Comparative Analysis between Simultaneous Resection and Staged Resection for Synchronous Colorectal Liver Metastases - A Single Center Experience on 300 Consecutive Patients

Multimodal treatment of rectal cancer with resectable synchronous liver metastases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Specific studies on stage IV rectal cancer are lacking. The aim of this study is to describe the current status of rectum-first approach (RFA), liver-first approach (LFA) and simultaneous approach (SA) in these patients.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane including studies published from January 2005 to January 2021. Studies on colon cancer only, colon and rectal cancer without distinction, extrahepatic metastases at diagnosis, or case reports/letters were excluded. Main outcomes were 5-yr overall survival (OS) and treatment completion rates.

RESULTS

22 studies were included for a total of 1,653 patients. 77% of the studies were retrospective and mainly (59%) reported one treatment approach. The primary endpoint was declared in 27% of the studies. Irrespective of treatment approaches, the 5-yr OS rate was reported in 72% of the studies. The 5-yr OS rates ranged from 38.5% to 75% for LFA, from 28% and 80% for RFA and from 28.2% to 77.3% for SA. Treatment completion rates ranged from 50% to 100% for LFA, from 37% to 100% for RFA, and from 66% to 100% for SA.

CONCLUSION

The wide heterogeneity of the results reflects that the therapeutic strategy in this setting is a case-by-case multidisciplinary decision and depends on several patient-specific features.

Simultaneous versus staged major hepatectomy (≥3 liver segments) for outcomes of synchronous colorectal liver metastases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Hepatectomy is an effective treatment for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLM) patients. However, whether to choose simultaneous hepatectomy (SIH) or staged hepatectomy (STH) is still controversial, especially during major hepatectomy (≥3 liver segments).

Aims

Compare the difference between the SCLM patients underwent SIH and STH, especially during major hepatectomy (≥3 liver segments).

Methods and Results

A meta‐analysis was conducted by analyzing the published data on the outcomes of SCLM patients underwent SIH or STH from January 2010 to December 2020 from the electronic databases. A random‐effects model was used to derive pooled estimates of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the explored outcomes. Eventually, 18 studies, including 5101 patients, were included this study. The result of meta‐analysis showed that SIH did not increase postoperative complications (pooled OR: 1.037; 95% CI: 0.897–1.200), perioperative mortality (pooled OR: 0.942; 95% CI: 0.552–1.607), 3‐year mortality (pooled OR: 1.090; 95% CI: 0.903–1.316) or 5‐year mortality (pooled OR: 1.077; 95% CI: 0.926–1.253), as compared with STH. Subgroup analysis showed that, simultaneous major hepatectomy (SIMH) also did not increase postoperative complications (pooled OR: 0.863; 95% CI: 0.627–1.188) or perioperative mortality (pooled OR: 0.689; 95% CI: 0.290–1.637) as compared with staged major hepatectomy (STMH).

Conclusion

Postoperative complications, perioperative mortality and long‐term prognosis had no significant difference between SIH and STH for SCLM patients. Besides, postoperative complications and perioperative mortality also had no significant difference between SIMH and STMH.

Opioid-Sparing Analgesia Impacts the Perioperative Anesthetic Management in Major Abdominal Surgery

Background and Objectives: The management of acute postoperative pain (APP) following major abdominal surgery implies various analgetic strategies. Opioids lie at the core of every analgesia protocol, despite their side effect profile. To limit patients’ exposure to opioids, considerable effort has been made to define new opioid-sparing anesthesia techniques relying on multimodal analgesia. Our study aims to investigate the role of adjuvant multimodal analgesic agents, such as ketamine, lidocaine, and epidural analgesia in perioperative pain control, the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after major abdominal surgery. Materials and Methods: This is a clinical, observational, randomized, monocentric study, in which 80 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups: Standard group, C (n = 32), where patients received perioperative opioids combined with a fixed regimen of metamizole/acetaminophen for pain control; co-analgetic group, Co-A (n = 26), where, in addition to standard therapy, patients received perioperative systemic ketamine and lidocaine; and the epidural group, EA (n = 22), which included patients that received standard perioperative analgetic therapy combined with epidural analgesia. We considered the primary outcome, the postoperative pain intensity, assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the total intraoperative fentanyl dose, total postoperative morphine dose, maximal intraoperative sevoflurane concentration, confusion assessment method for intensive care units score (CAM-ICU) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively, and the postoperative dose of ondansetron as a marker for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) severity. Results: We observed a significant decrease in VAS score, as the primary outcome, for both multimodal analgesic regimens, as compared to the control. Moreover, the intraoperative fentanyl and postoperative morphine doses were, consequently, reduced. The maximal sevoflurane concentration and POCD were reduced by EA. No differences were observed between groups concerning PONV severity. Conclusions: Multimodal analgesia concepts should be individualized based on the patient’s needs and consent. Efforts should be made to develop strategies that can aid in the reduction of opioid use in a perioperative setting and improve the standard of care.

Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Liver Transplant Recipients: Does It Make Any Difference?

The first case of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was diagnosed in December 2019 in Wuhan, China. Since then, this novel infectious disease, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has grown into a pandemic with over 330 million infected individuals worldwide, many of them with innate or acquired immunosuppression.

Liver transplantation (LT) is offered as a curative therapy for end-stage liver disease as well as for acute liver failure cases. Advances in immunosuppressive therapy decreased the rates of acute and chronic graft rejection, significantly improving the quality of life.

Liver transplant recipients are considered at particularly high risk for developing critical COVID-19 infection because of their chronic immunosuppressed state. Available data are heterogeneous, and the mortality rate is variably reported in the literature. There is controversy regarding whether their immunosuppressive status is a risk or a protective factor for developing severe respiratory disease. Moreover, the mechanism of action is still unclear.

We report the clinical outcome of three liver transplant recipients who had COVID-19 pneumonia at different moments following liver transplantation. All patients received a standard immunosuppression regimen and specific antiviral therapy, requiring no invasive mechanical ventilation. They were discharged from the hospital with no long-term COVID-19 complications.

How COVID-19 Pandemics Changed the Treatment Protocols for Patients with Gynecological Tumors

It was found that oncological patients are4 to 8 times more likely of developing severe forms of COVID-19 infection than other patients, so mortality is higher in patients with gyneco-logical cancer. Due to this pandemic, reported delays in diagnosis and treatment of genital cancer and changes in disease management, may influence the natural history of neoplasm. This fact adds more stress and fear for patients with neoplasms. Adequate protective measures are essen-tial for SARS CoV2 infection avoidance and lead to changes in healthcare professionals clinical practice. Prioritization is important, but direct personal interactions should be limited. However, gynecological tumors surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy should continue as high priority practices, without essential modification. The conclusion is that COVID-19 pandemic has affect-ed many guides for management of diseases, especially oncological. Adaptations in clinical prac-tice may avoid viral infection and reduce mortality and severe complications.

Simultaneous versus staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases: a meta-analysis of outcomes and clinical characteristics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the comparative outcomes and clinical characteristics of simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, and bibliographic reference lists. Perioperative morbidity and mortality, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bile leak, bleeding, intra-abdominal abscess, sub-phrenic abscess, reoperation, recurrence, 5-year overall survival, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 41 comparative studies reporting a total of 12,081 patients who underwent simultaneous (n = 5013) or staged (n = 7068) resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases. There were significantly lower use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.003), higher right-sided colonic resections (p < 0.00001), and minor hepatic resections (p < 0.00001) in the simultaneous group. The simultaneous resection was associated with significantly lower rate of bleeding (OR 0.60, p = 0.03) and shorter length of hospital stay (MD - 5.40, p < 0.00001) compared to the staged resection. However, no significant difference was found in perioperative morbidity (OR1.04, p = 0.63), mortality (RD 0.00, p = 0.19), anastomotic leak (RD 0.01, p = 0.33), bile leak (OR 0.83, p = 0.50), wound infection (OR 1.17, p = 0.19), intra-abdominal abscess (RD 0.01, p = 0.26), sub-phrenic abscess (OR 1.26, p = 0.48), reoperation (OR 1.32, p = 0.18), recurrence (OR 1.33, p = 0.10), 5-year overall survival (OR 0.88, p = 0.19), or procedure time (MD - 23.64, p = 041) between two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite demonstrating nearly comparable outcomes, the best available evidence (level 2) regarding simultaneous and staged colorectal and hepatic resections for colorectal cancer with synchronous hepatic metastases is associated with major selection bias. It is time to conduct high-quality randomised studies with respect to burden and laterality of disease. We recommend the staged approach for complex cases.

Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy

The safety of hepatectomy continues to improve and it holds a key role in the management of benign and malignant hepatic lesions. Laparoscopic and robotic approaches to hepatectomy are increasingly utilized. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open approaches to hepatectomy and to determine the national nonelective postoperative readmission rate, including readmission to other hospitals. The Nationwide Readmission Database from 2013 to 2014 was queried for all patients undergoing hepatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomies were compared to patients undergoing open hepatectomy. Multivariate logistic regression was implemented to determine the odds ratios (OR) for non-elective readmission within 45 days. There were 10,870 patients who underwent hepatectomy from 2013 to 2014 and 724 (6.7%) were approached with laparoscopic or robotic technique. The robotic cohort had lower mean cost of the index admission ($24,983 ± $18,329 vs. open $32,391 ± $31,983, p < 0.001, 95% CI - 18,292 to 534), shorter LOS (4.5 ± 3.8 vs. lap 6.8 ± 6.0 vs. open 7.6 ± 7.7 days, p < 0.01), and were less likely to be readmitted within 45 days (7.9% vs. 13.0% lap vs. 13.8% open, p = 0.05). The robotic cohort was slightly younger (mean age 57.5 ± 13.5 vs. lap 60.1 ± 13.8 vs. open 58.9 ± 13.7, p < 0.05), and no significant differences were seen by Charlson Comorbidity Index. Anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract carried higher odds of mortality (OR 2.87, p < 0.01) and higher odds of readmission (OR 1.40, p < 0.01). LOS above 7 days increased odds of readmission (OR 2.24, p < 0.01). Nearly one-fifth of patients readmitted after hepatectomy present to a different hospital. Robotic hepatectomy was associated with favorable cost and readmission outcomes compared to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy patients, despite similar patient comorbid burdens and patient's age. Length of stay over 7 days and anastomosis of hepatic duct to GI tract are strong risk factors for readmission and mortality.

Safety evaluation of simultaneous resection of colorectal primary tumor and liver metastasis after neoadjuvant therapy: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the surgical safety and perioperative complications, simultaneous resection after neoadjuvant therapy is not commonly recommended.

METHODS

A total of 253 patients were included in study. Comparison of the short-term outcomes was performed after propensity score adjustment in Group A (n = 96) and Group B (neoadjuvant therapy, n = 96).

RESULTS

There was no postoperative mortality. After matching, the differences from surgical confounders were well-balanced. Morbidity (15.6% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.981), and Clavien-Dindo grade of complications (p = 0.710) were similar. No difference was found when the complications were divided according to the origin (general, colorectal and hepatic). Length of the hospital stays also did not differ between the groups (p = 0.482). More importantly, there was no increase in the number of patients with delayed adjuvant treatment after surgery in Group B.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoadjuvant treatment did not increase morbidity, length of hospital stays and influence adjuvant treatment after simultaneous resection.