4.3 Article

Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular adenoma

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
卷 3, 期 7, 页码 101-105

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v3.i7.101

关键词

Laparoscopy; Minimally-invasive surgery; Hepatocellular adenoma; Major hepatectomy; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate the role of laparoscopy in the surgical management of hepatocellular adenoma (HA). METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection for HA. RESULTS: Thirteen patients underwent fifteen pure laparoscopic liver resections for HA (male/female: 3/10; median age 42 years, range 22-72 years). Two patients with liver adenomatosis required two different laparoscopic operations for ruptured adenomas. Indications for surgery were: symptoms in 12 cases, need to rule out malignancy in 2 cases and preoperative diagnosis of large HA in one case. Symptoms were related to bleeding in 10 cases, sepsis due to liver abscess following embolization of HA in one case and mass effect in one case (shoulder tip pain). Five cases with ruptured bleeding adenoma required emergency admission and treatment with selective arterial embolization. Laparoscopic liver resection was then semi-electively performed. Eight patients (62%) required major hepatectomy [right hepatectomy (n = 5), left hepatectomy (n = 3)]. No conversion to open surgery occurred. The median operative time for pure laparoscopic procedures was 270 min (range 135-360 min). The median size of the excised lesions was 85 mm (range 25-180 mm). One patient with adenomatosis developed postoperative bleeding requiring embolization. Mortality was nil. The median hospital stay was 4 d (range 1-18 d) with a median high dependency unit stay of 1 d (range 0-7 d). CONCLUSION: The laparoscopic approach represents a safe option for the management of HA in a semi-elective setting and when major hepatectomy is required. (C) 2011 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

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

4.3
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