Impact of 2016 Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Recommendations on Outcomes after Hepatectomy in Cirrhotic and Non-Cirrhotic Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) society published new recommendations for hepatectomy in 2016. Few studies have assessed their clinical impact. The aim of this monocentric study was to assess the impact of those guidelines on outcomes after liver surgery with a special focus on cirrhotic patients. METHOD: Postoperative outcomes of patients undergoing hepatectomy 30 months before and after ERAS implementation according to the 2016 ERAS guidelines were compared after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Primary endpoint was 90-day morbidity. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2020, 430 patients underwent hepatectomy including 226 procedures performed before and 204 after ERAS implementation. After IPTW, overall morbidity (42.5% vs. 64.7%, p < 0.001), Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score (14.3 vs. 20.8, p = 0.004), length of stay (10.4 vs. 13.7 days, p = 0.001) and textbook outcome (50% vs. 40.2%, p = 0.022) were significantly improved in the ERAS group, while mortality and severe complications were similar in both groups. In the non-cirrhosis subgroup (n = 321), these results were confirmed. However, in the cirrhosis subgroup (n = 105), no difference appeared on outcomes after hepatectomy with an overall morbidity (47.5% vs. 65.2%, p = 0.069) and a length of stay (8 vs. 9 days, p = 0.310) which were not significantly different. The compliance rate to ERAS guidelines was 60% in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic subgroups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative ERAS program for hepatectomy results in improved outcomes with decreased rate of non-severe morbidity. Although those guidelines are not deleterious for cirrhotic patients, they probably require revisions to be more effective in this patient population.

Third bariatric procedure for insufficient weight loss or weight regain: how far should we go?

BACKGROUND: Revisional procedures in bariatric surgery are increasing with several debated failure risk factors, such as super obesity and old age. No study has yet evaluated the outcomes and risks of a third bariatric procedure indicated for weight loss failure or weight regain. OBJECTIVES: To assess failure risks of a third bariatric procedure according to Reinhold's criteria (percentage excess weight loss [%EWL] ≤50% and/or body mass index [BMI] ≥35 kg/m2). SETTING: A university-affiliated tertiary care center, France. METHODS: From 2009 to 2019, clinical data and weight loss results of patients who benefited from 3 bariatric procedures for weight loss failure or weight regain were collected prospectively and analyzed using a binary logistic regression. Weight loss failure was defined according to Reinhold's criteria. RESULTS: Among 1401 bariatric procedures performed, 336 patients benefited from 2 or more procedures, and 45 had a third surgery. Eleven patients that were reoperated on because of malnutrition or gastroesophageal reflux disease were excluded from the final analysis. Among 34 patients with 3 procedures because of weight loss failure or regain, mean BMI was 48.3 ± 8.3 kg/m2, and mean age was 30 ± 10.7 years. Three out of 34 patients (9%) presented a severe complication (Dindo-Clavien IIIb) and 2 (6%) had a minor one. Achieving Reinhold's weight loss criteria after the second bariatric procedure was a significant predictor of success of the third procedure (ß = 2.9 ± 1.3 S.E.). CONCLUSION: Not reaching Reinhold's criteria after a second bariatric procedure was identified as a significant risk factor of failure of a third procedure. A third surgery should be carefully discussed especially in case of primary failure of previous procedures.