Global management of a common, underrated surgical task during the COVID-19 pandemic: Gallstone disease - An international survery

Background: Since the Coronavirus disease-19(COVID-19) pandemic, the healthcare systems are reallocating their medical resources, with consequent narrowed access to elective surgery for benign conditions such as gallstone disease(GD). This survey represents an overview of the current policies regarding the surgical management of patients with GD during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A Web-based survey was conducted among 36 Hepato-Prancreato-Biliary surgeons from 14 Countries. Through a 17-item questionnaire, participants were asked about the local management of patients with GD since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: The majority (n = 26,72.2%) of surgeons reported an alarming decrease in the cholecystectomy rate for GD since the start of the pandemic, regardless of the Country: 19(52.7%) didn't operate any GD, 7(19.4%) reduced their surgical activity by 50–75%, 10(27.8%) by 25–50%, 1(2.8%) maintained regular activity. Currently, only patients with GD complications are operated. Thirty-two (88.9%) participants expect these changes to last for at least 3 months. In 15(41.6%) Centers, patients are currently being screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection before cholecystectomy [in 10(27.8%) Centers only in the presence of suspected infection, in 5(13.9%) routinely]. The majority of surgeons (n = 29,80.6%) have adopted a laparoscopic approach as standard surgery, 5(13.9%) perform open cholecystectomy in patients with known/suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, and 2(5.6%) in all patients. Conclusion

Left-sided portal hypertension: successful management by laparoscopic splenectomy following splenic artery embolization.

INTRODUCTION: Left-sided portal hypertension is a rare clinical condition most often associated with a pancreatic disease. In case of hemorrhage from gastric fundus varices, splenectomy is indicated. Commonly, the operation is carried out by laparotomy, as portal hypertension is considered a relative contraindication to laparoscopic splenectomy (LS). Although some studies have reported the feasibility of the laparoscopic approach in the setting of cirrhosis-related portal hypertension, experience concerning LS in left-sided portal hypertension is lacking. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 39-year-old man was admitted to the Emergency Department for haemorrhagic shock due to acute hemorrhage from gastric fundus varices. Diagnostic work up revealed a chronic pancreatitis-related splenic vein thrombosis causing left-sided portal hypertension with gastric fundus varices and splenic cavernoma. Following splenic artery embolization (SAE), the case was successfully managed by LS. DISCUSSION: The advantages of laparoscopic over open splenectomy include lower complication rate, quicker recovery and shorter hospital stay. Splenic artery embolization prior to LS has been used to reduce intraoperative blood losses and conversion rate, especially in complex cases of splenomegaly or cirrhosis-related portal hypertension. We report a case of complicated left-sided portal hypertension managed by LS following SAE. In spite of the presence of large varices at the splenic hilum, the operation was performed by laparoscopy without any major intraoperative complication, thanks to the reduced venous pressure achieved by SAE. CONCLUSION: Splenic artery embolization may be a valuable adjunct in case of left-sided portal hypertension requiring splenectomy, allowing a safe dissection of the splenic vessels even by laparoscopy

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Report of an international multicenter cohort study with propensity score matching

Background: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. In patients where surgical resection is possible, outcome is influenced by perioperative morbidity and lymph node status. Laparoscopic liver resection is associated with improved clinical and oncological outcomes in primary and metastatic liver cancer compared with open liver resection, but evidence on intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is still insufficient.The primary aim of this study was to compare overall survival for a large series of patients treated for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma by open or laparoscopic approach. Secondary objectives were to compare disease-free survival, predictors of death, and recurrence.Methods: Patients treated with laparoscopic or open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from 2000 to 2018 from 3 large international databases were analyzed retrospectively. Each patient in the laparoscopic resection group (case) was matched with 1 open resection control (1:1 ratio), through a propensity score calculated on clinically relevant preoperative covariates. Overall and disease-free survival were compared between the matched groups. Predictors of mortality and recurrence were analyzed with Cox regression, and the Textbook Outcomes were described.Results: During the study period, 855 patients met the inclusion criteria (open liver resection = 709, 82.9%; laparoscopic liver resection = 146, 17.1%). Two groups of 89 patients each were analyzed after propensity score matching, with no significant difference regarding pre-and postoperative variables. Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 92%, 75%, and 63% in the laparoscopic liver resection group versus 92%, 58%, and 49% in the open liver resection group (P = .0043). Adjusted Cox regression revealed severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 10.5, 95% confidence interval [1.01-109] P = .049) and steatosis (hazard ratio: 13.8, 95% confidence interval [1.23-154] P = .033) as predictors of death, and transfusion (hazard ratio: 19.2, 95% confidence interval [4.04-91.4] P < .001) and severe postoperative complications (hazard ratio: 4.07, 95% confidence interval [1.15-14.4] P = .030) as predictors of recurrence.Conclusion: The survival advantage of laparoscopic liver resection over open liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is equivocal, given historical bias and missing data. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved