The value of analyzing textbook outcomes after laparoscopic hepatectomy-a narrative review

Background and Objective

Guidelines are required because of the wide variability in care provided to patients with similar characteristics and similar medical conditions. Quality indicators were developed many years ago to assess the quality of care provided by hospitals. Since then, it has become evident that a composite set of factors can better characterize the patient's quality of care. The objectives of this review were to analyze the textbook outcomes (TO) applied in surgery, focusing on laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Methods

Data pertaining to quality indicators used in hospitals and their surgical applications were retrieved from medical literature by searching PubMed and Google Scholar for articles published between 1912 and 2022. Search terms included quality indicators, outcome indicators, TOs, TOs after surgery, TOs after hepatectomy, and clinical indicators.

Key Content and Findings

Since their inception, TO have been applied to various procedures and their impacts on patients have been assessed. TO and their implications have been studied for a variety of surgical procedures and were recently extended to laparoscopic hepatectomy. TO of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and right hemihepatectomy were recently assessed, and benchmark values have been defined. TO are useful tools for assessing hospital performance and for optimizing the outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy.

Conclusions

At present, TO only consider surgeon-related factors. However, it is important to include the patient's perspective when defining TO. Although TO were recently applied to laparoscopic hepatectomy, there is still a need to further evaluate their application in this setting. Achieving TO was shown to have a positive impact on long-term outcomes and this needs to be studied for different liver resection procedures.

Limited liver resections in the posterosuperior segments: international multicentre propensity score-matched and coarsened exact-matched analysis comparing the laparoscopic and robotic approaches

Background

Limited liver resections (LLRs) for tumours located in the posterosuperior segments of the liver are technically demanding procedures. This study compared outcomes of robotic (R) and laparoscopic (L) LLR for tumours located in the posterosuperior liver segments (IV, VII, and VIII).

Methods

This was an international multicentre retrospective analysis of patients who underwent R-LLR or L-LLR at 24 centres between 2010 and 2019. Patient demographics, perioperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were analysed; 1 : 3 propensity score matching (PSM) and 1 : 1 coarsened exact matching (CEM) were performed.

Results

Of 1566 patients undergoing R-LLR and L-LLR, 983 met the study inclusion criteria. Before matching, 159 R-LLRs and 824 L-LLRs were included. After 1 : 3 PSM of 127 R-LLRs and 381 L-LLRs, comparison of perioperative outcomes showed that median blood loss (100 (i.q.r. 40–200) versus 200 (100–500) ml; P = 0.003), blood loss of at least 500 ml (9 (7.4 per cent) versus 94 (27.6 per cent); P < 0.001), intraoperative blood transfusion rate (4 (3.1 per cent) versus 38 (10.0 per cent); P = 0.025), rate of conversion to open surgery (1 (0.8 per cent) versus 30 (7.9 per cent); P = 0.022), median duration of Pringle manoeuvre when applied (30 (20–46) versus 40 (25–58) min; P = 0.012), and median duration of operation (175 (130–255) versus 224 (155–300); P < 0.001) were lower in the R-LLR group compared with the L-LLR group. After 1 : 1 CEM of 104 R-LLRs with 104 L-LLRs, R-LLR was similarly associated with significantly reduced blood loss and a lower rate of conversion to open surgery.

Conclusion

Based on a matched analysis of well selected patients, both robotic and laparoscopic access could be undertaken safely with good outcomes for tumours in the posterosuperior liver segments.