| Literature DB >> 29699571 |
Jian Sun1,2, Yue Zhu1,3, Yao-Rong Peng1,2, Wen-Bin Li1,2, He-Yun Zhang1,2, Zhen-Yu Zhou1,2, Lin Wang1,4, An-de Ma5, Jie Wang6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical safety and value of ethanol surgical field infiltration (ESFI), combined with distilled water peritoneal lavage (DWPL), after hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) rupture.Entities:
Keywords: Dehydrated ethanol; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Spontaneously rupture
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29699571 PMCID: PMC5918920 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-018-1390-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Fig. 1In vivo experiment. a Partial hepatectomy was performed through a 2.5-cm subcostal incision for 3 groups of rats that underwent different conditions of hydropathic compression of the cut hepatectomy surface. At the time of sacrifice, no severe abdominal adhesions were identified in DW group (b), DAW-3-min group (c), and DAW-5-min group (d)
Fig. 2Retrospective case study. a The cut surface of the hepatectomy was soaked with 50–100 ml of dehydrated alcohol for 5 min; then, the residual anhydrous alcohol films were cleaned by repeated 5-min saline wash until no deposits were visible. b Levels of AST, ALT, TB, and ALB between the groups at all time points of measurement
Fig. 3In vitro experiment. a HE staining of liver tissues for the depth of coagulation necrosis and coagulation degeneration at different soaking times in dehydrated ethanol. × 40 magnification. b After being soaked in the alcohol, the liver cells emerged to shrivel. Several layer cells of the surface appeared spindle; their cytoplasm was decreased and stained deep (arrow). Some cells appeared to be necrosis, and nuclear condensation or apoptotic bodies in the apoptotic cells were observed with time last. Below the surface layer cells, there were several layers of degeneration cells. These cells had plenty of plasma as the swelling of cells. Therefore, these cells appeared more larger and paler than normal liver cells (star). × 100 magnification. c The depth of coagulation necrosis and degeneration increased as a function of the duration of soaking in dehydrated ethanol, for both tissue samples obtained from the cut hepatectomy surface and the capsule section of the liver
The depth of coagulation necrosis and degeneration with the duration of dehydrated ethanol soaking
| Cut hepatectomy surface | Capsule section | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | Coagulation necrosis | Coagulation degeneration | Coagulation necrosis | Coagulation degeneration |
| 30 s | 0.022 ± 0.002 | 0.12 ± 0.010 | 0.021 ± 0.002 | 0.12 ± 0.010 |
| 1 min | 0.036 ± 0.004 | 0.19 ± 0.020 | 0.033 ± 0.003 | 0.16 ± 0.020 |
| 3 min | 0.062 ± 0.007 | 0.34 ± 0.040 | 0.051 ± 0.006 | 0.31 ± 0.050 |
| 5 min | 0.084 ± 0.009 | 0.50 ± 0.060 | 0.072 ± 0.009 | 0.38 ± 0.060 |
| 10 min | 0.145 ± 0.010 | 0.70 ± 0.080 | 0.120 ± 0.011 | 0.50 ± 0.070 |
| 30 min | 0.205 ± 0.012 | 1.00 ± 0.090 | 0.185 ± 0.012 | 0.81 ± 0.090 |
Data were expressed as a mean ± SD (mm)
Fig. 4The liver function examination on postoperative days 3 and 7 of rats including AST(a), ALT(b) and ALB(c)
Demographic and clinical characteristics of all patients included in the study
| DAW group | DW group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 48.6 (22-81) | 46.8 (22-71) | 0.688 |
| Male to female | 17:4 | 20:4 | 1.000 |
| HBV positivitya | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (87.5%) | 0.549 |
| Tumor location | 0.607 | ||
| Left lobe | 5 (23.8%) | 6 (25%) | |
| Right lobe | 12 (57.1% | 15 (62.5%) | |
| Both left and right lobe | 4 (19.1%) | 3 (12.5%) | |
| Child-Pugh classificationa | 0.551 | ||
| A | 20 (95.2%) | 22 (91.7%) | |
| B | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (8.3%) | |
| C | 0 | 0 | |
| Pre-operation TACEa | 0 | 3 (12.5%) | 0.236 |
| AST, IU/L | 70.7 (29–160) | 78.6 (22–347) | 0.795 |
| ALT, IU/L | 47.8 (16–162) | 59.3 (26–152) | 0.507 |
| AFP, IU/mL | 45,705.0 (1.14–225,046) | 32,254.8 (2.41–129,869) | 0.662 |
| Tumor size, cm | 9.3 (4–20) | 8.3 (3–21.5) | 0.713 |
| Tumor numbera | 0.127 | ||
| Single | 16 (76.2%) | 21 (87.5%) | |
| Multiple | 5 (23.8%) | 3 (12.5%) | |
| Vascular invasiona | 12 (57.1%) | 15 (62.5%) | 0.714 |
| Organ invasiona | 7 (33.3%) | 5 (20.8%) | 0.344 |
| Liver cirrhosisa | 0.705 | ||
| Yes | 3 (14.3%) | 5 (20.8%) | |
| No | 18 (85.7%) | 19 (79.2%) |
Values in parentheses are medians with range unless indicated otherwise
HBV hepatitis B virus, TACE transhepatic arterial chemotherapy and embolization, AST aspartate aminotransferase, ALT alanine transaminase, AFP alpha fetal protein
aValues are number with percentages
Comparison of perioperative and long-term outcomes between DAW and DW group
| DAW group | DW group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Perioperative mortalitya | 0 | 0 | N.A. |
| Postoperative complicationa | 6 (28.6%) | 5 (20.8%) | 0.398 |
| Recurrencea | |||
| Intrahepatic | 10 (47.6%) | 15 (62.5%) | 0.316 |
| Peritoneal dissemination | 1 (4.8%) | 7 (29.2%) | 0.037 |
| Lung | 6 (28.6%) | 4 (16.7%) | 0.274 |
| Bone | 2 (9.5%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0.449 |
| Brain | 0 | 0 | N.A. |
Values in parentheses are medians with range unless indicated otherwise
N.A. not applicable
aValues are number with percentages
Fig. 5Kaplan–Meier survival curve of OS (a) and DFS (b) of patients between DAW and DW group. Data for DAW group (n = 21) are shown by thick red lines, and data for DW group (n = 24) are shown by thick blue line
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with OS and DFS
| Univariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival | Disease-free survival | |||
| Variable | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | Hazard ratio(95% CI) | ||
| Age (≤ 47.0 vs. > 47.0) | 1.045 (0.494–2.210) | 0.908 | 0.902 (0.442–1.840) | 0.777 |
| Gender (female vs. male) | 1.618 (0.549–4.767) | 0.382 | 1.076 (0.375–3.089) | 0.892 |
| HBsAg (negative vs. positive) | 0.756 (0.281–2.029) | 0.578 | 1.254 (0.481–3.268) | 0.643 |
| AFP, IU/mL (≤ 400 vs. > 400) | 1.000 (0.181–4.645) | 0.345 | 1.669 (0.443–6.289) | 0.276 |
| AST, IU/L (≤ 40 vs. > 40) | 1.005 (0.996–1.014) | 0.257 | 1.004 (0.997–1.011) | 0.229 |
| ALT, IU/L (≤ 40 vs. > 40) | 1.004 (0.993–1.015) | 0.453 | 1.001 (0.990–1.012) | 0.864 |
| Child-Pugh classification(A vs. B and C) | 0.458 (0.062–3.402) | 0.445 | 0.646 (0.152–2.732) | 0.552 |
| Tumor size, cm (≤ 10 vs.> 10) | 1.062 (0.446–2.528) | 0.892 | 0.690 (0.298–1.598) | 0.386 |
| Tumor number (single vs .multiple) | 0.849 (0.318–2.267) | 0.744 | 0.571 (0.218–1.493) | 0.253 |
| Liver cirrhosis(no vs. yes) | 0.819 (0.326–2.059) | 0.671 | 0.605 (0.267–1.370) | 0.228 |
| Organ invasion(no vs. yes) | 1.158 (0.511–2.625) | 0.726 | 0.912 (0.508–2.298) | 0.841 |
| Vascular invasion (no vs. yes) | 1.339 (0.535–3.355) | 0.533 | 1.074 (0.504–2.288) | 0.854 |
| Pre-operation TACE (no vs. yes) | 1.228 (0.415–3.633) | 0.711 | 0.722 (0.251–2.073) | 0.544 |
| Type of treatment (DAW vs.DW) | 1.828 (0.877–3.810) | 0.107 | 1.951 (1.030–3.693) | 0.040 |
| Multivariate analyses | ||||
| Type of treatment | N.A. | 0.206 | N.A. | 0.331 |
Multivariate analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used. Variables were adopted for their prognostic significance by univariate analysis (P < 0.05)
CI confidence interval, N.A. not applicable