and without NASH using hazard ratios.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Medline and Embase databases for articles relating to LT outcomes for NASH recipients. A survival analysis was conducted of hazard ratios using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model with meta-regression. To account for censoring, survival data were reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves and pooled to derive more accurate hazard estimates and all-cause mortality in NASH patients after LT. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to analyze secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 119,327 LT recipients were included in our analysis with a prevalence of NASH of 20.2% (95% CI, 12.9-30.2). The pooled 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year all-cause mortality in NASH patients after LT were 12.5%, 24.4%, and 37.9%, respectively. Overall survival was comparable between LT recipients for NASH vs non-NASH (hazard ratio, 0.910; 95% CI, 0.760 to 1.10; P = .34). Meta-regression showed that a higher model for end-stage liver disease score was associated with significantly worse overall survival in NASH compared with non-NASH after LT (95% CI, -0.0856 to -0.0181; P = .0026).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that patients undergoing LT for NASH cirrhosis have comparable complication rates, overall survival, and graft survival compared with non-NASH patients, although close monitoring may be indicated for those with higher model for end-stage liver disease scores.

Phantom study on surgical performance in augmented reality laparoscopy

Purpose

Only a few studies have evaluated Augmented Reality (AR) in in vivo simulations compared to traditional laparoscopy; further research is especially needed regarding the most effective AR visualization technique. This pilot study aims to determine, under controlled conditions on a 3D-printed phantom, whether an AR laparoscope improves surgical outcomes over conventional laparoscopy without augmentation.

Methods

We selected six surgical residents at a similar level of training and had them perform a laparoscopic task. The participants repeated the experiment three times, using different 3D phantoms and visualizations: Floating AR, Occlusion AR, and without any AR visualization (Control). Surgical performance was determined using objective measurements. Subjective measures, such as task load and potential application areas, were collected with questionnaires.

Results

Differences in operative time, total touching time, and SurgTLX scores showed no statistical significance ($$p>0.05$$ p > 0.05 ). However, when assessing the invasiveness of the simulated intervention, the comparison revealed a statistically significant difference ($$p=0.009$$ p = 0.009 ). Participants felt AR could be useful for various surgeries, especially for liver, sigmoid, and pancreatic resections (100%). Almost all participants agreed that AR could potentially lead to improved surgical parameters, such as operative time (83%), complication rate (83%), and identifying risk structures (83%).

Conclusion

According to our results, AR may have great potential in visceral surgery and based on the objective measures of the study, may improve surgeons' performance in terms of an atraumatic approach. In this pilot study, participants consistently took more time to complete the task, had more contact with the vascular tree, were significantly more invasive, and scored higher on the SurgTLX survey than with AR.

A Comparison between Open and Minimally Invasive Techniques for the Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastasis

The liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer metastasis. Liver surgery is a cornerstone in treatment, with progressive expansion of minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study aims to compare short- and long-term outcomes of open surgery and MIS for the treatment of colorectal adenocarcinoma liver metastasis during the first three years of increasing caseload and implementation of MIS use in liver surgery. All patients treated between November 2018 and August 2021 at Careggi Teaching Hospital in Florence, Italy, were prospectively entered into a database and retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-one patients were resected (41 open, 10 MIS). Considering that patients with a significantly higher number of lesions underwent open surgery and operative results were similar, postoperative morbidity rate and length of hospital stay were significantly higher in the open group. No differences were found in the pathological specimen. The postoperative mortality rate was 2%. Mean overall survival and disease-free survival were 46 months (95% CI 42-50) and 22 months (95% CI 15.6-29), respectively. The use of minimally invasive techniques in liver surgery is safe and feasible if surgeons have adequate expertise. MIS and parenchymal sparing resections should be preferred whenever technically feasible.

Comparison Between Minimally Invasive Right Anterior and Right Posterior Sectionectomy vs Right Hepatectomy: An International Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched and Coarsened-Exact-Matched Analysis of 1,100 Patients

BACKGROUND

The role of minimally invasive right anterior and right posterior sectionectomy (MI-RAS/MI-RPS) for right-sided liver lesions remains debatable. Although technically more demanding, these procedures might result in faster recovery and lower postoperative morbidity compared with minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 1,114 patients undergoing minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy, MI-RAS, and MI-RPS at 21 centers between 2006 and 2019. Minimally invasive surgery included pure laparoscopic, robotic, hand-assisted, or a hybrid approach. A propensity-matched and coarsened-exact-matched analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 1,100 cases met study criteria, of whom 759 underwent laparoscopic, 283 robotic, 11 hand-assisted, and 47 laparoscopic-assisted (hybrid) surgery. There were 632 right hemihepatectomies, 373 right posterior sectionectomies, and 95 right anterior sectionectomies. There were no differences in baseline characteristics after matching. In the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group, median blood loss was higher (400 vs 300 mL, p = 0.001) as well as intraoperative blood transfusion rate (19.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.004). However, the overall morbidity rate was lower including major morbidity (7.1% vs 14.3%, p = 0.007) and reoperation rate (1.4% vs 4.6%, p = 0.029). The rate of close/involved margins was higher in the MI-RAS/MI-RPS group (23.4% vs 8.9%, p < 0.001). These findings were consistent after both propensity and coarsened-exact matching.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technically more demanding, MI-RAS/MI-RPS is a valuable alternative for minimally invasive right hemihepatectomy in right-sided liver lesions with lower postoperative morbidity, possibly due to the preservation of parenchyma. However, the rate of close/involved margins is higher in these procedures. These findings might guide surgeons in preoperative counselling and in selecting the appropriate procedure for their patients.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD -285.69, 95% CI -481.72 to -89.65, P = 0.004, I 2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD -7.88, 95% CI -11.38 to -4.37, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI -6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I 2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.

Minimally invasive versus open hepatectomy for the resection of colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).

RESULTS

From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Critical view of safety in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A prospective investigation from both cognitive and executive aspects

Background

The achievement rate of the critical view of safety during laparoscopic cholecystectomy is much lower than expected. This original study aims to investigate and analyze factors associated with a low critical view of safety achievement.

Materials and Methods

We prospectively collected laparoscopic cholecystectomy videos performed from September 2, 2021, to September 19, 2021, in Sichuan Province, China. The artificial intelligence system, SurgSmart, analyzed videos under the necessary corrections undergone by expert surgeons. Also, we distributed questionnaires to surgeons and analyzed them along with surgical videos simultaneously.

Results

We collected 169 laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgical videos undergone by 124 surgeons, among which 105 participants gave valid answers to the questionnaire. Excluding those who conducted the bail-out process directly, the overall critical view of safety achievement rates for non-inflammatory and inflammatory groups were 18.18% (18/99) and 9.84% (6/61), respectively. Although 80.95% (85/105) of the surgeons understood the basic concept of the critical view of safety, only 4.76% (5/105) of the respondents commanded all three criteria in an error-free way. Multivariate logistic regression results showed that an unconventional surgical workflow (OR:12.372, P &lt; 0.001), a misunderstanding of the 2nd (OR: 8.917, P &lt; 0.05) and 3rd (OR:8.206, P &lt; 0.05) criterion of the critical view of safety, and the don't mistake “fundus-first technique” as one criterion of the critical view of safety (OR:0.123, P &lt; 0.01) were associated with lower and higher achievements of the critical view of safety, respectively.

Conclusions

The execution and cognition of the critical view of safety are deficient, especially the latter one. Thus, increasing the critical view of safety surgical awareness may effectively improve its achievement rate.

Meta-Analysis of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Left Main Narrowing

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) have reported conflicting results. We performed a systematic review up to May 23, 2021, and 1-stage reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to compare outcomes between both groups. The primary outcome was 10-year all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization at 5 years. We performed individual patient data meta-analysis using published Kaplan-Meier curves to provide individual data points in coordinates and numbers at risk were used to increase the calibration accuracy of the reconstructed data. Shared frailty model or, when proportionality assumptions were not met, a restricted mean survival time model were fitted to compare outcomes between treatment groups. Of 583 articles retrieved, 5 RCTs were included. A total of 4,595 patients from these 5 RCTs were randomly assigned to PCI (n = 2,297) or CABG (n = 2,298). The cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI and CABG was 12.0% versus 10.6%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.093, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.925 to 1.292; p = 0.296). PCI conferred similar time-to-MI (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.006, 95% CI 0.992 to 1.021, p=0.391) and stroke (restricted mean survival time ratio 1.005, 95% CI 0.998 to 1.013, p = 0.133) at 5 years. Unplanned revascularization was more frequent after PCI than CABG (HR 1.807, 95% CI 1.524 to 2.144, p <0.001) at 5 years. This meta-analysis using reconstructed participant-level time-to-event data showed no statistically significant difference in cumulative 10-year all-cause mortality between PCI versus CABG in the treatment of LMCAD.

Laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe liver resections: a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Despite the wide use of laparoscopy for liver resection, laparoscopic caudate lobe resections(L-CLR) remain technically challenging, only attempted by experts in the field. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and compare the perioperative outcomes of L-CLR with O-CLR based on our single institution experience in a 1:2 propensity score-matched controlled study based on our single institution experience.

METHODS

Between 2004 and 2020, 67 consecutive patients who underwent CLR at Singapore General Hospital were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) of laparoscopic versus open caudate lobe resections(O-CLR) was performed in a 1:2 ratio with no replacements using nearest neighbour matching method.

RESULTS

L-CLR was associated with a significantly decreased median blood loss (150 mL versus 500 mL, P = 0.001) and a decreased median post-operative stay (3 days versus 7.5 days, P = <0.01) in the unmatched cohorts. After 1:2 propensity score matching, these results were again demonstrated with a significantly lower blood loss (150 mL versus 400 mL, P = 0.016) and a shorter postoperative stay (3 days versus 7 days, P = <0.01) in favour of L-CLR. 30-day readmission and major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade > 2) rates were all in favour of L-CLR as well but could not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

L-CLR can be safely performed by experienced surgeons. It is associated with decreased blood loss and shorter perioperative stay compared to O-CLR.

Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Tenofovir vs Entecavir Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conventional meta-analyses with aggregated study-level data have yielded conflicting results for the comparative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among patients with chronic hepatitis B virus. Within-study heterogeneity, between-study heterogeneity, and the inability of conventional meta-analyses to capture time-to-event data were associated with these results.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of high-quality propensity score-matched studies to provide robust estimates for comparative HCC risk between groups receiving tenofovir or entecavir.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 6, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

The initial search yielded 3435 articles. Fourteen studies that used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics were included in the final analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of HCC was evaluated using random-effects hazard ratios (HRs) via a shared-frailty model and a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by study group. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis was conducted to account for varying estimated treatment effect across time.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The comparative risk of HCC with tenofovir vs entecavir treatment.

RESULTS

From analysis of 14 studes with 24 269 patients (10 534 receiving tenofovir and 13 735 receiving entecavir; mean age, 49.86 [95% CI, 48.35-51.36] years; 65.05% [95% CI, 58.60%-71.00%] men), tenofovir was associated with decreased HCC incidence compared with entecavir (stratified Cox HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.94] at 5 years; P = .002). However, there was no significant difference in subanalysis of clinical cohort studies (stratified Cox HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.80-1.06] at 5 years; P = .24). Among administrative database studies, proportionality was violated, and HRs could not be obtained via Cox proporational hazards-based models. The mean time to HCC development in RMST analysis was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.8-3.7) weeks longer (P < .001) for tenofovir vs entecavir at 5 years. The RMST analyses for other subgroups revealed either insignificant or minimal differences (<3 weeks) in the mean time to HCC at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the risk of HCC between patients who received entecavir and patients who received tenofovir. There was no difference between tenofovir and entecavir among clinical cohort studies, whereas the mean time to HCC development was less than 3 weeks longer for patients who received tenofovir vs those who received entecavir at year 5 among administrative database studies. The choice between tenofovir or entecavir should be decided based on patient convenience and tolerability.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Major Hepatectomies for Liver Malignancies: a Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

The majority of evidence with regards to minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) favors its application in minor hepatectomies. We conducted a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis to determine its feasibility and safety in major hepatectomies (MIMH) for liver malignancies.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 130 patients who underwent MIMH and 490 patients who underwent open major hepatectomy (OMH) for malignant pathologies was performed. PSM in a 1:1 ratio identified two groups of patients with similar baseline clinicopathological characteristics. Perioperative outcomes were then compared. Major hepatectomies included traditional major (>3 segments) and technical major hepatectomies (right anterior and right posterior sectionectomies).

RESULTS

Both cohorts were well-matched for baseline characteristics after PSM. Of 130 MIMH cases, there were 12 conversions to open. Comparison of perioperative outcomes demonstrated a significant association of MIMH with longer operation time and more frequent application of Pringle's maneuver (PM), but decreased postoperative stay. These results were consistent on a subgroup analysis that only included patients undergoing traditional major hepatectomies. A second subgroup analysis restricted to cirrhotic patients demonstrated that while perioperative outcomes were equivalent, MIMH was similarly associated with a longer operative time. Subset analyses of resections performed after 2015 demonstrated that MIMH was additionally associated with a lower postoperative morbidity compared to OMH.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of perioperative and short-term oncological outcomes between MIMH and OMH for malignancies demonstrated that MIMH is feasible and safe. It is associated with a shorter hospital stay at the expense of a longer operation time compared to OMH.

An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing between robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments

BACKGROUND

Robotic liver resections RLR may have the ability to address some of the drawbacks of laparoscopic(L)LR but few studies have done a head-to-head comparison of the outcomes after anterolateral segment resections by the two techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted of 3202 patients who underwent minimally-invasive LR of the anterolateral liver segments at 26 international centres from 2005 to 2020. 2606 cases met study criteria of which there were 358 RLR and 1868 LLR. Peri-operative outcomes were compared between the two groups using a 1:3 Propensity Score Matched(PSM) and 1:1 Coarsened Exact Matched(CEM) analysis.

RESULTS

Patients matched after 1:3 PSM(261 RLR vs. 783 LLR) and 1:1 CEM(296 RLR vs. 296 LLR) revealed no significant differences in length of stay, readmission rates, morbidity, mortality and involvement of or close oncological margins. RLR surgeries were associated with significantly less blood loss(50ml vs. 100ml, p<0.001) and lower rates of open conversion on both PSM(1.5% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003) and CEM(1.4% vs. 6.4%, p=0.004) compared to LLR. Though PSM analysis showed RLR to have a longer operating time than LLR(170 min vs. 160 min, p=0.036), this difference proved to be insignificant on CEM(167 min vs. 163 min. p=0.575).

CONCLUSION

This multicentre international combined PSM and CEM study showed that both RLR and LLR have equivalent perioperative outcomes when performed in selected patients at high volume centres. The robotic approach was associated with significantly lower blood loss and allowed more surgeries to be completed in a minimally-invasive fashion.

Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease: A One-Stage Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

Data are emerging on 10-year mortality comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting for multivessel disease (MVD) without left main (LM) involvement. We conducted an updated two-stage meta-analysis using reconstructed individual patient data to compare long-term mortality between CABG and PCI for patients with MVD without significant LM coronary disease.

Methods

Medline and Embase databases were searched for articles comparing CABG with PCI for MVD. A two-stage meta-analysis was conducted using reconstructed patient level survival data for all-cause mortality with subgroups by SYNTAX score. The shared-frailty and stratified Cox models were fitted to compare survival endpoints.

Results

We screened 1,496 studies and included six randomized controlled trials with 7,181 patients. PCI was associated with greater 10-year all-cause mortality risk (HR: 1.282, CI: 1.118-1.469, p < 0.001) compared with CABG. In patients with low SYNTAX score, 10-year all-cause mortality after PCI was comparable to CABG (HR: 1.102, 0.822-1.479, p = 0.516). However, in patients with moderate to high SYNTAX score, 10-year all-cause mortality was significantly higher after PCI compared with CABG (HR: 1.444, 1.122-1.858, p < 0.001; HR: 1.856, 1.380-2.497, p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

This updated reconstructed individual patient-data meta-analysis revealed a sustained lower cumulative all-cause mortality of CABG over PCI for multivessel disease without LM involvement.

Survival after minimally invasive vs. open radical nephrectomy for stage I and II renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

A recently reported phase III randomized trial comparing open and minimally invasive hysterectomy showed significantly higher rates of local recurrence after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for cervical cancer. This raised concerns regarding patterns of recurrences and survival after MIS in general. This study aims to determine the effect of MIS on all-cause mortality among patients undergoing radical nephrectomy for Stage I and II renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

METHODS

We utilized the National Cancer Database to identify patients diagnosed with clinical stage I-II RCCs between 2010 and 2013. Patients for whom a laparoscopic or robotic radical nephrectomy was attempted were compared to patients who underwent open radical nephrectomy (ORN). Adjusted regression models with inverse probability propensity score weighting (IPW) were utilized to identify independent predictors of receiving MIS. All-cause mortality rates were compared using IPW survival functions and log-rank tests. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were fitted to determine independent predictors of OS.

RESULTS

27,642 patients were identified; 11,524 (41.7%) had MIS, while 16,118 (58.3%) had ORN. Kaplan-Meier survival curves in the IPW cohort showed significant OS advantage for patients who underwent MIS (p < 0.001). Furthermore, length of hospital stays (3 vs. 4 days), 30 day readmission rates (2.4 vs. 2.87%), 30 day (0.53 vs. 0.96%) and 90 day mortality rates (1.04 vs. 1.77%) were significantly higher in the ORN group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

MIS was associated with better OS outcomes compared to ORN for stage I and II RCC. In addition, MIS had lower post-operative readmission, 30- and 90 day mortality rates.

Effect of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Angiography on Anastomotic Leakage in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity-Score-Matched Studies

Background

Meta-analyses have demonstrated that indocyanine green (ICG) can effectively prevent anastomotic leakage (AL) after colorectal surgery. However, recent evidence from large randomized controlled trial (RCT) has suggested that ICG fluorescence angiography does not reduce the incidence of AL in colorectal surgery. This study was conducted to evaluate the value of ICG for the prevention of AL following colorectal surgery.

Methods

Up to September 16, 2021, PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and VIP databases were searched for RCTs and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies evaluating the use of ICG for prevention of AL after colorectal surgery. Mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

Results

Twenty studies (5 RCTs and 15 PSM studies) with a total of 5,125 patients were included. ICG did not reduce the reoperation rate (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.38, 1.30), conversion rates (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.65, 2.78), or mortality (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.13, 1.85), but ICG did reduce the incidence of AL (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36, 0.59) and symptomatic AL (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33, 0.71), and reduced the length of hospital stay (MD,-1.21; 95% CI,-2.06,-0.35) and intraoperative blood loss (MD,-9.13; 95% CI,-17.52,-0.74). In addition, ICG use did not increase the incidence of total postoperative complications (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64, 1.35), postoperative ileus (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.53, 2.97), wound infection (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44, 1.32), urinary tract infection (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.30, 2.59), pulmonary infection (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.04, 1.45), urinary retention (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.23, 5.04), anastomotic bleeding (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.27, 8.60), anastomotic stricture (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.24, 2.29), or operative time (MD,-9.64; 95% CI,-20.28, 1.01).

Conclusions

ICG can effectively reduce the incidence of AL, without prolonging the operation time or increasing postoperative complications in colorectal surgery.

Systematic Review Registration

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier: CRD42021279064.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

PROTOCOL VERSION

version 12, May 9, 2017.

Feasibility of robotic-assisted pancreatic resection in patients with previous minor abdominal surgeries: a single-center experience of the first three years

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery is limited to specialized high-volume centers and selected patient cohorts. Especially for patients with a history of previous abdominal surgeries, the standard procedure remains open surgery due to the fear of complications caused by abdominal adhesions.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery using the daVinci Xi system (Intuitive Surgical) at our center (Department of Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany) were collected prospectively and further analyzed from October 2017 to October 2020. Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. In univariate and multivariate analysis, baseline and perioperative parameters of patients with a history of prior abdominal surgeries (PS) were compared to those of patients with no history of prior abdominal surgeries (NPS).

RESULTS

Out of 131 patients undergoing robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery, 62 (47%) had a history of abdominal surgery. Previous procedures included most often appendectomy (32%) followed by gynecological surgery (29%) and cholecystectomy (27%). 24% of PS had received multiple surgeries prior to the robotic-assisted pancreatic resections. Baseline characteristics and comorbidities were comparable between the groups. We did not detect differences in the duration of surgery (262 min), conversion rates (10%), and postoperative complications between NPS and PS. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH), and in-house mortality showed no significant differences between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed male sex and high BMI as a potential predictive factor for severe postoperative complications. Other characteristics like the type of pancreatic resection, ASA, and underlying malignancy showed no difference in the multivariable analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic-assisted pancreatic surgery to be safe and feasible for patients with a history of minor prior abdominal surgery. Hence, each patient should individually be evaluated for a minimally invasive approach regardless of a history of previous operations.

Weekly versus tri-weekly paclitaxel with carboplatin for first-line treatment in women with epithelial ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide: 295,414 new cases were diagnosed in 2018, with 184,799 deaths. The lack of an effective screening strategy has led to the majority of women being diagnosed at an advanced stage. For these women, intravenous carboplatin combined with paclitaxel for six cycles is widely accepted as the standard first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer, in combination with debulking surgery. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the optimal dosing schedule of paclitaxel when combined with carboplatin in this setting.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of intravenous weekly paclitaxel with that of tri-weekly paclitaxel, in combination with intravenous carboplatin, as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (defined as epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancer).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases for relevant studies up to 15 November 2021, using keywords and MeSH terms. We additionally handsearched conference libraries, online clinical trial databases and screened through lists of retrieved references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin versus tri-weekly paclitaxel in combination with carboplatin, for treatment of newly-diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the hazard ratio (HR) to estimate the primary efficacy outcomes progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We used the risk ratio (RR) to estimate the primary toxicity outcome of severe neutropenia and secondary outcomes of quality of life (QoL) and treatment-related adverse events. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We included individual participant data (IPD) from one of the included studies, ICON-8, provided by the study team. We analysed data using a random-effects model in Review Manager 5.4 software. Additionally, we reconstructed IPD for PFS and OS data from published Kaplan-Meier curves from all studies and subsequently pooled these to analyse the two primary efficacy outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

From 2469 records, we identified four eligible RCTs with data for 3699 participants. All eligible studies were included in the main meta-analysis and reported on PFS and OS. There was likely a slight improvement in PFS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.98; 4 studies, 3699 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little to no improvement in OS when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.06; 4 studies, 3699 participants; high-certainty evidence). There was likely little to no difference in high-grade (grade 3 or 4) neutropenia when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.43; 4 studies, 3639 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, weekly paclitaxel increased high-grade (grade 3 or 4) anaemia when compared to tri-weekly dosing (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.20; 4 studies, 3639 participants; high-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in high-grade neuropathy when paclitaxel was dosed weekly compared to tri-weekly (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.94; 4 studies, 3639 participants; low-certainty evidence). The overall risk of detection bias and performance bias was low for OS, but was unclear for other outcomes, as treatments were not blinded. The risk of bias in other domains was low or unclear. We note that OS data were immature for three of the included studies (GOG-0262, ICON-8 and MITO-7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin for first-line treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer likely improves PFS slightly (moderate-certainty evidence) but not OS (high-certainty evidence), compared to tri-weekly paclitaxel combined with carboplatin. However, this was associated with increased risk for high-grade anaemia, treatment discontinuation, dose delays and dose omissions (high- to low-certainty evidence). Our findings may not apply to women receiving bevacizumab in first-line therapy, those receiving treatment in the neo-adjuvant setting, or those with rare subtypes of clear cell or mucinous ovarian cancer.

Role of Indocyanine Green Fluorescence Imaging in Minimally Invasive Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging is an easy and reproducible method to detect hepatic lesions, both primary and metastatic. This review reports the potential benefits of this technique as a tactile mimicking visual tool and a navigator guide in minimally invasive liver resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). PubMed and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies reporting the use of intravenous injection of ICG before minimally invasive surgery for CLRM. The search was performed for publications reported from the first study in 2014 to April 2021. The final review included 13 articles: 6 prospective cohort studies, 1 retrospective cohort study, 3 case series, 1 case report, 1 case-matched study, and 1 clinical trial registry. The administered dose ranged between 0.3 and 0.5 mg/kg, while timing ranged between 1 and 14 days before surgery. CRLM detection rate ranged between 30.3% and 100% with preoperative imaging (abdominal computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging), between 93.3 and 100% with laparoscopic ultrasound, between 57.6% and 100% with ICG fluorescence, and was 100% with combined modalities (ICG and laparoscopic ultrasound) with weighted averages of 77.42%, 95.97%, 79.03%, and 100%, respectively. ICG fusion imaging also allowed to detect occult small-sized lesions, not diagnosed preoperatively. In addition, ICG is effective in real-time assessment of surgical margins by evaluating the integrity of the fluorescent rim around the CRLM.

Effect of modified no-touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy on outcomes of early stage cervical cancer: A retrospective cohort study

Objectives

We aimed to compare the prognosis of modified no‐touch laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (MLRH) and laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (LRH) on survival in patients with early stage cervical cancer.

Materials and Methods

The clinicopathological data of patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer, who underwent radical surgery between 2014 and 2019, were retrospectively reviewed. The 5‐year disease‐free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the MLRH and LRH groups using the Kaplan–Meier method. Independent prognostic factors for 5‐year DFS and OS were identified using multivariate, forward, stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression models.

Results

A total of 223 patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer were included. Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that the 5‐year DFS and OS rates in the MLRH (n = 81) group were significantly higher than those in the LRH group (n = 142) (DFS, 94.5% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.007; OS, 96.7% vs. 87.6%, p = 0.033). No significant differences were identified between the two groups in terms of operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirement, and intraoperative or postoperative complications. MLRH was an independent prognostic factor associated with increased 5‐year DFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.202; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.069–0.594; p = 0.004) and 5‐year OS (adjusted HR, 0.163; 95% CI, 0.035–0.748; p = 0.020).

Conclusion

The oncologic outcomes were superior with MLRH than with LRH in patients with stage IB1 and IIA1 cervical cancer. Contact of cervical tumor cells with the pelvic cavity likely explains the worse prognosis associated with LRH.