4.6 Editorial Material

Is there any difference in survival according to the portal tumor thrombectomy method in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma?

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 145, Issue 1, Pages 9-19

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.09.005

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Although portal venous tumor thrombus (PVTT) is regarded as an ominous prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the optimal treatment method for maximizing both safety and long-term outcome has not yet been discussed. We describe a surgical technique in which the venous wall is peeled off from the PVTT Methods. In the peeling off (110) technique, the portal venotomy was placed after adequate vascular control of portal flow. The PVTT was dissected from the portal venous wall and removed through the opening. Macroscopically residual PVTTs intruding into tiny branches were meticulously extracted. This procedure was compared with the en bloc resection of PVTT. Between 1995 and 2006, 49 patients underwent curative hepatic resections for HCC with macroscopic PVTT; these patients were classified according to whether the PO technique (n = 20) or the en bloc technique (n = 29) had been utilized. Both the short- and long term results were compared between the 2 groups. Results. No mortalities occurred in either group. Both the 5-year overall survival and the recurrence-free survival rates of the PO group were comparable with those of the en bloc group (39% vs 41% [P =. 90] and 23% vs 18% [P = .89], respectively). No local recurrences or regrowth of the PVTT occurred in either group. Conclusion. Our procedure is useful for removing PVTT extending beyond the bifurcation or into other sectors that should. be preserved in terms of liver function and enables a more conservative resection than an en bloc technique without sacrificing curability. (Surgery 2009;145:9-1.9.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available