Chan Woo Cho1, Jinsoo Rhu1, Choon Hyuck David Kwon2, Gyu-Seong Choi1, Jong Man Kim1, Jae-Won Joh1, Kwang-Cheol Koh3, Gaab Soo Kim4. 1. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, #81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, #81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, 06351, Korea. chdkwon@skku.edu. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in technology and accumulation of surgical experience have expanded the indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). However, compared to open liver resection (OLR), the feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumor (CLT) has not been clearly established. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic anatomical major liver resection for CLT. METHODS: From April 2011 to March 2016, 20 cases of anatomical LLR and 86 cases of OLR for CLTs such as central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) were performed at a single institution. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching and analyzed short-term outcomes between the LLR (n = 20) and OLR (n = 20) groups. RESULTS: Among 20 cases in the LLR group, two cases underwent open conversion due to common bile duct injury and anatomical distortion, respectively. There were no statistically significant difference between the LLR and OLR groups regarding clamping time of the Pringle maneuver (p = 0.502), blood loss (p = 0.746), surgical margin (p = 0.198), or length of hospital stay (p = 0.110). However, surgical time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (388 vs 268 min; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to morbidity rate or mean comprehensive complication index (p = 0.716 and p = 0.819, respectively). CONCLUSION: Total anatomical LLR can be performed safely in selected CLT patients by experienced surgeons. Laparoscopic CH or RAS appears feasible with non-inferior perioperative outcomes compared to OLR.
BACKGROUND: Recent advances in technology and accumulation of surgical experience have expanded the indications for laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). However, compared to open liver resection (OLR), the feasibility of laparoscopic anatomical liver resection for centrally located tumor (CLT) has not been clearly established. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic anatomical major liver resection for CLT. METHODS: From April 2011 to March 2016, 20 cases of anatomical LLR and 86 cases of OLR for CLTs such as central hepatectomy (CH) and right anterior sectionectomy (RAS) were performed at a single institution. We performed one-to-one propensity score matching and analyzed short-term outcomes between the LLR (n = 20) and OLR (n = 20) groups. RESULTS: Among 20 cases in the LLR group, two cases underwent open conversion due to common bile duct injury and anatomical distortion, respectively. There were no statistically significant difference between the LLR and OLR groups regarding clamping time of the Pringle maneuver (p = 0.502), blood loss (p = 0.746), surgical margin (p = 0.198), or length of hospital stay (p = 0.110). However, surgical time was significantly longer in the LLR group than in the OLR group (388 vs 268 min; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to morbidity rate or mean comprehensive complication index (p = 0.716 and p = 0.819, respectively). CONCLUSION: Total anatomical LLR can be performed safely in selected CLT patients by experienced surgeons. Laparoscopic CH or RAS appears feasible with non-inferior perioperative outcomes compared to OLR.
Authors: Young Ki Kim; Ho-Seong Han; Yoo-Seok Yoon; Jai Young Cho; Woohyung Lee Journal: J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 1.878
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: Kevin Ryan Parks; Yen-Hong Kuo; John Mihran Davis; Brittany O' Brien; Ellen J Hagopian Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Hye Yeon Yang; Gi Hong Choi; Ken-Min Chin; Sung Hoon Choi; Nicholas L Syn; Tan-To Cheung; Adrian K H Chiow; Iswanto Sucandy; Marco V Marino; Mikel Prieto; Charing C Chong; Jae Hoon Lee; Mikhail Efanov; T Peter Kingham; Robert P Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Johann Pratschke; Xiaoying Wang; Mathieu D'Hondt; Chung Ngai Tang; Rong Liu; James O Park; Fernando Rotellar; Olivier Scatton; Atsushi Sugioka; Tran Cong Duy Long; Chung-Yip Chan; David Fuks; Ho-Seong Han; Brian K P Goh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Ken Min Chin; Yun-Le Linn; Chin Kai Cheong; Ye-Xin Koh; Jin-Yao Teo; Alexander Y F Chung; Chung Yip Chan; Brian K P Goh Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.452