Small for size liver remnant following resection: prevention and management (original) (raw)
Related papers
International journal of surgery (London, England), 2018
Post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after major liver resection. Although the etiology of PHLF is multifactorial, an inadequate functional liver remnant (FLR) is felt to be the most important modifiable predictor of PHLF. Pre-operative evaluation of FLR function and volume is of paramount importance before proceeding with any major liver resection. Patients with inadequate or borderline FLR volume must be considered for volume optimization strategies such as portal vein embolization (PVE), two stage hepatectomy with portal vein ligation (PVL), Yttrium-90 radioembolization, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). This paper provides an overview of assessing FLR volume and function, and discusses indications and outcomes of commonly used volume optimization strategies.
Postoperative Liver Dysfunction and Future Remnant Liver: Where Is the Limit?
World Journal of Surgery, 2007
Background The future remnant liver (FRL) limit for safe major hepatectomy with low risk of postoperative liver failure has not yet been well defined. Methods Between April 2000 and September 2004, every patient scheduled for major hepatectomy in our institution underwent CT-volumetry of FRL. Patients with FRL <25% underwent portal vein embolization (PVE). Exclusion criteria were PVE, associated vascular resection and liver cirrhosis. The FRL was correlated with short-term results in patients with normal liver (group A) and those with impaired liver function secondary to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or cholestasis (bilirubin >2 mg/100 ml) (group B). Liver dysfunction was defined as both PT <50% and serum bilirubin level >5 mg/100 ml for three or more consecutive days. Results A total of 119 patients were analyzed, 72 in group A and 47 in group B. The FRL value was the only significant risk factor for postoperative liver dysfunction in the univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.009). The FRL did not correlate with postoperative mortality and morbidity. Bilirubin and prothrombin time (PT) on days 3 and 7 were significantly correlated to FRL in both groups. In group A, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL<30% (3 versus 0; p = 0.005). According to receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a FRL value of 26.5% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 66.7% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 50% positive predictive value (PPV), and 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV). In group B, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL <35% (4 versus 0; p = 0.027). According to ROC curve analysis, a FRL value of 31.05% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 75% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, 25% PPV, and 97.1% NPV. Conclusions Hepatectomy can be considered safe when FRL is >26.5% in patients with healthy liver and >31% in patients with impaired liver function.
Hepatoma Research, 2024
Liver resection stands as the gold-standard therapeutic approach for selected cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The extent of resectable parenchyma hinges upon the underlying liver function and its regenerative potential. Consequently, cirrhosis may impede access to potentially curative interventions for HCC arising within this context. Cirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection face heightened susceptibility to post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). The clinical profile of PHLF bears a resemblance to a well-documented syndrome within the liver transplant (LT) domain: Small-for-size syndrome (SFSS), a form of graft failure observed in the postoperative phase following LT with undersized or partial organs. Management of SFSS targets mitigating the overflow syndrome, achievable through diverse portal diversion techniques. Portal vein flow diversion encompasses procedures redirecting a variable proportion of portal vein flow towards systemic circulation. Consequently, derivative procedures aim to directly alleviate portal hypertension. Side-to-side portocaval shunts emerge as the most straightforward and efficacious means of decompressing the portal system. Furthermore, they afford flow calibration to diminish the incidence and severity of steal syndrome and hepatic encephalopathy, without compromising efficacy or hepatic function. Translating insights gleaned from LT complexities involving SFSS to liver resection, strategies involving portal flow diversion warrant consideration in efforts to forestall PHLF. This approach aims to extend the frontiers of liver surgery, broadening access to hepatectomy with curative intent, either as a standalone intervention or as part of a comprehensive treatment regimen where LT serves as a secondary option.
Preoperative assessment of postoperative liver function: the importance of residual liver volume
Journal of surgical oncology, 2014
An inadequate volume of future liver remnant (FLR) remains an absolute contraindication to liver resection. FLR measurement correlates with surgical outcome and is fundamental to identify those patients that may benefit from portal vein embolization (PVE) and to assess the liver volume change following embolization. In order to minimize the risk of postoperative liver failure, preoperative analysis of FLR must be included in the surgical planning of every major liver resection. The aims of this review are to describe the use of preoperative volumetric analysis in modern liver surgery and indications for PVE.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2014
After portal vein embolization (PVE), the future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophies for several weeks. An early marker that predicts a low risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure can reduce the delay to surgery. Liver volumes of 153 patients who underwent a major hepatectomy (>3 segments) after PVE for primary or secondary liver malignancy between September 1999 and November 2012 were retrospectively evaluated with computerized volumetry. Pre- and post-PVE FLR volume and functional liver volume were measured. Degree of hypertrophy (DH = post-FLR/post-functional liver volume - pre-FLR/pre-functional liver volume) and growth rate (GR = DH/weeks since PVE) were calculated. Postoperative complications and liver failure were correlated with DH, measured GR, and estimated GR derived from a formula based on body surface area. Eligible patients underwent 93 right hepatectomies, 51 extended right hepatectomies, 4 left hepatectomies, and 5 extended left hepatectomies. Major complications occ...
2019
95 Introduction 96 Objective of this study 96 Methods 97 Inclusion criteria 97 Preoperative evaluation 97 Portal vein occlusion 98 Intraoperative measurements 99 Postoperative evaluation – detection of PHLF 99 Comparing the interventional and observational studies 99 Recovery of liver function after hepatectomy 100 Statistical analysis 101 Results 101 Discussion 106 The added value of eFLRF 106 Main outcome and historical comparison group 108 Portal vein occlusion 108 Faster recovery of liver function after PVO 110 Conclusion 111 References 112 Use of future liver remnant function avoids post-hepatectomy liver failure
HPB, 2016
Background: Estimation of the future liver remnant function (eFLRF) can avoid post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). In a previous study, a cutoff value of 2.3%/min/m 2 for eFLRF was a better predictor of PHLF than future liver remnant volume (FLRV%). In this prospective interventional study, investigating a management strategy aimed at avoiding PHLF, this cutoff value was the sole criterion assessing eligibility for hepatectomy, with or without portal vein occlusion (PVO). Methods: In 100 consecutive patients, eFLRF was determined using the formula: eFLRF = FLRV % × total liver function (TLF). Group 1 (eFLRF >2.3%/min/m 2) underwent hepatectomy without preoperative intervention. Group 2 (eFLRF <2.3%/min/m 2) underwent PVO and re-evaluation of eFLRF at 4-6 weeks. Hepatectomy was performed if eFLRF had increased to >2.3%/min/m 2 , but was considered contraindicated if the value remained lower. Results: In group 1 (n = 93), 1 patient developed grade B PHLF. In group 2 (n = 7) no PHLF was recorded. Postoperative recovery of TLF in patients with preoperative eFLRF <2.3%/min/m 2 occurred more rapidly when PVO had been performed. Conclusion: A predefined cutoff for preoperatively calculated eFLRF can be used as a tool for selecting patients prior to hepatectomy, with or without PVO, thus avoiding PHLF and PHLF-related mortality.
Annals of Surgery, 2013
Objectives: To determine which method of liver volumetry is more accurate in predicting a safe resection. Background: Before major or extended hepatectomy, assessment of the future liver remnant (FLR) is crucial to reduce the risk of postoperative hepatic insufficiency. The FLR volume is usually expressed as the ratio of FLR to nontumorous total liver volume (TLV), which can be measured directly by computed tomography (mTLV) or estimated (eTLV) on the basis of correlation existing with the body surface area. To date, these 2 methods have never been compared. Methods: All consecutive, noncirrhotic patients who underwent resection of 3 or more liver segments between April 2000 and April 2012 and for whom (i) preoperative computed tomographic scans and (ii) body surface area were available entered the study. The mTLV (calculated as TLV − tumor volume) was compared with the eTLV (calculated as −794.41 + 1267.28 × body surface area) using volumetric data (cm 3) and clinical outcome measures (specifically, hepatic insufficiency and 90-day mortality). Definition of hepatic insufficiency was peak postoperative serum total bilirubin level of more than 7 mg/dL or, in jaundiced patients, an increasing bilirubin level on day 5 or thereafter. Results: Two-hundred forty-three patients who had undergone major (n = 135) or extended (n = 108) hepatectomies met the inclusion criteria. Twentyeight patients (11.5%) developed hepatic insufficiency, whereas 7 patients (2.9%) died postoperatively. Compared with the eTLV, the mTLV underestimated the liver volume in 60.1% of the patients (P < 0.01). Forty-seven and 73 patients had an inadequate FLR based on mTLV and eTLV, respectively. Portal vein occlusion (PVO) was used in 44 patients. In patients (n = 162) in whom both methods did not evidence the need for PVO, postoperative hepatic insufficiency and mortality were 4.9% and 0.6%, respectively. Conversely, in patients (n = 27) in whom the eTLV but not the mTLV evidenced the need for PVO, and thus PVO was not performed, hepatic insufficiency (22.2%; P = 0.001) and mortality (3.7%; P = ns) were higher. Conclusions: The use of eTLV identifies a subset of patients (∼11%) in whom liver volumetry with the mTLV underestimates the risk of hepatic insufficiency.