4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

The LiMAx test: a new liver function test for predicting postoperative outcome in liver surgery

Journal

HPB
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 139-146

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2009.00151.x

Keywords

liver function; hepatectomy; methacetin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Liver failure has remained a major cause of mortality after hepatectomy, but it is difficult to predict preoperatively. This study describes the introduction into clinical practice of the new LiMAx test and provides an algorithm for its use in the clinical management of hepatic tumours. Methods: Patients with hepatic tumours and indications for hepatectomy were investigated perioperatively with the LiMAx test. In one patient, analysis of liver volume was carried out with preoperative three-dimensional virtual resection. Results: A total of 329 patients with hepatic tumours were evaluated for hepatectomy. Blinded preoperative LiMAx values were significantly higher before resection (n = 139; mean 351 mu g/kg/h, range 285-451 mu g/kg/h) than before refusal (n = 29; mean 299 mu g/kg/h, range 223-376 mu g/kg/h; P = 0.009). In-hospital mortality rates were 38.1% (8/21 patients), 10.5% (2/19 patients) and 1.0% (1/99 patients) for postoperative LiMAx of <80 mu g/kg/h, 80-100 mu g/kg/h and >100 mu g/kg/h, respectively (P < 0.0001). A decision tree was developed to avoid critical values and its prospective preoperative application revealed a reduction in mortality from 9.4% to 3.4% (P = 0.019). Discussion: The LiMAx test can validly determine liver function capacity and is feasible in every clinical situation. Combination with virtual resection could enable the calculation of residual liver function. The LiMAx decision tree algorithm for hepatectomy might significantly improve preoperative evaluation and postoperative outcome in liver surgery.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available