| Literature DB >> 31255934 |
Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti1, Roberto Bustos2, Valentina Valle1, Gabriela Aguiluz1, Yevhen Pavelko1, Eduardo Fernandes1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Liver hemangiomas are benign liver lesions that require surgical excision when large and symptomatic. Often, these tumors are removed through large anatomical resections which sacrifice more liver parenchyma than needed. Tumor enucleation, which takes advantage of a digitoclasia-like technique along the plane between the tumor pseudo-capsule and liver parenchyma, poses challenges when performed laparoscopically. We propose a parenchymal sparing, minimally invasive, robotic-assisted technique to remove liver hemangiomas. PRESENTATION OF CASES: Three male patients with symptomatic hemangiomas were treated in our center between 2015 and 2018. The lesions were located in segment II, III and segment IV-V respectively. Robotic-assisted hemangioma enucleation was accomplished successfully in all three patients. The procedures were performed with a parenchyma-sparing intent and a formal segmentectomy was not required. There were no conversions to open surgery. DISCUSSION: The robotic platform provides a powerful tool in the enucleation of liver hemangiomas. The enhanced vision and the superior suturing ability allow to develop safely the plane between the tumor pseudo-capsule and the liver parenchyma, with outstanding selective control of all the vascular supply and drainage encountered during the dissection. Furthermore, precision of the hilar dissection allows selective lobar or sectorial arterial control which helps minimize intraoperative bleeding.Entities:
Keywords: Case series; Enucleation; Hemangioma; Liver; Resection; Robotic
Year: 2019 PMID: 31255934 PMCID: PMC6610692 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.06.033
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Surg Case Rep ISSN: 2210-2612
Fig. 1Port placement.
Legend: port placement for left lobe hemangiomas (left); port placement for right lobe hemangiomas (right).
Fig. 2Pre operatory CT scan showing liver hemangioma.
Legend: Case 1 CT scan (left); Case 2 CT scan (center); Case 3 CT scan (right).
Fig. 3Superficial view of the liver mass. (Case 1).
Legend: Image comparison: bright light (left) vs ICG fluorescence (right).
Summary of patient demographics and outcomes.
| Case | Gender | Age | BMI (kg/m2) | ASA | Liver Segment | Procedure | Tran. | OT (min) | EBL (mL) | Morb. | Mort. | LOS (days) | Pathology |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 42 | 24.87 | 1 | II | Robotic enucleation of angioma | 0 | 146 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 3 | Hemangioma |
| 2 | M | 45 | 27.36 | 2 | III | Robotic enucleation of angioma | 0 | 121 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 4 | Cavernous hemangioma |
| 3 | M | 61 | 25.49 | 2 | IV-V | Robotic enucleation of angioma + Cholecystetomy | 2 units | 193 | 600 | PE | 0 | 5 | Hemangioma |
BMI = Body Mass index; ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists score; Tran. = Transfusion; OT = Operative time; EBL = Estimated blood loss; Morb. = Morbidity; Mort. = Mortality; LOS = length of stay; PE = Pulmonary embolism.
Fig. 4Hemangioma enucleation (Case 2).
Legend: Resection using Harmonic shears (left); Small vessel transection in between sutures (right).
Fig. 5Deep Giant hemangioma involving the majority of segment IV (Case 3).
Legend: superficial view (left); Hemangioma detachment following the pseudo capsule plane (right).