Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy: surgical technique and our results from Leeds

Laparoscopic liver resection: Experience based guidelines

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed along the past two decades. Despite initial skepticism, improved operative results made laparoscopic approach incorporated to surgical practice and operations increased in frequency and complexity. Evidence supporting LLR comes from case-series, comparative studies and meta-analysis. Despite lack of level 1 evidence, the body of literature is stronger and existing data confirms the safety, feasibility and benefits of laparoscopic approach when compared to open resection. Indications for LLR do not differ from those for open surgery. They include benign and malignant (both primary and metastatic) tumors and living donor liver harvesting. Currently, resection of lesions located on anterolateral segments and left lateral sectionectomy are performed systematically by laparoscopy in hepatobiliary specialized centers. Resection of lesions located on posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8) and major liver resections were shown to be feasible but remain technically demanding procedures, which should be reserved to experienced surgeons. Hand-assisted and laparoscopy-assisted procedures appeared to increase the indications of minimally invasive liver surgery and are useful strategies applied to difficult and major resections. LLR proved to be safe for malignant lesions and offers some short-term advantages over open resection. Oncological results including resection margin status and long-term survival were not inferior to open resection. At present, surgical community expects high quality studies to base the already perceived better outcomes achieved by laparoscopy in major centers’ practice. Continuous surgical training, as well as new technologies should augment the application of laparoscopic liver surgery. Future applicability of new technologies such as robot assistance and image-guided surgery is still under investigation.

A cost effective analysis of a laparoscopic versus an open left lateral sectionectomy in a liver transplant unit

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) compared with an open (OLLS) procedure and its role as a training operation as well as the learning curve associated with a laparoscopic approach.

METHOD

Between 2004 and 2013, a prospectively maintained database was reviewed. LLLS were compared with age- and sex-matched OLLS. In addition, the outcomes of LLLS with a consultant as the primary surgeon were compared with those performed by trainees.

RESULTS

Forty-three LLLS were performed during the study period. LLLS was a significantly cheaper operation compared with OLLS (P = 0.001, £3594.14 versus £5593.41). The median hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.002, 3 versus 7 days). No difference was found in outcomes between a LLLS performed by a trainee or consultant (operating time, morbidity or R1 resection rate). The procedure length was significantly shorter during the later half of the study period [120 versus 129 min (P = 0.045)].

CONCLUSION

LLLS is a significantly cost effective operation compared with an open approach with a reduction in hospital stay. In addition, it is suitable to use as a training operation.

Rationale and surgical technique of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy using endoscopic staples

Purpose

Laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (LLLS) has been widely accepted due to benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Some surgeons prefer to isolate glissonian pedicles to segments II and III and to control individual pedicles with surgical clips, whereas opt like to control glissonian pedicles simultaneously using endoscopic stapling devices. The aim of this study was to find the rationale of LLLS using endoscopic staples.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed and compared the clinical outcomes (operation time, drainage length, transfusion, hospital stay, and complication rate) of 35 patients that underwent LLLS between April 2004 and February 2012. Patients were dichotomized by surgical technique based on whether glissonian pedicles were isolated and controlled (the individual group, n = 21) or controlled using endoscopic staples at once (the batch group, n = 14).

Results

Mean operation time was 265.3 ± 21.3 minutes (mean ± standard deviation) in the individual group and 170 ± 22.9 minutes in the batch group. Operation time in the batch group was significantly shorter than the individual group (P = 0.007). Mean drainage length was 4.8 ± 1.6 and 2.6 ± 1.5 days in the individual and the batch group. There was significantly shorter in the batch group, also (P = 0.006). No transfusion was required in the batch group, but 4 patients in the individual group needed transfusion. Mean hospital stay was 10.7 ± 1.1 and 9.4 ± 0.8 days in the individual and the batch groups (P = 0.460). There were no significant complications or mortality in both groups.

Conclusion

LLLS using endoscopic staples (batch group) was found to be an easier and safer technique without morbidity or mortality.