Citations

Abstract Background Some centres advocate preoperative radiotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer and arterial involvement despite a lack of Level 1 evidence on survival benefit. Although it has been suggested that preoperative radiotherapy may increase the risk of postpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and morbidity, evidence is again lacking. This study investigated the association between preoperative radiotherapy and both PPH and major morbidity following arterial divestment/resection during pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection after chemotherapy. Methods Consecutive patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and > 180° arterial involvement who were treated with preoperative chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy followed by pancreatic resection with arterial divestment/resection were included in the study. Logistic regression analyses including propensity score-based overlap weighting were performed to investigate associations between radiotherapy and in-hospital PPH grade B/C and major morbidity, expressed as adjusted risk differences (aRDs). Results Overall, 246 patients undergoing pancreatic resection with arterial resection (169, 69%) or divestment (77, 31%) were included. Radiotherapy was not associated with PPH (aRD 6%; 95% confidence interval (c.i.) −3 to 14), regardless of arterial divestment (aRD 3%; 95% c.i. −5 to 11) or arterial resection (aRD 12%; 95% c.i. 1 to 23; Pinteraction = 0.189). Radiotherapy was associated with a 14% (95% c.i. 2 to 25) higher risk of major morbidity, especially after arterial resection (aRD 27%; 95% c.i. 11 to 43) compared with arterial divestment (aRD −12%; 95% c.i. −35 to 11; Pinteraction = 0.006) and after external beam radiotherapy (aRD 21%; 95% c.i. 8 to 32) compared with stereotactic body radiotherapy (aRD −12%; 95% c.i. −27 to 6; Pinteraction = 0.0001). Ninety-day mortality was increased, albeit not significantly, after preoperative radiotherapy (10 (8%) versus 3 (3%) deaths with versus without preoperative radiotherapy, respectively; P = 0.067). Conclusions Radiotherapy before resection of pancreatic cancer with > 180° arterial involvement was associated with an increased risk of postoperative major morbidity when arterial resection, but not arterial divestment, was performed. This risk should be taken into account when considering preoperative radiotherapy in patients who may require arterial resection.

Abstract Background Liver surgery carries a high risk of complications due to the complex interplay of patient-related factors, disease characteristics, and liver function. Expertise is essential for healthcare professionals managing hepatobiliary patients. This European consensus provides evidence-based guidance on selected aspects of peri- and postoperative care. Methods A modified Delphi process was used to achieve consensus, with a 70% agreement threshold. The expert panel comprised hepatobiliary surgeons, anaesthetists, hepatologists, a specialist nurse, and a physiotherapist. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. Six topics were addressed: thromboprophylaxis; perioperative antibiotics; prehabilitation/nutrition/mobilization; bile leak including bilioenteric anastomosis leaks; post-hepatectomy haemorrhage; and post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). Evidence appraisal and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. A patient representative reviewed the guideline. Results Searching the literature yielded 204 included publications from an initial 6514. Thirty-two statements were formulated with a median evidence level of 2. Evidence strength varied by topic with noticeably lower evidence levels in complex surgery settings and less prevalent conditions. In some topics, study heterogeneity and specific inclusion criteria resulted in conditional recommendations, despite high-level evidence. Notably, the weakest evidence was found for perioperative thromboprophylaxis and PHLF management. Strong recommendations were formulated for prehabilitation, early postoperative mobilization, and avoidance of routine drain use. Several evidence gaps warranting multicentre studies were identified. Conclusion Optimizing peri- and postoperative care after liver resection remains challenging. Standardizing key practices and addressing evidence gaps through collaborative research are vital to improve outcomes.

Abstract Background Posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality after liver surgery. Standardized assessment of preoperative liver function is crucial to identify patients at risk. These European consensus guidelines provide guidance for preoperative patient assessment. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used to achieve consensus. The expert panel consisted of hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, and hepatologists. The guideline process was supervised by a methodologist and reviewed by a patient representative. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. Evidence assessment and statement development followed Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Results Based on 271 publications covering 4 key areas, 21 statements (at least 85 per cent agreement) were produced (median level of evidence 2− to 2+). Only a few systematic reviews (2++) and one RCT (1+) were identified. Preoperative liver function assessment should be considered before complex resections, and in patients with suspected or known underlying liver disease, or chemotherapy-associated or drug-induced liver injury. Clinical assessment and blood-based scores reflecting liver function or portal hypertension (for example albumin/bilirubin, platelet count) aid in identifying risk of PHLF. Volumetry of the future liver remnant represents the foundation for assessment, and can be combined with indocyanine green clearance or LiMAx® according to local expertise and availability. Functional MRI and liver scintigraphy are alternatives, combining FLR volume and function in one examination. Conclusion These guidelines reflect established methods to assess preoperative liver function and PHLF risk, and have uncovered evidence gaps of interest for future research.

AbstractIntroductionDespite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.MethodsA literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.ResultsUniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.DiscussionStrict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.

Objective: The aim of this study was to define robust benchmark values for the surgical treatment of perihilar cholangiocarcinomas (PHC) to enable unbiased comparisons. Background: Despite ongoing efforts, postoperative mortality and morbidity remains high after complex liver surgery for PHC. Benchmark data of best achievable results in surgical PHC treatment are however still lacking. Methods: This study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing major liver surgery for PHC in 24 high-volume centers in 3 continents over the recent 5-year period (2014–2018) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year in each patient. Benchmark patients were those operated at high-volume centers (≥50 cases during the study period) without the need for vascular reconstruction due to tumor invasion, or the presence of significant co-morbidities such as severe obesity (body mass index ≥35), diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases. Benchmark cutoff values were derived from the 75th or 25th percentile of the median values of all benchmark centers. Results: Seven hundred eight (39%) of a total of 1829 consecutive patients qualified as benchmark cases. Benchmark cut-offs included: R0 resection ≥57%, postoperative liver failure (International Study Group of Liver Surgery): ≤35%; in-hospital and 3-month mortality rates ≤8% and ≤13%, respectively; 3-month grade 3 complications and the CCI: ≤70% and ≤30.5, respectively; bile leak-rate: ≤47% and 5-year overall survival of ≥39.7%. Centers operating mostly on complex cases disclosed better outcome including lower post-operative liver failure rates (4% vs 13%; P = 0.002). Centers from Asia disclosed better outcomes. Conclusion: Surgery for PHC remains associated with high morbidity and mortality with now the availability of benchmark values covering 21 outcome parameters, which may serve as key references for comparison in any future analyses of individuals, group of patients or centers.