Steven M. Strasberg

Lack of uniform reporting of negative outcomes makes interpretation of surgical literature difficult. We attempt to define and classify negative outcomes by differentiating complications, sequelae, and failures. Complications and sequelae result from procedures, adding new problems to the underlying disease. However, complications are unexpected events not intrinsic to the procedure, whereas sequelae are inherent to the procedure. Failures are events in which the purpose of the procedure is not fulfilled. We propose a classification of complications based on four grades: Grade I complications are alterations from the ideal postoperative course, non-life-threatening, and with no lasting disability. Complications of this grade necessitate only bedside procedures and do not significantly extend hospital stay. Grade II complications are potentially life-threatening but without residual disability. Within grade II complications a subdivision is made according to the requirement for invasive procedures. Grade III complications are those with residual disability, including organ resection or persistence of life-threatening conditions. Finally, grade IV complications are deaths as a result of complications. To illustrate the relevance of the classification, we reviewed 650 cases of elective cholecystectomy. Risk factors for development of complications were determined, and the classification was also used to analyze the value of a modified APACHE II as a preoperative prognostic score. Both supported the relevance of the proposed classification. The advantages of such a classification are (1) increased uniformity in reporting results, (2) the ability to compare results of two distinct time periods in a single center, (3) the ability to compare results of surgery between different centers, (4) the ability to compare results of surgical versus nonsurgical measures, (5) the ability to perform adequate metaanalysis, (6) the ability to identify objective preoperative risk factors, and (7) the ability to establish preoperative prognostic scores.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS: On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. RESULTS: The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Regulatory T cells (T(reg)) that prevent autoimmune diseases by suppression of self-reactive T cells may also suppress the immune response against cancer. In mice, depletion of T(reg) by Ab therapy leads to more efficient tumor rejection. T(reg)-mediated suppression of antitumor immune responses may partly explain the poor clinical response to vaccine-based immunotherapy for human cancer. In this study, we measured the prevalence of T(reg) that coexpress CD4 and CD25 in the PBLs, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and regional lymph node lymphocytes from 65 patients with either pancreas or breast cancer. In breast cancer patients (n = 35), pancreas cancer patients (n = 30), and normal donors (n = 35), the prevalence of T(reg) were 16.6% (SE 1.22), 13.2% (SE 1.13), and 8.6% (SE 0.71) of the total CD4(+) cells, respectively. The prevalence of T(reg) were significantly higher in breast cancer patients (p < 0.01) and pancreas cancer patients (p < 0.01) when compared with normal donors. In tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and lymph node lymphocytes, the T(reg) prevalence were 20.2% (SE 3.93) and 20.1% (SE 4.3), respectively. T(reg) constitutively coexpressed CTLA-4 and CD45RO markers, and secreted TGF-beta and IL-10 but did not secrete IFN-gamma. When cocultured with activated CD8(+) cells or CD4(+)25(-) cells, T(reg) potently suppressed their proliferation and secretion of IFN-gamma. We conclude that the prevalence of T(reg) is increased in the peripheral blood as well as in the tumor microenvironment of patients with invasive breast or pancreas cancers. These T(reg) may mitigate the immune response against cancer, and may partly explain the poor immune response against tumor Ags.

Abstract The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis were globally disseminated and various clinical studies about the management of acute cholecystitis were reported by many researchers and clinicians from all over the world. The 1 st edition of the Tokyo Guidelines 2007 ( TG 07) was revised in 2013. According to that revision, the TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis provided better specificity and higher diagnostic accuracy. Thorough our literature search about diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis, new and strong evidence that had been released from 2013 to 2017 was not found with serious and important issues about using TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis. On the other hand, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis has been validated in numerous studies. As a result of these reviews, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis was significantly associated with parameters including 30‐day overall mortality, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, and medical costs. In terms of severity assessment, breakthrough and intensive literature for revising severity grading was not reported. Consequently, TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading were judged from numerous validation studies as useful indicators in clinical practice and adopted as TG 18/ TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis without any modification. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

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.