The use of laparoscopy for liver surgery is increasing rapidly. The Second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resections (LLR) was held in Morioka, Japan, from October 4 to 6, 2014 to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery and to provide recommendations to aid its future development. Seventeen questions were addressed. The first 7 questions focused on outcomes that reflect the benefits and risks of LLR. These questions were addressed using the Zurich-Danish consensus conference model in which the literature and expert opinion were weighed by a 9-member jury, who evaluated LLR outcomes using GRADE and a list of comparators. The jury also graded LLRs by the Balliol Classification of IDEAL. The jury concluded that MINOR LLRs had become standard practice (IDEAL 3) and that MAJOR liver resections were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase (IDEAL 2b). Continued cautious introduction of MAJOR LLRs was recommended. All of the evidence available for scrutiny was of LOW quality by GRADE, which prompted the recommendation for higher quality evaluative studies. The last 10 questions focused on technical questions and the recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion. Recommendations were made regarding preoperative evaluation, bleeding controls, transection methods, anatomic approaches, and equipment. Both experts and jury recognized the need for a formal structure of education for those interested in performing major laparoscopic LLR because of the steep learning curve.

To perform the first randomized controlled trial to compare laparoscopic and open liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection is increasingly used for the surgical treatment of liver tumors. However, high-level evidence to conclude that laparoscopic liver resection is superior to open liver resection is lacking. Explanatory, assessor-blinded, single center, randomized superiority trial recruiting patients from Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway from February 2012 to January 2016. A total of 280 patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to undergo laparoscopic (n = 133) or open (n = 147) parenchyma-sparing liver resection. The primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days (Accordion grade 2 or higher). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, postoperative hospital stay, blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. The postoperative complication rate was 19% in the laparoscopic-surgery group and 31% in the open-surgery group (12 percentage points difference [95% confidence interval 1.67–21.8; P = 0.021]). The postoperative hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic surgery (53 vs 96 hours, P < 0.001), whereas there were no differences in blood loss, operation time, and resection margins. Mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly from the laparoscopic group (0 patients) to the open group (1 patient). In a 4-month perspective, the costs were equal, whereas patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group gained 0.011 quality-adjusted life years compared to patients in the open-surgery group (P = 0.001). In patients undergoing parenchyma-sparing liver resection for colorectal metastases, laparoscopic surgery was associated with significantly less postoperative complications compared to open surgery. Laparoscopic resection was cost-effective compared to open resection with a 67% probability. The rate of free resection margins was the same in both groups. Our results support the continued implementation of laparoscopic liver resection.

The Diabetes Virus Detection study (DiViD) is the first to examine fresh pancreatic tissue at the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes for the presence of viruses. Minimal pancreatic tail resection was performed 3–9 weeks after onset of type 1 diabetes in six adult patients (age 24–35 years). The presence of enteroviral capsid protein 1 (VP1) and the expression of class I HLA were investigated by immunohistochemistry. Enterovirus RNA was analyzed from isolated pancreatic islets and from fresh-frozen whole pancreatic tissue using PCR and sequencing. Nondiabetic organ donors served as controls. VP1 was detected in the islets of all type 1 diabetic patients (two of nine controls). Hyperexpression of class I HLA molecules was found in the islets of all patients (one of nine controls). Enterovirus-specific RNA sequences were detected in four of six patients (zero of six controls). The results were confirmed in various laboratories. Only 1.7% of the islets contained VP1+ cells, and the amount of enterovirus RNA was low. The results provide evidence for the presence of enterovirus in pancreatic islets of type 1 diabetic patients, which is consistent with the possibility that a low-grade enteroviral infection in the pancreatic islets contributes to disease progression in humans.

Objective: To determine the impact of RAS mutation status on the traditional clinical score (t-CS) to predict survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Background: The t-CS relies on the following factors: primary tumor nodal status, disease-free interval, number and size of CLM, and carcinoembryonic antigen level. We hypothesized that the addition of RAS mutation status could create a modified clinical score (m-CS) that would outperform the t-CS. Methods: Patients who underwent resection of CLM from 2005 through 2013 and had RAS mutation status and t-CS factors available were included. Multivariate analysis was used to identify prognostic factors to include in the m-CS. Log-rank survival analyses were used to compare the t-CS and the m-CS. The m-CS was validated in an international multicenter cohort of 608 patients. Results: A total of 564 patients were eligible for analysis. RAS mutation was detected in 205 (36.3%) of patients. On multivariate analysis, RAS mutation was associated with poor overall survival, as were positive primary tumor lymph node status and diameter of the largest liver metastasis >50 mm. Each factor was assigned 1 point to produce a m-CS. The m-CS accurately stratified patients by overall and recurrence-free survival in both the initial patient series and validation cohort, whereas the t-CS did not. Conclusions: Modifying the t-CS by replacing disease-free interval, number of metastases, and CEA level with RAS mutation status produced an m-CS that outperformed the t-CS. The m-CS is therefore a simple validated tool that predicts survival after resection of CLM.