Théophile Guilbaud1,2,3, Carlotta Feretti4,5, Waclaw Holowko4,5, Giovanni Maria Garbarino4,5, Ugo Marchese4,5, Anthony Sarran6, Marc Beaussier7, Brice Gayet4,5, David Fuks4,5. 1. Department of Digestive, Oncological and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. theo.guilbaud@gmail.com. 2. Université Paris Descartes, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75005, Paris, France. theo.guilbaud@gmail.com. 3. Department of Digestive Disease, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris Descartes, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. theo.guilbaud@gmail.com. 4. Department of Digestive, Oncological and Metabolic Surgery, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 5. Université Paris Descartes, 15 rue de l'école de médecine, 75005, Paris, France. 6. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 7. Department of Anesthesiology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic major hepatectomy, analysis of outcomes according to specimen extraction site remains poorly described. The aim was to compare postoperative outcomes according to specimen extraction site. METHODS: From 2000 to 2017, all laparoscopic major hepatectomies were reviewed and postoperative outcomes were analyzed according to specimen extraction site: subcostal (Group 1), midline (Group 2), or suprapubic (Group 3) incision. RESULTS: Among 163 patients, 15 (9.2%) belonged to Group 1, 49 (30.1%) in Group 2, and 99 (60.7%) in Group 3. The proportion of right-sided, left-sided, or central hepatectomies, mortality, and overall and severe complications were comparable between groups. Group 1 had larger tumors (61 vs. 38 vs. 47 mm; P = 0.014), higher operative time (338 vs. 282 vs. 260 min; P < 0.008), higher adjacent organ resection rate (46.6 vs. 16.3 vs. 7.1%; P < 0.001), and tended to increase pulmonary complications (40.0 vs. 12.2 vs. 18.2%; P = 0.064). In Group 2, a previous midline incision scar was more frequently used for specimen extraction site (65.3 vs. 26.6 and 30.3%, Group 1 and 3; P < 0.001). Postoperative incisional hernia was observed in 16.4% (n = 23) and was more frequent in Group 2 (26.6 vs. 6.6% and 10.1%, Group 1 and Group 3; P = 0.030). Finally, Group 2 (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.41-3.53; P = 0.032) was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: While using a previous incision makes sense, the increased risk of postoperative incisional hernia after midline incision promotes the suprapubic incision.
BACKGROUND: In laparoscopic major hepatectomy, analysis of outcomes according to specimen extraction site remains poorly described. The aim was to compare postoperative outcomes according to specimen extraction site. METHODS: From 2000 to 2017, all laparoscopic major hepatectomies were reviewed and postoperative outcomes were analyzed according to specimen extraction site: subcostal (Group 1), midline (Group 2), or suprapubic (Group 3) incision. RESULTS: Among 163 patients, 15 (9.2%) belonged to Group 1, 49 (30.1%) in Group 2, and 99 (60.7%) in Group 3. The proportion of right-sided, left-sided, or central hepatectomies, mortality, and overall and severe complications were comparable between groups. Group 1 had larger tumors (61 vs. 38 vs. 47 mm; P = 0.014), higher operative time (338 vs. 282 vs. 260 min; P < 0.008), higher adjacent organ resection rate (46.6 vs. 16.3 vs. 7.1%; P < 0.001), and tended to increase pulmonary complications (40.0 vs. 12.2 vs. 18.2%; P = 0.064). In Group 2, a previous midline incision scar was more frequently used for specimen extraction site (65.3 vs. 26.6 and 30.3%, Group 1 and 3; P < 0.001). Postoperative incisional hernia was observed in 16.4% (n = 23) and was more frequent in Group 2 (26.6 vs. 6.6% and 10.1%, Group 1 and Group 3; P = 0.030). Finally, Group 2 (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.41-3.53; P = 0.032) was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative incisional hernia. CONCLUSIONS: While using a previous incision makes sense, the increased risk of postoperative incisional hernia after midline incision promotes the suprapubic incision.
Authors: Eva B Deerenberg; Joris J Harlaar; Ewout W Steyerberg; Harold E Lont; Helena C van Doorn; Joos Heisterkamp; Bas Pl Wijnhoven; Willem R Schouten; Huib A Cense; Hein Bac Stockmann; Frits J Berends; F Paul Hlj Dijkhuizen; Roy S Dwarkasing; An P Jairam; Gabrielle H van Ramshorst; Gert-Jan Kleinrensink; Johannes Jeekel; Johan F Lange Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Lawrence Lee; Juan Mata; Raoul A Droeser; Pepa Kaneva; Sender Liberman; Patrick Charlebois; Barry Stein; Gerald M Fried; Liane S Feldman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Meidai Kasai; Federica Cipriani; Brice Gayet; Luca Aldrighetti; Francesca Ratti; Juan M Sarmiento; Olivier Scatton; Ki-Hun Kim; Ibrahim Dagher; Baki Topal; John Primrose; Takeo Nomi; David Fuks; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: Surgery Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.982