BACKGROUND: Various techniques, including portal vein embolization (PVE), contralateral portal vein ligation (PVL) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation (ALPPS), are being used to augment the future liver remnant (FLR) volume in preparation for a major hepatectomy. The present study aims to survey and document the availability, variation, utilization and attitudes toward these techniques across centres in North and South America. METHODS: A descriptive, 20-question survey was developed and internally validated with expert review. The survey was distributed to 115 centres in North and South America. RESULTS: Of the 115 centres, 54 institutions (47%) returned the surveys. Regarding the question of which modality was most likely to produce adequate hypertrophy, the respondents were equally distributed (ALPPS, 37%; PVE, 35%; equal, 22%). The procedure that respondents judged the safest to achieve liver hypertrophy was PVE (82%). Institutions with capability to extended PVE to segment IV rated the likelihood of PVE technical success (6.2 versus 8.5, P = 0.012) and likelihood of subsequent hypertrophy (5.6 versus 7.8, P = 0.011) higher than institutions without this capability. Although the use of modern embolic materials was associated with a likelihood of successful PVE (P = 0.032), only 49% of respondents who performed PVE used embolic microspheres. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant variability in utilization of and attitudes towards the available techniques for FLR volume augmentation. Penetration of best practice techniques for PVE is lacking, and may be contributing towards disappointment with PVE efficacy, potentially motivating the utilization of the riskier ALPPS procedure.
BACKGROUND: Various techniques, including portal vein embolization (PVE), contralateral portal vein ligation (PVL) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation (ALPPS), are being used to augment the future liver remnant (FLR) volume in preparation for a major hepatectomy. The present study aims to survey and document the availability, variation, utilization and attitudes toward these techniques across centres in North and South America. METHODS: A descriptive, 20-question survey was developed and internally validated with expert review. The survey was distributed to 115 centres in North and South America. RESULTS: Of the 115 centres, 54 institutions (47%) returned the surveys. Regarding the question of which modality was most likely to produce adequate hypertrophy, the respondents were equally distributed (ALPPS, 37%; PVE, 35%; equal, 22%). The procedure that respondents judged the safest to achieve liver hypertrophy was PVE (82%). Institutions with capability to extended PVE to segment IV rated the likelihood of PVE technical success (6.2 versus 8.5, P = 0.012) and likelihood of subsequent hypertrophy (5.6 versus 7.8, P = 0.011) higher than institutions without this capability. Although the use of modern embolic materials was associated with a likelihood of successful PVE (P = 0.032), only 49% of respondents who performed PVE used embolic microspheres. CONCLUSIONS: There exists significant variability in utilization of and attitudes towards the available techniques for FLR volume augmentation. Penetration of best practice techniques for PVE is lacking, and may be contributing towards disappointment with PVE efficacy, potentially motivating the utilization of the riskier ALPPS procedure.
Authors: Erik Schadde; Victoria Ardiles; Ricardo Robles-Campos; Massimo Malago; Marcel Machado; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro; Olivier Soubrane; Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Dimitri Raptis; Christoph Tschuor; Henrik Petrowsky; Eduardo De Santibanes; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Erik Schadde; Massimo Malagó; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro; Jun Li; Eddie Abdalla; Victoria Ardiles; Georg Lurje; Soumil Vyas; Marcel A Machado; Eduardo de Santibañes Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-02-21 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: S Truant; O Scatton; S Dokmak; J-M Regimbeau; V Lucidi; A Laurent; R Gauzolino; C Castro Benitez; A Pequignot; V Donckier; C Lim; M-L Blanleuil; R Brustia; Y-P Le Treut; O Soubrane; D Azoulay; O Farges; R Adam; F-R Pruvot Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-01-17 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Jacomina W van den Esschert; Krijn P van Lienden; Lindy K Alles; Albert C van Wijk; Michal Heger; Joris J Roelofs; Thomas M van Gulik Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Ishikawa; S Yogita; M Iuchi; K Yagi; H Chikaishi; Y Fukuda; H Miyake; M Harada; S Tashiro Journal: Hepatogastroenterology Date: 2000 Jan-Feb
Authors: M Makuuchi; B L Thai; K Takayasu; T Takayama; T Kosuge; P Gunvén; S Yamazaki; H Hasegawa; H Ozaki Journal: Surgery Date: 1990-05 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Suzana Buac; Erik Schadde; Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Kelly Vogt; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.647