Laparoscopic Left Hemihepatectomy for Left-sided Hepatolithiasis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2015;25:347-350. [PMID: 26121543 DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000173]

Nomogram predicting surgical risk of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis

OBJECTIVE

To explore the surgical risk factors of laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis and establish and validate a nomogram to estimate the corresponding surgical risks.

METHODS

Patients with hepatolithiasis who underwent laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy were retrospectively enrolled. Demographic data, clinicopathological parameters, and surgical factors were collected. Three hundred fifty-three patients were enrolled and randomly divided into training set (n=267) and validation set (n=86) by 3:1. Conversion to laparotomy was used as a surrogate index to evaluate the surgical risk. Univariate analysis was used to screen potential surgical risk factors, and multivariate analysis using logistic regression model was used to screen independent surgical risk factors. Nomogram predicting the surgical risks was established based on the independent risk factors. Discrimination, calibration, decision curve, and clinical impact analyses were used to evaluate the performance of the nomogram on the statistical and clinical aspects both in the training and validation sets.

RESULTS

Five independent surgical risk factors were identified in the training set, including recurrent abdominal pain, bile duct stricture, ASA classification ≥2, extent of liver resection, and biliary tract T tube drainage. No collinearity was found among these five factors, and a nomogram was established. Performance analyses of the nomogram showed good discrimination (AUC=0.850 and 0.817) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, p=0.530 and 0.930) capabilities both in the training and validation sets. Decision curve and clinical impact analyses also showed that the prediction performance was clinically valuable.

CONCLUSIONS

A nomogram was established and validated to be effective in evaluating and predicting the surgical risk of patients undergoing laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomies for hepatolithiasis.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hepatic caudate lobectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy (LHCL) for treating liver tumor by comparing with the open hepatic caudate lobectomy (OHCL).

METHODS

In the LHCL group, we included 24 patients with liver tumor received LHCL in Qilu Hospital of the Shandong University from January 2014 to January 2019. Meanwhile, 24 matched liver tumor patients underwent OHCL in our hospital served as control. Then we compared the patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes between LHCL group and OHCL group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, age, degree of cirrhosis, tumor size, preoperative liver function, Child-Pugh grading, proportion of liver cirrhosis, and tumor size between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). No death was reported in both groups. The length of incision in LHCL group was significantly lower than that in OHCL group (4.22 ± 1.14 cm vs. 22.46 ± 4.40 cm, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in LHCL group was significantly lower than that of OHCL group (116.82 ± 71.61 ml vs. 371.74 ± 579.35 ml, P = 0.047). The total operation time, Pringle maneuver occlusion time, and blocking rate in LHCL group showed no statistical difference compared with those of the OHCL group (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 24 and 48 h showed no statistical differences between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). Compared with the OHCL group, significant decrease was noticed in the proportion of patients with severe pain 48 h after surgery (0 vs. 4.25 ± 0.46, P < 0.001) and dezocine consumption (90.45 ± 45.77 mg vs. 131.6 ± 81.30 mg, P = 0.0448) in the LHCL group.

CONCLUSION

LHCL is effective and feasible for treating liver tumor, which is featured by reducing intraoperative blood loss and serious pain.

A new strategy of laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotomy for complex hemihepatolithiasis: A propensity score matching study

BACKGROUND

There have been no studies on laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotripsy for the treatment of complex hemihepatolithiasis. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein combined with transhepatic duct lithotomy to treat complex hemihepatolithiasis.

METHODS

The clinical data for patients who underwent laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy for complex intrahepatic bile duct stones with or without common bile duct stones from January 2016 to June 2020 were prospectively collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to surgical approach: laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein (middle hepatic vein group) or laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy not guided by the middle hepatic vein (nonmiddle hepatic vein group). The safety and short-term and long-term efficacy outcomes of the 2 groups were compared with 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

With only a slightly longer operative time (P = .006), the initial and final stone residual rates in the middle hepatic vein group (n = 70) were significantly lower than those in the nonmiddle hepatic vein group (n = 70) (P = .002, P = .009). The bile leakage rate and stone recurrence rate were also significantly lower (P = .001, P = .001).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic anatomical hemihepatectomy guided by the middle hepatic vein is safe and effective for treating intrahepatic bile duct stones and can decrease the stone residual rate, reduce the bile leakage rate and stone recurrence rate, and accelerate early recovery. However, owing to the complicated technical requirements for surgeons and anesthesiologists, use of the procedure is limited to large and experienced medical centers.

Long-term efficacy and advantages of minimally invasive hepatectomy for hepatolithiasis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatolithiasis commonly occurs in the bile duct proximal to the confluence of the right and left hepatic ducts, regardless of the coexistence of gallstones in gallbladder or the common bile duct. Clinical research proves that minimally invasive surgery is effective in the treatment of hepatolithiasis. Although previous meta-analysis also shows that it could reduce intraoperative bleeding and blood transfusion, and shorten hospital stay time, there are few meta-analyses on its long-term efficacy. We conducted the meta-analysis and systematic review to systematically evaluate the long-term efficacy and advantages of minimally invasive hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

METHODS

Articles of randomized controlled trials will be searched in the PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database, Chinese Biological and Medical database, and Wanfang database until September, 2020. Literature extraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed by 2 reviewers independently. Statistical analysis will be conducted in RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

This study will summarize the present evidence by exploring the long-term efficacy and advantages of minimally invasive hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatolithiasis CONCLUSIONS:: The findings of the study will help to determine potential long-term efficacy and advantages of minimally invasive hepatectomy in the treatment of hepatolithiasis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The private information from individuals will not be published. This systematic review also will not involve endangering participant rights. Ethical approval is not required. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences.

OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER

DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/H6WRV.

Single versus multiple port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Single port laparoscopic hepatectomy has been applied in some surgeries. We aimed to describe our experience with single port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (SPLS) and to compare the safety and feasibility of this technique with those of conventional multi-port laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy (MPLS) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A total of 72 consecutive patients who underwent SPLS (n = 33) and MPLS (n = 39) for HCC were enrolled. The peri-operative parameters of safety and feasibility, as well as the short-term oncological outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The length of postoperative hospital stay (LOS) was significantly shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (4.12 vs. 4.59 days, P = 0.043). No significant difference between the two groups was found in the operation time (104.58 vs. 95.69 min in the SPLS group and MPLS group respectively, P = 0.353) or the amount of blood loss (62.73 vs. 68.46 ml, P = 0.595). The 1-year recurrence-free survival rate was 77.9% in the SPLS group and 70.7% in the MPLS group (P = 0.82). Subgroup analysis showed that for patients without cirrhosis, the LOS was shorter in the SPLS group than in the MPLS group (P = 0.033), while for patients with cirrhosis, the LOS was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.201), although it was shorter in the SPLS group.

CONCLUSIONS

SPLS was a feasible and safe surgical approach for the treatment of HCC on left lateral section.

Strategies of minimally invasive treatment for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a kind of common and multiple diseases. In recent years, traditional laparotomy has been challenged by a minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review, the therapeutic method, effect, and complications of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones by combining our practical experience were summarized as follows. (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, the operation may be selected by laparoscopic liver resection, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy. (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, the surgical approach can be selected as follows: laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation, LC plus laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration, LC plus LCBDE, and T-tube drainage or primary suture. (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross section, LCBDE, EST, and percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be used. According to the abovementioned principle, the minimally invasive treatment approach combined with the surgical technique and equipment condition will be significant in improving the therapeutic effect and avoiding the postoperative complications or hidden dangers of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.

Surgical management of hepatolithiasis: A minireview

Hepatolithiasis is highly prevalent in Asia but rare in Western countries. However, the incidence of hepatolithiasis may be increasing in Western countries due to the increased rate of immigration from areas where hepatolithiasis is prevalent. There are many non-surgical treatments for hepatolithiasis, but surgical management remains the best curative treatment for some cases of hepatolithiasis. Surgical treatments can remove biliary stones and relieve stricture of the bile ducts. This review describes the indications for and the outcomes of surgical treatment of hepatolithiasis, including liver resection and liver transplantation.

Strategy of minimally invasive surgery for patients with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones

Cholelithiasis is a common, frequently occurring disease. In recent years, traditional laparotomy is challenged by minimally invasive surgery. Through literature review combined with our practical experience based on the present situation of minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, a strategy for improving the effectiveness of minimally invasive treatment is discussed as follows: (1) For intrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic hepatectomy, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE), or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy can be chosen according to the indications; (2) For concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) + endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) or endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), LC + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), LC + LCBDE + T tube drainage or primary suture can be chosen according to the indications; (3) For concomitant intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones, laparoscopic liver resection, choledochoscopy through the hepatic duct orifice on the hepatectomy cross-section, LCBDE, EST, or percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopic lithotripsy could be chosen according to the indications. Reasonable selection of minimally invasive treatments according to this strategy is of great significance to improve the therapeutic effect for intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct stones.