Value of prophylactic abdominal drainage in 1269 consecutive cases of elective liver resection

Clinical impact of various drain-fluid data for the postoperative complications after hepatectomy: criteria of prophylactic drain removal on postoperative day 1

PURPOSE

Prophylactic drains reported to be useful to treat postoperative bile leakage (POBL) and reduce re-intervention after hepatectomy. However, prophylactic drains should remove in the early postoperative period. This study aimed to assess the association between postoperative complications and the drain-fluid data on postoperative day (POD) 1.

METHODS

Medical records of 530 patients who underwent hepatectomy were retrospectively reviewed. We evaluated the drain-fluid data on POD 1, such as bilirubin (BIL), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and drain discharge volume. These variables were compared between patients with and without postoperative complications such as POBL and abdominal abscess not due to POBL.

RESULTS

POBL was found in 44 patients (8.3%), PHLF was in 51 patients (9.6%), and abdominal abscess not due to POBL was in 21 patients (4.0%). Regarding POBL, drain-fluid BIL concentration and drain discharge volume was higher in the POBL group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). However, drain-fluid AST, ALT, and ALP concentrations were not different between two groups. As to the abdominal abscess not due to POBL, all drain-fluid data were not significantly different. Multivariate analysis for predicting POBL showed that the drain-fluid BIL concentration ≥ 2.68 mg/dL was an independent predictor (p < 0.001). In the subgroup analyses according to the type of hepatectomy, the drain-fluid BIL concentration was an independent predictor for POBL after both non-anatomical and anatomical hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

The drain-fluid BIL concentration on POD 1 is useful in predicting POBL after hepatectomy.

Early drain removal after live liver donor hepatectomy is safe - a randomized controlled pilot study

INTRODUCTION

The current study aimed to assess the safety of early drain removal after live donor hepatectomy (LDH).

METHODS

One hundred eight consecutive donors who met the inclusion criteria were randomized to early drain removal (EDR - postoperative day (POD) 3 - if serous and the drain bilirubin level was less than 3 mg/dl - "3 × 3" rule) and routine drain removal (RDR - drain output serous and less than 100 ml). The primary outcome was to compare the safety. The secondary outcome was to compare the postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative parameters except for the timing of drain removal were comparable. EDR was feasible in 46 out of 54 donors (85.14%) and none required re-intervention after EDR. There was significantly better pain relief with EDR (p = 0.00). Overall complications, pulmonary complications, and hospital stay were comparable on intention-to-treat analysis. However, pulmonary complications (EDR - 1.9% vs RDR - 16.3% P = 0.030), overall complications (18.8% vs 36.3%, P = 0.043), and hospital stay (8 vs 9, P = 0.014) were more in the RDR group on per treatment analysis. Bile leaks were seen in three donors (3.7% in the EDR group vs 1.9% in RDR, P = 0.558), and none of them required endo-biliary interventions. Re-exploration for intestinal obstruction was required for 3 donors in RDR (0% vs 5.7%; p = 0.079).

CONCLUSION

EDR by the "3 × 3" rule after LDH is safe and associated with better pain relief. On per treatment analysis, EDR was associated with significantly less hospital stay and lower pulmonary and overall complications.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Clinical Trials.gov - NCT04504487.

Abdominal drainage is contraindicated after uncomplicated hepatectomy: Results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

No conclusive recommendations exist regarding use of abdominal drainage in hepatectomy. The practice of abdominal drainage remains commonplace despite unfavorable outcomes reported by randomized controlled trials. We aimed to compare the impact of abdominal drainage on outcomes of hepatectomy.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic information sources and bibliographic reference lists was conducted. A combination of free text and controlled vocabulary search adapted to thesaurus headings, search operators, and limits in each of the above databases was applied. Overall perioperative and wound-related complications, bile leak, intra-abdominal collections (including those requiring an intervention), and the length of hospital stay were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials reporting 1,064 patients undergoing hepatectomy with (n = 533) or without (n = 531) placement of abdominal drain were included. Patients in both groups were of comparable age (P = .23), sex (P = .49), proportion of major hepatectomy (P = .93), minor hepatectomy (P = .96), cirrhosis (P = .78), and malignant pathologies (P = .61). Drainage after hepatectomy was associated with significantly higher overall complications (RR: 1.37, P = .0003) and wound-related complications (risk ratio: 2.29, P = .01) compared to no drainage. Moreover, there was no significant difference in bile leak (risk ratio: 2.15, P = .19), intra-abdominal collections (risk ratio: 1.13, P = .70), intra-abdominal collections requiring interventions (risk ratio: 1.19, P = .71), or length of hospital stay (mean difference: 0.37, P = .67) between the 2 groups. The trial sequential analysis confirmed conclusiveness of the findings.

CONCLUSION

Abdominal drainage after hepatectomy increases overall and wound-related complications, without any reduction in the risk of intra-abdominal collections needing an intervention. Routine drainage after an uncomplicated hepatectomy should be avoided, with the possible exception of the presence of a bilioenteric anastomosis.

A review of the current ERAS guidelines for liver resection, liver transplantation and pancreatoduodenectomy

In perioperative care after liver resection, transplantation and pancreatoduodenectomy, ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) recommendations are based on the reducing invasiveness of procedures and the severity of the surgical stress, which results in decreasing complications and enhanced recovery. Recommendations for all three operations can be classified into five groups: recommended for all patients, recommended for special patient groups, rejected for all patients, controversial recommendations, specific recommendations for all three operations. Preoperative counselling and psychological support, nutritional support, smoking and alcohol cessation, pre- and intraoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, thrombosis prevention, limiting of preoperative hunger and thirst to 4 and 6 h, preoperative intaking carbohydrate rich drink, alcohol-based antiseptics for skin preparation, a goal-directed infusion therapy, providing normothermia, early removal of the drainage tube, glycemic control, dual antiemetic therapy, multimodal analgesia strategies, early oral feeding and activation, audit recommend for all patients. Postoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, enteral and parenteral nutrition, short-acting anxiolytics are recommended for individual patients. It is recommended to avoid Mercedes type incision, use of long-acting anxiolytics and postoperative nasogastric tube. The benefits of preoperative physical exercise, immunonutrition and probiotics are controversial. There are no specific recommendations for thoracic epidural anesthesia, preventing delayed gastric emptying and intestinal paresis in liver surgery.

What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery?

Simple Summary

Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities.

Abstract

In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.

Liver drains after surgery: what is the real practice? An international snapshot from the Li.DR.A.S. survey

Despite current evidence, the use of drains in liver surgery is still controversial. We conducted an international survey to investigate the clinical use of drains in the E-AHPBA, A-HPBA and A-PHPBA communities. An open survey of 30 questions was prepared on Google-Form and distributed by email to all members. One hundred and ninety-one HPB surgeons responded to the survey. One hundred and twelve surgeons (58.6%) reported routine use of abdominal drains after liver resections. Eighty-eight (46.1%) responded that removal was driven by low volume and low bilirubin levels in the drains. For minor liver resection, 97 (50.8%) surgeons reported using drains selectively; in contrast, 134 (70.2%) surgeons prefer to use a drain always after major procedures. Among patients with cirrhosis, 87 (45.5%) surgeons reported routine drains placement, while 84 (44.0%) considered drains selectively. A no-drain policy was most prevalent among surgeons from North America (80%) versus Asian-Pacific (70.0%), European and African (60.8%), and South American (61.5%) surgeons. Among minimally invasive surgeons, 74.2% reported drain use only in selected cases versus 35.0% among surgeons who performed open surgery. The practice of draining after liver surgery is still highly variable among centers and surgeons around the world, with a high variability according to the underlying liver condition and planned surgical approach.

Postoperative fever after liver resection: Incidence, risk factors, and characteristics associated with febrile infectious complication

Purpose

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of postoperative fever (POF) after liver resection. In patients with POF, predictors of febrile infectious complications were determined.

Methods

A total of 797 consecutive patients undergoing liver resection from January 2015 to December 2019 were retrospectively investigated. POF was defined as body temperature ≥ 38.0°C in the postoperative period. POF was characterized by time of first fever, the highest temperature, and frequency of fever. The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from grade I (low), grade II (intermediate) to grade III (high). Postoperative leukocytosis was defined as a 70% increase of white blood cell count from the preoperative value. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for POF and predictors of febrile infectious complications.

Results

Overall, 401 patients (50.3%) developed POF. Of these, 10.5% had the time of first fever > postoperative day (POD) 2, 25.9% had fever > 38.6°C, and 60.6% had multiple fever spikes. In multivariate analysis, risk factors for POF were: IMM grade III resection (OR 1.572, p = 0.008), Charlson Comorbidity Index score > 3 (OR 1.872, p < 0.001), and serum albumin < 3.2 g/dL (OR 3.236, p = 0.023). 14.6% patients developed infectious complication, 21.9% of febrile patients and 7.1% of afebrile patients (p < 0.001). Predictors of febrile infectious complications were: fever > 38.6°C (OR 2.242, p = 0.003), time of first fever > POD2 (OR 6.002, p < 0.001), and multiple fever spikes (OR 2.039, p = 0.019). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for fever > 38.6°C were 39.8%, 78.0%, 33.7% and 82.2%, respectively. A combination of fever > 38.6°C and leukocytosis provided high specificity of 95.2%.

Conclusion

In this study, we found that IMM classification, CCI score, and serum albumin level related with POF development in patients undergone liver resection. Time of first fever > POD2, fever > 38.6°C, and multiple fever spikes indicate an increased risk of febrile infectious complication. These findings may aid decision-making in patients with POF who require further diagnostic workup.

Update on perioperative management of patients undergoing surgery for liver cancer

Hepatocellular carcinoma is often accompanied by chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis. Preoperative evaluation of liver function and postoperative nutritional management are critical in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who undergo liver surgery. Although the incidence of postoperative complications and death has declined in Japan over the last 10 years, postoperative complications have not been fully overcome. Therefore, surgical procedures and perioperative management must be improved. Accurate preoperative evaluations of liver function, nutrition, inflammation, and body skeletal muscle are required. Determination of the optimal surgical procedure should consider not only tumor characteristics but also the physical reserve of the patient. Nutritional management of chronic liver disorders, especially maintaining protein synthesis for postoperative protein/energy, is important. Prophylactic antibiotics are recommended for short‐term use within 24 hours after surgery. Abdominal drainage is recommended for patients with cirrhosis who may develop large amounts of ascites, who are at risk of postoperative bleeding, or who may have bile leakage due to a large resection area. Postoperative exercise therapy may improve insulin resistance in patients with chronic liver damage. Implementation of an early/enhanced recovery after surgery program is recommended to reduce biological invasive responses and achieve early independence of physical activity and nutrition intake. We review the latest information on the perioperative management of patients undergoing liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: operation-related factors

Background: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program, which has been recently introduced in the field of perioperative care, represents a multimodal strategy to attenuate the loss, and improve the restoration, of functional capacity after surgery. This program aims to reduce morbidity and enhance recovery by reducing surgical stress, optimizing pain control, and facilitating early resumption of an oral diet and early mobilization. Considering this perspective, protocols for enhanced recovery should include comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Appropriate protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and thereby reduce the duration of hospitalization.Current Concepts: In major abdominal surgeries, the recommended ERAS protocols involve common items such as preoperative counseling, preoperative optimization, prehabilitation, preoperative nutrition, fasting and carbohydrate loading, bowel preparation, thromboprophylaxis, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical access, drainage, nasogastric intubation, urinary drainage, early mobilization and prevention of postoperative ileus, postoperative glycemic control, and postoperative nutritional care. These items have been briefly reviewed with the relevant evidence.Discussion and Conclusion: ERAS is a comprehensive and evidence-based guideline for optimal perioperative care. Although a number of ERAS items still require high-level evidence through well-designed randomized controlled trials, the ERAS guidelines can serve as adequate recommendations for our practice. Thus, these items can be introduced and adopted with evidence. In addition, it is important to remove items that are not supported by evidence from routine procedures.

Perioperative Management of Complex Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Alliance between the Surgeon and the Anesthetist

Simple Summary

Major high-risk surgery (HRS) exposes patients to potential perioperative adverse events. Hepatic resection of colorectal metastases can surely be included into the HRS class of operations. Limiting such risks is the main target of the perioperative medicine. In this context the collaboration between the anesthetist and the surgeon and the sharing of management protocols is of utmost importance and represents the key issue for a successful outcome. In our institution, we have been adopting consolidated protocols for patients undergoing this type of surgery for decades; this made our mixed team (surgeons and anesthetists) capable of achieving a safe outcome for the majority of our surgical population. In this narrative review, we report the most recent state of the art of perioperative management of hepatic resection of colorectal metastases along with our experience in this field, trying to point out the main issues.

Abstract

Hepatic resection has been widely accepted as the first choice for the treatment of colorectal metastases. Liver surgery has been recognized as a major abdominal procedure; it exposes patients to a high risk of perioperative adverse events. Decision sharing and the multimodal approach to the patients’ management are the two key items for a safe outcome, even in such a high-risk surgery. This review aims at addressing the main perioperative issues (preoperative evaluation; general anesthesia and intraoperative fluid management and hemodynamic monitoring; intraoperative metabolism; administration policy for blood-derivative products; postoperative pain control; postoperative complications), in particular, from the anesthetist’s point of view; however, only an alliance with the surgery team may be successful in case of adverse events to accomplish a good final outcome.

Variation in Drain Management Among Patients Undergoing Major Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have suggested that drain management is highly variable, data on drain placement and timing of drain removal among patients undergoing hepatic resection remain scarce. The objective of the current study was to define the utilization of drain placement among patients undergoing major hepatic resection.

METHODS

The ACS NSQIP-targeted hepatectomy database was used to identify patients who underwent major hepatectomy between 2014 and 2017. Association between day of drain removal, timing of discharge, and drain fluid bilirubin on postoperative day (POD) 3 (DFB-3) was assessed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare outcomes of patients with a drain removed before and after POD 3.

RESULTS

Among 5330 patients, most patients had an abdominal drain placed at the time of hepatic resection (n = 3075, 57.7%). Of 2495 patients with data on timing of drain removal, only 380 patients (15.2%) had their drain removed by POD 3. Almost 1 in 6 patients (n = 441, 17.7%) were discharged home with the drain in place. DFB-3 values correlated poorly with POD of drain removal (R² = 0.0049). After PSM, early drain removal (≤ POD 3) was associated with lower rates of grade B or C bile leakage (2.1% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.008) and prolonged length of hospital stay (6.0% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.009) compared with delayed drain removal (> POD 3).

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly 3 in 5 patients had a drain placed at the time of major hepatectomy and only 1 in 7 patients had the drain removed early. This study demonstrated the potential benefits of early drain removal in an effort to improve the quality of care following major hepatectomy.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Chinese Patients Receiving Hepatectomy With or Without Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Strategy

Purposes: For the first time in China, the current study was designed to compare the clinical outcomes between Chinese patients receiving hepatectomy with or without the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) strategy. Methods: The current study enrolled 250 patients who would receive hepatectomy. Patients were randomized into two groups: ERAS group (n = 125, ERAS strategy) and control (n = 125, conventional care). Mortality, length of hospital stay, readmission, and complications were assessed over 30 days after the operation. Results: The average age of the whole cohort was 65 (63-68) years, with 152 males (60.8%). There was no difference between two groups in baseline features, such as age, sex, medical history, Child-Pugh hepatic function, American Society of Anaesthesiologists physical status, operative type, hepatectomy type, and hepatic pathology (P > 0.05 for all). There was no occurrence of death in the two groups. Patients in the ERAS group had significantly less occurrence of post-operative complications and a shorter length of hospital stay (P < 0.05 for all). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in seven patients in the control group, but did not occur in the ERAS group (P < 0.05). Patients in the two groups had similar occurrence of readmission (P > 0.05). Conclusions: ERAS strategy significantly decreased the occurrence of operative complications and shortened the length of hospital stay without any increase in mortality or readmission in Chinese patients receiving hepatectomy.

Enhanced recovery after hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery: A single-center case control study

Backgrounds/Aims

The aim of this study was to find the safety and effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients who undergo hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) surgeries and its association with the postoperative complications and survival rate of the patients.

Methods

This study was conducted on patients who underwent HPB surgeries in Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Iran from 2018 to 2020. Patients who underwent surgery after from 2019 to February 2020 considered as the ERAS group (n=47) in which ERAS was implemented postoperatively including removing nasogastric tube and initiating surgical diet at 6 hours post operation, and removing intraabdominal drains and Foley catheter at postoperative day one. Other patients (n=43) were considered as the control group in which conventional postoperative care was implemented.

Results

Ninety patients with the mean age of 47.3±13.3 yrs/old (range= 17-76) including 39 females were enrolled into the study. There were no significant differences between the demographic and preoperative comorbidities between the two groups. Pain severity of the patients in the ERAS group was significantly lower than the control group (visual analogue scales of 3.4±0.77 vs. 4.47±0.88, p<0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the other postoperative data between the two groups. One patient in each group died during hospitalization period due to myocardial infarction.

Conclusions

ERAS may be safe and effective in patients who undergo HPB surgery and may be associated with less severe postoperative pain.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols in patients undergoing liver transplantation: A retrospective comparative cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress, and has been applied to different surgeries including liver resection surgery. Explorative studies have shown the safety of some ERAS measures in liver transplantation patients, although no consensus was reached. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of ERAS protocols compared with conventional care in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

METHOD

All patients (aged 16-70) undergoing liver transplantation for their first time in our centers between January 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively reviewed and included into this cohort study. They were divided into ERAS group and conventional group depending on the perioperative protocols. Operative time, anhepatic phase time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative hypothermia, Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) stay, postoperative complications, pain score, postoperative hospital stay, and mortality were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 40 and 53 patients were included in the ERAS and conventional groups, respectively. The ERAS group had shorter SICU stay (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stay (14.5 vs. 16 days, p < 0.001) compared with the conventional group. Intraoperative hypothermia rate, postoperative pulmonary complications rate, and postoperative pain score were lower in the ERAS group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in operative time, anhepatic phase time, blood loss, mortality, reintubation, lower extremity venous thrombosis and other complications incidence between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ERAS procedures effectively improved the patients' recovery, alleviated the suffering and pulmonary complications, and reduced SICU stay and postoperative hospital stay, without increasing incidence of other complications or reintubation. As a safe and feasible choice, ERAS protocols may also have some socioeconomic advantages, which should be addressed in further prospective cohort or clinical trial studies.

Timing for removing prophylactic drains after liver resection: an evaluation of drain removal on the third and first postoperative days

Background

Conventionally, drains are removed from postoperative day (POD) 7 to POD 14 at our institute after hepatectomy (control group). This study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of drain removal in the early postoperative period.

Methods

Recently, we defined criteria for the early removal of drains: (I) a drain-fluid bilirubin level of below 3 mg/dL; (II) a drain discharge volume of less than 500 mL/day; and (III) no macroscopic signs of bleeding or infection. For patients meeting these criteria, drains were removed on POD 3 between January 2012 and February 2013 (POD 3 group) and on POD 1 between February and December 2013 (POD 1 group). The outcomes of these groups were then retrospectively compared.

Results

The median duration of the postoperative hospital stay was shorter in the POD 3 group (11 days) than in the control group (14 days) (P<0.0001). The incidence of drain infection was lower in the POD 3 group (1.2%) than in the control group (5.7%). Meanwhile, the incidences of bile leakage and complications were higher in the POD 1 group than in the POD 3 group. However, the incidences were almost the same when patients whose drains were actually removed on the predefined POD were compared. The intraoperative findings were also considered when removing the drains.

Conclusions

Drain removal on POD 3 may reduce the length of the postoperative hospital stay and the incidence of drain infection without impairing safety. To remove drains safely on POD 1, however, the intraoperative findings should also be considered.

Progress in hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma and peri-operation management

The global incidence of liver cancer continues to grow. Liver cancer, especially hepatocellular carcinoma, has high recurrence and mortality rates. Here, we review the past decade's diagnostic, therapeutic, and management strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma, and summarize new patient management approaches, including enhanced recovery after surgery, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. We compare traditional and innovative management methods, which comprise developments in precision medicine, and consider their limitations. Ongoing innovation and technological advances enable surgeons to gain deeper understandings of the multidimensionality of hepatocellular carcinoma, thereby promoting the continuous development of precision therapy.

Treatment strategy for isolated bile leakage after hepatectomy: Literature review

Isolated bile leakage (IBL) after hepatectomy is intractable, and various treatment methods for it have been reported. This review aimed to clarify the treatment strategy for IBL by summarizing studies on IBL after hepatectomy without extrahepatic bile duct resection. Thirty-three cases of IBL were reported. The incidence of IBL is very low, accounting for 0.1%-1% of all hepatectomy cases. The risk factors for IBL are unclear; however, several reports mention that biliary anomaly is associated with a high risk of IBL, with preoperative and intraoperative confirmation of biliary tree anatomy being the most important preventive strategy. Treatment methods for IBL include liver resection, bilioenteric anastomosis, endoscopic treatment, bile duct ablation, percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization (PTPE), transcatheter arterial embolization, and use of fibrin glue. The therapeutic methods should be chosen depending on remnant liver function, amount of bile leakage, and the liver volume causing the bile leakage. When there is bile leakage from less than one segment, non-surgical treatment is recommended, whereas when there is bile leakage from one or more segments, surgical treatment can be recommended. Nevertheless, recently, non-surgical treatment such as PTPE, PTPE with bile duct ablation, and endoscopic methods have been considered as effective treatment approaches.

Natural history and therapeutic strategies of post-pancreatoduodenectomy abdominal fluid collections: Ten-year experience in a single institution

TRIAL DESIGN

The aim of this study was to identify independent risk factors for post-pancreatoduodenectomy (post-PD) abdominal fluid collections (AFCs) and evaluate our management protocol on it.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of consecutive 2064 cases who underwent PD over the past decade in 1 single center was conducted. The patients were divided into AFCs and non-AFCs group. Univariable and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors of AFCs. The AFCs group was compared with the non-AFCs group with respect to the incidence of postoperative outcomes. The characteristics of AFCs were further analyzed in terms of clinical manifestations.

RESULTS

Two thousand sixty-four cases with pancreaticoduodenectomy were recruited and 15% of them were found AFCs. Diameter of main pancreatic duct ≤3 mm was found to be an independent predictor of AFCs (P < .001), along with soft pancreatic texture (P = .002), mesenterico-portal vein resection (P < .001), and estimated intraoperative blood loss >800 mL (P < .001). The incidence of mild complications was significantly higher in AFCs group than in non-AFCs group (34% vs 20%, P < .001), whereas no significant differences were noted in the rate of severe complications between these 2 groups (15% vs 15%, P = .939).

CONCLUSION

Enhanced drainage is recommended as an effective measure to decrease the incidence of severe complications caused by post-PD AFCs.

Is bile leakage after hepatic resection associated with impaired long-term survival?

BACKGROUND

Bile leakage (BL) is a frequent and severe complication following liver surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for BL, related other complications and association with long-term survival.

METHODS

This study included all patients undergoing hepatectomy in a single centre from 2005 to 2016. Perioperative risk factors related to BL were identified using univariable and multivariable analysis. Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis.

RESULTS

BL occurred in 48 of 458 patients (11%). BLs were more frequent in patients after major hepatectomy (p = 0.001). Portal vein embolization, bilioenteric-anastomosis, lymphadenectomy, vascular reconstruction and operative time were significant factors for developing BL. Comparing patients with or without BL, BL was more commonly associated with other postoperative complications (p = 0.001), especially acute kidney failure and surgical-site-infections. There was no difference in 90-day-mortality (p = 0.124). The median disease-free survival was comparable (17 vs. 15 months, p = 0.976), also no difference was observed when stratifying for different tumour entities. There was no difference in median overall survival (OS) among malignant disease (35 vs. 47 months, p = 0.200) and in 3-year OS (46% vs. 59%). Multivariate analysis confirmed that postoperative liver failure and major hepatectomy were risk factors for reduced OS (p = 0.010).

CONCLUSIONS

Many concerns have been raised regarding tumour progression after major complications. In this study, we only found a relevant influence of BL on OS in pCC, whereas no association was seen in other cancer types, indicating that tumour progression might be triggered by BL in cancer types arising from the bile ducts itself.

ENHANCED RECOVERY (ERAS) AFTER LIVER SURGERY:COMPARATIVE STUDY IN A BRAZILIAN TERCIARY CENTER

BACKGROUND

After the publication of the first recommendations of ERAS Society regarding colonic surgery, the proposal of surgical stress reduction, maintenance of physiological functions and optimized recovery was expanded to other surgical specialties, with minimal variations.

AIM

To analyze the implementation of ERAS protocols for liver surgery in a tertiary center.

METHODS

Fifty patients that underwent elective hepatic surgery were retrospectively evaluated, using medical records data, from June 2014 to August 2016. After September 2016, 35 patients were prospectively evaluated and managed in accordance with ERAS protocol.

RESULTS

There was no difference in age, type of hepatectomy, laparoscopic surgery and postoperative complications between the groups. In ERAS group, it was observed a reduction in preoperative fasting and in the length of hospital stay by two days (p< 0.001). Carbohydrate loading, j-shaped incision, early oral feeding, postoperative prevention of nausea and vomiting and early mobilization were also significantly related to ERAS group. Oral bowel preparation, pre-anesthetic medication, sub-costal incision, prophylactic nasogastric intubation and abdominal drainage were more common in control group.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of ERAS protocol is feasible and beneficial for health institutions and patients, without increasing morbidity and mortality.

Successful treatment of isolated bile leakage after hepatectomy combination therapy with percutaneous transhepatic portal embolization and bile duct ablation with ethanol: a case report

Background

Bile leakage after hepatectomy still causes relatively serious problems, and some types of bile leakage are intractable.

Case presentation

We report a case of postoperative isolated bile duct leakage managed successfully by combination therapy of percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization (PTPE) and bile duct ablation with ethanol. A 61-year-old man diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma underwent partial hepatectomy. On postoperative day 1, bile leakage was detected at the drainage tube. Simple drainage treatment did not improve the situation. He was diagnosed with isolated bile leakage based on fistulogram from the drainage tube that showed the bile duct at segments V and VIII but not the common bile duct. A volume of drainage fluid of 200 mL/day was observed. Combination therapy with PTPE and bile duct ablation with ethanol was planned. After the percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, the drainage tube was inserted into the bile duct, and PTPE was performed to segments V and VIII. The amount of drainage fluid decreased, and bile duct ablation with ethanol was performed to the isolated bile duct. No complication was found following combination therapy.

Conclusion

In this case, we successfully treated a patient with isolated bile leakage by combination therapy with PTPE and bile duct ablation.

Significance of bacterial culturing of prophylactic drainage fluid in the early postoperative period after liver resection for predicting the development of surgical site infections

PURPOSES

The relationship between the results of bacterial drainage fluid cultures in the early postoperative period after liver resection and the development of surgical site infections (SSIs) is unclear. We evaluated the diagnostic value of bacterial cultures of drainage fluid obtained on postoperative day (POD) 1 after liver resection.

METHODS

The cases of all consecutive patients who underwent elective liver resection from January 2014 to December 2016 were analyzed. The association between a positive culture result and the development of SSIs was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 195 consecutive patients were studied. Positive drainage fluid cultures were obtained in 6 patients (3.1%). A multivariate analysis revealed that a positive drainage fluid culture was an independent risk factor for SSIs (odds ratio: 8.04, P = 0.035), and combined resection of the gastrointestinal tract was a risk factor for a positive drainage fluid culture (P = 0.006). Among the patients who did not undergo procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract, there was no association between drainage fluid culture positivity and SSIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of positive culture results for drainage fluid collected on POD 1 after liver resection was associated with SSIs. However, among patients who did not undergo procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract, it was not a predictor of SSIs.

Total laparoscopic partial hepatectomy versus open partial hepatectomy for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis: A propensity, long-term follow-up analysis at a single center

BACKGROUND

This trial was performed to compare short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic left-sided hepatectomy and open left-sided hepatectomy. Left-sided hepatectomy is a novel, minimally invasive operative technique for primary left-sided hepatolithiasis, but it has not been accepted widely due to the limited information about short- and long-term outcomes, effectiveness, and safety compared with the open approach.

METHODS

Patients who underwent left-sided hepatectomy between January 2007 and December 2016 were reviewed and grouped into the open left-sided hepatectomy and left-sided hepatectomy groups, according to propensity score matching in terms of age, sex, body mass index, liver function, location of stone, hepatitis serology, and comorbidity on a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the demographic characteristics of the 200 patients included in the study. For the left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients) when compared to the open left-sided hepatectomy group (100 patients, the duration of hospital stay was less (10.3 vs 14.7 days, P< .001), the incidence of postoperative biliary fistulas (5% vs 14%, P = .003) and overall morbidity were less (25% vs 45%, P = .003), out of bed return to activity was expedited (2.0 vs 2.7 days, P< .001), and the rate of stone recurrence in the long-term follow-up was les (5.1% vs 17%, P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Left-sided hepatectomy was associated with significantly lesser rate of stone recurrence, a shorter hospital stay, decreased morbidity and clinical biliary fistula rate, and expedited postoperative recovery compared with open left-sided hepatectomy.

Total bilirubin amount in drainage fluid can be an early predictor for severe biliary fistula after hepatobiliary surgery

The ratio of the bilirubin concentration in abdominal drainage fluid to the serum bilirubin concentration (d-Bil/s-Bil) has been used as a predictor of biliary fistula (BF) formation after hepatobiliary surgery. The d-Bil/s-Bil ratio is highly influenced by the amount of drainage and is not always reliable, especially when the amount of drainage is large. In this study, the usefulness of the d-Bil/s-Bil ratio and total bilirubin amount in the drainage fluid (TBA) (bilirubin concentration in the drainage fluid x the amount of drainage) as predictors of severe BF (sBF) formation was evaluated retrospectively from the data of 306 patients who had undergone hepatobiliary surgery. Of the 306 patients, 201 patients were included in the training set and the remaining 105 in the validation set, to determine the best parameter to predict sBF formation after hepatobiliary surgery. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis revealed that the predictive power of TBA was superior to that of the d-Bil/s-Bil ratio throughout the postoperative period, and that the TBA on postoperative day (POD) 1 showed the highest discriminatory power in the training set (area under the curve, 0.789; cutoff value, 470 mg/day). The TBA on POD 1 also showed the highest predictive power for sBF formation in the validation set, with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 97.1%, and accuracy of 97.1%. In conclusion, TBA may be a more reliable predictor of sBF than the conventionally used d-Bil/s-Bil ratio. Early prediction of sBF may be useful for early removal of unnecessary prophylactic drainage tubes after hepatobiliary surgery.

Risk score to predict biliary leakage after elective liver resection

Background

Biliary leakage remains a major cause of morbidity after liver resection. Previous prognostic studies of posthepatectomy biliary leakage (PHBL) lacked power, population homogeneity, and model validation. The present study aimed to develop a risk score for predicting severe PHBL.

Methods

In this multicentre observational study, patients who underwent liver resection without hepaticojejunostomy in one of nine tertiary centres between 2012 and 2015 were randomly assigned to a development or validation cohort in a 2 : 1 ratio. A model predicting severe PHBL (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grade B/C) was developed and further validated.

Results

A total of 2218 procedures were included. PHBL of any severity and severe PHBL occurred in 141 (6·4 per cent) and 92 (4·1 per cent) patients respectively. In the development cohort (1475 patients), multivariable analysis identified blood loss of at least 500 ml, liver remnant ischaemia time 45 min or more, anatomical resection including segment VIII, transection along the right aspect of the left intersectional plane, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as predictors of severe PHBL. A risk score (ranging from 0 to 5) was built using the development cohort (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·74 to 0·85) and tested successfully in the validation cohort (AUROC 0·70, 0·60 to 0·80). A score of at least 3 predicted an increase in severe PHBL (19·4 versus 2·6 per cent in the development cohort, P &lt; 0·001; 15 versus 3·1 per cent in the validation cohort, P &lt; 0·001).

Conclusion

The present risk score reliably predicts severe PHBL. It represents a multi-institutionally validated prognostic tool that can be used to identify a subset of patients at high risk of severe PHBL after elective hepatectomy.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Liver Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal pathway developed to overcome the deleterious effect of perioperative stress after major surgery. In colorectal surgery, ERAS pathways reduced perioperative morbidity, hospital stay and costs. Similar concept should be applied for liver surgery. This study presents the specific ERAS Society recommendations for liver surgery based on the best available evidence and on expert consensus.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ERAS for liver surgery by searching EMBASE and Medline. Five independent reviewers selected relevant articles. Quality of randomized trials was assessed according to the Jadad score and CONSORT statement. The level of evidence for each item was determined using the GRADE system. The Delphi method was used to validate the final recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 157 full texts were screened. Thirty-seven articles were included in the systematic review, and 16 of the 23 standard ERAS items were studied specifically for liver surgery. Consensus was reached among experts after 3 rounds. Prophylactic nasogastric intubation and prophylactic abdominal drainage should be omitted. The use of postoperative oral laxatives and minimally invasive surgery results in a quicker bowel recovery and shorter hospital stay. Goal-directed fluid therapy with maintenance of a low intraoperative central venous pressure induces faster recovery. Early oral intake and mobilization are recommended. There is no evidence to prefer epidural to other types of analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

The current ERAS recommendations were elaborated based on the best available evidence and endorsed by the Delphi method. Nevertheless, prospective studies need to confirm the clinical use of the suggested protocol.

Predictive factors for bile leakage after hepatectomy for hepatic tumors: a retrospective multicenter study with 631 cases at Yokohama Clinical Oncology Group (YCOG)

BACKGROUND

International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) proposed the standardized definition for bile leakage (BL) after hepatectomy (Hx) at 2011 to precisely perceive incidence and predictive factors of this critical condition.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study using the ISGLS definition of BL after Hx.

RESULTS

Perioperative data regarding 631 patients undergoing elective Hx for hepatic tumors without biliary reconstruction performed between January 2009 and December 2011 were analyzed. BL was observed in 30 patients (4.8%). (Grade A, 8 (1.3%); B, 21(3.3%); C, 1 (0.2%)). Five independent predictors (diagnosis of liver metastases, prolonged operation, high risk procedures defined as Hx with broad exposure of the hilar Glissonean sheath, low platelet count and high serum total bilirubin on postoperative day 1) for grade B/C BL were elucidated by the multivariate analysis. When the study cohorts were divided into groups by number of accompanying these predictors, the more the accompanying independent predictors, the higher the incidence of BL. Notably, incidence of BL exceeded 40% in patients with four or more of these predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification for BL after Hx can be achievable using independent predictors clarified in this study. However, proper management for high risk patients remains to be elucidated.

Role of Drain Placement in Major Hepatectomy: A NSQIP Analysis of Procedure-Targeted Hepatectomy Cases

BACKGROUND

The value of drain placement in hepatic surgery has not been conclusive. The aim of this study was to determine whether drain placement during major hepatectomy was associated with negative postoperative outcomes and whether its placement reduced the need for secondary procedures.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Procedure-Targeted Hepatectomy Database was used to identify patients who underwent major hepatectomy. Patients were divided into two groups based on the placement of a drain during the procedure. Propensity score-matched cohorts of patients who underwent major hepatic resection with or without drain placement were created accounting for patient characteristics. The primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications including bile leak, post-hepatectomy liver failure, and invasive intervention as well as mortality and readmission.

RESULTS

A total of 1005 patients underwent major hepatectomy; 500 patients (49.8 %) had prophylactic drains placed at the conclusion of the procedure. Drain placement was associated with any complication (p < 0.001), blood transfusion (p < 0.001), renal insufficiency (p = 0.02), bile leak (p < 0.001), invasive intervention (p = 0.02), length of stay (p = 0.001), and readmission (p < 0.001). In the matched cohort, drain placement was associated with any complication (p < 0.001), blood transfusion (p < 0.001), superficial surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.028), bile leak (p < 0.001), and longer length of stay (0.03). In addition, placement of a prophylactic drain did not decrease the rate of postoperative bile leaks requiring therapeutic intervention (p = 0.21) (Table 2). In multivariate analysis, drain placement was independently associated with any complication (p < 0.001), blood transfusion (p = 0.02), bile leak (p < 0.001), invasive intervention (p = 0.011), superficial surgical site infection (SSI) (p = 0.039), and hospital readmission (p = 0.005) (Table 3). Placement of a prophylactic drain did not decrease the rate of postoperative bile leaks requiring therapeutic intervention (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Drain placement after major hepatectomy may lead to increased postoperative complications including bile leak, superficial surgical site infection, and hospital length of stay and does not decrease the need for secondary procedures in patients with bile leaks.

The safety of the early removal of prophylactic drainage after liver resection based solely on predetermined criteria: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic drainage after liver resection remains a common practice amongst hepatic surgeons. However, there is little information about the optimal timing of drain removal.

METHODS

From April 2008 to December 2012 (conventional group), the drains were removed based on the treating surgeon's view. From January 2013 to April 2016 (ERP group), the drains were removed on POD 3 if the bile concentration of the drain discharge was less than three times the serum bilirubin on POD 3, and the amount of drain discharge was <500 ml on POD 3. The postoperative outcomes of the two groups were compared using one-to-one propensity score-matching analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred nine patients were extracted from ERP group (n = 226) and conventional group (n = 246). The time to drain removal was significantly shorter in the ERP group than in the conventional group (3 days vs. 5 days, P < 0.001). The frequency of delayed bile leakage or the appearance of symptomatic abdominal fluid collection after drain removal did not differ between the two groups (3% vs. 4%, P = 0.791).

CONCLUSION

Drain removal on POD 3 based on the volume and bile concentration is safe.

Nonstrict and individual enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in partial hepatectomy

Background

We aimed to evaluate postoperative recovery and short-term outcomes of patients undergoing partial hepatectomy managed with a nonstrict and individual enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of 168 partial hepatectomy patients in our institution was included. The discharged day and the respective impact of element application throughout the duration were analyzed.

Results

When all the required elements of ERAS were fully implemented, the median discharge day was 6. The more deviation occurred, the more delayed the patient discharged (P < 0.01). Preoperative ASA score, basic conditions of patients and ages were revealed closely associated with discharge day (P < 0.001). Without or an early removal of tubes and early oral feeding reduced hospital stay statistically (P < 0.01). Early discharge of patients (<3 days) did not show an increased complication incidence or readmission (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Nonstrict and individual use of ERAS in partial hepatectomy reduced postoperative length of stay without increasing complication rate. Our study proposes a modulation of ERAS according to the needs and acceptance of patients. In a word, better optionally required rather than mandatorily meet.

Is routine abdominal drainage necessary after liver resection?

PURPOSE

Prophylactic abdominal drainage is performed routinely after liver resection in many centers. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and validity of liver resection without abdominal drainage and to clarify whether routine abdominal drainage after liver resection is necessary.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis between July, 2006 and June, 2012 were divided into two groups, based on whether surgery was performed before or after, we adopted the no-drain strategy. The "former group" comprised 256 patients operated on between July, 2006 and June, 2009 and the "latter group" comprised 218 patients operated between July, 2009 and June, 2012. We compared the postoperative complications, percutaneous drainage, and postoperative hospital stay between the groups, retrospectively.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the rates of postoperative bleeding, intraabdominal infection, or bile leakage between the groups. Drain insertion after liver resection did not reduce the rate of percutaneous drainage. Postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the latter group.

CONCLUSION

Routine abdominal drainage is unnecessary after liver resection without bilio-enteric anastomosis.

Preoperative Antibiotic Prophylaxis Does Not Reduce the Risk of Postoperative Infectious Complications in Patients Undergoing Elective Hepatectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postoperative infection is not uncommon after hepatectomy. This study assessed the effectiveness of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in elective hepatectomy in a randomized clinical trial setting.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who were scheduled to undergo elective hepatectomy were equally randomized to receive either intravenous cefuroxime 1.5 g (group A) or placebo (group B) within 30 min prior to skin incision.

RESULTS

Overall, postoperative infection occurred in 26 (21.6 %) of the 120 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between groups A and B in the incidence of overall infection (23.3 vs. 20.0 %, P = 0.658), surgical site infection (13.3 vs. 15 %, P = 0.793), and remote site infection (13.3 vs. 11.7 %, P = 0.783).

CONCLUSION

The use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis as a routine practice in patients undergoing elective hepatectomy is unnecessary because it does not reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications.

Clinical score to predict the risk of bile leakage after liver resection

Background

In liver resection, bile leakage remains the most common cause of operative morbidity. In order to predict the risk of this complication on the basis of various factors, we developed a clinical score system to predict the potential risk of bile leakage after liver resection.

Methods

We analyzed the postoperative course in 518 patients who underwent liver resection for malignancy to identify independent predictors of bile leakage, which was defined as “a drain fluid bilirubin concentration at least three times the serum bilirubin concentration on or after postoperative day 3,” as proposed by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. To confirm the robustness of the risk score system for bile leakage, we analyzed the independent series of 289 patients undergoing liver resection for malignancy.

Results

Among 81 (15.6 %) patients with bile leakage, 76 had grade A bile leakage, and five had grade C leakage and underwent reoperation. The median postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in patients with bile leakage (median, 14 days; range, 8 to 34) than in those without bile leakage (11 days; 5 to 62; P = 0.001). There was no hepatic insufficiency or in-hospital death. The risk score model was based on the four independent predictors of postoperative bile leakage: non-anatomical resection (odds ratio, 3.16; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.72 to 6.07; P < 0.001), indocyanine green clearance rate (2.43; 1.32 to 7.76; P = 0.004), albumin level (2.29; 1.23 to 4.22; P = 0.01), and weight of resected specimen (1.97; 1.11 to 3.51; P = 0.02). When this risk score system was used to assign patients to low-, middle-, and high-risk groups, the frequency of bile leakage in the high-risk group was 2.64 (95 % CI, 1.12 to 6.41; P = 0.04) than that in the low-risk group. Among the independent series for validation, 4 (5.7 %), 16 (10.0 %), and 10 (16.6 %) patients in low-, middle, and high-risk groups were given a diagnosis of bile leakage after operation, respectively (P = 0.144).

Conclusions

Our risk score model can be used to predict the risk of bile leakage after liver resection.

Symptomatic Perihepatic Fluid Collections After Hepatic Resection in the Modern Era

BACKGROUND

Improvements in liver surgery have led to decreased mortality rates. Symptomatic perihepatic collections (SPHCs) requiring percutaneous drainage remain a significant source of morbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

A single institution's prospectively maintained hepatic resection database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent hepatectomy between January 2004 and February 2012.

RESULTS

Data from 2173 hepatectomies performed in 2040 patients were reviewed. Overall, 200 (9%) patients developed an SPHC, the majority non-bilious (75.5%) and infected (54%). Major hepatic resections, larger than median blood loss (≥360 ml), use of surgical drains, and simultaneous performance of a colorectal procedure were associated with an SPHC on multivariate analysis. Non-bilious, non-infected (NBNI) collections were associated with lower white blood cell (WBC) counts, absence of a bilio-enteric anastomosis, use of hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP), and presence of metastatic disease, and resolved more frequently with a single interventional radiology (IR) procedure (85 vs. 46.5%, p < 0.001) more quickly (15 vs. 30 days, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

SPHCs developed in 9% of patients in a modern series of hepatic resections, and in one third were non-bilious and non-infected. In the era of modern interventional radiology, the need for re-operation for SPHC is exceedingly rare. A significant proportion of minimally symptomatic SPHC patients may not require drainage, and strategies to avoid unnecessary drainage are warranted.

The Feasibility of Hepatic Resections Using a Bipolar Radiofrequency Device (Habib®)

The bipolar radiofrequency device (Habib®) has been recently introduced in order to reduce intraoperative bleeding for a safe hepatic resection as an alternative to the conventional tools. However, indications, perioperative findings, and outcome of the device for hepatic resections remain and deserve to be analyzed. The current study aims to analyze the feasibility of the bipolar radiofrequency device (Habib®) for hepatic resections. Information of the patients that underwent hepatic resection using with the Habib® device between 2007 and 2011 was abstracted. Patient, disease, and operation-related findings and perioperative data were investigated. A total of 71 cases (38 [53.5 %] males, mean age was 56.8 ± 11.9) were analyzed. Metastatic disease (n = 55; 77.5 %) was the leading indication followed by primary liver and biliary malignancies (n = 7; 9.9 %), hemangioma (n = 5; 7 %), hydatid disease (n = 3; 2.8 %), and hepatic gunshot trauma (n = 1; 1.4 %). Metastasectomy was the most commonly performed procedure (n = 31; 56.3 %), but in 24 (77.4 %) cases, it was performed in addition to extended resections. Other procedures in the study patients include segmentectomy in 17, bisegmentectomy in 19, trisegmentectomy in 17, right or left hepatectomy in 8, and extended right/left hepatectomy in 3. The mean (±SD) operation time was 241.7 ± 78.2 min. The median amount of bleeding was 300 cc (range 25-2500), and 23 (32.4 %) cases required perioperative transfusion. The median hospitalization period was 5 days (range 1-47). Lengthened drainage (n = 9, 12.7 %) and intraabdominal abscess (n = 8, 11.23 %) were the most common problems. Hepatic resections using the Habib® device seem to be feasible in cases with primary and metastatic hepatic lesions and benign liver masses and even those with hepatic trauma. It may lessen the amount of intraoperative hemorrhage, although lengthened drainage and intraabdominal abscess were the major postoperative problems in these cases.

Etiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Bilomas: A Current Update

A biloma is a well-demarcated collection of bile outside the biliary tree. Traumatic and iatrogenic injuries, most commonly secondary to cholecystectomy, are the usual causes. Although bilomas are relatively uncommon, this pathologic entity may lead to significant morbidity and mortality if not promptly diagnosed and properly managed. As clinical signs and symptoms of bilomas are often nonspecific and laboratory values may be unremarkable, imaging modalities including ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and hepatobiliary cholescintigraphy play a crucial role in the diagnosis of this condition. It is paramount that interventional radiologists not only be well versed in the management of bilomas but also be knowledgeable in the diagnosis as well as key imaging findings that dictate the interventional management. The purpose of this article is to review the etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical presentation of bilomas to primarily focus on the relevant multimodal imaging findings and the minimally invasive management options.

The role of peri-hepatic drain placement in liver surgery: a prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The standard use of an intra-operative perihepatic drain (IPD) in liver surgery is controversial and mainly supported by retrospective data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of IPD in liver surgery.

METHODS

All patients included in a previous, randomized trial were analysed to determine the association between IPD placement, post-operative complications (PC) and treatment. A multivariate analysis identified predictive factors of PC.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine patients were included in the final analysis of which 114 (57%) had colorectal liver metastases. IPD (n = 87, 44%) was associated with pre-operative biliary instrumentation (P = 0.023), intra-operative bleeding (P < 0.011), Pringle's manoeuver(P < 0.001) and extent of resection (P = 0.001). Seventy-seven (39%) patients had a PC, which was associated with pre-operative biliary instrumentation (P = 0.048), extent of resection (P = 0.002) and a blood transfusion (P = 0.001). Patients with IPD had a higher rate of high-grade PC (25% versus 12%, P = 0.008). Nineteen patients (9.5%) developed a post-operative collection [IPD (n = 10, 11.5%) vs. no drains (n = 9, 8%), P = 0.470]. Seven (8%) patients treated with and 9(8%) without a IPD needed a second drain after surgery, P = 1. Resection of ≥3 segments was the only independent factor associated with PC [odds ratio (OR) = 2, P = 0.025, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-3.7].

DISCUSSION

In spite of preferential IPD use in patients with more complex tumours/resections, IPD did not decrease the rate of PC, collections and the need for a percutaneous post-operative drain. IPD should be reserved for exceptional circumstances in liver surgery.

Is routine drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

With the development of imaging technology and surgical techniques, pancreatic resections to treat pancreatic tumors, ampulla tumors, and other pancreatic diseases have increased. Pancreaticoduodenectomy, one type of pancreatic resection, is a complex surgery with the loss of pancreatic integrity and various anastomoses. Complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy such as pancreatic fistulas and anastomosis leakage are common and significantly associated with patient outcomes. Pancreatic fistula is one of the most important postoperative complications; this condition can cause intraperitoneal hemorrhage, septic shock, or even death. An effective way has not yet been found to avoid the occurrence of pancreatic fistula. In most medical centers, the frequency of pancreatic fistula has remained between 9% and 13%. The early detection and routine drainage of anastomotic fistulas, pancreatic fistulas, bleeding, or other intra-abdominal fluid collections after pancreatic resections are considered as important and effective ways to reduce postoperative complications and the mortality rate. However, many recent studies have argued that routine drainage after abdominal operations, including pancreaticoduodenectomies, does not affect the incidence of postoperative complications. Although inserting drains after pancreatic resections continues to be a routine procedure, its necessity remains controversial. This article reviews studies of the advantages and disadvantages of routine drainage after pancreaticoduodenectomy and discusses the necessity of this procedure.

Central hepatectomy for centrally located malignant liver tumors: A systematic review

AIM: To study whether central hepatectomy (CH) can achieve similar overall patient survival and disease-free survival rates as conventional major hepatectomies or not.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE for articles published from January 1983 to June 2013 to evaluate the evidence for and against CH in the management of central hepatic malignancies and to compare the perioperative variables and outcomes of CH to lobar/extended hemihepatectomy.

RESULTS: A total of 895 patients were included from 21 relevant studies. Most of these patients who underwent CH were a sub-cohort of larger liver resection studies. Only 4 studies directly compared Central vs hemi-/extended hepatectomies. The range of operative time for CH was reported to be 115 to 627 min and Pringle’s maneuver was used for vascular control in the majority of studies. The mean intraoperative blood loss during CH ranged from 380 to 2450 mL. The reported morbidity rates ranged from 5.1% to 61.1%, the most common surgical complication was bile leakage and the most common cause of mortality was liver failure. Mortality ranged from 0.0% to 7.1% with an overall mortality of 2.3% following CH. The 1-year overall survival (OS) for patients underwent CH for hepatocellular carcinoma ranged from 67% to 94%; with the 3-year and 5-year OS having a reported range of 44% to 66.8%, and 31.7% to 66.8% respectively.

CONCLUSION: Based on current literature, CH is a promising option for anatomical parenchymal-preserving procedure in patients with centrally located liver malignancies; it appears to be safe and comparable in both perioperative, early and long term outcomes when compared to patients undergoing hemi-/extended hepatectomy. More prospective studies are awaited to further define its role.