OBJECTIVE: The Glissonian approach during hepatectomy is a selective vascular clamping procedure associated with low rates of technical failure and complications. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of a right Glissonian approach in relation to portal vein anatomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted over a 12-month period, which included 32 patients for whom preoperative three-dimensional reconstruction using contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the portal venous phase and portography for right portal vein embolization were available, and in whom a right Glissonian approach was applied during right hepatectomy. Preoperative imaging data were correlated with intraoperative Doppler ultrasound findings (considered as the reference dataset). Causes of failures and complications specifically related to the Glissonian approach were identified. RESULTS: Right hepatectomy was performed for colorectal liver metastases (n = 25), hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis (n = 6) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). The Glissonian approach was effective in 24 (75%) patients. In the remaining eight (25%) patients, failure was caused by incomplete clamping (n = 2) or clamping of the left portal pedicle (n = 6). The portal anatomy was aberrant in six patients with failure, showing portal trifurcation (n = 1), right portal trifurcation (n = 1) and a common trunk between the right anterior and left portal branch (n = 4). An angle of less than 50° between the portal vein and left portal branch was reported in association with extended clamping to the left portal branch (selectivity = 72%, specificity = 71%). Intraoperative bleeding and biliary fistula occurred in two patients with non-normal portal anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: The right Glissonian approach was effective in 75% of patients. Failure of the procedure (including the extension of clamping to the left pedicle) mostly occurred in patients with portal vein variations, which can be accurately assessed using a combination of preoperative imaging and intraoperative Doppler ultrasound.
OBJECTIVE: The Glissonian approach during hepatectomy is a selective vascular clamping procedure associated with low rates of technical failure and complications. The aim of the present study was to assess the feasibility of a right Glissonian approach in relation to portal vein anatomy. METHODS: This was a prospective study conducted over a 12-month period, which included 32 patients for whom preoperative three-dimensional reconstruction using contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the portal venous phase and portography for right portal vein embolization were available, and in whom a right Glissonian approach was applied during right hepatectomy. Preoperative imaging data were correlated with intraoperative Doppler ultrasound findings (considered as the reference dataset). Causes of failures and complications specifically related to the Glissonian approach were identified. RESULTS: Right hepatectomy was performed for colorectal liver metastases (n = 25), hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis (n = 6) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 1). The Glissonian approach was effective in 24 (75%) patients. In the remaining eight (25%) patients, failure was caused by incomplete clamping (n = 2) or clamping of the left portal pedicle (n = 6). The portal anatomy was aberrant in six patients with failure, showing portal trifurcation (n = 1), right portal trifurcation (n = 1) and a common trunk between the right anterior and left portal branch (n = 4). An angle of less than 50° between the portal vein and left portal branch was reported in association with extended clamping to the left portal branch (selectivity = 72%, specificity = 71%). Intraoperative bleeding and biliary fistula occurred in two patients with non-normal portal anatomy. CONCLUSIONS: The right Glissonian approach was effective in 75% of patients. Failure of the procedure (including the extension of clamping to the left pedicle) mostly occurred in patients with portal vein variations, which can be accurately assessed using a combination of preoperative imaging and intraoperative Doppler ultrasound.
Authors: David C Madoff; Marshall E Hicks; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Chusilp Charnsangavej; Frank A Morello; Kamran Ahrar; Michael J Wallace; Sanjay Gupta Journal: Radiographics Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Juan Figueras; Laura Llado; David Ruiz; Emilio Ramos; Juli Busquets; Antonio Rafecas; Jaume Torras; Juan Fabregat Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Demetrios Moris; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos; Hugo P Marques; Eleftherios Spartalis; Evangelos Felekouras; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Fabio Ferrari Makdissi; Bruno Vinicius Hortences de Mattos; Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger; Vagner Birk Jeismann; Fabricio Ferreira Coelho; Paulo Herman Journal: Front Surg Date: 2021-05-21