Predictive factors of recurrence for laparoscopic repair of primary and incisional ventral hernias with single mesh from a multicenter study.

Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is a widely practiced treatment for primary (PH) and incisional (IH) hernias, with acceptable outcomes. Prevention of recurrence is crucial and still highly debated. Purpose of this study was to evaluate predictive factors of recurrence following LVHR with intraperitoneal onlay mesh with a single type of mesh for both PH and IH. A retrospective, multicentre study of data collected from patients who underwent LVHR for PH and IH with an intraperitoneal monofilament polypropylene mesh from January 2014 to December 2018 at 8 referral centers was conducted, and statistical analysis for risk factors of recurrence and post-operative outcomes was performed. A total of 1018 patients were collected, with 665 cases of IH (65.3%) and 353 of PH (34.7%). IH patients were older (p < 0.001), less frequently obese (p = 0.031), at higher ASA class (p < 0.001) and presented more frequently with large, swiss cheese type and border site defects (p < 0.001), compared to PH patients. Operative time and hospital stay were longer for IH (p < 0.001), but intraoperative and early post-operative complications and reinterventions were comparable. IH group presented at major risk of recurrence than PH (6.7% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001) and application of absorbable tacks resulted a significative predictive factor for recurrence increasing the risk by 2.94 (95% CI 1.18-7.31). LVHR with a light-weight polypropylene mesh has low intra- and post-operative complications and is appropriate for both IH and PH. Non absorbable tacks and mixed fixation system seem to be preferable to absorbable tacks alone.

Case report: appearance of an intestinal metastasis from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma occurring 5 years after resection of the primary tumor.

We present the unusual case of a 76-year-old male who developed an intestinal recurrence of the same tumor 5 years after hepatic resection for an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. At the time of the first surgery, the patient had undergone hepatic bisegmentectomy of segments IV and V with an 'en bloc' gallbladder resection and porta hepatis lymphadenectomy for the presence of a focal cholangiocarcinoma measuring about 3.0 x 2.5 cm in diameter. The histological report confirmed intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, the resection margins were free from disease, and there were no lymph node metastases. Five years later colonoscopy showed, at the level of the splenic flexure, the presence of a sessile bilobate polypoid neoplasm. The patient underwent left hemicolectomy with a histological diagnosis of an isolated recurrence of cholangiocarcinoma.

Is liver resection justified in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? Results of an observational study in 464 patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The role of liver resection in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (multinodular or with macroscopic vascular involvement) is still controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of surgical resection compared to other therapeutic modalities in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Four hundred sixty four patients with HCC observed from 1991 to 2007 were included in the study. All the patients were evaluated for the treatment of HCC in relation to the severity of liver impairment and tumor stage. All the patients included in the study had no evidence of distant metastases. RESULTS: Median follow up time for surviving patients was 25 months (range 1-155). Two-hundred and eighty-three patients were in Child-Pugh class A, 161 in class B, and 20 in class C. Two-hundred and seventy-one patients had single HCC, 121 patients had two or three HCCs, and 72 more than three HCCs. One-hundred and thirty-six patients (29.3%) were submitted to liver resection (LR), 232 (50.0%) to local ablative therapies (LAT) (ethanol injection, radiofrequency ablation, chemoembolization), eight (1.7%) to liver transplantation (LT), and 88 (19%) to supportive therapy (ST). Median survival time for all patients was 36 months (95% CI 24-36). Median survival time was 57 months for LR, 30 months for LAT, and 8 months for ST, with a 5-year survival of 47%, 20%, and 2.5%, respectively (p = 0.001). Actuarial 5-year survival for patients submitted to LT was 75%. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with multiple HCCs compared to single HCC, with median survival times of 39, 16, and 11 months for patients with a single HCC, with two to three HCCs, and with more than three HCCs, respectively (p = 0.01). Survival for patients with single HCC was significantly longer in patients submitted to LR compared to LAT and ST with median survival times of 57, 37, and 14 months, respectively (p = 0.02). Also, in patients with multinodular HCCs (2-3 HCCs) LR showed the best results with a median survival time of 58 months compared to 22 and 8 months for LAT and ST (p = 0.01). In patients with more than three HCCs, LR did not show different results compared to LAT and ST. Seventy-three patients had evidence of macroscopic vascular involvement; median survival in this subgroup of patients was significantly shorter compared to patients without vascular involvement, 10 and 36 months, respectively. Survival for patients with macroscopic vascular involvement submitted to LR or LAT was significant longer compared to ST, with mean survivals of 27, 30, and 12 months, respectively (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The present study shows that the surgery can achieve good results in patients with single HCC and good liver function. Also, patients with multinodular HCCs (two to three nodules) could benefit from LR where survival is longer than after LAT or ST. In patients with more than three HCCs, LR have similar results of LAT. Macroscopic vascular invasion is a major prognostic factor, and the LR is justified in selected patients, where it can allow good long-term results compared to ST.