Pierre Honore

Laparoscopic liver resection of benign liver tumors: Results of a multicenter European experience

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and outcome of laparoscopic liver resection for benign liver tumors in a multicenter setting. Background: Despite restrictive, tailored indications for resection in benign liver tumors, an increasing number of articles have been published concerning laparoscopic liver resection of these tumors. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 18 surgical centres in Europe regarding their experience with laparoscopic resection of benign liver tumors. Detailed standardized questionnaires were used that focused on patients characteristics, clinical data, type and characteristics of the tumor, technical details of the operation, and early and late clinical outcome. Results: From March 1992 to September 2000, 87 patients suffering from benign liver tumor were included in this study: 48 patients with focal nodular hyperplasia (55%), 17 patients with liver cell adenoma (21%), 13 patients with hemangioma (15%), 3 patients with hamartoma (3%), 3 patients with hydatid liver cysts (3%), 2 patients with adult polycystic liver disease (APLD) (2%), and 1 patient with liver cystadenoma (1%). The mean size of the tumor was 6 cm, and 95% of the tumors were located in the left liver lobe or in the anterior segments of the right liver. Liver procedures included 38 wedge resections, 25 segmentectomies, 21 bisegmentectomies (including 20 left lateral segmentectomies), and 3 major hepatectomies. There were 9 conversions to an open approach (10%) due to bleeding in 45% of the patients. Five patients (6%) received autologous blood transfusion. There was no postoperative mortality, and the postoperative complication rate was low (5%). The mean postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (range, 2–13 days). At a mean follow-up of 13 months (median, 10 months; range, 2–58 months), all patients are alive without disease recurrence, except for the 2 patients with APLD. Conclusions: Laparoscopic resection of benign liver tumors is feasible and safe for selected patients with small tumors located in the left lateral segments or in the anterior segments of the right liver. Despite the use of a laparoscopic approach, selective indications for resection of benign liver tumors should remain unchanged. When performed by expert liver and laparoscopic surgeons in selected patients and tumors, laparoscopic resection of benign liver tumor is a promising technique.

Liver transplantation from donation after cardiac death donors: initial Belgian experience 2003–2007

The Belgian experience with donation after cardiac death (DCD) liver transplantation (LT) was retrospectively reviewed, particularly evaluating patient and graft survivals, and biliary complications. From 2003 to 2007, 58 DCD‐LT were performed in Belgium. Mean procurement total warm ischemia time was 25 ± 2 min (mean ± SEM). Mean cold ischemia time was 451 ± 18 min. Mean follow‐up was 23 ± 2.2 months. Post‐transplant peak aspartate aminotransminases was 2241 ± 338 UI/l. Patient survivals at 1 month, 1 and 3 years, were 91.3%, 83.3% and 66.9% respectively. Graft survivals at 1 month, 1 and 3 years, were 84.4%, 72.4% and 48.8% respectively. Two patients (3.4%) developed primary nonfunction. Regarding the biliary complications, seven grafts (12%) were lost because of intrahepatic cholangiopathy, and 12 other patients (20.6%) developed bile duct stenoses requiring endoscopic and/or surgical management. The rate of symptomatic ischemic biliary lesions for grafts surviving more than 3 months was 38% (19/50). Although DCD organ donors may be a source of viable liver grafts, results were inferior to those obtained with donation after brain death LT in this series. Prognostic criteria have to be developed to improve results of DCD‐LT.

Epidural Levobupivacaine 0.1% or Ropivacaine 0.1% Combined with Morphine Provides Comparable Analgesia After Abdominal Surgery

Ropivacaine appears attractive for epidural analgesia because it produces less motor block than racemic bupivacaine. The potential benefits of levobupivacaine with regard to motor blockade require further investigations. In this study, we compared the efficacy, dose requirements, side effects, and motor block observed with epidural levobupivacaine and ropivacaine when given in combination with small-dose morphine for 60 h after major abdominal surgery. Postoperatively, 50 patients were randomly allocated, in a double-blinded manner, to patient-controlled epidural analgesia with the same settings and without basal infusion, using 0.1% levobupivacaine or 0.1% ropivacaine. Both were combined with an epidural infusion of 0.1 mg/h morphine. Pain scores, side effects, motor block, and local anesthetic consumption were measured for 60 h. Pain scores measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale were approximately 20 mm at rest and 40 mm during mobilization in both groups. Bromage scores were 1 for all patients after the fourth postoperative hour. Consumption of levobupivacaine and ropivacaine were similar: 344 ± 178 mg levobupivacaine versus 347 ± 199 mg ropivacaine 48 h postoperatively. On postoperative day 2, 19 patients in the ropivacaine group versus 12 in the levobupivacaine group were able to ambulate (P < 0.05). No difference was noted concerning incidence of side effects. We conclude that when used as patient-controlled epidural analgesia and combined with small-dose epidural morphine, 0.1% levobupivacaine and 0.1% ropivacaine produce comparable postoperative analgesia with a similar incidence of side effects.

Early stage results after oesophageal resection for malignancy — colon interposition vs. gastric pull-up

OBJECTIVE The aims of our study were to determine if using the colon as a digestive transplant after oesophagectomy for cancer was associated with increased postoperative complications, and to assess the impact of preoperative radiochemotherapy on postoperative hospital outcome. METHODS From January 1990 to December 1998, 130 patients underwent oesophageal resection for malignancy. There were 103 males and 27 females (age: 61.3+/-11.5 years). Indications were squamous cell carcinoma in 69 patients and adenocarcinoma in 61. Preoperatively 30 patients (eight in stage IIB, 18 in stage III, and four in stage IV) received radiochemotherapy. There were 84 subtotal oesophagectomies, with anastomosis in the neck in 44 patients and at the thoracic inlet in 40, and 46 distal oesophageal resections. Digestive continuity was restored with the stomach in 92 patients (age: 63.4+/-10.2 years) and the colon in 38 (age: 52.3+/-12.8 years). With the exception of age (P<0.0001), there was no significant preoperative difference between gastric and colonic groups. RESULTS Hospital mortality was 8.5% (11 patients), decreasing from 18.5% (before 1993) to 3.8% (since 1993). One patient (2.5%) died in the colonic graft group and ten (11%) in the gastric pull-up group (P=0.17). Postoperative complications occurred in 40 patients (31%), respectively, in ten (26%) and 30 (33%) patients after colonic and gastric transplants (P=0.48), and were pulmonary insufficiency or infection in 29 patients, anastomotic fistula in six, myocardial infarction in five, recurrent nerve palsy in four, renal insufficiency in three, and cerebrovascular accident in one. All fistulas occurred in the gastric pull-up group. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications was 70% (21/30 patients) in the subgroup who received preoperative radiochemotherapy, as compared to 11% (5/44 patients) in the subgroup of comparable staging, but without preoperative treatment (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Colonic grafts are not associated with increased postoperative mortality or complications. Our results suggest that preoperative neoadjuvant treatment significantly increases postoperative pulmonary complications.

Report of two cases of gastric cancer after bariatric surgery: lymphoma of the bypassed stomach after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after vertical banded gastroplasty.

We report two new cases of gastric cancer diagnosed after a bariatric operation. The first case is a 66-year-old male who 3 years after gastric bypass suffered from a perforation of the fundus that was found to be secondary to a diffuse large B-cell lymphoma of the distal stomach. The second case is a 47-year-old woman who presented 12 years after a vertical banded gastroplasty with a gastric pouch outlet obstruction caused by a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Based on the few reports of cancer in the literature, analysis of these cases suggests that the main risk of gastric cancer after bariatric surgery comes from the delayed diagnosis of malignancy.

Misdiagnosed malignancy in transplanted organs

The case reports of three patients who received cancer-bearing organs at this institution are presented. A fourth recipient, who was to be transplanted with a cancerous kidney, was spared this disastrous complication. The relevant data regarding the donors is also alluded to, with special reference to the type and site of the primary malignancy. Following these case reports, the implications of these issues, their possible prevention, and further management are discussed.

Results of Kidney Transplantation From Donors After Cardiac Death

Confronting the organ donor shortage, many transplant centers around the world increasingly use donors after cardiac death (DCD). Over the past 20 years, follow-up studies in kidney recipients comparing DCD and donors after brain death (DBD) have shown comparable long-term graft function and survival. As a consequence, DCD programs should be continued and expanded, for these donors constitute a potential solution to the imbalance between the numbers of end-stage kidney disease patients on waiting lists versus available kidney grafts. DCD kidneys do not necessarily signify suboptimal grafts; they may merit to be allocated the same as DBD grafts.

Categories of Donation After Cardiocirculatory Death

The interest in donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) was renewed in the early 1990s, as a means to partially overcome the shortage of donations after brain death. In some European countries and in the United States, DCD has become an increasingly frequent procedure over the last decade. To improve the results of DCD transplantation, it is important to compare practices, experiences, and results of various teams involved in this field. It is therefore crucial to accurately define the different types of DCD. However, in the literature, various DCD terminologies and classifications have been used, rendering it difficult to compare reported experiences. The authors have presented herein an overview of the various DCD descriptions in the literature, and have proposed an adapted DCD classification to better define the DCD processes, seeking to provide a better tool to compare the results of published reports and to improve current practices. This modified classification may be modified in the future according to ongoing experiences in this field.

Donation after cardio-circulatory death liver transplantation

The renewed interest in donation after cardio-circulatory death (DCD) started in the 1990s following the limited success of the transplant community to expand the donation after brain-death (DBD) organ supply and following the request of potential DCD families. Since then, DCD organ procurement and transplantation activities have rapidly expanded, particularly for non-vital organs, like kidneys. In liver transplantation (LT), DCD donors are a valuable organ source that helps to decrease the mortality rate on the waiting lists and to increase the availability of organs for transplantation despite a higher risk of early graft dysfunction, more frequent vascular and ischemia-type biliary lesions, higher rates of re-listing and re-transplantation and lower graft survival, which are obviously due to the inevitable warm ischemia occurring during the declaration of death and organ retrieval process. Experimental strategies intervening in both donors and recipients at different phases of the transplantation process have focused on the attenuation of ischemia-reperfusion injury and already gained encouraging results, and some of them have found their way from pre-clinical success into clinical reality. The future of DCD-LT is promising. Concerted efforts should concentrate on the identification of suitable donors (probably Maastricht category III DCD donors), better donor and recipient matching (high risk donors to low risk recipients), use of advanced organ preservation techniques (oxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion, normothermic machine perfusion, venous systemic oxygen persufflation), and pharmacological modulation (probably a multi-factorial biologic modulation strategy) so that DCD liver allografts could be safely utilized and attain equivalent results as DBD-LT.

Risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer after bariatric operations

The authors discuss the potential influence of obesity surgery on the risk of cancer, focusing on the upper GI tract directly affected by operations. There is currently no substantiation for an increased risk of cancer after bariatric surgery, because there are only about 25 reports of subsequent cancer of the esophagus and the stomach. However, this review emphasizes the need to detect potential precancerous conditions before surgery. Candidates for postoperative endoscopic surveillance may include patients >15 years after gastric surgery, but also patients symptomatic for gastroesophageal reflux disease in whom a high incidence of Barretts metaplasia has been reported. The greatest concern is a delay in diagnosis from inadequate investigation due to mistaking serious upper GI symptoms as a consequence of the past operation.