Hepatic surgery at a VA tertiary medical center: Lessons learned
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, USA. American journal of surgery
(Impact Factor: 2.29).
11/2010; 200(5):591-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.07.014
The development of a hepatic surgery center within a US Department of Veterans Affairs hospital is dependent on proper training and institutional support, which can translate into low operative morbidity and mortality rates.
Patients who underwent hepatic procedures between 2003 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. A subset analysis of laparoscopic liver resections for patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) was performed. One hundred twenty-six patients underwent 130 hepatic procedures, 65% of which were hepatic resections. Ninety-seven percent of cases were for malignant disease, including HCC (70%).
The morbidity and mortality rates were 15.5% and 2.4%, respectively. For patients with HCC there was no difference in operative outcomes or overall survival when procedures were performed laparoscopically.
A Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital specializing in hepatic surgery can achieve low complication rates comparable with those of high-volume centers. The numbers of patient referrals and hepatic resections and the proportion of laparoscopic operations increased after the creation of a dedicated hepatic surgery center within a single VA hospital.
Available from: Lygia Stewart
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many hepatobiliary centres are increasingly utilizing thermocoagulative devices such as bipolar-radiofrequency ablation (B-RFA). Compared with monopolar-radiofrequency ablation (M-RFA), B-RFA does not require grounding pads, thereby avoiding dermal burn injuries, and does not position probes directly into the tumour but rather on the perimeter. Additionally, B-RFA can precoagulate parenchyma to assist in hepatic resection. Herein, we report our early experience using B-RFA.
A retrospective review identified 68 patients who underwent M-RFA or B-RFA between June 2004 and September 2010 in an academic centre. Peri-operative metrics were analysed.
M-RFA was used to treat 30 patients, whereas B-RFA was used for 17 patients. There were no differences in peri-operative metrics, survival or disease recurrence between M-RFA and B-RFA. Seventeen additional patients underwent B-RFA precoagulation during laparoscopic resection (segmentectomy in eleven patients and multi-segmental resection in six patients). Four patients with multifocal disease underwent procedures that combined B-RFA with resection.
The early experience utilizing B-RFA demonstrates equivalency to M-RFA with respect to peri-operative metrics and survival. Moreover, B-RFA can be utilized to precoagulate tissue during a planned resection, making it not only a useful tool for tumour therapy but also a useful adjunct during surgical resections.
HPB 09/2011; 13(9):656-64. DOI:10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00347.x · 2.68 Impact Factor
Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
Laparoscopic liver resection is growing in popularity, but the long-term outcome of patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection for malignancy has not been established. This paper is a meta-analysis and compares the long-term survival of patients undergoing laparoscopic (LHep) versus open (OHep) liver resection for the treatment of malignant liver tumours. MethodsA PubMed database search identified comparative human studies analysing LHep versus OHep for malignant tumours. Clinical and survival parameters were extracted. The search was last conducted on 18 March 2012. ResultsIn total, 1002 patients in 15 studies were included (446 LHep and 556 OHep). A meta-analysis of overall survival showed no difference [1-year: odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.20, P = 0.202; 3-years: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03, P = 0.076; 5-years: OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.10, P = 0.173]. Subset analyses of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal metastases (CRM) were performed. There was no difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival for HCC or in the 1-year survival for CRM, however, a survival advantage was found for CRM at 3years (LHep 80% versus OHep 67.4%, P = 0.036). Conclusions
Laparoscopic surgery should be considered an acceptable alternative for the treatment of malignant liver tumours.
HPB 05/2013; 16(2). DOI:10.1111/hpb.12117 · 2.68 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Hepatectomy is an advanced technique learned during surgical fellowship. Outcomes have not been described for hepatectomies involving fellows.
We analyzed hepatectomies from the 2005-2011 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. We compared cases with a fellow (FELLOW group) and those without a fellow (ATTENDING group).
FELLOW cases (n = 1,562; 54%) included more major hepatectomies and more metastasectomies (P < .002). Mortality was 3.2% versus 2.7% (P = .5) and morbidity was 30.7% vs 26.2% (P = .008) for FELLOW versus ATTENDING cases. On multivariate analysis, mortality was similar, but morbidity was greater in FELLOW cases (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.4; P = .03), with increased superficial surgical site infections (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; P = .001). There were no differences in rates of sepsis, cardiac, pulmonary, or thromboembolic complications. Compared with ATTENDING cases, FELLOW cases during the first half of training, carried greater morbidity (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1-1.8; P = .006); however, this difference disappears by the second half of the academic year.
Hepatectomy involving a fellow may be associated with an increased risk of surgical site infections. FELLOW cases were more complex. Mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, and other serious morbidities were similar. Despite slightly greater rates of surgical site infections, training in hepatic surgery maintains excellent patient outcomes.
Surgery 07/2013; 154(5). DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.024 · 3.38 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.