4.6 Article

Right trisegment portal vein embolization for biliary tract carcinoma: Technique and clinical utility

期刊

SURGERY
卷 127, 期 2, 页码 155-160

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1067/msy.2000.101273

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Right portal vein embolization has become popular in preparation for right hepatic lobectomy. However, right trisegment portal vein embolization (R3PE) is not well established. Methods. We performed R3PE in 15 patients with biliary tract carcinoma and 1 patient with primary sclerosing cholangitis. We used 2 types of 5.5F triple-lumen balloon catheters to embolize portal branches of the right trisegment (the left medial, the right anterior, and the right posterior segments). Results. R3PE was successful in all patients without any complications. The calculated volume of the right lobe significantly (P < .01) decreased from 650 +/- 161 cm(3) before embolization to 585 +/- 143 cm(3) after embolization; the volume of the left lateral segment significantly (P < .0005) increased from 240 +/- 58 cm(3) to 361 +/- 68 cm(3). The volume of the left medial segment was unchanged. The volume gain of th left lateral segment was larger in patients with R3PE than in those patients (n = 41) with right portal vein embolization (122 +/- 39 cm(3) vs 66 +/- 35 cm(3); P < .0001). Two of the 16 patients underwent only laparotomy because of peritoneal dissemination, and the remaining 14 patients underwent right hepatic trisegmentectomy with caudate lobectomy. In addition, portal vein resection was also performed in 5 patients, and pancreatoduodenectomy and right hemicolectomy was performed in 3 patients. One patient died of posthepatectomy liver failure 87 days after surgery a mortality rate of 7.1 % (1/14 patients). Conclusions. R3PE is more useful than standard right portal vein embolization in preparation for right hepatic trisegmentectomy and has the potential to increase the safety of this high-risk surgery for patients with biliary tract carcinoma.

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

4.6
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