BACKGROUND: The future remnant liver (FRL) limit for safe major hepatectomy with low risk of postoperative liver failure has not yet been well defined. METHODS: Between April 2000 and September 2004, every patient scheduled for major hepatectomy in our institution underwent CT-volumetry of FRL. Patients with FRL <25% underwent portal vein embolization (PVE). Exclusion criteria were PVE, associated vascular resection and liver cirrhosis. The FRL was correlated with short-term results in patients with normal liver (group A) and those with impaired liver function secondary to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or cholestasis (bilirubin >2 mg/100 ml) (group B). Liver dysfunction was defined as both PT <50% and serum bilirubin level >5 mg/100 ml for three or more consecutive days. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were analyzed, 72 in group A and 47 in group B. The FRL value was the only significant risk factor for postoperative liver dysfunction in the univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.009). The FRL did not correlate with postoperative mortality and morbidity. Bilirubin and prothrombin time (PT) on days 3 and 7 were significantly correlated to FRL in both groups. In group A, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL<30% (3 versus 0; p = 0.005). According to receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a FRL value of 26.5% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 66.7% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 50% positive predictive value (PPV), and 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV). In group B, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL <35% (4 versus 0; p = 0.027). According to ROC curve analysis, a FRL value of 31.05% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 75% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, 25% PPV, and 97.1% NPV. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatectomy can be considered safe when FRL is >26.5% in patients with healthy liver and >31% in patients with impaired liver function.
BACKGROUND: The future remnant liver (FRL) limit for safe major hepatectomy with low risk of postoperative liver failure has not yet been well defined. METHODS: Between April 2000 and September 2004, every patient scheduled for major hepatectomy in our institution underwent CT-volumetry of FRL. Patients with FRL <25% underwent portal vein embolization (PVE). Exclusion criteria were PVE, associated vascular resection and liver cirrhosis. The FRL was correlated with short-term results in patients with normal liver (group A) and those with impaired liver function secondary to neoadjuvant chemotherapy or cholestasis (bilirubin >2 mg/100 ml) (group B). Liver dysfunction was defined as both PT <50% and serum bilirubin level >5 mg/100 ml for three or more consecutive days. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were analyzed, 72 in group A and 47 in group B. The FRL value was the only significant risk factor for postoperative liver dysfunction in the univariate and multivariate analysis (p = 0.009). The FRL did not correlate with postoperative mortality and morbidity. Bilirubin and prothrombin time (PT) on days 3 and 7 were significantly correlated to FRL in both groups. In group A, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL<30% (3 versus 0; p = 0.005). According to receiving operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, a FRL value of 26.5% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 66.7% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 50% positive predictive value (PPV), and 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV). In group B, patients with postoperative liver dysfunction had a FRL <35% (4 versus 0; p = 0.027). According to ROC curve analysis, a FRL value of 31.05% predicted postoperative liver dysfunction with 75% sensitivity, 79.1% specificity, 25% PPV, and 97.1% NPV. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatectomy can be considered safe when FRL is >26.5% in patients with healthy liver and >31% in patients with impaired liver function.
Authors: J N Vauthey; A Chaoui; K A Do; M M Bilimoria; M J Fenstermacher; C Charnsangavej; M Hicks; G Alsfasser; G Lauwers; I F Hawkins; J Caridi Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Donatella R Di Stefano; Thierry de Baere; Alban Denys; Antoine Hakime; Gilles Gorin; Michel Gillet; Jean Saric; Hervé Trillaud; Philippe Petit; Jean-Michel Bartoli; Dominique Elias; Jean-Robert Delpero Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Margo Shoup; Mithat Gonen; Michael D'Angelica; William R Jarnagin; Ronald P DeMatteo; Lawrence H Schwartz; Scott Tuorto; Leslie H Blumgart; Yuman Fong Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: T M Lodewick; P H Alizai; R M van Dam; A A J Roeth; M Schmeding; C Heidenhain; A Andert; N Gassler; C H C Dejong; U P Neumann Journal: Dig Surg Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 2.588
Authors: Victor M Zaydfudim; Florence E Turrentine; Mark E Smolkin; Todd B Bauer; Reid B Adams; Timothy L McMurry Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Francesco Bellissimo; Marilia Rita Pinzone; Bruno Cacopardo; Giuseppe Nunnari Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742