Comparing practice and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection between high-volume expert centres and nationwide low-to-medium volume centres.

BACKGROUND: Based on excellent outcomes from high-volume centres, laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly being adopted into nationwide practice which typically includes low-medium volume centres. It is unknown how the use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection compare between high-volume centres and low-medium volume centres. This study aimed to compare use and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection in three leading European high-volume centres and nationwide practice in the Netherlands. METHOD: An international, retrospective multicentre cohort study including data from three European high-volume centres (Oslo, Southampton and Milan) and all 20 centres in the Netherlands performing laparoscopic liver resection (low-medium volume practice) from January 2011 to December 2016. A high-volume centre is defined as a centre performing >50 laparoscopic liver resections per year. Patients were retrospectively stratified into low, moderate- and high-risk Southampton difficulty score groups. RESULTS: A total of 2425 patients were included (1540 high-volume; 885 low-medium volume). The median annual proportion of laparoscopic liver resection was 42.9 per cent in high-volume centres and 7.2 per cent in low-medium volume centres. Patients in the high-volume centres had a lower conversion rate (7.4 versus 13.1 per cent; P < 0.001) with less intraoperative incidents (9.3 versus 14.6 per cent; P = 0.002) as compared to low-medium volume centres. Whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the two groups, a lower reintervention rate (5.1 versus 7.2 per cent; P = 0.034) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (3 versus 5 days; P < 0.001) were observed in the high-volume centres as compared to the low-medium volume centres. In each Southampton difficulty score group, the conversion rate was lower and hospital stay shorter in high-volume centres. The rate of intraoperative incidents did not differ in the low-risk group, whilst in the moderate-risk and high-risk groups this rate was lower in high-volume centres (absolute difference 6.7 and 14.2 per cent; all P < 0.004). CONCLUSION: High-volume expert centres had a sixfold higher use of laparoscopic liver resection, less conversions, and shorter hospital stay, as compared to a nationwide low-medium volume practice. Stratification into Southampton difficulty score risk groups identified some differences but largely outcomes appeared better for high-volume centres in each risk group.

Optimal oncologic treatment of rectal cancer in patients over 75 years old: Results of a strategy based on oncogeriatric evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the management of elderly rectal cancer patients, and especially on the ability to provide optimal oncological treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and results of multimodality treatment for rectal cancer in patients 75years and older after simplified comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) according to Balducci score. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of elderly patients who underwent surgery for localized middle or low rectal cancer. Patients were classified into three CGA groups depending on their functional reserve, comorbidities, geriatric syndromes, and life expectancy. RESULTS: Neoadjuvant therapy was discussed for 27 patients (47%), but only 56% of them were treated, including 8, 7, and 1 patient from CGA groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Fifty-three patients (93%) underwent sphincter-preserving surgical resection and four patients underwent abdominoperineal resection (7%). Postoperative complications were observed in 21 patients (37%). The postoperative complication rate was correlated non-significantly with age (<85years: 40.6%; ≥85years: 57.1%; P=0.3), and with the CGA (P=0.64). In total, 10 patients (18%) had definitive colostomy, including five anastomotic leakages (9%), and one incontinence (2%). The total rate of sphincter preservation was 82% (n=47). The risk of secondary definitive colonic stoma formation was not correlated with CGA (group 1: 14%; group 2/3: 16%; P=0.8). Estimated OS at five years was 52%. CONCLUSIONS: After routine geriatric assessment, elderly rectal cancer patients have good rates of sphincter conservation and acceptable morbidity/mortality.