Dataset Information

Totally laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy exposing the major hepatic veins from the root side: a case of the right anterior sectorectomy (with video).

ABSTRACT: Laparoscopic hepatectomy has rapidly evolved recently; however, laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy has yet to become widely used, although anatomical hepatectomy is ideal, especially for curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, and is widely accepted via open approach. This is because good-experienced skills, for example, exposing Glissonean pedicles and hepatic veins on the cutting plane, are required in order to perform anatomical hepatectomy via a pure laparoscopic approach. We obtained good results for various totally laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomies using the standardized techniques. We exposed the major hepatic veins from the root side by utilizing the unique view from the caudal side in the laparoscopic approach, and moved CUSA from the root side toward the peripheral side to avoid splitting the bifurcation of the hepatic vein. We performed totally laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy for 47 patients from August, 2008, to December, 2012 (Table 1). In most types of anatomical hepatectomy, the mean blood loss was <500 ml. Conversion to open surgery was required in two patients. Postoperative complications were prolonged ascites in two, peroneal palsy in two, and biloma in one. Mortality was zero. The embedded video demonstrates totally laparoscopic right anterior sectorectomy. In conclusion, our standardized techniques make laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy more feasible.

SUBMITTER: Honda G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4057640 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:GoalsWe aim to draw a conclusion which type of hepatectomy could be the priority for hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients.BackgroundSurgery is established as only potentially curative treatment for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. However, whether hepatectomy should be preferred to the left-side hepatectomy, which includes left hemihepatectomy, extended left hemihepatectomy, and left trisectionectomy, or right-side hepatectomy, which represents right hemihepatectomy, extended right hemihepatectomy, and right trisectionectomy, is debated. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of left-side hepatectomy and right-side hepatectomy in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma.StudyWe systematically retrieved the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane library and related bibliography up to February 2020. The primary outcome is overall survival, and the secondary outcome includes 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates, morbidity, mortality, R0 resection rate, and operation time. Based on heterogeneity, fixed-effects model or random-effects models were established through meta-analysis.ResultsEleven studies (11 cohort studies, totally 1031 patients) were involved in this study. The overall survival of patients who underwent left-side hepatectomy was comparable to that of patients who underwent right-side hepatectomy (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.63]). And there was no significant difference observed in 1-year (relative risk, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89-1.15]), 3-year (relative risk, 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.11]), and 5-year survival (relative risk, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.01]) rates between the left-side hepatectomy group and the right-side hepatectomy group. Comparing with the right-side hepatectomy cluster, the hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients in the left-side hepatectomy cluster presented better overall postoperative morbidity (relative risk, 0.82 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.96]) and major postoperative morbidity (relative risk, 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.95]). The post-hepatectomy liver failure rate (relative risk, 0.22 [95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.56]) and procedure-related mortality (relative risk, 0.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.70]) in the left-side hepatectomy group were better than those of the right-side hepatectomy group. Besides, the R0 resection rate was similar between the left-side hepatectomy group and the right-side hepatectomy group (relative risk, 0.95 [95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.03]). And the operation time for the left-side hepatectomy was significantly longer than that for the right-side hepatectomy (mean difference, 38.68 [95% confidence interval, 7.41-69.95]).ConclusionThrough meta-analysis, we explored the comparable long-term outcomes and better short-term outcomes in the left-side hepatectomy group as is compared to the right-side hepatectomy group of hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients. In this study, the evidence obtained might indicate that the choice of left-side hepatectomy or right-side hepatectomy depends on the site of hilar cholangiocarcinoma in every patient.

Project description:ImportanceLaparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH).ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Design, setting, and participantsIn this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included.InterventionsRobotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH.Main outcomes and measuresData on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed.ResultsOf 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46).Conclusion and relevanceRobotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.

Dataset Information

Totally laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy exposing the major hepatic veins from the root side: a case of the right anterior sectorectomy (with video).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets