Laparoscopic repair of bile duct injuries: Feasibility and outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Bile duct injuries (BDI) following laparoscopic cholecystectomy occurs in approximately 0.6% of the cases, often being more severe and complex. Roux-en-Y hepaticojejunostomy (RYHJ) is considered the optimal therapeutic option, with success rates ranging from 75% to 98%. Several series have demonstrated the advancements of the laparoscopic approach for resolving this condition. The objective of this study is to describe our experience in the laparoscopic repair of BDI. METHODS: A retrospective, descriptive study was conducted, including patients who underwent laparoscopic repair after BDI. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and postoperative variables were analysed using descriptive statistical analyses. RESULTS: Eight patients with BDI underwent laparoscopic repair (out of 81 surgically repaired patients). Women comprised 75% of the sample. A complete laparoscopic repair was achieved in 75% (6) of cases. The mean age was 40.8 ± 16.61 years (range 19-65). Injuries at or above the confluence (Strasberg-Bismuth ≥ E3) occurred in 25% of cases (2). Primary repair was performed in two cases. Half of the cases underwent a Hepp-Couinaud laterolateral RYHJ, while three patients received a terminolateral RYHJ, and one underwent a bi-terminolateral RYH. The mean operative time was 260 min (range 120-360). Overall morbidity was 37.5% (3 cases): two minor complications (bile leak grade A and drainage-related bleeding) and one major complication (bile leak grade C). No mortality was recorded. The maximum follow-up period reached 26 months (range 6-26). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of laparoscopic RYHJ in a selected group of patients, offering the benefits of a minimally invasive approach.

Defining Benchmarks in Liver Transplantation: A Multicenter Outcome Analysis Determining Best Achievable Results.

: This multicentric study of 17 high-volume centers presents 12 benchmark values for liver transplantation. Those values, mostly targeting markers of morbidity, were gathered from 2024 "low risk" cases, and may serve as reference to assess outcome of single or any groups of patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose benchmark outcome values in liver transplantation, serving as reference for assessing individual patients or any other patient groups. BACKGROUND: Best achievable results in liver transplantation, that is, benchmarks, are unknown. Consequently, outcome comparisons within or across centers over time remain speculative. METHODS: Out of 7492 liver transplantation performed in 17 international centers from 3 continents, we identified 2024 low risk adult cases with a laboratory model for end-stage liver disease score ≤20 points, a balance of risk score ≤9, and receiving a primary graft by donation after brain death. We chose clinically relevant endpoints covering intra- and postoperative course, with a focus on complications graded by severity including the complication comprehensive index (CCI). Respective benchmarks were derived from the median value in each center, and the 75 percentile was considered the benchmark cutoff. RESULTS: Benchmark cases represented 8% to 49% of cases per center. One-year patient-survival was 91.6% with 3.5% retransplantations. Eighty-two percent of patients developed at least 1 complication during 1-year follow-up. Biliary complications occurred in one-fifth of the patients up to 6 months after surgery. Benchmark cutoffs were ≤4 days for ICU stay, ≤18 days for hospital stay, ≤59% for patients with severe complications (≥ Grade III) and ≤42.1 for 1-year CCI. Comparisons with the next higher risk group (model for end stage liver disease 21-30) disclosed an increase in morbidity but within benchmark cutoffs for most, but not all indicators, while in patients receiving a second graft from 1 center (n = 50) outcome values were all outside of benchmark values. CONCLUSIONS: Despite excellent 1-year survival, morbidity in benchmark cases remains high with half of patients developing severe complications during 1-year follow-up. Benchmark cutoffs targeting morbidity parameters offer a valid tool to assess higher risk groups.

Defining Benchmarks for Major Liver Surgery: A multicenter Analysis of 5202 Living Liver Donors.

OBJECTIVE: To measure and define the best achievable outcome after major hepatectomy. BACKGROUND: No reference values are available on outcomes after major hepatectomies. Analysis in living liver donors, with safety as the highest priority, offers the opportunity to define outcome benchmarks as the best possible results. METHODS: Outcome analyses of 5202 hemi-hepatectomies from living donors (LDs) from 12 high-volume centers worldwide were performed for a 10-year period. Endpoints, calculated at discharge, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), and liver failure according to different definitions. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of median morbidity values to represent the best achievable results at 3 month postoperatively. RESULTS: Patients were young (34 ± [9] years), predominantly male (65%) and healthy. Surgery lasted 7 ± [2] hours; 2% needed blood transfusions. Mean hospital stay was 11.7± [5] days. 12% of patients developed at least 1 complication, of which 3.8% were major events (≥grade III, including 1 death), mostly related to biliary/bleeding events, and were twice higher after right hepatectomy. The incidence of postoperative liver failure was low. Within 3-month follow-up, benchmark values for overall complication were ≤31 %, for minor/major complications ≤23% and ≤9%, respectively, and a CCI ≤33 in LDs with complications. Centers having performed ≥100 hepatectomies had significantly lower rates for overall (10.2% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and major (3% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001) complications and overall CCI (2.1 vs 8.5, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The thorough outcome analysis of healthy LDs may serve as a reference for evaluating surgical performance in patients undergoing major liver resection across centers and different patient populations. Further benchmark studies are needed to develop risk-adjusted comparisons of surgical outcomes.