Minimally Invasive Versus Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To compare minimally invasive (MILR) and open liver resections (OLRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with metabolic syndrome (MS). BACKGROUND: Liver resections for HCC on MS are associated with high perioperative morbidity and mortality. No data on the minimally invasive approach in this setting exist. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicenter study involving 24 institutions was conducted. Propensity scores were calculated, and inverse probability weighting was used to weight comparisons. Short-term and long-term outcomes were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 996 patients were included: 580 in OLR and 416 in MILR. After weighing, groups were well matched. Blood loss was similar between groups (OLR 275.9±3.1 vs MILR 226±4.0, P =0.146). There were no significant differences in 90-day morbidity (38.9% vs 31.9% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.08) and mortality (2.4% vs 2.2% OLRs and MILRs, P =0.84). MILRs were associated with lower rates of major complications (9.3% vs 15.3%, P =0.015), posthepatectomy liver failure (0.6% vs 4.3%, P =0.008), and bile leaks (2.2% vs 6.4%, P =0.003); ascites was significantly lower at postoperative day 1 (2.7% vs 8.1%, P =0.002) and day 3 (3.1% vs 11.4%, P <0.001); hospital stay was significantly shorter (5.8±1.9 vs 7.5±1.7, P <0.001). There was no significant difference in overall survival and disease-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: MILR for HCC on MS is associated with equivalent perioperative and oncological outcomes to OLRs. Fewer major complications, posthepatectomy liver failures, ascites, and bile leaks can be obtained, with a shorter hospital stay. The combination of lower short-term severe morbidity and equivalent oncologic outcomes favor MILR for MS when feasible.

Model to predict major complications following liver resection for HCC in patients with metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MS) is rapidly growing as risk factor for HCC. Liver resection for HCC in patients with MS is associated with increased postoperative risks. There are no data on factors associated with postoperative complications. AIMS: The aim was to identify risk factors and develop and validate a model for postoperative major morbidity after liver resection for HCC in patients with MS, using a large multicentric Western cohort. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The univariable logistic regression analysis was applied to select predictive factors for 90 days major morbidity. The model was built on the multivariable regression and presented as a nomogram. Performance was evaluated by internal validation through the bootstrap method. The predictive discrimination was assessed through the concordance index. RESULTS: A total of 1087 patients were gathered from 24 centers between 2001 and 2021. Four hundred and eighty-four patients (45.2%) were obese. Most liver resections were performed using an open approach (59.1%), and 743 (68.3%) underwent minor hepatectomies. Three hundred and seventy-six patients (34.6%) developed postoperative complications, with 13.8% major morbidity and 2.9% mortality rates. Seven hundred and thirteen patients had complete data and were included in the prediction model. The model identified obesity, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, portal hypertension, open approach, major hepatectomy, and changes in the nontumoral parenchyma as risk factors for major morbidity. The model demonstrated an AUC of 72.8% (95% CI: 67.2%-78.2%) ( https://childb.shinyapps.io/NomogramMajorMorbidity90days/ ). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing liver resection for HCC and MS are at high risk of postoperative major complications and death. Careful patient selection, considering baseline characteristics, liver function, and type of surgery, is key to achieving optimal outcomes.

Non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastasis: a narrative review of surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The liver is the main site of metastatic disease, and cancer metastases remain the main limit to successfully managing the malignant disease. Liver resection (LR) for the treatment of metastatic cancer has been described for over a hundred years and is widely accepted. The role of surgery in managing non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine liver metastasis (NCNNLM), evidence is still lacking due to different factors: the paucity of cases, the wide variety of histological subtypes of the primary disease and its biological behavior, and the absence of prospective studies. METHODS: We performed a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles related to the surgical outcomes of NCNNLM. The aim of this review is determining the utility of surgery in NCNNLM, with attention to minimal invasive LRs. We analyzed the role of LR for NCNNLM according to the different cancers: digestive and non digestive. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: NCNNLM encompass a huge spectrum of histologic appearances. LR for limited NCNNLM may offer a curative option, but liver recurrence occurs frequently. Our ability to significantly predict the outcome is poor. CONCLUSIONS: The cytotoxic chemotherapy and biologic agents have significantly altered the surgical treatment of LM. The latter treatments can convert inoperable patients into operable ones, with a clear relationship between the degree of resectability in patients judged inoperable at referral and the rate of response to the treatment scheme.

Current strategies to induce liver remnant hypertrophy before major liver resection.

Hepatic resection is the gold standard for patients affected by primary or metastatic liver tumors but is hampered by the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Despite recent improvements, liver surgery still requires excellent clinical judgement in selecting patients for surgery and, above all, efficient pre-operative strategies to provide adequate future liver remnant. The aim of this article is to review the literature on the rational, the preliminary assessment, the advantages as well as the limits of each existing technique for preparing the liver for major hepatectomy.

Left Hypochondrium or Transumbilical Single-Incision Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for the Treatment of Severe Obesity: Surgical Technique and Results of a Tertiary Referral Bariatric Center.

BACKGROUND: Technical aspects of single-incision laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SILSG) vary depending on surgeon's experience and availability of surgical equipment. We have performed more than 3000 SILSGs using standardized technique with left hypochondrium or transumbilical access. The aim of this study is to describe the SILSG technique in a stepwise manner providing technical tips and pitfalls for a left hypochondrium or transumbilical approach and report results of SILSG experience in a tertiary referral bariatric center. METHODS: A detailed description of left hypochondrium and transumbilical SILSG is provided. Data from all consecutive patients who underwent SILSG between August 2010 and August 2017 were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed and reported. RESULTS: One thousand eight hundred patients underwent SILSG, from which 384 (21.3%) using a transumbilical approach. Mean age was 42.3 years, median BMI 45.3 kg/m2, and median operative time 88 min. An additional port was required in 89 patients (4.9%). Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates were 0.05% and 7.5%, respectively. Relaparoscopy and/or endoscopic treatment were required for intra-abdominal bleeding in 27 patients (1.5%) and staple-line leakage in 35 patients (1.9%). Mean excess weight losses were 71.1%, 73.7%, and 70.4% at 1, 2, and 4 years after SILSG, respectively. Two years after SILSG, sustained statistical significant remission of major obesity-related comorbidities was noted. Incisional hernia occurred in 39 patients (2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of specific instruments allows standardization of left hypochondrium SILSG, which can be routinely performed for the treatment of severe obesity. Transumbilical approach for SILSG should be reserved for well-selected patients and experienced bariatric surgeons.

Continuing our work: transplant surgery and surgical oncology in a tertiary referral COVID-19 center.

COVID-19 is rapidly spreading worldwide. Healthcare systems are struggling to properly allocate resources while ensuring cure for diseases outside of the infection. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how surgical activity was affected by the virus outbreak and show the changes in practice in a tertiary referral COVID-19 center. The official bulletins of the Italian National Institute for the Infectious Diseases "L. Spallanzani" were reviewed to retrieve the number of daily COVID-19 patients. Records of consecutive oncological and transplant procedures performed during the outbreak were reviewed. Patients with a high probability of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission were considered as high risk and defined by an ASA score ≥ III and/or a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 6 and/or a Revised Cardiac Risk Index for Preoperative Risk (RCRI) ≥ 3. 72 patients were operated, including 12 (16.6%) liver and kidney transplantations. Patients had few comorbidities (26.3%), low ASA score (1.9 ± 0.5), CCI (3.7 ± 1.3), and RCRI (1.2 ± 0.6) and had overall a low risk of postoperative ICU admission. Few patients had liver cirrhosis (12.5%) or received preoperative systemic therapy (16.6%). 36 (50%) high-risk surgical procedures were performed, including major hepatectomies, pancreaticoduodenectomies, total gastrectomies, multivisceral resections, and transplantations. Despite this, only 15 patients (20.8%) were admitted to the ICU. Only oncologic cases and transplantations were performed during the COVID-19 outbreak. Careful selection of patients allowed to perform major cancer surgeries and transplantations without further stressing hospital resources, meanwhile minimizing collateral damage to patients.

Subcutaneous suction drains do not prevent surgical site infections in clean-contaminated abdominal surgery-results of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The role of subcutaneous prophylactic drainage in preventing postoperative abdominal wound complications is still controversial. We aimed to elucidate whether any difference in the incidence of surgical site infection (SSI) exists between patients with or without subcutaneous suction drain following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and the CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing drained with undrained surgeries featuring gastrointestinal (GI) tract opening. The aim of the analysis was to assess the incidence of wound infection. A meta-analysis of relevant studies was performed using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies, including 2833 patients, were considered eligible to collect data necessary. Globally, 187 patients (83 drained versus 104 undrained) experienced some SSI during the postoperative period. The use of subcutaneous suction drains did not exhibit any significant differences between drained and undrained patients in developing SSI (odds ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.02; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: According to the available, high-level evidence, the use of subcutaneous drains should not be encouraged on a routine basis, as it does not confer any advantage in preventing postoperative wound infection following clean-contaminated abdominal surgery. However, this does not exclude that there might be a benefit in a specific risk group of patients.

Conventional Versus Minimally Invasive Hartmann Takedown: A Meta-analysis of the Literature.

Although end colostomy closure following Hartmann's procedure is a major surgery that is traditionally performed by conventional celiotomy, over the last decade there has been a growing interest toward the application of different minimally invasive techniques. We aimed at evaluating the relative outcomes of conventional surgery versus minimally invasive surgery by meta-analyzing the available data from the medical literature. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and EMBASE electronic databases were searched through August 2018. Inclusion criteria considered eligible all comparative studies evaluating open versus minimally invasive procedures. Conventional laparoscopy, robotic and single-port laparoscopy were considered as minimally invasive techniques. Overall morbidity, rate of anastomotic failure, rate of wound complications and mortality were evaluated as primary outcomes. Perioperative details and surgical outcomes were also assessed. The data of a total of 13,740 patients from 26 studies were eventually included in the analysis. There were no significant differences on baseline characteristics such as age, BMI and proportion of high-risk patients between the two groups of patients. As compared to the conventional technique, minimally invasive surgery proved significantly superior in terms of postoperative morbidity, length of hospital stay and rate of incisional hernia. The current literature suggests that minimally invasive surgery should be considered in performing Hartmann's reversal, if technically viable. However, due to the low level of the available evidence it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions.