The aim of the study was to compare the outcome of pure laparoscopic and open simultaneous resection of both the primary colorectal cancer and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLM). From 2000 to 2016 all patients treated by simultaneous resection were assessed for entry in this single center, clinically nonrandomized trial. A propensity score matching was used to compare the laparoscopic group (LAP) to open surgery group (OPEN). Primary endpoints were perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Of the 82 patients identified who underwent simultaneous liver resection for SCLM, 10 patients underwent LAP. All these consecutive patients from LAP were matched to 10 comparable OPEN. LAP reduced the length of hospital stay (P = 0.044) and solid food oral intake was faster (P = 0.006) in this group. No patient undergoing the laparoscopic procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No difference was observed in operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, narcotics requirement, clinical risk score, resection margin, R0 resections rate, morbidity, mortality and incisional hernias rate. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 3-year OS rate (90 vs. 75%; P = 0.842) and DFS rate (60 vs. 57%; P = 0.724). LAP reduced the length of hospital stay and offers faster solid food oral intake. Comparable oncologic and survival outcomes can be achieved. LAP is beneficial for well selected patients in high volume centers with appropriate expertise.

Background: This study aimed to externally validate and upgrade the recent difficulty scoring system (DSS) proposed by Halls et al. to predict intraoperative complications (IOC) during laparoscopic liver resection (LLR).Methods: The DSS was validated in a cohort of 128 consecutive patients undergoing pure LLRs between 2008 and 2019 at a single tertiary referral center. The validated DSS includes four difficulty levels based on five risk factors (neoadjuvant chemotherapy, previous open liver resection, lesion type, lesion size and classification of resection). As established by the validated DSS, IOC was defined as excessive blood loss (> 775 mL), conversion to an open approach and unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Additionally, intra- and postoperative outcomes were compared according to the difficulty levels with usual statistic methods. The same five risk factors were used for validation done by linear and advanced nonlinear (artificial neural network) models. The study was supported by mathematical computations to obtain a mean risk curve predicting the probability of IOC for every difficulty score.Results: The difficulty level of LLR was rated as low, moderate, high and extremely high in 36 (28.1%), 63 (49.2%), 27 (21.1%) and 2 (1.6%) patients, respectively. IOC was present in 23 (17.9%) patients. Blood loss of >775 mL occurred in 8 (6.2%) patients. Conversion to open approach was required in 18 (14.0%) patients. No patients suffered from unintentional damage to surrounding structures. Rates of IOC (0, 9.5, 55.5 and 100%) increased gradually with statistically significant value among difficulty levels (P < 0.001). The relations between the difficulty level, need for transfusion, operative time, hepatic pedicle clamping, and major postoperative morbidity were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Linear and nonlinear validation models showed a strong correlation (correlation coefficients 0.914 and 0.948, respectively) with the validated DSS. The Weibull cumulative distribution function was used for predicting the mean risk probability curve of IOC.Conclusion: This external validation proved this DSS based on patient’s, tumor and surgical factors enables us to estimate the risk of intra- and postoperative complications. A surgeon should be aware of an increased risk of complications before starting with more complex procedures.

Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is a minimally invasive approach for the surgical treatment of neoplasms in the distal pancreas. This study aimed to compare this approach to the open procedure. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 400 pancreatectomies was performed. The laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy group (LDP) was compared to the open distal pancreatectomy group (ODP). A propensity score matching analysis (PSM) was performed. From 2016 to 2023, 108 distal pancreatectomies were carried out, 19 (17.6%) laparoscopically and 89 (82.4%) openly. The conversion rate was 13.6%. The severe morbidity rates were 28.1% in the ODP group, 47.4% in the LDP group, and 15.8% in the ODP-PSM group. The difference between the latter two was statistically significant (p = 0.034) due to the high rate of Clavien–Dindo grade 3a complications (42.1% versus 10.5%, p = 0.042) in the LDP group. The 90-day mortality rates were 3.3% in the ODP group and 5.3% in the other two groups. The LDP group had a shorter duration of intravenous narcotic analgesia (5 versus 7 days, p = 0.041). There was no difference in the R0 resection or postoperative pancreatic fistula rates. Our attention should be drawn to preventing postoperative complications because the oncological outcomes are already comparable with those of the open procedure, and postoperative pain management is promising.

Background: Bile duct injury (BDI) during (laparoscopic) cholecystectomy has an incidence of up to 1.5%. This retrospective study aimed to report the outcomes of surgical repair of BDI due to these procedures at a tertiary referral center. Methods: A retrospective review of patients’ records was conducted. The BDI’s clinical presentations, Strasberg classification, surgical repairs, and outcomes were reported. Results: From 2003 to 2024, 47 BDIs were identified. In total, 34.0% were recognized intraoperatively. The BDI types included Strasberg types B (2, 4.3%), C (5, 10.6%), D (11, 23.4%), E1 (4, 8.5%), E2 (12, 25.5%), E3 (5, 10.6%), E4 (3, 6.4%), and E5 (5, 10.6%). The T-tube group included 6 (12.8%) patients, the primary repair and T-tube group included 10 (21.3%) patients, and the Biliodigestive anastomosis group included 31 (65.9%) patients. The overall morbidity rate was 40.4%, the major morbidity rate was 21.3%, and the mortality rate was 4.3%. Grade A patency was achieved in 95.6% of patients. In the Biliodigestive anastomosis group, the actuarial 1-, 5- and 10-year grade A patency rates were 77.0%, 70.0%, and 70.0%, respectively. Conclusion: The rate of BDI remains stable. The outcomes of repairs in terms of complications and patency rates are comparable to those in other reports.

Background and Objectives: The issue of a missing variable precludes the external validation of many prognostic models. For example, the Liverpool score predicts the survival of patients undergoing surgical therapy for colorectal liver metastases, but it includes the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, which cannot be measured retrospectively. Materials and Methods: We aimed to find the most appropriate replacement for the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio. Survival analysis was performed on data representing 632 liver resections for colorectal liver metastases from 2000 to 2020. Variables associated with the Liverpool score, C-reactive protein, albumins, and fibrinogen were ranked. The rankings were performed in four ways: The first two were based on the Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank statistics and the definite integral $I_S$ between two survival curves). The next method of ranking was based on univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results: The ranks were as follows: the radicality of liver resection (rank 1), lymph node infiltration of primary colorectal cancer (rank 2), elevated C-reactive protein (rank 3), the American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification grade (rank 4), the right-sidedness of primary colorectal cancer (rank 5), the multiplicity of colorectal liver metastases (rank 6), the size of colorectal liver metastases (rank 7), albumins (rank 8), and fibrinogen (rank 9). Conclusions: The ranking methodologies resulted in almost the same ranking order of the variables. Elevated C-reactive protein was ranked highly and can be considered a relevant replacement for the neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio in the Liverpool score. These methods are suitable for ranking variables in similar models for medical research.