INTRODUCTION: Since the inception of laparoscopic liver surgery, the left-lateral sectionectomy has become the standard of care for resection of lesions located in segments II and III. However, few centers employee laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy on a routine basis. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy as a standard of care. METHODS: An international database of 1,620 laparoscopic liver resections was established and outcomes analyzed comparing the laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L lat) to laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LH). All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: A total of 222 laparoscopic L lat and 82 LH were identified. The L lat group compared with LH group had a higher incidence of cirrhosis (27 vs. 21 %; p = 0.003) and cancer (48 vs. 35 %; p = 0.043). Tumors were larger in the LH group (7.09 ± 4.2 vs. 4.89 ± 3.1 cm; p = 0.001). Operating time for LH was longer than L lat (3.9 ± 2.3 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 h; p < 0.001). Operative blood loss was higher in LH (306 vs. 198 cc; p = 0.003). Patient morbidity (20 vs. 18 %; p = 0.765) was equivalent with a longer length of stay (7.1 ± 5.1 vs. 2.5 ± 2.3 days; p < 0.001) for LH. Patient mortality and tumor recurrence were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy is a more technically challenging and often time-consuming procedure than a left-lateral sectionectomy. This international multi-institutional confirmed that intraoperative blood loss, complications, and conversions are more than acceptable for laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy in expert hands. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates together with adequate surgical margins and long-term recurrence are not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.
INTRODUCTION: Since the inception of laparoscopic liver surgery, the left-lateral sectionectomy has become the standard of care for resection of lesions located in segments II and III. However, few centers employee laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy on a routine basis. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy as a standard of care. METHODS: An international database of 1,620 laparoscopic liver resections was established and outcomes analyzed comparing the laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (L lat) to laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy (LH). All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: A total of 222 laparoscopic L lat and 82 LH were identified. The L lat group compared with LH group had a higher incidence of cirrhosis (27 vs. 21 %; p = 0.003) and cancer (48 vs. 35 %; p = 0.043). Tumors were larger in the LH group (7.09 ± 4.2 vs. 4.89 ± 3.1 cm; p = 0.001). Operating time for LH was longer than L lat (3.9 ± 2.3 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 h; p < 0.001). Operative blood loss was higher in LH (306 vs. 198 cc; p = 0.003). Patient morbidity (20 vs. 18 %; p = 0.765) was equivalent with a longer length of stay (7.1 ± 5.1 vs. 2.5 ± 2.3 days; p < 0.001) for LH. Patient mortality and tumor recurrence were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy is a more technically challenging and often time-consuming procedure than a left-lateral sectionectomy. This international multi-institutional confirmed that intraoperative blood loss, complications, and conversions are more than acceptable for laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy in expert hands. Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates together with adequate surgical margins and long-term recurrence are not compromised by the laparoscopic approach.
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Rodrigo S M de Figueiredo; Nikola A Henderson; Christoph Kulli; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-09-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Marcel Autran C Machado; Fabio F Makdissi; Paulo Herman; Rodrigo C Surjan Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.878
Authors: Giulio Belli; Luigi Cioffi; Corrado Fantini; Alberto D'Agostino; Gianluca Russo; Paolo Limongelli; Andrea Belli Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Rebecca A Schroeder; Carlos E Marroquin; Barbara Phillips Bute; Shukri Khuri; William G Henderson; Paul C Kuo Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Joseph F Buell; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Nicholas O'Rourke; David Iannitti; Ibrahim Dagher; Alan J Koffron; Mark Thomas; Brice Gayet; Ho Seong Han; Go Wakabayashi; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; Chen-Guo Ker; Olivier Scatton; Alexis Laurent; Eddie K Abdalla; Prosanto Chaudhury; Erik Dutson; Clark Gamblin; Michael D'Angelica; David Nagorney; Giuliano Testa; Daniel Labow; Derrik Manas; Ronnie T Poon; Heidi Nelson; Robert Martin; Bryan Clary; Wright C Pinson; John Martinie; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Robert Goldstein; Sasan Roayaie; David Barlet; Joseph Espat; Michael Abecassis; Myrddin Rees; Yuman Fong; Kelly M McMasters; Christoph Broelsch; Ron Busuttil; Jacques Belghiti; Steven Strasberg; Ravi S Chari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Stefano Ferretti; Hadrien Tranchart; Joseph F Buell; Constantino Eretta; Alberto Patriti; Marcello Giuseppe Spampinato; Jung Wook Huh; Luca Vigano; Ho Seong Han; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Elio Jovine; Thomas Clark Gamblin; Giulio Belli; Go Wakabayashi; Brice Gayet; Ibrahim Dagher Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352