Search

Objective: To compare the outcomes of robotic minor liver resections (RMLR) versus laparoscopic (L) MLR of the anterolateral segments., Background: Robotic liver surgery has been gaining prominence over the years with increasing usage for a myriad of hepatic resections. Robotic liver resections(RLR) has demonstrated non-inferiority to laparoscopic(L)LR while illustrating advantages over conventional laparoscopy especially for technically difficult and major LR. However, the advantage of RMLR for the anterolateral(AL) (segments II, III, IVb, V and VI) segments, has not been clearly demonstrated., Methods: Between 2008 to 2022, 15,356 of 29,861 patients from 68 international centres underwent robotic(R) or laparoscopic minor liver resections (LMLR) for the AL segments Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for matched analysis., Results: 10,517 patients met the study criteria of which 1,481 underwent RMLR and 9,036 underwent LMLR. A PSM cohort of 1,401 patients in each group were identified for analysis. Compared to the LMLR cohort, the RMLR cohort demonstrated significantly lower median blood loss (75ml vs. 100ml, P<0.001), decreased blood transfusion (3.1% vs. 5.4%, P=0.003), lower incidence of major morbidity (2.5% vs. 4.6%, P=0.004), lower proportion of open conversion (1.2% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001), shorter post operative stay (4 days vs. 5 days, P<0.001), but higher rate of 30-day readmission (3.5% vs. 2.1%, P=0.042). These results were then validated by a 1:2 PSM analysis. In the subset analysis for 3,614 patients with cirrhosis, RMLR showed lower median blood loss, decreased blood transfusion, lower open conversion and shorter post operative stay than LMLR., Conclusion: RMLR demonstrated statistically significant advantages over LMLR even for resections in the AL segments although most of the observed clinical differences were minimal., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to establish global benchmark outcomes indicators for L-RPS/H67., Background: Minimally invasive liver resections has seen an increase in uptake in recent years. Over time, challenging procedures as laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomies (L-RPS)/H67 are also increasingly adopted., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 854 patients undergoing minimally invasive RPS (MI-RPS) in 57 international centers in 4 continents between 2015 and 2021. There were 651 pure L-RPS and 160 robotic RPS (R-RPS). Sixteen outcome indicators of low-risk L-RPS cases were selected to establish benchmark cutoffs. The 75th percentile of individual center medians for a given outcome indicator was set as the benchmark cutoff., Results: There were 573 L-RPS/H67 performed in 43 expert centers, of which 254 L-RPS/H67 (44.3%) cases qualified as low risk benchmark cases. The benchmark outcomes established for operation time, open conversion rate, blood loss ≥500 mL, blood transfusion rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, 90-day mortality and textbook outcome after L-RPS were 350.8 minutes, 12.5%, 53.8%, 22.9%, 23.8%, 2.8%, 0% and 4% respectively., Conclusions: The present study established the first global benchmark values for L-RPS/H6/7. The benchmark provided an up-to-date reference of best achievable outcomes for surgical auditing and benchmarking., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To propose to our community a common language about extreme liver surgery., Background: The lack of a clear definition of extreme liver surgery prevents convincing comparisons of results among centers., Methods: We used a two-round Delphi methodology to quantify consensus among liver surgery experts. For inclusion in the final recommendations, we established a consensus when the positive responses (agree and totally agree) exceeded 70%. The study steering group summarized and reported the recommendations. In general, a five-point Likert scale with a neutral central value was used, and in a few cases multiple choices. Results are displayed as numbers and percentages., Results: A two-round Delphi study was completed by 38 expert surgeons in complex hepatobiliary surgery. The surgeon´s median age was 58 years old (52-63) and the median years of experience was 25 years (20-31). For the proposed definitions of total vascular occlusion, hepatic flow occlusion and inferior vein occlusion, the degree of agreement was 97%, 81% and 84%, respectively. In situ approach (64%) was the preferred, followed by ante situ (22%) and ex situ (14%). Autologous or cadaveric graft for hepatic artery or hepatic vein repair were the most recommended (89%). The use of veno-venous bypass or portocaval shunt revealed the divergence depending on the case. Overall, 75% of the experts agreed with the proposed definition for extreme liver surgery., Conclusion: Obtaining a consensus on the definition of extreme liver surgery is essential to guarantee the correct management of patients with highly complex hepatobiliary oncological disease. The management of candidates for extreme liver surgery involves comprehensive care ranging from adequate patient selection to the appropriate surgical strategy., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: The authors declared no conflict of interest. No third-party financial funds or materials were accepted or necessary for execution of this research project., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic limited liver resections (RLLR) versus laparoscopic limited liver resections (LLLR) of the posterosuperior segments., Background: Both laparoscopic and robotic liver resections have been used for tumors in the posterosuperior liver segments. However, the comparative performance and safety of both approaches have not been well examined in the existing literature., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of 5446 patients who underwent RLLR or LLLR of the posterosuperior segments (I, IVa, VII, and VIII) at 60 international centers between 2008 and 2021. Data on baseline demographics, center experience and volume, tumor features, and perioperative characteristics were collected and analyzed. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis (in both 1:1 and 1:2 ratios) was performed to minimize selection bias., Results: A total of 3510 cases met the study criteria, of whom 3049 underwent LLLR (87%), and 461 underwent RLLR (13%). After PSM (1:1: and 1:2), RLLR was associated with a lower open conversion rate [10 of 449 (2.2%) vs 54 of 898 (6.0%); P =0.002], less blood loss [100 mL [IQR: 50-200) days vs 150 mL (IQR: 50-350); P <0.001] and a shorter operative time (188 min (IQR: 140-270) vs 222 min (IQR: 158-300); P <0.001]. These improved perioperative outcomes associated with RLLR were similarly seen in a subset analysis of patients with cirrhosis-lower open conversion rate [1 of 136 (0.7%) vs 17 of 272 (6.2%); P =0.009], less blood loss [100 mL (IQR: 48-200) vs 160 mL (IQR: 50-400); P <0.001], and shorter operative time [190 min (IQR: 141-258) vs 230 min (IQR: 160-312); P =0.003]. Postoperative outcomes in terms of readmission, morbidity and mortality were similar between RLLR and LLLR in both the overall PSM cohort and cirrhosis patient subset., Conclusions: RLLR for the posterosuperior segments was associated with superior perioperative outcomes in terms of decreased operative time, blood loss, and open conversion rate when compared with LLLR., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH)., Background: Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups., Results: A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]., Conclusions: This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery., Competing Interests: B.K.P.G. has received travel grants and honorariums from Johnson and Johnson, Olympus and Transmedic, the local distributor for the Da Vinci Robot. M.V.M. is a consultant for CAVA robotics LLC. J.P. reports a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH and personal fees or non-financial support from Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, AFS Medical, Astellas, CHG Meridian, Chiesi, Falk Foundation, La Fource Group, Merck, Neovii, NOGGO, pharma-consult Peterson, and Promedicis. M. Schmelzle reports personal fees or other support outside of the submitted work from Merck, Bayer, ERBE, Amgen, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Olympus, Medtronic, and Intuitive. A.A.F. reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer. F.R. reports speaker fees and support outside the submitted work from Integra, Medtronic, Olympus, Corza, Sirtex, and Johnson and Johnson. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: B.K.P.G. has received travel grants and honorarium from Johnson and Johnson, Olympus, and Transmedic the local distributor for the Da Vinci Robot. M.V.M. is a consultant for CAVA robotics LLC. J.P. reports a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH and personal fees or nonfinancial support from Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, AFS Medical, Astellas, CHG Meridian, Chiesi, Falk Foundation, La Fource Group, Merck, Neovii, NOGGO, pharma-consult Peterson, and Promedicis. M.S. reports personal fees or other support outside of the submitted work from Merck, Bayer, ERBE, Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Takeda, Olympus, Medtronic, and Intuitive. A.F. reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer. F.R. reports speaker fees and support outside the submitted work from Integra, Medtronic, Olympus, Corza, Sirtex, and Johnson & Johnson. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Assess cost-effectiveness and -utility associated with posttransplant HCC surveillance compared to standard follow-up., Summary of Background Data: Despite lack of prospective clinical data, expert consensus recommends posttransplant surveillance to detect HCC recurrence in a latent phase, while it might be amenable to curative-intent therapy., Methods: A Markov-based transition model was created to estimate life expectancy and quality-of-life among liver transplant patients undergoing HCC surveillance. Models were built for 2 cohorts: 1 undergoing HCC surveillance with contrast-enhanced computed tomography of chest and abdomen and serum alpha-fetoprotein analysis and the other receiving standard posttransplant follow-up. Primary model outputs included LY and QALY gains, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and incremental cost-utility ratio. Willingness-to-pay for a QALY gain (cost-effectiveness threshold) was used to estimate efficiency., Results: Surveillance was marginally more effective versus no surveillance, resulting in means of 0.069 LYs and 0.026 QALYs gained. Costs for surveillance were increased by an average of 988.32€, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 14,410.15€/LY and incremental cost-utility ratio 37,547.97€/QALY. Surveillance did not seem cost-effective in our setting, considering willingness-to-pay threshold of 25,000€/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated surveillance might be cost-effective in 42% of cases, but degree of uncertainty in the analysis was high., Conclusions: Performing posttransplant HCC surveillance offers marginal clinical benefits and increases costs. Although expert consensus supports surveillance, results of this decision analysis raise doubt regarding the utility of such recommendations and support ongoing need for prospective clinical trials., Competing Interests: The remainder of the authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To define benchmark values for liver transplantation (LT) in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) enabling unbiased comparisons., Background: Transplantation for PHC is used with reluctance in many centers and even contraindicated in several countries. Although benchmark values for LT are available, there is a lack of specific data on LT performed for PHC., Methods: PHC patients considered for LT after Mayo-like protocol were analyzed in 17 reference centers in 2 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018). The minimum follow-up was 1 year. Benchmark patients were defined as operated at high-volume centers (≥50 overall LT/year) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, with a tumor diameter <3 cm, negative lymph nodes, and with the absence of relevant comorbidities. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th to 25th percentiles of the median values of all benchmark centers., Results: One hundred thirty-four consecutive patients underwent LT after completion of the neoadjuvant treatment. Of those, 89.6% qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cutoffs were 90-day mortality ≤5.2%; comprehensive complication index at 1 year of ≤33.7; grade ≥3 complication rates ≤66.7%. These values were better than benchmark values for other indications of LT. Five-year disease-free survival was largely superior compared with a matched group of nodal negative patients undergoing curative liver resection (n=106) (62% vs 32%, P <0.001)., Conclusion: This multicenter benchmark study demonstrates that LT offers excellent outcomes with superior oncological results in early stage PHC patients, even in candidates for surgery. This provocative observation should lead to a change in available therapeutic algorithms for PHC., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons., Background: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking., Methods: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014-2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers., Results: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes., Conclusion: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To establish the optimal time to start oral refeeding in mild and moderate acute pancreatitis (AP) to reduce hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and complications., Summary Background Data: Oral diet is essential in mild and moderate AP. The greatest benefits are obtained if refeeding starts early; however, the definition of "early" remains controversial., Methods: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (NCT03829085) included patients with a diagnosis of mild or moderate AP admitted consecutively to 4 hospitals from 2017 to 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 treatment groups: immediate oral refeeding (IORF) and conventional oral refeeding (CORF). The IORF group (low-fat-solid diet initiated immediately after hospital admission) was compared to CORF group (progressive oral diet was restarted when clinical and laboratory parameters had improved) in terms of LOS (primary endpoint), pain relapse, diet intolerance, complications, and, hospital costs., Results: One hundred and thirty one patients were included for randomization. The mean LOS for the IORF and CORF groups was 3.4 (SD ± 1.7) and 8.8 (SD ± 7.9) days, respectively (P < 0.001). In the CORF group alone, pain relapse rate was 16%. There were fewer complications (8% vs 26%) and health costs were twice as low, with a savings of 1325.7€/patient in the IORF than CORF group., Conclusions: IORF is safe and feasible in mild and moderate AP, resulting in significantly shorter LOS and cost savings, without causing adverse effects or complications., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of cardiac arrest time (CAT) in donors after brain death (DBD) donors on pancreas transplant outcome., Summary of Background Data: Results from donors after circulatory death report good outcomes despite warm ischemia times up to 57 minutes. Previous cardiac arrest in DBD has been addressed as a potential risk factor, but duration of the CAT has never been evaluated., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis including 342 pancreas transplants performed at our center from 2000 to 2016, and evaluated the effect of previous cardiac arrest in DBD (caDBD) on pancreas transplant outcomes., Results: A total of 49 (14.3%) caDBD were accepted for transplantation [median CAT of 5.0 min (IQR 2.5-15.0)]. Anoxic encephalopathy was most frequent and P-PASS higher (16.9 vs 15.6) in caDBD group when compared with other DBD. No differences were found in all other characteristics evaluated.Graft survival was similar between both groups, as was the incidence of early graft failure (EGF). CAT increased the risk for EGF [OR 1.09 (95% CI, 1.01-1.17)], and the duration of CPR discriminated for EGF [AUC of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.74-0.98)], with a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 75% at a cutoff of 15 minutes. When evaluated separately, caDBD >15 min increased over 5 times the risk for EGF [HR 5.80 (95% CI, 1.82-18.56); P = 0.003], and these presented fewer days on the ICU (1.0 vs 3.0 d)., Conclusion: CaDBD donors are suitable for routine pancreas transplantation without increasing EGF risk, and in those with longer CAT it may be prudent to postpone donation a few days to allow a thorough evaluation of organ damage following cardiac arrest., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the rates of R0 resection in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic and periampullary malignant tumors by means of standard (ST-PD) versus artery-first approach (AFA-PD)., Background: Standardized histological examination of PD specimens has shown that most pancreatic resections thought to be R0 resections are R1. "Artery-first approach" is a surgical technique characterized by meticulous dissection of arterial planes and clearing of retropancreatic tissue in an attempt to achieve a higher rate of R0. To date, studies comparing AFA-PD versus ST-PD are retrospective cohort or case-control studies., Methods: A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted in 10 University Hospitals (NCT02803814, ClinicalTrials.gov). Eligible patients were those who presented with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and periampullary tumors (ampulloma, distal cholangiocarcinoma, duodenal adenocarcinoma). Assignment to each group (ST-PD or AFA-PD) was randomized by blocks and stratified by centers. The primary end-point was the rate of tumor-free resection margins (R0); secondary end-points were postoperative complications and mortality., Results: One hundred seventy-nine patients were assessed for eligibility and 176 randomized. After exclusions, the final analysis included 75 ST-PD and 78 AFA-PD. R0 resection rates were 77.3% (95% CI: 68.4-87.4) with ST-PD and 67.9% (95% CI: 58.3-79.1) with AFA-PD, P=0.194. There were no significant differences in postoperative complication rates, overall 73.3% versus 67.9%, and perioperative mortality 4% versus 6.4%., Conclusions: Despite theoretical oncological advantages associated with AFA-PD and evidence coming from low-level studies, this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial has found no difference neither in R0 resection rates nor in postoperative complications in patients undergoing ST-PD versus AFA-PD for pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and other periampullary tumors.

Objective: To evaluate the European experience after Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation using the left liver (LL-aLDLT)., Summary Background Data: LL-aLDLT decreases donor risk but provides a smaller graft that increases recipient risk as compared with right liver (RL-aLDLT). However, there is little knowledge of results obtained after LL-aLDLT in Europe., Methods: This is a European multicenter retrospective study which aims to analyze donor and recipient outcomes after 46 LL-aLDLT., Results: Seventy-six percent of the grafts were harvested by minimally invasive approach. Mean donor hospital stay was 7.5 ± 3.5 days. Donor liver function was minimally impaired, with 36 donors (78.3%) without any 90-day complication, and 4 (8.7%) presenting major complications. One, 3, and 5-year recipient survival was 90.9%, 82.7%, and 82.7%, respectively. However, graft survival was of 59.4%, 56.9%, and 56.9% at 1, 3, and 5 years respectively, due to a 26.1% urgent liver retransplantation (ReLT) rate, mainly due to SFSS (n = 5) and hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT, n = 5). Risk factor analysis for ReLT and HAT showed an association with a graft to body weight ratio (GBWR) <0.6% (P = 0.01 and P = 0.024, respectively) while SFSS was associated with a recipient MELD ≥14 (P = 0.019). A combination of donor age <45 years, MELD <14 and actual GBWR >0.6% was associated with a lower ReLT rate (0% vs. 33%, P = 0.044)., Conclusions: Our analysis showed low donor morbidity and preserved liver function. Recipient outcomes, however, were hampered by a high ReLT rate. A strict selection of both donor and recipients is the key to minimize graft loss.

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify a readily available, reproducible, and internationally applicable cost assessment tool for surgical procedures., Summary of Background Data: Strong economic pressure exists worldwide to slow down the rising of health care costs. Postoperative morbidity significantly impacts on cost in surgical patients. The comprehensive complication index (CCI), reflecting overall postoperative morbidity, may therefore serve as a new marker for cost., Methods: Postoperative complications and total costs from a single tertiary center were prospectively collected (2014 to 2016) up to 3 months after surgery for a variety of abdominal procedures (n = 1388). CCI was used to quantify overall postoperative morbidity. Pearson correlation coefficient (rpears) was calculated for cost and CCI. For cost prediction, a linear regression model based on CCI, age, and type of surgery was developed and validated in an international cohort of patients., Results: We found a high correlation between CCI and overall cost (rpears = 0.75) with the strongest correlation for more complex procedures. The prediction model performed very well (R = 0.82); each 10-point increase in CCI corresponded to a 14% increase to the baseline cost. Additional 12% of baseline cost must be added for patients older than 50 years, or 24% for those over 70 years. The validation cohorts showed a good match of predicted and observed cost., Conclusion: Overall postoperative morbidity correlates highly with cost. The CCI together with the type of surgery and patient age is a novel and reliable predictor of expenses in surgical patients. This finding may enable objective cost comparisons among centers, procedures, or over time obviating the need to look at complex country-specific cost calculations (www.assessurgery.com).

Objective: Unexpected donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors suffer cardiac arrest suddenly and are maintained with normothermic extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (NECMO) while consent for donation is obtained. The objective of this study was to determine whether ex vivo normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) improves upon the benefits of NECMO in a large-animal model of unexpected DCD liver transplant., Methods: Donor pigs underwent 90-minute cardiac arrest and were divided in to 3 groups. In the first, livers were preserved immediately with cold storage (CS, n = 6). In the other 2 groups, donors underwent 60-minute NECMO followed by CS (NECMO+CS, n = 6) or NMP (NECMO+NMP, n = 6). After 4-hour preservation, livers were transplanted into recipient pigs., Results: Five-day survival was 0 in CS, 83% in NECMO+CS, and 100% in NECMO+NMP. After reperfusion, injury, and inflammatory markers rose significantly among CS grafts, all of which developed primary nonfunction. Sixty minutes of NECMO, however, resulted in only 1 death, whereas NECMO followed by NMP led to no deaths and significant improvements in injury, inflammation, and synthetic function in comparison to NECMO and CS., Conclusion: Although 60 minutes recuperative NECMO is better than CS alone, NMP improves further on NECMO and may have a role in preserving DCD livers in the clinical setting.

Background: In partial liver transplant, a reduction in the intrahepatic vascular bed produces a rise in the portal vein flow and the portal venous pressure gradient, leading to endothelial and, thereby, hepatocellular injury and death in a process known as "small-for-size" (SFS) syndrome., Objective: To demonstrate that a calibrated portocaval shunt prevents superfluous inflow in a porcine model of SFS transplant., Methods: Donor pigs (15-20 kg) underwent 70% hepatectomy. In 2 groups, a 6 mm (S6) (n = 6) or 12 mm (S12) (n = 6) Gore-Tex shunt was placed between the portal vein and infrahepatic inferior vena cava. In a third group, no portocaval shunt was placed (SFS) (n = 17). Grafts were stored for 5 hours at 4°C and then transplanted into recipients (30-35 kg)., Results: Five-day survival was 29% in SFS, 100% in S6, and 0 in S12. Postreperfusion portal vein flow was 4-, 2-, and 1-times flow at baseline in SFS, S6, and S12, respectively. With respect to portal venous pressure gradient, both the 6- and 12-mm shunts effectively decompressed the portal bed. Aspartate aminotransferase and bilirubin rose and the Quick prothrombin time fell in all animals after reperfusion but improved significantly by day 5 in S6. Serum levels of endothelin-1 remained elevated in SFS and S12 but returned to baseline by 12 hours in S6: 2.76 (2.05-4.08) and 2.04 (1.97-2.12) versus 0.43 (0.26-0.50) pg/mL, respectively (P < 0.05 for both comparisons)., Conclusions: A calibrated portocaval shunt that maintains portal vein flow about twice its baseline value produces a favorable outcome after SFS liver transplantation, avoiding endothelial injury due to portal hyperperfusion or to hypoperfusion because of excess shunting.