Objective: The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) with open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Background: Cohort studies have suggested superior short-term outcomes of MIDP vs. ODP. Recent international surveys, however, revealed that surgeons have concerns about the oncological outcomes of MIDP for PDAC. Methods: This is a pan-European propensity score matched study including patients who underwent MIDP (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or ODP for PDAC between January 1, 2007 and July 1, 2015. MIDP patients were matched to ODP patients in a 1:1 ratio. Main outcomes were radical (R0) resection, lymph node retrieval, and survival. Results: In total, 1212 patients were included from 34 centers in 11 countries. Of 356 (29%) MIDP patients, 340 could be matched. After matching, the MIDP conversion rate was 19% (n = 62). Median blood loss [200 mL (60–400) vs 300 mL (150–500), P = 0.001] and hospital stay [8 (6–12) vs 9 (7–14) days, P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 complications (18% vs 21%, P = 0.431) and 90-day mortality (2% vs 3%, P > 0.99) were comparable for MIDP and ODP, respectively. R0 resection rate was higher (67% vs 58%, P = 0.019), whereas Gerota's fascia resection (31% vs 60%, P < 0.001) and lymph node retrieval [14 (8–22) vs 22 (14–31), P < 0.001] were lower after MIDP. Median overall survival was 28 [95% confidence interval (CI), 22–34] versus 31 (95% CI, 26–36) months (P = 0.929). Conclusions: Comparable survival was seen after MIDP and ODP for PDAC, but the opposing differences in R0 resection rate, resection of Gerota's fascia, and lymph node retrieval strengthen the need for a randomized trial to confirm the oncological safety of MIDP.

To measure and define the best achievable outcome after major hepatectomy. No reference values are available on outcomes after major hepatectomies. Analysis in living liver donors, with safety as the highest priority, offers the opportunity to define outcome benchmarks as the best possible results. Outcome analyses of 5202 hemi-hepatectomies from living donors (LDs) from 12 high-volume centers worldwide were performed for a 10-year period. Endpoints, calculated at discharge, 3 and 6 months postoperatively, included postoperative morbidity measured by the Clavien-Dindo classification, the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), and liver failure according to different definitions. Benchmark values were defined as the 75th percentile of median morbidity values to represent the best achievable results at 3 month postoperatively. Patients were young (34 ± [9] years), predominantly male (65%) and healthy. Surgery lasted 7 ± [2] hours; 2% needed blood transfusions. Mean hospital stay was 11.7± [5] days. 12% of patients developed at least 1 complication, of which 3.8% were major events (≥grade III, including 1 death), mostly related to biliary/bleeding events, and were twice higher after right hepatectomy. The incidence of postoperative liver failure was low. Within 3-month follow-up, benchmark values for overall complication were ≤31 %, for minor/major complications ≤23% and ≤9%, respectively, and a CCI ≤33 in LDs with complications. Centers having performed ≥100 hepatectomies had significantly lower rates for overall (10.2% vs 35.9%, P < 0.001) and major (3% vs 12.1%, P < 0.001) complications and overall CCI (2.1 vs 8.5, P < 0.001). The thorough outcome analysis of healthy LDs may serve as a reference for evaluating surgical performance in patients undergoing major liver resection across centers and different patient populations. Further benchmark studies are needed to develop risk-adjusted comparisons of surgical outcomes.

Background: Bile duct injury (BDI) after cholecystectomy is a serious complication. In a small subset of patients with BDI, failure of surgical or non-surgical management might lead to acute or chronic liver failure. The aim of this study was to review the indications and outcome of liver transplantation (LT) for BDI after open and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: Patients with BDI after cholecystectomy who were on the waiting list for LT between January 1987 and December 2010 were identified from LT centres in Spain. A standardized questionnaire was sent to each unit for extraction of data on diagnosis, previous treatments, indication and outcome of LT for BDI. Results: Some 27 patients with BDI after cholecystectomy in whom surgical and non-surgical management for BDI failed were scheduled for LT over the 24-year interval. Emergency LT for acute liver failure was indicated in seven patients, all after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Two patients died while on the waiting list and only one patient survived more than 30 days after LT. Elective LT for secondary biliary cirrhosis after a failed hepaticojejunostomy was performed in 13 patients after open and seven after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. One patient from the elective transplantation group died within 30 days of LT. The estimated 5-year overall survival rate was 68 per cent. Conclusion: Emergency LT for acute liver failure was more common in patients with BDI after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and associated with a poor outcome.