Drainage after elective hepatic resection. A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized study determined the influence of closed-suction drainage on the incidence of postoperative complications after elective hepatic resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Routine drainage is no longer advocated after several intra-abdominal surgical procedures. METHODS: A series of 81 patients who underwent elective hepatic resection were randomly allocated to either a nondrainage group (n = 39) and a drainage group with closed-suction drainage (n = 42). Indications for resection were 42 benign lesions and 39 malignant tumors, including 19 with cirrhosis. Major hepatic resection was performed in 25 patients and minor resection, in 56. All patients underwent ultrasonography with puncture for bacteriologic cultures of all fluid collections within the first 5 postoperative days. RESULTS: One patient died in each group. Ultrasonography found a significantly higher rate of subphrenic collections in the drainage group compared with the nondrainage group (respectively, 36% vs. 15%, p < 0.05). These collections were more frequently infected in the drainage group (n = 6) than in the nondrainage group (n = 2). After major liver resection, the rate of intra-abdominal postoperative complications (i.e., subphrenic fluid collections, hematomas, and bilomas) was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minor liver resection is safer without drainage. Major liver resection can be performed with or without abdominal drainage.     

Abdominal drainage was unnecessary after hepatectomy using the conventional clamp crushing technique

A prophylactic abdominal drainage catheter is routinely inserted by many surgeons in patients after hepatic resection. Between January 2002 and September 2004, 462 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection using a clamp crushing method by the same surgical team were retrospectively divided into the drainage group (n = 357) and the nondrainage group (n = 105). There was no difference in hospital mortality between the two groups of patients (drainage group, 0.6% vs. nondrainage group, 0%; P = 1.0). However, there was a greater incidence of surgical complications in the drainage group (31.4% vs. 8.6%, P < 0.001), and greater incidence of wound complications and subphrenic complications in the drainage group compared to the nondrainage group (24.4% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.001). In addition, the mean (+- SEM) postoperative hospital stay of the drainage group was 13 +- 6.5 days, which was significantly longer than that of the nondrainage group (9.7 +- 3.3 days, P = 0.001). On multivariate analysis, abdominal drainage and intraoperative bleeding were the independent risk factors that were significantly associated with the incidence of drainage-related complications. The results suggested that routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after hepatic resection when the conventional clamp crushing method is used during parenchyma transection.     

To drain or not to drain in Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy for children with choledochal cysts in the laparoscopic era: a prospective randomized study

Background/PurposeRoutine drain placement after choledochal cyst (CDC) excision and Roux-en-Y hepatojejunostomy (RYHJ) is commonly practiced to predict and prevent bile/pancreatic leaks and hemorrhage. Recently, laparoscopic excision of CDC has decreased postoperative morbidity. The necessity of drainage has been questioned. We undertook a prospective randomized trial to assess the need for drainage.MethodBetween 2009 and 2011, 121 CDC children were randomized into 2 groups before the laparoscopic RYHJ: drainage group (n = 61) and nondrainage group (n = 60). Patients without severe cyst inflammation, perforated bile peritonitis, common/left/right hepatic duct strictures requiring ductoplasty, or distal cyst deeply embedded in pancreas were included. Normal activity resumption, postoperative hospital stay, complications, and pain scores were analyzed.ResultsOne hundred patients were recruited according to the selection criteria (drainage/nondrainage, 50/50). Normal activity resumption was significantly faster and the postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the nondrainage group. The pain score in the drainage group was significantly higher. On postoperative days 2 and 3, 14% and 38% of the nondrainage group patients were pain free, whereas all the drainage group patients still suffered from pain (P < .01 and P < .001, respectively). The median follow-up period was 12.5 months in the drainage group and 12 months in the nondrainage group. None of the patients developed bile/pancreatic/intestinal leaks.ConclusionWith the laparoscopic approach, no drainage is needed after RYHJ for the majority of CDC children in expert hands. It minimizes postoperative pain and complications, and facilitates recovery.     

Impact of age on the outcome of liver resections

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of age on the outcome of liver resections. One hundred five consecutive hepatic resections were divided into two groups: > or = 65 years old [old group (O-group)] and < 65 years old [young group (Y-group)]. The two groups were first compared to evaluate the distribution of the variables potentially affecting the postoperative course, including primary diagnosis, concomitant diseases, previous upper abdominal surgery, type of operation (major or minor resection), associated procedures, presence and length of portal clamping, intraoperative blood losses and transfusions, and length of operation. The outcome of hepatic resections in the two groups was comparatively evaluated in terms of postoperative mortality, morbidity, transfusions, and length of postoperative hospitalization. The Y-group included 61 resections in 60 patients, mean age 52 +/- 10 years (mean +/- SD), range 23-64 years, whereas the O-group included 44 resections in 43 patients, mean age 71 +/- 4 years (mean +/- SD ), range 65-82 years. The O-group included more hepatocellular carcinomas (45.4% vs 18.0%, P = 0.002) and chronic liver diseases (40.9% vs 18.7%, P = 0.017); the median length of operation was slightly higher in the Y-group (300 minutes vs 270 minutes, P = 0.003). Both O-group and Y-group were comparable (P = n.s.) when evaluated for all other listed variables. As far as concerns the outcome of hepatic resections in the two groups, the length of postoperative hospitalization was identical (median 9 days, 5-60 days), whereas transfusions of packed red cells (O-group vs Y-group: 25.0% vs 16.3%, P = 0.30) or fresh frozen plasma (O-group vs Y-group: 13.6% vs 6.5%, P = 0.053) were not statistically different. Postoperative mortality included one case among young patients whereas no deaths were recorded among elderly patients. Postoperative morbidity was higher in Y-group than in O-group (31.5% vs 20.5%, P = 0.59). The age factor does not negatively affect the outcome of liver resections.     

Impact of preoperative locoregional chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyuridine on the outcome of liver resection

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative intra-arterial hepatic chemotherapy (IAHC) on the outcome of liver resections for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Twelve patients (IAHC group) treated by IAHC with fluorodeoxyuridine (FUdR) and subsequent liver resection and 40 patients who underwent liver resection without preliminary IAHC (non-IAHC group) were analysed comparatively in terms of age, gender, concomitant diseases, previous abdominal surgery, type of hepatic resection, use of portal clamping, and associated surgical procedures. For the purposes of the study, length of operation, intraoperative blood losses, perioperative transfusions, length of hospitalisation, complications and mortality were also recorded. The two groups were comparable (p = n.s.) for those variables affecting the perioperative course. As regards the end points of the study, no significant differences were recorded in length of operation, intraoperative blood losses, perioperative transfusions [except for more postoperative plasma transfusions in the IAHC group (16.7% vs 5.0%, p = 0.009)] and postoperative complications (9.1% vs 17.5%, p = 0.415). Postoperative mortality consisted in one patient in the IAHC group. Postoperative hospitalization was significantly longer in the non-IAHC group (median: 8 vs 10, range: 6-13 vs 5-33 days; p = 0.004). IAHC does not negatively affect the outcome of subsequent liver resection.     

θ�������г���Ԥ���Է��ø�ǻ��������������о�

目的 探讨胃癌根治切除手术时是否需要预防性放置腹腔引流管.方法 将2005年7月至2006年6月南京军区南京总医院胃癌手术病人随机分为两组,无腹腔引流组(51例)不放置腹腔引流管,腹腔引流组(49例)常规放置腹腔引流管.两组病人均采用胃癌D2式切除术,使用相同的围手术期处理方法.观察两组术后并发症发生率及术后恢复情况.结果 无腹腔引流组与腹腔引流组相比,术后通气时间、恢复进食时间及术后住院时间差异均无统计学意义.两组术后均无死亡病例,术后并发症发生率差异无统计学意义.结论 择期胃癌根治切除术中不常规预防性地放置腹腔引流管是安全有效的.     

Application of fibrin glue sealant after hepatectomy does not seem justified: results of a randomized study in 300 patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, amount of hemorrhage, biliary leakage, complications, and postoperative evolution after fibrin glue sealant application in patients undergoing liver resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Fibrin sealants have become popular as a means of improving perioperative hemostasis and reducing biliary leakage after liver surgery. However, trials regarding its use in liver surgery remain limited and of poor methodologic quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 300 patients undergoing hepatic resection were randomly assigned to fibrin glue application or control groups. Characteristics and debit of drainage and postoperative complications were evaluated. The amount of blood loss, measurements of hematologic parameters liver test, and postoperative evolution (particularly involving biliary fistula and morbidity) was also recorded. RESULTS: Postoperatively, no differences were observed in the amount of transfusion (0.15 +/- 0.66 vs. 0.17 +/- 0.63 PRCU; P = 0.7234) or in the patients that required transfusion (18% vs. 12%; P = 0.2), respectively, for the fibrin glue or control group. There were no differences in overall drainage volumes (1180 +/- 2528 vs. 960 +/- 1253 mL) or in days of postoperative drainage (7.9 +/- 5 vs. 7.1 +/- 4.7). Incidence of biliary fistula was similar in the fibrin glue and control groups, (10% vs. 11%). There were no differences regarding postoperative morbidity between groups (23% vs. 23%; P = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Application of fibrin sealant in the raw surface of the liver does not seem justified. Blood loss, transfusion, incidence of biliary fistula, and outcome are comparable to patients without fibrin glue. Therefore, discontinuation of routine use of fibrin sealant would result in significant cost saving.     

Liver Resection: To Drain or not to Drain?

Purpose: A prospective, randomized trial was performed to determine if intra-abdominal drainage catheters are necessary after elective liver resection.Patients and Methods: Between April 1992 and April 1994, 120 patients subjected to liver resection, stratified by extent of resection and by surgeon, were randomized to receive or not receive operative closed-suction drainage. Operative blood loss was not an exclusion criteria, and no patient who consented to the study was excluded.Results: Eighty-seven patients (73%) had resection of one hepatic lobe or more (27 lobectomies, 54 trisegmentectomies, and 6 bilobar atypical resections) and 33 had less than a lobectomy (8 wedge resections or enucleations, 9 segmentectomies, and 16 bisegmentectomies). Eighty-four patients (70%) had metastatic cancer and 36 patients (30%) had primary liver pathology. There were no differences in outcome, including length of hospital stay (no drain, 13.4 ± 0.9 days; drain, 13.1 ± 0.8 days; P not significant [NS]), mortality (no drain, 3.3%; drain, 3.3%), complication rate (no drain, 43%; drain, 48%; n= NS), or requirement for subsequent percutaneous drainage (no drain, 18%; drain, 8%; P= NS). All infected collections (n= 3) occured in operatively drained patients. Two other complications were directly related to the operatively placed drains. One patient developed a subcutaneous abscess at the drain site, and a second developed a subcutaneous drain tract tumor recurrence as the only current site of recurrence.Conclusion: In the first 50 consecutive resections performed since the conclusion of this trial, only 4 patients (8%) have required subsequent percutaneous drainage. We conclude that abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection,     

Perioperative liver and spleen elastography in patients without chronic liver disease

AIM To investigate changes in hepatic and splenic stiffness in patients without chronic liver disease during liver resection for hepatic tumors.METHODS Patients scheduled for liver resection for hepatic tumors were considered for enrollment. Tissue stiffness measurements on liver and spleen were conducted before and two days after liver resection using point shear-wave elastography. Histological analysis of the resected liver specimen was conducted in all patients and patients with marked liver fibrosis were excluded from further study analysis. Patients were divided into groups depending on size of resection and whether they had received preoperative chemotherapy or not. The relation between tissue stiffness and postoperative biochemistry was investigated. RESULTS Results are presented as median(interquartile range). 35 patients were included. The liver stiffness increased in patients undergoing a major resection from 1.41(1.24-1.63) m/s to 2.20(1.72-2.44) m/s(P = 0.001). No change in liver stiffness in patients undergoing a minor resection was found [1.31(1.15-1.52) m/s vs 1.37(1.12-1.77) m/s, P = 0.438]. A major resection resulted in a 16%(7%-33%) increase in spleen stiffness, more(P = 0.047) than after a minor resection [2(-1-13) %]. Patients who underwent preoperative chemotherapy(n = 20) did not differ from others in preoperative right liver lobe [1.31(1.16-1.50) vs 1.38(1.12-1.56) m/s, P = 0.569] or spleen [2.79(2.33-3.11) vs 2.71(2.37-2.86) m/s, P = 0.515] stiffness. Remnant liver stiffness on the second postoperative day did not show strong correlations with maximum postoperative increase in bilirubin(R~2 = 0.154, Pearson's r = 0.392, P = 0.032) and international normalized ratio(R~2 = 0.285, Pearson's r = 0.534, P = 0.003). CONCLUSION Liver and spleen stiffness increase after a major liver resection for hepatic tumors in patients without chronic liver disease.     

Impaired volume regeneration of split livers with partial venous disruption: a latent problem in partial liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: In living-donor and split-liver transplantations using a hemi-liver graft, it is practically impossible to maintain complete venous drainage in both the right and left livers, because the middle hepatic vein can be preserved only on the unilateral side. However, it is not clear whether partial venous disturbances affect postoperative liver volume regeneration. METHODS: Living donors who underwent left-sided hepatectomy preserving the middle hepatic vein (group A, n=40) or left hepatectomy with middle hepatic vein resection (group B, n=37) were reviewed. Volume regeneration of the remnant right paramedian (segments V + VIII) and lateral (segments VI + VII) sectors and overall liver volume was assessed at 3 postoperative months by computed tomography. RESULTS: In group A, both sectors showed a proportional increase by 21.7% (P=0.991), whereas in group B the rate of increase of the right paramedian sector was less than that of the right lateral sector (13.3% vs. 36.5%, P<0.001). Comparisons of rate of increase for each sector between the groups indicated that interruption of the middle hepatic venous drainage impaired enlargement of the right paramedian sector and induced a compensatory hypertrophy of the right lateral sector. Overall liver mass restoration rate in group B was inferior to that in group A (78.9% vs. 85.0%, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Split livers with partial outflow disturbances are associated with latent disadvantages in postoperative liver volume regeneration even if venous congestion is not evident. These results suggest a problem of regenerative capacity of right liver grafts.     

Patterns of improvement in resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: results of a non drainage policy

A prolonged ascitic leak through abdominal drains is a source of postoperative complications and of prolonged postoperative hospital stay after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in cirrhotic patients. Therefore we elected to abstain from routine abdominal drainage in the last 14 resections in cirrhotic livers. A significantly smaller number of patients had postoperative complications following liver resections without drainage (7%) than historical controls with abdominal drainage (59%, p less than 0.01). The number of complications related to ascites was significantly greater in patients with abdominal drainage (76%) than without (0%, p less than 0.001). Postoperative hospital stay was also significantly longer following resections with abdominal drainage (19 +/- 4 days) than in patients without (12 +/- 1 days, p less than 0.01). The long postoperative hospital stay in patients with abdominal drainage was related to ascitic discharge for a mean period of 13 +/- 10 days. No clinically significant accumulation of ascites was noted in patients without drainage. A more frequent utilization of hepatic vascular inflow occlusion did not account for the better results in the group of patients without drainage. These results suggest that routine abdominal drainage should not be used following liver resection for HCC in cirrhotic patients. This appears to be another of the technical details improving postoperative results in these patients.     

腹腔引流术在肝脏切除术后应用的必要性探讨

目的 探讨腹腔引流术在肝脏切除术后应用的必要性.方法 将我院肝脏外科自2008年1月至2009年6月间连续实施的210例肝脏切除术的患者按时间先后分成腹腔引流组(120例)和非引流组(90例).分析比较患者术前因素,术中因素以及术后并发症和住院时间.结果两组患者术前和术中各项指标较为相近,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),术后并发症具备可比性.术后引流组和非引流组死亡率分别为0.8%和1.1%,差异无统计学意义(X~2=0.042,P>0.05).引流组外科并发症明显高于非引流组,尤其是腹部感染和腹水渗出较非引流组高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).两组患者术后内科学并发症没有明显的差异(X~2=0.338,P>0.05).引流组住院时间(13.1±5.2)d较非引流组(11.4±5.6)d长,但差异无统计学意义.结论 本组结果表明肝脏切除术后腹腔引流术的应用没有必要性,甚至会增加术后并发症.     

Major liver resection for carcinoma in jaundiced patients without preoperative biliary drainage

BACKGROUND: The role of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) before liver resection in the presence of obstructive jaundice remains controversial. Our patients with proximal duct carcinoma undergo noninvasive assessment followed by rapid laparotomy without PBD if the lesion is deemed resectable. HYPOTHESIS: Our aim was to report operative outcome of these patients and to analyze their specific features by comparison with patients without biliary obstruction who underwent major liver resection. DESIGN: A case-comparison study. SETTING: A tertiary care university hospital in a metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Twenty consecutive jaundiced patients underwent major liver resection without PBD. The jaundiced patients were matched with 27 nonjaundiced patients with normal underlying liver selected from a computer bank of 261 patients undergoing liver resections and identical for age, tumor size, type of liver resection, and vascular occlusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postoperative course including mortality, morbidity, transfusion rates, and results of liver function tests. RESULTS: Seventeen jaundiced patients (85%) and 13 nonjaundiced patients (48%) received blood transfusions (P = .03). Morbidity was 50% in jaundiced and 15% in nonjaundiced patients (P = .006), mainly resulting from subphrenic collections and bile leaks occurring only in jaundiced patients. In contrast, there were no significant differences for mortality (5% vs 0%) and liver failure (5% vs 0%). Postoperative changes in liver function test results were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Major liver resections without PBD are safe in most patients with obstructive jaundice. Recovery of hepatic synthetic function is identical to that of nonjaundiced patients. Transfusion requirements and incidence of postoperative complications, especially bile leaks and subphrenic collections, are higher in jaundiced patients. Whether PBD could improve these results remains to be determined.     

Results of surgical resection for patients with hilar bile duct cancer: application of extended hepatectomy after biliary drainage and hemihepatic portal vein embolization

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of an aggressive surgical approach incorporating major hepatic resection after biliary drainage and preoperative portal vein embolization for patients with hilar bile duct cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although many surgeons have emphasized the importance of major hepatectomy in terms of curative resection for patients with hilar bile duct cancer, this procedure results in a high incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with cholestasis-induced impaired liver function. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 140 patients with hilar bile duct cancer treated from 1990 through 2001. Resectional surgery was performed in 79 patients, 69 of whom underwent major hepatic resection. Thirteen patients underwent concomitant pancreaticoduodenectomy. Preoperative biliary drainage was carried out in all 65 patients who had obstructive jaundice. Portal vein embolization was conducted in 41 of 51 patients undergoing extended right hepatectomy. Short- and long-term outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: No patient experienced postoperative liver failure (maximum total bilirubin level, 5.4 mg/dL). The in-hospital mortality rate was 1.3% (1 in 79, resulting from cerebral infarction). A histologically negative resection margin was obtained more frequently when the scheduled extended hepatic resection was conducted (75% vs 44%, P = 0.0178). The estimated 5-year survival rate was 40% when histologically negative resection margins were obtained, but only 6% if the margins were positive. Multivariate analysis identified the resection margin and nodal status as independent factors predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Extensive resection, mainly extended right hemihepatectomy, after biliary drainage and preoperative portal vein embolization, when necessary, for patients with hilar bile duct cancer can be performed safely and is more likely to result in histologically negative margins than other resection methods.     

合并肝硬化的腹腔镜结直肠癌患者术后应用生长抑素的疗效研究

目的对接受手术治疗的合并肝硬化的结直肠恶性肿瘤患者,通过对比观察生长抑素在术后的治疗反应,评价其总的临床疗效。 方法选择2010年5月至2012年5月在饶平县人民医院接受腹腔镜下结直肠癌根治术且合并肝硬化的患者50例,采用双盲、随机的前瞻性研究方法,随机分为试验组和对照组,各25例,两组患者均接受结直肠肿瘤根治术,其中试验组术后3 h内予注射用生长抑素,分别记录两组患者术前的一般资料及术后腹腔引流及胃肠减压情况,记录腹腔引流管和胃管拔除的时间,重点监测术后两组患者肝功能变化情况。 结果术后试验组患者的腹腔总引流量、总胃肠减压量较对照组明显减少,两组腹腔总引流量分别为（1 500±75）ml和（800±65）ml（t=32.265,P=0.008）,总胃肠减压量分别为（2 000±100）ml和（900±60）ml（t=47.162,P=0.006）。试验组肛门排气所需时间少于对照组[（3.0±0.9）d vs（3.4±0.7）d,t=1.754,P<0.05],术后留置胃管的天数比对照组更短[（3.0±1.0）d vs（5.4±0.9）d,t=8.920,P<0.01]。试验组术后肝功能恶化发生2例,对照组发生12例,两组术后肝功能恶化率比较差异有统计学意义（8% vs 48%,χ²=9.921,P=0.002）。两组术后并发症发生情况比较,差异有统计学意义（0 vs 20%,χ²=5.556,P=0.018）。 结论接受手术治疗的结直肠癌合并肝硬化患者,应用注射用生长抑素可以降低术后肝功能恶化的发生率,减少术后并发症的发生,从而降低高风险手术的死亡率,延长患者的生存期。     

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of abdominal drainage after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method

BACKGROUND: Abdominal drainage is a standard procedure after hepatectomy, but this practice has been challenged recently. METHODS: Between September 2004 and March 2005, 120 consecutive patients who had undergone hepatic resection by the same surgical team were randomly allocated into drainage and no drainage groups (60 in each group). Patient characteristics, preoperative liver function, presence of cirrhosis, resection-related factors and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The groups were comparable in terms of demographics, indications for surgery, preoperative liver function test results, presence of cirrhosis, extent of hepatectomy, intraoperative blood loss and requirement for blood transfusion. Symptomatic subphrenic collection and pleural effusion occurred in four patients (7 per cent) who had abdominal drainage and three (5 per cent) who did not. Local wound complications occurred in 17 (28 per cent) and two (3 per cent) patients respectively (P < 0.001). The postoperative hospital stay was similar in the two groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that the presence of cirrhosis and abdominal drainage were independently related to the development of postoperative wound complications. CONCLUSION: Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after elective hepatectomy using the crushing clamp method.     

Evaluation of risk factors in the development of postoperative complications in patients undergoing liver resection for cancer

A consecutive series of 134 hepatic resections for primary and metastatic cancer were analyzed to identify the risk factors for post-operative complications in patients with and without impaired liver reserve. Between January 1992 and January 2000 were performed 55 hepatectomies (41%--group 1) in 54 cirrhotic patients for hepatocarcinoma and 79 hepatic resections (59%--group 2) in 66 patients for primary hepatic malignancies or metastatic liver tumours in non cirrhotic liver. Among major postoperative complications bile leakage was recorded in 8 patients (6%) (6% with impaired liver reserve and 6% with normal reserve), hepatic failure in 8 patients (6%) (9% vs 4%; P = NS), ascites in 7 patients (5%) (11% vs 1%; P = 0.01), pneumonia in 4 patients (3%) (5% vs 1%; P = NS), intra-abdominal abscess in 2 patients (1%) (2% vs 1%; P = NS), postoperative haemorrhage in 2 patients (1%) (4% vs 0; P = NS), and gastrointestinal bleeding in 2 patients (1%) (4% vs 0; P = NS). There were 6 perioperative deaths (4%) (7% vs 2%; P = NS). The mean hospital stay was 21 +/- 10 days (range: 5-57) (24 +/- 10 vs 20 +/- 10; P = 0.02). Liver resection is a safe procedure even in cirrhotic patients providing they are well selected and there is minimal intraoperative blood loss.     

Re-evaluation of the necessity of prophylactic drainage after liver resection

Abdominal drainage after liver resection is considered unnecessary: however, there still exist a number of cases where drain is effective to prevent serious infectious complications. We re-evaluated the necessity of drain placement after liver resection from the retrospective analysis of postoperative complications with special reference to the need for drain insertion of 140 patients undergoing hepatectomy without intraoperative abdominal drainage from 2007 through 2010. Three patients required drain reinsertion in the early postoperative period (before postoperative Day 7); all had undergone extended right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombus followed by postoperative liver failure. Risk factors for postoperative bile leakage included repeated hepatectomy, operative procedure with exposure of the major Glisson's sheath (i.e., central bisegmentectomy and anterior segmentectomy), and intraoperative bile leakage. However, because the onset of this complication was as late as postoperative Day 19.5, prophylactic drainage does not appear useful. Although not required routinely, prophylactic drainage might be useful in patients undergoing extended hepatectomy, a high-risk hepatectomy procedure exposing the major Glisson's sheath, those with positive intraoperative bile leakage, for hepatocellular carcinoma, and especially complicated with portal vein thrombus.     

Portal triad clamping (TC) or hepatic vascular exclusion (VE) for major liver resection after prolonged neoadjuvant chemotherapy? A case-matched study in 60 patients

BACKGROUND: Prolonged systemic preoperative chemotherapy induces pathologic changes in liver parenchyma. The consequences of vascular occlusion on liver submitted to prolonged preoperative systemic chemotherapy are not known. The aim of this case-matched study was to assess which method of vascular occlusion is most appropriate for major liver resection in patients who have undergone prolonged preoperative systemic chemotherapy. METHODS: Among 305 patients who had liver resection for colorectal metastases from 1998 to 2003, 28 underwent major liver resections under portal triad clamping after more than 6 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy (TC group). These 28 patients were compared with 32 patients matched for age, sex, ASA status, number of liver metastases, type of liver resection, and type of preoperative chemotherapy, but who had major liver resection under hepatic vascular exclusion after more than 6 cycles of preoperative chemotherapy (VE group). RESULTS: There was no postoperative mortality. The morbidity rate was 18% after TC and 43% after VE (P = 0.044). Pulmonary complication rate was greater after VE (31% vs 3%, P = 0.017). The transfusion rate was 50% in the TC group and 40% in the VE group (P = 0.482). Postoperative changes of liver function tests were comparable in the two groups except for the prothrombin time, which was more prolonged from day 1 (P = 0.003) to day 5 (P = 0.04) after VE. CONCLUSION: Vascular occlusion can be used with no mortality and acceptable morbidity for major liver resection after prolonged preoperative chemotherapy. TC should be preferred to VE, permitted by the location of the neoplasm.     

大功率高频电刀在肝细胞癌肝切除术中的应用

目的:探讨高频电刀在肝细胞癌(HCC)肝切除术中的应用价值。方法:将386例HCC患者分为观察组(n=199)和对照组(n=187),观察组采用120 W电凝输出功率电刀进行肝切除术,对照组采用钳夹法加超声刀肝切除。比较两组术中肝门阻断时间、手术时长、术中出血量、术中及术后输红细胞情况及术后引流、肝功能改变、术后并发症、术后住院时间等指标。结果:所有患者均顺利完成手术,观察组术中未出现因大功率高频电流引起的灼伤、心电异常等。与对照组比较,观察组手术时间(192.79 min vs.212.10 min)、肝门阻断时间(5.17 min vs.14.65 min)、术后并发症发生率(21.1%vs.34.2%)、术后红细胞输注率(25.7%vs.36.7%)、术后住院时间(8.87 d vs.12.15 d)均明显减少(均P0.05),但术中出血量(378.56 mL vs.412.75 mL)、术中红细胞输注率(7.5%vs.7.5%)、术后拔管时间(5.83 d vs.6.29 d)无统计学差异(P0.05);观察组术后1、3 d部分肝功能指标优于对照组(均P0.05)。两组术后1、2、3年总生存率差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论:大功率高频电刀用于HCC肝切除术切肝速度快、止血效果好,使用安全可靠。