Martin Zeile1,2, Artur Bakal2, Jan E Volkmer1, Gregor A Stavrou2,3, Philip Dautel2,4, Jan Hoeltje1,2, Axel Stang2,5, Karl J Oldhafer2,3, Roland Brüning1,2. 1. 1 Institute of Radiology and Neuroradiology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. 2. 2 Semmelweis University, Medical Faculty, Campus Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 3. 3 Department of Abdominal Surgery and Surgical Oncology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. 4. 4 Department of Gastroenterology and Interventional Endoscopy, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany. 5. 5 Department of Oncology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to monitor hypertrophy of future liver remnant following portal vein embolization (PVE) before planned extended right hepatectomy. However, because individual responses to PVE are highly variable, our focus was to identify cofactors of successful hypertrophy. METHODS: 28 patients with primary or secondary liver tumours, mean age 64.1 ± 12.9 years, underwent PVE. Volumetric analysis of hypertrophy before and after PVE (median 39.0 ± 15.7 days) was performed. The embolized liver segments were investigated for occurrence of reperfusion of their portal branches. Blood parameters before PVE were additionally investigated. RESULTS: Patients were divided into responders (21/28) and non-responders (7/28) by post-PVE standardized future liver remnant being above or below 25%, respectively. No significant differences between the groups were found regarding biometric and volumetric parameters before PVE. In the entire group after PVE, the mean absolute increase of Segments 2 and 3 was 196.0 ± 84.7 cm3 and the median relative increase was 46.6 ± 98.8%. The formation of left to right hepatic portoportal collaterals exhibited a negative correlation to successful hypertrophy (p = 0.004) as well as low plasma total protein (p = 0.019). Successful embolization of Segment IV showed only a trend to significance (p = 0.098). CONCLUSION: Cofactors associated with a favourable outcome regarding hypertrophy were the absence of collaterals in the control CT scans and high plasma total protein. Advances in knowledge: Portoportal collaterals negatively influence hypertrophy after PVE. On the other hand, plasma total protein is a positive prognostic indicator on hypertrophy of the liver in our cohort.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this retrospective study was to monitor hypertrophy of future liver remnant following portal vein embolization (PVE) before planned extended right hepatectomy. However, because individual responses to PVE are highly variable, our focus was to identify cofactors of successful hypertrophy. METHODS: 28 patients with primary or secondary liver tumours, mean age 64.1 ± 12.9 years, underwent PVE. Volumetric analysis of hypertrophy before and after PVE (median 39.0 ± 15.7 days) was performed. The embolized liver segments were investigated for occurrence of reperfusion of their portal branches. Blood parameters before PVE were additionally investigated. RESULTS:Patients were divided into responders (21/28) and non-responders (7/28) by post-PVE standardized future liver remnant being above or below 25%, respectively. No significant differences between the groups were found regarding biometric and volumetric parameters before PVE. In the entire group after PVE, the mean absolute increase of Segments 2 and 3 was 196.0 ± 84.7 cm3 and the median relative increase was 46.6 ± 98.8%. The formation of left to right hepatic portoportal collaterals exhibited a negative correlation to successful hypertrophy (p = 0.004) as well as low plasma total protein (p = 0.019). Successful embolization of Segment IV showed only a trend to significance (p = 0.098). CONCLUSION: Cofactors associated with a favourable outcome regarding hypertrophy were the absence of collaterals in the control CT scans and high plasma total protein. Advances in knowledge: Portoportal collaterals negatively influence hypertrophy after PVE. On the other hand, plasma total protein is a positive prognostic indicator on hypertrophy of the liver in our cohort.
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: Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Sven A Lang; Holger Goessmann; Silvio Nadalin; Janine Baumgart; Stefan A Farkas; Stefan Fichtner-Feigl; Thomas Lorf; Armin Goralcyk; Rüdiger Hörbelt; Alexander Kroemer; Martin Loss; Petra Rümmele; Marcus N Scherer; Winfried Padberg; Alfred Königsrainer; Hauke Lang; Aiman Obed; Hans J Schlitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Roland Brüning; Martin Schneider; Michel Tiede; Peter Wohlmuth; Gregor Stavrou; Thomas von Hahn; Andrea Ehrenfeld; Tim Reese; Georgios Makridis; Axel Stang; Karl J Oldhafer Journal: CVIR Endovasc Date: 2021-05-17
Authors: Nadja Lehwald-Tywuschik; Sascha Vaghiri; Jan Schulte Am Esch; Salman Alaghmand; Yan Klosterkemper; Lars Schimmöller; Anja Lachenmayer; Hany Ashmawy; Andreas Krieg; Stefan A Topp; Alexander Rehders; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Gregor A Stavrou; Marcello Donati; Mohammad H Fard-Aghaie; Martin Zeile; Tessa M Huber; Axel Stang; Karl J Oldhafer Journal: Visc Med Date: 2017-11-30
Authors: E A Soykan; B M Aarts; M Lopez-Yurda; K F D Kuhlmann; J I Erdmann; N Kok; K P van Lienden; E A Wilthagen; R G H Beets-Tan; O M van Delden; F M Gomez; E G Klompenhouwer Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 2.740