Lucio Urbani1, Piero Colombatto2, Riccardo Balestri3, Gabriella Licitra4, Chiara Leoni4, Francesco Forfori4, Gianluca Masi5, Piero Boraschi6, Maura Castagna7, Piero Buccianti3. 1. General Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. Electronic address: l.urbani@ao-pisa.toscana.it. 2. Hepatology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. 3. General Surgery Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. 4. Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. 5. Oncology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. 6. Radiology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy. 7. Pathology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Ospedale Nuovo Santa Chiara, Cisanello, Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy techniques allow a lesser volume resection (<3 adjacent segments) for tumors involving the hepatic veins at the hepatocaval confluence, assuring adequate volume of the future liver remnant. We report the ability to perform parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy as planned from the preoperative imaging and the type of vascular intervention used to preserve hepatic outflow. METHODS: We analyzed 60 consecutive parenchyma-sparing hepatectomies in 54 patients for 7 primary and 53 metastatic tumors (48 colorectal), located in segments I, VII, VIII, or IVa and involving the hepatocaval confluence. Patients had a median of 2 (range: 1-18) lesions with median diameter of 4 cm (range: 1.2-16.5), which were bilateral in 43%. RESULTS: A parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy was performed in all of the 60 cases, only one case required the resection of 3 adjacent segments. In 16 (27%) hepatic veins-resections, the outflow was assured by preservation of the inferior-right-hepatic veins in 3 (5%), of the communicating-veins in 4 (7%), of the middle-hepatic veins in 3 (4%; middle-hepatic veins patch-reconstruction in 2 cases), by polytetrafluoroethylene-grafts in 4 (7%), and by hepatic veins-anastomosis in 2 (3%). In 15 (25%) cases, the hepatic veins were resected tangentially and reconstructed by direct suture venorraphy. In 29 (48%) cases, the hepatic veins were skeletonized from the tumor. Grade IIIb to IV complications occurred in 7%, median hospital-stay was 9 days, and 90-day mortality occurred in one cirrhotic patient. Median overall and disease-free survivals were 72 and 16 months (median follow-up: 34 months). CONCLUSION: A lesser volume parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy rather than a formal major hepatectomy for tumors involving the hepatocaval confluence can be performed with a low rate of major complications (7%). Parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy should be considered in highly selected patients when evaluating liver resection for tumors involving the hepatocaval confluence based on appropriate and accurate preoperative imaging.
BACKGROUND: Parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy techniques allow a lesser volume resection (<3 adjacent segments) for tumors involving the hepatic veins at the hepatocaval confluence, assuring adequate volume of the future liver remnant. We report the ability to perform parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy as planned from the preoperative imaging and the type of vascular intervention used to preserve hepatic outflow. METHODS: We analyzed 60 consecutive parenchyma-sparing hepatectomies in 54 patients for 7 primary and 53 metastatic tumors (48 colorectal), located in segments I, VII, VIII, or IVa and involving the hepatocaval confluence. Patients had a median of 2 (range: 1-18) lesions with median diameter of 4 cm (range: 1.2-16.5), which were bilateral in 43%. RESULTS: A parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy was performed in all of the 60 cases, only one case required the resection of 3 adjacent segments. In 16 (27%) hepatic veins-resections, the outflow was assured by preservation of the inferior-right-hepatic veins in 3 (5%), of the communicating-veins in 4 (7%), of the middle-hepatic veins in 3 (4%; middle-hepatic veins patch-reconstruction in 2 cases), by polytetrafluoroethylene-grafts in 4 (7%), and by hepatic veins-anastomosis in 2 (3%). In 15 (25%) cases, the hepatic veins were resected tangentially and reconstructed by direct suture venorraphy. In 29 (48%) cases, the hepatic veins were skeletonized from the tumor. Grade IIIb to IV complications occurred in 7%, median hospital-stay was 9 days, and 90-day mortality occurred in one cirrhotic patient. Median overall and disease-free survivals were 72 and 16 months (median follow-up: 34 months). CONCLUSION: A lesser volume parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy rather than a formal major hepatectomy for tumors involving the hepatocaval confluence can be performed with a low rate of major complications (7%). Parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy should be considered in highly selected patients when evaluating liver resection for tumors involving the hepatocaval confluence based on appropriate and accurate preoperative imaging.