-
World Journal of Surgery Jan 2023Enhanced 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Preoperative Exercise; Teaching Rounds; Liver
PubMed: 36310325
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06732-5 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Oct 2021Advances in imaging technology have the potential to transform the early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through quantitative image analysis.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Advances in imaging technology have the potential to transform the early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through quantitative image analysis. Computational "radiomic" techniques extract biomarker information from images which can be used to improve diagnosis and predict tumour biology.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review on radiomic features in HCC diagnosis and prognosis, with a focus on reporting metrics and methodologic standardisation.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of all full-text articles published from inception through December 1, 2019. Standardised data extraction and quality assessment metrics were applied to all studies.
RESULTS
A total of 54 studies were included for analysis. Radiomic features demonstrated good discriminatory performance to differentiate HCC from other solid lesions (c-statistics 0.66-0.95), and to predict microvascular invasion (c-statistic 0.76-0.92), early recurrence after hepatectomy (c-statistics 0.71-0.86), and prognosis after locoregional or systemic therapies (c-statistics 0.74-0.81). Common stratifying features for diagnostic and prognostic radiomic tools included analyses of imaging skewness, analysis of the peritumoural region, and feature extraction from the arterial imaging phase. The overall quality of the included studies was low, with common deficiencies in both internal and external validation, standardised imaging segmentation, and lack of comparison to a gold standard.
CONCLUSIONS
Quantitative image analysis demonstrates promise as a non-invasive biomarker to improve HCC diagnosis and management. However, standardisation of protocols and outcome measurement, sharing of algorithms and analytic methods, and external validation are necessary prior to widespread application of radiomics to HCC diagnosis and prognosis in clinical practice.
Topics: Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepatectomy; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Prognosis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34390014
DOI: 10.1111/apt.16563 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2020Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their perioperative pathway. It has been shown to be effective in reducing length of hospital stay and improving clinical outcomes. However, evidence on its effective in liver surgery remains weak. The aim of this review is to investigate clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness and compliance to ERAS protocols in liver surgery.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane for randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published between 2008 and 2019, comparing effect of ERAS protocols and standard care on hospital cost, LOS, complications, readmission, mortality and compliance.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 6 RCTs and 21 cohort studies of 3739 patients (1777 in ERAS and 1962 in standard care group). LOS was reduced by 2.22 days in ERAS group (MD = -2.22; CI, -2.77 to -1.68; p < 0.00001) compared to the standard care group. Fewer patients in ERAS group experienced complications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; p = < 0.00001). Hospital cost was significantly lower in the ERAS group (SMD = -0.98; CI, -1.37 to - 0.58; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Our review concluded that the introduction of ERAS protocols is safe and feasible in hepatectomies, without increasing mortality and readmission rates, whilst reducing LOS and risk of complications, and with a significant hospital cost savings. Laparoscopic approach may be necessary to reduce complication rates in liver surgery. However, further studies are needed to investigate overall compliance to ERAS protocols and its impact on clinical outcomes.
Topics: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Hospital Costs; Humans; Length of Stay; Liver; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 31900738
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04499-0 -
International Journal of Surgery... Sep 2016Hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is not only a pathophysiological process involving the liver, but also a complex systemic process affecting multiple tissues... (Review)
Review
Hepatic ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) is not only a pathophysiological process involving the liver, but also a complex systemic process affecting multiple tissues and organs. Hepatic IRI can seriously impair liver function, even producing irreversible damage, which causes a cascade of multiple organ dysfunction. Many factors, including anaerobic metabolism, mitochondrial damage, oxidative stress and secretion of ROS, intracellular Ca(2+) overload, cytokines and chemokines produced by KCs and neutrophils, and NO, are involved in the regulation of hepatic IRI processes. Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) can be an important mediator of early leukocyte recruitment and target in acute and chronic liver injury associated to ischemia. MMPs and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) could be used as markers of I-R injury severity stages. This review explores the relationship between factors and inflammatory pathways that characterize hepatic IRI, MMPs and current pharmacological approaches to this disease.
Topics: Animals; Antioxidants; Biomarkers; Cytokines; Genetic Therapy; Hepatectomy; Kupffer Cells; Leukocytes; Liver; Liver Diseases; Liver Transplantation; Male; Matrix Metalloproteinases; Mitochondria, Liver; Oxidative Stress; Prognosis; Reperfusion Injury; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27255130
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.05.050 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Sep 2022This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were... (Review)
Review
This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.
PubMed: 36233697
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195831 -
Asian Journal of Surgery Apr 2021The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robotic hepatectomy (RH) versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for malignancy using meta-analysis. A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library databases up to September 2020 for studies, which limited to comparative articles of RH or LH for malignant tumors. Stata14.0 was performed in the meta-analysis. Six studies with a total of 1093 patients (345 RH and 748 LH) were eligible for inclusion. Operative time, tumor size, open procedure rate and the proportion of right hepatectomy were found to be significantly different between RH and LH in the pooled analysis (P < 0.05). Compared to LH, RH was associated with longer operative time, larger tumor size, lower open procedure rate and more common use for right hepatectomy. On the other hand, there was no difference in the operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion rate, hospital stay, R0 resection rate, complications, resection margin, left lateral sectionectomy and left hepatectomy (P > 0.05). For malignant tumors that require hepatectomy, robotic approaches have demonstrated similar safety and feasibility to laparoscopy, with lower open procedure rate, were suitable for larger tumor size, and have a high right hepatectomy utilization rate. These results still need to be confirmed by multicenter, high-quality randomized controlled studies.
Topics: Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Liver Neoplasms; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33468382
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.12.016 -
HPB : the Official Journal of the... Feb 2022Bile duct injury (BDI) after cholecystectomy can lead to recurrent cholangitis, even after biliary reconstruction. This necessitates hepatectomy in a minority of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Bile duct injury (BDI) after cholecystectomy can lead to recurrent cholangitis, even after biliary reconstruction. This necessitates hepatectomy in a minority of patients. A systematic review was conducted, summarizing the pattern of biliary injury sustained in this group and their outcomes after hepatectomy.
METHODS
A literature search included the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane libraries. Retrospective cohort studies describing outcomes for hepatectomy after BDI, and the nature of the antecedent BDI, published between 1999 and 2019, were selected.
RESULTS
Eight articles described a cohort of 2110 patients with BDI. Of these, 84 underwent hepatectomy. Complex vasculo-biliary injuries had been sustained in most cases. The mean time to hepatectomy was between 26 and 224 months after BDI. A right hepatectomy was performed in 67-89% of cases. Post hepatectomy, intra-abdominal infection (range 0-50%) and bile leaks (range 0-45%) occurred variably. Mortality occurred in three series. Nineteen percent of patients (16 of 84) developed recurrent symptoms at follow up.
CONCLUSION
Hepatectomy after bile duct injury is an uncommon procedure and represents a salvage strategy when vasculo-biliary injury happens. Liver resection leads to resolution of symptoms in the majority of the cases however postoperative bile leaks and intra-abdominal infection are common.
Topics: Bile Duct Diseases; Bile Ducts; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic; Hepatectomy; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34702627
DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2021.09.012 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy... (Review)
Review
The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien−Dindo complications I−II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.
PubMed: 35566727
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092603 -
Medicine Apr 2021Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH).
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Loss, Surgical; Blood Transfusion; Female; Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male; Middle Aged; Observational Studies as Topic; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33907124
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000025648 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2015To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay.
CONCLUSION
Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Blood Loss, Surgical; Chi-Square Distribution; Female; Hepatectomy; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Odds Ratio; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26217097
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i27.8441