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.