Minimally Invasive Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery at a Large Regional Health System: Assessing the Safety of Program Expansion

BACKGROUND

Complex, minimally invasive hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (MIS HPB) is safe at high-volume centers, yet outcomes during early implementation are unknown. We describe our experience during period of rapid growth in an MIS HPB program at a large regional health system.

METHODS

During an increase in MIS HPB (60% greater from preceding year), hospital records of patients who underwent HPB surgery between 1/1/2019 and 12/31/2020 were reviewed. Operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), conversion rates, length of stay (LOS), and perioperative outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

267 patients' cases were reviewed. The population was 62 ± 13 years, 50% female, 90% white. MIS was more frequently performed for hepatic than pancreatic resections (59% vs 21%, P < .001). Open cases were more frequently performed for invasive malignancy in both pancreatic (70% vs 40%, P < .018) and hepatic (87% vs 70%, P = .046) resections. There was no difference in operative time between MIS and open surgery (293[218-355]min vs 296[199-399]min, P = .893). When compared to open, there was a shorter LOS (4[2-6]d vs 7[6-10]d, P < .001) and lower readmission rate (21% vs 37%, P = .005) following MIS. Estimated blood loss was lower in MIS liver resections, particularly when performed for benign disease (200[63-500]mL vs 600[200-1200]mL, P = .041). Overall 30-day mortality was similar between MIS and open surgery (1.0% vs 1.8%, P = 1.000).

DISCUSSION

During a surgical expansion phase within our regional health system, MIS HPB offered improved perioperative outcomes when compared to open surgery. These data support the safety of implementation even during intervals of rapid programmatic growth.

Hand-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery Is Superior to Open Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Posterosuperior Segments

Introduction: Laparoscopic liver resections (LLR) of colorectal metastasis located in posterosuperior segments (1, 4A, 7 and 8) are challenging and highly demanding. The aim of our study is to determine the safety and feasibility of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) in the resections of the posterosuperior lesions and to compare the peri-operative, short-term and long-term outcomes with the open liver resection (OLR) approach.

Methods and Results: A retrospective study of patients who underwent either HALS or OLR for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver between 2008 and 2018 in two university affiliated medical centers.

Results: A total of 187 patients were identified, of whom 78 underwent HALS and 109 underwent OLR. There was no difference between the HALS and OLR with regard to preoperative factors (age, primary CRC tumor location, number and anatomical distribution of liver metastasis, pre-operative neo-adjuvant treatment, operative time, blood transfusion rate, and resection margins positivity). On the other hand, HALS compared to OLR had a significantly shorter mean hospital stay (4 vs. 6 days; P = 0.003), and a lower total complications rate (25 vs. 47% P = 0.006). Both groups had no 30-day mortality. Also, patients who underwent HALS vs. OLR had similar liver metastases recurrence (55 vs. 51%. P = 0.65) and 5-year survival (47 vs. 45%. P = 0.72).

Conclusions: HALS for mCRC located in posterosuperior liver segments is safe and feasible and it is a preferable approach due to its lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay while not compromising survival and disease recurrence.

Optimal hepatic surgery: Are we making progress in North America?

BACKGROUND

The aim of this analysis was to determine whether optimal outcomes have increased in recent years. Hepatic surgery is high risk, but regionalization and minimally invasive approaches have evolved. Best practices also have been defined with the goal of improving outcomes.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried. Analyses were performed separately for partial (≤2 segments), major (≥3 segments), and all hepatectomies. Optimal hepatic surgery was defined as the absence of mortality, serious morbidity, need for a postoperative invasive procedure or reoperation, prolonged length of stay (<75th percentile) or readmission. Tests of trend, χ², and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2018, 17,082 hepatectomies, including 11,862 partial hepatectomies and 5,220 major hepatectomies, were analyzed. Minimally invasive approaches increased from 25.6% in 2014 to 29.6% in 2018 (P < .01) and were performed more frequently for partial hepatectomies (34.2%) than major hepatectomies (14.4%) (P < .01). Operative time decreased from 220 minutes in 2014 to 208 minutes in 2018 (P < .05) and was lower in partial hepatectomies (189 vs 258 minutes for major hepatectomies) (P < .01). Mortality (0.7%) and length of stay (4 days) were lower for partial hepatectomies compared with major hepatectomies (1.9%; 6 days), and length of stay decreased for both partial hepatectomies (5 days in 2014 to 4 days in 2018) and major hepatectomies (6 days in 2014 to 6 days in 2018) (all P < .01). Postoperative sepsis (2.9% in 2014 and 2.4% in 2018), bile leaks (6% in 2014 and 4.8% in 2018), and liver failure (3.7% in 2014 and 3.3% in 2018) decreased for all patients (<.05). On multivariable analyses, overall morbidity decreased for major hepatectomies (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and all hepatectomies (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, both P < .01), and optimal hepatic surgery increased over time for partial hepatectomies (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09) and all hepatectomies (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, both P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Over a 5-year period in North America, minimally invasive hepatectomies have increased, while operative time, postoperative sepsis, bile leaks, liver failure, and prolonged length of stay have decreased. Optimal hepatic surgery has increased for partial and all hepatectomies and is achieved more often in partial than in major resections.

Safety and feasibility of robotic liver resection after previous abdominal surgeries

BACKGROUND

While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches.

METHODS

Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy is safe and effective for the management of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases in a population-based analysis in Ontario, Canada. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) has been deemed safe, and, in the case of minor hepatectomy, the standard of care. Short-, long-term outcomes and costs of LH compared with open hepatectomy (OH) in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases have not been well described at the population level.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer undergoing hepatectomy were included in this population-based retrospective cohort study from 2006- to 2014. Postoperative complications (per Clavien-Dindo) and survival were analyzed using a linear mixed model and Cox-Proportional hazards model respectively. Costs of surgery and the 90-day postoperative period were considered in 2018 Canadian dollars and compared from the perspective of a third-party payer.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 56 months, 95% confidence interval (CI): 51 to 68), there were 2991 hepatectomies (OH: 2551 (85%) and LH: 440 (15%)). LH compared to OH was more common for patients >70 years-old (30% vs. 22%, p = 0.004) and for minor hepatectomy (52% vs. 32%, p < 0.001) respectively. By multivariable analyses, OH was associated with similar 90-day mortality (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% CI: 0.56-1.97), and overall survival (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.08, 95% CI: 0.90-1.29), but higher rates of major postoperative complications (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.03-1.76), higher cost (median difference $6,163, 95% CI: $3229 to $9096), and longer length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference 3.04 days, 95% CI: 2.7 to 3.91).

CONCLUSION

LH was associated with lower postoperative complications, shorter LOS, which translated into lower costs to the healthcare system, without differences in postoperative mortality and survival.

Patient blood management for liver resection: consensus statements using Delphi methodology

BACKGROUND

Blood loss and transfusion remain a significant concern in liver resection (LR). Patient blood management (PBM) programs reduce use of transfusions and improve outcomes and costs, but are not standardized for LR. This study sought to create an expert consensus statement on PBM for LR using modified Delphi methodology.

METHODS

An expert panel representing hepato-biliary surgery, anesthesiology, and transfusion medicine was invited to participate. 28 statements addressing the 3 pillars of PBM were created. Panelists were asked to rate statements on a 7-point Likert scale. Three-rounds of iterative rating and feedback were completed anonymously, followed by an in-person meeting. Consensus was reached with at least 70% agreement.

RESULTS

The 35 experts panel recommended routine pre-operative transfusion risk assessment, and investigation and management of anemia with iron supplementation. Intra-operatively, restrictive fluid administration without routine central line insertion was recommended, along with intermittent hepatic pedicle occlusion and surgical techniques considerations. Specific criteria for restrictive intra-operative and post-operative transfusion strategy were recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

PBM for LR included medical and technical interventions throughout the perioperative continuum, addressing specificities of LR. Diffusion and adoption of these recommendations can standardize PBM for LR to improve patient outcomes and resource utilization.