Search

BACKGROUND: The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes.METHODS: To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004-2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression.RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments ('Technically major', n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013).CONCLUSIONS: SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.

Objective: To determine the nationwide implementation and surgical outcome of minor and major robotic liver surgery (RLS) and assess the first phase of implementation of RLS during the learning curve. Background: RLS may be a valuable alternative to laparoscopic liver surgery. Nationwide population-based studies with data on implementation and outcome of RLS are lacking. Methods: Multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent RLS for all indications in 9 Dutch centers (August 2014-March 2021). Data on all liver resections were obtained from the mandatory nationwide Dutch Hepato Biliary Audit (DHBA) including data from all 27 centers for liver surgery in the Netherlands. Outcomes were stratified for minor, technically major, and anatomically major RLS. Learning curve effect was assessed using cumulative sum analysis for blood loss. Results: Of 9437 liver resections, 400 were RLS (4.2%) procedures including 207 minor (52.2%), 141 technically major (35.3%), and 52 anatomically major (13%). The nationwide use of RLS increased from 0.2% in 2014 to 11.9% in 2020. The proportion of RLS among all minimally invasive liver resections increased from 2% to 28%. Median blood loss was 150 mL (interquartile range 50-350 mL] and the conversion rate 6.3% (n=25). The rate of Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III complications was 7.0% (n=27), median length of hospital stay 4 days (interquartile range 2-5) and 30-day/in-hospital mortality 0.8% (n=3). The R0 resection rate was 83.2% (n=263). Cumulative sum analysis for blood loss found a learning curve of at least 33 major RLS procedures. Conclusions: The nationwide use of RLS in the Netherlands has increased rapidly with currently one-tenth of all liver resections and one-fourth of all minimally invasive liver resections being performed robotically. Although surgical outcomes of RLS in selected patient seem favorable, future prospective studies should determine its added value.

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 p 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. Graphical abstract

Background: Despite a lack of high-level evidence, current guidelines recommend laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) as the routine approach over open LLS (OLLS). Randomized studies and propensity score matched studies on LLLS vs OLLS for all indications, including malignancy, are lacking.Methods: This international multicenter propensity score matched retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing LLLS or OLLS in six centers from three European countries (January 2000-December 2016). Propensity scores were calculated based on nine preoperative variables and LLLS and OLLS were matched in a 1:1 ratio. Short-term operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.Results: A total of 560 patients were included. Out of 200 LLLS, 139 could be matched to 139 OLLS. After matching, baseline characteristics were well balanced. LLLS was associated with shorter operative time (144 (110-200) vs 199 (138-283) minutes, P < 0.001), less blood loss (100 (50-300) vs 350 (100-750) mL, P = 0.005) and a 3-day shorter postoperative hospital stay (4 (3-7) vs 7 (5-9) days, P < 0.001).Conclusion: This international multicenter propensity score matched study confirms the superiority of LLLS over OLLS based on shorter postoperative hospital stay, operative time, and less blood loss thus validating current guideline advice.

Objective: to reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method.Summary background data: textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking.Methods: this international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. Results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS.Results: in total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all three major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%) and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality and the presence of R0 resection margin.Conclusions: this is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.

Background: While most of the evidence on minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is derived from expert centers, nationwide outcomes remain underreported. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation and outcome of MILS on a nationwide scale. Methods: Electronic patient files were reviewed in all Dutch liver surgery centers and all patients undergoing MILS between 2011 and 2016 were selected. Operative outcomes were stratified based on extent of the resection and annual MILS volume. Results: Overall, 6951 liver resections were included, with a median annual volume of 50 resections per center. The overall use of MILS was 13% (n = 916), which varied from 3% to 36% (P < 0.001) between centers. The nationwide use of MILS increased from 6% in 2011 to 23% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Outcomes of minor MILS were comparable with international studies (conversion 0–13%, mortality