Liuxin Cai1, Fangqiang Wei1, Yichen Yu1, Hong Yu1, Xiao Liang1, Xiujun Cai1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Institute of Minimally Invasive Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University , Hangzhou, China .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is increasingly performed for the treatment of many liver diseases. However, it remains a challenging procedure and is limited to highly specialized centers. Increasing the safety and efficacy of LRH is crucial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the novel caudal approach (CDA) in LRH and in comparison with the conventional approach (CA). METHODS: Of a total of 40 patients who underwent LRH between June 2007 and July 2015 at our center, 10 cases underwent the CDA, while 30 underwent the CA. Operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical data and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Only 1 patient required a laparoscopic-assisted procedure in the CDA group, while 14 patients were converted to laparotomy (n = 10) or laparoscopic-assisted procedures (n = 4) in the CA group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .060). However, the difference in conversion to laparotomy between the two groups was significant (P = .043). In addition, when considering 23 patients with malignancies, the median surgical margin was significantly greater in the CDA group (n = 6) (20 mm versus 10 mm; P = .023) than in the CA group (n = 17). Other operative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CDA achieves safety and feasibility similar to that of the CA in LRH and requires relatively less conversion to laparotomy. In selected patients, the CDA offers an alternative option to the CA for LRH in experienced hands. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to evaluate the CDA.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) is increasingly performed for the treatment of many liver diseases. However, it remains a challenging procedure and is limited to highly specialized centers. Increasing the safety and efficacy of LRH is crucial. This study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the novel caudal approach (CDA) in LRH and in comparison with the conventional approach (CA). METHODS: Of a total of 40 patients who underwent LRH between June 2007 and July 2015 at our center, 10 cases underwent the CDA, while 30 underwent the CA. Operative and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Clinical data and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Only 1 patient required a laparoscopic-assisted procedure in the CDA group, while 14 patients were converted to laparotomy (n = 10) or laparoscopic-assisted procedures (n = 4) in the CA group, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = .060). However, the difference in conversion to laparotomy between the two groups was significant (P = .043). In addition, when considering 23 patients with malignancies, the median surgical margin was significantly greater in the CDA group (n = 6) (20 mm versus 10 mm; P = .023) than in the CA group (n = 17). Other operative and postoperative outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The CDA achieves safety and feasibility similar to that of the CA in LRH and requires relatively less conversion to laparotomy. In selected patients, the CDA offers an alternative option to the CA for LRH in experienced hands. Further studies with larger samples are warranted to evaluate the CDA.