Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cancer in the digestive system based on survey of domestic cancer incidence, and the ratio of elderly aged 65 or older is expected to rise steadily, leading to a higher incidence of total hepatocellular carcinoma. The most important thing in treating these older patients with HCC is to assess the benefits and risks of the treatment in advance. In other words, the benefit of treatment should be greater than the reduction of survival period or maladjustment due to treatment. Based on these perspectives, we examined how the detailed treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma differs from that of general treatment in elderly patients. In conclusion, older age was not a definite prognostic factor of survival risk-benefit comparison in the most treatment modalities. However it should be carefully considered and approached about possible complications in treating HCC in elderly patients.
Aged ; Aging ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular ; Digestive System ; Humans ; Incidence ; Risk Assessment

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

ICG is widely applied in real-time imaging during abdominal surgery, plastic surgery, as well as oncologic staging and treatment. A twenty-eight year-old female patient was found to have a 4.5 cm solid pseudopapillary neoplasm in the tail of the pancreas. Under ICG-fluorescent pancreatic perfusion-guidance, we easily defined the margin of the pancreatic tumor and secured the resection margin when performing laparoscopic distal pancreatosplenectomy in the patient. No clinically relevant complications, including postoperative pancreatic fistula, were noted. Intravenous ICG can be very easily and quickly detected in the pancreas under near infrared light. This enhanced vision gives strong contrast to the organ compared to a necrotic tumor with poor blood perfusion, such as solid pseudopapillary neoplasm. Based on our current experience, ICG pancreatic perfusion-guided determination of appropriate resection margin is useful and feasible during pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Female ; Fluorescent Dyes ; Humans ; Indocyanine Green ; Pancreas* ; Pancreatectomy ; Pancreatic Fistula ; Pancreaticoduodenectomy ; Perfusion ; Surgery, Plastic ; Tail

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Unplanned conversion is sometimes necessary during minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aims of this study were to compare surgical outcomes of planned MILR and unplanned conversion and to investigate the risk factors after unplanned conversion. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 286 patients who underwent MILR with HCC from January 2006 to December 2017. All patients were divided into a MILR group and an unplanned conversion group. The clinicopathologic characteristics and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, surgical outcomes in the conversion group were compared with the planned open surgery group (n = 505). Risk factors for unplanned conversion were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 286 patients who underwent MILR, 18 patients (6.7%) had unplanned conversion during surgery. The unplanned conversion group showed statistically more blood loss, higher transfusion rate and postoperative complication rate, and longer hospital stay compared to the MILR group, whereas no such difference was observed in comparison with the planned open surgery group. There were no significant differences in overall and disease-free survival among 3 groups. The right-sided sectionectomy (right anterior and posterior sectionectomy), central bisectionectomy and tumor size were risk factors of unplanned conversion. CONCLUSION Unplanned conversion during MILR for HCC was associated with poor perioperative outcomes, but it did not affect long-term oncologic outcomes in our study. In addition, when planning right-sided sectionectomy or central bisectionectomy for a large tumor (more than 5 cm), we should recommend open surgery or MILR with an informed consent for unplanned open conversions.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the gold standard procedure for benign gallbladder disease. However, reducing ports still causes frustration when using various instruments. We investigated early perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic single site + 1 cholecystectomy using ArtiSential instruments (ArtiSential laparoscopic cholecystectomy [ALC], LIVSMED). Methods: From July 2022 to December 2022, 116 patients underwent ALC in Severance Hospital and Yongin Severance Hospital. From May 2019 to December 2022, 210 patients underwent robotic single-port cholecystectomy (RSPC). We compared clinical characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative pain scores between the ALC and RSPC groups. Results: Patients in the ALC group were significantly older than those in the RSPC group (51.9 years vs. 43.9 years, P < 0.001), and the ALC group had a larger proportion of male patients (50.9% vs. 24.8%, P < 0.001) and cases of acute cholecystitis with stones (21.6% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001) than the RSPC group. The groups did not differ in their estimated blood loss, postoperative complications, or hospital stays. The mean operation time of the ALC group was shorter than that of the RSPC group (56.5 minutes vs. 94.8 minutes, P < 0.001). Although the pain scores reported on discharge day did not differ, the ALC group reported significantly lower immediate postoperative pain scores than the RSPC group (2.7 vs. 5.4, P < 0.001). Conclusions ALC is a safe and feasible procedure. ALC patients reported markedly lower immediate postoperative pain scores than RSPC patients, with comparable operative outcomes for estimated blood loss, hospital stay, and postoperative complication rates.