Search

Purpose: Recently, bail-out cholecystectomy (BOC) during laparoscopic cholecystectomy to avoid severe complications, such as vasculobiliary injury, has become widely used and increased in prevalence. However, current predictive factors or scoring systems are insufficient. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to test the validity of existing scoring systems and determine a suitable cutoff value for predicting BOC. Methods: We retrospectively assessed 305 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy and divided them into a total cholecystectomy group (n = 265) and a BOC group (n = 40). Preoperative and operative findings were collected, and cutoff values for the existing scoring systems (Kama's and Nassar's) were modified using a prospectively maintained database. Results: The BOC rate was 13% with no severe complications. A logistic regression analysis revealed that the Kama's score (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.91–0.96; P < 0.01) was an independent predictor of BOC. A cutoff value of 6.5 points gave an area under the curve of 0.81, with a sensitivity of 87% and a specificity of 67%. Conclusions: Kama's difficulty scoring system with a modified cutoff value (6.5 points) is effective for predicting BOC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The IMM (Institut Mutualiste Montsouris) difficulty classification for laparoscopic liver resection is based only on the type of surgical procedure. It is useful for assessing outcomes and setting benchmarks in a group sharing the same indications. There is, however, no left medial sectionectomy in the system. Its difficulty was evaluated using the same methodology as IMM with the data from a personal series. Furthermore, length of hospital stay was evaluated as the representative of short-term outcomes. IMM scores of our right and left hemihepatectomies, right anterior sectionectomy, and segment 7 or 8 segmentectomies are 3. That of left medial sectionectomies is 2, the same as right posterior sectionectomy and segment or less anatomical resections. Those of left lateral sectionectomy and partial resection are 0. The group with a score of 3 was divided into two groups—with and without extended hospital stays (extended only for right hemihepatectomies and right anterior sectionectomies). The difficulty of medial sectionectomy was positioned at the same level as posterior sectionectomy and segment or less anatomical resections. The result from the second evaluation may indicate that there are other factors with an impact on difficulty related to short-term outcomes, other than intraoperative surgical difficulty from the procedure itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Japanese difficulty score (JDS) categorizes laparoscopic hepatectomy into low, intermediate, and high complexity procedures, and correlates with operative and postoperative outcomes. We sought to perform a validation study to determine if the JDS correlates with operative and postoperative indicators of surgical complexity for patients undergoing robotic-assisted hepatectomy. Methods: Retrospective review of 657 minimally invasive hepatectomy procedures was performed between January 2008 through March 2019. Outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, complications, post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day and 90-day mortality. Patients were grouped based on JDS defined as: low (< 4), intermediate (4–6), and high (7 +) complexity procedures. Statistical comparisons were analyzed by ANOVA or χ2 test. Results: 241 of 657 patients underwent robotic-assisted resection. Of these patients, 137 were included in the analysis based on JDS: 25 low, 58 intermediate, and 54 high. High JDS was associated with more major resections (≥ 4 contiguous segments) versus minor resections (median JDS 8 vs. 5, P < 0.0001). High JDS was associated with significantly longer operative times, higher EBL, and more blood transfusions. High JDS was associated with higher rates of PHLF at 16.7%, compared with 5.2% intermediate and 0.0% low, (P = 0.018). Complication rates, 30-day readmissions, and mortality rates were similar between groups. Median LOS was longer in patients with high JDS compared with intermediate and low (4 days vs. 3 days vs. 2 days; P = 0.0005). Discussion: Higher JDS was associated with multiple indicators of operative complexity, including greater extent of resection, increased operative time, EBL, blood transfusion, PHLF, and LOS. This validation study supports the ability of the JDS to categorize patients undergoing robotic-assisted hepatectomy by complexity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A difficulty score for laparoscopic adrenalectomy (LA) is lacking in the literature. A retrospective cohort study was designed to develop a preoperative "difficulty score" for LA. Methods: A multicenter study was conducted involving four Italian tertiary centers for adrenal disease. The population was randomly divided into two subsets: training group and validation one. A multicenter study was undertaken, including 964 patients. Patient, adrenal lesion, surgeon's characteristics, and the type of procedure were studied as potential predictors of target events. The operative time (pOT), conversion rate (cLA), or both were used as indicators of the difficulty in three multivariate models. All models were developed in a training cohort (70% of the sample) and validated using 30% of patients. For all models, the ability to predict complicated postoperative course was reported describing the area under the curve (AUCs). Logistic regression, reporting odds ratio (OR) with p-value, was used. Results: In model A, gender (OR 2.04, p = 0.001), BMI (OR 1.07, p = 0.002), previous surgery (OR 1.29, p = 0.048), site (OR 21.8, p < 0.001) and size of the lesion (OR 1.16, p = 0.002), cumulative sum of procedures (OR 0.99, p < 0.001), extended (OR 26.72, p < 0.001) or associated procedures (OR 4.32, p = 0.015) increased the pOT. In model B, ASA (OR 2.86, p = 0.001), lesion size (OR 1.20, p = 0.005), and extended resection (OR 8.85, p = 0.007) increased the cLA risk. Model C had similar results to model A. All scores obtained predicted the target events in validation cohort (OR 1.99, p < 0.001; OR 1.37, p = 0.007; OR 1.70, p < 0.001, score A, B, and C, respectively). The AUCs in predicting complications were 0.740, 0.686, and 0.763 for model A, B, and C, respectively. Conclusion: A difficulty score based on both pOT and cLA (Model C) was developed using 70% of the sample. The score was validated using a second cohort. Finally, the score was tested, and its results are able to predict a complicated postoperative course. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) involves a difficult learning curve, for which multiple difficulty scores have been proposed to assist with safe adaptation. The IWATE Criteria is a 4-level difficulty score shown to correlate with conversion to open surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and operative time in Japanese and French cohorts. We set out to validate the IWATE Criteria in a North American cohort, describe the evolution of our LLR program, and analyze the IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery. Methods: Patients that underwent LLR between January 2006 and December 2019 were selected from a prospectively maintained database. Difficulty outcomes, including conversion to open surgery, EBL, operative time, and post-operative complications were analyzed according to IWATE difficulty level, both overall and between chronological eras. The IWATE Criteria's ability to predict conversion to open surgery was assessed with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results: A total of 426 patients met inclusion criteria. Operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery increased in concordance with low to advanced IWATE difficulty. ROC analysis for conversion to open surgery demonstrated an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.694. Predictive performance was superior during the first two eras, with AUCs of 0.771 and 0.775; predictive value decreased as the LLR program gained experience, with AUCs of 0.708 and 0.551 for eras three and four. Conclusions: This study validated the IWATE Criteria in a North American population distinct from previous Japanese and French cohorts, based on its correlation with operative time, EBL, and conversion to open surgery. The IWATE Criteria may be of utility for identification of LLR cases appropriate for surgeon experience, as well as determination of laparoscopic feasibility. Interval difficulty score recalibration may be warranted as surgeon perception of difficulty evolves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the learning curve of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) of a single surgeon. A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of liver resections was conducted. 171 patients undergoing pure LLRs between April 2008 and April 2021 were analysed. The Halls difficulty score (HDS) for theoretical predictions of intraoperative complications (IOC) during LLR was applied. IOC was defined as blood loss over 775 mL, unintentional damage to the surrounding structures, and conversion to an open approach. Theoretical association between HDS and the predicted probability of IOC was utilised to objectify the shape of the learning curve. The obtained learning curve has resulted from thirteen years of surgical effort of a single surgeon. It consists of an absolute and a relative part in the mathematical description of the additive function described by the logarithmic function (absolute complexity) and fifth-degree regression curve (relative complexity). The obtained learning curve determines the functional dependency of the learning outcome versus time and indicates several local extreme values (peaks and valleys) in the learning process until proficiency is achieved. This learning curve indicates an ongoing learning process for LLR. The proposed mathematical model can be applied for any surgical procedure with an existing difficulty score and a known theoretically predicted association between the difficulty score and given outcome (for example, IOC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Difficulty scores (DSs) have been proposed to rate laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) technical difficulty increasing surgical safety. The aim of the study was to validate three DSs (Hasegawa, Halls and Kawaguchi) and compare their ability to predict technical difficulty and postoperative outcomes.Materials and Methods: All patients who underwent LLR from January 2006 to January 2019 were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were cyst fenestrations, thermal ablation, missing data for the computation of the DS and a follow-up < 90 days.Results: The population comprised 300 patients. The DS distribution in the study population was: Halls low 55 (18.3%), moderate 82 (27.3%), high 111 (37%) and extremely high 52 (17.3%); Hasegawa low 130 (43.3%), medium 105 (35%) and high 65 (21.7%); Kawaguchi Grade I 194 (64.7%), Grade II 47 (15.7%) and Grade III 59 (19.7%). Hasegawa and Kawaguchi showed the strongest correlation (r = 0.798, p < 0.001). Technical complexity, evaluated using the Pringle maneuver, Pringle time, blood loss and operative time, increased significantly with Hasegawa and Kawaguchi score classes (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). None of the scores properly stratified postoperative complications. The highest Kawaguchi (23.7% grade III vs. 13.7% grades I and II, p = 0.057) and Hasegawa (24.6% high vs. 13.2% low/medium, p = 0.025) classes had a higher overall morbidity rate than medium-low ones.Conclusions: Kawaguchi and Hasegawa scores predicted LLR's technical difficulty. None of the scores discriminated the postoperative complication risk of low classes compared with medium ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, the minimally invasive surgical approach has been available for performing liver resections (LRs) with laparoscopic and robotic techniques. The robotic approach for LRs seems to overcome several laparoscopic limitations, which is a valid alternative when performed in high volume and specialized centers. Laparoscopic difficulty score systems (DSSs) should serve to guide the surgeon's choice in the best surgical approach to adopt for every single patient, giving the possibility to switch to the open approach when needed. To this day, no specific robotic difficulty scores exist. The aim of our study was to verify the feasibility of applying these scores and related updates on robotic LRs performed in our Institute. Materials and Methods: Out of a total of 683 LRs performed from June 2010 to July 2019, 60 were performed through using a mini invasive approach and of these 18 were performed robotically. The Ban DSS and subsequently the modified Iwate DSS were applied to our cases. Results: Based on our findings, applying the DSS we divided our series into two groups: a low difficulty level group (1-3) made up of 5 patients, and an intermediate difficulty level group (4-6) consisting of 13 patients. Average Ban DSS and subsequently updated score system results were 4.6 ± 1.5 points (range 2-6) for both scores. Conclusions: Difficulties were encountered in applying the score when simultaneous multiple wedge resections were performed. The laparoscopic DSS is applicable to robotic LRs with some limitations due to the peculiarity of the two different minimally invasive approaches. A specific robotic difficulty rating score could be necessary to include these elements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The development of robotic system may help to relieve the difficulties encountered during laparoscopic hepatectomy. A difficulty scoring system (DSS) was developed to assess the difficulty of various laparoscopic liver resection procedures. The aim of this study is to explore if the DSS is applicable in robotic hepatectomy and to compare the outcomes of robotic hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy among different difficulty levels.Methods: Clinical data from all consecutive patients who underwent robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy at the Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, were prospectively collected and reviewed. The difficulty level of operations was graded using the DSS. Perioperative outcomes of robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were compared at each difficulty level.Results: A total of 107 and 94 patients underwent robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy during the study period, respectively. Among them, 16 and 2 patients were operated for recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, respectively, and were excluded because no mark for tumour location can be assigned. For robotic hepatectomy, a higher DSS was significantly correlated with higher minor complication rate (p = 0.001), more intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.002), longer operation time (p < 0.001) and longer post-operative hospital stay (p < 0.001). The mean DSS scores of robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomy were 4.5 and 3.6, respectively. (p = 0.004). For cases with low (DSS 1-3) and intermediate (DSS 4-6) difficulty level, there was no significant difference in operative blood loss, operation time and overall complications rate. Only 2 cases (2.2%) with high difficulty level were operated with laparoscopic approach while 20% of patients operated with robotic approach had DSS > 6.Conclusions: DSS significantly correlated with surgical outcomes in patient who underwent robotic hepatectomy. Perioperative outcomes following robotic and conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy were similar in cases with low and intermediate difficulty. However, robotic system allowed minimally invasive approach in cases with higher difficulty level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Technological innovations have made it possible to use laparoscopic liver resection in cases with pre-existing adhesions or cicatricial changes. However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons, especially in case of previous open liver surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) in cases of recurrent liver cancer. Materials and Methods: A total of 62 patients who underwent laparoscopic minor liver resection at our institution between September 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively divided into an LRLR group (n = 13) and a laparoscopic primary liver resection group (LPLR; n = 49). The two groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, surgical procedures and short-term outcomes. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Results: There was a significant intergroup difference in the hepatitis virus background, although the two groups' primary histology and pre-operative liver function were comparable. The two groups had statistically similar values for extent of resection, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, conversion to laparotomy, post-operative complications, surgical margins, time to oral intake and hospital stay. No significant differences were detected when we stratified the cases according to low and intermediate difficulty. Furthermore, there were no intergroup differences in RFS or OS in the two groups for patients with HCC and CRLM. Conclusions: The findings suggest that minor LRLR after OLR is safe and comparable with minor LPLR in the present study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To investigate the feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), we compared the outcome between LLR and conventional open liver resection (OLR) in patient groups with different IWATE criteria difficulty scores (DS). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 607 primary HCC patients (LLR: 81, OLR: 526) who underwent liver resection in Linkou Chang Gung Memorial hospital from 2012 to 2019. By using 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis, their baseline characteristics and the DS stratified by the IWATE criteria were matched between the LLR and OLR. Their perioperative and oncologic outcomes were compared. Results: After 1:1 PSM, 146 patients (73 in LLR, 73 in OLR) were analyzed. Among them, 13, 41, 13 and 6 patients were classified as low, intermediate, advanced and expert DS group, respectively. Compared to OLR, the LLR had shorter hospital stay (9.4 vs. 11.5 days, p = 0.071), less occurrence of surgical complications (16.4% vs. 30.1%, p = 0.049), lower rate of hepatic inflow control (42.5% vs. 65.8%, p = 0.005), and longer time of inflow control (70 vs. 51 min, p = 0.022). The disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survivals were comparable between the two groups. While stratified by the DS groups, the LLR tended to have lower complication rate and shorter hospital stay than OLR. The DFS of LLR in the intermediate DS group was superior to that of the OLR (p = 0.020). In the advanced and expert DS groups, there were no significant differences regarding outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion: We have demonstrated that with sufficient experience and technique, LLR for HCC is feasible and the perioperative outcome is favorable. Based on the current study, we suggest LLR should be a standard procedure for HCC with low or intermediate difficulty. It can provide satisfactory postoperative recovery and comparable oncological outcomes. Further larger scale prospective studies are warranted to validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]