Hubbry Logo
HepatectomyHepatectomyMain
Open search
Hepatectomy
Community hub
Hepatectomy
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Hepatectomy
Hepatectomy
Hepatectomy
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Hepatectomy
ICD-9-CM50.22-50.4
MeSHD006498

Hepatectomy is the surgical resection (removal of all or part) of the liver. While the term is often employed for the removal of the liver from a liver transplant donor, this article will focus on partial resections of hepatic tissue and hepatoportoenterostomy.

History

[edit]

The first hepatectomies were reported by Dr. Ichio Honjo (1913–1987) of (Kyoto University) in 1949,[1] and Dr. Jean-Louis Lortat-Jacob (1908–1992) of France in 1952.[2] In the latter case, the patient was a 58-year-old woman diagnosed with colorectal cancer which had metastasized to the liver.[citation needed]

Indications

[edit]

Most hepatectomies are performed for the treatment of hepatic neoplasms, both benign or malign. Benign neoplasms include hepatocellular adenoma, hepatic hemangioma and focal nodular hyperplasia. The most common malignant neoplasms (cancers) of the liver are metastases; those arising from colorectal cancer are among the most common, and the most amenable to surgical resection. The most common primary malignant tumour of the liver is the hepatocellular carcinoma. Another primary malignant liver tumor is the cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatectomy may also be the procedure of choice to treat intrahepatic gallstones or parasitic cysts of the liver.[citation needed] Partial hepatectomies are also performed to remove a portion of a liver from a living donor for transplantation.[3]

Technique

[edit]

A hepatectomy is considered a major surgical procedure performed under general anesthesia. Access is accomplished by laparotomy, historically by a bilateral subcostal ("chevron") incision, possibly with midline extension (Calne or "Mercedes-Benz" incision). Nowadays a broadly used approach for open liver resections is the J incision, consisting in a right subcostal incision with midline extension.[4] The anterior approach, one of the most innovative, is made simpler by the liver hanging maneuver.[5] In most recent years the minimal invasive approach, consisting in laparoscopic and then robotic surgery, has become increasingly common in liver resective surgery. Hepatectomies may be anatomic, i.e. the lines of resection match the limits of one or more functional segments of the liver as defined by the Couinaud classification (cf. liver#Functional anatomy);[6] or they may be non-anatomic, irregular or "wedge" hepatectomies. Anatomic resections are generally preferred because of the smaller risk of bleeding and biliary fistula; however, non-anatomic resections can be performed safely as well in selected cases.[7]

The Pringle manoeuvre is usually performed during a hepatectomy to minimize blood loss; however, this can lead to reperfusion injury in the liver due to ischemia.[citation needed]

Complications

[edit]

Bleeding is a feared technical complication and may be grounds for urgent reoperation. It has been demonstrated that the intraoperative blood loss during liver resections affects the outcome in terms of postoperative morbidity and mortality.[8] Biliary fistula is also a possible complication, albeit one more amenable to nonsurgical management. Pulmonary complications such as atelectasis and pleural effusion are commonplace, and dangerous in patients with underlying lung disease. Infection is relatively rare.[citation needed]

Liver failure is the most serious complication of liver resection; this is a major deterrent in the surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. It is also a problem, to a lesser degree, in patients with previous hepatectomies (e.g. repeat resections for reincident colorectal cancer metastases).[citation needed]

Results

[edit]

Liver surgery is safe when performed by experienced surgeons with appropriate technological and institutional support. As with most major surgical procedures, there is a marked tendency towards optimal results at the hands of surgeons with high caseloads in selected centres (typically cancer centres and transplantation centres).[citation needed]

For optimal results, combination treatment with systemic or regionally infused chemo or biological therapy should be considered. Prior to surgery, cytotoxic agents such as oxaliplatin given systemically for colorectal metastasis, or chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma can significantly decrease the size of the tumor bulk, allowing then for resections which would remove a segment or wedge portion of the liver only. These procedures can also be aided by application of liver clamp (Lin or Chu liver clamp; Pilling no.604113-61995) in order to minimize blood loss.[citation needed]

Etymology

[edit]

The word "hepatectomy" is derived from Greek. In Greek liver is hepar and -ectomy comes from the Greek ektomē, "to remove."[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Hepatectomy

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Hepatectomy, derived from the Greek hepat- (liver) + -ectomy (excision), is a surgical procedure to remove all or part of the liver, most commonly performed to treat primary or metastatic , benign tumors, or to harvest liver tissue for living-donor transplantation. The liver's remarkable regenerative capacity allows up to two-thirds of a healthy liver to be removed, with the remaining tissue typically regrowing to near-normal size within weeks to months. Hepatectomies are classified as major or minor based on the extent of resection: major procedures involve removing more than three Couinaud segments (such as right or left hepatectomy), while minor resections target fewer segments, including wedge or segmental excisions. The surgery can be conducted via open incision, laparoscopically, or robotically, with the latter two minimally invasive approaches offering reduced recovery time and lower complication rates when feasible. Under general , the procedure typically lasts 2 to 6 hours, involving careful control of blood vessels and ducts to minimize and ensure precise tumor removal. Indications for hepatectomy primarily include , colorectal liver metastases, and other malignancies confined to the liver, as well as non-cancerous conditions like symptomatic hemangiomas or adenomas. In living-donor cases, partial hepatectomy enables transplantation for recipients with end-stage . Preoperative assessment focuses on liver function and remnant liver volume to ensure postoperative viability, often incorporating and tests like indocyanine green clearance. Despite advances, hepatectomy carries risks including hemorrhage, bile leakage, infection, , , and , with an overall mortality rate of approximately 2%. Recovery involves a hospital stay of up to one week, followed by 4 to 8 weeks at home, during which patients monitor for complications and adhere to dietary restrictions to support regeneration. The history of hepatectomy traces back to 1888, when German surgeon Carl Langenbuch performed the first successful partial liver resection for an echinococcal cyst, marking the beginning of modern hepatic surgery. Over the subsequent decades, innovations such as hilar dissection in the 1950s and the introduction of laparoscopic techniques in the 1990s have significantly improved safety and outcomes, transforming hepatectomy from a high-mortality procedure to a standard curative option for .

Overview

Definition and Etymology

Hepatectomy is a surgical procedure involving the resection, or excision, of all or part of the liver, primarily performed for therapeutic purposes such as treating liver tumors or other pathologies. Typically, it entails partial removal of liver tissue to preserve sufficient functional hepatic mass, distinguishing it from total hepatectomy, which is reserved for contexts like orthotopic liver transplantation where the entire organ is excised and replaced. This procedure relies on the liver's remarkable regenerative capacity, which enables safe resection of up to 70% of the organ in healthy individuals without leading to liver failure. The term "hepatectomy" originates from roots "hepat-" or "hepato-," derived from "hēpar" meaning "liver," combined with "-ectomy," from "ektomē" signifying "excision" or "removal." It first appeared in in the late , with documented usage around 1890, reflecting advancements in surgical terminology as liver operations became feasible. In scope, hepatectomy encompasses a range of partial resections, including minor procedures like wedge resections for small lesions and more extensive ones such as segmentectomies or hemihepatectomies, which involve removal of specific liver segments or lobes. Major hepatectomies are defined as resections of four or more Couinaud segments, while minor resections involve three or fewer segments, including wedge or segmental excisions. The procedure excludes non-surgical interventions like or , which target liver tissue without physical excision.

Types of Hepatectomy

Hepatectomies are broadly classified into anatomic and non-anatomic resections based on their adherence to the liver's vascular and segmental . Anatomic resections follow the Couinaud segmentation system, which divides the liver into eight functional segments, allowing for precise removal of entire segments or lobes to minimize the risk of tumor dissemination along portal pedicles. Examples include segmentectomy, which targets one or more specific segments, and , involving the resection of a complete lobe. In contrast, non-anatomic resections, such as wedge resections, involve the excision of the tumor and a margin of surrounding without regard to segmental boundaries, making them suitable for superficial or peripherally located lesions where preservation of liver volume is prioritized. Extent-based classifications further categorize hepatectomies according to the volume of liver tissue removed, which influences perioperative risks and postoperative liver function. Minor hepatectomies involve the resection of three or fewer Couinaud segments and are associated with lower morbidity compared to more extensive procedures. Major hepatectomies entail the removal of four or more segments and are often indicated for large tumors requiring substantial tissue clearance. Hemihepatectomy specifically refers to the removal of the right or left lobe, constituting a standard major resection, while extended hepatectomy involves five or more segments in addition to an entire lobe, such as an extended right hepatectomy that includes segments from the left lobe. Specialized techniques, such as associating liver partition and ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), represent innovative approaches to enable resection in cases with initially insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). ALPPS is a two-stage procedure where the first stage involves ligation of the tumor-bearing lobe combined with parenchymal transection to promote rapid of the remaining liver, followed by completion hepatectomy after adequate FLR growth, typically within 7-14 days. This method has facilitated curative intent in patients previously deemed unresectable due to small FLR volumes. Hepatectomies can also be distinguished by surgical approach, which impacts recovery and complications. Open hepatectomy remains the , involving a large abdominal incision for direct access. Laparoscopic hepatectomy uses minimally invasive ports and a camera for intra-abdominal visualization, offering benefits like reduced blood loss and shorter stays for select cases. Robotic hepatectomy employs advanced robotic systems to enhance precision in complex dissections, particularly for posteriorly located lesions; as of 2025, it has seen increased adoption, including in living donor procedures.

Anatomy and Physiology

Liver Structure and Function

The liver receives a dual blood supply, with approximately 75% of its blood flow derived from the nutrient-rich, deoxygenated blood of the and 25% from the oxygenated blood of the . This unique vascular arrangement ensures efficient nutrient absorption and oxygenation of hepatocytes while maintaining high perfusion rates, as the organ receives about 25% of the despite comprising only 2% of total body weight. Biliary drainage occurs through an intricate network of intrahepatic ducts that collect from hepatocytes and converge into right and left hepatic ducts, which unite to form the ; the caudate lobe (segment I) is notably drained by small ducts from both lobes. Anatomically, the liver is divided into four lobes: the larger right and left lobes separated by the falciform ligament, and the smaller quadrate and caudate lobes located on the inferior and posterior surfaces, respectively. Functionally, it is segmented into eight independent units based on Couinaud's classification, which delineates vascular territories supplied by branches of the portal vein and hepatic artery within portal triads (comprising the hepatic artery proper, portal vein branch, and bile duct) and drained by hepatic veins into the inferior vena cava. These segments enable precise anatomical resections by respecting independent inflow and outflow, with the caudate lobe receiving dual portal inflow from both right and left branches. The liver performs essential physiological roles, including and (such as storage and , and synthesis of plasma proteins like ), detoxification of and xenobiotics via enzymes, bile production for lipid emulsification in , and storage of vitamins (A, D, B12) and minerals (iron, ). In healthy livers, this functional reserve allows safe resection of up to 70-80% of the organ volume, as the remnant tissue can sustain vital processes provided it constitutes at least 20-25% of total liver volume. However, in cirrhosis, fibrotic scarring disrupts architecture and vascular patency, significantly reducing functional reserve and elevating the risk of postoperative , often necessitating a larger remnant (40% or more) for safety.

Regeneration After Resection

Liver regeneration following hepatectomy is a complex, orchestrated process primarily involving the proliferation of mature hepatocytes to restore the organ's mass and function, enabling the liver to compensate for surgical resection. This regenerative capacity is unique among mammalian organs and underpins the safety of hepatectomy procedures. The process is triggered immediately after partial hepatectomy (PHx), with hepatocytes entering the in a synchronized manner, driven by a cascade of molecular signals that promote rather than in the initial phases. The mechanisms of regeneration can be divided into distinct phases: priming, proliferation, and termination. During the priming phase, cytokines such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) activate s by inducing immediate-early genes and preparing them for division, often via the JAK-STAT3 pathway. This is followed by the proliferation phase, where s like (HGF) and (EGF) stimulate and ; HGF, produced by non-parenchymal cells, binds to its receptor c-Met to initiate mitogenic signaling, while EGF and transforming growth factor-alpha (TGF-α) enhance progression through the G1/S checkpoint via upregulation of D1. The termination phase is regulated by TGF-β, which inhibits further proliferation to prevent overgrowth and restore . Liver sinusoidal endothelial cells contribute key mitogens like HGF and Wnt ligands during this process. In healthy livers, regeneration begins with initial hypertrophy and metabolic adaptations within 24-48 hours post-resection, followed by peak around 24-36 hours in , leading to full mass restoration in 7-10 days; in humans, complete functional recovery typically occurs in 6-8 weeks. However, this timeline is significantly impaired in diseased livers, such as those with or , where regeneration may be delayed or incomplete due to reduced hepatocyte responsiveness and fibrotic barriers, extending recovery to several months or resulting in post-hepatectomy . Factors influencing regeneration include advanced age, which diminishes proliferative capacity through senescence-associated pathways; poor , leading to and that exacerbate energy deficits; and comorbidities like or , which alter inflammatory responses and metabolic . Recent advances in from 2020-2025 have elucidated metabolic shifts that support regeneration, particularly enhanced metabolism, where uptake via transporters like SLC1A5 fuels synthesis and balance in proliferating hepatocytes, promoting faster recovery. supplementation or shifts toward glutaminase 1 (GLS1) activity have been shown to accelerate expansion in fibrotic models, highlighting its role in overcoming regenerative barriers. These insights stem from integrated analyses revealing dynamic changes in and glucose pathways post-PHx. Clinically, understanding these mechanisms forms the basis for optimizing future liver remnant (FLR) volume through strategies like (PVE), which redirects portal flow to induce in the intended remnant, increasing its size by 28-46% within 4 weeks to ensure postoperative safety. This regenerative potential also supports safe outcomes in living donor hepatectomy by allowing donor liver recovery without long-term impairment.

History

Early Developments

The concept of liver resection emerged in the late through experimental work on animals, which demonstrated the liver's remarkable regenerative capacity. In 1890, German pathologist Albert Ponfick conducted partial hepatectomies on dogs and rabbits, observing that the remaining liver tissue could restore up to 80% of its original mass within weeks through compensatory and , laying the groundwork for understanding post-resection recovery. These studies highlighted the organ's potential for survival after substantial removal but were limited to small-scale excisions due to technical constraints. Early human attempts at hepatectomy in the pre-20th century were rare and fraught with peril, often confined to trauma cases or incidental excisions of protruding liver tissue during abdominal surgeries, where massive hemorrhage and postoperative infections frequently proved fatal. The first planned elective human hepatic resection occurred in 1888, when German surgeon Carl Johann August Langenbuch successfully removed a tumor from the left lobe, though the patient required reoperation for bleeding. Progress stalled thereafter, with sporadic resections in the early 1900s yielding high complication rates, underscoring the challenges of controlling the liver's rich vascular supply without modern or antibiotics. The mid-20th century marked the advent of formal hepatectomy procedures. In 1949, Japanese surgeon Ichio Honjo performed the first documented right lobectomy on a human patient with at Hospital, achieving survival through meticulous vascular ligation. This was followed in 1952 by French surgeon Jean-Louis Lortat-Jacob, who executed the first controlled right hepatectomy for hepatic metastasis, emphasizing hilar dissection for safer resection. These milestones relied on emerging anatomical insights, such as Claude Couinaud's 1953 classification of functional liver segments, which provided a basis for precise resections. From the 1950s to the 1970s, hepatectomy faced significant hurdles, including operative mortality rates of 10-20% or higher, primarily attributable to intraoperative hemorrhage and subsequent . The Pringle maneuver, originally described by James Hogarth Pringle in for temporary occlusion of the hepatoduodenal ligament to stem bleeding in trauma, was refined and more routinely applied in elective procedures post-1950, enabling intermittent vascular control to reduce blood loss. Japanese surgeons played a pivotal role in advancing feasibility during this era, leveraging high-caseload centers like those in and to accumulate experience with resections, which progressively lowered complication rates through iterative technique improvements.

Modern Innovations

The introduction of laparoscopic hepatectomy in the early 1990s marked a significant shift toward minimally invasive techniques in liver , with the first reports appearing in 1991 by for benign tumors and subsequent publications in 1992 expanding its application. This approach, initially limited to peripheral lesions, gradually evolved to include more complex resections by the , reducing recovery times compared to open procedures. Concurrently, standardization of incision types such as the J-shaped subcostal and incisions occurred during the 1980s to , optimizing access for partial hepatectomies while minimizing wound complications; studies in the mid- confirmed the J-shaped variant's advantages in reducing late postoperative issues over extended Mercedes-type incisions. In the 2010s, the Associating Liver Partition and Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) procedure emerged as an innovative two-stage strategy, first described in 2012, to accelerate future liver remnant hypertrophy in patients with borderline volumes, thereby enabling safer major resections in oncologic cases. Intraoperative also gained prominence during this decade for real-time tumor localization and margin assessment, enhancing precision and altering surgical plans in up to 30-50% of cases by detecting lesions missed on preoperative . From 2020 to 2025, robotic systems like the da Vinci platform advanced hepatectomy by providing enhanced dexterity and three-dimensional visualization for complex resections, including caudate lobe procedures, with reviews highlighting improved and reduced surgeon fatigue in minimally invasive settings. AI-assisted planning tools further refined margin determination, using to analyze imaging data and predict optimal resection widths for colorectal liver metastases, achieving high accuracy in cohort studies. A 2025 Lancet review on precision surgery for emphasized integrating tumor biology—such as microvascular invasion and genomic profiling—with anatomical considerations to tailor resections, improving oncologic outcomes through personalized perioperative strategies. Innovations in living donor hepatectomy have focused on parenchymal-sparing approaches, particularly with robotic assistance, to minimize donor morbidity while preserving graft viability; recent studies from demonstrate reduced postoperative complications and faster recovery through selective vessel preservation and minimally invasive techniques.

Indications

Oncologic Indications

Hepatectomy serves as a cornerstone curative treatment for primary liver malignancies, particularly (HCC), which accounts for the majority of cases worldwide. For HCC, surgical resection is recommended as the first-line therapy in patients with early-stage disease, defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system as stage 0 or A, encompassing solitary tumors or up to three nodules smaller than 3 cm in patients with well-preserved liver function (Child-Pugh class A or select B). Specifically, hepatectomy is indicated for single lesions up to 5 cm in non-cirrhotic livers or compensated without significant , as these patients demonstrate favorable long-term outcomes with 5-year survival rates exceeding 50% when R0 margins are achieved. In contrast, , including intrahepatic (iCCA) and perihilar (pCCA) subtypes, warrants hepatectomy for anatomically resectable tumors without distant metastases or major vascular invasion; iCCA typically involves partial hepatectomy for solitary or unilobar lesions, while pCCA often requires extended hemihepatectomy combined with resection to secure negative margins. For metastatic liver disease, hepatectomy is most established in colorectal liver metastases (CLM), where it offers curative intent for approximately 20% of patients with resectable lesions, achieving 5-year overall survival rates approaching 60%. Resection is also considered for select non-colorectal metastases, such as those from neuroendocrine tumors (NELM), particularly well-differentiated, low- to intermediate-grade lesions limited to fewer than eight nodules, and isolated liver metastases in responsive subtypes like hormone receptor-positive or HER2-enriched disease. Patient selection for oncologic hepatectomy hinges on several evidence-based criteria to ensure feasibility and safety, including tumor characteristics (size, number, and location permitting R0 resection with at least 1 cm margins), absence of extrahepatic , and adequate future liver remnant (FLR) volume—typically greater than 20% of total liver volume in normal or 30-40% in cirrhotic livers to prevent post-hepatectomy . , indicated by platelet count below 100,000/μL or hepatic vein pressure gradient exceeding 10 mmHg, generally contraindicates resection in HCC due to heightened perioperative risks. Neoadjuvant is employed for borderline resectable cases, especially in CLM, to downsize tumors and improve resectability while assessing . Recent advancements from 2020 to 2025 in precision oncology have enhanced patient stratification for hepatectomy through biomarkers integrated into decision-making. Circulating tumor DNA-derived (TMB) predicts post-resection recurrence in HCC, guiding selection, while (AFP) levels above 1,000 ng/mL and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine signatures in plasma cell-free DNA aid in prognostic assessment and eligibility for resection versus alternative therapies. These molecular tools, combined with and functional assessments like clearance, enable more tailored approaches, improving outcomes in heterogeneous liver cancers. Benign lesions such as hepatic adenomas may occasionally mimic oncologic presentations, necessitating similar preoperative evaluation to differentiate from malignancies.

Non-Oncologic Indications

Non-oncologic indications for hepatectomy primarily encompass benign, infectious, parasitic, traumatic, and certain congenital liver conditions where surgical resection addresses symptomatic disease or prevents complications, while conservative approaches are favored for cases. Hepatectomy in these scenarios often requires initial diagnostic evaluation to exclude , similar to oncologic protocols, ensuring appropriate patient selection. Benign liver tumors represent a common non-oncologic indication, with resection typically reserved for lesions causing symptoms or posing risks. Hepatocellular adenoma, a hormone-sensitive tumor, warrants hepatectomy due to its potential for rupture—particularly in lesions exceeding 5 cm—or malignant transformation into , especially in cases associated with oral contraceptive use. Hepatic hemangiomas, the most prevalent benign tumors, are generally managed conservatively unless symptomatic, such as with pain or compression from sizes greater than 10 cm, prompting resection to alleviate discomfort and mitigate rare rupture risks. rarely necessitates surgery, as it is typically asymptomatic and non-progressive, but hepatectomy may be considered for diagnostic uncertainty or atypical growth patterns. Infectious and parasitic conditions also drive non-oncologic hepatectomy when localized disease persists despite medical therapy. Hydatid cysts from often require radical resection, such as pericystectomy or partial hepatectomy, for central or multiple lesions to eradicate the parasite and prevent recurrence or secondary , with surgical intervention preferred over aspiration in complicated cases. Pyogenic intrahepatic abscesses, frequently arising from biliary obstruction or portal , may necessitate hepatectomy if percutaneous drainage fails, particularly in multiloculated or poorly accessible abscesses causing ongoing or liver destruction. Similarly, intrahepatic biliary stones leading to localized cholangitis or segmental can justify resection to remove the nidus of and restore biliary flow. Other non-oncologic applications include trauma and congenital malformations. In severe liver trauma, damage control hepatectomy serves as a salvage procedure during initial to control hemorrhage in high-grade injuries (AAST III-V), followed by staged reconstruction once stabilized. For congenital anomalies, such as variants of with intrahepatic biliary cysts post-Kasai portoenterostomy, hepatectomy addresses recurrent cholangitis or localized by excising affected segments, preserving functional liver tissue. Overall, hepatectomy for these indications is guided by the presence of symptoms—like , , or fever—or imminent complications, such as rupture or , with asymptomatic lesions managed expectantly through surveillance imaging to avoid unnecessary . This approach balances the liver's regenerative capacity against procedural risks, prioritizing minimally invasive techniques where feasible.

Role in Liver Transplantation

Hepatectomy plays a central role in living donor (LDLT), where partial liver resection from a healthy donor provides a graft to address organ shortages, particularly for pediatric and adult recipients. In living donor hepatectomy, the right hepatic lobe is typically donated for adult recipients, comprising 55-80% of the donor's total liver volume, while the left lobe or left lateral segment is used for pediatric cases. Donor selection criteria emphasize safety, requiring the remnant liver volume to be at least 30-35% of the donor's total liver volume to ensure adequate postoperative function. For the recipient, the graft must provide a future liver remnant (FLR) exceeding 35% of the recipient's standard liver volume or at least 0.8% of body weight to support immediate viability. Recent advancements from 2020 to 2025 have seen increased adoption of robotic-assisted living donor hepatectomy, which reduces postoperative complications such as pain and incisional hernias, shortens recovery time, and lowers overall morbidity compared to open procedures. In the recipient, hepatectomy involves total removal of the native liver during orthotopic (OLT) for end-stage , a technically demanding phase that often requires venovenous bypass to maintain hemodynamic stability and prevent renal dysfunction during caval and clamping. This approach is standard in many centers, though piggyback techniques without bypass are increasingly used in select cases to minimize complications. Liver regeneration in the donor remnant, typically restoring 80-90% of original volume within weeks, underpins the safety of this procedure by compensating for the resected portion. Indications for LDLT include organ shortages driving the use of living donors for both pediatric patients with conditions like and adults with chronic , as well as (HCC) confined to criteria (single tumor ≤5 cm or up to three tumors ≤3 cm without vascular invasion) or acute unresponsive to medical therapy. Ethical considerations and safety protocols are paramount in living donor hepatectomy, with rigorous processes detailing risks and comprehensive volumetric assessments using CT or MRI to confirm remnant adequacy. Recent data indicate donor mortality rates below 0.5%, primarily from right lobe donations, underscoring the procedure's low but non-zero risk profile.

Surgical Techniques

Preoperative Assessment and Planning

Preoperative assessment for hepatectomy involves a comprehensive evaluation to determine surgical candidacy, optimize liver function, and minimize risks such as post-hepatectomy (PHLF). This process integrates , tests, and clinical assessments to ensure the future liver remnant (FLR) can sustain postoperative demands, particularly in patients with underlying . Tailored to indications like or metastatic disease, the evaluation prioritizes patient-specific factors to guide planning. Volumetric assessment is a cornerstone of preoperative planning, utilizing computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to calculate the FLR volume as a percentage of the total estimated liver volume (TELV). In patients with healthy livers, an FLR exceeding 20% of TELV is generally considered adequate to prevent PHLF, while those with cirrhosis or compromised parenchyma require at least 40%. If the FLR falls below these thresholds, portal vein embolization (PVE) is employed to induce hypertrophy of the remnant liver, typically increasing FLR volume by 20-40% within 3-6 weeks, thereby enhancing surgical safety. Multidisciplinary evaluation incorporates and scoring systems to quantify hepatic reserve, alongside tumor staging and systemic clearances. Standard assessments include the Child-Pugh classification and (MELD) score, where Child-Pugh class A and MELD scores below 10 indicate low-risk status suitable for resection. For , the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system integrates tumor burden, liver function, and to stratify and inform resectability. Cardiac and pulmonary evaluations, often via cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in high-risk cases, assess functional capacity; an anaerobic threshold below 11 mL/kg/min on CPET predicts increased morbidity. Optimization strategies focus on addressing modifiable risk factors to improve outcomes. Nutritional support is recommended for malnourished patients, particularly those with , using enteral or parenteral formulas to correct deficiencies and enhance potential. Management of , a key if clinically significant (e.g., hepatic venous >10 mmHg), may involve beta-blockers or (TIPS) in select cases to reduce bleeding risk. Since 2020, (AI)-assisted 3D modeling of vascular anatomy from CT/MRI data has emerged as a tool for precise preoperative simulation, reducing operative time and complications by up to 20% in randomized trials. Risk stratification identifies high-risk features such as hepatic or prior exposure, which compromise liver quality and elevate PHLF incidence. affecting >20% of hepatocytes doubles the risk of major morbidity, often assessed via CT attenuation or . Preoperative for colorectal metastases increases prevalence by 2.2-fold, necessitating a 4-6 week interval post-treatment for recovery. Validated scores incorporating these factors, like the PHLF risk score, guide decisions on extending FLR targets to 30-40% in affected patients.

Open Hepatectomy Procedures

Open hepatectomy involves direct abdominal access to perform liver resection, allowing for comprehensive visualization and manipulation of hepatic structures. The choice of incision is determined by the extent of resection and patient anatomy, with common approaches providing optimal exposure to the liver while minimizing complications such as wound infection or hernia. The Mercedes-Benz incision, consisting of a bilateral subcostal cut with a vertical midline extension to the xiphoid process, offers extensive access for major resections involving multiple segments or the need to reach suprahepatic veins and the inferior vena cava. In contrast, the J-shaped incision—a right subcostal incision curving medially and cranially to the xiphoid—provides adequate exposure for right-sided hepatectomies with reduced risk of abdominal wall complications compared to more extensive incisions. For tumors in superior segments (such as 7 or 8) or in patients with a narrow costal arch, a thoracoabdominal approach may be employed, extending a J-shaped laparotomy through a phrenotomy to the thoracic cavity for enhanced superior access without increasing overall morbidity. Anatomic guidance during open hepatectomy emphasizes precise control of vascular and biliary structures to ensure safe resection. Hilar involves extrahepatic exposure and ligation of the and hepatic artery branches supplying the tumor-bearing segments, particularly useful for centrally located lesions to minimize intraoperative bleeding. The extrahepatic Glissonean approach complements this by encircling and clamping Glisson's pedicles (sheaths containing portal triads) at the hepatic hilum for segmental inflow occlusion, enabling controlled devascularization of targeted liver segments while preserving the future liver remnant. This method facilitates anatomic resections by delineating resection planes based on Couinaud segments, reducing the risk of incomplete tumor removal. Parenchymal transection follows mobilization and inflow control, focusing on dividing the liver tissue along predefined planes while achieving adequate oncologic margins. The crush-clamp technique, considered a standard due to its efficiency and low cost, uses clamps to fracture the and expose vessels or ducts for ligation with sutures or clips, allowing rapid division at rates up to 6-9 g/min. For more precise dissection in vascular-rich areas, the Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) employs ultrasonic vibration to fragment hepatocytes while sparing vessels, though it is slower (around 1-2 g/min) and better suited for tumors near major structures. The water-jet dissector utilizes high-pressure saline streams to selectively separate from vessels, promoting and clear margins but requiring additional ligation steps and longer operative times. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cases, a minimum of 1 cm is targeted to reduce recurrence risk, with wider margins (>1 cm) associated with improved survival in early-stage disease. Open hepatectomy procedures typically last 3-6 hours, depending on resection extent and technique complexity, with crush-clamp methods expediting transection. Blood loss, often 500-1000 mL, is managed through intraoperative cell salvage systems that collect, wash, and reinfuse autologous red blood cells, reducing the need for allogeneic transfusions in up to 50% of cases without oncologic compromise. While open techniques remain the mainstay for complex resections, minimally invasive approaches are increasingly adopted for eligible patients to potentially shorten recovery.

Minimally Invasive Hepatectomy

Minimally invasive hepatectomy encompasses laparoscopic and robotic approaches that aim to reduce surgical trauma compared to traditional open methods, with laparoscopic techniques originating in the early 1990s as initial reports of liver resections emerged. These methods are particularly suited for minor and segmental resections in non-cirrhotic livers, where they offer benefits such as decreased postoperative pain and faster recovery. In laparoscopic hepatectomy, access is achieved through 3 to 5 ports, establishing a at 10-12 mmHg to facilitate visualization and manipulation, typically using a 30° laparoscope for optimal angled views during dissection. This approach is ideal for peripheral lesions amenable to minor resections, with conversion to open occurring in 5-10% of cases due to factors like or anatomical challenges. Contraindications include centrally located tumors near major vascular structures or extensive prior , which may obscure access or increase risks. Robotic hepatectomy, often employing the da Vinci system, enhances precision through tremor filtration, articulated instruments, and high-definition 3D visualization, enabling more complex dissections than standard . Meta-analyses from 2020-2025 indicate that robotic approaches yield lower blood loss (mean difference -50 to -100 mL) and shorter hospital stays (1-2 days less) compared to both open and laparoscopic methods, particularly for difficult resections. Recent advancements include (ICG) , which provides real-time visualization of tumor margins and hepatic boundaries during minimally invasive procedures, improving R0 resection rates and reducing recurrence risks. Hybrid approaches, combining laparoscopic mobilization with open parenchymal transection, further expand feasibility for major resections in select patients by leveraging the strengths of both techniques.

Intraoperative Considerations

Anesthesia and Patient Positioning

General anesthesia is the standard approach for hepatectomy, utilizing either total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with or inhalational agents such as or , selected based on patient factors and institutional protocols to maintain hemodynamic stability during phases of potential blood loss and vascular occlusion. TIVA may offer advantages in postoperative pain reduction and faster recovery compared to inhalational , though both techniques are effective in minimizing liver stress. Invasive monitoring is essential, including radial arterial lines for continuous assessment, central venous pressure (CVP) catheters to guide fluid status, and transesophageal (TEE) for real-time evaluation, particularly in patients with comorbidities like . These measures help detect early or right heart strain from in laparoscopic cases. Patient positioning optimizes surgical access while minimizing physiological compromise. The with a slight reverse Trendelenburg tilt (10-15 degrees head-up) facilitates gravitational displacement of abdominal contents, improving visualization of the hepatic hilum and reducing diaphragmatic interference. For minimally invasive procedures, arms are tucked at the sides to accommodate placement and robotic arms, with padding to prevent ; this setup is adapted from open surgery by incorporating lateral tilting for right-sided resections. and sequential pneumatic devices are routinely applied to mitigate venous risk during prolonged immobility. Fluid management prioritizes goal-directed therapy to prevent overload, which could exacerbate hepatic congestion or postoperative . Intraoperative fluids are titrated using dynamic indices like variation or variation, targeting a CVP below 5 mmHg during parenchymal transection to reduce venous , with crystalloids administered at 3-5 mL/kg/hour as baseline. In patients with , vasoactive agents such as norepinephrine are employed to maintain above 65 mmHg while restricting fluids, avoiding excessive preload that impairs liver remnant function. Blood product transfusion thresholds are conservative, initiating at levels of 7-9 g/dL or significant ongoing loss. Special considerations include multimodal analgesia with thoracic epidural catheters for intraoperative and early postoperative control, providing sympathetic blockade to enhance regional without sole reliance on opioids. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, refined between 2020 and 2025, emphasize opioid-sparing strategies through epidurals, acetaminophen, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, reducing and length of stay by up to 2 days in hepatectomy patients. Temperature maintenance and normocapnia are vigilantly monitored to preserve and avoid during hypotensive episodes.

Vascular Control and Resection Techniques

Vascular control during hepatectomy is essential to minimize intraoperative blood loss and maintain a clear operative field, primarily through techniques that temporarily interrupt hepatic inflow or outflow. The Pringle maneuver, involving intermittent clamping of the portal triad (hepatic artery and ) at the hepatoduodenal ligament, remains a foundational hemostatic method, typically applied in cycles of 15 minutes of occlusion followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion to limit total ischemia time to under 60 minutes and reduce risks of . This approach has been shown to effectively control bleeding without significantly impacting long-term oncologic outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma resections. For more complex cases involving tumors near major or the , total vascular exclusion (TVE) extends control by clamping both the portal triad and the supra- and infrahepatic vena cava, often with venovenous bypass to maintain circulation, enabling safer resection of centrally located lesions while keeping exclusion time below 60 minutes to avoid ischemic complications. Liver parenchymal transection requires precise tools to dissect tissue while preserving vascular structures, with the Cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) widely adopted for its selective fragmentation of hepatocytes using ultrasonic vibration, allowing aspiration of while sparing vessels and bile ducts greater than 1 mm in diameter. Vascular staplers, such as endovascular stapling devices, are commonly employed for rapid, secure division of larger and portal pedicles, minimizing air risks during open or minimally invasive procedures. The liver maneuver facilitates anterior approach resections, particularly for right hepatectomies, by passing a tape between the anterior vena cava and liver to lift and stabilize the organ, providing countertraction for controlled transection along the planned plane and reducing blood loss by up to 50% in major resections. Anatomic precision in hepatectomy is enhanced by targeted devascularization techniques, such as Glissonean pedicle clamping, which involves extrahepatic isolation and selective occlusion of Glissonean sheaths (encasing branches, hepatic arteries, and bile ducts) to demarcate segmental boundaries without parenchymal incision, enabling bloodless anatomic resections and reducing overall operative bleeding. Intraoperative margin confirmation via frozen section analysis of the resection edge is a standard practice to ensure R0 resection (negative margins), with high diagnostic accuracy exceeding 98% in hepatobiliary specimens, allowing immediate extension of the resection if tumor involvement is detected. Intraoperative imaging, such as (ICG) fluorescence-guided surgery, has emerged as an important adjunct for real-time tumor detection and margin assessment, particularly in laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomies. A 2024 demonstrated higher rates of R0 resections with ICG guidance compared to conventional methods. Advances in energy devices have optimized resection efficiency, exemplified by hybrid systems like the Thunderbeat, which integrates bipolar radiofrequency and ultrasonic energy for simultaneous vessel sealing and tissue division. These devices support precise in challenging cases, aligning with preoperative volumetric planning to tailor resection extent.

Postoperative Management

Immediate Recovery and Monitoring

Following hepatectomy, patients are typically admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) or high dependency unit (HDU) for close monitoring during the initial 24-48 hours to detect early signs of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) or other acute issues. Vital signs, including blood pressure, heart rate, and oxygen saturation, are continuously tracked, alongside urine output to assess renal perfusion. Liver function is evaluated through serial measurements of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin levels, while coagulation status is monitored via prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) to identify potential bleeding risks or synthetic dysfunction. Additionally, output from surgical drains is meticulously observed for volume and character to detect bile leaks, with any increase in bilious drainage prompting immediate evaluation. Fluid and management in the immediate postoperative phase emphasizes balanced to maintain hemodynamic stability without overload, guided by goal-directed protocols. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines recommend early enteral , initiating oral intake within 24 hours when tolerated, to support gut function and reduce catabolic stress. Glycemic control is maintained between 140-180 mg/dL through insulin as needed, minimizing hyperglycemia-related complications. These strategies help preserve the functional capacity of the remnant liver while addressing common imbalances from surgical stress and blood loss. Pain control employs a multimodal approach, combining acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with thoracic epidural analgesia or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) using opioids, to optimize comfort and facilitate recovery. Early mobilization is encouraged within 24 hours, starting with assisted sitting and progressing to walking, as a core ERAS element to prevent thromboembolism and enhance pulmonary function. Recent ERAS implementations from 2020-2025 have incorporated standardized protocols that achieve a median hospital length of stay of 3-5 days for uncomplicated cases, reflecting improved efficiency in routine monitoring and care transitions. This routine vigilance also aids in the early prevention of infections through vigilant wound care and prophylactic measures.

Complication Prevention and Treatment

Prevention of complications following hepatectomy involves meticulous intraoperative techniques and vigilant postoperative monitoring tailored to high-risk patients, such as those with underlying identified during preoperative assessment. Intraoperative bleeding control relies on vascular clamping techniques, such as the Pringle maneuver, to temporarily occlude hepatic inflow, alongside the use of ultrasonic dissection devices like the Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) and topical hemostatic agents to minimize blood loss during parenchymal transection. Postoperatively, is managed with (FFP) transfusions, administration, and to stabilize , while ongoing hemorrhage defined by International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria for post-hepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH)—such as drop >3 g/dL or need for >4 units transfusion in 24 hours—prompts immediate reoperation for hemostatic intervention when associated with hemodynamic instability. Biliary fistulas are prevented through the routine placement of prophylactic abdominal drains to detect and divert early bile leakage; transcystic biliary drainage has been investigated for intraoperative leak testing with or air but randomized trials show it does not reduce fistula formation. For established leaks, (ERCP) with biliary stenting facilitates closure by decompressing the biliary system and promoting fistula healing, often combined with percutaneous drainage if needed. Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is defined by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria, grading severity from A (mild, no clinical impact) to C (severe, requiring invasive support) based on levels, , and . Prevention centers on optimizing future liver remnant (FLR) volume to at least 20-30% in healthy livers or 40% in cirrhotic ones through preoperative or associating liver partition and ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). Treatment for clinically significant PHLF includes supportive care with nutritional support and control, alongside molecular adsorbent recirculating system (MARS) dialysis to remove protein-bound toxins and bridge patients to recovery or transplantation. Infections are mitigated by perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis targeting common pathogens like , administered within 60 minutes of incision and continued for 24 hours postoperatively. Pulmonary complications, such as and , are prevented through early mobilization and incentive to maintain lung expansion, starting immediately after extubation. Recent studies from 2020-2025 highlight the role of perioperative probiotics in reducing risk, particularly in cirrhotic patients, by modulating to lower endotoxin levels and inflammatory responses. Wound complications, including surgical site infections and dehiscence, are managed with wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) therapy for enhanced healing and local antibiotics guided by culture results, emphasizing strict aseptic technique during closure. (PVT) prevention incorporates prophylactic anticoagulation with initiated within 24-48 hours postoperatively in high-risk cases, with therapeutic anticoagulation using or direct oral anticoagulants for confirmed PVT to restore patency and avert liver ischemia.

Outcomes and Prognosis

Short-Term Morbidity and Mortality

Short-term morbidity following hepatectomy is commonly assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification, with overall rates ranging from 20% to 40% across procedures. Major hepatectomies, defined as resection of three or more Couinaud segments, are associated with higher morbidity of 30% to 50%, compared to 10% to 20% for minor resections involving fewer segments. These complications include infections, bile leaks, and hemorrhage, with post-hepatectomy (PHLF) occurring in 5% to 10% of cases, representing a critical benchmark for surgical success. Additionally, 90-day readmission rates hover around 10%, often due to unresolved postoperative issues. Perioperative mortality has improved significantly, with 90-day rates now below 5% in high-volume centers performing more than 20 to 25 hepatectomies annually, a decline from historical figures of 10% to 20% in the pre-2000 era. In patients with underlying , particularly those with Child-Pugh B or C classification, mortality rises to approximately 10% to 20%, driven by impaired and higher PHLF risk. High center volume correlates with reduced failure-to-rescue rates after complications, emphasizing the role of surgical expertise in mitigating immediate risks. Recent data from 2020 to 2025 indicate that robotic-assisted hepatectomy may lower short-term morbidity compared to laparoscopic approaches, with meta-analyses reporting reduced rates of severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) in major resections. This benefit is attributed to enhanced precision in vascular control, though mortality rates remain comparable across minimally invasive techniques. Overall, technique choice influences these outcomes, with minimally invasive methods generally associated with reduced immediate morbidity in select cases.

Long-Term Survival and Recurrence

Long-term survival following hepatectomy for (HCC) varies based on resection margins and patient factors, with 5-year overall survival rates ranging from 39% to 72% after R0 resections. For colorectal liver metastases (CLM), 5-year survival reaches approximately 45-50% when combined with adjuvant chemotherapy, reflecting improvements in multimodal approaches. These outcomes underscore the curative potential of hepatectomy in selected oncologic cases, though sustained disease control remains challenging due to underlying and tumor biology. Recurrence after hepatectomy is common, with intrahepatic rates of 50-70% observed at 5 years, primarily driven by multifocal spread. Key risk factors include satellite nodules and microvascular invasion, which independently predict higher recurrence probability and poorer . Recent analyses have linked post-hepatectomy (PHLF) to increased recurrence risk in HCC patients, with affected individuals showing significantly lower 5-year recurrence-free rates (15.7% versus 20.3%) compared to those without PHLF. In non-oncologic hepatectomy, such as for benign tumors or symptomatic lesions, long-term outcomes are excellent, with case series reporting all patients disease-free at follow-up and achieving durable quality-of-life improvements. For living donors undergoing hepatectomy, liver function typically normalizes within 3-6 months, and long-term follow-up confirms satisfactory regeneration and absence of major sequelae. Advances since 2020 have enhanced prognosis through adjuvant , including PD-1 inhibitors, which significantly improve recurrence-free and overall survival in high-risk HCC patients post-resection, with studies showing 2-year recurrence-free survival rates improving by 20-40 percentage points. Similarly, in CLM, combining with post-hepatectomy boosts survival outcomes regardless of stability. Parenchymal-sparing techniques further mitigate recurrence by preserving liver volume, enabling higher rates of salvage hepatectomy for intrahepatic relapse and thereby supporting improved long-term survival.

References

  1. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/22930-hepatectomy-liver-resection
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4069316/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3678786/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5449415/
  5. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/hepatectomy
  6. https://surgicaloncology.ucsf.edu/procedure/liver-resection
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7665117/
  8. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hepat-
  9. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hepatectomy
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3133716/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9505104/
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/11/10/1441
  13. https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v13/i2/92751.htm
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5341393/
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666262023000426
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12170025/
  17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535438/
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53069/
  19. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459246/
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK500014/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6448666/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4207847/
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4171167/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5700459/
  25. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-024-02104-8
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223027608
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12308566/
  28. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ctm2.1812
  29. https://journals.lww.com/hepcomm/fulltext/2025/05010/role_of_mitogens_in_normal_and_pathological_liver.15.aspx
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/21/8414
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6706596/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4736713/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10421025/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12262948/
  35. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00018-025-05772-z
  36. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.760474/full
  37. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510002.2024.2312320
  38. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2217/hep-2021-0006
  39. https://hbsn.amegroups.org/article/view/45932/html
  40. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57198/57198-h/57198-h.htm
  41. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/595018
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11341877/
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7105847/
  44. https://www.journal-of-hepatology.eu/article/S0168-8278(03)00362-3/fulltext
  45. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/42359
  46. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11190520/
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28611511/
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16467983/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919114010231
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919115002848
  51. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-021-08770-x
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9161118/
  53. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(24)00434-5/abstract
  54. https://www.eujtransplantation.com/article/view/418
  55. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/197319-guidelines
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2716604/
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6563077/
  58. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hepatic-resection-for-colorectal-cancer-liver-metastasis
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7215975/
  60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743919111000100
  61. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1253(24)00434-5/fulltext
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5968066/
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961006006209
  64. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/392065
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5672708/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6097179/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4526758/
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15750917/
  69. https://hbsn.amegroups.org/article/view/129201/html
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8188135/
  71. https://cvirendovasc.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s42155-025-00537-y
  72. https://kjronline.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3348/kjr.2023.0507
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9257927/
  74. https://hbsn.amegroups.org/article/view/124727/html
  75. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1073274817729235
  76. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22696424/
  77. https://hbsn.amegroups.org/article/view/5804/8724
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201140/
  79. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01571-9
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4678686/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1449955/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X18344617
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10831649/
  84. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lt.21594
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X18307287
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3397635/
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5881351/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2727079/
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2020750/
  90. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2022.810479/full
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5866146/
  92. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40137-025-00469-5
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X1731105X
  94. https://ls.amegroups.org/article/view/4766/html
  95. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/14/4808
  96. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/2574-1225.2022.109
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666676625000110
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11957917/
  99. https://journals.lww.com/international-journal-of-surgery/fulltext/2025/08000/robotic_versus_laparoscopic_liver_resection__a.46.aspx
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12041109/
  101. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/2394-5079.2024.77
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34063684/
  103. https://bmcanesthesiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12871-023-02063-7
  104. https://www.bjaed.org/article/S2058-5349%2822%2900076-2/fulltext
  105. https://journals.lww.com/journalacs/fulltext/2000/06000/trendelenburg_patient_positioning__a_reevaluation.25.aspx
  106. https://www.oaepublish.com/articles/2394-5079.2020.144
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27545995/
  108. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40140-024-00613-4
  109. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8125060/
  110. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33436442/
  111. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10299667/
  112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16222453/
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37986187/
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7632141/
  115. https://www.oncotarget.com/article/21271/text/
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10728581/
  117. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17368296/
  118. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00423-023-03124-8
  119. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38867212/
  120. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29027381/
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3397638/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9726826/
  123. https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/12/rapm-2020-101933
  124. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-025-12194-2
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9402783/
  126. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19150318/
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4487746/
  128. https://www.hpbonline.org/article/S1365-182X%2815%2930472-X/fulltext
  129. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01469442
  130. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338483743_Prevention_of_biliary_fistula_after_partial_hepatectomy_by_transcystic_biliary_drainage_randomized_clinical_trial_Biliary_fistula_prevention_after_hepatectomy
  131. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31916605/
  132. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.230155
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7605090/
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S074879832030723X
  135. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12950961/
  136. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/11/5/649
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12540556/
  138. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12105156/
  139. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3848145/
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7726684/
  141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365182X21017305
  142. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17617329/
  143. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21656513/
  144. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24737685/
  145. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26830685/
  146. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7875479/
  147. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36925456/
  148. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26126423/
  149. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19524573/
  150. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24297653/
  151. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22038379/
  152. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16498709/
  153. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27144969/
  154. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40119430/
  155. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36645648/
  156. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38445916/
  157. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33187828/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.