4.0 Review

Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy in Qatar: Initial experience with two case series and review of the literature

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2019.03.060

关键词

Liver; Resection; Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy; ALPPS; Surgery

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged -hepatectomy (ALPPS) is an evolving procedure that allows rapid hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). We describe the first two cases performed in Qatar. CASE PRESENTATIONS: Case 1: A 53 -year old male with sarcoma metastases to the liver 8 years after resection of an abdominal wall tumor, requiring an extended right hepatectomy but with in an inadequate FLR. ALPPS was done and he achieved 147% increase in the volume of the FLR within 6 days (from 15.9%-34.2%). The second stage was completed successfully on day 7. Case 2: A 59-year old male patient had colorectal liver metastases that required an extended right liver resection and had inadequate FLR of 19.8%. Seven days after the first stage, the FLR hypertrophied to 37.7% (90.2% increase in volume) and the second stage was completed successfully on day 8. Both patients had uneventful recovery and no recurrence or complications on follow up. DISCUSSION: ALPPS allows large liver resections while circumventing the long delay in the conventional two staged hepatectomy and portal vein ligation/embolization. The reported morbidity and mortality in earlier series was high, but recent selection criteria and technique refinements reduce this morbidity. Many variations are still being reported. CONCLUSION: ALPPS is an evolving technique that adds to the armamentarium of the liver surgeon to allow larger liver resections in a timely manner. It is feasible and safe to be performed with careful selection. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of IJS Publishing Group Ltd.

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

4.0
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