Evaluation of liver volume and liver function following hepatic resection in man

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 286-291 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Zoli ◽  
G. Marchesini ◽  
A. Melli ◽  
G. Viti ◽  
A. Marra ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
pp. 028418512110141
Author(s):  
Vincent Van den Bosch ◽  
Federico Pedersoli ◽  
Sebastian Keil ◽  
Ulf P Neumann ◽  
Christiane K Kuhl ◽  
...  

Background In patients with bilobar metastatic liver disease, surgical clearance of both liver lobes may be achieved through multiple-stage liver resections. For patients with extensive disease, a major two-staged hepatectomy consisting of resection of liver segments II and III before right-sided portal vein embolization (PVE) and resection of segments V–VIII may be performed, leaving only segments IV ± I as the liver remnant. Purpose To describe the outcome following right-sided PVE after prior complete resection of liver segments II and III. Material and Methods In this retrospective study, 15 patients (mean age = 60.4 ± 9.3 years) with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (n = 14) and uveal melanoma (n = 1) who were scheduled to undergo a major two-stage hepatectomy, were included. Total liver volume (TLV) and volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) were measured on pre- and postinterventional computed tomography (CT) scans, and standardized FLR volumes (ratio FLR/TLV) were calculated. Patient data were retrospectively analyzed regarding peri- and postinterventional complications, with special emphasis on liver function tests. Results The mean standardized post-PVE FLR volume was 26.9% ± 6.4% and no patient developed hepatic insufficiency after the PVE. Based on FLR hypertrophy and liver function tests, all but one patient were considered eligible for the subsequent right-sided hepatectomy. However, due to local tumor progression, only 9/15 patients eventually proceeded to the second stage of surgery.   Conclusion Right-sided PVE was safe and efficacious in this cohort of patients who had previously undergone a complete resection of liver segments II and III as part of a major staged hepatectomy pathway leaving only segments IV(±I) as the FLR. 


2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick McNeillie ◽  
Andrew S. Kennedy ◽  
William Dezarn ◽  
Scott L. Sailer ◽  
Mary England ◽  
...  

Purpose: Liver tolerance to multiple doses of Y90-microspheres is not known. Many patients (pts) are surviving long enough to be considered for a second and third liver treatments with internal radiation. Materials and Methods: The experience of a single center treating liver tumors with resin Y90-microspheres. Pts that received liver radiation prior to or after resin microsphere therapy were studied. Endpoints were toxicity, tumor response, shunting to lung, and effects on liver volume and function. The delivery activity of microspheres selected was not reduced below BSA dose calculation for patients without prior treatment. All patients received bilobar single session delivery. Results: A total of 38 pts; 14 women, 24 men, treated 6∕2003 to 9∕2006, with 33 pts receiving 2 courses and 5 pts with 3 courses of liver radiation. Retreatment with resin microspheres 26 pts, prior external beam radiation in 7 pts, prior glass microspheres in 2 pts, prior systemic radiotherapy in 2 pts, and prior stereotactic liver radiation in 1 pt. Liver function was stable and adequate in all patients after additional liver radiation, and no pts developed radiation-induced liver dysfunction (RILD) or veno-occlusive disease (VOD). The percentage of shunting to the lung decreased with retreatment. Conclusions: Repeated implantation in the liver with Y90-microspheres is safe in patients that have sufficient liver function and reserve based on known and accepted laboratory parameters already used for selection of microsphere therapy. No acute life-threatening, fatal, or late liver damage was observed, RILD or VOD. No specific dose reduction is recommended for retreatment of the liver.


2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 216
Author(s):  
Mikyung Yang ◽  
Mi Sook Gwak ◽  
Yoon Jin Sun ◽  
Soo Joo Choi ◽  
Tae Soo Hahm ◽  
...  

HPB ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S384
Author(s):  
M. Shimoda ◽  
T. Maryuyama ◽  
K. Nishida ◽  
J. Shimazaki ◽  
J. Asaoka ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick H. Alizai ◽  
Annabel Haelsig ◽  
Philipp Bruners ◽  
Florian Ulmer ◽  
Christian D. Klink ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Bednarsch ◽  
Zoltan Czigany ◽  
Sven H. Loosen ◽  
Lara Heij ◽  
Lorenz Ruckgaber ◽  
...  

AbstractThe objective of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess the impact of rifaximin on the course of liver function, liver regeneration and volumetric recovery in patients undergoing major hepatectomy. The ARROW trial was an investigator initiated, single-center, open-label, phase 3 RCT with two parallel treatment groups, conducted at our hepatobiliary center from 03/2016 to 07/2020. Patients undergoing major hepatectomy were eligible and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral rifaximin (550 mg twice daily for 7–10 or 14–21 days in case of portal vein embolization preoperatively and 7 days postoperatively) versus no intervention. Primary endpoint was the relative increase in postoperative liver function measured by LiMAx from postoperative day (POD) 4 to 7. Secondary endpoint were the course of liver function and liver volume during the study period as well as postoperative morbidity and mortality. Between 2016 and 2020, 45 patients were randomized and 35 patients (16 individuals in the rifaximin and 19 individuals in the control group) were eligible for per-protocol analysis. The study was prematurely terminated following interim analysis, due to the unlikelihood of reaching a significant primary endpoint. The median relative increase in liver function from POD 4 to POD 7 was 27% in the rifaximin group and 41% in the control group (p = 0.399). Further, no significant difference was found in terms of any other endpoints of functional liver- and volume regeneration or perioperative surgical complications following the application of rifaximin versus no intervention. Perioperative application of rifaximin has no effect on functional or volumetric regeneration after major hepatectomy (NCT02555293; EudraCT 2013-004644-28).


2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (22) ◽  
pp. 4459-4465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyo-Suk Lee ◽  
Kang Mo Kim ◽  
Jung-Hwan Yoon ◽  
Tae-Rim Lee ◽  
Kyung Suk Suh ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Identifying a special subgroup of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who may benefit from transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) when compared with the standard treatment of hepatic resection (HR) warrants research in Asian countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 1993 to December 1994, 182 patients with operable HCC (Child-Pugh class A and International Union Against Cancer [UICC] stage T1-3N0M0) were enrolled. After initial TACE and lipiodol computed tomography, 91 received HR and 91, who refused the operation, received repeated sessions of TACE. After stratification according to the tumor stage (UICC and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program [CLIP]) and lipiodol retention pattern, the survival rates of the two treatment groups were compared. The median follow-up period was 83 months. RESULTS: As of December 31, 2000, 48 patients who underwent HR and 68 patients who underwent TACE had died. In a subgroup analysis according to tumor stage, the HR group survival rate was significantly higher than the TACE group in both UICC T1-2N0M0 (P = .0058) and CLIP 0 (P = .0027) subgroups. However, there was no significant difference in either UICC T3N0M0 (P = .7512) or CLIP 1-2 (P = .5366) subgroups. Even in patients with UICC T1-2N0M0 HCC, when lipiodol was compactly retained, the survival rate of the HR group was comparable to that of the TACE group (P = .0596). CONCLUSION: TACE proved to be as effective as HR in the subpopulations with UICC T3N0M0 or CLIP 1-2 HCC and adequate liver function, and even with UICC T1-2N0M0 HCC when lipiodol was compactly retained in the tumor. In such cases, the choice of treatment modality between TACE and HR may be left to the patient’s preference.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 857-865 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomohide Yoneyama ◽  
Yoshihiko Fukukura ◽  
Kiyohisa Kamimura ◽  
Koji Takumi ◽  
Aya Umanodan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document