Advertisement

Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: Do Not Underestimate the Impact of Specimen Extraction Site

  • Théophile GuilbaudEmail author
  • Carlotta Feretti
  • Waclaw Holowko
  • Giovanni Maria Garbarino
  • Ugo Marchese
  • Anthony Sarran
  • Marc Beaussier
  • Brice Gayet
  • David Fuks
Original Scientific Report
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Background

In laparoscopic major hepatectomy, analysis of outcomes according to specimen extraction site remains poorly described. The aim was to compare postoperative outcomes according to specimen extraction site.

Methods

From 2000 to 2017, all laparoscopic major hepatectomies were reviewed and postoperative outcomes were analyzed according to specimen extraction site: subcostal (Group 1), midline (Group 2), or suprapubic (Group 3) incision.

Results

Among 163 patients, 15 (9.2%) belonged to Group 1, 49 (30.1%) in Group 2, and 99 (60.7%) in Group 3. The proportion of right-sided, left-sided, or central hepatectomies, mortality, and overall and severe complications were comparable between groups. Group 1 had larger tumors (61 vs. 38 vs. 47 mm; P = 0.014), higher operative time (338 vs. 282 vs. 260 min; P < 0.008), higher adjacent organ resection rate (46.6 vs. 16.3 vs. 7.1%; P < 0.001), and tended to increase pulmonary complications (40.0 vs. 12.2 vs. 18.2%; P = 0.064). In Group 2, a previous midline incision scar was more frequently used for specimen extraction site (65.3 vs. 26.6 and 30.3%, Group 1 and 3; P < 0.001). Postoperative incisional hernia was observed in 16.4% (n = 23) and was more frequent in Group 2 (26.6 vs. 6.6% and 10.1%, Group 1 and Group 3; P = 0.030). Finally, Group 2 (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.41–3.53; P = 0.032) was the only independent predictive factor of postoperative incisional hernia.

Conclusions

While using a previous incision makes sense, the increased risk of postoperative incisional hernia after midline incision promotes the suprapubic incision.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from patients involved in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O'Rourke N, World Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Surgery et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250:825–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I et al (2018) The Southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: from indication to implementation. Ann Surg 268:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2015) Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg 261:619–629Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fuks D, Cauchy F, Fteriche S et al (2016) Laparoscopy decreases pulmonary complications in patients undergoing major liver resection: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg 263:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fretland AA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjørnelv GMV et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nobili C, Marzano E, Oussoultzoglou E et al (2012) Multivariate analysis of risk factors for pulmonary complications after hepatic resection. Ann Surg 255:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang T, Zhang J, Lu JH et al (2011) Risk factors influencing postoperative outcomes of major hepatic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma for patients with underlying liver diseases. World J Surg 235:2073–2082.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1161-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seiler CM, Bruncker T, Diener MK et al (2009) Interrupted or continous slowly absorbable sutures for closure of primary elective midline abdominal incisions: a multicenter randomized trial (INSECT: ISRCTN24023541). Ann Surg 249:576–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    DeSouza A, Domajnko B, Park J et al (2011) Incisional hernia, midline versus low transverse incision: what is the ideal incision for specimen extraction and hand-assisted laparoscopy? Surg Endosc 25:1031–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duepree HJ, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP et al (2003) Does means of access affect the incidence of small bowel obstruction and ventral hernia after bowel resection? Laparoscopy versus laparotomy. J Am Coll Surg 197:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Le CC (1957) foie: etudes anatomiques et chirurgicales. Masson et Cie, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balzan S, Belghiti J, Farges O et al (2005) The ‘‘50-50 criteria’’ on postoperative day 5: an accurate predictor of liver failure and death after hepatectomy. Ann Surg 242:824–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ishizawa T, Hasegawa K, Kokudo N et al (2009) Risk factors and management of ascites after liver resection to treat hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 144:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koch M, Garden OJ, Padbury R et al (2011) Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: a definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 149:680–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nguyen KT, Gamblin TC, Geller DA (2009) World review of laparoscopic liver resection—2,804 patients. Ann Surg 250:831–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kasai M, Cipriani F, Gayet B et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery 163:985–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cauchy F, Fuks D, Nomi T et al (2016) Benefits of laparoscopy in elderly patients requiring major liver resection. J Am Coll Surg 222:174–184.e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dagher I, Di Giuro G, Dubrez J et al (2009) Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: a comparative study. Am J Surg 198:173–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Komatsu S, Brustia R, Goumard C et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched pair analysis. Surg Endosc 30:1965–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ford GT, Rosenal TW, Clergue F et al (1993) Respiratory physiology in upper abdominal surgery. Clin Chest Med 14:237–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soubrane O, Schwarz L, Cauchy F et al (2015) A conceptual technique for laparoscopic right hepatectomy based on facts and oncological rules: the caudal approach. Ann Surg 261:1226–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cauchy F, Fuks D, Nomi T et al (2015) Risk factors and consequences of conversion in laparoscopic major liver resection. Br J Surg 102:785–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kayashima H, Maeda T, Harada N et al (2015) Risk factors for incisional hernia after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis. Surgery 158:1669–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nilsson JH, Strandberg Holka P, Sturesson C (2016) Incisional hernia after open resections for colorectal liver metastases—incidence and risk factors. HPB (Oxford) 18:436–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Muysoms FE, Antoniou SA, Bury K, European Hernia Society et al (2015) European Hernia Society guidelines on the closure of abdominal wall incisions. Hernia 19:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Samia H, Lawrence J, Nobel T et al (2013) Extraction site location and incisional hernias after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: should we be avoiding the midline? Am J Surg 205:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Singh R, Omiccioli A, Hegge S et al (2008) Does the extraction-site location in laparoscopic colorectal surgery have an impact on incisional hernia rates? Surg Endosc 22:2596–2600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee L, Mata J, Droeser RA et al (2018) Incisional hernia after midline versus Transverse speciemen extraction incision. Ann Surg 268:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Halm JA, Lip H, Schmitz PI et al (2009) Incisional hernia after abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial of midline versus transverse incision. Hernia 13:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beck DE, Opelka FG, Bailey HR et al (1999) Incidence of small-bowel obstruction and adhesiolysis after open colorectal and general surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 42:241–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ray NF, Larsen JW Jr, Stillman RJ et al (1993) Economic impact of hospitalizations for lower abdominal adhesiolysis in the United States in 1988. Surg Gynecol Obstet 176:271–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lee L, Abou Khalil M, Liberman S et al (2017) Incidence of incisional hernia in the speciemen extraction site for laparoscopic colorectal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 31:5083–5093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deerenberg EB, Harlaar JJ, Steyerberg EW et al (2015) Small bites versus large bites for closure of abdominal midline incision (STITCH): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386:1254–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Théophile Guilbaud
    • 1
    • 2
    • 5
    Email author
  • Carlotta Feretti
    • 1
    • 2
  • Waclaw Holowko
    • 1
    • 2
  • Giovanni Maria Garbarino
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ugo Marchese
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anthony Sarran
    • 3
  • Marc Beaussier
    • 4
  • Brice Gayet
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Fuks
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Digestive, Oncological and Metabolic SurgeryInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance
  2. 2.Université Paris DescartesParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Radiology and Medical ImagingInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance
  4. 4.Department of AnesthesiologyInstitut Mutualiste MontsourisParisFrance
  5. 5.Department of Digestive DiseaseInstitut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris DescartesParisFrance

Personalised recommendations