Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MILS in a general surgery unit: learning curve, indications, and limitations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is going to be a method with a wide diffusion even in general surgery units. Organization, learning curve effect, and the environment are crucial issues to evaluate before starting a program of minimally invasive liver resections. Analysis of a consecutive series of 70 patients has been used to define advantages and limits of starting a program of MILS in a general surgery unit. Seventeen MILS have been calculated with the cumulative sum method as the number of cases to complete the learning curve. Operative times [270 (60–480) vs. 180 (15–550) min; p 0.01] and rate of conversion (6/17 vs. 5/53; p 0.018) decrease after this number of cases. More complex cases can be managed after a proper optimization of all steps of liver resection. When a high confidence of the medical and nurse staff with MILS is reached, economical and strategic issues should be evaluated in order to establish a multidisciplinary hepatobiliary unit independent from the general surgery unit to manage more complex cases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Veldkamp R, Kuhry E, Hop WCJ, Jeekel J, Kazemier G, Bonjer HJ et al (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 6(7):477–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dixon E, Vollmerjr C, Bathe O, Sutherland F (2005) Training, practice, and referral patterns in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: survey of general surgeons. J Gastrointest Surg 9(1):109–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cunningham SC, Farooqui S (2013) Subspecialty radiology and surgery. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 12:122–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, O’Rourke N, Iannitti D, Dagher I et al (2009) The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg 250(5):825–830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Medbery RL, Chadid TS, Sweeney JF, Knechtle SJ, Kooby DA, Maithel SK, Lin E, Sarmiento JM (2014) Laparoscopic vs open right hepatectomy: a value-based analysis. J Am Coll Surg 218(5):929–939. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.01.045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Torzilli G, Procopio F, Cimino M, Del Fabbro D, Palmisano A, Donadon M et al (2010) Anatomical segmental and subsegmental resection of the liver for hepatocellular carcinoma: a new approach by means of ultrasound-guided vessel compression. Ann Surg 251(2):229–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gurusamy KS, Pamecha V, Sharma D, Davidson BR (2009) Techniques for liver parenchymal transection in liver resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD006880. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006880.pub2

  8. Casciola L, Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Ceribelli C, Spaziani A (2011) Robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery including lesions located in the posterosuperior segments. Surg Endosc 25:3815–38248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Patriti A, Ceccarelli G, Bartoli A, Casciola L (2011) Extracorporeal pringle maneuver in robot-assisted liver surgery. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 21(5):e242–e244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bolsin S, Colson M (2000) The use of the Cusum Technique in the assessment of trainee competence in new procedures. Int J Qual Health Care 12:433–438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A (2004) Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cherqui D (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg 90(6):644–646

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Viganò L, Tayar C, Laurent A, Cherqui D (2009) Laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 16(4):410–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giulianotti PC, Sbrana F, Coratti A, Bianco FM, Addeo P, Buchs N et al (2011) Totally robotic right hepatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes. Arch Surg 146(7):844–850

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ceccarelli G, Patriti A, Bellochi R, Spaziani A, Casciola L (2013) Costs and benefits. A triad in comparison: open, laparoscopic, and robotic surgery. Updates in Surgery. Springer Milan, Milano, pp 57–64

  16. Dagher I, Gayet B, Tzanis D, Tranchart H, Fuks D, Soubrane O et al (2014) International experience for laparoscopic major liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21(10):732–736

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Simillis C, Constantinides VA, Tekkis PP, Darzi A, Lovegrove R, Jiao L et al (2007) Laparoscopic versus open hepatic resections for benign and malignant neoplasms—a meta-analysis. Surgery 141(2):203–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Descottes B, Glineur D, Lachachi F, Valleix D, Paineau J, Hamy A et al (2003) Laparoscopic liver resection of benign liver tumors. Surg Endosc 17(1):23–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vigano L, Laurent A, Tayar C, Tomatis M, Ponti A, Cherqui D (2009) The learning curve in laparoscopic liver resection: improved feasibility and reproducibility. Ann Surg 250(5):772–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, Han H-S, Kaneko H, Buell JF (2014) Laparoscopic hepatectomy is theoretically better than open hepatectomy: preparing for the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 21:723–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of Surgery, ASL Umbria 2, Ospedale San Matteo degli Infermi, Spoleto, Italy

    Alberto Patriti & Luigi Marano

  2. Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, European Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Luciano Casciola

Authors
  1. Alberto Patriti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luigi Marano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luciano Casciola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alberto Patriti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None.

Ethical Standard

I declare that in the study were respected the ethical standards conformed to the guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration (as revised in Tokyo 2004). No study advertising was made and no remuneration was offered.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patriti, A., Marano, L. & Casciola, L. MILS in a general surgery unit: learning curve, indications, and limitations. Updates Surg 67, 207–213 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0317-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-015-0317-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation