Novel Benchmark Values for Open Major Anatomic Liver Resection in Non-cirrhotic Patients: A Multicentric Study of 44 International Expert Centers.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2023
01 11 2023
Historique:
medline:
6
10
2023
pubmed:
19
7
2023
entrez:
19
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016-2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities.
BACKGROUND
Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures.
METHODS
A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016-2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient.
RESULTS
Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months.
CONCLUSION
These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37465950
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006012
pii: 00000658-202311000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
748-755Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Staiger RD, Schwandt H, Puhan MA, et al. Improving surgical outcomes through benchmarking. Br J Surg. 2019;106:59.
Domenghino A, Clavien PA, Puhan M, et al. Outome4Medicine Consensus Conference – defining quality in surgery to improve patient care worldwide. Nat Med. 2023;29:811–822.
Rossler F, Sapisochin G, Song G, et al. Defining benchmarks for major liver surgery: a multicenter analysis of 5202 living liver donors. Ann Surg. 2016;264:492–500.
Muller X, Marcon F, Sapisochin G, et al. Defining benchmarks in liver transplantation: a multicenter outcome analysis determining best achievable results. Ann Surg. 2018;267:419–425.
Schlegel A, van Reeven M, Croome K, et al. A multicentre outcome analysis to define global benchmarks for donation after circulatory death liver transplantation. J Hepatol. 2022;76:371–382.
Abbassi F, Gero D, Muller X, et al. Novel benchmark values for redo liver transplantation: does the outcome justify the effort? Ann Surg. 2022;276:860–867.
Mueller M, Breuer E, Mizuno T, et al. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma-novel benchmark values for surgical and oncological outcomes from 24 expert centers. Ann Surg. 2021;274:780–788.
Breuer E, Mueller M, Doyle MB, et al. Liver transplantation as a new standard of care in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma? Results from an international benchmark study. Ann Surg. 2022;276:846–853.
Raptis DA, Linecker M, Kambakamba P, et al. Defining benchmark outcomes for ALPPS. Ann Surg. 2019;270:835–841.
Gero D, Muller X, Staiger RD, et al. How to establish benchmarks for surgical outcomes? A checklist based on an international expert Delphi consensus. Ann Surg. 2022;275:115–120.
Nagino M, DeMatteo R, Lang H, et al. Proposal of a new comprehensive notation for hepatectomy: the “New World” terminology. Ann Surg. 2021;274:1–3.
Sanchez-Velazquez P, Muller X, Malleo G, et al. Benchmarks in pancreatic surgery: a novel tool for unbiased outcome comparisons. Ann Surg. 2019;270:211–218.
Tran TB, Worhunsky DJ, Spain DA, et al. The significance of underlying cardiac comorbidity on major adverse cardiac events after major liver resection. HPB (Oxford). 2016;18:742–747.
Kristensen SD, Knuuti J, Saraste A, et al. 2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: the joint task force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2014;31:517–573.
Fields AC, Divino CM. Surgical outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease undergoing abdominal operations: an analysis of 331,425 patients. Surgery. 2016;159:1210–1216.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–196.
Slankamenac K, Graf R, Barkun J, et al. The comprehensive complication index a novel continuous scale to measure surgical morbidity. Ann Surg. 2013;258:1–7.
Clavien PA, Vetter D, Staiger RD, et al. The Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) added value and clinical perspectives 3 years “down the line”. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1045–1050.
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149:713–724.
Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery. 2011;149:680–688.
Zhihao L, Rammohan A, Gunasekaran V, et al. Novel benchmark for adult-to-adult living-donor liver transplantation. Integrating eastern and western experiences. Ann Surg. 2023;278:798–806.
Mazzaferro V, Gorgen A, Roayaie S, et al. Liver resection and transplantation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020;72:364–377.
Allaire M, Goumard C, Lim C, et al. New frontiers in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. JHEP Rep. 2020;2:100134.
Deng G, Li H, Jia GQ, et al. Parenchymal-sparing versus extended hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2019;8:6165–6175.
Lee SY, Sadot E, Chou JF, et al. Central hepatectomy versus extended hepatectomy for liver malignancy: a matched cohort comparison. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17:1025–1032.
Fretland AA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjornelv GMW, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2018;267:199–207.
Pan Y, Xia S, Cai J, et al. Efficacy of laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis: a meta-analysis of case-matched studies. Front Oncol. 2021;11:652272.
Farges O, Malassagne B, Flejou JF, et al. Risk of major liver resection in patients with underlying chronic liver disease: a reappraisal. Ann Surg. 1999;229:210–215.
Longchamp G, Labgaa I, Demartines N, et al. Predictors of complications after liver surgery: a systematic review of the literature. HPB (Oxford). 2021;23:645–655.
Field KM, Dow C, Michael M. Part I: liver function in oncology: biochemistry and beyond. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:1092–1101.
Wang Y, Brodin E, Nishii K, et al. Impact of tumor-parenchyma biomechanics on liver metastatic progression: a multi-model approach. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1710.
Suhail M, Abdel-Hafiz H, Ali A, et al. Potential mechanisms of hepatitis B virus induced liver injury. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12462–12472.
Duan XY, Zhang L, Fan JG, et al. NAFLD leads to liver cancer: do we have sufficient evidence? Cancer Letters. 2014;345:230–234.
Guardado NV, Llorente K, Blondeau B. Evaluation and management of malignant biliary obstruction. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2021;30:491–503.
Lowe MC, D’Angelica MI. Anatomy of hepatic resectional surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2016;96:183–195.
Gero D, Vannijvel M, Okkema S, et al. Defining global benchmarks in elective secondary bariatric surgery comprising conversional, revisional, and reversal procedures. Ann Surg. 2021;274:821–828.
Miller CM, Quintini C, Dhawan A, et al. The international liver transplantation society living donor liver transplant recipient guideline. Transplantation. 2017;101:938–944.
Muller PC, Breuer E, Nickel F, et al. Robotic distal pancreatectomy, a novel standard of care? Benchmark values for surgical outcomes from 16 International Expert Centers. Ann Surg. 2022;278:253–259.