Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
by
Di Benedetto Fabrizio
, Ivanecz Arpad
, D’Hondt Mathieu
, Aldrighetti Luca
, Magistri Paolo
, van der Heijde Nicky
, Abu Hilal Mohammed
, Ratti, Francesca
, Besselink, Marc G
, Benedetti, Cacciaguerra Andrea
, Can, Mehmet F
, Menon, Krishna
, Papoulas Michail
, Vivarelli, Marco
in
Endoscopy
/ Hospitals
/ Laparoscopy
/ Length of stay
/ Liver
/ Medical research
/ Minimally invasive surgery
/ Recovery (Medical)
/ Regression analysis
/ Sensitivity analysis
/ Surgery
/ Surgical outcomes
/ Surgical techniques
2021
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
by
Di Benedetto Fabrizio
, Ivanecz Arpad
, D’Hondt Mathieu
, Aldrighetti Luca
, Magistri Paolo
, van der Heijde Nicky
, Abu Hilal Mohammed
, Ratti, Francesca
, Besselink, Marc G
, Benedetti, Cacciaguerra Andrea
, Can, Mehmet F
, Menon, Krishna
, Papoulas Michail
, Vivarelli, Marco
in
Endoscopy
/ Hospitals
/ Laparoscopy
/ Length of stay
/ Liver
/ Medical research
/ Minimally invasive surgery
/ Recovery (Medical)
/ Regression analysis
/ Sensitivity analysis
/ Surgery
/ Surgical outcomes
/ Surgical techniques
2021
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
by
Di Benedetto Fabrizio
, Ivanecz Arpad
, D’Hondt Mathieu
, Aldrighetti Luca
, Magistri Paolo
, van der Heijde Nicky
, Abu Hilal Mohammed
, Ratti, Francesca
, Besselink, Marc G
, Benedetti, Cacciaguerra Andrea
, Can, Mehmet F
, Menon, Krishna
, Papoulas Michail
, Vivarelli, Marco
in
Endoscopy
/ Hospitals
/ Laparoscopy
/ Length of stay
/ Liver
/ Medical research
/ Minimally invasive surgery
/ Recovery (Medical)
/ Regression analysis
/ Sensitivity analysis
/ Surgery
/ Surgical outcomes
/ Surgical techniques
2021
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
Journal Article
Laparoscopic versus open right posterior sectionectomy: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched evaluation
2021
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
BackgroundAlthough laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard for minor resections, evidence is lacking for more complex resections such as the right posterior sectionectomy (RPS). We aimed to compare surgical outcomes between laparoscopic (LRPS) and open right posterior sectionectomy (ORPS).MethodsAn international multicenter retrospective study comparing patients undergoing LRPS or ORPS (January 2007—December 2018) was performed. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1:1 ratio. Primary endpoint was major complication rate defined as Accordion ≥ 3 grade. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, length of hospital stay (LOS) and resection status. A sensitivity analysis was done excluding the first 10 LRPS patients of each center to correct for the learning curve. Additionally, possible risk factors were explored for operative time, blood loss and LOS.ResultsOverall, 399 patients were included from 9 centers from 6 European countries of which 150 LRPS could be matched to 150 ORPS. LRPS was associated with a shorter operative time [235 (195–285) vs. 247 min (195–315) p = 0.004], less blood loss [260 (188–400) vs. 400 mL (280–550) p = 0.009] and a shorter LOS [5 (4–7) vs. 8 days (6–10), p = 0.002]. Major complication rate [n = 8 (5.3%) vs. n = 9 (6.0%) p = 1.00] and R0 resection rate [144 (96.0%) vs. 141 (94.0%), p = 0.607] did not differ between LRPS and ORPS, respectively. The sensitivity analysis showed similar findings in the previous mentioned outcomes. In multivariable regression analysis blood loss was significantly associated with the open approach, higher ASA classification and malignancy as diagnosis. For LOS this was the open approach and a malignancy.ConclusionThis international multicenter propensity score-matched study showed an advantage in favor of LRPS in selected patients as compared to ORPS in terms of operative time, blood loss and LOS without differences in major complications and R0 resection rate.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.