肝门部胆管癌术前行门静脉栓塞16例分析

目的 探讨未来残余肝较小的肝门部胆管癌病人行门静脉栓塞是否安全有效。 方法 对2007年1月至2009年3月第二军医大学附属东方肝胆外科医院拟行大部肝切除、未来残余肝/全肝体积（FLR/ TLV）比<50%的16例接受钢圈门静脉栓塞（portal vein embolization,PVE）的临床资料进行分析。 结果 术前16例（PVE组）因肝功能损害、FLR/TLV < 50%者行PVE治疗,33例（非PVE组）FLR/TLV > 50%者行肿瘤联合肝切除。PVE后3例出现并发症,原因为胆漏和钢圈移位,但未推迟肝切除术日期。16例PVE中1例合并肝硬化出现非栓塞肝叶增生不全而未能接受外科治疗,2例术中发现肿瘤进展、腹膜播散未能接受肝切除术,余13例（81.3%）行联合肝切除的肿瘤切除术。PVE组和非PVE组的手术并发症发生率分别为69.2%及63.6%,手术死亡率为0及9.1%。二者相比差异无统计学意义。结论 PVE能安全、有效地诱导肝门胆管癌术前未来残余肝增生。     

肝门部胆管癌术前门静脉栓塞的血流动力学与肝再生的关系

目的 研究肝门部胆管癌术前门静脉栓塞(PVE)前后血流动力学的变化,并分析其与非栓塞肝叶增生速度的关系.方法 回顾性分析2008年4月至2009年12月第二军医大学东方肝胆外科医院收治的21例肝门部胆管癌患者的临床资料.在手术治疗前进行钢圈PVE治疗,在该治疗前和治疗后第3、7、14天采用彩色多普勒超声对门静脉的血流动...     

术前门静脉栓塞在Ⅳ型肝门胆管癌的应用价值探讨

目的 探讨术前门静脉栓塞（portal vein embolization,PVE）在Ⅳ型肝门胆管癌中的应用价值。方法 对2010年12月至2011年2月中国医科大学附属盛京医院肝胆脾外科术前行PVE的2例Ⅳ型肝门胆管癌进行分析。结果 2例均行经皮经肝胆道引流（percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage,PTBD）解除梗阻性黄疸,PVE诱导剩余肝体积代偿增生后,未来剩余肝（future liver remnant,FLR ）与全肝体积（total liver volume,TLV）之比分别为49.7%、43.7%,较PVE前分别增加7.9%,5.4%。2例行右半肝及尾状叶切除、肝门胆管癌根治术,手术顺利,术后恢复良好,至今分别无瘤生存18、19个月。 结论 PVE能够安全有效增加FLR,从而增加手术安全性,降低术后肝衰竭的发生率。     

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。     

Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌的治疗体会

目的探讨Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌的初步治疗经验。方法收集2008年4月至2011年4月期间四川大学华西医院肝胆胰外科1个医疗组收治的20例Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌患者的临床资料,对其术中及术后结果进行分析。结果 20例中行手术切除15例,切除率为75%。其中行根治性切除术10例,非根治性切除术5例;行左三肝+尾叶切除(右前右后肝管成形、肝管-空肠吻合+空肠-空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术)7例,行扩大右半肝切除+尾叶切除(左外左内肝管成形、肝管-空肠吻合+空肠-空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术)6例,行肝方叶切除(左外内、右前后肝管分别整形后行2个胆-肠吻合术)2例;其中2例因总胆红素>400 mmol/L而先行经皮肝穿刺胆管引流(PTCD)和门静脉栓塞(PVE)后再手术,1例行根治性切除术,另1例行非根治性切除术。不能切除者5例,其中3例因发生肝脏及远处广泛转移,行术中PTCD,另2例因肿瘤侵犯门静脉左右支,行术中T管引流、联合术后PTCD。行手术切除者术后1年生存率为100%,术后生存时间1～3年,平均1.5年;肿瘤未切除者生存3～6个月,平均4.2个月。本组无一例围手术期死亡。结论对于Ⅳ型肝门部胆管癌,术前应精确评估,力争切除肿瘤,解除胆管梗阻;如不能一期切除则行PTCD和PVE,力争二期切除。     

术前TAGM联合弹簧圈门静脉栓塞根治肝门胆管癌1例报告

正右侧侵犯为主的肝门胆管癌根治术多需要联合右半肝切除,可能会导致术后肝衰竭。近年来,计划性肝切除的策略备受关注,采用门静脉栓塞(portal vein embolization,PVE)的介入技术能诱导未来残余肝(future liver remnant,FLR)术前增生、降低肝衰风险~([1-3])。使用三丙烯酸酯明胶微球(tris-acryl gelatin microspheres,TAGM)作为末梢栓塞剂,联合近侧弹簧圈的PVE在国内鲜有报道。笔者单位1例尝试采用此技术治疗1例。报告如下。     

肝门部胆管癌的治疗

目的探讨肝门部胆管癌的治疗方法。方法回顾性分析我院1996，2004年间52例肝门部胆管癌患者的临床病例资料。I型癌肿切除率最高，Ⅳ型癌肿切除率最低。结果本组52例肝门部胆管癌中，围手术期死亡2例，均死于肝肾功能衰竭，余50例中31例术后获得随访，失访19例，随访率为62％。结论疑似或诊断肝门部胆管癌应早期积极手术探查，争取行根治性切除术；肝门部胆管癌肿瘤切除疗效明显优于其他治疗方式。     

伴神经浸润的肝门部胆管癌的病理和临床分析

目的总结伴神经浸润的肝门部胆管癌的临床病理类型、手术方式,探讨伴神经浸润的肝门部胆管癌治疗方法及远期存活率。方法对1993年1月至2004年12月收治的311例肝门部胆管癌(神经浸润组89例、无神经浸润组222例)的临床病理及随访资料进行回顾性分析。结果神经浸润是肝门部胆管癌的一种重要转移方式。伴神经浸润组的89例肝门部胆管癌的1、3、5年存活率分别为65.59%、22.71%、14.83%,无神经浸润组的222例肝门部胆管癌的1、3、5年存活率分别为80.62%、35.14%、24.98%,无神经浸润组存活率明显高于神经浸润组(P=0.037)。结论肿瘤的分化程度、手术方式是影响预后的重要因素。根治性切除是目前较理想的治疗方式。伴神经浸润的肝门部胆管癌患者的预后较差,远期疗效仍无显著改善,根治性切除术可望改善其预后。     

经皮经肝门静脉栓塞术在肝门部胆管癌手术中的应用

目的探讨对肝门部胆管癌行扩大右半肝切除术前使用经皮经肝门静脉栓塞术（portal vein embolization，PVE）的疗效。方法2005年10月对1例伴有肝硬化的肝门部胆管癌施行经皮经肝门静脉栓塞术（percutaneous portal veinembolization，PTPE），记录肝脏在血流动力学、体积、功能、病理方面的改变。结果PTPE术后第5天体温升至39．2℃，然后逐渐下降，同时伴有轻度右上腹痛，无恶心呕吐，未见腹腔出血及胆漏。PTPE术后左叶体积从417．0ml增加到522．4ml（肥大率125．2％）；右叶体积从1041．3ml减少到1017．4ml（萎缩率97．7％）；左叶占全肝的体积比从28．6％升至33．9％。左矢状部血流速度术前为12．8ml／s，术后当日、第6天分别为23．2、17．1ml／s。较原流量增加100％和39％（术后当日，第6天）。PTPE术后17d左肝胆汁的引流量超过右肝。PTPE术后34d患者接受扩大右半肝切除术，术中见肝左叶可见明显的肥大，肝脏5、6、7段（S5，6，7）与其余肝段间有明显的界限，术后3个月病情平稳。术后病理：栓塞叶门静脉狭窄及闭塞而肝细胞变性，坏死及凋亡。结论PVE能有效诱导未栓塞肝叶的肥大，从而提高对伴有肝损害的患者行扩大肝脏切除的安全性。     

肝门部胆管癌的手术治疗

目的 总结肝门部胆管癌的手术治疗经验.方法 回顾性分析2007年1月至2011年12月哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院同一医疗组手术治疗的88例肝门部胆管癌患者的临床资料.所有患者术前经影像学检查确诊,并根据黄疸程度及剩余肝脏体积进行术前辅助治疗,行PTCD 19例、门静脉栓塞4例.基本手术方式为肝门部胆管癌切除+肝十二指肠韧带骨骼化+胆管空肠Roux-en-Y吻合术,并常规放置支撑管引流6个月.计数资料采用x2检验,以Kaplan-Meier法计算生存率,生存分析采用Log-rank检验.结果 88例手术治疗的患者中,58例(含11例PTCD治疗者)行肝门部胆管癌切除术,其中43例(含4例术前门静脉栓塞者)为R0切除,15例为姑息性切除;30例行内和(或)外引流术.联合肝切除22例(包括左半肝切除9例、扩大左半肝切除2例、左半肝联合尾状叶切除7例、右半肝切除4例),联合胰头十二指肠切除7例,联合肝固有动脉切除3例(重建2例),联合门静脉管壁部分切除2例.按改良Bismuth-Corlette分型,88例患者中Ⅰ型17例、Ⅱ型19例、Ⅲa型21例、Ⅲb型20例、Ⅳ型11例.58例肝门部胆管癌切除术患者中,19例出现各种术后并发症,2例术后30 d内死亡.本组共73例患者获得随访,总体1、3、5年生存率分别为68.5％、28.8％、11.0％.37例R0切除患者、14例姑息性切除患者及22例引流患者1年生存率分别为94.6％、78.6％、18.2％;3年生存率分别为43.2％、35.7％、0;5年生存率分别为18.9％、7.1％、0.R0切除患者生存率高于姑息性切除患者(x2=4.77,P＜0.05);姑息性切除患者生存率高于内和(或)外引流患者(x2=13.26,P＜0.05).结论 手术治疗肝门部胆管癌,应力求R0切除,尽量避免单纯性胆汁引流;术前充分而高效的肝功能恢复与储备能确保手术的疗效.     

���Ų����ܰ���ǰ���ž���˨��16������

??Preoperative portal vein embolization for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a report of 16 cases YI Bin*, XU Ai-min, QÜ Zeng-qiang, et al. *First Department of Biliary ract Diseases, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200438,China
Corresponding author: JIANG Xiao-Qing, E-mail:jxq1225@sina.com
Abstract Objective To evaluate whether portal vein embolization (PVE) is safe and efficacious in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma who are estimated to have inadequate/marginal future liver remnant (FLR). Methods Between January 2007 and March 2009 at Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital of the Second Military Medical University, 16 cases of FLR ratio <50% requiring major hepatectomy underwent PVE with multiple steel coils. Results Sixteen cases (PVE group) were performed PVE resulted from hepatic function injury and FLR ratio <50%. Thirty-three cases (nonPVE group) were performed extended hepatectomy en bloc with the tumor resulted from FLR ratio >50%. PVE complications including bile leak (1/16) and coil displacement (2/16) did not delay hepatectomies. Deficiency of FLR hypertrophy appeared in one case with underlying cirrhosis and prevented him away from surgery. Local tumor progression and peritoneal dissemination precluded hepatectomy in 2 cases. The other 13 cases (81.3%) underwent extended hepatectomy en bloc with the tumor. The PVE hepatectomy group (n=13) had similar complication and mortality rates compared with the non-PVE hepatectomy group (FLR ratio > 50%, n=33) (complication rate, 69.2% vs. 63.6%, P=1.000; mortality rate, 0 vs. 9.1%, P=0.548). Conclusion PVE is a safe and efficacious procedure in inducing adequate hypertrophy of the FLR before major hepatic resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma.     

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.     

��ǰ�ž���˨���ڢ��͸��ŵ��ܰ���Ӧ�ü�ֵ̽��

目的探讨术前门静脉栓塞(portal vein embolization,PVE)在Ⅳ型肝门胆管癌中的应用价值。方法对2010年12月至2011年2月中国医科大学附属盛京医院肝胆脾外科术前行PVE的2例Ⅳ型肝门胆管癌进行分析。结果 2例均行经皮经肝胆道引流(percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage,PTBD)解除梗阻性黄疸,PVE诱导剩余肝体积代偿增生后,未来剩余肝(future liver remnant,FLR)与全肝体积(total liver volume,TLV)之比分别为49.7%、43.7%,较PVE前分别增加7.9%,5.4%。2例行右半肝及尾状叶切除、肝门胆管癌根治术,手术顺利,术后恢复良好,至今分别无瘤生存18、19个月。结论 PVE能够安全有效增加FLR,从而增加手术安全性,降低术后肝衰竭的发生率。     

肝切除术前门静脉栓塞疗效的荟萃分析

目的 探讨肝切除术(右半肝、扩大半肝切除术)前应用门静脉栓塞(portal veinembolization,PVE)的临床价值.方法 通过电子检索Pubmed、Medline、Ovid数据库,对1986至2008年有关右半肝或扩大半肝切除术前行PVE的病例对照研究资料进行meta分析.结果 共纳入文献9篇,494例患者.荟萃分析结果 显示,PVE手术组较单纯手术组术后肝功能衰竭的发生率降低(P=0.02),但两者术后手术死亡的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);亚组分析肝细胞癌和结直肠癌肝转移PVE手术组较单纯手术组1、3、5年生存率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);1篇文献报道结肠癌肝转移发生率PVE手术组术后肝内复发转移发生较单纯手术组降低(P=0.001),而其他远处转移发生率相对增高(P=0.004).结论 术前行PVE能够有效降低术后肝功能衰竭的发生,但临床医师应当谨慎把握行术前PVE的指征.     

ALPPS与采用不同栓塞材料PVE对肝再生及手术切除率影响研究

目的 比较不同栓塞材料的门静脉栓塞术（PVE）与联合肝脏分隔和门静脉结扎的二步肝切除术（ALPPS）对剩余肝体积（FLR）增长速率的影响,比较各组FLR的增长速率,二期手术切除率、术中数据和术后并发症。方法 采用单中心、前瞻性、非随机对照的对比研究。2014年11月至2019年12月,海军军医大学第三附属医院共126例因FLR不足导致无法切除的肝细胞癌（HCC）或肝内胆管癌（ICC）病人,将其分为4组：ALPPS组及分别采用氰基丙烯酸正丁酯（NBCA）、微球、明胶海绵作为栓塞材料的PVE组。主要终点为FLR增长速率和二期手术切除率。结果 各组的手术切除例数及二期手术切除率分别为：ALPPS组38例（99.4%）,NBCA组32例（76.2%）,明胶海绵组20例（60.6%）,微球组10例（83.3%）。ALPPS组、NBCA组、微球组的FLR增长速率分别为15.1 mL/d,10.0 mL/d和 8.5 mL/d,均高于明胶海绵组（3.7 mL/d）。结论 采用NBCA及微球作为栓塞材料的PVE导致FLR增长速率低于ALPPS,两种栓塞材料的PVE二期手术切除率相当。使用NBCA作为栓塞材料的PVE其FLR增长速率高于微球,且这两种栓塞材料的栓塞效果均优于明胶海绵。     

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。     

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.     

�ž���������˨���ڸ��г�����Ӧ�õ�Meta����

??Portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for hepatectomy??A Meta-analysis SONG Wei??ZOU Shu-bing. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery??the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University??Nanchang 330000??China
Corresponding author??ZOU Shu-bing??E-mail??zousb999@163.com
Abstract Objective To systematically review the growth rate in future liver remnant (FLR) and perioperative outcomes after portal vein ligation (PVL) and portal vein embolization (PVE) before hepatectomy. Methods Such databases as MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data were electronically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials (CCTs) on application of portal vein ligation versus portal vein embolization for staged hepatectomy. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 8 studies were included with a total of 438 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that??There was no difference in the increasement in FLR between PVE group versus PVL group??RR=6.04??95%CI??-0.23—12.32??P> 0.05). Similarly??there was no difference in the interval time??complications after PVE/PVL?? progression diseased after PVE/PVL??mortality??postoperative liver failure??morbidity and resectability in the two groups after hepatectomy. However??in a subset analysis comparing FLR with PVE and PVL??there was a significant increasement in FLR in favor of ALPPS??RR=30.14??95%CI??4.84—55.44??P< 0.05). Conclusion PVL and PVE for staged hepatectomy have a similar growth rate in FLR??mortality and morbidity rates in the hepatectomy. The ALPPS procedure results in an improved growth rate in FLR compared with PVE.