4.7 Article

Percutaneous portal vein embolization increases the feasibility and safety of major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in injured liver

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGERY
Volume 232, Issue 5, Pages 665-672

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000658-200011000-00008

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To assess the influence of preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) on the long-term outcome of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in injured liver. Summary Background Data On an healthy liver, PVE of the liver to be resected induces hypertrophy of the remnant liver and increases the safety of hepatectomy. On injured liver, this effect is still debated. Methods During the study period, 10 patients underwent preoperative PVE and 19 patients did not before resection of three or more liver segments for HCC in injured liver (cirrhosis or fibrosis). PVE was performed when the estimated rate of remnant functional liver parenchyma (ERRFLP) assessed by computed tomographic scan volumetry was less than 40%. Results In all patients, PVE was feasible. There were no deaths or complications. The ERRFLP after PVE was significantly increased compared with the pre-PVE value. Liver resection was performed after PVE in 9 of 10 patients, with surgical death and complication rates of 0% and 45%, respectively. PVE increased the number of resections of three or more segments by 47% (9/19). Overall actuarial survival rates with or without previous PVE (89%, 87%, and 44% vs. 80%, 53%, and 53% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively) and disease-free actuarial survival rates (86%, 64%, and 21% vs. 55%, 17%, and 17% at 1, 3, and 5 years respectively) after hepatectomy were comparable. Conclusion With the use of PVE, more patients with previously unresectable HCC in injured liver can benefit from resection. Longterm survival rates are comparable to those after resection without PVE.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available