ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Benchmark analysis for open liver surgery for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still undefined. METHODS: Patients were identified from the Italian national registry HE.RC.O.LE.S. The Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) method was employed to identify the benchmarks. The outcomes assessed were the rate of complications, major comorbidities, post-operative ascites (POA), post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), 90-day mortality. Benchmarking was stratified for surgical complexity (CP1, CP2 and CP3). RESULTS: A total of 978 of 2698 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 431 (44.1%) patients were treated with CP1 procedures, 239 (24.4%) with CP2 and 308 (31.5%) with CP3 procedures. Patients submitted to CP1 had a worse underlying liver function, while the tumor burden was more severe in CP3 cases. The ABC for complications (13.1%, 19.2% and 28.1% for CP1, CP2 and CP3 respectively), major complications (7.6%, 11.1%, 12.5%) and 90-day mortality (0%, 3.3%, 3.6%) increased with the surgical difficulty, but not POA (4.4%, 3.3% and 2.6% respectively) and PHLF (0% for all groups). CONCLUSION: We propose benchmarks for open liver resections in HCC cirrhotic patients, stratified for surgical complexity. The difference between the benchmark values and the results obtained during everyday practice reflects the room for potential growth, with the aim to encourage constant improvement among liver surgeons.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular , Liver Failure , Liver Neoplasms , Benchmarking , Hepatectomy/adverse effects , Hepatectomy/methods , Humans , Liver Cirrhosis/complications , Liver Cirrhosis/pathology , Liver Cirrhosis/surgery , Liver Failure/etiology , Liver Neoplasms/complications , Liver Neoplasms/surgery , Postoperative Complications , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) influences long-term survival in periampullary cancers. This review aims evaluate long-term survival between MIPD and OPD for periampullary cancers. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing long-term survival after MIPD and OPD. The I2 test was used to test for statistical heterogeneity and publication bias using Egger test. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed for all-cause 5-year (main outcome) and 3-year survival, and disease-specific 5-year and 3-year survival. Meta-regression was performed for the 5-year and 3-year survival outcomes with adjustment for study (region, design, case matching), hospital (centre volume), patient (ASA grade, gender, age), and tumor (stage, neoadjuvant therapy, subtype (i.e. ampullary, distal bile duct, duodenal, pancreatic)). Sensitivity analyses performed on studies including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) only. RESULTS: The review identified 31 relevant studies. Among all 58,622 patients, 8716 (14.9%) underwent MIPD and 49,875 (85.1%) underwent OPD. Pooled analysis revealed similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.22, p = 0.2). Meta-regression indicated case matching, and ASA Grade II and III as confounding covariates. The statistical heterogeneity was limited (I2 = 12, χ2 = 0.26) and the funnel plot was symmetrical both according to visual and statistical testing (Egger test = 0.32). Sensitivity subset analyses for PDAC demonstrated similar 5-year overall survival after MIPD compared with OPD (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.32-1.50, p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Long-term survival after MIPD is non-inferior to OPD. Thus, MIPD can be recommended as a standard surgical approach for periampullary cancers.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Laparoscopy , Pancreatic Neoplasms , Anastomosis, Surgical , Humans , Pancreatic Neoplasms/surgery , Pancreaticoduodenectomy/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
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.
