门静脉动脉化在肝门部胆管癌根治术中的应用价值

目的探讨肝动脉重建加门静脉动脉化在肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术中应用的安全性和有效性。方法对笔者所在医院2016年10月收治的1例Bismuth-Corlette分型Ⅳ型肝门部中晚期胆管癌患者施行扩大左半肝切除加尾叶切除术并采用肝固有动脉与门静脉吻合行门静脉动脉化的患者进行回顾性分析。结果患者术后恢复顺利,肝功能逐渐恢复正常,术后未发生急性肝功能衰竭、吻合口栓塞、胆道感染等并发症,随访截至2017年8月(术后10个月)未发现门静脉高压症及肿瘤复发征象。结论该例患者的结果提示,门静脉动脉化在肝门部胆管癌行扩大根治术中使用可防止急性肝功能衰竭,促进术后肝功能恢复,提高肝门部胆管癌的根治性切除率。     

Ⅲ型肝门部胆管癌的外科治疗（附35例分析）

目的总结Ⅲ型肝门部胆管癌的手术经验。方法回顾性分析我院1999年1月至2006年12月，行手术切除的35例Ⅲ型肝门部胆管癌的临床资料。Ⅲa型16例，行肝门部胆管切除8例，行联合右半肝＋右侧尾状叶切除7例，行联合右半肝＋尾状叶切除、门静脉分叉部切除主干左支吻合1例。Ⅲb型19例，行肝门部胆管切除8例，行联合左半肝＋左侧尾状叶切除9例，行联合左半肝＋尾状叶切除、门静脉分叉部切除主干右支吻合1例．行联合左半肝＋尾状叶切除、门静脉分叉部切除主干右支吻合、肝固有动脉分叉部切除主干右支吻合1例。结果本组32例获得随访，随访时间18～113个月。肝门部胆管切除病例术后病理根治性切除率为37．5％，联合肝叶切除病例术后病理根治性切除率73．7％，3例联合肝叶切除＋血管切除病例均获术后病理根治性切除。肝门部胆管切除术后并发症发生率为31．3％，联合肝叶切除组术后并发症发生率为31．6％。3例联合肝叶切除＋血管切除病例术后均无胆肠吻合口漏、肝断面坏死、胆漏等严重并发症。结论联合肝叶切除，必要时行受累分叉部血管切除重建，有益于提高Ⅲ型肝门部胆管癌的根治性切除率，且不增加术后并发症的发生率。     

限制流量的部分门静脉动脉化重建肝血流的临床观察

对肝门部胆管癌的扩大根治性手术时有时需要切除或损伤肝动脉,在肝动脉无法修复或修复不满意时,为了恢复肝脏的动脉血供应可以通过部分门静脉动脉化的方法来重建肝脏血流[1].鉴于长期门静脉动脉化有可能造成继发的门静脉高压[2],我们提出了通过对用于门静脉动脉化的动脉进行限流来防止继发的门静脉高压,在动物实验的基础上应用于临床,并对患者进行了随访.     

仅保留门静脉血供的肝门部胆管癌根治术

目的 探讨仅保留门静脉血供的肝门部胆管癌根治术的适应证和方法,以进一步提高肝门胆管癌的治疗效果.方法 对2006年7月至2007年12月收治的6例肝门部胆管癌,均采取左半肝切除、肝外胆管切除、肝动脉切除、右肝管空肠吻合术. 结果6例均顺利恢复,术后发生胆漏1例、无肝功能衰竭及围手术期死亡病例;术后随访10～23个月,均存活.结论 仅保留门静脉血供的肝门部胆管癌根治术在严格掌握适应证的前提下是可行的,可提高肝门部胆管癌的根治切除率,改善患者预后.     

肝门部胆管癌根治术中的门静脉切除与重建的体会

目的探索门静脉切除与重建在肝门部胆管癌扩大根治术中的价值。方法回顾性分析2003年1月至2009年12月收治的在行根治性手术同时,行联合门静脉切除重建和/或肝切除的扩大根治术的肝门部胆管癌10例的临床资料。结果全组获R0切除6例,R1切除4例。行门静脉壁部分切除修补4例中,术后病理检查未提示门静脉壁肿瘤侵犯2例。行门静脉主干切除重建6例中,联合肝叶切除术者4例,联合肝动脉切除重建病例2例。术后发生胆漏3例,出现肝动脉血栓形成1例,无门静脉血栓形成或吻合口狭窄,无术后肝功能衰竭和消化道出血。本组无围手术期死亡病例,平均住院时间(32.5±15.7)d。本组2003年至2008年完成手术的6例中,存活超过1年者4例,超过3年者2例,尚无存活5年者。2009年完成的4例中,3例尚存活。结论肝门部胆管癌联合肝叶切除和门静脉切除与重建的扩大根治术并不增加围手术期死亡率和并发症发生率。     

肝动脉切除重建在肝门部胆管癌根治术中的应用

目的 探讨肝动脉切除显微外科重建在肝门部胆管癌根治术中的治疗经验和应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2008年8月至2012年3月采用左半肝切除+右肝动脉切除重建伴或不伴门静脉切除重建治疗肝门部胆管癌的7例临床资料.结果 左肝动脉与右肝动脉吻合1例,右肝动脉与右肝动脉对端吻合1例,胃十二指肠动脉与右肝动脉吻合1例,肝固有动脉与右肝动脉吻合4例,伴门静脉切除重建2例.术后病理学检查:中-低分化腺癌2例,低分化腺癌3例,乳头状腺癌2例.手术:R0切除6例,R1切除1例.术后无肝功能衰竭、肝坏死、肝脓肿、胆肠吻合口瘘等并发症及围手术期死亡发生.结论 肝动脉切除显微外科重建提高了进展期肝门部胆管癌的根治切除率,有效控制了术后并发症,安全可行.     

BismuthⅢ和Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌的整块切除

目的提高肝门部胆管癌的根治性切除率和远期生存率。方法对12例BismuthⅢ型和Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌患者施行包括部分肝脏、受侵门静脉和肝动脉在内的整块切除。结果术后病理证实9例(75%)获根治性切除,3例(25%)为姑息性切除。术后发生胆漏、肝功能不全和肺部感染各1例,无严重并发症和手术死亡。中位随访5年。9例获根治性切除者1年、3年、5年存活率分别为88.8%(n=8)、55.6%(n=5)和44.4%(n=4),最长存活已达9年。获姑息性切除(n=3)和同期仅放置胆道内支架者(n=5),平均中位生存8.2和9.1个月。结论肝门部胆管癌合并左肝叶和受侵门静脉干联合整块切除能显著提高BismuthⅢ型和Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌的根治性切除率。只有获得根治性切除的患者才有可能长期生存。     

肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术中血管切除和重建15例报告

目的探讨侵犯肝动脉和(或)门静脉的肝门部胆管癌在行根治性切除时肝动脉、门静脉切除重建的方法及安全性。方法回顾性分析2005年1月至2009年12月15例行肝门部胆管癌联合半肝或肝三叶根治性切除同时行肝动脉和(或)门静脉切除重建的临床资料。结果本组行肝动脉切除重建7例。其中,肝右动脉与肝右动脉对端吻合4例,肝固有动脉与肝右动脉吻合1例,肝左动脉与肝右后动脉吻合1例,胃十二指肠动脉与肝右动脉吻合1例。门静脉切除重建8例。其中,门静脉主干与门静脉左支吻合5例,门静脉主干与门静脉右支吻合2例,颈内静脉架桥1例。其中联合肝动脉和门静脉切除重建1例。本组R0切除12例,R1切除3例。术后发生腹腔出血1例,胆漏1例,腹腔感染1例,均经保守治疗痊愈。无围手术期手术死亡病例。结论对侵犯肝动脉和(或)门静脉的肝门部胆管癌联合受累血管切除重建能提高肿瘤的根治切除率。严格的术前评估流程,精细的术中操作和完善的术后管理能保证手术的安全性。     

腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术联合门静脉部分切除重建一例

目的 总结腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术的经验,并探讨腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术联合门静脉部分切除重建的安全性。方法 回顾性分析2021年5月陆军军医大学第二附属医院肝胆外科一例肝门部胆管癌（BismouthⅢa）在腹腔镜下行肝门部胆管癌根治性切除术（包括右半肝联合肝尾状叶切除、门静脉部分切除端端吻合等）的临床资料。结果 手术过程顺利,手术时间465 min,术中出血500 mL,术中输注红细胞300 mL。术后病理：肝门部胆管中低分化胆管细胞腺癌,可见神经侵犯,淋巴结无癌,切除部分门静脉有癌,门静脉左支切缘无癌。术后住院11 d,无胆漏、肺部感染、腹腔感染、出血等并发症发生。结论 严格谨慎地选择合适的病例,术前充分评估,并由经验丰富的肝胆外科医师实施手术,腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术联合门静脉部分切除吻合是可行的。但目前腹腔镜肝门部胆管癌根治切除术处于探索阶段,需慎重评估后选择手术方式,不宜广泛推广。     

联合肝切除术结合肝动脉重建治疗10例肝门部胆管癌临床分析

目的分析联合肝切除术结合肝动脉重建治疗肝门部胆管癌10例患者的应用效果。方法回顾性分析2016年1月至2017年2月10例均接受联合肝切除术结合肝动脉重建治疗的肝门部胆管癌患者资料,分析手术情况、围术期并发症及随访结果。结果10例患者中实施左半肝联合尾状叶切除4例(Ⅲb型),右半肝联合尾状叶切除3例(Ⅲa型),尾状叶切除2例(Ⅱ型),切除肝门部胆管及部分左内叶、右前叶及尾状叶1例(Ⅳ型);接受肝右动脉切除重建6例,肝固有动脉切除重建4例;R0切除率为80.0%,围术期均无死亡病例,术后胆瘘、消化道出血、肝动脉血栓继发胆道感染各1例(10.0%),均经保守治疗后症状好转;术后随访9~24个月,3例患者分别因肿瘤复发、肝动脉血栓、肝脓肿而死亡,术后24个月的生存率为70.0%(7/10)。结论给予肝门部胆管癌患者联合肝切除术结合肝动脉重建治疗可提高R0切除率,改善肝功能,且患者围术期并发症少、术后生存率高。     

Combined vascular resection in operative resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: does it work or not?

BACKGROUND: It is still not clear how combined vascular resection affects the outcome of patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Our aim was to evaluate implications of combined vascular resection in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma by analyzing the outcomes of all patients who underwent operative resection. METHODS: A total of 161 of 228 consecutive patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma underwent bile duct resection with various types of hepatectomy (88%) and pancreaticoduodenectomy (4%). Combined vascular resection was carried out in 43 patients. Thirty-four patients had portal vein resection alone, 7 patients had both portal vein and hepatic artery resection, and 2 patients had right hepatic artery resection only. The outcomes were compared between the 3 groups: the portal vein resection alone (34), hepatic artery resection (9), and non-vascular resection (118). RESULTS: Histologically-positive tumor invasion to the portal vein beyond the adventitia was present in 80% of 44 patients undergoing combined portal vein resection. Operative mortality occurred in 11 (7%) patients. The survival rates of the non-vascular resection group were better than that of the portal vein resection alone and the hepatic artery resection groups: 1, 3, and 5 years after curative resection, 72%, 52%, and 41% versus 47%, 31%, and 25% (P < .05), and 17%, 0%, and 0% (P < .0001), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed 4 independent prognostic factors of adverse effect on survival after operation; operative curability, lymph node metastases, portal vein resection, and hepatic artery resection. CONCLUSIONS: Although both portal vein and hepatic artery resection are independent poor prognostic factors after curative operative resection of locally advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma, portal vein resection is acceptable from an operative risk perspective and might improve the prognosis in the selected patients, however, combined hepatic artery resection can not be justified.     

Oncological Superiority of Hilar En Bloc Resection for the Treatment of Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Purpose

Long-term results after liver resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma are still not satisfactory. Previously, we described a survival advantage of patients who undergo combined right trisectionectomy and portal vein resection, a procedure termed “hilar en bloc resection.” The present study was conducted to analyze its oncological effectiveness compared to conventional hepatectomy.

Patients

During hilar en bloc resection, the extrahepatic bile ducts were resected en bloc with the portal vein bifurcation, the right hepatic artery, and liver segments 1 and 4 to 8. With this “no-touch” technique, preparation of the hilar vessels in the vicinity of the tumor was avoided. The long-term outcome of 50 consecutive patients who underwent curative (R0) hilar en bloc resection between 1990 and 2004 was compared to that of 50 consecutive patients who received curative conventional major hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma (perioperative deaths excluded).

Results

The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates after hilar en bloc resection were 87%, 70%, and 58%, respectively, which was significantly higher than after conventional major hepatectomy. In the latter group, 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 79%, 40%, and 29%, respectively (P = 0.021). Tumor characteristics were comparable in both groups. A high number of pT3 and pT4 tumors and patients with positive regional lymph nodes were present in both groups. Multivariate analysis identified hilar en bloc resection as an independent prognostic factor for long-term survival (P = 0.036).

Conclusions

In patients with central bile duct carcinomas, hilar en bloc resection is oncologically superior to conventional major hepatectomy, providing a chance of long-term survival even in advanced tumors.

     

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Surgical resection has been reported to be only hope for cure for the patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Therefore, first of all, radical surgical resection should be considered to be a therapeutic option for hilar cholangiocarcinoma as much as possible. In preoperative staging for hilar cholangiocarcinoma, various extensive patterns of cancer such as the involvements of bile duct, portal vein, hepatic artery and lymph node etc, should be evaluated in each patient. As most patients are associated with obstructive jaundice at presentation, liver function has to be evaluated by appropriate tests for deciding the suitable surgical procedure. When the future remnant liver volume is less than 40% or severe liver functional damage exists or greater surgical stress is expected, preoperative portal vein embolization might have to be selected. On the other hand, if hilar cholangiocarcinoma involves limited region of the hilar bile duct confluence, parenchyma preserving hepatectomy such as S1 resection and S1 + S4 resection should be selected for avoiding the occurrence of liver failure. Combined portal vein resection should be done for the case of the cancer involvement of the portal vein without hesitation to improve the prognosis. However, hepatic artery resection and reconstruction in the involved case should be carefully performed only in severely selected cases. By using several useful pre-operative and intra-operative therapeutic modalities, hilar cholangiocarcinoma should be surgically resected with curative intent and without increasing surgical morbidity and mortality rates.     

肝门胆管癌根治术中用胃十二指肠动脉行肝动脉重建

目的 总结胃十二指肠动脉代替肝动脉重建在肝门部胆管癌根治术中的应用经验.方法 回顾性分析2004-2008年9例肝门部胆管癌根治术中,胃十二指肠动脉代替肝动脉重建临床资料及随访结果.结果 9例行肝门部胆管癌根治术肝动脉切除超过1 cm,利用胃十二指肠动脉代替肝动脉进行重建,其中1例联合门静脉部分楔形切除,自身大隐静脉移植修复,8例行肝内胆管支撑.9例术后全身炎症反应综合征于2～3 d后明显缓解,1例术后3 d出现上消化道出血治愈,无手术死亡和住院死亡.术后2周彩色超声临测显示重建肝动脉通畅.9例随访1～4年,中位生存期为23(6～32)个月.结论 胃十二指肠动脉能较好地代替肝动脉重建,减少术后并发症的发生.     

肝门部胆管癌切除术中的血管切除重建

目的 探讨血管切除重建在肝门部胆管癌切除术中的价值.方法 2000年1月至2009年9月收治的肝门部胆管癌手术切除患者中,17例合并血管切除或重建,其中男性10例,女性7例,年龄30～72岁,平均53岁.病程4～30 d,平均(21±8)d.门静脉部分切除端端吻合6例,门静脉壁楔形切除、缝合修补3例,肝动脉结扎切除1例,肝动脉切除端端吻合2例,门静脉动脉化1例,1例同时行门静脉壁楔形切除+肝动脉结扎切除,2例同时行门静脉部分切除端端吻合+肝动脉部分切除端端吻合,1例同时行门静脉部分切除端端吻合+肝右动脉、胃十二指肠动脉端端吻合.对患者的临床资料进行分析.结果 住院死亡4例,病死率4/17,3例为术后出现肾功能不全后继发多器官功能衰竭,1例死于感染性休克.未死亡的13例患者中,6例恢复过程顺利,无并发症;7例发生并发症:3例胆瘘,1例呼吸衰竭,1例因U管阻塞发生胆管炎,1例腹腔内感染、门静脉血栓形成,1例远期门静脉狭窄、肝脓肿.中位生存期18个月,4例至今尚存活.结论 肝门部胆管癌切除联合血管切除重建有利于提高切除率但术后风险仍高,术后应警惕并发症的发生;肝动脉切除重建可能有利于降低术后风险.

Abstract：

Objective To investigate the value of vascular resection and reconstruction in resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma.Methods The clinical data of 17 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma received resection in combination with vascular resection and reconstruction from January 2000 to September 2009 was retrospectively analyzed.Among the 17 patients,6 underwent portal vein segmental resection and end-to-end anastomosis,3 underwent portal vein wedge resection,1 underwent hepatic artery ligature,2 underwent hepatic artery segmental resection and end-to-end anastomosis,1 underwent portal vein arterialization,1 underwent portal vein wedge resection and hepatic artery ligature simultaneously,2 underwent portal vein segmental resection and heapatic artery segmental resection and end-to-end anastomosis simultaneously,1 underwent portal vein segmental resection and right heapatic artery and gastroduodenal artery end-to-end anastomosis simultaneously.Results Four patients died and the mortality was 4/17.Three patients died of renal dysfunction followed with multiple organ dysfunction and 1 patient died of sepsis shock.Among the 13 survive patients,6 had a smooth postoperative recover and 7 developed complications:3 had bile leakage,1 had respiratory failure,1 had cholangitis due to obstruction of U tube,1 had abdominal infection and thrombosis in portal vein system and 1 had portal vein stenosis and liver abscess.Follow-up investigation showed that the median survival time was 18 months and four patients still alive.Conclusions Combination of vascular resection and reconstruction in the resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma may help to improve the resection rate but still have a high postoperative risk.The complications of renal dysfunction should be alert during the postoperative observation.The procedure of hepatic arterial reconstruction may help to reduce postoperative morbidity.     

Right Trisectionectomy with Principle En Bloc Portal Vein Resection for Right-Sided Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma: No-Touch Technique

Background  

The most favorable long-term survival rate for hilar cholangiocarcinoma is achieved by a R0 resection. A surgical concept involving a no-touch technique, with extended right hepatic resections and principle en bloc portal vein resection was described by Neuhaus et al.1 According to Neuhaus et al.,1 their technique may increase the chance of R0, because the right branch of the portal vein and hepatic artery is in close contact with the tumor and is frequently infiltrated. The left artery runs on the left margin of the hilum and often is free. The 5-year survival rate for their patients is 61% but 60-day mortality rate is 8%.1 ^, 2 Given the increased morbidity, some authors do not agree with routine resection of portal vein and may perform the resection of portal vein only on demand, after intraoperative assessment and confirmation of portal vein invasion.3     

Recent advance in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: hepatectomy with vascular resection

Radical surgical resection has been revealed to be the only hope of cure for the patient with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Therefore, major efforts have been made to increase the resection rate by surgeons employing combined hepatic resection and vascular resection of the portal vein and the hepatic artery. Especially, the technical feasibility and surgical safety of hepatic resection with combined portal vein resection have recently been reported by several authors. On the other hand, there have been few reports of combined hepatic artery resection in hilar cholangiocarcinoma. There are fears that combined vascular resection with extended hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma may lead to high surgical morbidity and mortality. Herein, we describe the results of aggressive surgical approaches in our series, and we also review the outcomes of hepatic resection with combined vascular resection in the previously reported literature.     

Indications for combined resection and reconstruction of the hepatic artery in biliary tract carcinoma]

More than 10 years have passed since hepatic artery resection was first performed for the treatment of biliary tract cancer. The safety of this procedure has been established with the introduction of the microsurgery technique. However, the benefits of and indications for this treatment have not yet been clarified. Twenty-three patients underwent vascular resection (portal vein in 7, portal vein + hepatic artery in 9, hepatic artery in 7) among 114 resected patients with biliary tract cancer in our institution. The right hepatic artery was reconstructed by end-to-end anastomosis in most cases. The curative resection rate was 88.9% in hilar bile duct cancer. However, it was less than 50% in other carcinomas. Cumulative 5-year survival rates of vascular resection patients with hilar bile duct cancer, lower bile duct cancer, gallbladder cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma were 14.8%, 25%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. On the other hand, the rates were 38.9%, 0%, 0%, and 0%, in the stage III + IV patients who did not undergo vascular resection. The longest survival period among patients with hilar bile duct cancer and lower bile duct cancer was 85 months and 65 months, respectively, whereas it was 15 months in gallbladder cancer and 20 months in cholangiocarcinoma patients. No hilar bile duct cancer patient who survived for more than 3 years had lymph node metastasis. The longest surviving cholangiocarcinoma patient has received adjuvant chemotherapy consisting of 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. It is concluded that patients with hilar bile duct cancer are good candidates for vascular resection. Adjuvant chemotherapy should be administered to gallbladder cancer and cholangiocarcinoma patients, because vascular resection alone does not result in prolongation of life in these patients.