Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 636–645 | Cite as

Laparoscopic right hepatectomy using the caudal approach is superior to open right hepatectomy with anterior approach and liver hanging maneuver: a comparison of short-term outcomes

  • Tomoaki Yoh
  • François Cauchy
  • Takayuki Kawai
  • Anne-Sophie Schneck
  • Bertrand Le Roy
  • Claire Goumard
  • Ailton Sepulveda
  • Safi Dokmak
  • Olivier Farges
  • Olivier Scatton
  • Olivier SoubraneEmail author



A standardized laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) approach named the “caudal approach” was recently reported. Yet, the value of this approach compared with state-of-the-art open right hepatectomy (ORH) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was therefore to compare the short-term outcomes of LRH using the caudal approach and ORH with anterior approach and liver hanging maneuver.


One-hundred eleven consecutive patients who underwent LRH with caudal approach were prospectively collected; 346 patients who underwent ORH with anterior approach and liver hanging maneuver were enrolled as a control group. Propensity score matching (PSM) of patients in a ratio of 1: 1 was conducted and the perioperative outcomes were compared.


After PSM, two well-balanced groups of 72 patients each were analyzed and compared. The conversion rate in the LRH group was 18.1%. Perioperative blood loss and transfusion rates were significantly lower in the LRH group as compared to the ORH group (median, 200 ml vs. 500 ml, p < 0.001 and 9.9% vs. 26.8%, p = 0.009, respectively), while operation time was significantly longer (median, 348 min vs. 290 min, p < 0.001). Overall (26.4% vs. 48.6%, p = 0.006) and symptomatic pulmonary (6.9% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.027) complication rates were significantly lower in the LRH group. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the LRH group (median, 8 days vs. 9 days, p = 0.013).


LRH using the caudal approach is associated with improved short-term outcomes compared to state-of-the-art ORH in patients qualifying for both approaches, and can be proposed as standard practice.


Laparoscopic right hepatectomy Short-term outcomes 


Compliance with ethical standards


Tomoaki Yoh, François Cauchy, Takayuki Kawai, Anne Sophie Schneck, Bertrand Le Roy, Claire Goumard, Ailton Sepulveda, Safi Dokmak, Olivier Farges, Olivier Scatton, and Olivier Soubrane have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.


  1. 1.
    Ciria R, Cherqui D, Geller DA et al (2016) Comparative short-term benefits of laparoscopic liver resection: 9000 cases and climbing. Ann Surg 263:761–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dagher I, O’Rourke N, Geller DA et al (2009) Laparoscopic major hepatectomy: an evolution in standard of care. Ann Surg 250:856–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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
  4. 4.
    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
  5. 5.
    Xu HW, Liu F, Li HY et al (2018) Outcomes following laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis. Surg Endosc 32:712–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tozzi F, Berardi G, Vierstraete M et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open approach for Formal right and left hepatectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. World J Surg 42(8):2627–2634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kawaguchi Y, Fuks D, Kokudo N et al (2018) Difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection: proposal for a new classification. Ann Surg 267:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Medbery RL, Chadid TS, Sweeney JF et al (2014) Laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy: a value-based analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218:929–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yoon YI, Kim KH, Kang SH et al (2017) Pure laparoscopic versus open right hepatec- tomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score matched analysis. Ann Surg 265:856–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abu Hilal M, Di Fabio F, Teng MJ et al (2011) Single-centre comparative study of laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 15:818–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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
  12. 12.
    Komatsu S, Scatton O, Goumard C et al (2017) Development process and technical aspects of laparoscopic hepatectomy: learning curve based on 15 years of experience. J Am Coll Surg 224:841–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soubrane O, Schwarz L, Cauchy F et al (2015) A conceptual technique for laparoscopic right hepatectomy based on facts and oncologic principles: the caudal approach. Ann Surg 261:1226–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ogata S, Belghiti J, Varma D et al (2007) Two hundred liver hanging maneuvers for major hepatectomy: a single-center experience. Ann Surg 245:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Belghiti J, Guevara OA, Noun R et al (2001) Liver hanging maneuver: a safe approach to right hepatectomy without liver mobilization. J Am Coll Surg 193:109–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuks D, Cauchy F, Ftériche S et al (2016) Laparoscopy decreases pulmonary complications in patients undergoing major liver resection: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg 263:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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
  18. 18.
    Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R et al (2011) Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery 149:713–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Austin PC (2011) Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat 10:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sposito C, Battiston C, Facciorusso A et al (2016) Propensity score analysis of outcomes following laparoscopic or open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg 103:871–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fretland ÅA, Dagenborg VJ, Bjørnelv GMW et al (2018) Laparoscopic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases: the OSLO-COMET randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 267:199–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katz SC, Shia J, Liau KH et al (2009) Operative blood loss independently predicts recurrence and survival after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg 249:617–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farid SG, Aldouri A, Morris-Stiff G et al (2010) Correlation between postoperative infective complications and long-term outcomes after hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastasis. Ann Surg 251:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kawaguchi Y, Nomi T, Fuks D et al (2016) Hemorrhage control for laparoscopic hepatectomy: technical details and predictive factors for intraoperative blood loss. Surg Endosc 30:2543–2551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jiao LR, Apostolopoulos C, Jacob J et al (2009) Unique localization of circulating tumor cells in patients with hepatic metastases. J Clin Oncol 27:6160–6165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agrawal S, Belghiti J (2011) Oncologic resection for malignant tumors of the liver. Ann Surg 253:656–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liu CL, Fan ST, Cheung ST et al (2006) Anterior approach versus conventional approach in right hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma. A prospective randomized controlled study. Ann Surg 244:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goumard C, Komatsu S, Brustia R et al (2017) Technical feasibility and safety of laparoscopic right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma following sequential TACE-PVE: a comparative study. Surg Endosc 31:2340–2349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Glantzounis GK, Tokidis E, Basourakos SP et al (2017) The role of portal vein embolization in the surgical management of primary hepatobiliary cancers. A systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol 43:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Halls MC, Cipriani F, Berardi G et al (2017) Conversion for unfavorable intraoperative events results in significantly worst outcomes during laparoscopic liver resection: lessons learned from a multicenter review of 2861 cases. Ann Surg. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Melloul E, Hübner M, Scott M et al (2016) Guidelines for perioperative care for liver surgery: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations. World J Surg 40:2425–2440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wehry J, Cannon R, Scoggins CR et al (2015) Restrictive blood transfusion protocol in liver resection patients reduces blood transfusions with no increase in patient morbidity. Am J Surg 209:280–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomoaki Yoh
    • 1
    • 2
  • François Cauchy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Takayuki Kawai
    • 3
    • 4
  • Anne-Sophie Schneck
    • 1
    • 2
  • Bertrand Le Roy
    • 1
    • 2
  • Claire Goumard
    • 3
    • 4
  • Ailton Sepulveda
    • 1
    • 2
  • Safi Dokmak
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olivier Farges
    • 1
    • 2
  • Olivier Scatton
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Olivier Soubrane
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of HPB Surgery and Liver TransplantationBeaujon Hospital, AP-HPParisFrance
  2. 2.Université de ParisParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of HPB surgery and liver transplantationPitié-Salpétrière Hospital, AP-HPParisFrance
  4. 4.Université Paris VI, Université Paris-SorbonneParisFrance
  5. 5.INSERM, UMRS-938, Centre de rechereche de Saint-Antoine (CRSA)ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations