4.3 Review

Issues to be considered to address the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomy

Journal

SURGERY TODAY
Volume 51, Issue 4, Pages 472-484

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00595-020-02088-2

Keywords

Major hepatectomy; Future liver remnant; Portal vein embolization; Post-hepatectomy liver failure

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Accurate preoperative evaluation of hepatic function and portal vein embolization can improve the safety of major hepatectomy, but challenges remain in defining post-hepatectomy liver failure, assessing FLR volume, and managing various types of liver damage. Different strategies may be required for different liver conditions, such as cirrhosis, cholangitis, and chemotherapy-induced hepatic injury.
An accurate preoperative evaluation of the hepatic function and application of portal vein embolization in selected patients have helped improve the safety of major hepatectomy. In planning major hepatectomy, however, several issues remain to be addressed. The first is which cut-off values for serum total bilirubin level and prothrombin time should be used to define post-hepatectomy liver failure. Other issues include what minimum future liver remnant (FLR) volume is required; whether the total liver volume measured using computed tomography or the standard liver volume calculated based on the body surface area should be used to assess the adequacy of the FLR volume; whether there is a discrepancy between the FLR volume and function during the recovery period after portal vein embolization or hepatectomy; and how best the function of a specific FLR can be assessed. Various studies concerning these issues have been reported with controversial results. We should also be aware that different strategies and management are required for different types of liver damage, such as cirrhosis in hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangitis in biliary tract cancer, and chemotherapy-induced hepatic injury.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available