Han JH, You YK, Choi HJ, Hong TH, Kim DG. Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24(3): 379-386 [PMID: 29391760 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i3.379]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Young Kyoung You, MD, PhD, Division of Hepatobiliary-Pancreas Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, South Korea. yky602@catholic.ac.kr
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 21, 2018; 24(3): 379-386 Published online Jan 21, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i3.379
Table 1 Cause of conversion n (%)
Cause of conversion
SPLH
MPLH
(n = 35, 22.6%)
(n = 18, 19.8%)
Bleeding
21 (60.0)
6 (33.3)
Adhesion
3 (8.5)
4 (22.2)
Poor localization of tumor
3 (8.5)
2 (11.1)
Advanced tumor
2 (5.7)
1 (5.6)
Technical failure
5 (14.3)
3 (16.7)
Others
1 (3.0)
2 (11.1)
Table 2 Comparison of procedure between single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy and multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy group n (%)
Name of procedure
SPLH
MPLH
(n = 155, 63.0%)
(n = 91, 37.0%)
Right hepatectomy
5 (3.2)
0
Left hepatectomy
17 (10.9)
12 (13.2)
Left lateral sesctionectomy
29 (18.7)
19 (20.8)
Segmentectomy
2 (1.3)
3 (3.3)
Partial hepatectomy
101 (65.2)
36 (39.6)
Extended cholecystectomy
0
14 (15.4)
Others
1 (0.7)
7 (7.7)
Table 3 Comparison of results between single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy and multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy group n (%)
Variables
SPLH
MPLH
P value
(n = 155, 63.0%)
(n = 91, 37.0%)
Age
57.1 ± 13.3
60.8 ± 13.4
0.037
Sex (M:F)
105:50
49:42
0.040
BMI
24.1 ± 3.1
22.5 ± 2.9
< 0.001
Liver cirrhosis
51 (32.9)
31 (34.3)
0.887
CTP score
5.37 ± 0.73
5.21 ± 0.64
0.297
Malignant disease
116 (74.8)
64 (70.3)
0.459
Major operation
21 (13.5)
12 (13.3)
0.962
Operation time
136.9 ± 89.2
231.2 ± 149.7
< 0.001
Blood loss (mL)
385.1 ± 409.3
559.9 ± 624.9
0.016
RBC T/F (unit)
0.62 ± 1.98
0.79 ± 1.44
0.513
Conversion rate
35 (22.6)
18 (19.8)
0.358
Enteral feeding (d)
1.06 ± 0.27
1.63 ± 1.27
< 0.001
Hospital stay (d)
7.82 ± 2.79
7.97 ± 3.69
0.744
Disease free margin
0.84 ± 0.84
1.04 ± 1.22
0.704
Complication rate
12 (7.7)
3 (3.3)
0.397
Post op bleeding
1 (8.3)
0
Pleural effusion
4 (33.3)
1 (33.3)
Fluid accumulation
6 (50.1)
1 (33.3)
Others
1 (8.3)
1 (33.3)
Table 4 Comparison of results between single-port laparoscopic hepatectomy and multi-port laparoscopic hepatectomy group in left hepatectomy and left lateral sectionectomy n (%)
Variables
SPLH
MPLH
P value
(n = 46, 59.7%)
(n = 31, 40.3%)
Age
59.0 ± 11.1
62.0 ± 9.9
0.223
Sex (M:F)
26:20
16:15
0.816
BMI
23.3 ± 2.8
22.7 ± 2.5
0.337
Liver cirrhosis
9 (19.6)
4 (12.9)
0.525
CTP score
5.44 ± 0.81
5.20 ± 0.56
0.355
Malignant disease
27 (58.7)
12 (38.7)
0.106
Operation time
177.9 ± 114.6
277.6 ± 140.6
0.003
Blood loss (mL)
389.0 ± 270.0
576.9 ± 298.1
0.013
RBC T/F (unit)
0.38 ± 0.9
0.83 ± 0.9
0.094
Conversion rate
15 (32.6)
8 (25.8)
0.616
Enteral feeding (d)
1.08 ± 0.35
1.61 ± 0.89
< 0.001
Hospital stay (d)
9.08 ± 3.21
9.36 ± 3.19
0.738
Disease free margin (cm)
1.17 ± 0.99
1.67 ± 1.92
0.354
Complication rate
4 (8.7)
1 (3.2)
0.402
Post op bleeding
1 (25.0)
Pleural effusion
0
Fluid accumulation
2 (50.0)
Others
1 (25.0)
1 (100)
Citation: Han JH, You YK, Choi HJ, Hong TH, Kim DG. Clinical advantages of single port laparoscopic hepatectomy. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24(3): 379-386