Kenichiro Araki1,2, David Fuks1, Takeo Nomi1,3, Satoshi Ogiso1,4, Ruben R Lozano1, Hiroyuki Kuwano2, Brice Gayet5. 1. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 2. Department of General Surgical Science, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan. 3. Department of Surgery, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan. 4. Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan. 5. Department of Digestive Diseases, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris Descartes University, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. brice.gayet@imm.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a standard procedure in peripheral segments, there are few reports on laparoscopic segment 1 (Sg1) resection. The aim of this study was to assess both safety and feasibility of Sg1 LLR. METHODS: From 2000 to 2014, all patients who underwent LLR were identified from a prospective database. Patients with resection of Sg1 (Sg1 group) were compared with those with resection of anteroinferior segments (AI group: segments 3, 4b, 5, 6) or posterosuperior segments (PS group: segments 4a, 7, 8), in terms of tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: There were 15, 151, and 67 patients in Sg1, AI, and PS groups. Tumor size and tumor number were similar between the three groups (p = 0.139, p = 0.102). Operative time was significantly shorter in Sg1 (150 min) and AI group (135 min) compared with PS group (180 min) (p = 0.021). Median blood loss was notably higher in PS group (140 ml) compared with Sg1 group (75 ml) and AI group (10 ml) (p = 0.001). No mortality was observed in all groups. Postoperative complication rate was 20.0 % with Sg1 group, 14.6 % with AI group, and 20.9 % with PS group (p = 0.060). The rate of major complication was significantly higher in Sg1 group (13.3 %) and PS group (11.9 %) compared with AI group (4.0 %) (p = 0.042). Resection margins were clear in all Sg1 and PS group patients, whereas two (1.3 %) patients in AI group had R1 margins (p = 0.586). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach of isolated resection located in the caudate lobe is a feasible and curative surgical option in selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Although laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is now considered a standard procedure in peripheral segments, there are few reports on laparoscopic segment 1 (Sg1) resection. The aim of this study was to assess both safety and feasibility of Sg1 LLR. METHODS: From 2000 to 2014, all patients who underwent LLR were identified from a prospective database. Patients with resection of Sg1 (Sg1 group) were compared with those with resection of anteroinferior segments (AI group: segments 3, 4b, 5, 6) or posterosuperior segments (PS group: segments 4a, 7, 8), in terms of tumor characteristics, surgical treatment, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: There were 15, 151, and 67 patients in Sg1, AI, and PS groups. Tumor size and tumor number were similar between the three groups (p = 0.139, p = 0.102). Operative time was significantly shorter in Sg1 (150 min) and AI group (135 min) compared with PS group (180 min) (p = 0.021). Median blood loss was notably higher in PS group (140 ml) compared with Sg1 group (75 ml) and AI group (10 ml) (p = 0.001). No mortality was observed in all groups. Postoperative complication rate was 20.0 % with Sg1 group, 14.6 % with AI group, and 20.9 % with PS group (p = 0.060). The rate of major complication was significantly higher in Sg1 group (13.3 %) and PS group (11.9 %) compared with AI group (4.0 %) (p = 0.042). Resection margins were clear in all Sg1 and PS group patients, whereas two (1.3 %) patients in AI group had R1 margins (p = 0.586). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach of isolated resection located in the caudate lobe is a feasible and curative surgical option in selected patients.
Authors: Eleazar Chaib; Marcelo Augusto F Ribeiro; Francisco de S Collet E Silva; William A Saad; Ivan Cecconello Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2006-11-13 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Moritz Koch; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Nuh N Rahbari; Rene Adam; Lorenzo Capussotti; Sheung Tat Fan; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Michael Crawford; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Mark Brooke-Smith; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Ronald P DeMatteo; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Bin Jin; Zhengchen Jiang; Sanyuan Hu; Gang Du; Binyao Shi; Du Kong; Jinhuan Yang Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.411