腹腔镜左半肝切除术的效率和安全性:鞘内与鞘外Glissonean梗阻技术对比研究。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.4240/wjgs.v16.i8.2612
Li-Min Kang, Lei Xu, Fu-Wei Zhang, Fa-Kun Yu, Li Lang
{"title":"腹腔镜左半肝切除术的效率和安全性:鞘内与鞘外Glissonean梗阻技术对比研究。","authors":"Li-Min Kang, Lei Xu, Fu-Wei Zhang, Fa-Kun Yu, Li Lang","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v16.i8.2612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion is utilized in both right and left hemihepatectomies to preserve blood supply to the intact lobe, maintain hemodynamic stability, and mitigate surgical risks. While this technique encompasses both intrathecal and extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods, there is a lack of systematic comparative reports on these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in our hospital to explore the feasibility, safety, and short- and long-term efficacy of extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was performed to analyze the clinical data of 49 HCC patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy from January 2019 to December 2022 in our hospital. These patients were divided into extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (EGP) group (<i>n</i> = 24) and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (IGP) group (<i>n</i> = 25) according to the different approaches used for selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion. The perioperative indicators, liver function indexes, complications, and follow-up findings were compared between these two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgeries were smooth in both groups, and no perioperative death was noted. The hepatic pedicle transection time and the operation time were (16.1 ± 2.3) minutes and (129.6 ± 19.0) minutes, respectively, in the EGP group, which were significantly shorter than those in the IGP group [(25.5 ± 2.4) minutes and (184.8 ± 26.0) minutes, respectively], both <i>P</i> < 0.01. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, time to anal exhaust, hospital stay, drain indwelling time, and postoperative liver function between the two groups (all <i>P</i> > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference [16.67% (4/24) <i>vs</i> 16.0% (4/25), <i>P</i> > 0.05). All the 49 HCC patients were followed up after surgery (range: 11.2-53.3 months; median: 36.4 months). The overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were not significantly different (both <i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle approaches are effective and safe hepatic inflow occlusion techniques in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for HCC. However, the extrathecal approach simplifies the hepatic pedicle transection, shortens the operation time, and increases the surgical efficiency, making it a more feasible technique.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362945/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency and safety of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A study of intrathecal <i>vs</i> extrathecal Glissonean pedicle techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Li-Min Kang, Lei Xu, Fu-Wei Zhang, Fa-Kun Yu, Li Lang\",\"doi\":\"10.4240/wjgs.v16.i8.2612\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion is utilized in both right and left hemihepatectomies to preserve blood supply to the intact lobe, maintain hemodynamic stability, and mitigate surgical risks. While this technique encompasses both intrathecal and extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods, there is a lack of systematic comparative reports on these two approaches.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in our hospital to explore the feasibility, safety, and short- and long-term efficacy of extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study was performed to analyze the clinical data of 49 HCC patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy from January 2019 to December 2022 in our hospital. These patients were divided into extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (EGP) group (<i>n</i> = 24) and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (IGP) group (<i>n</i> = 25) according to the different approaches used for selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion. The perioperative indicators, liver function indexes, complications, and follow-up findings were compared between these two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The surgeries were smooth in both groups, and no perioperative death was noted. The hepatic pedicle transection time and the operation time were (16.1 ± 2.3) minutes and (129.6 ± 19.0) minutes, respectively, in the EGP group, which were significantly shorter than those in the IGP group [(25.5 ± 2.4) minutes and (184.8 ± 26.0) minutes, respectively], both <i>P</i> < 0.01. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, time to anal exhaust, hospital stay, drain indwelling time, and postoperative liver function between the two groups (all <i>P</i> > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference [16.67% (4/24) <i>vs</i> 16.0% (4/25), <i>P</i> > 0.05). All the 49 HCC patients were followed up after surgery (range: 11.2-53.3 months; median: 36.4 months). The overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were not significantly different (both <i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle approaches are effective and safe hepatic inflow occlusion techniques in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for HCC. However, the extrathecal approach simplifies the hepatic pedicle transection, shortens the operation time, and increases the surgical efficiency, making it a more feasible technique.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23759,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11362945/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i8.2612\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i8.2612","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:右半肝和左半肝切除术中都采用了选择性半肝血管闭塞术,以保留完整肝叶的血液供应、维持血液动力学稳定并降低手术风险。虽然这种技术包括鞘内和鞘外 Glissonean 梗管横断法,但目前缺乏关于这两种方法的系统性比较报告。目的:回顾性分析在我院接受腹腔镜解剖性肝切除术的肝细胞癌(HCC)患者的临床数据,探讨腹腔镜左半肝切除术中鞘外和鞘内Glissonean椎弓根横切法的可行性、安全性和短期及长期疗效:回顾性研究分析了2019年1月至2022年12月在我院接受腹腔镜左半肝切除术的49例HCC患者的临床数据。根据选择性半肝血管闭塞所采用的不同方法,将这些患者分为鞘外格利索内椎弓根横断术(EGP)组(n = 24)和鞘内格利索内椎弓根横断术(IGP)组(n = 25)。比较了两组患者的围手术期指标、肝功能指标、并发症和随访结果:结果:两组手术均顺利进行,无围手术期死亡病例。EGP组的肝蒂横断时间和手术时间分别为(16.1±2.3)分钟和(129.6±19.0)分钟,明显短于IGP组[分别为(25.5±2.4)分钟和(184.8±26.0)分钟],P均<0.01。两组在术中失血量、肛门排气时间、住院时间、引流管留置时间和术后肝功能方面均无明显差异(均 P > 0.05)。术后并发症的发生率无明显差异[16.67%(4/24) vs 16.0%(4/25),P > 0.05]。所有 49 例 HCC 患者均在术后接受了随访(范围:11.2-53.3 个月;中位:36.4 个月)。总生存率和无病生存率无明显差异(P>0.05):结论:在腹腔镜左半肝切除术中,鞘外和鞘内Glissonean椎弓根入路都是有效且安全的肝血流闭塞技术。然而,鞘外方法简化了肝梗横断,缩短了手术时间,提高了手术效率,是一种更可行的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Efficiency and safety of laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy: A study of intrathecal vs extrathecal Glissonean pedicle techniques.

Background: Selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion is utilized in both right and left hemihepatectomies to preserve blood supply to the intact lobe, maintain hemodynamic stability, and mitigate surgical risks. While this technique encompasses both intrathecal and extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods, there is a lack of systematic comparative reports on these two approaches.

Aim: To retrospectively analyze the clinical data of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing laparoscopic anatomical hepatectomy in our hospital to explore the feasibility, safety, and short- and long-term efficacy of extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection methods in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy.

Methods: A retrospective study was performed to analyze the clinical data of 49 HCC patients who underwent laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy from January 2019 to December 2022 in our hospital. These patients were divided into extrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (EGP) group (n = 24) and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle transection (IGP) group (n = 25) according to the different approaches used for selective hemihepatic vascular occlusion. The perioperative indicators, liver function indexes, complications, and follow-up findings were compared between these two groups.

Results: The surgeries were smooth in both groups, and no perioperative death was noted. The hepatic pedicle transection time and the operation time were (16.1 ± 2.3) minutes and (129.6 ± 19.0) minutes, respectively, in the EGP group, which were significantly shorter than those in the IGP group [(25.5 ± 2.4) minutes and (184.8 ± 26.0) minutes, respectively], both P < 0.01. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, time to anal exhaust, hospital stay, drain indwelling time, and postoperative liver function between the two groups (all P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative complications showed no significant difference [16.67% (4/24) vs 16.0% (4/25), P > 0.05). All the 49 HCC patients were followed up after surgery (range: 11.2-53.3 months; median: 36.4 months). The overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were not significantly different (both P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Both extrathecal and intrathecal Glissonean pedicle approaches are effective and safe hepatic inflow occlusion techniques in laparoscopic left hemihepatectomy for HCC. However, the extrathecal approach simplifies the hepatic pedicle transection, shortens the operation time, and increases the surgical efficiency, making it a more feasible technique.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and safety of B-ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of primary liver cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopic clipping of gastrojejunostomy leakage following Whipple procedure: A case report. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: The road is open for almighty biliopancreatic endoscopists! Enhancing transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedure efficiency with digital subtraction angiography image overlay technology in esophagogastric variceal bleeding. Establishment and evaluation of prediction model of recurrence after laparoscopic choledocholithotomy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1