Complications of liver resection: laparoscopic versus open procedures.

Department of Surgery, Tulane University School of Medicine, 1430 Tulane Ave, SL-22, New Orleans, LA 70112-2699, USA. .
JSLS: Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons / Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons (Impact Factor: 0.79). 01/2013; 17(1):46-55. DOI: 10.4293/108680812X13517013317716
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Minimally invasive surgery for liver resection remains controversial. This study was designed to compare open versus laparoscopic surgical approaches to liver resection.
We performed a single-center retrospective chart review.
We compared 45 laparoscopic liver resections with 17 open cases having equivalent resections based on anatomy and diagnosis. The overall complication rate was 25.8%. More open resection patients had complications (52.9% vs 15.5%, P < .008). The conversion rate was 11.1%. The mean blood loss was 667.1 ± 1450 mL in open cases versus 47.8 ± 89 mL in laparoscopic cases (P < .0001). Measures of intravenous narcotic use, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay all favored the laparoscopic group. Patients were more likely to have complications or morbidity in the open resection group than in the laparoscopic group for both the anterolateral (P < .085) and posterosuperior (P < .002) resection subgroups.
In this series comparing laparoscopic and open liver resections, there were fewer complications, more rapid recovery, and lower morbidity in the laparoscopic group, even for those resections involving the posterosuperior segments of the liver.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) is a complex procedure, offered to selected patients at institutions highly experienced with the procedure. It is still not clear if this approach may enhance patient recovery and reduce postoperative complications comparing to open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD), as demonstrated for other abdominal procedures. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted to identify studies comparing MIPD and OPD. Perioperative outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, pancreatic fistula rates, blood loss) constituted the study end points. Metaanalyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results For the metaanalysis, 8 studies including 204 patients undergoing MIPD and 419 patients undergoing OPD were considered suitable. The patients in the two groups were similar with respect to age, sex and histological diagnosis, and different with respect to tumor size, rate of pylorus preservation, and type of pancreatic anastomosis. There were no statistically significant differences between MIPD and OPD regarding development of delayed gastric emptying (DGE), pancreatic fistula, wound infection, or rates of reoperation and overall mortality. MIDP resulted in lower post-operative complication rates, less intra-operative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, lower blood transfusion rates, higher numbers of harvested lymph nodes, and improved negative margin status rates. However, MIPD was associated with longer operating times when compared to OPD. Conclusions The MIPD procedure is feasible, safe, and effective in selected patients. MIPD may have some potential advantages over OPD, and should be performed and further developed by use in selected patients at highly experienced medical centers.
    The surgeon: journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland 08/2014; 12(4). DOI:10.1016/j.surge.2014.01.006 · 2.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite inception over 15 years ago and over 3000 completed procedures, laparoscopic liver resection has remained mainly in the domain of selected centers and enthusiasts. Requirement of extensive open liver resection (OLR) experience, in-depth understanding of anatomy and considerable laparoscopic technical expertise may have delayed wide application. However healthy scepticism of its actual benefits and presence of a potential publication bias; concern about its safety and technical learning curve, are probably equally responsible. Given that a large proportion of our work, at least in transplantation is still OLR, we have attempted to provide an entirely unbiased, mature opinion of its pros and cons in the current invited review. We have divided this review into two sections as we believe they merit separate attention on technical and ethical grounds. The first part deals with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in patients who present with benign or malignant liver pathology, wherein we have discussed its overall outcomes; its feasibility based on type of pathology and type of resection and included a small section on application of LLR in special scenarios like cirrhosis. The second part deals with the laparoscopic living donor hepatectomy (LDH) experience to date, including its potential impact on transplantation in general. Donor safety, graft outcomes after LDH and criterion to select ideal donors for LLR are discussed. Within each section we have provided practical points to improve safety in LLR and attempted to reach reasonable recommendations on the utilization of LLR for units that wish to develop such a service.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional laparotomy with those of robotic and laparoscopic approaches to hepatectomy. Independent reviewers conducted a systematic review of publications in PubMed and Embase, with searches limited to comparative articles of laparoscopic hepatectomy with either conventional or robotic liver approaches. Outcomes included total operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospitalization, resection margins, postoperative complications, perioperative mortality rates, and cost measures. Outcome comparisons were calculated using random-effects models to pool estimates of mean net differences or of the relative risk between group outcomes. Forty-nine articles, representing 3702 patients, comprise this analysis: 1901 (51.35%) underwent a laparoscopic approach, 1741 (47.03%) underwent an open approach, and 60 (1.62%) underwent a robotic approach. There was no difference in total operative times, surgical margins, or perioperative mortality rates among groups. Across all outcome measures, laparoscopic and robotic approaches showed no difference. As compared with the minimally invasive groups, patients undergoing laparotomy had a greater estimated blood loss (pooled mean net change, 152.0 mL; 95% confidence interval, 103.3-200.8 mL), a longer length of hospital stay (pooled mean difference, 2.22 days; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-2.66 days), and a higher total complication rate (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.57). Minimally invasive approaches to liver resection are as safe as conventional laparotomy, affording less estimated blood loss, shorter lengths of hospitalization, lower perioperative complication rates, and equitable oncologic integrity and postoperative mortality rates. There was no proven advantage of robotic approaches compared with laparoscopic approaches.
    01/2015; 19(1). DOI:10.4293/JSLS.2014.00186

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Mar 11, 2015