Il Han Jeung1, Sung Hoon Choi2, Seungki Kim1, Sung Won Kwon1. 1. Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Cancer Research Building #524, 59 Yatap-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-712, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Cancer Research Building #524, 59 Yatap-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-712, Korea. feel415@cha.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic central bisectionectomy and right anterior sectionectomy for centrally located tumors are technically demanding surgeries. Here, we introduce our laparoscopic technique and present the associated perioperative outcomes relative to an open approach. METHODS: From April 2014 to November 2017, 26 patients underwent central bisectionectomy or right anterior sectionectomy. A total of 17 patients underwent the laparoscopic approach and nine underwent an open approach. We used a perihilar Glissonian approach to determine each anatomical resection plane and employed a rubber band self-retraction technique to ensure proper exposure of the two resection planes. Detailed descriptions, illustrations, video, and perioperative outcomes of the approach are presented. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent the laparoscopic approach, there were no cases of conversion to open surgery. The mean operative times for the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (333 ± 76 vs. 305 ± 62 min, respectively, p = 0.345). Intraoperative blood loss (535 ± 443 vs. 966 ± 650, p = 0.056) and postoperative complications (1 vs. 3, p = 0.065) were slightly less in the laparoscopic group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Surgical margins of both approaches were comparable (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2 cm, p = 0.671). The length of hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.8 ± 2.6 vs. 17.1 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach for central bisectionectomy and right anterior sectionectomy described in this study is feasible and safe with respect to short-term perioperative outcomes and may provide several benefits commonly attributed to minimally invasive surgery in selected patients.
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic central bisectionectomy and right anterior sectionectomy for centrally located tumors are technically demanding surgeries. Here, we introduce our laparoscopic technique and present the associated perioperative outcomes relative to an open approach. METHODS: From April 2014 to November 2017, 26 patients underwent central bisectionectomy or right anterior sectionectomy. A total of 17 patients underwent the laparoscopic approach and nine underwent an open approach. We used a perihilar Glissonian approach to determine each anatomical resection plane and employed a rubber band self-retraction technique to ensure proper exposure of the two resection planes. Detailed descriptions, illustrations, video, and perioperative outcomes of the approach are presented. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent the laparoscopic approach, there were no cases of conversion to open surgery. The mean operative times for the laparoscopic and open groups were similar (333 ± 76 vs. 305 ± 62 min, respectively, p = 0.345). Intraoperative blood loss (535 ± 443 vs. 966 ± 650, p = 0.056) and postoperative complications (1 vs. 3, p = 0.065) were slightly less in the laparoscopic group, but the difference was not statistically significant. Surgical margins of both approaches were comparable (0.8 ± 0.6 vs. 0.7 ± 0.2 cm, p = 0.671). The length of hospital stay after surgery was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic group (8.8 ± 2.6 vs. 17.1 ± 12.7 days, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach for central bisectionectomy and right anterior sectionectomy described in this study is feasible and safe with respect to short-term perioperative outcomes and may provide several benefits commonly attributed to minimally invasive surgery in selected patients.
Authors: Thomas M van Gulik; Jacomina W van den Esschert; Wilmar de Graaf; Krijn P van Lienden; Olivier R C Busch; Michal Heger; Otto M van Delden; Johan S Laméris; Dirk J Gouma Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Ser Yee Lee; Eran Sadot; Joanne F Chou; Mithat Gönen; Thomas Peter Kingham; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Moritz Koch; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Nuh N Rahbari; Rene Adam; Lorenzo Capussotti; Sheung Tat Fan; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Michael Crawford; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Mark Brooke-Smith; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Ronald P DeMatteo; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-02-12 Impact factor: 3.982
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