Xiaowu Zhang1,2, Lunan Yan1, Bo Li1, Tianfu Wen1, Wentao Wang1, Mingqing Xu1, Yonggang Wei1, Jiayin Yang3. 1. Department of Hepatic Surgery, Liver Transplantation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. 2. Department of Regenerative Medicine Research Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China. 3. Department of Hepatic Surgery, Liver Transplantation Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan Province, China. yangjiayin128@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been demonstrated to be a promising therapy for symptomatic large hepatic hemangioma. However, there is a lack of studies to demonstrate the benefits and disadvantages of RFA as compared with surgical resection for managing hepatic hemangioma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RFA compared with conventional open resection (ORES) for the treatment of symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas. METHODS: A total of 66 patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas (4 cm ≤ diameter < 10 cm) who required surgical treatment were divided into two groups: 32 patients underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and the other 34 patients underwent ORES. We compared the two groups in terms of radiologic response, clinical response, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and hospital cost. RESULTS: The radiologic and clinical responses were comparable between groups. LRFA had significantly shorter operative time (138 vs. 201 min, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than ORES. Patients after LRFA experienced significantly less pain and required less analgesia use. Moreover, patients underwent LRFA had significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and lower hospital cost (P = 0.017). No severe morbidities or mortality was observed, and the overall morbidity rate was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: As a new minimal invasive treatment option, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation is as safe and effective a procedure as open resection for patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas smaller than 10 cm.
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been demonstrated to be a promising therapy for symptomatic large hepatic hemangioma. However, there is a lack of studies to demonstrate the benefits and disadvantages of RFA as compared with surgical resection for managing hepatic hemangioma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of RFA compared with conventional open resection (ORES) for the treatment of symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas. METHODS: A total of 66 patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas (4 cm ≤ diameter < 10 cm) who required surgical treatment were divided into two groups: 32 patients underwent laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) and the other 34 patients underwent ORES. We compared the two groups in terms of radiologic response, clinical response, operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain score and analgesic requirement, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications and hospital cost. RESULTS: The radiologic and clinical responses were comparable between groups. LRFA had significantly shorter operative time (138 vs. 201 min, P < 0.001) and less blood loss (P < 0.001) than ORES. Patients after LRFA experienced significantly less pain and required less analgesia use. Moreover, patients underwent LRFA had significantly shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.001) and lower hospital cost (P = 0.017). No severe morbidities or mortality was observed, and the overall morbidity rate was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: As a new minimal invasive treatment option, laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation is as safe and effective a procedure as open resection for patients with symptomatic-enlarging hepatic hemangiomas smaller than 10 cm.
Authors: N Mitsuhashi; M Furuta; H Sakurai; T Takahashi; S Kato; M Nozaki; Y Saito; K Hayakawa; H Niibe Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1997-09-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Soo Young Park; Won Young Tak; Min Kyu Jung; Seong Woo Jeon; Chang Min Cho; Young Oh Kweon; Kab Chul Kim Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: B Descottes; D Glineur; F Lachachi; D Valleix; J Paineau; A Hamy; M Morino; H Bismuth; D Castaing; E Savier; P Honore; O Detry; M Legrand; J S Azagra; M Goergen; M Ceuterick; J Marescaux; D Mutter; B de Hemptinne; R Troisi; J Weerts; B Dallemagne; C Jehaes; M Gelin; V Donckier; R Aerts; B Topal; C Bertrand; B Mansvelt; L Van Krunckelsven; D Herman; M Kint; E Totte; R Schockmel; J F Gigot Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2002-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584
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