scholarly journals Feasibility and Usefulness of Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Resection: Comparative Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes between Laparoscopic and Open Surgery during the Initial Period after the Introduction of Laparoscopic Anatomical Liver Resection

Author(s):  
Yusuke Ome ◽  
Michio Okabe ◽  
Kazuyuki Kawamoto
2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110604
Author(s):  
Takahiro Yoshikawa ◽  
Daisuke Hokuto ◽  
Satoshi Yasuda ◽  
Naoki Kamitani ◽  
Yasuko Matsuo ◽  
...  

Background Restrictive pulmonary dysfunction (RPD) is a risk factor for perioperative complications during gastrointestinal surgery. We hypothesized that high airway pressure due to RPD results in increased intraoperative blood loss during liver surgery. Thus, we investigated the effects of RPD on perioperative outcomes for liver resection. Methods This study included 496 patients who underwent curative liver resection at our hospital between April 2009 and April 2020. Perioperative outcomes for the RPD and control groups were compared. Restrictive pulmonary dysfunction was defined as % vital capacity <80%. Results Forty-one patients (8.3%) had RPD. No significant differences were observed in intraoperative blood losses (440 mL vs 320 mL, P = .340), overall complication rates (29.3% vs 31.2%, P = .797), or pulmonary complication rates (4.9% vs 9.0%, P = .286) between the RPD and control groups. In the 256 patients who underwent anatomical liver resection, 18 patients (7.0%) had RPD. The intraoperative blood loss was significantly higher in the RPD group (925 mL vs 456 mL, P = .013), but no differences in the overall complication rates (44.4% vs 37.3%, P = .528) or pulmonary complication rates (11.1% vs 10.5%, P = .589) between the two groups were detected. A multivariate analysis showed that RPD was an independent risk factor for intraoperative blood loss ≥500 mL during anatomical liver resection (odds ratio 4.132; 95% confidence interval 1.135-15.045; P = .031). Discussion Restrictive pulmonary dysfunction may be a risk factor for intraoperative blood loss during anatomical liver resection, which requires exposure of the main hepatic vein.


2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 402-411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takatsugu Matsumoto ◽  
Keiichi Kubota ◽  
Taku Aoki ◽  
Yukihiro Iso ◽  
Masato Kato ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 113 (6) ◽  
pp. 665-667
Author(s):  
Nicola Silvestrini ◽  
Alessandro Coppola ◽  
Francesco Ardito ◽  
Gennaro Nuzzo ◽  
Felice Giuliante

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (10) ◽  
pp. 742-750
Author(s):  
Brian K Goh ◽  
Zhongkai Wang ◽  
Ye-Xin Koh ◽  
Kai-Inn Lim

ABSTRACT Introduction: The introduction of laparoscopic surgery has changed abdominal surgery. We evaluated the evolution and changing trends associated with adoption of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and the experience of a surgeon without prior LLR experience. Methods: A retrospective review of 310 patients who underwent LLR performed by a single surgeon from 2011 to 2020 was conducted. Exclusion criteria were patients who underwent laparoscopic liver surgeries such as excision biopsy, local ablation, drainage of abscesses and deroofing of liver cysts. There were 300 cases and the cohort was divided into 5 groups of 60 patients. Results: There were 288 patients who underwent a totally minimally invasive approach, including 28 robotic-assisted procedures. Open conversion occurred for 13 (4.3%) patients; the conversion rate decreased significantly from 10% in the initial period to 3.3% subsequently. There were 83 (27.7%) major resections and 131 (43.7%) resections were performed for tumours in the difficult posterosuperior location. There were 152 (50.7%) patients with previous abdominal surgery, including 52 (17.3%) repeat liver resections for recurrent tumours, and 60 patients had other concomitant operations. According to the Iwate criteria, 135 (44.7%) were graded as high/expert difficulty. Major morbidity (>grade 3a) occurred in 12 (4.0%) patients and there was no 30-day mortality. Comparison across the 5 patient groups demonstrated a significant trend towards older patients, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, increasing frequency of LLR with previous abdominal surgery, increasing frequency of portal hypertension and huge tumours, decreasing blood loss and decreasing transfusion rate across the study period. Surgeon experience (≤60 cases) and Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) high grade resections were independent predictors of open conversion. Open conversion was associated with worse perioperative outcomes such as increased blood loss, transfusion rate, morbidity and length of stay. Conclusion: LLR can be safely adopted for resections of all difficulty grades, including major resections and for tumours located in the difficult posterosuperior segments, with a low open conversion rate. Keywords: Laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic liver resection, robotic hepatectomy, robotic liver resection, Singapore


Author(s):  
Z. A. Azizzoda ◽  
K. M. Kurbonov ◽  
K. R. Ruziboyzoda ◽  
S. G. Ali-Zade

Aim. Improving outcomes of diagnosis and treatment of patients with liver echinococcosis and its complications. Materials and methods. A comparative analysis of the results of surgical treatment of liver echinococcosis and its complications with traditional laparotomy access surgery (control group) and minimally invasive interventions (main group) was performed.Results. The study included 300 patients (170 in the control and 130 in the main group). In the main group, 37 (28.4%) cases performed open echinococcectomy from various mini-accesses, and 27 (20.7%) performed twostage operations using minimally invasive technology. Laparoscopic echinococcectomy was performed in 23 (17.7%) patients, laparoscopic pericystectomy 12 (9.2%) and laparoscopic liver resection in 10 (7.7%) patients. The frequency of postoperative complications in the main group was 17.7%, in the control 51.8%, postoperative mortality decreased from 2.3% to 0.8%.Conclusion. Minimally invasive technologies in the surgical treatment of liver echinococcosis show the better immediate results compared to traditional open surgical methods.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Staehler ◽  
Jessica Kruse ◽  
Nicolas Haseke ◽  
Thomas Stadler ◽  
Alexander Roosen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document