Search

Objective: To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method., Background: Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking., Methods: This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS., Results: In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin., Conclusions: This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of 90-day mortality after Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS), available after stage-1, either to omit or delay stage-2., Background Data: ALPPS is a two-stage hepatectomy for patients with extensive liver tumors with predicted small liver remnants, which has been criticized for its high mortality rate. Risk factors for mortality are unknown., Methods: Patients in the International Registry undergoing ALPPS from April 2011 to July 2014 were analyzed. Primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Liver function after stage-1 was assessed using the criteria of the International Study Group for Liver Surgery (ISGLS) after stage-1 among others. A multivariable model was used to identify independent predictors of 90-day mortality., Results: Three hundred twenty patients registered by 55 centers worldwide were evaluated. Overall 90-day mortality was 8.8% (28/320). The predominant cause for 90-day mortality was postoperative liver failure in 75% of patients. Fourteen percent of patients developed liver failure according to ISGLS criteria already after stage-1 ALPPS. Those and patients with a model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score more than 10 before stage-2 were at significantly higher risk for 90-day mortality after stage-2 with an odds ratio (OR) 3.9 [confidence interval (CI) 1.4-10.9, P = 0.01] and OR 4.9 (CI 1.9-12.7, P = 0.006), respectively. Other factors, such as size of future liver remnant (FLR) before stage-2 and time between stages, were not predictive., Conclusions: This analysis of the largest cohort of ALPPS patients so far identifies those patients in whom stage-2 ALPPS surgery should be delayed or even denied. These findings may help to make ALPPS safer.

Objectives: To assess safety and outcomes of the novel 2-stage hepatectomy, Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS), using an international registry., Background: ALPPS induces accelerated growth of small future liver remnants (FLR) to allow curative resection of liver tumors. There is concern about safety based on reports of higher morbidity and mortality., Methods: A Web-based data entry system was created with password access and data pseudoencryption (NCT01924741). All patients with complete 90-day data were included. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for severe complications and mortality and volume growth of the FLR., Results: Complete data were available for 202 patients. A total of 141 (70%) patients had colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Median starting standardized future liver remnants of 21% increased by 80% within a median of 7 days. Ninety-day mortality was 19/202 (9%). Severe complications including mortalities (Clavien-Dindo≥IIIb) occurred in 27% of patients. Independent factors for severe complications were red blood cell transfusion [odds ratio (OR), 5.2), ALPPS stage I operating time greater than 300 minutes (OR, 4.4), age more than 60 years (OR, 3.8), and non-CRLM (OR, 2.7). Age, use of Pringle maneuver, and histologic changes led to less volume growth. In patients younger than 60 years with CRLM, 90-day mortality was similar to conventional 2-stage hepatectomies for CRLM., Conclusions: This is the first analysis of the ALPPS registry showing that ALPPS has increased perioperative morbidity and mortality in older patients but better outcomes in patients with CRLM.

Objective: To integrate the amount of hepatic steatosis in modern liver allocation models., Background: The aim of this study was to combine the 2 largest liver transplant databases (United States and Europe) in 1 comprehensive model to predict outcome after liver transplantation, with a novel focus on the impact of the presence of steatosis in the graft., Methods: We adjusted the balance of risk (BAR) score for its application to the European Liver Transplant Registry (ELTR) database containing 11,942 patients. All liver transplants from ELTR and United Network for Organ Sharing with recorded liver biopsies were then combined in one survival analysis in relation to the presence of graft micro- (n = 9,677) and macrosteatosis (n = 11,516)., Results: Microsteatosis, regardless of the amount, was associated with a similar relationship between mortality and BAR score as nonsteatotic livers. Low-grade macrosteatotic liver grafts (≤30% macrosteatosis) resulted in 5-year graft-survival rates of 60% or more up to BAR 18, comparable to nonsteatotic grafts. However, use of moderate or severely steatotic liver grafts (>30% macrosteatosis) resulted in acceptable outcome only if the cumulative risk at transplant was low, that is, BAR score of 9 or less., Conclusions: Microsteatotic or 30% or less macrosteatotic liver grafts can be used safely up to BAR score of 18 or less, but liver grafts with more than 30% macrosteatotis should be used with risk adjustment, that is, up to BAR score of 9 or less.

Objectives: To design a new score on risk assessment for orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) based on both donor and recipient parameters., Background: The balance of waiting list mortality and posttransplant outcome remains a difficult task in the era of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)., Methods: Using the United Network for Organ Sharing database, a risk analysis was performed in adult recipients of OLT in the United States of America between 2002 and 2010 (n = 37,255). Living donor-, partial-, or combined-, and donation after cardiac death liver transplants were excluded. Next, a risk score was calculated (balance of risk score, BAR score) on the basis of logistic regression factors, and validated using our own OLT database (n = 233). Finally, the new score was compared with other prediction systems including donor risk index, survival outcome following liver transplantation, donor-age combined with MELD, and MELD score alone., Results: Six strongest predictors of posttransplant survival were identified: recipient MELD score, cold ischemia time, recipient age, donor age, previous OLT, and life support dependence prior to transplant. The new balance of risk score stratified recipients best in terms of patient survival in the United Network for Organ Sharing data, as in our European population., Conclusions: The BAR system provides a new, simple and reliable tool to detect unfavorable combinations of donor and recipient factors, and is readily available before decision making of accepting or not an organ for a specific recipient. This score may offer great potential for better justice and utility, as it revealed to be superior to recent developed other prediction scores.