The learning curve for robot-assisted liver resections is shorter in comparison with laparoscopic resections. The inclusion of robot-assisted resections in a minimally invasive liver surgery program may be useful to rapidly increase the complexity of laparoscopic liver resections.

Background. The term “paraduodenal pancreatitis” (PP) was proposed as a synonym for duodenal dystrophy (DD) and groove pancreatitis, but it is still unclear what organ PP originates from and how to treat it properly. Objective. To assess the results of different types of treatment for PP. Method. Prospective analysis of 62 cases of PP (2004–2013) with histopathology of 40 specimens was performed; clinical presentation was assessed and the results of treatment were recorded.  Results. Preoperative diagnosis was correct in all the cases except one (1.9%). Patients presented with abdominal pain (100%), weight loss (76%), vomiting (30%), and jaundice (18%). CT, MRI, and endoUS were the most useful diagnostic modalities. Ten patients were treated conservatively, 24 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomies (PD), pancreatico- and cystoenterostomies (8), Nakao procedures (5), duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resections (5), and 10 pancreas-preserving duodenal resections (PPDR) without mortality. Full pain control was achieved after PPRDs in 83%, after PDs in 85%, and after PPPH resections and draining procedures in 18% of cases. Diabetes mellitus developed thrice after PD. Conclusions. PD is the main surgical option for PP treatment at present; early diagnosis makes PPDR the treatment of choice for PP; efficacy of PPDR for DD treatment provides proof that so-called PP is an entity of duodenal, but not “paraduodenal,” origin.

No abstract

Background: Percutaneous radiofrequency-assisted liver partition with portal vein embolization in staged liver resection (PRALPPS) represents an alternative to portal vein embolization (PVE) followed by major liver resection in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.Methods: This was an observational case-control study. Both procedures were applied in patients with a future liver remnant (FLR) volume of less than 40 per cent. The main end points of the study were short-term morbidity and mortality for the two procedures. The study also compared the efficacy of the preresection phases estimated by kinetic growth rate (KGR), time interval and degree of hypertrophy of the FLR.Results: The first phase (preresection) was completed in 11 and 18 patients, and the second phase (resection) in nine and 14 patients, in the PRALPPS and PVE groups respectively. Major morbidity after the first stage did not differ between the groups. There were no differences in blood loss, severe morbidity or liver failure rate after the second stage, with no deaths. The mean KGR of the FLR after the preresection phase for PRALPPS was 3⋅8 (0⋅6-9⋅8) per cent/day, and that after PVE was 1⋅8 (0-6⋅7) per cent/day (P = 0⋅037). The mean time interval for FLR hypertrophy in the PRALPPS and PVE groups was 15 (6-29) and 20 (8-35) days respectively (P = 0⋅039).Conclusion: Short-term outcomes were similar for PRALPPS and PVE in terms of safety. Remnant hypertrophy was achieved more rapidly by PRALPPS.

No abstract