Mohammed Abu Hilal1, Luca Aldrighetti2, Francesca Ratti3, Arab Rawashdeh1, Federica Cipriani2, John Primrose1, Guido Fiorentini2. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 2. Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milano, Italy. 3. Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milano, Italy. ratti.francesca@hsr.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to analyze the outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for (Intrahepatic CholangioCarcinoma) ICC in the modern era of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS:Patients undergoing laparoscopic and open liver resections for ICC in two European referral centers were included. Finally, 104 patients from the open group and 104 patients from the laparoscopic group were compared after propensity scores matching according to seven covariates representative of patients and disease characteristics. Indications to surgery and short- and long-term outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Operative time, number of retrieved nodes, rate, and depth of negative resection margins were comparable between the two groups. Blood loss was lower in the MILS (150 ± 100 mL, mean ± SD) compared with the Open group (350 ± 250 mL, p = 0.030). Postoperative complications occurred in 14.4% of patients in the MILS and in the 24% of patients in the Open group (p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in long-term outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm feasibility, safety, and oncological efficiency of the laparoscopic approach in the management of ICC. However, this surgery is often complex and should be only considered in centers with large experience in laparoscopic liver surgery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Laparoscopy; Liver resection; Minimally invasive; New technique
Authors: Shishir K Maithel; T Clark Gamblin; Ihab Kamel; Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos; Melanie Thomas; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 6.860
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: Qinyu Chen; Fabio Bagante; Katiuscha Merath; Jay Idrees; Eliza W Beal; Jordan Cloyd; Mary Dillhoff; Carl Schmidt; Adrian Diaz; Susan White; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Francesco De Cobelli; Paolo Marra; Francesca Ratti; Alessandro Ambrosi; Michele Colombo; Anna Damascelli; Claudio Sallemi; Simone Gusmini; Marco Salvioni; Pietro Diana; Federica Cipriani; Massimo Venturini; Luca Aldrighetti; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 3.064
Authors: Gaya Spolverato; Fabio Bagante; Cecilia G Ethun; George Poultsides; Thuy Tran; Kamran Idrees; Chelsea A Isom; Ryan C Fields; Bradley Krasnick; Emily Winslow; Clifford Cho; Robert C G Martin; Charles R Scoggins; Perry Shen; Harveshp D Mogal; Carl Schmidt; Eliza Beal; Ioannis Hatzaras; Rivfka Shenoy; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: World J Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Philipp K Haber; Christoph Maier; Anika Kästner; Linda Feldbrügge; Santiago Andres Ortiz Galindo; Dominik Geisel; Uli Fehrenbach; Matthias Biebl; Felix Krenzien; Christian Benzing; Wenzel Schöning; Johann Pratschke; Moritz Schmelzle Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Yang Jinhuan; Wang Yi; Zheng Yuanwen; Ma Delin; Chen Xiaotian; Wang Yan; Deng Liming; Yu Haitao; Wu Lijun; Deng Tuo; Chen Kaiyu; Hu Jiawei; Zheng Chongming; Wang Daojie; Jin Bin; Chen Gang Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 6.244