Total laparoscopic management of lesions involving liver segment 7.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, laparoscopic resection of tumors involving segment 7 (s7) of the liver was seen as a relative contraindication. We analyzed our experiences with laparoscopic resection of tumors in s7. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospective database on operative and postoperative characteristics and surgical outcomes of patients in whom the intention was to remove tumors located in s7 of the liver laparoscopically. We defined two groups: those with laparoscopic metastasectomy of s7 (s7 group) and those undergoing laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy (RPS group). RESULTS: Of 400 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection, 20 patients (5 %) underwent total laparoscopic resections of tumors in s7 (7 metastasectomy of s7 and 13 RPS). The type of resection was decided on the basis of tumor size and location. Median age was 70 years (range 46-82), and the indication for surgery was mainly CRLM (n = 13, 65 %) and HCC (n = 4, 20 %). There was 1 (5 %) conversion. Mean operative times were 252 min (±69) for s7 and 271 min (±102) for RPS. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 400 mL (±493) for s7 and 625 mL (±363) for RPS. A Pringle maneuver was used in 86 % of patients in s7 group and 75 % of patients in RPS group. Mean total hospital stay was 4.6 days (±2.5) in s7 and 6.9 days (±7.8) for RPS. The overall R0 resection rate was 95 % (s7 100 %, RPS 92 %). CONCLUSION: Although resection of lesions in s7 is technically demanding, a laparoscopic approach can be performed safely and effectively in experienced hands.

Outcomes of repeat laparoscopic liver resection compared to the primary resection.

BACKGROUND: Repeat laparoscopic liver resection (R-LLR) can be technically challenging. Data on this topic are scarce and many investigators would question its feasibility and outcomes. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, oncological efficiency and outcomes of R-LLR. METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected database of 403 patients undergoing 422 laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) from August 2003 to August 2013. Data of 19 patients undergoing R-LLR were analyzed and compared to the primary resection (P-LLR) in these patients. Demographic and clinical data were studied. A subgroup analysis was done for minor resections. RESULTS: Twenty R-LLRs were performed in 19 patients (female 58 %; mean age: 57.5 years; age range: 23-79 years). Colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) were the commonest indication for R-LLR (60 %), followed by neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NETLM) (20 %) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (10 %). The majority (90 %) of resections were for malignant disease (18/20). There were three conversions (15 %), and two patients developed complications (10 %). The operative time (p = 0.005) and blood loss (p = 0.03) were both significantly greater in R-LLR compared to P-LLR, whereas length of stay (median 4 days; p = 0.30) and complications (p = 0.58) did not differ between the groups. R0 resection rates for P-LLR and R-LLR were 95 and 90 %, respectively (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat LLR is safe, feasible, and can be performed with minimal morbidity. It appears to be technically more challenging than P-LLR, but without any increase in complications or length of hospital stay.

Is heparinization necessary in the early postoperative period of renal transplantation from cadaveric donors?

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboemboli and bleeding are the complications that threaten the graft and patient's life in the early postoperative period after cadaveric renal transplantation. For this reason, heparin administration after renal transplantation should be administered carefully. The aim of this study was to evaluate the necessity for heparinization after cadaveric renal transplantation. METHODS: Between March 2009 and October 2010, we formed 2 study groups among 50 recipients who underwent either cadaveric (n = 25) or living donor transplantations (n = 25). We did not observe any risk factors for thromboembolism while group 1 did not undergo heparinization, group 2 received a prophylactic dose of low-molecular weight heparin for 1 week. Doppler ultrasonography (USG) was performed between postoperative 24-48 hours to examine the transplanted kidney vessels, and in one group 1 case for a bilateral lower extremity venous system examination. We were also compared postoperative thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications, lymphorrhagia, and serum creatinine levels. RESULTS: The female/male ratios in group 1 and 2 were 14/11 and 8/17 with mean ages of 36.7 (range, 17-51) and 35.9 (range, 17-59) years, respectively. The mean preoperative serum creatinine levels were 7.9 ± 2.9 mg/dL and 6.8 ± 2.4 mg/dL, and at postoperative week 1, they were 5.1 ± 4.3 mg/dL and 1.2 ± 0.5 mg/dL, respectively. We did not encounter any partial or total thrombus upon doppler USG studies for renal and lower extremity venous systems. No clinical symptoms of pulmonary emboli were detected in any patients. Only 1 subject group 2 experienced massive postoperative bleeding. CONCLUSION: Herein, we have reported that, except for the patients with risk factors for venous thromboemboli, heparinization was not necessary in the early postoperative period and did not add benefits to outcomes of cadaveric renal transplant recipients.