How Does Laparoscopic-Assisted Hepatic Resection Compare with the Conventional Open Surgical Approach?

Johnson, Lynt B.; Graham, Jay A.; Weiner, David A.; Smirniotopoulos, John

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.12.044

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter 2 were excluded according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines. 27 Finally, 16 articles 10,15,18,[22][23][24][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] were selected for full-text review, and of these, 5 articles were excluded for the following reasons: 1 article 37 was excluded because it did not compare the results of donor patients (only recipient intraoperative data were evaluated); 2 articles 10,35 were excluded because they were composed of a series of hepatectomies for different diseases without the description of a separate analysis of living donor procedures; 1 article 36 was excluded because the procedure described was not considered to be a minimally invasive technique; and another 34 was excluded because it was redundant and included lower quality series from the same institute.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Berardi¹,

Tomassini²,

Troisi³

2015

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Living donor liver transplantation is a valid alternative to deceased donor liver transplantation, and its safety and feasibility have been well determined. Minimally invasive living donor hepatectomy (MILDH) has taken some time to be accepted because of inherent technical difficulties and the highly demanding surgical skills needed to perform the procedure, and its role is still being debated. Because of the lack of data, a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing MILDH and open living donor hepatectomy (OLDH) was performed. A systematic literature search was performed with PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Central. Treatment outcomes, including blood loss, operative time, hospital stay, analgesia use, donor-recipient morbidity and mortality, and donor procedure costs, were analyzed. There were 573 articles, and a total of 11, dated between 2006 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria and were, therefore, included. These 11 studies included a total of 608 adult patients. Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a therapeutic modality alternative to liver transplantation with a deceased donor. The first procedure was described in 1989 by Raia et al., 1 and Strong et al. 2 performed the first successful pediatric LDLT in 1990. Its safety and feasibility have been well documented over the past several decades, and it is considered a valid and lifesaving procedure, especially in countries where there are few or no options for deceased organ donation. However, LDLT is accompanied by a certain donor morbidity risk that has hindered adoption of the procedure for routine use worldwide. [3][4][5] Morbidity still represents an important issue, with rates ranging between 20% and 40%; it Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

show abstract

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Berardi¹,

Tomassini²,

Troisi³

2015

Liver Transpl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A summary of surgical results of the hybrid technique is shown in Table . The mean operative time was 111–366.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 93–936 mL, the complication rate was 3.4–23.5%, and mortality rate was 0–1.1%.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vigano et al reported that the rate of hand assistance reduced from 19.0% to 12.1% (P = 0.01), while Cannon et al reported a decrease from 79.0% to 60.0% (P = 0.01) [16,17]. Table 4 [3,9,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. The mean operative time was 111-366.5 min, the estimated blood loss was 93-936 mL, the complication rate was 3.4-23.5%, and mortality rate was 0-1.1%.…”

Section: Halsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of the role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the hybrid technique

Hasegawa

Koffron

Buell

et al. 2015

J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laparoscopic liver resection has been established as a safe and feasible treatment option. Surgical approaches include pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy (HALS), and the hybrid technique. The role of these three approaches, and their superiority over open laparotomy, is not yet known. A literature review was performed using specific search phrases, relating to hand-assisted or hybrid approaches to laparoscopic liver resection. Surgical results from 18 case series (HALS, nine series; hybrid technique, nine series), each with ≥10 patients, were analyzed. Results indicated that HALS was associated with a mean operative time of 82-264.5 min, an estimated blood loss of 82-300 mL, and a complication rate of 3.8-27.1%. Analysis of series involving the hybrid technique indicated a mean operative time of 111-366.5 min, an estimated blood loss of 93-936 mL, and a complication rate of 3.4-23.5%. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any single approach is superior to the others, although HALS and the hybrid technique are useful when dealing with difficulties associated with pure laparoscopy. Conversely, the need for these two methods, which can function as a bridge to pure laparoscopic liver resection, may be overcome with appropriate training.

show abstract

“…With manual hand manipulation, distinct advantages associated with laparoscopic-assisted liver resection including improved acuity offered by laparoscopic camera magnification, more precise mobilization and dissection of the target lobe, more safely manual control of inflow and outflow vessels during a potential vascular mishap, and better assessment of surgical margin delineation allow an exit site for large specimen retrieval [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and Feasibility of a Laparoscopy-Assisted Non-Anatomic Resection Technique for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Located at Right Posterior Segments in Cirrhotic Patients: A Case-Controlled Study with Propensity Score Matching

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopy-assisted resection for right posterior segment (LAR-RPS) with open resection (OR-RPS) performed by experienced hepatobiliary surgeons. Methods: This was a prospective comparative nonrandomized study. Results: The groups were comparable in terms of baseline demographics and clinicopathological data. Reduced operative time (254.88 ± 78.56 vs. 347.95 ± 82.56 min; p = 0.04) and estimated blood loss (477 ± 756 vs. 712 ± 836 mL; p = 0.03) were observed in LAR-RPS. Also, signiﬁcant less duration of hospital stay (7.53 ± 2.68 vs. 12.57 ± 3.21 days; p < 0.001) was associated with LAR-RPS compared to OR-RPS. Long-term oncologic outcomes were comparable in 2 groups, in terms of both the overall and disease-free survival rates (p = 0.450 and 0.463, respectively). Conclusions: This study confirms that laparoscopic-assisted resection is a safe and effective operative procedure in those cirrhotic patients with a lesion in the right posterior section of the liver. When compared to the open approach, the laparoscopic-assisted approach reduces operative time and blood loss, as well as the length of hospital stay.

show abstract

How Does Laparoscopic-Assisted Hepatic Resection Compare with the Conventional Open Surgical Approach?

Cited by 19 publications

References 14 publications

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison between minimally invasive and open living donor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Approaches to laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of the role of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery and the hybrid technique

Safety and Feasibility of a Laparoscopy-Assisted Non-Anatomic Resection Technique for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Located at Right Posterior Segments in Cirrhotic Patients: A Case-Controlled Study with Propensity Score Matching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About