肝切除术前门静脉栓塞对围手术期影响的荟萃分析

目的：探讨肝切除术（有半肝、扩大半肝切除术）前应用门静脉栓塞（portal vein embolization,PVE）对病人围手术期的影响。方法：通过电子检索Pubmed、Medline数据库,对1986～2008年有关右半肝或扩大半肝切除术前行PVE病例的对照研究资料进行荟萃分析。结果：共纳入8篇文献．423例病人。荟萃分析结果显示．PVE手术组与单纯手术组比较,术前谷草转氨酶（AST）、总胆红素（TB）、凝血酶原时间（PT）、15min吲哚氰绿储留率（ICGR-15）及肿瘤最大直径两组间均无统计学差异（19〉0．05）;术中输血、肿瘤Rn切除及手术时间两组间均无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。PVE手术组术后感染的发生率显著降低（P=0．002）,但二者在术后出血、胆瘘、肾功能衰竭及术后住院时间的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：术前行PVE不能提高肝脏肿瘤的R0切除率,但能降低术后感染的发生率。     

腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎术在二期肝癌肝切除术中的应用

目的 探讨腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎术在二期肝癌肝切除术中的临床应用价值.方法 回顾性分析2009年3月至2012年2月四川省人民医院收治的23例无法一期手术切除的原发性肝癌患者的临床资料.先行腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎术,术后3～4周,经CT检查了解各肝叶体积及预计肝切除体积的动态变化,评估肝癌可切除性后再行二期开腹肝癌肝切除术.组间比较采用方差分析,两两比较采用q检验(方差不齐数据行对数转换).结果 选择性门静脉结扎术:23例患者均行门静脉右支结扎,其中22例于腹腔镜下成功结扎门静脉右支(2例因暴露门静脉右支困难,同时行胆囊切除),1例患者因分离门静脉时出血,中转开腹行门静脉右支结扎.3例多发肿瘤患者行腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎后1周加行TACE,其中2例行右半肝切除+健侧肝脏肿瘤RFA治疗.23例患者术后出现不同程度的肝区隐痛不适、低热、恶心、呕吐等非特异性反应,无腹腔出血、胆汁漏、肝脓肿等并发症发生;术后出现程度不同的肝功能损害,术后1周AST、ALT和TBil恢复至术前水平.术后右半肝体积逐渐缩小,术后3周患者右半肝体积为(590 ± 154) cm3,较术前(698±135)cm3明显缩小,术前与术后右半肝体积比较,差异有统计学意义(F=15.62,P＜0.05);术后3周左半肝体积为(408±149) cm3,较术前(331±68) cm3增生,术前与术后左半肝体积比较,差异有统计学意义(F=17.48,P＜0.05);预计肝切除体积占全肝体积百分比由术前的67％±15％缩小至术后3周时的60％±18％,术前与术后1、2、3周预计肝切除体积占全肝体积百分比比较,差异有统计学意义(F=12.35,P＜0.05).二期肝癌肝切除术:经CT检查评估后,23例患者中,2例因左半肝增生不明显、2例因术后(其中1例患者术前健侧肝脏发现转移癌)3周出现广泛肝内转移失去手术机会,2例失访,3例主动放弃二期肝癌肝切除术,14例在腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎术后2～4周行二期肝癌肝切除术.手术切除率为60.9％(14/23).其中扩大右半肝切除2例、右半肝切除8例、不规则右半肝切除4例.二期肝癌肝切除术后患者恢复良好,无肝衰竭、严重腹腔积液、腹腔内感染等严重并发症发生,康复出院.结论 腹腔镜选择性门静脉结扎术治疗后预留剩余肝脏增生,使部分肝癌患者获得二期手术机会,且二期肝癌肝切除术后患者恢复良好.     

经皮经肝选择性门静脉栓塞化疗在结肠癌多发肝转移分期手术中的应用

门静脉栓塞(portal vein embolization,PVE)用于结直肠癌多发肝转移二期肝切除术效果良好[1].我们对1例乙状结肠癌并左、右肝多发转移癌的患者一期行原发肿瘤根治性切除+肝左外叶切除,术后行经皮选择性右肝门静脉栓塞化疗(portal vein chemoembolization,PVCE),二期行右半肝切除术,术后患者已无瘤生存18个月,报告如下.     

肝切除术后并发症分析

目的总结和探讨肝切除术后常见并发症及其防治经验。方法回顾性分析73例肝切除术后患者的围手术期并发症,其中原发性肝癌28例,肝内胆管结石15例,胆管癌12例,胆囊癌2例,血管瘤5例,肝外伤7例,肝囊肿4例。Ch ild-Pugh肝功能分级A级59例,B级14例。行左半肝切除12例,单纯左肝外叶切除10例,左外叶切除+右肝肿瘤挖除6例,右半肝切除6例,右肝三叶切除2例,其他肝叶肝段不规则切除21例,肝楔形切除或肿块挖除16例。结果术后并发症包括腹腔内出血5例、肝功能衰竭6例、腹腔感染3例、肺部感染与胸腔积液4例、胆汁漏2例及上消化道出血2例。1例死亡,死因为术后肝功能衰竭、上消化道出血。肝脏恶性肿瘤患者术后并发症发生率虽高于肝脏良性疾病患者(38.1%vs.19.4%),但无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论术前详细评估患者肝功能储备及相应心肺功能情况,提高手术技巧,加强术后管理是防治肝切除术后并发症的关键因素。     

选择性门静脉栓塞术的临床应用进展

随着外科手术技术的进步,肝部分切除的风险越来越低.但扩大半肝切除的患者仍然存在较大的风险.尤其是术后存留肝脏(future liver remnant,FLR)不足,易导致肝脏功能衰竭,巨块型肝癌或伴有肝硬化的患者,发生肝衰竭的机率更高[1-4].为了增加FRL,降低术后发生肝功能衰竭的风险,有学者提出术前门静脉栓塞术(portal vein embolization,PVE)作为术前准备,并在临床得以应用.本文就这一技术的临床应用及所面临的问题做一综述.     

腹腔镜门脉高压症脾切除的临床效果分析

目的探讨腹腔镜脾切除术(LS)治疗门脉高压症的临床效果。方法回顾性分析2015年3月至2016年6月接受治疗的85例门脉高压患者的临床资料,根据其治疗方式分为传统手术组(40例)和LS组(45例),传统手术组采用单纯贲门周围血管离断术,LS组采用腹腔镜脾切除术。应用SPSS 11.5软件进行统计学分析。两组患者手术一般情况、肝肾功能和生活质量采用均数±标准差表示,t检验;两组患者并发生症发生率的比较采用卡方检验。P0.05差异有统计学意义。结果 LS组手术时间较传统手术组短(t=21.393,P0.001),术中出血量较传统手术组少(t=49.471,P0.001);两组患者术前肝肾功能无差别,术后LS组ALT、AST和TBIL水平低于传统手术组(t=13.323、5.307、6.313,P0.001);两组患者手术前生活质量无差别,术后半年,LS组生活质量明显优于传统手术组;LS组出血、腹水和肝肾综合征发生率明显低于传统手术组(χ2=5.977,P=0.014)。结论腹腔镜下脾切除术对门脉高压症有较好的治疗效果,可明显改善患者的肝功能,降低并发症发生率,具有临床推广应用的价值。     

门冬氨酸-鸟氨酸在减轻肝切除术后肝功能损害中的临床研究

目的: 探讨门冬氨酸-鸟氨酸在减轻肝切除术后肝功能损害中的作用.方法: 将120例行肝切除术的病人按照切除范围分为右半肝切除组,左半肝切除组和左外叶切除组,随后每组再随机分成两组:对照组,术后行常规护肝治疗;实验组,术后除常规护肝治疗外,从术前第1天开始至术后第10天,加用门冬氨酸-鸟氨酸.检测两组术前和术后胆红素(TB)、门冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)、丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)和血氨(BA)水平.同时分析术中第一肝门阻断15 min以上和15 min以下患者的肝功能的恢复情况.结果: 第一肝门阻断15 min以上患者和右半肝切除病例中,实验组术后AST,ALT以及TB明显低于对照组,P<0.05,差异有统计学意义,并且术后1 w内肝功能恢复正常.在术中第一肝门阻断15 min以下组和左半肝切除和左外叶切除病例中,术后AST,ALT以及TB低于对照组,但P>0.05,差异无统计学意义.治疗组术后血氨均低于对照组,但与对照组相比较无显著性差异(P>0.05).结论: 门冬氨酸-鸟氨酸可减轻肝切除术后尤其是大范围肝切除术后肝功能的损害,对肝功能具有保护作用.     

不能手术的结肠直肠癌肝转移在经皮门静脉栓塞后得以切除

结肠直肠癌肝转移的唯一治疗是手术切除 ,5年生存率可达 2 5%～ 4 0 % ,惜其中仅 10 %病例的转移灶得以切除 ,作者观察先予经皮门静脉栓塞提高手术切除率的效果。法国巴黎 Paris- Sud大学医院于 1990～ 1998年收治的 30例结肠直肠癌肝转移需切除 4个或更多的肝段 ,由于残留的肝容积太小而判定为不能切除 ,术前先予经皮门静脉栓塞 (PVE)使切除后残留肝组织代偿性肥大。同时另有 88例结肠直肠癌肝转移施行了≥ 4个肝段切除手术 (切除 4段 58例、5段 2 1例、6段 9例 ) ,术前仅给化疗 ,未给 PVE,比较两组手术后肝功能衰竭的情况。30例 PVE…     

胆道恶性肿瘤扩大肝切除术后肝衰的危险因素

目前对于胆道恶性肿瘤如胆囊癌、肝门部胆管癌等多采取包括扩大肝切除在内的根治性手术治疗，术后肝功能衰竭是此类手术的严重并发症。关于影响扩大肝切除术后肝衰的因素如术前肝功能、残肝体积、术中失血量等多有报道，但多数研究的对象为肝脏肿瘤或肝转移瘤。而胆道恶性肿瘤患者多伴有梗阻性黄疸，关于此类病例的研究并不多见，因此本研究主要研究胆道恶性肿瘤扩大肝切除术后肝衰的相关临床因素。     

白蛋白-胆红素评分联合标准化残肝体积比对肝细胞癌患者肝切除术后肝功能衰竭的预测价值

目的分析影响肝细胞癌患者肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生的危险因素并探讨白蛋白-胆红素(ALBI)评分联合标准化残肝体积比(s FLR)在预测肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生中的应用价值。方法收集2016年1月至2018年6月期间于兰州大学第一医院普外二科和普外五科因肝细胞癌行肝切除术治疗患者的临床资料,运用logistic回归模型分析肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生的影响因素,用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线分析比较ALBI评分、s FLR及ALBI评分×s FLR对肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生的预测能力。结果本研究共纳入符合研究条件的肝细胞癌肝切除术后患者72例,均为Child-Pugh分级A级,肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生率为27.78%(20/72),其中ALBI-Ⅰ级患者54例,ALBI-Ⅱ级患者18例,ALBI-Ⅰ级患者术后肝功能衰竭发生率明显低于ALBI-Ⅱ级患者[12.96%(7/54)比72.22%(13/18),P0.001]。术后肝功能衰竭发生的多因素分析结果显示,血小板计数(OR=0.030,P=0.018)、ALBI分级(OR=11.758,P=0.020)及s FLR(OR=0.839,P=0.003)是影响肝细胞癌患者肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生的独立影响因素。ALBI评分×sFLR对应的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)为0.892,其诊断效果好于ALBI评分(AUC=0.799)和s FLR(AUC=0.773)。结论相较于Child-Pugh分级,ALBI分级预测肝细胞癌患者肝切除术后肝功能衰竭发生的效果更准确,且ALBI评分×s FLR预测价值更优于单独ALBI评分或sFLR。     

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.     

术前门静脉栓塞术在肝门部胆管癌扩大肝切除术中的应用研究

目的 评价肝门部胆管癌扩大肝切除术前行门静脉栓塞术的有效性及安全性,比较门静脉栓塞手术切除术与非门静脉栓塞手术切除术后结果.方法 2007年5月至2010年10月收治肝门部胆管癌患者57例,分为两组,将预保留肝占全肝体积＜50％、术前接受门静脉栓塞(PVE)者设为PVE组(26例),男16例,女10例,年龄(56.48...     

�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.     

One-Stage Hepatectomy Following Portal Vein Embolization for Colorectal Liver Metastasis

Background

Although portal vein embolization (PVE) has been applied for surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM), the clinical usefulness of liver surgery following PVE for CLM remains unknown.

Methods

A total of 115 patients were evaluated retrospectively. Among them, 49 underwent one-stage hepatectomy following PVE (PVE group). The remaining 66 patients underwent at least hemihepatectomy without PVE (non-PVE group). This analysis compared the short- and long-term outcomes between the PVE and non-PVE groups.

Results

There were no deaths in either group. Using the Clavien–Dindo classification, the rates of postoperative morbidity ≥ grade 1 were 34.7 % in the PVE group and 25.0 % in the non-PVE group (p = 0.26). The 3-year overall survival rates were 54.6 and 64.5 % in the PVE and non-PVE groups, respectively (p = 0.89). The multivariate analysis the variable performance/nonperformance of PVE was not detected as an independent predictor of poor survival.

Conclusions

Our one-stage hepatectomy policy of using PVE provides acceptable morbidity and favorable long-term outcomes.     

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。     

Recent advances in the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: portal vein embolization

The clinical application of portal vein embolization (PVE) has contributed to improving the postoperative outcome of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. The enlarged nonembolized lobe after PVE protects the patient from postoperative hepatic failure, due to the increased functional reserve, and shortens the hospital stay. Although numerous reports have shown beneficial effects of PVE on postoperative outcome after extended hepatectomy, no randomized controlled study has been performed so far. It is urgent to establish a “gold standard” of PVE, because the indications, approach to the portal vein, types of embolic materials, and methods used to evaluate the function of the future liver remnant are variable among institutions. The indications and procedures of PVE for hilar cholangiocarcinoma may be different from those for hepatocellular carcinoma or colorectal metastasis, because, in many patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma, biliary cancer is associated with biliary obstruction and cholangitis. This review article summarizes the contribution of PVE to the outcome of postoperative management in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma needing extended hepatectomy. We also describe our PVE procedure, which has been established from our experience of more than 240 cases of biliary cancer. Furthermore, the drawbacks of PVE, which may reduce the pool of candidates for surgery, are also discussed.     

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.     

Application of preoperative portal vein embolization before major hepatic resection in patients with normal or abnormal liver parenchyma.

BACKGROUND: Clinical parameters influencing the effect of preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) in hypertrophying the nonembolized lobe of patients with either normal or abnormal liver parenchyma and its effect upon portal pressure were examined to identify the patient population for whom this approach is most suited. METHODS: The study population included 43 patients undergoing major hepatectomy after PVE. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their liver parenchyma: 17 patients with normal liver parenchyma (N group) and 26 patients with damaged liver parenchyma due to viral hepatitis (D group). We calculated the correlation between volumetric increases in the nonembolized (left) lobe after PVE (hypertrophic ratio = post-PVE left lobe volume/pre-PVE left lobe volume) using computed tomography volumetry before and 2 weeks after PVE. Clinical parameters also were examined to identify those parameters modifying the hypertrophic ratio in each group, and changes in portal pressure by PVE and the subsequent hepatectomy were recorded. Finally, by comparing patients with or without postoperative liver failure after hepatectomy, the influence of the hypertrophic ratio and portal pressure on the outcome of subsequent hepatectomy was examined. RESULTS: The hypertrophic ratio was 1.34 +/- 0.23 in the N group, and 1.25 +/- 0.21 in the D group. This difference was not significant. Multiple regression analysis revealed that the parenchymal volumetric rate of the right lobe (PVR) in the D group and both PVR and prothrombin time in the N group were independent parameters predicting the hypertrophic ratio. The portal pressure increased immediately after PVE and was similar in both groups to levels after hepatectomy. Six patients in the D group experienced postoperative liver dysfunction. In 5 of these 6 patients, the hypertrophic ratio was below 1.2, and the portal pressure was higher than that in patients without liver dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: PVE induces hypertrophy of the nonembolized lobe of both abnormal and normal liver parenchyma, and the effect was predictable. Postoperative liver failure appeared to be more severe in patients having a lower hypertrophic ratio and higher portal pressure in abnormal liver parenchyma, however. PVE also may have diagnostic use in predicting portal pressure after hepatectomy, which may be associated with surgical outcome.     

���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.