Edgar M. Wong-Lun-Hing

A systematic review of outcomes in patients undergoing liver surgery in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathways

OBJECTIVES Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) or fast-track protocols have been implemented in different fields of surgery to attenuate the surgical stress response and accelerate recovery. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on outcomes of ERAS protocols applied in liver surgery. METHODS The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and case series published between January 1966 and October 2011 comparing adult patients undergoing elective liver surgery in an ERAS programme with those treated in a conventional manner. The primary outcome measure was hospital length of stay (LoS). Secondary outcome measures were time to functional recovery, and complication, readmission and mortality rates. RESULTS A total of 307 articles were found, six of which were included in the review. These comprised two RCTs, three case-control studies and one retrospective case series. Median LoS ranged from 4 days in an ERAS group to 11 days in a control group. Morbidity, mortality and readmission rates did not differ significantly between the groups. Only two studies assessed time to functional recovery. Functional recovery in these studies was reached 2 days before discharge. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review suggests that ERAS protocols can be successfully implemented in liver surgery. Length of stay is reduced without compromising morbidity, mortality or readmission rates.

Open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery ERAS® programme (ORANGE II – Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe use of lLaparoscopic liver resection in terms of time to functional recovery, length of hospital stay (LOS), long-term abdominal wall hernias, costs and quality of life (QOL) has never been studied in a randomised controlled trial. Therefore, this is the subject of the international multicentre randomised controlled ORANGE II trial.MethodsPatients eligible for left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) of the liver will be recruited and randomised at the outpatient clinic. All randomised patients will undergo surgery in the setting of an ERAS programme. The experimental design produces two randomised arms (open and laparoscopic LLS) and a prospective registry. The prospective registry will be based on patients that cannot be randomised because of the explicit treatment preference of the patient or surgeon, or because of ineligibility (not meeting the in- and exclusion criteria) for randomisation in this trial. Therefore, all non-randomised patients undergoing LLS will be approached to participate in the prospective registry, thereby allowing acquisition of an uninterrupted prospective series of patients. The primary endpoint of the ORANGE II trial is time to functional recovery. Secondary endpoints are postoperative LOS, percentage readmission, (liver-specific) morbidity, QOL, body image and cosmetic result, hospital and societal costs over 1 year, and long-term incidence of incisional hernias. It will be assumed that in patients undergoing laparoscopic LLS, length of hospital stay can be reduced by two days. A sample size of 55 patients in each randomisation arm has been calculated to detect a 2-day reduction in LOS (90% power and α = 0.05 (two-tailed)).The ORANGE II trial is a multicenter randomised controlled trial that will provide evidence on the merits of laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing LLS within an enhanced recovery ERAS programme.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00874224.

Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study)

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been associated with shorter hospital stay and reduced overall morbidity compared with open left lateral sectionectomy (OLLS). Strong evidence has not, however, been provided.

Postoperative pain control using continuous i.m. bupivacaine infusion plus patient-controlled analgesia compared with epidural analgesia after major hepatectomy

OBJECTIVES There is debate concerning the best mode of delivery of analgesia following liver resection, with continuous i.m. infusion of bupivacaine (CIB) plus patient-controlled i.v. analgesia (PCA) suggested as an alternative to continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). This study compares these two modalities. METHODS A total of 498 patients undergoing major hepatectomy between July 2004 and July 2011 were included. Group 1 received CIB + PCA (n = 429) and Group 2 received CEA (n = 69). Groups were analysed on baseline patient and surgical characteristics. Primary endpoints were pain severity scores and total opioid consumption. Secondary endpoints were pain management failures, need for rescue medication, postoperative (opioid-related) morbidity and hospital length of stay (LoS). RESULTS In both groups pain was well controlled and >70% of patients had no or minimal pain on PoDs 1 and 2. The numbers of patients experiencing severe pain were similar in both groups: PoD 1 at rest: 0.3% in Group 1 and 0% in Group 2 (P = 1.000); PoD 1 on movement: 8% in Group 1 and 2% in Group 2 (P = 0.338); PoD 2 at rest: 0% in Group 1 and 2% in Group 2 (P = 0.126), and PoD 2 on movement: 5% in Group 1 and 5% in Group 2 (P = 1.000). Although the CIB + PCA group required more opioid rescue medication on PoD 0 (53% versus 22%; P < 0.001), they used less opioids on PoDs 0-3 (P ≤ 0.001), had lower morbidity (26% versus 39%; P = 0.018), and a shorter LoS (7 days versus 8 days; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS The combination of CIB + PCA provides pain control similar to that provided by CEA, but facilitates lower opioid consumption after major hepatectomy. It has the potential to replace epidural analgesia, thereby avoiding the occurrence of rare but serious complications.

A survey in the hepatopancreatobiliary community on ways to enhance patient recovery.

OBJECTIVES Both laparoscopic techniques and multimodal enhanced recovery programmes have been shown to improve recovery and reduce length of hospital stay. Interestingly, evidence-based care programmes are not widely implemented, whereas new, minimally invasive surgical procedures are often adopted with very little evidence to support their effectiveness. The present survey aimed to shed light on experiences of the adoption of both methods of optimizing recovery. METHODS An international, web-based, 18-question, electronic survey was composed in 2010. The survey was sent out to 673 hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) centres worldwide in June 2010 to investigate international experiences with laparoscopic liver surgery, fast-track recovery programmes and surgery-related equipoise in open and laparoscopic techniques and to assess opinions on strategies for adopting laparoscopic liver surgery in HPB surgical practice. RESULTS A total of 507 centres responded (response rate: 75.3%), 161 of which finished the survey completely. All units reported performing open liver resections, 24.2% performed open living donor resections, 39.1% carried out orthotopic liver transplantations, 87.6% had experience with laparoscopic resections and 2.5% performed laparoscopic living donor resections. A median of 50 (range: 2-560) open and 9.5 (range: 1-80) laparoscopic liver resections per surgical unit were performed in 2009. Patients stayed in hospital for a median of 7 days (range: 2-15 days) after uncomplicated open liver resection and a median of 4 days (range: 1-10 days) after uncomplicated laparoscopic liver resection. Only 28.0% of centres reported having experience with fast-track programmes in liver surgery. The majority considered the instigation of a randomized controlled trial or a prospective register comparing the outcomes of open and laparoscopic techniques to be necessary. CONCLUSIONS Worldwide dissemination of laparoscopic liver resection is substantial, although laparoscopic volumes are low in the majority of HPB centres. The adoption of enhanced recovery programmes in liver surgery is limited and should be given greater attention.

Laparoscopic Liver Resection in the Netherlands: How Far Are We?

Background: The objective of this study was to provide a systematic review on the introduction of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands, to investigate the initial experience with laparoscopic liver resections and to report on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery in the Netherlands. Methods: A systematic literature search of laparoscopic liver resections in the Netherlands was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE. Analysis of initial experience with laparoscopic liver surgery was performed by case-control comparison of patients undergoing laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy matched with patients undergoing the open procedure in the Netherlands between the years 2000 and 2008. Furthermore, a nationwide survey was conducted in 2011 on the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery. Results: The systematic review revealed only 6 Dutch reports on actual laparoscopic liver surgery. Matched case-control comparison showed significant differences in the length of hospital stay, blood loss and operation time. Complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (26 vs. 21%). The 2011 survey showed that 21 centers in the Netherlands performed formal liver resections and that 49 (5% of total) laparoscopic liver resections were performed in 2010. Conclusion: The systematic review revealed that very few laparoscopic liver resections were performed in the Netherlands in the previous millennium. The matched case-control comparison of laparoscopic and open left lateral resection showed a reduction in hospital length of stay with comparable morbidity. The laparoscopic technique has been slowly adopted in the Netherlands, but its popularity seems to increase in recent years.

Abandoning Prophylactic Abdominal Drainage after Hepatic Surgery: 10 Years of No-Drain Policy in an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Environment

Background: Routine prophylactic abdominal drainage after hepatic surgery is still being debated, as it may be unnecessary, possibly harmful, and uncomfortable for patients. This study evaluated the safety of a no-drain policy after liver resection within an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme. Methods: All hepatectomies performed without prophylactic drainage during 2005-2014 were included. Primary end points were resection-surface-related (RSR) morbidity, defined as the presence of postoperative biloma, hemorrhage or abscess, and reinterventions. Secondary end points were length of stay, total postoperative morbidity, the composite end point of liver surgery-specific complications, readmissions, and 90-day mortality. Uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors for RSR morbidity. A systematic search was performed to compare the results of this study to literature. Results: A total of 538 resections were included in the study. The RSR complication and reintervention rate was 15 and 12%, respectively. Major liver resection (≥3 segments) was an independent risk factor for the development of RSR morbidity (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.61-5.62; p = 0.001) and need for RSR reintervention (OR 3.02, 95% CI 1.59-5.73; p = 0.001). Conclusion: RSR morbidity, mortality, and reintervention rates after liver surgery without prophylactic drainage in patients, treated within an ERAS programme, were comparable to previously published data. A no-drain policy after partial hepatectomy seems safe and feasible.