BACKGROUND: The benefits of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to open hemi-hepatectomy are not clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to share our experience with the laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to an open approach. METHODS: A total of 40 consecutive laparoscopically started hemi-hepatectomy (intention-to-treat analysis) cases between August 2012 and October 2015 were matched against open cases using the following criteria: laterality of surgery and pathology (essential criteria); American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, pre-operative bilirubin, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, additional procedures, portal vein embolization, and presence of cirrhosis/fibrosis on histology (secondary criteria); age and gender (tertiary criteria). Hand-assisted and extended hemi-hepatectomy cases were excluded from the study. The two groups were compared for blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes. All complications were quantified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Two groups were well matched (p = 1.00). In the two groups, 10 patients had left and 30 had right hemi-hepatectomy. Overall conversion rate was 15%. Median length of hospital and high dependency unit stay was less in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.025 and 1 versus 2 days, p = 0.07. Median operative time was longer in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 420 min (range: 389.5-480) versus 305 min (range: 238.8-348.8; p = 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss was equivalent, but the overall blood transfusions were higher in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy (50 vs 29 units, p = 0.36). The overall morbidity (18 vs 20 patients, p = 0.65), mortality (2.5%), and the positive resection margin status were similar (18% vs 21%, p = 0.76). The 1- (87.5% vs 92.5%, p = 0.71) and 3-year survival (70% vs 72.5%, p = 1.00) was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: We observed lower hospital and high dependency unit stay in the laparoscopic group. However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating time and a non-significant increase in blood transfusion requirements. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, re-admission rate, and oncological outcomes.
BACKGROUND: The benefits of laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to open hemi-hepatectomy are not clear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to share our experience with the laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy compared to an open approach. METHODS: A total of 40 consecutive laparoscopically started hemi-hepatectomy (intention-to-treat analysis) cases between August 2012 and October 2015 were matched against open cases using the following criteria: laterality of surgery and pathology (essential criteria); American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, pre-operative bilirubin, neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, additional procedures, portal vein embolization, and presence of cirrhosis/fibrosis on histology (secondary criteria); age and gender (tertiary criteria). Hand-assisted and extended hemi-hepatectomy cases were excluded from the study. The two groups were compared for blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcomes. All complications were quantified using the Clavien-Dindo classification. RESULTS: Two groups were well matched (p = 1.00). In the two groups, 10 patients had left and 30 had right hemi-hepatectomy. Overall conversion rate was 15%. Median length of hospital and high dependency unit stay was less in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 6 versus 8 days, p = 0.025 and 1 versus 2 days, p = 0.07. Median operative time was longer in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy group: 420 min (range: 389.5-480) versus 305 min (range: 238.8-348.8; p = 0.001). Intra-operative blood loss was equivalent, but the overall blood transfusions were higher in the intention to treat laparoscopic hemi-hepatectomy (50 vs 29 units, p = 0.36). The overall morbidity (18 vs 20 patients, p = 0.65), mortality (2.5%), and the positive resection margin status were similar (18% vs 21%, p = 0.76). The 1- (87.5% vs 92.5%, p = 0.71) and 3-year survival (70% vs 72.5%, p = 1.00) was also similar. CONCLUSIONS: We observed lower hospital and high dependency unit stay in the laparoscopic group. However, the laparoscopic approach was associated with longer operating time and a non-significant increase in blood transfusion requirements. There was no difference in morbidity, mortality, re-admission rate, and oncological outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hemi-hepatectomy; bile leak; laparoscopy; liver resection