Kit-fai Lee1, Jeff Wong, Yue-sun Cheung, Philip Ip, John Wong, Paul B S Lai. 1. Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. leekf@surgery.cuhk.edu.hk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experience from open hepatectomy shows that anatomic liver resection achieves a better resection margin than wedge resection. In recent years, laparoscopic hepatectomy has increasingly been performed in patients with liver pathology including malignant lesions. Wedge resection (WR) and left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), which also represent non-anatomic and anatomic resection respectively, are the two most common types of laparoscopic hepatectomy performed. The aim of the present study was to compare the two types of laparoscopic hepatectomy with emphasis on resection margin. METHODS: Between November 2003 and July 2009, 44 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy were identified and retrospectively reviewed. The WR and LLS group of patients were compared in terms of operative outcomes, pathological findings, recurrence patterns and survival. RESULTS: Out of the 44 patients, 21 underwent LLS and 23 a WR. The two groups of patients were comparable in demographics. The two groups did not differ in conversion rate, blood loss, blood transfusion, mortality, morbidity and post-operative length of stay. The LLS group patients had significantly larger liver lesions, wider resection margin and less sub-centimetre margins. In patients with malignant liver lesions, there was no difference between the two groups in incidence of intra-hepatic recurrence and 3-year overall and disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: Operative outcomes are similar between laparoscopic WR and LLS. However, WR is less reliable than LLS in achieving a resection margin of more than 1 cm. Larger studies involving more patients with longer follow-up are warranted to determine the impact of the resection margin on intra-hepatic recurrence and survival.
BACKGROUND: Experience from open hepatectomy shows that anatomic liver resection achieves a better resection margin than wedge resection. In recent years, laparoscopic hepatectomy has increasingly been performed in patients with liver pathology including malignant lesions. Wedge resection (WR) and left lateral sectionectomy (LLS), which also represent non-anatomic and anatomic resection respectively, are the two most common types of laparoscopic hepatectomy performed. The aim of the present study was to compare the two types of laparoscopic hepatectomy with emphasis on resection margin. METHODS: Between November 2003 and July 2009, 44 consecutive patients who underwent laparoscopic hepatectomy were identified and retrospectively reviewed. The WR and LLS group of patients were compared in terms of operative outcomes, pathological findings, recurrence patterns and survival. RESULTS: Out of the 44 patients, 21 underwent LLS and 23 a WR. The two groups of patients were comparable in demographics. The two groups did not differ in conversion rate, blood loss, blood transfusion, mortality, morbidity and post-operative length of stay. The LLS group patients had significantly larger liver lesions, wider resection margin and less sub-centimetre margins. In patients with malignant liver lesions, there was no difference between the two groups in incidence of intra-hepatic recurrence and 3-year overall and disease-free survival. CONCLUSION: Operative outcomes are similar between laparoscopic WR and LLS. However, WR is less reliable than LLS in achieving a resection margin of more than 1 cm. Larger studies involving more patients with longer follow-up are warranted to determine the impact of the resection margin on intra-hepatic recurrence and survival.
Authors: M Abu Hilal; M J W McPhail; B Zeidan; S Zeidan; M J Hallam; T Armstrong; J N Primrose; N W Pearce Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Mark J W McPhail; Tina Scibelli; Mahmoud Abdelaziz; Amin Titi; Neil W Pearce; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 3.869
Authors: Michael Tsinberg; Gurkan Tellioglu; Conrad H Simpfendorfer; R M Walsh; Matthew R Walsh; David Vogt; John Fung; Eren Berber Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: K F Lee; Y S Cheung; C N Chong; Yvonne Y Y Tsang; Wilson W C Ng; Eva Ling; John Wong; Paul B S Lai Journal: Hong Kong Med J Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.227
Authors: Jennifer A Kalil; Jennifer Poirier; Bjoern Becker; Robert Van Dam; Xavier Keutgen; Erik Schadde Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: R M Lupinacci; W Andraus; L B De Paiva Haddad; L A Carneiro D' Albuquerque; P Herman Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Jonah Popp; David S Weinberg; Eva Enns; John A Nyman; J Robert Beck; Karen M Kuntz Journal: Value Health Date: 2021-10-13 Impact factor: 5.101
Authors: Brian K P Goh; Chung-Yip Chan; Ser-Yee Lee; Victor T W Lee; Peng-Chung Cheow; Pierce K H Chow; London L P J Ooi; Alexander Y F Chung Journal: JSLS Date: 2016 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.172