Search

Simple Summary: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) after future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) is considered a technically challenging procedure. This study included consecutive L-RHHs performed by a single surgeon, both with and without prior FLRM. The analysis included 59 patients who underwent L-RHH between October 2007 and March 2023, of which 33 patients received FLRM. L-RHH after FLRM was more technically challenging, as it required longer operative time and Pringle duration. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss, conversion rates, or postoperative outcomes such as hospital stay, morbidity rates, and textbook outcome. When performed by experienced laparoscopic hepatobiliary surgeons, L-RHH after FLRM is a safe and feasible procedure. Background: Laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy (L-RHH) is still considered a technically complex procedure, which should only be performed by experienced surgeons in specialized centers. Future liver remnant modulation (FLRM) strategies, including portal vein embolization (PVE), and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), might increase the surgical difficulty of L-RHH, due to the distortion of hepatic anatomy, periportal inflammation, and fibrosis. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of L-RHH after FLRM, when compared with ex novo L-RHH. Methods: All consecutive right hemihepatectomies performed by a single surgeon in the period between October 2007 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. The patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes of L-RHH after FLRM and ex novo L-RHH were compared. Results: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 33 underwent FLRM. Patients undergoing FLRM prior to L-RHH were most often male (93.9% vs. 42.3%, p < 0.001), had an ASA-score >2 (45.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.006), and underwent a two-stage hepatectomy (45.5% vs. 3.8% p < 0.001). L-RHH after FLRM was associated with longer operative time (median 360 vs. 300 min, p = 0.008) and Pringle duration (31 vs. 24 min, p = 0.011). Intraoperative blood loss, unfavorable intraoperative incidents, and conversion rates were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay and 30-day overall and severe morbidity rates. Radical resection margin (R0) and textbook outcome rates were equal. One patient who underwent an extended RHH in the FLRM group deceased within 90 days of surgery, due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. Conclusion: L-RHH after FLRM is more technically complex than L-RHH ex novo, as objectified by longer operative time and Pringle duration. Nevertheless, this procedure appears safe and feasible in experienced hands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effect of laparoscopic right hepatectomy (LRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH) in the treatment of liver tumor. Patients and Methods We systematically searched PubMed, web of science, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register for studies (study published August 1947 to December 2019). In this study, the perioperative data of laparoscopic right hepatectomy and open right hepatectomy were analyzed. Our meta-analysis included 7 studies involving 633 patients who underwent two types of surgery, laparoscopic right hepatectomy and open right hepatectomy. This study showed that compared with open right hepatectomy, there was no significant difference in operative time (weighted mean difference (WMD): 35.28, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 9.04–79.60, P = 0.12), but the result of laparoscopic right hepatectomy's R0 resections (odd ratio (OR): 2.34, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60–9.11, P = 0.22), transfusion (odd ratio (OR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34–1.20, P = 0.17), mortality (odd ratio (OR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.14–1.45, P = 0.18) was similar to that of open right hepatectomy. Laparoscopic right hepatectomy resulted in shorter hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD): − 4.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 5.96–3.55, P<0.00001) and less estimated blood loss (EBL) (weighted mean difference (WMD): − 161.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): − 257.47–66.46, P = 0.0009). The clinical effect of laparoscopic right hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumor was similar to that of open right hepatectomy, which was safe, feasible, and has a good prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) is a rare disease that lacks effective treatment. Here, the authors report the case of a 30-year-old woman presenting with abdominal pain accompanied by severe malnutrition. After a definite diagnosis of HHT involvement in the liver, liver transplantation was the first-choice treatment according to the guidelines of HHT. However, the patient firmly refused liver transplantation. Finally, a new type of surgery, right hemihepatectomy combined with ligation of the common hepatic artery and gastroduodenal artery, was performed based on careful study of the case and with the maximum benefit of the patient in mind. Although the patient developed transient liver dysfunction after surgery, she eventually recovered well and continued to be followed up. As far as we know, this is the first report of this kind of surgery for the treatment of intrahepatic HHT.

Background: The role of ligation of the portal venous branches to the caudate lobe (cPVL) as preparation for planned major hepatectomy is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic cPVL (Lap-cPVL) concomitant with transileocolic portal vein embolization of the right portal venous system (rTIPE), namely, Lap-cPVL/rTIPE, for planned right hemihepatectomy (rHx) in advanced hepatobiliary cancer patients. Methods: Thirty-one patients who underwent rHx after rTIPE with/without Lap-cPVL between March 2013 and March 2020 were enrolled in this study. The Lap-cPVL was performed for the portal branches of the right caudate lobe. Results: Eight of the 31 patients underwent Lap-cPVL/rTIPE. The degree of hypertrophy was significantly increased in Lap-cPVL/rTIPE (19.3%, range 6.5–25.6%) as compared to rTIPE (7.2%, range - 1.1 to 21.2%) (p=0.027). The functional kinetic growth rate was also significantly increased in Lap-cPVL/rTIPE (5.40%, range 2.17–5.97) than that in rTIPE (1.85%, range - 0.22 to 6.45%) (p=0.046). Postoperative liver failure ≧ grade B occurred in 21.7% of patients in rTIPE, while there was no postoperative liver failure ≧ grade B in Lap-cPVL/rTIPE. Mortality rates were zero after rHx in this study. Conclusions: Lap-cPVL/rTIPE is safe and provides an additional effect on liver hypertrophy in advanced hepatobiliary cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paracaval portion (PC) of the caudate lobe is a small area of the liver located in front of the inferior vena cava. Conventional right hemihepatectomy (RH) along the Rex-Cantlie line involves resection of not only the anterior and posterior sections but also the PC behind the middle hepatic vein (MHV). However, to preserve the future liver remnant volume as much as possible, PC-preserving RH may be beneficial in selected patients. We injected an indocyanine green (ICG) solution in the PC portal branch under intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) guidance and performed an RH preserving the fluorescently visible PC in a patient with liver metastasis. The patient was a 47-year-old male with a 24 ×10 cm metastatic hepatic tumor from sigmoid colon cancer. CT volumetry revealed that the left hemiliver excluding the caudate lobe was 55%, and the caudate lobe was 5.3%. Before hepatic transection, the ICG solution was injected into the PC portal branch under IOUS guidance. During hepatic transection, the PC was identified as a fluorescent area behind the MHV using a near-infrared imaging system. Thus, the anatomical right-side boundary of the caudate lobe was clearly found. Following RH, the PC was preserved as a fluorescently visible area. The patient had an uneventful recovery. RH preserving the fluorescently visible PC of the liver is a feasible procedure., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (2023, National Center for Global Health and Medicine.)

Purpose: The aim of the present communication was to describe an accessory hepatic lobe in two patients and to outline the significance of the timely identification of this very rare anatomic variation for the clinical practice. Methods: In the course of right hemihepatectomy, accessory liver lobes were detected in two patients. Their diagnosis was confirmed by histopathology and cholangiography. Results: Both accessory hepatic lobes arose from the left liver segments. The first lobe was detected in a 56-year-old male operated on for a retroperitoneal liposarcoma. It amounted to 15% of the standard liver volume and was attached to liver segments 2 and 3 by a stalk. The second accessory lobe was found out in 45-year-old female operated on for a colon cancer and synchronous liver metastases. It was less than 15 g in weight and attached to the main liver by a mesentery as its bile duct drained into an extrahepatic duct. Conclusions: The accessory hepatic lobes require timely diagnosis. They should be kept in mind in cases with acute surgical abdomen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report presents a case of a patient with a huge hepatocellular carcinoma in the right lobe of the liver with an extensive portal venous tumor thrombus extending into the main portal trunk and left portal branch. The patient underwent extended right hemihepatectomy with tumor thrombectomy with direct extraction from an opening of the ventral wall of the right portal vein and using a balloon catheter to push the tumor thrombus via the surgically reopened umbilical vein. This technique seems useful in cases of tumor thrombus that extend deep into the umbilical portion of the left portal vein. In addition, this technique may have minimized the intraoperative migration of the tumor thrombus into the future remnant liver by occluding portal flow with the balloon catheter during the thrombectomy. Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a serious complication after hepatobiliary-pancreatic surgery. There have been few studies on recurrent PVT after hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. We report the case of a 66-year-old woman who was diagnosed with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and treated with right hemihepatectomy. On the sixth day, the patient developed acute portal vein thrombosis, and emergency portal vein incision and surgical thrombectomy were performed. On the seventh day after thrombectomy, the patient developed acute portal vein thrombosis again, and portal vein thrombectomy+portal vein bridging was performed again. There was still thrombosis after the operation. The patient was then treated with superior mesenteric arteriography + indirect portal vein catheterization thrombolysis and local thrombolysis + anticoagulation and systemic anticoagulation therapy. The patient had a complicated abdominal infection. The total hospital stay was 84 days. There was no thrombosis in the portal vein at discharge. Although the procedure was carefully performed with a preoperative plan and fine intraoperative vascular anastomosis, postoperative PVT occurred. There are many factors of portal vein thrombosis, and there are many treatment methods. PVT often develops in patients with liver cirrhosis postoperatively and after liver transplantation. Recurrent PVT after hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a rare complication. • Recurrent PVT after hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is rare. • Artificial blood vessels can avoid portal vein angulation. • Surgery combined with interventional therapy and drug therapy are available. • The final outcome of the patient is usually good. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To clarify the role of the middle hepatic vein (MHV) in liver regeneration of the remnant liver after right hemihepatectomy for hepatic tumors, we reviewed 29 patients to evaluate liver regeneration for up to 12 postoperative months. Volume regeneration of the remnant liver was investigated by computed tomography at 3, 6, and 12 postoperative months. The remnant liver was divided into the following three areas: the medial section (segment IV), the lateral section (segments II and III), and segment I. The patients were divided into two groups: group A (n = 17), in which the MHV was preserved in the remnant liver, and group B (n = 12), in which the MHV was removed. Volume regeneration of each area continued until 6 postoperative months but did not increase thereafter. On univariate analysis, differences in the volume regeneration of each area between the groups were not significant at any measured time point. Furthermore, disruption of the MHV was determined to not be crucial to the volume regeneration of any liver area on multivariate analysis. Only the resection volume (percentage) significantly affected liver regeneration of the remnant liver. Disruption of the MHV does not decisively affect liver regeneration of remnant liver after right hemihepatectomy for hepatic tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Right hemihepatectomy (RH) for proximal bile duct canceroccasionally results in liver failure. We report the feasibility of left hemihepatectomy (LH) with vascular reconstruction (VR) of the right-sided hilar vessels to preserve hepatic reserve. Methods: Among 110 patients with proximal bile duct cancer (PBC) treated between January 1980 and December 1998, 11 patients underwent LH with VR of eight portal veins and nine hepatic arteries, and 14 underwent RH with VR of four portal veins and one hepatic artery. Microsurgical techniques were used in 80% (8/10) of the hepatic arterial reconstructions. Results: Although operation time was significantly longer in the LH group, hospital mortality, blood loss and incidence of histologically cancer positive margin at the bilioenteric anastomotic site were similar in the two groups. Peak serum liver enzyme concentration was significantly higher in the LH group with longer inflow occlusion time, whereas peak serum total bilirubin concentration was significantly higher in the RH group, which had smaller liver remnant. No liver abscess occurred in any patients who underwent microvascular reconstructions. The cumulative survival of the LH group was worse than that of the RH group, in which the proportion of vascular invasion was lower, but not significantly. Conclusion: LH with right-sided microvascular reconstruction is technically possible and a feasible option when RH is likely to result in postoperative liver failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims:: This study was designed to analyze the feasibility of laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma located in the posterior segments., Material and Methods:: The study included patients who underwent either laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy or laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma located in segment 6 or 7 from January 2009 to December 2016 at Samsung Medical Center. After 1:1 propensity score matching, patient baseline characteristics and operative and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Disease-free survival and overall survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier log-rank test., Results:: Among 61 patients with laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy and 37 patients with laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, 30 patients from each group were analyzed after propensity score matching. After matching, baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar including tumor size (3.4 ± 1.2 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 3.7 ± 2.1 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.483); differences were significant before matching (3.1 ± 1.3 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 4.3 ± 2.7 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.035). No significant differences were observed in operative and postoperative data except for free margin size (1.04 ± 0.71 cm in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 2.95 ± 1.75 cm in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P < 0.001). Disease-free survival (5-year survival: 38.0% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 47.0% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.510) and overall survival (5-year survival: 92.7% in laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy vs 89.6% in laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy, P = 0.593) did not differ between the groups based on Kaplan-Meier log-rank test., Conclusion:: For hepatocellular carcinoma in the posterior segments, laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy was feasible compared to laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy when performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeons.