Objective To investigate the application value of cystic plate approach (CPA) for extrahepatic right hepatic pedicle dissection in minimally invasive anatomical hepatectomy (MIALR).

Methods The retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 42 patients with primary liver cancer who underwent laparoscopic right hemi⁃hepatectomy in Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University from August 2020 to August 2022 were collected. There were 36 males and 6 females, aged (55±13)years. Of the 42 patients, 25 cases undergoing CPA for extrahepatic right hepatic pedicle dissection were divided into the CPA group, and 17 cases undergoing traditional approach for extrahepatic right hepatic pedicle dissection were divided into the traditional approach group. Observation indicators: (1) surgical situations; (2) postoperative situations. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean±SD, and comparison between groups was conducted using the t test. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(IQR), and comparison between groups was conducted using the Mann‑Whitney U test. Count data were described as absolute numbers, and comparison between groups was conducted using the chi⁃square test or Fisher exact probability. Comparison of ordinal data was conducted using the non‐parameter rank sum test.

Results (1) Surgical situations. All patients in the two groups underwent laparos-copic right hemi⁃hepatectomy successfully, with the surgical margin as negative. The operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, time of dissection of the targeted hepatic pedicle, cases under-going dissection of the trunk of right anterior hepatic pedicle and its operation time, cases under-going dissection of the trunk of right posterior hepatic pedicle and its operation time, cases with hepatic pedicle injury, cases with hepatic tissue injury, cases with dissection space as large and small were 150.00(130.00)minutes, 100.00(100.00)mL, 472.00(201.00)seconds, 10 and 366.00(94.75)seconds, 9 and 564.00(138.50)seconds, 2, 2, 25, 0 in patients of the CPA group, versus 140.00(113.00)minutes, 100.00(125.00)mL, 670.00(107.00)seconds, 8 and 663.00(136.00)seconds, 7 and 783.00(189.00)seconds, 8, 5, 2, 19 in patients of the traditional approach group. There were significant differences in the time of dissection of the targeted hepatic pedicle, time of dissection of the trunk of right anterior hepatic pedicle, time of dissection of the trunk of right posterior hepatic pedicle, hepatic pedicle injury, dissection space between the two groups (Z=-4.809, -3.254, -3.188, χ²=6.493, 34.314, P<0.05) and there was no significant difference in the operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, dissection of the trunk of right anterior hepatic pedicle, dissection of the trunk of right posterior hepatic pedicle, hepatic tissue injury between the two groups (Z=-0.282, -0.412, χ²=0.095, 0.002, 1.976, P>0.05). (2) Postoperative situations. There was no patient under⁃going postoperative hemorrhage in both of the two groups. The alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), total bilirubin (TBil) and prothrombin time (PT) at postoperative day 3, cases with postoperative biliary fistula, pathological type of tumor (hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma) were 68.00(48.50)U/L, 52.00(35.50)U/L, 28.30(12.35)mmol/L, 12.40(2.40)seconds, 2, 21, 4 in patients of the CPA group. The above indicators were 58.00(25.00)U/L, 41.00(19.50)U/L, 26.80(14.25)mmol/L, 12.50(2.95)seconds, 5, 15, 2 in patients of the traditional approach group. There was no significant difference in the ALT, AST, TBil, PT at postoperative day 3, postoperative biliary fistula between the two groups (Z=-1.218, -1.488, -0.205, -0.320, χ²=1.976, P>0.05), and there was no significant difference in the pathological type of tumor between the two groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion Application of CPA for extrahepatic right hepatic pedicle dissection in MIALR is safe and feasible.