Alan J. Koffron

The International Position on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008

Objective:To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. Summary Background Data:Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. Methods:On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. Results:The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. Conclusions:Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution: Less is more

Objective:We present the largest, most comprehensive, single center experience to date of minimally invasive liver resection (MILR). Summary Background Data:Despite anecdotal reports of MILR, few large single center reports have examined these procedures by comparing them to their open counterparts. Methods:Three hundred MILR were performed between July 2001 and November 2006 at our center for both benign and malignant conditions. These included 241 pure laparoscopic, 32 hand-assisted laparoscopic, and 27 laparoscopy-assisted open (hybrid) resections. These MILR were compared with 100 contemporaneous, cohort-matched open resections. MILR included segmentectomies (110), bisegmentectomies (63), left hepatectomies (47), right hepatectomies (64), extended right hepatectomies (8), and caudate lobe (8) resections. Benign etiologies encompassed cysts (70), hemangiomata (37), focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) (23), adenomata (47), and 20 live donor right lobectomies. Malignant etiologies included primary (43) and metastatic (60) tumors. Hepatic fibrosis/cirrhosis was present in 25 of 103 patients with malignant diseases (24%). Results:There was high data consistency within the 3 types of MILR. MILR compared favorably with standard open techniques: operative times (99 vs. 182 minutes), blood loss (102 vs. 325 ml), transfusion requirement (2 of 300 vs. 8 of 100), length of stay (1.9 vs. 5.4 days), overall operative complications (9.3% vs. 22%), and local malignancy recurrence (2% vs. 3%). No port-site recurrences occurred. Conversion from laparoscopic to hand-assisted laparoscopic resection occurred in 20 patients (6%), with no conversions to open. No hand-assisted procedures were converted to open, but 2 laparoscopy-assisted (7%) were converted to open. Conclusion:Our data show that MILR outcomes compare favorably with those of the open standard technique. Our experience suggests that MILR of varying magnitudes is safe and effective for both benign and malignant conditions.

Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka.

OBJECTIVE This review aims to assess the impact of implementing dedicated emergency surgical services, in particular acute care surgery, on clinical outcomes. BACKGROUND The optimal model for delivering high-quality emergency surgical care remains unknown. Acute Care Surgery (ACS) is a health care model combining emergency general surgery, trauma, and critical care. It has been adopted across the United States in the management of surgical emergencies. METHOD A systematic review was performed after PRISMA recommendations using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Psych-Info databases. Studies assessing different care models and institutional factors affecting the delivery of emergency general surgery were included. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies comprising 744,238 patients were included in this review. In studies comparing ACS with traditional practice, mortality and morbidity were improved. Moreover, time to senior review, delays to operating theater, and financial expenditure were often reduced. The elements of ACS models varied but included senior clinicians present onsite during office hours and dedicated to emergency care while on-call. Referrals were made to specialist centers with primary surgical assessments taking place on surgical admissions units rather than in the emergency department. Twenty-four-hour access to dedicated emergency operating rooms was also described. CONCLUSIONS ACS models as well as centralized units and hospitals with dedicated emergency operating rooms, access to radiology and intensive care facilities (ITU) are all factors associated with improved clinical and financial outcomes in the delivery of emergency general surgery. There is, however, no consensus on the elements that constitute an ideal ACS model and how it can be implemented into current surgical practice.

Donor Morbidity After Living Donation for Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS Reports of complications among adult right hepatic lobe donors have been limited to single centers. The rate and severity of complications in living donors were investigated in the 9-center Adult-to-Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL). METHODS A retrospective observational study design was used. Participants included all potential living donors evaluated between 1998 and 2003. Complication severity was graded using the Clavien scoring system. RESULTS Of 405 donors accepted for donation, 393 underwent donation, and 12 procedures were aborted. There were 245 donors (62%) who did not experience complications; 82 (21%) had 1 complication, and 66 (17%) had 2 or more. Complications were scored as grade 1 (minor; n = 106, 27%), grade 2 (potentially life threatening; n = 103, 26%), grade 3 (life threatening; n = 8, 2%), and grade 4 (leading to death; n = 3, 0.8%). Common complications included biliary leaks beyond postoperative day 7 (n = 36, 9%), bacterial infections (n = 49, 12%), incisional hernia (n = 22, 6%), pleural effusion requiring intervention (n = 21, 5%), neuropraxia (n = 16, 4%), reexploration (n = 12, 3%), wound infections (n = 12, 3%), and intraabdominal abscess (n = 9, 2%). Two donors developed portal vein thrombosis, and 1 had inferior vena caval thrombosis. Fifty-one (13%) donors required hospital readmission, and 14 (4%) required 2 to 5 readmissions. CONCLUSIONS Adult living liver donation was associated with significant donor complications. Although most complications were of low-grade severity, a significant proportion were severe or life threatening. Quantification of complication risk may improve the informed consent process, perioperative planning, and donor care.

Recipient morbidity after living and deceased donor liver transplantation: Findings from the A2ALL retrospective cohort study

Patients considering living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) need to know the risk and severity of complications compared to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). One aim of the Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation Cohort Study (A2ALL) was to examine recipient complications following these procedures. Medical records of DDLT or LDLT recipients who had a living donor evaluated at the nine A2ALL centers between 1998 and 2003 were reviewed. Among 384 LDLT and 216 DDLT, at least one complication occurred after 82.8% of LDLT and 78.2% of DDLT (p = 0.17). There was a median of two complications after DDLT and three after LDLT. Complications that occurred at a higher rate (p < 0.05) after LDLT included biliary leak (31.8% vs. 10.2%), unplanned reexploration (26.2% vs. 17.1%), hepatic artery thrombosis (6.5% vs. 2.3%) and portal vein thrombosis (2.9% vs. 0.0%). There were more complications leading to retransplantation or death (Clavien grade 4) after LDLT versus DDLT (15.9% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.023). Many complications occurred more commonly during early center experience; the odds of grade 4 complications were more than two‐fold higher when centers had performed ≤20 LDLT (vs. >40). In summary, complication rates were higher after LDLT versus DDLT, but declined with center experience to levels comparable to DDLT.

Laparoscopic liver surgery: Shifting the management of liver tumors.

Laparoscopic liver surgery has evolved rapidly over the past 5 years in a select number of centers. The growing experience with these procedures has resulted in a shift in the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to common liver tumors. The fact that resection of benign and malignant hepatic masses can now be accomplished laparoscopically with relatively low morbidity has influenced the decision‐making process for physicians involved in the diagnosis and management of these lesions. For example, should a gastroenterologist or hepatologist seeing a 32‐year‐old woman with an asymptomatic 4 cm hepatic lesion that is radiologically indeterminate for adenoma or focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH): (1) continue to observe with annual computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) scans, (2) subject the patient to a liver biopsy, or (3) refer for laparoscopic resection? For a solitary malignant liver tumor in the left lateral segment, should laparoscopic resection be considered the new standard of care, assuming the surgeon can perform the operation safely? We present current data and representative case studies on the use of laparoscopic liver resection at 2 major medical centers in the United States. We propose that surgical engagement defined by the managing physicians decision to proceed with a surgical intervention is increasingly affected by the availability of, and experience with, laparoscopic liver resection. (HEPATOLOGY 2006;44:1694–1700.)

A prospective study of rapid corticosteroid elimination in simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation: comparison of two maintenance immunosuppression protocols: tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil versus tacrolimus/sirolimus.

Background. We examined the feasibility of rapid corticosteroid elimination in simultaneous pancreas kidney transplantation. Methods. Forty consecutive simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant recipients were enrolled in a prospective study in which antithymocyte globulin induction and 6 days of corticosteroids were administered along with tacrolimus and MMF (n=20) or tacrolimus and sirolimus (n=20). Mean±SD follow-up for recipients receiving tacrolimus/MMF and tacrolimus/sirolimus were 12.7±3.9 and 13.4±2.9 months, respectively. Patient and graft survival, and rejection rates were compared to an historical control group (n=86; mean follow-up 41.5±15.4 months) of SPK recipients that received induction and tacrolimus, MMF, and corticosteroids. Results. Demographic characteristics of recipient and donor variables were similar among all groups. The 1-year actuarial patient, kidney, and pancreas survival rates in the 40 SPK transplant recipients with rapid corticosteroid elimination were 100, 100, and 100%, respectively. In the historical control group the 1-year actual patient, kidney, and pancreas survival rates were 96.5, 93.0, and 91.9%, respectively. The 1-year rejection-free survival rate recipients in the rapid steroid elimination group collectively was 97.5 vs 80.2% in the historical control group (P =0.034). At 6 and 12 months posttransplant the serum creatinine values remained stable in all groups. Conclusions. We conclude that chronic corticosteroid exposure is not required in SPK transplant recipients receiving antithymocyte globulin induction and maintenance immuno-suppression consisting of either tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil or tacrolimus and sirolimus.

Laparoscopic‐Assisted Right Lobe Donor Hepatectomy

The major impediment to a wider application of living donor hepatectomy, particularly of the right lobe, is its associated morbidity. The recent interest in a minimally invasive approach to liver surgery has raised the possibility of applying these techniques to living donor right lobectomy. Herein, we report the first case of a laparoscopic, hand‐assisted living donor right hepatic lobectomy. We describe the technical aspects of the procedure, and discuss the rationale for considering this option. We propose that the procedure, as described, did not increase the operative risks of the procedure; instead, it decreased potential morbidity. We caution that this procedure should only be considered for select donors, and that only surgical teams familiar with both living donor hepatectomy and laparoscopic liver surgery should entertain this possibility.

Are concerns over right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy unwarranted

ObjectiveTo examine the ability of several large, experienced transplantation centers to perform right-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely with equivalent long-term renal allograft function. Summary Background DataEarly reports noted a higher incidence of renal vein thrombosis and eventual graft loss. However, exclusion of right-sided donors would deprive a significant proportion of donors a laparoscopically harvested graft. MethodsA retrospective review was performed among 97 patients from seven centers performing right-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Surgical and postoperative demographic factors were evaluated. Complications were identified and long-term renal allograft function was compared with historical left-sided laparoscopic donor nephrectomy cohorts. ResultsRight laparoscopic donor nephrectomy was performed for varying reasons, including multiple left renal arteries or veins, smaller right kidney, or cystic right renal mass. Mean surgical time was 235.0 ± 66.7 minutes, with a mean blood loss of 139 ± 165.8 mL. Conversion was required in three patients secondary to bleeding or anatomical anomalies. Mean warm ischemic time was limited at 238 ± 112 seconds. Return to diet was achieved on average after 7.5 ± 2.3 hours, with mean discharge at 54.6 ± 22.8 hours. Two grafts were lost during the early experience of these centers to renal vein thrombosis. Both surgical and postoperative complications were limited, with few long-term adverse effects. Mean serum creatinine levels were higher than open and left laparoscopic donor nephrectomy on postoperative day 1, but at all remaining intervals the right laparoscopic donors had equivalent creatinine values. ConclusionsThese results confirm that right laparoscopic donor nephrectomy provides similar patient benefits, including early return to diet and discharge. Long-term creatinine values were no higher than in traditional open donor or left laparoscopic donor cohorts. These results establish that early concerns about high thrombosis rates are not supported by a multiinstitutional review of laparoscopic right donor nephrectomies.

The economic impact of MELD on liver transplant centers

Adoption of the model for end stage liver disease (MELD) system prioritized patients awaiting liver transplant (LT) by severity of illness including progressive renal dysfunction. Unfortunately, current reimbursement for LT is not adjusted by severity of illness or need for simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation (LKT). This study examines hospital cost and reimbursement for LT and LKT to determine the effect of MELD on transplant center (TC) financial outcomes given current reimbursement practices as well as DRG outlier threshold limits. LT was performed for 86 adults prior to and 127 following the implementation of MELD. Between the eras, there was a substantial increase in the average laboratory MELD score (17.1 to 20.7 p = 0.004) and percentage of LKTs performed (5.8% to 17.3% p = 0.01). Increasing MELD score was associated with higher costs (