3.9 Article

Indication of the Extent of Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma on Cirrhosis by a Simple Algorithm Based on Preoperative Variables

期刊

ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 144, 期 1, 页码 57-63

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.2008.522

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To produce a model indicating the extent of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis based on easily available preoperative data. Design: Retrospective study based on multicenter prospectively updated databases. Setting: Two tertiary referral centers specializing in hepatobiliary surgery. Patients: A total of 466 patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis between 1995 and 2006. Main Outcome Measures: To create a decision tree for safe liver resection based on factors affecting irreversible postoperative liver failure (IPLF). Results: A total of 23 patients (4.9%) developed IPLF. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (categorized as <9, 9-10, and >10; P<.05 for all comparisons) and extent of hepatectomy were independent predictors of IPLF. In patients with a MELD score of less than 9, the IPLF rate was 0.4%. In patients with a MELD score of 9 or 10, the IPLF rate was 1.2% for resections of less than 1 segment, 5.1% for segmentectomies or bisegmentectomies, and 11.1% for major hepatectomies. In this category of MELD, serum sodium levels identified a low-risk group (sodium >= 140 mEq/L; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 1.0) not experiencing IPLF and a high-risk group (sodium >= 140 mEq/L) in which resections of less than 1 segment led to an IPLF rate of 2.5% and resections of 1 segment or more led to an IPLF rate of more than 5% (P<.05). In patients with a MELD score of more than 10, the IPLF rate was more than 15% in all types of hepatectomies. Conclusion: A simple algorithm based on the MELD score and serum sodium level can indicate the maximum tolerable extent of hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据