4.5 Article

Improved survival following right trisectionectomy with caudate lobectomy without operative mortality: Surgical treatment for hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages 1268-1274

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0503-1

Keywords

right trisectionectomy; caudate lobectomy; hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background We conducted this study to assess the safety of performing right trisectionectomy with caudate lobectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma by analyzing postoperative mortality and morbidity, and to evaluate the effect of such procedure on pathological curability and long-term overall survival. Methods A retrospective clinicopathological analysis was performed for 16 hilar cholangiocarcinoma patients who underwent right trisectionectomy with caudate lobectomy from June 1999 to April 2003. The median follow-up period was 36.9 months. The preoperative Bismuth-Corlette type was type II in four patients, type IIIA in 10 patients, and type IV in two patients. Results The median liver volume after hepatic resection was 21.9% of the total liver volume. Postoperative complications including one chronic liver failure developed in 12 patients, but no in-hospital deaths occurred. A postoperative pathological examination showed a cancer free margin in all of the proximal resection sites, although three cases had carcinoma in situ (CIS) lesions in the distal margin that were confirmed during surgery. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 94.1%, 64.2%, and 64.2%, respectively. Conclusion We obtained excellent survival rates without any in-hospital deaths following right trisectionectomy with caudate lobectomy. This procedure may be an effective surgical procedure that can be executed to achieve low mortality rate and high pathological curability for hilar cholangiocarcinomas, except for Bismuth type IIIB.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available