Search

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) has been widely applied in liver surgery since the publication of the first ERAS guidelines in 2016. The aim of the present article was to update the ERAS guidelines in liver surgery using a modified Delphi method based on a systematic review of the literature. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A modified Delphi method including 15 international experts was used. Consensus was judged to be reached when >80% of the experts agreed on the recommended items. Recommendations were based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. Results: A total of 7541 manuscripts were screened, and 240 articles were finally included. Twenty-five recommendation items were elaborated. All of them obtained consensus (>80% agreement) after 3 Delphi rounds. Nine items (36%) had a high level of evidence and 16 (64%) a strong recommendation grade. Compared to the first ERAS guidelines published, 3 novel items were introduced: prehabilitation in high-risk patients, preoperative biliary drainage in cholestatic liver, and preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation at least 4 weeks before hepatectomy. Conclusions: These guidelines based on the best available evidence allow standardization of the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver surgery. Specific studies on hepatectomy in cirrhotic patients following an ERAS program are still needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major surgery is a term frequently used but poorly defined. The aim of the present study was to reach a consensus in the definition of major surgery within a panel of expert surgeons from the European Surgical Association (ESA). Methods: A 3-round Delphi process was performed. All ESA members were invited to participate in the expert panel. In round 1, experts were inquired by open- and closed-ended questions on potential criteria to define major surgery. Results were analyzed and presented back anonymously to the panel within next rounds. Closed-ended questions in round 2 and 3 were either binary or statements to be rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strong disagreement) to 5 (strong agreement). Participants were sent 3 reminders at 2-week intervals for each round. 70% of agreement was considered to indicate consensus. Results: Out of 305 ESA members, 67 (22%) answered all the 3 rounds. Significant comorbidities were the only preoperative factor retained to define major surgery (78%). Vascular clampage or organ ischemia (92%), high intraoperative blood loss (90%), high noradrenalin requirements (77%), long operative time (73%) and perioperative blood transfusion (70%) were procedure-related factors that reached consensus. Regarding postoperative factors, systemic inflammatory response (76%) and the need for intensive or intermediate care (88%) reached consensus. Consequences of major surgery were high morbidity (>30% overall) and mortality (>2%). Conclusion: ESA experts defined major surgery according to extent and complexity of the procedure, its pathophysiological consequences and consecutive clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Liver resection combined with colorectal surgery (CRS) is the only curative option in many patients presenting with synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases (CRLM). Simultaneous resection has been shown to offer benefits in patients with low hepatic tumor load; however, in the setting of in situ colorectal tumor with extensive CRLM and a small predicted future liver remnant (FLR), the use of simultaneous ALPPS and CRS is controversial, lacking outcome data. Methods: Thirty-one cases of simultaneous ALPPS and CRS prospectively entered into the International ALPPS Registry were examined. Univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with 90-day mortality after stage-2. Results: Thirty patients (97%) completed both stages. CRS was performed during stage-1 in 22 patients (73%). Seven patients (23%) had severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ IIIb) following stage-2 ALPPS. The 90-day mortality rate was 15%. Patients who had a severe complication after stage-1 were significantly more likely to have 90-day mortality following stage-2 ( p = 0.002). MELD score > 10 on postoperative day-5 after stage-1 was also significantly associated with 90-day mortality ( p = 0.011). Disease-free survival and overall survival were 36% and 76% at 1 year, respectively. Conclusions: In light of the high mortality and poor long-term survival identified in this series, the adoption of ALPPS with CRS cannot be recommended without further data. Patients who suffer severe complications or have an elevated MELD score after stage-1 are at higher risk of mortality following stage-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Morbidity and mortality rates after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are important quality parameters to compare peritoneal surface malignancy centers. A major problem to assess postoperative outcomes among centers is the inconsistent reporting due to two coexisting systems, the diagnose-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) classification and the therapy-oriented Clavien-Dindo classification. We therefore assessed and compared both reporting systems. Patients and Methods: Complications after CRS/HIPEC were recorded in 147 consecutive patients and independently graded by an expert board using both systems. In a next step, a group of residents, experienced surgeons, and medical oncologists evaluated a set of twelve real complications, either with the Clavien-Dindo or CTCAE classification. Results: The postoperative complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 37 % (54/147), 6.8 % (10/147) were reoperated, and three (2 %) patients died. The most frequent complications were intestinal fistula or abscess, pulmonary complications, and ileus. Grading of complications with the CTCAE classification resulted in a significantly higher major morbidity rate compared to the Clavien-Dindo classification (25 vs. 8 %, p = 0.001). Evaluating a set of complications, residents, surgeons, and oncologists correctly assessed significantly more complications with the Clavien-Dindo compared to the CTCEA classification ( p < 0.001). In addition, all participants evaluated the Clavien-Dindo classification as more simple. Residents ( p < 0.001) and surgeons ( p < 0.01) required less time with the Clavien-Dindo classification; there was no difference for oncologist. Conclusion: In conclusion, our data indicate that there is a different interpretation of severity grades of complications after CRS/HIPEC between the two classifications. There is a need for a common language in the field of CRS/HIPEC, which should be defined by a new consensus to compare surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reporting of surgical outcomes is important for healthcare decision making and includes the reporting of complications. Several classifications have been proposed and validated for postoperative, but not intraoperative, complications. The aim of the present study is to assess the current practice of complication reporting in surgical trials. Methods: We evaluated the reporting of intra- and postoperative complications in all registered randomized controlled trials that included investigate surgery or invasive interventions in at least one study arm and were published in 2010 in the Annals of Surgery, JAMA Surgery, and the British Journal of Surgery. Results: A total of 46 trials were identified; intra- and postoperative complications were reported separately in 42 % and pooled in 15 %. In 37 % intraoperative, in 2 % postoperative, and in 4 % both intra- and postoperative, complications were not reported at all. Exact definitions were provided in 13 % for intraoperative and in 50 % for postoperative complications. A classification was used in 9 % for intra- and in 54 % for postoperative complications, most frequently according to severity. The type of intervention (surgical vs. other) or whether the primary outcome was the assessment of complications had no significant impact on reporting definitions of adverse events. Conclusions: Intraoperative complications are frequently pooled with postoperative complications, ill-defined, or not reported at all, hampering informed decision making. As further research, we propose to develop and validate a classification of intraoperative complications. This will facilitate the evaluation of safety and the continuous quality control of surgical interventions with the ultimate goal to contribute to patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advances in diagnostic imaging and the introduction of damage control strategy in trauma have influenced our approach to treating liver trauma patients. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impact of change in liver trauma management on outcome. Methods: A total of 468 consecutive patients with liver trauma treated between 1986 and 2010 at a single level 1 trauma center were reviewed. Mechanisms of injury, diagnostic imaging, hepatic and associated injuries, management (operative [OM] vs. nonoperative [NOM]), and outcome were evaluated. The main outcome analysis compared mortality for the early study period (1986-1996) versus the later study period (1997-2010). Results: 395 patients (84%) presented with blunt liver trauma and 73 (16%) with penetrating liver trauma. Of these, 233 patients were treated with OM (50%) versus 235 with NOM (50%). The mortality rate was 33% for the early period and 20% for the later period (odds ratio 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.50, P = 0.001). A significantly increased use of computed tomography (CT) as the initial diagnostic modality was observed in the late period, which almost completely replaced peritoneal lavage and ultrasound. There was a significant shift to NOM in the later period (early 15%, late 63%) with a low conversion rate to OM of 4.2%. Age, degree of hepatic and head injury, injury severity, intubation at admission, and early period were independent predictors of mortality in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Integration of CT in early trauma-room management and shift to NOM in hemodynamically stable patients resulted in improved survival and should be the gold standard management for liver trauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemotherapy may increase postoperative morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Especially bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), could have a detrimental effect. To assess the impact of neoadjuvant bevacizumab on clinical outcome after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) this case-matched control study was initiated. The multicentric data collection was performed in the Swiss HPB Center of the University Hospital Zurich (CH), the Department of Digestive Surgery and Transplantation Strasbourg (F), and the Division of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery of “Josep Tureta” Hospital Girona (E). Consecutive patients operated onbetween July 2005 and December 2007 due to CRLMs who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy were assessed. Patients were divided in two groups: group A had neoadjuvant chemotherapy with bevacicumab, and group B had it without bevacizumab. No differences in overall morbidity (56 vs . 40% in the bevacizumab and control groups, respectively, p = 0.23) or mortality could be documented. Similarly, the incidence of severe postoperative complications was not statistically different between the bevacizumab and control groups (31 and 18%, respectively, p = 0.31). Wound complications were comparable (11% in the bevacizumab group compared and 9% in the control group, p = 1.00). However, bevacizumab was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of postoperative hepatic insufficiency (7 vs. 20%, p = 0.03). No impact on the incidence or severity of complications by bevacizumab could be shown. Bevacizumab may even reduce the incidence of liver failure after liver surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]