Right Portal Vein Ligation is as Efficient as Portal Vein Embolization to Induce Hypertrophy of the Left Liver Remnant

Background Aim of this retrospective study was to compare induction of left liver hypertrophy after right portal vein ligation (PVL) and right portal vein embolization (PVE) before right hepatectomy for liver metastases. Materials and Methods Between 1998 and 2005, 18 patients underwent a PVE, whereas 17 patients underwent a PVL during a first stage laparotomy. Results There was no complication related to PVE or PVL. After a similar interval time (7 ± 3 vs 8 ± 3 weeks), the increase of the left liver volume was similar between the two groups (35 ± 38 vs 38 ± 26%). After PVE and PVL, right hepatectomy was performed in 12 and 14 patients, respectively. Technical difficulties during the right hepatectomy were similar according to duration of procedure (6.4 ± 1 vs 6.7 ± 1 h, p = 0.7) and transfusion rates (33 vs 28%, p = 0.7). Mortality was nil in both groups, and morbidity rates were respectively 58% for the PVE group and 36% for the PVL group (p = 0.6). Conclusion Right PVL and PVE result in a comparable hypertrophy of the left liver. During the first laparotomy of a two-step liver resection, PVL can be efficiently and safely performed.     

Chemotherapy does not impair hypertrophy of the left liver after right portal vein obstruction

In patients with multiple colorectal liver metastases, the technical limits of curative surgery can be overcome by both reducing tumor volume with preoperative chemotherapy and by increasing the future remnant liver with portal vein embolization. Chemotherapy is generally discontinued before the embolization because it is alleged to impair hypertrophy of the future remnant liver. We have tested this assumption by comparing two groups of patients who had undergone right portal vein obstruction: 10 patients in whom chemotherapy was maintained until surgery and 10 patients in whom it was interrupted at least 1 month prior to portal obstruction. The two groups, with and without chemotherapy, were comparable for patient’s age (60 ± 9 versus 61 ± 9 years), number of metastases (7.7 ± 3 versus 6.2 ± 3), and future remnant liver volume (25 ± 9% versus 23 ± 5% of the total liver). After right portal vein obstruction, the increase of the future remnant liver was comparable in the two groups (33 ± 26% versus 25 ± 7%). Liver resection was performed in 14 patients (7 in each group) with a similar morbidity rate (57% in each group). In conclusion, continuing chemotherapy while portal vein obstruction is performed did not impair the hypertrophy of the future remnant volume nor the postoperative course after liver resection. Therefore, chemotherapy can be safely continued until liver surgery, when portal vein obstruction is indicated.     

Preoperative portal vein embolization for major liver resection: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) is used clinically to prevent postoperative liver insufficiency. The current study examined the impact of portal vein embolization on liver resection. METHOD: A comprehensive Medline search to identify all registered literature in the English language on portal vein embolization. Meta-analysis was performed to assess the result of PVE and its impact on major liver resection. RESULT: A total of 75 publications met the search criteria but only 37 provided data sufficiently enough for analysis involving 1088 patients. The overall morbidity rate for PVE was 2.2% without mortality. Four weeks following PVE, 85% patients underwent the planned hepatectomy (n = 930). Twenty-three patients had transient liver failure following resection after PVE (2.5%) but 7 patients developed acute liver failure and died (0.8%).The reason for nonresection following PVE (n = 158, 15%) included inadequate hypertrophy of remnant liver (n = 18), severe progression of liver metastasis (n = 43), extrahepatic spread (n = 35), refusal to surgery (n = 1), poor general condition (n = 1), altered treatment to transcatheter artery embolization or chemotherapy (n = 24), complete remission after treatment with 3 cycles of fluoracil and interferon alpha in a patient with hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 1), incomplete pre- or postembolization scanning (n = 8). Of those who underwent laparotomy without resection, (n = 27) reasons included intraoperative finding of peritoneal dissemination (n = 15), portal node metastasis (n = 2), severe invasion of the tumor to the hepatic artery and portal vein (n = 1), and gross tumoral extension precluding curative resection (n = 9).Two techniques were used for portal vein embolization: percutaneous transhepatic portal embolization, (PTPE) and transileocolic portal embolization, (TIPE). The increase in remnant liver volume was much greater in PTPE than TIPE group (11.9% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.00001). However, the proportion of patients who underwent resection following PVE was 97% in TIPE and 88% PTPE, respectively (P = <0.00001). Although there was no significant difference in patients who had major complications post-PVE, the rate for minor complications was significantly higher among patients who had PTPE (53.6% vs. 0%, P = <0.0001). CONCLUSION: PVE is a safe and effective procedure in inducing liver hypertrophy to prevent postresection liver failure due to insufficient liver remnant.     

Parameters associated with changes in liver volume in patients undergoing portal vein embolization

BACKGROUND: To identify predictors of changes in hepatic volumes after portal vein embolization (PVE) before hepatectomy, we examined the relationship between clinicopathological parameters and changes in volume of embolized and nonembolized liver and regeneration of remnant liver after hepatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The subjects were 25 patients who underwent laparotomy. PVE was performed through transileocolic vein (n = 15) and percutaneous transhepatic puncture (n = 10). RESULTS: Significant atrophy and hypertrophy of the embolized and nonembolized liver were observed after PVE, respectively, and further increase of remnant liver volume was observed after hepatectomy. Background liver disease did not seem to influence the results. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) level correlated negatively with atrophy of embolized lobe (r = -0.433). Platelet count correlated positively with hypertrophy of nonembolized lobe (r = 0.412, P < 0.05) and percent increase between lobes and (r = 0.515, P < 0.05). Seven (32%) patients developed postoperative complications, such as long-term ascites or cholestasis. Changes in embolized liver and percent increase between lobes in patients with postoperative cholestasis (-94 +/- 97 cm(3) and 9.6 +/- 5.1% gain) were significantly lower than those in patients without cholestasis (17 +/- 54 cm(3) and 6.6 +/- 1.3% gain, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: ALP and platelet counts might be able to predict PVE effect and were related to postoperative course. Identification of more specific predictors is desirable.     

Extension of right portal vein embolization to segment IV portal branches

HYPOTHESIS: Routine embolization of segment IV, combined with right portal vein embolization (PVE), has been suggested in patients who are candidates for right trisegmentectomy to induce higher and faster hypertrophy of segments II-III. Our objective was to compare hypertrophy of segments II-III induced by PVE with and without extension to segment IV in patients undergoing major hepatectomy. METHODS: Twenty-six consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated; the future remnant liver volume was calculated using the portal phase of spiral computed tomographic scans before and 3 to 4 weeks after right PVE (group R, n = 13), which was extended to segment IV branches in 13 patients (group L). RESULTS: Twenty patients (76.9%) underwent the scheduled hepatic resection. Of the 6 patients who did not undergo the planned operation, 5 showed disease progression; in 1 patient (group L), there was an insufficient increase of the future remnant liver volume due to the presence of embolizing material in the left lobe. The mean +/- SD time between PVE and volume measurements was 31.8 +/- 9.3 days. The overall mean +/- SD future remnant liver volume increase was 53.1% +/- 24.8%; the increase for segment IV was significantly higher in group R than group L. The mean +/- SD post-PVE volumes of segments II-III and the rate of volume increase were similar in the 2 groups: group R, 348.4 +/- 83.1 cm3 and 67.8% +/- 30.8%, respectively, vs group L, 391.2 +/- 78.05 cm3 and 56.1% +/- 35.1%, respectively (P = .20 and P = .40). CONCLUSION: Extension of embolization to segment IV portal branches should not be routinely used because a similar volume increase of segments II-III can be simply achieved by right PVE.     

余肝不足肝癌手术治疗争议与共识

手术切除是肝癌病人获得长期生存的主要治疗方式。近年来肝脏外科进展迅速,手术适应证不断扩大。肝脏解剖复杂性和手术操作已不再是肝脏外科发展的障碍,剩余肝足够与否成为限制肝脏手术的瓶颈。目前,人工肝支持技术尚不成熟,余肝不足肝癌手术的主要策略是诱导余肝增生然后再切除肿瘤的二步切除法,以及针对原发或转移性肿瘤的降期或转化治疗。二步切除的主要方法目前仍为门静脉栓塞（PVE）或门静脉结扎（PVL）的二步肝切除术。对于肝细胞肝癌,联合肝动脉化疗栓塞可进一步改善治疗效果。近年来,联合肝脏分隔和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术（ALPPS）的出现为余肝不足的肝癌手术带来新的突破。该方法可在短时间内诱导显著的肝脏增生,但是术后并发症发生率和手术死亡率较高,在手术安全性及肿瘤转归方面尚有争议。近年来原发或转移性肝癌的降期或转化治疗伴随着非手术技术的进步,亦有很大进展,已使越来越多的病人能够手术获益。     

门静脉结扎与栓塞在肝切除术中应用的Meta分析

目的 系统评价门静脉结扎（PVL）和门静脉栓塞（PVE）后肝切除前剩余肝体积（FLR）增长率和其他围手术期结局指标。方法 检索相关数据库,收集关于PVL与PVE在肝切除术中应用的随机对照试验（RCT）或临床对照试验（CCT）,提取相关数据后,采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果 最终纳入8项研究,共438例病人。Meta分析结果显示：PVE组与PVL组FLR增长率、术后病死率、肝功能衰竭和并发症等方面差异无统计学意义。然而,联合肝脏分隔和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术（ALPPS）较PVE能明显增加FLR。结论 PVL与PVE在肝切除术中有着相似的FLR增长率、术后病死率和并发症。ALPPS 相比PVE能明显加速FLR增长。     

Preoperative portal vein embolization for extended hepatectomy

OBJECTIVE: To examine the authors' experience with preoperative ipsilateral portal vein embolization (PVE) and assess its role in extended hepatectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Extended hepatectomy (five or more liver segments) has been associated with higher complication rates and increased postoperative liver dysfunction than have standard hepatic resections involving lesser volumes. Recently, PVE has been used in patients who have a predicted (postresection) future liver remnant (FLR) volume less than 25% of total liver volume in an attempt to increase the FLR and reduce complications. METHODS: Sixty patients from 1996 to 2002 were reviewed. Thirty-nine patients had PVE preoperatively. Eight patients who had PVE were not resected either due to the discovery of additional unresectable disease after embolization but before surgery (n = 5) or due to unresectable disease at surgery (n = 3). Therefore, 31 patients who had PVE subsequently underwent extended hepatic lobectomy. A comparable cohort of 21 patients who had an extended hepatectomy without PVE were selected on the basis of demographic, tumor, and liver volume characteristics. Patients had colorectal liver metastases (n = 30), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 15), Klatskin tumors (n = 9), peripheral cholangiocarcinoma (n = 3), and other tumors (n = 3). The 52 resections performed included 42 extended right hepatectomies, 6 extended left hepatectomies, and 4 right hepatectomies extended to include the middle hepatic vein and the caudate lobe but preserving the majority of segment 4. Concomitant vascular reconstruction of either the inferior vena cava or hepatic veins was performed in five patients. RESULTS: There were no differences between PVE and non-PVE groups in terms of tumor number, tumor size, tumor type, surgical margin status, complexity of operation, or perioperative red cell transfusion requirements. The predicted FLR was similar between PVE and non-PVE groups at presentation. After PVE the FLR was higher than in the non-PVE group. No complications were observed after PVE before resection. There was no difference in postoperative mortality, with one death from liver failure in the non-PVE group and no operative mortality in the PVE group. Postoperative peak bilirubin was higher in the non-PVE than the PVE group, as were postoperative fresh-frozen plasma requirements. Liver failure (defined as the development of encephalopathy, ascites requiring sustained diuretics or paracentesis, or coagulopathy unresponsive to vitamin K requiring fresh-frozen plasma after the first 24 hours postresection) was higher in the non-PVE patients than the PVE patients. The hospital stay was longer in the non-PVE than the PVE group. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative PVE is a safe and effective method of increasing the remnant liver volume before extended hepatectomy. Increasing the remnant liver volume in patients with estimated postresection volumes of less than 25% appears to reduce postoperative liver dysfunction.     

Percutaneous portal vein embolization before major hepatic resection

Major liver resection cannot be performed when the remaining liver mass is too small. Preoperative embolization of the portal vein (PVE) helps to increase the volume of the non-tumorous liver segments, and patients' liver function will remain stable postoperatively. CT, MRI, CTAP examinations help to decide about surgery. Volume measurements are performed based on data of CT scans. PVE is indicated, when the remaining, non-tumorous liver volume is too small. The procedure starts with percutaneous portal vein catheterization, then selected portal vein branches are embolized with a mixture of contrast material, antibiotics and Gelfoam particles. The patients stay in the hospital 3-5 days after the procedure. Control CT-volumetry is done after 3-6 weeks. From November 2001 to April 2002 3 patients were selected to have this procedure. PVE of the right portal branches were performed successfully in two cases. Control CT-volumetry showed significant increase of the volume of the left liver lobe. One patient underwent successful right hemihepatectomy. On the third patient we could not catheterize the portal vein. PVE is a relatively safe and tolerable procedure. The increased remaining liver volume helps in performing major liver resection.     

Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy versus sequential transarterial chemoembolization and portal vein embolization in staged hepatectomy for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized comparative study

BackgroundBoth portal vein embolization (PVE) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) have merits and demerits when used in patients with unresectable liver cancers due to insufficient volumes in future liver remnant (FLR).MethodsThis study was a single-center, prospective randomized comparative study. Patients with the diagnosis of hepatitis B related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the 2 groups. The primary endpoints were tumor resection and three-year overall survival (OS) rates.ResultsBetween November 2014 to June 2016, 76 patients with unresectable HBV-related HCC due to inadequate volume of FLR were randomly assigned to ALPPS groups (n=38) and TACE + PVE groups (n=38). Thirty-seven patients (97.4%) in the ALPPS group compared with 25 patients (65.8%) in the TACE + PVE group were able to undergo staged hepatectomy (risk ratio 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17–1.87, P<0.001). The three-year OS rate of the ALPPS group (65.8%) (95% CI: 50.7–80.9) was significantly better than the TACE + PVE group (42.1%) (95% CI: 26.4–57.8) (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26–0.98, two-sided P=0.036). However, no significant difference in the OS rates between patients who underwent tumor resection in the 2 groups of patients was found (HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.35–1.83, two-sided P=0.595). Major postoperative complications rates after the stage-2 hepatectomy were 54.1% in the ALPPS group and 20.0% in the TACE + PVE group (risk ratio 2.70, 95% CI: 1.17–6.25, P=0.007).ConclusionsALPPS resulted in significantly better intermediate-term OS outcomes, at the expenses of a significantly higher perioperative morbidity rate compared with TACE + PVE in patients who had initially unresectable HBV-related HCC.     

经皮微波或射频消融肝实质分隔联合门静脉栓塞计划性肝切除术治疗余肝体积不足肝癌及胆管癌3例报告

目的 探讨经皮微波或射频消融肝实质分隔联合门静脉栓塞计划性肝切除术（percutaneous microwave/radiofrequency ablation liver partition and portal vein embolization for planned hepatectomy,PAPEP）替代联合肝脏分隔和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术（associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, ALPPS）治疗剩余肝体积（future liver remnant,FLR）不足肝癌和胆管癌的可行性和安全性。方法 回顾性分析2015年7-9月浙江省人民医院肝胆胰外科应用PAPEP治疗FLR不足的2例原发性肝癌和1例肝门部胆管癌的临床资料。先超声引导下经皮微波消融分隔预留侧和切除侧肝实质（percutaneous microwave ablation liver partition,PMA）,PMA后1~3 d行门静脉栓塞术（portal vein embolization,PVE）,PVE后10~13 d测量FLR,术前系统评估后限期肝切除术：2例肝癌分别行肝右三叶和右尾叶切除术、扩大右半肝切除术,1例肝门部胆管癌行肝右三叶和尾叶切除、肝肠内引流术。结果 PMA前3例标准全肝体积（standard liver volume,SLV）分别为1231.2mL、1202.9mL、1217.1mL,FLR分别为355.6 mL、383.4 mL、385.0 mL,FLR/SLV分别为28.9%、31.9%、31.6%。PMA时间118~132 min, PVE时间158~180 min,PMA或PVE术后病人低热经对症处理好转,肝功能无明显变化。PMA+PVE后10~13 d FLR分别为502.1 mL、527.4 mL、476.3 mL,较术前分别增大41.2%、37.6%、23.7%。肝切除术时间230~440 min,术中出血120~1800 mL。肝门部胆管癌术后并发膈下脓肿,经穿刺后治愈;1例肝癌术后并发腹水、黄疸,经内科治疗后治愈,术后住院时间15~40 d。 结论 PAPEP有望代替ALPPS治疗剩余肝体积不足的肝癌或肝门部胆管癌。     

Portal vein embolization before right hepatectomy: prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of liver hypertrophy of the future liver remnant volume (FLR) induced by preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) on the immediate postoperative complications after a standardized major liver resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PVE is usually indicated when FLR is estimated to be too small for major liver resection. However, few data exist regarding the exact quantification of sufficient minimal functional hepatic volume required to avoid postoperative complications in both patients with or without chronic liver disease. METHODS: All consecutive patients in whom an elective right hepatectomy was feasible and who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria between 1998 and 2000 were assigned to have alternatively either immediate surgery or surgery after PVE. Among 55 patients (25 liver metastases, 2 cholangiocarcinoma, and 28 hepatocellular carcinoma), 28 underwent right hepatectomy after PVE and 27 underwent immediate surgery. Twenty-eight patients had chronic liver disease. FLR and estimated rate of functional future liver remnant (%FFLR) volumes were assessed by computed tomography. RESULTS: The mean increase of FLR and %FFLR 4 to 8 weeks after PVE were respectively 44 +/- 19% and 16 +/- 7% for patients with normal liver and 35 +/- 28% and 9 +/- 3% for those with chronic liver disease. All patients with normal liver and 86% with chronic liver disease experienced hypertrophy after PVE. The postoperative course of patients with normal liver who underwent PVE before right hepatectomy was similar to those with immediate surgery. In contrast, PVE in patients with chronic liver disease significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative complications as well as the intensive care unit stay and total hospital stay after right hepatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Before elective right hepatectomy, the hypertrophy of FLR induced by PVE had no beneficial effect on the postoperative course in patients with normal liver. In contrast, in patients with chronic liver disease, the hypertrophy of the FLR induced by PVE decreased significantly the rate of postoperative complications.     

Effect of preoperative portal vein embolization on major hepatectomy for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinomas in injured livers: A preliminary report

With the aim of minimizing postoperative liver dysfunction and promoting increased resectability, we employed portal vein embolization (PVE). In this study, the effect of PVE on major hepatic resection for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in injured livers was evaluated. PVE was performed prior to hepatectomy in 13 patients with stage III and IV HCCs. Following PVE, right trisegmentectomy was performed in 3 patients, extended right lobectomy in 3 and right lobectomy in 7. To evaluate the effect of PVE, the changes in liver functional capacity and estimated remnant liver volume (ERLV), determined by computed tomography, were examined before and after PVE. The operative morbility, mortality, and survival rates after hepatectomy were also assessed. By 2 weeks after PVE, ERLV had increased in all patients, by an average of 28%, and the mean resection rates had decreased from 70.0% to 62.2%. Postoperatively, the 30-day mortality rate was 15.3%, and the 1- and 2-year survival rates were 69% and 46%, respectively. The results of this study indicate that resectability can be increased, and major hepatectomy can be made safer by employing PVE preoperatively, in view of the fact that major hepatectomy was not considered feasible without PVE in these patients.     

Extended hepatectomy in patients with hepatobiliary malignancies with and without preoperative portal vein embolization

HYPOTHESIS: Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) allows potentially curative hepatic resection without additional morbidity or mortality in patients with hepatobiliary malignancies who are marginal candidates for resection based on small liver remnant size. DESIGN: A retrospective review of a consecutive series of patients in a multi-institutional database who underwent extended hepatectomy. SETTING: University-based referral centers. PATIENTS: Forty-two patients underwent preoperative determination of the future liver remnant (FLR) volume before extended hepatectomy (> or = 5 segments) for hepatobiliary malignancy without chronic underlying liver disease. Patients were stratified by treatment with or without preoperative PVE. INTERVENTION: Preoperative percutaneous PVE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical characteristics, FLR volume, operative morbidity, and survival. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups that did and did not undergo PVE for the number of tumors, tumor size, estimated blood loss, duration of the operation, complexity of resection, or surgical margins. The FLR at presentation was significantly smaller in patients who underwent PVE than in patients who did not undergo PVE (18% vs 23%; P<.001). After PVE, FLR volumes increased significantly (P =.003); preoperative FLR volumes were similar in both groups (patients who underwent PVE, 25%; and patients who did not undergo PVE, 23%). There was no perioperative mortality and no statistical difference in the incidence of perioperative complications between those who did and those who did not undergo PVE (5 [28%] of 18 patients vs 5 [21%] of 24 patients). The overall 3-year survival was 65% and the median survival duration was equivalent in the 2 groups (40 vs 52 months for those who did vs those who did not undergo PVE). CONCLUSION: Portal vein embolization enables safe and potentially curative extended hepatectomy in a subset of patients who would otherwise be marginal candidates for resection based on a small liver remnant size.     

全腹腔镜联合肝脏离断和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术治疗肝硬化肝癌

联合肝脏离断和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术（ALPPS）被誉为肝胆外科领域革命性突破,通过第1步手术刺激剩余肝脏再生,第2步手术行根治性切除,为不能行手术切除的肝癌患者提供了在1次住院期间获得根治性切除的机会.2014年4月第三军医大学西南医院收治1例合并肝硬化的右肝原发性肝癌患者.术前评估行右半肝切除术后剩余肝脏体积占标准肝脏体积的26.9％.采用全腹腔镜ALPPS方案：第1步手术行腹腔镜下右侧Glisson蒂悬吊,门静脉右支结扎,肝后间隙放置绕肝带,正中裂原位肝实质完全离断.第1步手术后13 d再次计算剩余肝脏体积占标准肝脏体积的40.6％.于第1步手术后14 d行第2步手术：腹腔镜下采用直线切割闭合器离断右侧Glisson蒂及肝右静脉,处理右半肝周围韧带,完整切除右半肝及肿瘤,于耻骨上横切口取出标本.切缘距离肿瘤1.5 cm.患者第1步手术后无并发症发生,第2步手术后并发右侧胸腔积液行穿刺引流,于第2步手术后第9天痊愈出院.术后1个月门诊复查肝功能正常,无肝脏占位性病变和胸腔积液.全腹腔镜ALPPS治疗肝硬化肝癌安全可行,手术效果良好.     

Portal Vein Embolization Using a Histoacryl/Lipiodol Mixture before Right Liver Resection

Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization (PVE) of the right liver lobe using Histoacryl/Lipiodol mixture to induce contralateral liver hypertrophy before right-sided (or extended right-sided) hepatectomy in patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors. Methods: Twenty-one patients (9 females and 12 males) underwent PVE due to an insufficient future liver remnant; 17 showed liver metastases and 4 suffered from biliary cancer. Imaging was performed prior to and 4 weeks after PVE. Surgery was scheduled for 1 week after a CT or MRI control. The primary study end point was technical success, defined as complete angiographical occlusion of the portal vein. The secondary study end point was evaluation of liver hypertrophy by CT and MRI volumetry and transfer to operability. Results: In all the patients, PVE could be performed with a Histoacryl/Lipiodol mixture (n = 20) or a Histoacryl/Lipiodol mixture with microcoils (n = 1). No procedure-related complications occurred. The volume of the left liver lobe increased significantly (p < 0.0001) by 28% from a mean of 549 ml to 709 ml. Eighteen of twenty-one patients (85.7%) could be transferred to surgery, and the intended resection could be performed as planned in 13/18 (72.3%) patients. Conclusion: Preoperative right-sided PVE using a Histoacryl/Lipiodol mixture is a safe technique and achieves a sufficient hypertrophy of the future liver remnant in the left liver lobe.     

肝静脉-门静脉联合栓塞术促进预留肝脏快速增生——结直肠癌肝转移转化切除新策略

目的 评价肝静脉-门静脉联合栓塞术（HVE+PVE）安全性、促进预留肝脏增生的能力及联合系统治疗用于初始不可切除结直肠癌肝转移（CRLM）转化切除的可行性。方法 回顾性分析2020年12月至2021年11月复旦大学附属中山医院3例肝左、右叶多发初始不可切除CRLM病例经系统治疗后,病灶缩小,但剩余肝体积（FLR）不足,行HVE+PVE后转化切除的临床资料。结果 HVE+PVE后平均18.6 d,FLR从平均423.6 mL增生至561 mL,平均增长率32.8%;剩余肝体积（FLR）/标准肝体积（SLV）从平均33.5%增至43.8%,无并发症发生。HVE+PVE后平均23 d行右半肝+左肝部分切除术等,平均出血333.3 mL,未输血。术后无Clavien-DindoⅢ级以上并发症,无肝功能衰竭及90 d死亡。均获得R0切除。平均11.3 d出院。结论 HVE+PVE通过介入操作即可使FLR快速增生,具有操作简捷、创伤小、安全等优点。联合系统治疗可以增加初始不可切除CRLM的转化切除率。     

Two hundred forty consecutive portal vein embolizations before extended hepatectomy for biliary cancer: surgical outcome and long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical benefit of portal vein embolization (PVE) before extended, complex hepatectomy for biliary cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Many investigators have addressed clinical utility of PVE before simple hepatectomy for metastatic liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma, but few have reported PVE before hepatectomy for biliary cancer due to the limited number of surgical cases. METHODS: This study involved 240 consecutive patients with biliary cancer (150 cholangiocarcinomas and 90 gallbladder cancers) who underwent PVE before an extended hepatectomy (right or left trisectionectomy or right hepatectomy). All PVEs were performed by the "ipsilateral approach" 2 to 3 weeks before surgery. Hepatic volume and function changes after PVE were analyzed, and the outcome also was reviewed. RESULTS: There were no procedure-related complications requiring blood transfusion or interventions. Of the 240 patients, 47 (19.6%) did not undergo subsequent hepatectomy. The incidence of unresectability was higher in gallbladder cancer than in cholangiocarcinoma (32.2% versus 12.0%, P < 0.005). The remaining 193 patients (132 cholangiocarcinomas and 61 gallbladder cancers) underwent hepatectomy with resection of the caudate lobe and extrahepatic bile duct (n = 187), pancreatoduodenectomy (n = 42), and/or portal vein resection (n = 63). Seventeen (8.8%) patients died of postoperative complications: mortality was higher in gallbladder cancer than in cholangiocarcinoma (18.0% versus 4.5%, P < 0.05); and it was also higher in patients whose indocyanine green clearance (KICG) of the future liver remnant after PVE was <0.05 than those whose index was >or=0.05 (28.6% versus 5.5%, P < 0.001). The 3- and 5-year survival after hepatectomy was 41.7% and 26.8% in cholangiocarcinoma and 25.3% and 17.1% in gallbladder cancer, respectively (P = 0.011). In 136 other patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent a less than 50% resection of the liver without PVE, a mortality of 3.7% and a 5-year survival of 27.6% were observed, which was similar to the 132 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent extended hepatectomy after PVE. CONCLUSIONS: PVE has the potential benefit for patients with advanced biliary cancer who are to undergo extended, complex hepatectomy. Along with the use of PVE, further improvements in surgical techniques and refinements in perioperative management are necessary to make difficult hepatobiliary resections safer.     

ALPPS Offers a Better Chance of Complete Resection in Patients with Primarily Unresectable Liver Tumors Compared with Conventional-Staged Hepatectomies: Results of a Multicenter Analysis

Background

Portal vein occlusion to increase the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) is well established, using portal vein ligation (PVL) or embolization (PVE) followed by resection 4–8 weeks later. Associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) combines PVL and complete parenchymal transection, followed by hepatectomy within 1–2 weeks. ALPPS has been recently introduced but remains controversial. We compare the ability of ALPPS versus PVE or PVL for complete tumor resection.

Methods

A retrospective review of all patients undergoing ALPPS or conventional staged hepatectomies using PVL or PVE at four high-volume HPB centres between 2003 and 2012 was performed. Patients with primary liver tumors and liver metastases were included. Primary endpoint was complete tumor resection. Secondary endpoints include 90-day mortality, complications, FLR increase, time to resection, and tumor recurrence.

Results

Forty-eight patients with ALPPS were compared with 83 patients with conventional-staged hepatectomies. Eighty-three percent (40/48 patients) of ALPPS patients achieved complete resection compared with 66 % (55/83 patients) in PVE/PVL (odds ratio 3.34, p = 0.027). Ninety-day mortality in ALPPS and PVE/PVL was 15 and 6 %, respectively (p = 0.2). Extrapolated growth rate was 11 times higher in ALPPS (34.8 cc/day; interquartile range (IQR) 26–49) compared with PVE/PVL (3 cc/day; IQR2-6; p = 0.001). Tumor recurrence at 1 year was 54 versus 52 % for ALPPS and PVE/PVL, respectively (p = 0.7).

Conclusions

This study provides evidence that ALPPS offers a better chance of complete resection in patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors at the cost of a high mortality. The technique is promising but should currently not be used outside of studies and registries.     

Percutaneous portal vein embolization increases the feasibility and safety of major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in injured liver

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) on the long-term outcome of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in injured liver. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: On an healthy liver, PVE of the liver to be resected induces hypertrophy of the remnant liver and increases the safety of hepatectomy. On injured liver, this effect is still debated. METHODS: During the study period, 10 patients underwent preoperative PVE and 19 patients did not before resection of three or more liver segments for HCC in injured liver (cirrhosis or fibrosis). PVE was performed when the estimated rate of remnant functional liver parenchyma (ERRFLP) assessed by computed tomographic scan volumetry was less than 40%. RESULTS: In all patients, PVE was feasible. There were no deaths or complications. The ERRFLP after PVE was significantly increased compared with the pre-PVE value. Liver resection was performed after PVE in 9 of 10 patients, with surgical death and complication rates of 0% and 45%, respectively. PVE increased the number of resections of three or more segments by 47% (9/19). Overall actuarial survival rates with or without previous PVE (89%, 67%, and 44% vs. 80%, 53%, and 53% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively) and disease-free actuarial survival rates (86%, 64%, and 21% vs. 55%, 17%, and 17% at 1, 3, and 5 years respectively) after hepatectomy were comparable. CONCLUSION: With the use of PVE, more patients with previously unresectable HCC in injured liver can benefit from resection. Long-term survival rates are comparable to those after resection without PVE.