Objective: To reach global expert consensus on the definition of TOLS in minimally invasive and open liver resection among renowned international expert liver surgeons using a modified Delphi method. Background: Textbook outcome is a novel composite measure combining the most desirable postoperative outcomes into one single measure and representing the ideal postoperative course. Despite a recently developed international definition of Textbook Outcome in Liver Surgery (TOLS), a standardized and expert consensus-based definition is lacking. Methods: This international, consensus-based, qualitative study used a Delphi process to achieve consensus on the definition of TOLS. The survey comprised 6 surgical domains with a total of 26 questions on individual surgical outcome variables. The process included 4 rounds of online questionnaires. Consensus was achieved when a threshold of at least 80% agreement was reached. The results from the Delphi rounds were used to establish an international definition of TOLS. Results: In total, 44 expert liver surgeons from 22 countries and all 3 major international hepato-pancreato-biliary associations completed round 1. Forty-two (96%), 41 (98%), and 41 (98%) of the experts participated in round 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The TOLS definition derived from the consensus process included the absence of intraoperative grade ≥2 incidents, postoperative bile leakage grade B/C, postoperative liver failure grade B/C, 90-day major postoperative complications, 90-day readmission due to surgery-related major complications, 90-day/in-hospital mortality, and the presence of R0 resection margin. Conclusions: This is the first study providing an international expert consensus-based definition of TOLS for minimally invasive and open liver resections by the use of a formal Delphi consensus approach. TOLS may be useful in assessing patient-level hospital performance and carrying out international comparisons between centers with different clinical practices to further improve patient outcomes.

Background: The use of a simultaneous resection (SIMR) in patients with synchronous colorectal liver metastases (sCRLM) has increased over the past decades. However, it remains unclear when a SIMR is beneficial and when it should be avoided. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was therefore to compare the outcomes of a SIMR for sCRLM in different settings, and to assess which factors are independently associated with unfavorable outcomes. Methods: To perform this retrospective cohort study, patients with sCRLM undergoing SIMR (2004–2019) were extracted from an international multicenter database, and their outcomes were compared after stratification according to the type of liver and colorectal resection performed. Factors associated with unfavorable outcomes were identified through multivariable logistic regression. Results: Overall, 766 patients were included, encompassing colorectal resections combined with a major liver resection (n=122), minor liver resection in the anterolateral (n=407), or posterosuperior segments (‘Technically major’, n=237). Minor and technically major resections, compared to major resections, were more often combined with a rectal resection (29.2 and 36.7 vs. 20.5%, respectively, both P=0.003) and performed fully laparoscopic (22.9 and 23.2 vs. 6.6%, respectively, both P = 0.003). Major and technically major resections, compared to minor resections, were more often associated with intraoperative transfusions (42.9 and 38.8 vs. 20%, respectively, both P = 0.003) and unfavorable incidents (9.6 and 9.8 vs. 3.3%, respectively, both P≤0.063). Major resections were associated, compared to minor and technically major resections, with a higher overall morbidity rate (64.8 vs. 50.4 and 49.4%, respectively, both P≤0.024) and a longer length of stay (12 vs. 10 days, both P≤0.042). American Society of Anesthesiologists grades ≥3 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.671, P=0.015] and undergoing a major liver resection (aOR: 1.788, P=0.047) were independently associated with an increased risk of severe morbidity, while undergoing a left-sided colectomy was associated with a decreased risk (aOR: 0.574, P=0.013). Conclusions: SIMR should primarily be reserved for sCRLM patients in whom a minor or technically major liver resection would suffice and those requiring a left-sided colectomy. These findings should be confirmed by randomized studies comparing SIMR with staged resections.

Less morbidity is considered among the advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for HCC patients. However, our previous international, multi-institutional, propensity score-based study of emerging laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) failed to prove this advantage. We hypothesize that these results may be since the study included complex LRLR cases performed during the procedure’s developing stage. To examine it, subgroup analysis based on propensity score were performed, defining the proximity of the tumors to major vessels as the indicator of complex cases. Among 1582 LRLR cases from 42 international high-volume liver surgery centers, 620 cases without the proximity to major vessels (more than 1 cm far from both first–second branches of Glissonian pedicles and major hepatic veins) were selected for this subgroup analysis. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed based on their patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, tumor characteristics and surgical procedures. One hundred and fifteen of each patient groups of LRLR and open repeat liver resection (ORLR) were earned, and the outcomes were compared. Backgrounds were well-balanced between LRLR and ORLR groups after matching. With comparable operation time and long-term outcome, less blood loss (283.3±823.0 vs. 603.5±664.9 mL, p = 0.001) and less morbidity (8.7 vs. 18.3 %, p = 0.034) were shown in LRLR group than ORLR. Even in its worldwide developing stage, LRLR for HCC patients could be beneficial in blood loss and morbidity for the patients with less complexity in surgery.

Background: Bariatric surgery (BS) is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, but a significant proportion of patients experience insufficient weight loss (IWL) or weight regain. Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (arGLP-1) have emerged as a promising adjunctive therapy for managing these suboptimal outcomes. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of arGLP-1 in patients with IWL or WR after BS. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 100 patients who underwent BS (96 sleeve gastrectomy, 4 gastric bypass) and received arGLP-1 therapy (semaglutide or dulaglutide) for IWL (defined as < 50% excess weight loss (EWL) from baseline), and WR (a ≥ 10 kg increase from the nadir weight post-surgery). Data on weight loss, comorbidities, and adverse events were collected over a median follow-up of 1 year. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and chi-squared tests. Results: At 1 year, patients achieved significant weight loss with a median total weight loss (%TWL) of 25.5% and a median excess weight loss (%EWL) of 66.3% compared to 16.6% and 40.8%, respectively, at treatment initiation with BMI reduction of 3.7 kg/m². Significant improvements were observed in comorbidities, including reductions in obstructive sleep apnea (− 30%), hypertension (− 40%), and arthralgia (− 56.5%). Glycated hemoglobin levels decreased by 0.8 points. Treatment was well-tolerated, with nausea being the most common side effect (5% discontinuation rate). Conclusion: arGLP-1 are effective and safe for managing IWL or WR after BS, leading to significant weight loss, comorbidity improvement, and sustained %TWL. These findings support their use as a valuable adjunctive obesity management medication (OMMs) in post-bariatric care, though long-term adherence and cost-effectiveness require further investigation. Graphical

Background: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) has become an increasing bariatric procedure. The basic principle is to create a narrow stomach along the lesser curvature, using a calibration bougie as a template to perform a vertical partial gastrectomy, resecting the greater curvature and fundus of the stomach. The most common postoperative complication is gastric leak from the staple line, observed in approximately 3% of cases, which can result in long and incapacitating treatment. The diametre of the bougie used to calibrate the remnant stomach could impact the rate of postoperative gastric leak, a higher diametre being correlated with a lower risk of leak, without lowering long-term weight loss. This is the first randomized trial to compare the outcomes of LSG regarding the use of two different bougie diametres on postoperative gastric leak and mid-term weight loss. Methods: Bougie Sleeve Trial (BOUST) is a superiority single-blinded randomized national trial, involving 17 centres. Participants will be randomized into two groups. LSG will be performed using a 48-Fr diametre calibration bougie in the experimental group and a standard care (34 to 38-Fr diametre) calibration bougie in the control group. Both groups will take part in a 2-year postoperative follow-up to assess postoperative gastric leak rate and weight loss and quality of life evolution. Discussion: This study protocol will allow the investigators to determine if the use of a larger calibration bougie during LSG is associated with lower postoperative gastric leak occurrence without impairing mid-term weight loss and quality of life. The results of this trial will provide important data on patient safety and promote best practice for LSG procedures. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02937649. Registered on 18 October 2016