| Literature DB >> 34063329 |
Katharina S Winter1, Veronika Greif1, Alexander Crispin2, Caroline Burgard3, Robert Forbrig4, Thomas Liebig4, Christoph G Trumm4, Robert Stahl4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the technical and clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic postoperative fluid collections following liver resection treated with CT-guided drainage (CTD).Entities:
Keywords: CT-guided drainage; clinical outcome; fluid collection; liver resection; technical outcome
Year: 2021 PMID: 34063329 PMCID: PMC8147601 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050826
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Flow chart of the patient selection process. n: number of patients
Population characteristics in 143 patients having undergone CT-fluoroscopy guided percutaneous drainage of fluid collections following liver resection.
| Variable | |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | 59.8 ± 14.1 (16–83) |
| Sex | |
| Female | 56 (39.2) |
| Male | 87 (60.8) |
| Max. Diameter of the fluid collection (cm) | 8.7 ± 3.3 (3.0–20.0) |
|
| |
| Malignant disease: |
|
| Liver metastases | 70 (49.0%) |
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 30 (21.0%) |
| Klatskin Tumor | 11 (7.7%) |
| Cholangiocellular carcinoma | 9 (6.3%) |
| Other | 5 (3.5%) |
| Benign disease: |
|
| Echinococcus cyst | 6 (4.2%) |
| Focal nodular hyperplasia | 4 (2.8%) |
| Liver adenoma | 2 (1.4%) |
| Hemangioma | 1 (0.7%) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Extended hemihepatectomy | 36 (25.2%) |
| Hemihepatectomy | 44 (30.8%) |
| Minor resection | 63 (44.0%) |
: Mean value ± standard deviation (range), : Numbers (Percentage)
Information on drainages and intervention technique.
| Drainages per Intervention ( | Quantity ( |
|---|---|
| 1 | 157 (83.1%) |
| 2 | 31 (16.4%) |
| 3 | 1 (0.5%) |
| Diameter (French) | Drainages ( |
| 8 | 77 (39.3%) |
| 9 | 1 (0.5%) |
| 10 | 94 (48.0%) |
| 11 | 1 (0.5%) |
| 12 | 20 (10.2%) |
| 14 | 3 (1.5%) |
| Technique | Interventions ( |
| Trocar | 174 (92.1%) |
| Seldinger | 15 (7.9%) |
| Access path | Drainages ( |
| Direct | 131 (67.5%) |
| Transhepatic | 62 (32.0%) |
| Transpleural | 1 (0.5%) |
n: number; %: percentage.
Figure 2Example of a regular procedure of a CT-guided drainage placement. (A) A 64-year-old man with a history of neuroendocrine tumor of the ileum with liver metastasis and previous left side hemihepatectomy. MRI follow-up with hepatobiliary contrast media one year later revealed two new small metastasis in segments 5 and 8 (arrowheads). (B) The patient developed fever 5 days after the atypical resection of the liver segments 5 and 8. CT revealed fluid collection and small gas bubbles in the resection cavity, indicating an abscess formation. Arrowheads: resection margins. (C) CT fluoroscopic image with drainage (arrow) placement. Arrowheads: resection margins. (D) Post-interventional CT control scan. After placement of a 10 F drainage (arrow) and aspiration, the size of the fluid collection becomes significantly smaller. Arrowheads: resection margins. (E) MRI follow-up six months later showed unsuspicious resection margins (arrowheads) with granulation tissue.
Peri-interventional complications according to SIR.
| Type of Complication | Interventions ( |
|---|---|
|
| 3 (1.6%) |
| Small pneumothorax | 3 |
|
| 4 (2.1%) |
| Severe pneumothorax | 1 |
| Hemorrhage | 1 |
| Laceration (colon, liver) | 2 |
n: number; %: percentage.
Figure 3Example of an intervention with complications according to SIR. (A) A 72-year-old male after left side hemihepatectomy due to a cholangiocellular carcinoma. Thirteen days after the operation, the patient presented with fever, epigastric pain and elevated inflammatory blood parameters. CT revealed a large fluid collection in the resection area (star). (B) CT fluoroscopy-guided placement of a 10 F drainage (arrow) within the fluid collection (star). (C) Unenhanced CT post-interventional control scan showed blood collections in the paragastric area and in the right upper quadrant (arrowheads). Arrow: drainage. Star: fluid collection. (D) An additional CT scan with arterial contrast revealed extravasation (dotted arrow). Arrow: drainage. Star: fluid collection. (E) Workup of the incident showed an injury of the right gastroepiploic artery (dashed arrow). The reason was a restless and uncompliant patient. Due to patient movements, the trajectory was not carried out as planned. Star: fluid collection. (F) An immediately performed digital subtraction angiography (DSA) confirmed extravasation of contrast agent from the right gastroepiploic artery (arrowheads). (G) Treatment of the bleeding was performed with an endovascular placement of seven microcoils in a sequence (arrowheads).
Figure 4Boxplots of the median radiation dose between the time intervals of the years 2004–2010 and years 2011–2017 for parts of the interventional CT scan and for the whole procedure. (*) indicate significant group differences.
Figure 5Development of laboratory parameters within 30 days after the intervention in subjects with no evidence of further surgical interventions or complications in the patient record. Please add short explanations titles for (A–D).
Parameters of the generalized linear mixed models used in Figure 4.
| CRP | Leukocyte Count | Interleukin-6 | Total Serum Bilirubin | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Predictors | Estimates | CI |
| Estimates | CI |
| Estimates | CI |
| Estimates | CI |
|
| (Intercept) | 0.77 | 0.70–0.84 |
| 0.96 | 0.92–0.99 |
| 1.99 | 1.73–2.24 |
| −0.02 | −0.10–0.06 | 0.656 |
| Time (days) | −0.02 | −0.02–−0.01 |
| −0.00 | −0.01–−0.00 |
| −0.01 | −0.02–0.00 | 0.132 | −0.01 | −0.01–−0.00 |
|
|
| ||||||||||||
| σ2 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.02 | ||||||||
| τ00 | 0.12 Subject ID | 0.02 Subject ID | 0.18 Subject ID | 0.16 Subject ID | ||||||||
| ICC | 0.54 | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.88 | ||||||||
| N | 112 Subject ID | 88 Subject ID | 14 Subject ID | 108 Subject ID | ||||||||
| Observations | 835 | 609 | 112 | 635 | ||||||||
| Marginal R2/ | 0.076/0.572 | 0.041/0.526 | 0.013/0.615 | 0.013/0.884 | ||||||||
CI: Confidence interval; R2: Coefficient of Determination; σ2: distribution-specific variance; τ00: between-subject variance; ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient, N: number of subjects. P-values in bold indicate significant effects.
Distribution of the success rate in terms of decreasing laboratory parameters among the different applied surgical procedures.
| C-Reactive Protein | Leukocytes | Total Serum Bilirubin | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operation Technique | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( |
| Extended Hemihepatectomy | 29 | 20 (69.0) | 9 (31.0) | 16 | 11 (68.8) | 5 (31.2) | 17 | 14 (82.4) | 3 (17.6) |
| Left Hemihepatectomy | 14 | 9 (64.3) | 5 (35.7) | 6 | 5 (83.3) | 1 (16.7) | 7 | 5 (71.4) | 2 (28.6) |
| Right Hemihepatectomy | 20 | 13 (65.0) | 7 (35.0) | 9 | 3 (33.3) | 6 (66.7) | 9 | 4 (44.4) | 5 (55.6) |
| Minor Resection | 43 | 34 (79.1) | 9 (20.9) | 21 | 16 (76.2) | 5 (23.8) | 15 | 11 (73.3) | 4 (26.7) |
| Total | 106 | 76 (71.7) | 30 (28.3) | 52 | 35 (67.3) | 17 (32.7) | 48 | 34 (70.8) | 14 (29.2) |
n: number; %: percentage.
Distribution of the success rate in terms of decreasing laboratory parameters between infected and non-infected fluid collections.
| C-Reactive Protein | Leukocytes | Total Serum Bilirubin | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fluid Collection Infection Status | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( | Elevated ( | Success | No Success ( |
| Infected | 79 | 61 (77.2) | 18 (22.8) | 41 | 34 (82.9) | 7 (17.1) | 33 | 22 (66.7) | 11 (33.3) |
| Non-infected | 31 | 23 (74.2) | 8 (25.8) | 11 | 6 (54.5) | 5 (45.5) | 15 | 9 (60.0) | 6 (40.0) |
| Total | 110 | 84 (76.4) | 26 (23.6) | 52 | 40 (76.9) | 12 (23.1) | 48 | 31 (64.6) | 17 (35.4) |
n: number; %: percentage.