Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience
Background: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating live...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-05-01
|
| Series: | Cancers |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/10/2851 |
| _version_ | 1797600700046245888 |
|---|---|
| author | Tijs J. Hoogteijling Jasper P. Sijberden John N. Primrose Victoria Morrison-Jones Sachin Modi Giuseppe Zimmitti Marco Garatti Claudio Sallemi Mario Morone Mohammad Abu Hilal |
| author_facet | Tijs J. Hoogteijling Jasper P. Sijberden John N. Primrose Victoria Morrison-Jones Sachin Modi Giuseppe Zimmitti Marco Garatti Claudio Sallemi Mario Morone Mohammad Abu Hilal |
| author_sort | Tijs J. Hoogteijling |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH. Methods: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared. Results: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% <i>p</i> < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, <i>p</i> = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, <i>p</i> = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. Conclusion: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:51:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4a610385c2c34f21af6550f5cb0451b2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-6694 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T03:51:34Z |
| publishDate | 2023-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cancers |
| spelling | doaj.art-4a610385c2c34f21af6550f5cb0451b22023-11-18T00:49:52ZengMDPI AGCancers2072-66942023-05-011510285110.3390/cancers15102851Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s ExperienceTijs J. Hoogteijling0Jasper P. Sijberden1John N. Primrose2Victoria Morrison-Jones3Sachin Modi4Giuseppe Zimmitti5Marco Garatti6Claudio Sallemi7Mario Morone8Mohammad Abu Hilal9Department of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UKDepartment of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UKDepartment of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UKDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, 25124 Brescia, ItalyBackground: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH. Methods: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared. Results: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, <i>p</i> = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% <i>p</i> < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, <i>p</i> = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, <i>p</i> = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. Conclusion: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/10/2851liver neoplasmsright hemihepatectomylaparoscopic liver resectionfuture liver remnant modulationtreatment outcome |
| spellingShingle | Tijs J. Hoogteijling Jasper P. Sijberden John N. Primrose Victoria Morrison-Jones Sachin Modi Giuseppe Zimmitti Marco Garatti Claudio Sallemi Mario Morone Mohammad Abu Hilal Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience Cancers liver neoplasms right hemihepatectomy laparoscopic liver resection future liver remnant modulation treatment outcome |
| title | Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience |
| title_full | Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience |
| title_fullStr | Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience |
| title_full_unstemmed | Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience |
| title_short | Laparoscopic Right Hemihepatectomy after Future Liver Remnant Modulation: A Single Surgeon’s Experience |
| title_sort | laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after future liver remnant modulation a single surgeon s experience |
| topic | liver neoplasms right hemihepatectomy laparoscopic liver resection future liver remnant modulation treatment outcome |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/15/10/2851 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tijsjhoogteijling laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT jasperpsijberden laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT johnnprimrose laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT victoriamorrisonjones laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT sachinmodi laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT giuseppezimmitti laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT marcogaratti laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT claudiosallemi laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT mariomorone laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience AT mohammadabuhilal laparoscopicrighthemihepatectomyafterfutureliverremnantmodulationasinglesurgeonsexperience |