Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Small, Solitary, Peripheral-Type Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Based on Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Hirotoshi Takayama, Shogo Kobayashi, Kunihito Gotoh, Kazuki Sasaki, Yoshifumi Iwagami, Daisaku Yamada, Yoshito Tomimaru, Hirofumi Akita, Tadafumi Asaoka, Takehiro Noda, Hiroshi Wada, Hidenori Takahashi, Masahiro Tanemura, Yuichiro Doki, Hidetoshi Eguchi
{"title":"Laparoscopic Liver Resection for Small, Solitary, Peripheral-Type Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma, Based on Preoperative Prediction of Lymph Node Metastasis.","authors":"Hirotoshi Takayama, Shogo Kobayashi, Kunihito Gotoh, Kazuki Sasaki, Yoshifumi Iwagami, Daisaku Yamada, Yoshito Tomimaru, Hirofumi Akita, Tadafumi Asaoka, Takehiro Noda, Hiroshi Wada, Hidenori Takahashi, Masahiro Tanemura, Yuichiro Doki, Hidetoshi Eguchi","doi":"10.1089/lap.2025.0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Aim:</i></b> Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not as widespread as LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastasis, mainly because ICC may require a lymph node dissection (LND). However, small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC rarely have lymph node metastasis (LNM). The aim of the current study is to examine the usefulness of LLR for ICC and determine whether our criteria for applying LLR without LND to small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC was appropriate. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We retrospectively selected 78 patients that underwent liver resections for ICC at Osaka University Hospital between 2003 and 2020. We compared LLR (<i>n</i> = 13) to open liver resection (OLR, <i>n</i> = 65) for short-term and long-term outcomes. We also analyzed a subgroup (<i>n</i> = 29) with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The LLR group had less blood loss (<i>P</i> < .001), shorter postoperative stays (<i>P</i> < .001), and significantly higher 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS, 74.0%), compared to the OLR group (29.6%, <i>P</i> = .030). However, the OLR group included a higher proportion of patients with advanced ICC. Among patients with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC, LLR (<i>n</i> = 10) was associated with less blood loss (<i>P</i> = .004) and shorter postoperative stays (<i>P</i> = .002), compared to OLR (<i>n</i> = 19). These groups had similar pathological findings, similar 5-year RFS (75.0% versus 56.8%; <i>P</i> = .433), and similar 5-year overall survival (75.0% versus 80.4%; <i>P</i> = .530). No patients that underwent LLR without LND for ICC experienced lymph node recurrence. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Among patients with ICC, LLR provided better intraoperative and short-term outcomes than OLR, and comparable oncological outcomes. Furthermore, no patients that underwent LLR without LND for ICC experienced lymph node recurrence. LLR without LND for ICC can be performed safely and feasibly by selecting patients with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC.</p>","PeriodicalId":50166,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2025.0031","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is not as widespread as LLR for hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastasis, mainly because ICC may require a lymph node dissection (LND). However, small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC rarely have lymph node metastasis (LNM). The aim of the current study is to examine the usefulness of LLR for ICC and determine whether our criteria for applying LLR without LND to small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC was appropriate. Methods: We retrospectively selected 78 patients that underwent liver resections for ICC at Osaka University Hospital between 2003 and 2020. We compared LLR (n = 13) to open liver resection (OLR, n = 65) for short-term and long-term outcomes. We also analyzed a subgroup (n = 29) with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC. Results: The LLR group had less blood loss (P < .001), shorter postoperative stays (P < .001), and significantly higher 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS, 74.0%), compared to the OLR group (29.6%, P = .030). However, the OLR group included a higher proportion of patients with advanced ICC. Among patients with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC, LLR (n = 10) was associated with less blood loss (P = .004) and shorter postoperative stays (P = .002), compared to OLR (n = 19). These groups had similar pathological findings, similar 5-year RFS (75.0% versus 56.8%; P = .433), and similar 5-year overall survival (75.0% versus 80.4%; P = .530). No patients that underwent LLR without LND for ICC experienced lymph node recurrence. Conclusions: Among patients with ICC, LLR provided better intraoperative and short-term outcomes than OLR, and comparable oncological outcomes. Furthermore, no patients that underwent LLR without LND for ICC experienced lymph node recurrence. LLR without LND for ICC can be performed safely and feasibly by selecting patients with small, solitary, peripheral-type ICC.

基于术前淋巴结转移预测的小、孤立、外周型肝内胆管癌腹腔镜肝切除术
目的:腹腔镜肝切除术(LLR)治疗肝内胆管癌(ICC)不如肝细胞癌或肝转移的LLR广泛,主要是因为ICC可能需要淋巴结清扫(LND)。然而,小的,孤立的,外周型ICC很少有淋巴结转移(LNM)。当前研究的目的是检查LLR对ICC的有用性,并确定我们将LLR不含LND应用于小型、孤立、外围型ICC的标准是否合适。方法:我们回顾性选择了2003年至2020年间在大阪大学医院接受肝切除术的78例ICC患者。我们比较了LLR (n = 13)和开放肝切除术(n = 65)的短期和长期预后。我们还分析了一个小的、孤立的、外围型ICC的亚组(n = 29)。结果:LLR组出血量少(P < 0.001),术后住院时间短(P < 0.001), 5年无复发生存率(RFS, 74.0%)显著高于OLR组(29.6%,P = 0.030)。然而,OLR组包括较高比例的晚期ICC患者。在小的、孤立的、外围型ICC患者中,与OLR (n = 19)相比,LLR (n = 10)与更少的出血量(P = 0.004)和更短的术后停留时间(P = 0.002)相关。两组病理表现相似,5年RFS相似(75.0% vs 56.8%;P = .433), 5年总生存率相似(75.0% vs . 80.4%;P = .530)。行LLR而不行LND的ICC患者无淋巴结复发。结论:在ICC患者中,LLR提供了比OLR更好的术中和短期预后,以及类似的肿瘤预后。此外,行LLR而不行LND的ICC患者没有出现淋巴结复发。通过选择小的、孤立的、外围型ICC患者,对ICC进行无LND的LLR是安全可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
163
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques (JLAST) is the leading international peer-reviewed journal for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest thinking and advanced surgical technologies in laparoscopy, endoscopy, NOTES, and robotics. The Journal is ideally suited to surgeons who are early adopters of new technology and techniques. Recognizing that many new technologies and techniques have significant overlap with several surgical specialties, JLAST is the first journal to focus on these topics both in general and pediatric surgery, and includes other surgical subspecialties such as: urology, gynecologic surgery, thoracic surgery, and more.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信