4.5 Article

Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: Clinical Outcomes and Classification

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 38, 期 12, 页码 3169-3174

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2724-7

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

According to the Louisville Statement, laparoscopic major hepatectomy is a heterogeneous category that includes traditional trisectionectomies/hemi-hepatectomies and the technically challenging resection of segments 4a, 7, and 8. The aims of this study were to assess differences in clinical outcomes between laparoscopic traditional major hepatectomy and resection of difficult-to-access posterosuperior segments and to define whether the current classification is clinically valid or needs revision. We reviewed a prospectively collected single-center database of 390 patients undergoing pure laparoscopic liver resection. A total of 156 patients who had undergone laparoscopic major hepatectomy according to the Louisville Statement were divided into two subcategories: laparoscopic traditional major hepatectomy (LTMH), including hemi-hepatectomies and trisegmentectomies, and laparoscopic posterosuperior major hepatectomy (LPMH), including resection of posterosuperior segments 4a, 7, and 8. LTMH and LPMH subgroups were compared with respect to demographics, intraoperative variables, and postoperative outcomes. LTMH was performed in 127 patients (81 %) and LPMH in 29 (19 %). Operation time was a median 330 min for LTMH and 210 min for LPMH (p < 0.0001). Blood loss was a median 500 ml for LTMH and 300 ml for LPMH (p = 0.005). Conversion rate was 9 % for LTMH and nil for LPMH (p = 0.219). In all, 28 patients (22 %) developed postoperative complications after LTMH and 5 (17 %) after LPMH (p = 0.801). Mortality rate was 1.6 % after LTMH and nil after LPMH. Hospital stay was a median 5 days after LTMH and 4 days after LPMH (p = 0.026). The creation of two subcategories of laparoscopic major hepatectomy seems appropriate to reflect differences in intraoperative and postoperative outcomes between LTMH and LPMH.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据