Occult appendix pathology in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection and prophylactic appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: The risk-benefit balance of prophylactic appendectomy in patients undergoing left colorectal cancer resection is unclear. The aim of this report is to assess the proportion of histologically abnormal appendices in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection in a unit where standard of care is appendectomy, with consent, when left-sided resection is performed. METHODS: A retrospective study on a prospectively collected database was conducted in a single tertiary-care center. Overall, 717 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection between January 2015 and June 2021 were analyzed. The primary outcome was the proportion of histologically abnormal appendix specimens at prophylactic appendectomy. The secondary outcome was complications from prophylactic appendectomy. RESULTS: Overall, 576/717 (80%) patients had appendectomy at colorectal cancer surgery. In total, 234/576 (41%) had a right-/extended-right hemicolectomy or subtotal colectomy which incorporates appendectomy, and 342/576 (59%) had left-sided resection (left-hemicolectomy, anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision) with prophylactic appendectomy. At definitive histology, 534/576 (92.7%) had a normal appendix. The remaining 42/576 (7.3%) showed abnormal findings, including: 14/576 (2.4%) inflammatory appendix pathology, 2/576 (0.3%) endometriosis, 8/576 (1.4%) hyperplastic polyp, and 18/576 (3.1%) appendix tumors, which encompassed six low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMNs), three carcinoids, and nine serrated polyps. In the 342 patients who had prophylactic appendectomy, 10 (2.9%) had a neoplasm (two LAMN, three carcinoids, and five serrated polyps). There were no complications attributable to appendectomy. CONCLUSION: Occult appendix pathology in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection is uncommon when prophylactic appendectomy was performed. However, approximately 3% of patients had a synchronous appendix neoplasm.

MRI-predicted extramural vascular invasion and tumour deposit are main predictors of disease-free survival in patients undergoing surgical resection for rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MRI is crucial in staging patients with rectal cancer and planning treatment. The aim was to analyse the prognostic role of MRI-predicted tumour deposits and/or extramural vascular invasion (mrTD/EMVI) in a cohort of patients with rectal cancer undergoing surgical resection, with selective neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). METHOD: Retrospective analysis of a single-centre cohort of consecutive patients with rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection or abdominoperineal excision between 2008 and 2020. Unit policy was selective nCRT for MRI-predicted threatened or involved circumferential resection margin (mrCRM), or radiologically involved pelvic sidewall nodes. The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes were rates of local recurrence, distant recurrence and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 314 patients were analysed. Median age was 65 years (female/male: 114/200). A total of 54/314 (17%) had nCRT and 35 patients (11%) underwent abdominoperineal excision. Median follow-up was 64 months. Overall, local recurrence was detected in 18/314 (5.7%) and distant recurrence in 45/314 (14.3%). In patients not receiving nCRT (n = 260), local recurrence was detected in 11/260 (4.2%) and distant recurrence in 35/260 (13.5%). Disease-free survival was 80.5% at 5 years. Specifically, disease-free survival was 89% in mrTD/EMVI-negative and mrCRM-negative, 67% in mrTD/EMVI-positive and mrCRM-negative, and 64% in the mrCRM-positive rectal cancer (log-rank, P < 0.001). On multivariable Cox-regression analysis mrTD/EMVI was the only MRI variable associated with disease-free survival (hazard ratio 2.95; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: mrTD/EMVI is a major prognostic indicator. Rectal cancer patients with mrCRM-negative and mrTD/EMVI-negative have excellent long-term outcomes with surgery alone. Patients with mrTD/EMVI-positive should be selectively stratified for neoadjuvant treatments in future clinical trials.

Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Arising from Urachal Mucinous Neoplasms: a Case Series and Updated Literature Review.

To report a case series of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) from urachal mucinous neoplasm (UMN) treated with CRS and HIPEC at a high-volume referral centre, along with an updated literature review. Retrospective review of cases treated between 2000 and 2021. A literature review using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases was performed. Clinical presentation of PMP from UMN is heterogeneous, and common symptoms are abdominal distension, weight loss, fatigue and haematuria. At least one tumour marker among CEA, CA 19.9, and CA 125 was elevated in the six cases reported, and 5/6 had a preoperative working diagnosis of urachal mucinous neoplasm suspected on detailed cross-sectional imaging. Complete cytoreduction was achieved in five cases, while one patient underwent maximal tumour debulking. Histological findings mirrored the findings of PMP from appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (AMN). Overall survival ranged between 43 and 141 months after complete cytoreduction. On literature review, 76 cases have been reported to date. Complete cytoreduction is associated with good prognosis for patients with PMP from UMN. A definitive classification system is still not available. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01694-5.

Assessment of the 2020 NICE criteria for preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer treated by surgery alone in comparison with proven MRI prognostic factors: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Selection of patients for preoperative treatment in rectal cancer is controversial. The new 2020 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines, consistent with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, recommend preoperative radiotherapy for all patients except for those with radiologically staged T1-T2, N0 tumours. We aimed to assess outcomes in non-irradiated patients with rectal cancer and to stratify results on the basis of NICE criteria, compared with known MRI prognostic factors now omitted by NICE. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, we identified patients undergoing primary resectional surgery for rectal cancer, without preoperative radiotherapy, at Basingstoke Hospital (Basingstoke, UK) between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2016, and at St Marks Hospital (London, UK) between Jan 1, 2007, and Dec 31, 2017. Patients with MRI-detected extramural venous invasion, MRI-detected tumour deposits, and MRI-detected circumferential resection margin involvement were categorised as MRI high-risk for recurrence (local or distant), and their outcomes (disease-free survival, overall survival, and recurrence) were compared with patients defined as high-risk according to NICE criteria (MRI-detected T3+ or MRI-detected N+ status). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to compare the groups. FINDINGS: 378 patients were evaluated, with a median of 66 months (IQR 44-95) of follow up. 22 (6%) of 378 patients had local recurrence and 68 (18%) of 378 patients had distant recurrence. 248 (66%) of 378 were classified as high-risk according to NICE criteria, compared with 121 (32%) of 378 according to MRI criteria. On Kaplan-Meier analysis, NICE high-risk patients had poorer 5-year disease-free survival compared with NICE low-risk patients (76% [95% CI 70-81] vs 87% [80-92]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·91 [95% CI 1·20-3·03]; p=0·0051) but not 5-year overall survival (80% [74-84] vs 88% [81-92]; 1·55 [0·94-2·53]; p=0·077). MRI criteria separated patients into high-risk versus low-risk groups that predicted 5-year disease-free survival (66% [95% CI 57-74] vs 88% [83-91]; HR 3·01 [95% CI 2·02-4·47]; p<0·0001) and 5-year overall survival (71% [62-78] vs 89% [84-92]; 2·59 [1·62-3·88]; p<0·0001). On multivariable analysis, NICE risk assessment was not associated with either disease-free survival or overall survival, whereas MRI criteria predicted disease-free survival (HR 2·74 [95% CI 1·80-4·17]; p<0·0001) and overall survival (HR 2·44 [95% CI 1·51-3·95]; p=0·00027). 139 NICE high-risk patients who were defined as low-risk based on MRI criteria had similar disease-free survival as 118 NICE low-risk patients; therefore, 37% (139 of 378) of patients in this study cohort would have been overtreated with NICE 2020 guidelines. Of the 130 patients defined as low-risk by NICE guidelines, 12 were defined as high-risk on MRI risk stratification and would have potentially been missed for treatment. INTERPRETATION: Compared to previous guidelines, implementation of the 2020 NICE guidelines will result in significantly more patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy. High-quality MRI selects patients with good outcomes (particularly low local recurrence) without radiotherapy, with little margin for improvement. Overuse of radiotherapy could occur with this unselective approach. The high-risk group, with the most chance of benefiting from preoperative radiotherapy, is not well selected on the basis of NICE 2020 criteria and is better identified with proven MRI prognostic factors (extramural venous invasion, tumour deposits, and circumferential resection margin). FUNDING: None.

Management of Significant Polyp and Early Colorectal Cancer Is Optimized by Implementation of a Dedicated Multidisciplinary Team Meeting: Lessons Learned From the United Kingdom National Program.

BACKGROUND: The concept of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer encompasses complex polyps not amenable to routine snare polypectomy or where malignancy cannot be excluded. The assessment and management of these lesions is contentious and increasingly important due to the significant risk of over- or undertreatment. OBJECTIVE: Following the recommendations of the Significant Polyps and Early Colorectal Cancer National Program, we implemented a dedicated multidisciplinary team meeting and analyzed the influence on patient outcomes. DESIGN: This was a retrospective study using a prospectively collected database of patients discussed at the dedicated multidisciplinary team meeting. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in a single tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with significant polyps and early colorectal cancer were identified either through the Bowel Cancer Screening Program or colonoscopy for symptomatic patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of patients who had organ preservation, and secondary treatment and recurrence rate served as outcome measures. RESULTS: Overall, 135 patients discussed at the dedicated multidisciplinary team meeting were included, with a median age of 71 years. Median size of the lesions was 25 mm, and 39% were in the rectum. Patients were discussed either after the lesion was removed during the initial colonoscopy (n = 38), of whom 16 (42%) had unexpected cancer, or had no initial treatment with subsequent case review (n = 97). Of these 97 patients, 46 underwent endoscopic excision (26% cancer), 20 trans-anal excision (10% cancer), 23 primary surgical resection (35% cancer), and 8 had no treatment. In 104 (82%) patients, organ preservation was achieved. Secondary surgery was required in 7 of 104 (6.7%) patients after local excision due to radical treatment of high-risk T1 lesions, local recurrence, or patients' decisions. The cumulative hazard estimates for recurrence after a median follow-up of 18.5 months was less than 10% for both benign and malignant lesions. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its relatively small sample size and single-center setting. CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated multidisciplinary team meeting improved the management of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer, safely refining organ preservation for patients, with low recurrence rates. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B826. MANEJO DE SPECC PLIPO COMPLEJO Y CNCER COLORRECTAL TEMPRANO ES OPTIMIZADO MEDIANTE LA IMPLEMENTACIN DE REUNIONES DE UN EQUIPO MULTIDISCIPLINARIO ESPECIALIZADOS LECCIONES APRENDIDAS DEL PROGRAMA NACIONAL DEL REINO UNIDO: ANTECEDENTES:El concepto de pólipos complejos y cáncer colorrectal temprano abarca engloba pólipos avanzados que no es posible la reseccion endoscopica rutinaria, o aquellos en los que no se puede excluir malignidad. La evaluación y el manejo de estas lesiones es controversial y cada vez más importante debido al riesgo significativo de ser tratadas o no.OBJETIVO:Siguiendo las recomendaciones del Programa Nacional de Pólipos Complejos y Cáncer Colorrectal Temprano, implementamos reuniónes del equipo multidisciplinario especializado y analizamos el impacto en los resultados de los pacientes.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo sobre una base de datos recopilada prospectivamente de los pacientes discutidos en la reunión del equipo multidisciplinario especializado.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en un centro de atención terciaria.PACIENTES:Pacientes consecutivos con pólipos complejos y cáncer colorrectal temprano identificado a través del Programa de detección de cáncer intestinal o colonoscopia para pacientes sintomáticos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Proporción de pacientes que tuvieron preservación de órganos, tratamiento secundario y tasa de recurrencia.RESULTADOS:En total, se incluyeron 135 pacientes discutidos en la reunión del equipo multidisciplinario especializado dedicada, con una media de edad de 71 años. El tamaño medio de las lesiones fue de 25 mm y el 39% estaban en el recto. Se discutio de los pacientes después de que se resecara la lesión durante la colonoscopia inicial [n = 38, de los cuales 16 (42%) tenían un cáncer imprevisto] o no recibieron tratamiento de inicio, con revisión posterior del caso (n = 97). De estos, 46/97 fueron sometidos a resección endoscópica (26% cáncer), 20/97 resección transanal (10% cáncer), 23/97 resección quirúrgica primaria (35% cáncer) y 8/97 no recibieron tratamiento. En 104 (82%) pacientes, se logró la preservación de órgano. Cirugía secundaria fue requeria en 7/104 (6,7%) pacientes después de la resección local debido a tratamiento radical de lesiones T1 de alto riesgo, recidiva local o decisión del paciente. Las estimaciones de riesgo acumulativo de recurrencia después de una media de seguimiento de 18,5 meses fue inferior al 10% tanto para las lesiones benignas como para las malignas.LIMITACIONES:Tamaño de muestra relativamente pequeño y entorno de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:La Reunion del equipo multidisciplinario especializado mejoró el manejo de los pólipos complejos y cáncer colorrectal temprano, refinando de manera segura la preservación de órganos para los pacientes, con bajas tasas de recurrencia. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B826. (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon).

Advanced Pseudomyxoma Peritonei Requiring Gastrectomy to Achieve Complete Cytoreduction Results in Good Long-Term Oncologic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Optimal outcomes in pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP) require complete macroscopic tumor removal by cytoreductive surgery (CRS) combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC). Partial or complete gastrectomy may be required with ongoing debate as to the risks and benefits of gastrectomy in what is often a low-grade malignancy. METHODS: Retrospective single-center analysis of 1014 patients undergoing CRS and HIPEC for PMP of appendiceal origin. Complications and survival were compared in patients who had gastrectomy versus the nongastrectomy cohort. RESULTS: Of 1014 patients, 747 (74 %) had CRS and HIPEC with complete cytoreduction. Overall, 86 (12 %) of 747 had partial (n = 80) or total (n = 6) gastrectomy. Median age was 55 years for gastrectomy patients and 56 for nongastrectomy patients (p = 0.591). Preoperative tumor markers [carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen (CA) 125 and CA19-9] were elevated more frequently in the gastrectomy group compared to the nongastrectomy group [81, 61 and 81 % compared to 41 % (p = 0.001), 20 % (p = 0.001) and 39 % (p = 0.001), respectively]. The proportion of high-grade histology was similar in the two groups (gastrectomy 19 % vs. nongastrectomy 18 %, p = 0.882). Postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV) were 31 % for the gastrectomy group and 13 % for the nongastrectomy group (p = 0.001). The 30-day postoperative mortality was 3 (0.5 %) of 661 for the nongastrectomy group and 1 (1.2 %) of 86 for the gastrectomy group (p = 0.387). Three- and 5-year overall survival were 96 and 88 % in the nongastrectomy group and 87 and 77 % in the gastrectomy group (p = 0.018). Three- and 5-year disease-free survival were 89 and 77 % in the nongastrectomy group versus 66 and 48 % in the gastrectomy group (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Gastrectomy is an essential component of complete cytoreduction in advanced PMP and was required in 12 % of patients with good long-term survival.

The impact of laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery on subsequent laparoscopic resection of liver metastases: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver surgery is expanding. Most laparoscopic liver resections for colorectal carcinoma metastases are performed subsequent to the resection of the colorectal primary, raising concerns about the feasibility and safety of advanced laparoscopic liver surgery in the context of an abdomen with possible postoperative adhesions. The aim was to compare the outcome of laparoscopic hepatectomy for colorectal metastases after open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS: This observational, multicenter study reviewed 394 patients undergoing laparoscopic minor and major liver resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases. Main outcome measures were intraoperative unfavorable incidents and short-term results in patients who had previous open versus laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. RESULTS: Three hundred six patients (78%) had prior open and 88 (22%) had prior laparoscopic colorectal resection. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies were undertaken in 63 (16%). Intraoperative unfavorable incidents during laparoscopic liver surgery were significantly higher among patients who had prior open colorectal surgery (26%) compared with the laparoscopic group (14%; P = .017). Positive resection margins and postoperative complications were not associated with the approach adopted for the resection of the primary cancer. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, intraoperative unfavorable incidents were associated significantly only with prior open colorectal surgery (odds ratio, 2.8; P = .006) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (odds ratio, 2.4; P = .009). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic minor hepatectomy can be performed safely in patients who have undergone previous open colorectal surgery. Laparoscopic major hepatectomy after open colorectal surgery may be challenging. Careful risk assessment in the decision-making process is required not to compromise patient safety and to guarantee the expected benefits from the minimally invasive approach.

Implementation of enhanced recovery programme for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy: feasibility, safety and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The adoption of laparoscopy for distal pancreatectomy has proven to substantially improve short-term outcomes. Stress response after major surgery can be further minimized within an enhanced recovery programme (ERP). However, data on the potential benefit of an ERP for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are still lacking. The aim was to assess the feasibility, safety and cost of ERP for patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: This is a case-control study from a Tertiary University Hospital. Sixty-six consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy were analyzed. Twenty-two patients were enrolled for the ERP and compared with previous consecutive 44 patients managed traditionally (1:2 ratio). Operative details, post-operative outcome and cost analysis were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the ERP had similar intraoperative blood loss (median 165 ml vs. 200 ml; p = 0.176), operation time (225 min vs. 210 min; p = 0.633), time to remove naso-gastric tube (1 vs. 1 day; p = 0.081) but significantly shorter time to mobilization (median 1 vs. 2 days; p = 0.0001), start solid diet (2 vs. 3 days; p = 0004), and pass stools (3 vs. 5 days; p = 0.002) compared to the control group. Median length of stay was significantly shorter in the ERP group (3 vs. 6 days; p < 0.0001). No significant difference in readmission or complication rate was observed. Cost analysis was significantly in favor of the ERP group (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of ERP optimizes outcomes for laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy with significant earlier return to normal gut function, reduced length of stay and cost saving.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomies: clinical outcomes and classification.

BACKGROUND: According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes "traditional" trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy and resection of "difficult-to-access" posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision. METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic "traditional" major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic "posterosuperior" major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

Postoperative chyle leak after major pancreatic resections in patients who receive enteral feed: risk factors and management options.

BACKGROUND: Chyle leak complicates 1.3-10.8 % of pancreatic resections. Universal use of parenteral nutrition following pancreatic resection may reduce the incidence of chyle leak. However, this denies the majority of patients who do not develop chyle leak the benefits of enteral nutrition (EN). The present study aimed to identify risk factors for chyle leak following pancreatic resection within a single institution where EN was used universally. METHODS: All patients who underwent pancreatic resection between January 2007 and December 2010 were identified retrospectively. The patients had been treated according to a common unit protocol of enteral feeding; those developing chyle leak were switched to a medium-chain triglyceride (MCT) regimen. Clinical progress and recovery after surgery was evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with chyle leak. RESULTS: A total of 245 patients underwent major pancreatic resection (231 pancreatoduodenectomy, 14 total pancreatectomy). Chyle leak complicated 40 cases (16.3 %). After multivariate analysis, both extensive lymphadenectomy (P = 0.002) and postoperative portal/mesenteric venous thrombosis (PVT) (P = 0.009) were independently linked with a higher incidence of chyle leak. The development of chyle leak was not associated with poorer survival or prolonged duration of hospital stay. It was associated with a significantly increased duration of abdominal drainage and reduced likelihood of early hospital discharge (P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Universal use of enteral feeding is associated with a high rate of chyle leak following pancreatic resection. Patients undergoing extensive lymphadenectomy or those who develop PVT postoperatively are at increased risk. Development of chyle leak was not associated with additional morbidity or mortality following implementation of an MCT regimen. The implication is that reactive management of chyle leak with conversion to a MCT predominant diet is safe.

Implementation of enhanced recovery programme after pancreatoduodenectomy: a single-centre UK pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Data on enhanced recovery programmes after pancreatoduodenectomy (ERP-PD) is limited. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety and clinical outcomes of ERP-PD when implemented at a high-volume UK university referral centre. METHODS: This was an observational single-surgeon case-control study (before-and-after pathway). A total of 20 consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled for the ERP-PD and compared with 24 consecutive patients previously treated during an equal time frame. RESULTS: Patients in the ERP-PD group had a significant shorter time to remove naso-gastric tube (median of 5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.0001), start liquid diet (median of 2 vs. 5 days, p < 0.0001), start solid food (median of 4 vs. 9 days, p < 0.0001), pass stools (median of 6 vs. 7 days, p = 0.002), and had shorter length of stay (median of 8.5 days vs. 13 days, p = 0.015) compared to the pre-pathway group. Postoperative complications were overall less frequent but not significantly different in the ERP-PD group (p = 0.077). No difference in mortality and readmission rates was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the feasibility and safety of ERP-PD. Improved patients' outcomes, significant bed day savings and increase National Health Service productivity are anticipated with implementation of ERP-PD on a larger scale.

Assessment of the financial implications for laparoscopic liver surgery: a single-centre UK cost analysis for minor and major hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic hepatectomy is progressively gaining popularity. However, it is still unclear whether the laparoscopic approach offers cost advantages compared with the open approach, especially when major hepatectomies are required. Data providing useful insights into the costs of the laparoscopic approach for clinicians and hospitals are needed. The aim of this study is to assess the financial implications of the laparoscopic approach for two standardized minor and major hepatectomies: left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy. METHODS: A cost comparison analysis of patients undergoing laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) versus the open counterparts was performed. Data considered for the comparison analysis were operative costs (theatre cost, consumables and surgeon/anaesthetic labour cost), postoperative costs (hospital stay, complication management and readmissions) and overall costs. RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were included: 38 patients underwent LRH and 46 open right hepatectomy (ORH); 46 patients underwent LLLS and 19 open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). For LRH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £10,181, £4,037 and £14,218; for ORH the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £6,483 (p < 0.0001), £10,304 (p < 0.0001) and £16,787 (p = 0.886). Regarding LLLS, the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,460, £2,599 and £8,059; for OLLS the mean operative, postoperative and overall costs were £5,841 (p = 0.874), £5,796 (p < 0.0001) and £11,637 (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Our data support the cost advantage of the laparoscopic approach for left lateral sectionectomy and the cost neutrality for right hepatectomy.

Exploring the role of laparoscopic surgery in two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy in two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) has not yet been extensively investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected database of 302 consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection at our institution between 2003 and 2011. RESULTS: Eight patients undergoing laparoscopic first/second-stage hepatectomy for bilobar CRLMs (male/female 6:2; median age, 64 years) were analyzed. The first stage consisted of laparoscopic clearance of the left lobe in all patients with no postoperative morbidity and mortality. Seven patients underwent portal vein embolization or ligation. The median interval between first- and second-stage hepatic resections was 89 days (range, 36-123 days). Second-stage hepatectomy with right lobar clearance (open, n=5; laparoscopic, n=2; laparoscopic to open, n=1) was associated with no mortality and an operative morbidity rate of 50%. Adhesions were judged to be minimal or absent during the second-stage procedure. Complications included intra-abdominal collection (n=2), bleeding requiring re-operation (n=1), and bile leak (n=1). R0 resection was obtained in 7 of 8 cases after first-stage resection and in 8 of 8 cases after second-stage resection. Three patients (38%) died from disease recurrence. Of the remaining 5 patients, 4 are disease-free at a median follow-up of 24 months (range, 9-27 months). CONCLUSIONS: The well-recognized advantages of laparoscopy may play a favorable role in the management of patients with bilobar CRLMs candidate for a two-stage resection. The first-stage laparoscopic clearance of the left lobe could progressively become the "gold standard." Laparoscopic second-stage hepatectomy should be limited to selected cases.

Oncological efficiency analysis of laparoscopic liver resection for primary and metastatic cancer: a single-center UK experience.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the oncological efficiency of laparoscopic minor and major hepatectomy for primary and metastatic liver malignant neoplasms. DESIGN: Retrospective single-center study. SETTING: Tertiary university hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients undergoing 133 laparoscopic liver resections for malignant diseases. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perioperative results and midterm overall and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Surgical indications were colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis (n = 83), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 18), neuroendocrine tumor metastasis (n = 17), non-colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis (n = 11), lymphoma (n = 2), and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 2). Two patients had 2-stage laparoscopic resections for bilobar colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis. Three patients had repeated liver resection for recurrent colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis. Forty-two major hepatectomies (32%) were performed. The median operative time was 210 minutes (range, 30-480 minutes). The median postoperative length of stay was 4 days (range, 1-15 days). Seven patients required conversion to formal open surgery and 4 patients required conversion to a laparoscopic-assisted procedure. Sixteen patients (13%) developed significant postoperative complications. One patient (0.8%) died in the hospital. In the 17 patients with neuroendocrine tumor metastasis, 6 (35%) had microscopic positive resection margins. Most of these patients underwent debulking and cytoreductive surgery. A microscopic negative resection margin was obtained in the remaining 112 of 116 resections (97%). We recorded 2-year overall survivals of 80%, 77%, and 91% in the groups with colorectal carcinoma liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumor metastasis, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the safety and oncological efficiency of laparoscopic resection for liver malignant neoplasms. Adequate patient selection and extensive experience in hepatic and laparoscopic surgery are essential prerequisites to optimize outcomes.

Laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy: a clinical and cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) is being increasingly performed with some concerns regarding the cost of the minimally invasive approach. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of LDP versus open distal pancreatectomy (ODP). METHODS: A retrospective clinical and cost-comparison analysis was performed for patients who underwent LDP vs. OPD between 2005 and 2011. Data considered for the comparison analysis were: operative costs (surgical procedure, operative time, blood transfusions), postoperative costs (laboratory testing, hospital stay, complication management, readmissions), and overall costs. RESULTS: Fifty-one distal pancreatectomies (laparoscopic = 35, open = 16) were performed during the study period. The median operative time was 200 (range, 120-420) min for LDP vs. 225 (range, 120-460) min for ODP (p = 0.93). Median blood loss was 200 (range, 50-900) mL for LDP vs. 394 (range, 75-2000) mL for ODP (p = 0.038). Median hospital stay was 7 (range, 3-25) days in the laparoscopic group vs. 11 (range, 5-46) days in the open group (p = 0.007). Complication rate was 40% for LDP vs. 69% in ODP (p = 0.075). Postoperative intervention was required in 11% of patients after LDP vs. 31% after ODP (p = 0.12). The average operative, postoperative, and overall cost was £6039 (range, £4276-£9500), £4547 (range, £1299-£13937), £10587 (range, £6508-£20303) vs. £5231 (range, £3409-£9330), £10094 (range, £2665-£39291), £15324 (range, £7209-£47484) for the LDP and ODP groups, respectively (p = 0.033; p = 0.006; p = 0.197). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that LDP is feasible and safe without having a negative impact on cost. Extensive experience in pancreatic and laparoscopic surgery is required to optimize surgical outcomes.