4.3 Review

Minimally invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: state of art and future perspectives

期刊

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 89, 期 5, 页码 476-480

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ans.14765

关键词

Klatskin tumour; laparoscopy; minimally invasive surgical procedures; robotics

类别

资金

  1. National Nature Science of China [30801111]
  2. Science & Technology Support Project of Sichuan Province [2014SZ0002-10, 2018JY0019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundHilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) occurs in the core section of the biliary system and has a strong tendency to broadly invade the surrounding vascular system, perineural tissue and major liver parenchyma. Thus, minimally invasive resection can only be achieved in limited cases. This article reviews the current laparoscopic and robotic surgery techniques for HCCA and analyses the difficulties and limitations of the current minimally invasive surgical techniques for HCCA. MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using multiple electronic databases. All studies involving minimally invasive resections of HCCA were included (up to November 2017). ResultsTwelve studies were included, of which eight concerned laparoscopic surgery of HCCA and four involved robotic surgery for HCCA. For laparoscopic surgery, most of the surgical procedures were limited to partial hepatectomy or even bile duct resection; the post-operative morbidity rate was approximately 38.9% (range 0-100%); those with fewer complications were mostly restricted to Bismuth type I or type II carcinomas. For robotic surgery, only one study concerned caudate lobectomy of HCCA, with a reported median operative time of 703min and post-operative morbidity of 90%. ConclusionsMinimally invasive surgery for HCCA is restricted to highly selected cases and is deemed technically achievable in experienced hands. However, technical and instrumental improvement is needed to reduce the relevant morbidity and popularize the use of minimally invasive surgery to treat HCCA.

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