Sean P Martin1, Justin Drake1,2, Michael M Wach1, Samantha Ruff1, Laurence P Diggs1, Jim Y Wan2, Zachary J Brown1, Reed I Ayabe1, Evan S Glazer2, Paxton V Dickson2, Jeremy L Davis2, Jeremiah L Deneve3, Jonathan M Hernandez4. 1. Surgical Oncology Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 2. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 3. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. jdeneve@uthsc.edu. 4. Surgical Oncology Program, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. jonathan.hernandez@nih.gov.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic approach to liver resection is feasible and safe, though its utilization with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains poorly documented. We sought to evaluate the use laparoscopy for ICC, and to examine adherence to oncologic standards. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent resection for ICC. Patients were stratified by laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR). Clinicopathologic parameters and hospital volumes were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 2309 patients with ICC underwent hepatic resection (1997 OLR, 312 LLR) between 2010 and 2015. LLR increased from 12 to 16% during the study period and was utilized more commonly than OLR for wedge and segmental resections (56% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Nodal evaluation was performed in 58% of all patients with ICC and was significantly more common in patients undergoing OLR (61%, n = 1210) versus LLR (39%, n = 120), p < 0.001. Of the 120 patients undergoing LLR with any nodal evaluation, 31% (n = 37) had a single node evaluated. Patients who underwent LLR were less likely to have ≥ 6 lymph nodes evaluated compared with those who underwent OLR (9% vs. 15%, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopy for ICC is associated with an exacerbation of inadequate nodal evaluation compared with open resections.
INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic approach to liver resection is feasible and safe, though its utilization with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remains poorly documented. We sought to evaluate the use laparoscopy for ICC, and to examine adherence to oncologic standards. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent resection for ICC. Patients were stratified by laparoscopic (LLR) versus open liver resection (OLR). Clinicopathologic parameters and hospital volumes were recorded. RESULTS: In total, 2309 patients with ICC underwent hepatic resection (1997 OLR, 312 LLR) between 2010 and 2015. LLR increased from 12 to 16% during the study period and was utilized more commonly than OLR for wedge and segmental resections (56% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Nodal evaluation was performed in 58% of all patients with ICC and was significantly more common in patients undergoing OLR (61%, n = 1210) versus LLR (39%, n = 120), p < 0.001. Of the 120 patients undergoing LLR with any nodal evaluation, 31% (n = 37) had a single node evaluated. Patients who underwent LLR were less likely to have ≥ 6 lymph nodes evaluated compared with those who underwent OLR (9% vs. 15%, respectively, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of laparoscopy for ICC is associated with an exacerbation of inadequate nodal evaluation compared with open resections.
Authors: Go Wakabayashi; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Joseph F Buell; Hironori Kaneko; Ho Seong Han; Horacio Asbun; Nicholas OʼRourke; Minoru Tanabe; Alan J Koffron; Allan Tsung; Olivier Soubrane; Marcel Autran Machado; Brice Gayet; Roberto I Troisi; Patrick Pessaux; Ronald M Van Dam; Olivier Scatton; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Giulio Belli; Choon Hyuck David Kwon; Bjørn Edwin; Gi Hong Choi; Luca Antonio Aldrighetti; Xiujun Cai; Sean Cleary; Kuo-Hsin Chen; Michael R Schön; Atsushi Sugioka; Chung-Ngai Tang; Paulo Herman; Juan Pekolj; Xiao-Ping Chen; Ibrahim Dagher; William Jarnagin; Masakazu Yamamoto; Russell Strong; Palepu Jagannath; Chung-Mau Lo; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Norihiro Kokudo; Jeffrey Barkun; Steven M Strasberg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Sean P Martin; Samantha Ruff; Laurence P Diggs; Justin Drake; Reed I Ayabe; Zachary J Brown; Michael M Wach; Seth M Steinberg; Jeremy L Davis; Jonathan M Hernandez Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Sidrah Khan; Rachel E Beard; Peter T Kingham; Yuman Fong; Thomas Boerner; John B Martinie; Dioneses Vrochides; Joseph F Buell; Eren Berber; Bora Kahramangil; Roberto I Troisi; Aude Vanlander; Michele Molinari; Allan Tsung Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-07-09 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Omar Hyder; Ioannis Hatzaras; Georgios C Sotiropoulos; Andreas Paul; Sorin Alexandrescu; Hugo Marques; Carlo Pulitano; Eduardo Barroso; Bryan M Clary; Luca Aldrighetti; Cristina R Ferrone; Andrew X Zhu; Todd W Bauer; Dustin M Walters; Ryan Groeschl; T Clark Gamblin; J Wallis Marsh; Kevin T Nguyen; Ryan Turley; Irinel Popescu; Catherine Hubert; Stephanie Meyer; Michael A Choti; Jean-Francois Gigot; Gilles Mentha; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Omid Salehi; Vera Kazakova; Eduardo A Vega; Onur C Kutlu; Sylvia V Alarcon; Richard Freeman; Olga Kozyreva; Claudius Conrad Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-11-08 Impact factor: 3.453