Page 55 - Read Online
P. 55

Jacoby et al. Mini-invasive Surg 2022;6:58  https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2574-1225.2022.58  Page 7 of 11

               Table 2. Intraoperative variables
                Variables                                      Number
                Operative duration (minutes)                   458 (433 ± 116.9) [279-573]
                EBL (mL)                                       150 (175 ± 123.8) [10-450]
                Bismuth-corlette classification
                    Type I                                         4
                    Type II                                        5
                    Type III                                       10
                    Type IV                                        2
                Concomitant hepatectomy                        16 (76%)
                    Right hepatectomy                              1 (6%)
                    Left hepatectomy                               7 (44%)
                    Central hepatectomy                            8 (50%)
                Intraoperative complications (n)               0
                Lymph nodes harvested (n)                      4 (5 ± 2.9) [1-12]
                Lymph nodes positive (n)                       0 (0 ± 0.4) [0-2]
                Margin status
                    R0                                             19 (90%)
                    R1                                             2 (10%)
                    R2                                             0
               EBL: Estimated blood loss; Data in table are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation) [range], where applicable.


               Table 3. Intraoperative variables stratified by Bismuth classification
                                      Type I        Type II        Type III        Type IV
                Bismuth classification  n = 4       n = 5          n = 10          n = 2          P-value
                Operative time (minutes)  453 (416 ± 93.0)  383 (383 ± 55.0)  518 (453 ± 158.0)  486 (486 ± 40.0)   0.69
                EBL (mL)              275 (225 ± 119)  100 (180 ± 160)  150 (166 ± 125)  113 (113 ± 124)  0.79
                Margin status (r0/r1/r2)  3/1/0     4/1/0          10/0/0          2/0/0          0.36
                Lymph node harvested (n)  6 (7 ± 4.1)  3 (3 ± 2.6)  5 (5 ± 2.6)    3 (3 ± 1.4)    0.33
                Lymph nodes positive (n)  1 (1 ± 1.0)  0 (0 ± 0.4)  0 (0 ± 0.3)    0 (0 ± 0)      0.20

               EBL: Estimated blood loss; Data in table are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation), where applicable.


               DISCUSSION
               Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is one of the most complex malignancies to diagnose and treat. Its characteristic
               clinical presentation of obstructive jaundice with intrahepatic bile duct dilation usually requires
               preoperative drainage to resolve the cholangitis and improve hepatic function. However, unlike pancreatic
               head cancer or distal cholangiocarcinoma, where the drainage procedure is usually straightforward, in hilar
               cholangiocarcinoma,  drainage  can  be  challenging,  requiring  multiple  biliary  drains  to  achieve
               decompression and prevent the development of a cholestatic liver. In addition, it is often difficult to obtain a
               positive biopsy and determine the full extent of biliary involvement, this sometimes only being determined
               intra-operatively. The aggressive biology of this tumor is a major contributor to its complexity in that
               adjacent structures, such as lymph nodes and major vessels, are frequently involved, often necessitating
               meticulous lymph node dissection and a major liver resection, with or without vascular reconstruction.
               Finally, its critical location at the confluence of the bile duct, together with its propensity to grow along the
               biliary tree, may result in a difficult and high bilioenteric reconstruction. These complex considerations
               have resulted in most surgeons using a traditional open approach. Our hepatopancreatobiliary unit has
               gained considerable experience in robotic liver and pancreas surgery over the past six years. Having
   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60