4.1 Article

Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2014.0233

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Reports on laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma are still scarce. With increased experience in laparoscopic liver resection, its application to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma can now be considered. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and to analyze its clinical and oncologic outcomes. Patients and Methods: Among the 84 patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma operated on from March 2004 to April 2012, 37 patients with a T-stage of 2b or less were included in the study. Eleven patients underwent laparoscopic liver resection, and 26 underwent open liver resection. Treatment and survival outcomes were analyzed. Results: Intraoperative blood loss was significantly greater in the open group (P=.024), but with no difference in the blood transfusion requirement between groups (P=.074), and no operative mortality occurred. The median operative time, postoperative resection margin, and length of hospital stay were comparable between groups (P=.111, P=.125, and P=.077, respectively). Four (36.4%) patients in the laparoscopic group developed recurrence compared with 12 (46.2%) patients in the open group (P=.583). After a median follow-up of 17 months, the 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 77.9% and 77.9%, respectively, in the laparoscopic group compared with 66.2% and 66.2%, respectively, in the open group (P=.7). There was also no significant difference in the 3- and 5-year disease-free survival rates for the laparoscopic group at 56.2% and 56.2%, respectively, versus the open group at 39.4% and 39.4%, respectively (P=.688). Conclusions: Laparoscopic liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is technically safe with survival outcome comparable to that of open liver resection in selected cases.

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

4.1
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