4.6 Article

Laparoscopic central hepatectomy using a parenchymal-first approach: how we do it

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09163-4

关键词

Central hepatectomy; Laparoscopy; Parenchymal-first approach

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [82070642]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2021A1515012485]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study described the experience of performing laparoscopic central hepatectomy using a parenchymal-first approach. The results showed that this method is feasible, with moderate operative duration, minimal blood loss, and low complication rates.
Background Laparoscopic central hepatectomy (LCH) is a difficult and challenging procedure. This study aimed to describe our experience with LCH using a parenchymal-first approach. Methods Between July 2017 and June 2021, 19 consecutive patients underwent LCH using a parenchymal-first approach at our institution. Herein, the details of this procedural strategy are described, and the demographic and clinical data of the included patients were retrospectively analyzed. Results There were 1 female and 18 male patients, all with hepatocellular carcinoma without major vascular invasion. The mean age was 57 +/- 10 years. No patients underwent conversion to open surgery, and no blood transfusions were needed intraoperatively. The average operative duration and the average Pringle maneuver duration were 223 +/- 65 min and 58 +/- 11 min. respectively. The median blood loss was 200 ml (range: 100-800 ml). Postoperative morbidities occurred in 3 patients (15.8%), including 2 cases of bile leakage and 1 case of acquired pulmonary infection; there were no postoperative complications happened such as bleeding, hepatic failure, or mortality. The average postoperative hospital stay was 10 +/- 3 days. Conclusion The optimized procedure of LCH using a parenchymal-first approach is not only feasible but also expected to provide an advantage in laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据