Radiological Simultaneous Portohepatic Vein Embolization (RASPE) Before Major Hepatectomy: A Better Way to Optimize Liver Hypertrophy Compared to Portal Vein Embolization

Novel multiparametric MRI detects improved future liver remnant quality post-dual vein embolization

BACKGROUND

Optimisation of the future liver remnant (FLR) is crucial to outcomes of extended liver resections. This study aimed to assess the quality of the FLR before and after dual vein embolization (DVE) by quantitative multiparametric MRI.

METHODS

Of 100 patients with liver metastases recruited in a clinical trial (Precision1:NCT04597710), ten consecutive patients with insufficient FLR underwent quantitative multiparametric MRI pre- and post-DVE (right portal and hepatic vein). FLR volume, liver fibro-inflammation (corrected T1) scores and fat percentage (proton density fat fraction, PDFF) were determined. Patient metrics were compared by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and statistical analysis done using R software.

RESULTS

All patients underwent uncomplicated DVE with improvement in liver remnant health, median 37 days after DVE: cT1 scores reduced from median (interquartile range) 790 ms (753-833 ms) to 741 ms (708-760 ms) p = 0.014 [healthy range <795 ms], as did PDFF from 11% (4-21%), to 3% (2-12%) p = 0.017 [healthy range <5.6%]. There was a significant increase in median (interquartile range) FLR volume from 33% (30-37%)% to 49% (44-52%), p = 0.002.

CONCLUSION

This non-invasive and reproducible MRI technique showed improvement in volume and quality of the FLR after DVE. This is a significant advance in our understanding of how to prevent liver failure in patients undergoing major liver surgery.

Transfemoral hepatic vein catheterization reduces procedure time in double vein embolization

BACKGROUND

Double vein embolization with simultaneous embolization of the portal and hepatic vein aims to grow the future liver remnant in preparation for major hepatectomy. Transvenous hepatic vein embolization is usually done via a transjugular access. The purpose of this study is to describe the transfemoral approach as an alternative option and to discuss potential advantages.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients undergoing hepatic vein embolization via a transjugular (n = 10) or transfemoral access (n = 13) were evaluated retrospectively. In all cases the portal vein embolization was done first. All procedures were technically successful. There were no peri-interventional complications. Only two patients were not able to proceed to surgery. Standardized future liver remnant hypertrophy was non-inferior with the transfemoral approach compared to the transjugular route. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the transfemoral access group (40 ± 13 min) compared to the transjugular group (67 ± 13 min, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transfemoral hepatic vein embolization is feasible, safe, and faster due to easier catheterization, improved stability, and simpler patient preparation. These findings will need to be validated in larger studies.

Liver volumetry and liver-regenerative interventions: history, rationale, and emerging tools

BACKGROUND

Postoperative hepatic insufficiency (PHI) is the most feared complication after hepatectomy. Volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) is one objectively measurable indicator to identify patients at risk of PHI. In this review, we summarized the development and rationale for the use of liver volumetry and liver-regenerative interventions and highlighted emerging tools that could yield new advancements in liver volumetry.

METHODS

A review of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to identify literature related to liver volumetry. The references of relevant articles were reviewed to identify additional publications.

RESULTS

Liver volumetry based on radiologic imaging was developed in the 1980s to identify patients at risk of PHI and later used in the 1990s to evaluate grafts for living donor living transplantation. The field evolved in the 2000s by the introduction of standardized FLR based on the hepatic metabolic demands and in the 2010s by the introduction of the degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate as measures of the FLR regenerative and functional capacity. Several liver-regenerative interventions, most notably portal vein embolization, are used to increase resectability and reduce the risk of PHI. In parallel with the increase in automation and machine assistance to physicians, many semi- and fully automated tools are being developed to facilitate liver volumetry.

CONCLUSION

Liver volumetry is the most reliable tool to detect patients at risk of PHI. Advances in imaging analysis technologies, newly developed functional measures, and liver-regenerative interventions have been improving our ability to perform safe hepatectomy.

Histological and radiological analysis of simultaneous dual hepatic vein embolization for right-sided major hepatectomy

PURPOSE

Simultaneous dual hepatic vein embolization (DHVE) has been proposed for safe right-sided hepatectomy, with good results for liver hypertrophy and function. However, the histological and radiological findings of DHVE have not been thoroughly investigated.

METHODS

This study included 14 patients who underwent DHVE before right-sided major hepatectomy. DHVE was performed if the future liver remnant was < 35% or borderline, but with concomitant vascular resection. The liver function was assessed using the signal intensity on Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI. A histological evaluation of the area of DHVE and portal vein embolization (PVE) were performed.

RESULTS

The median pre- and post-functional liver remnants were 363 ml and 498 ml, respectively (p < 0.001). The median growth rate was 48.6%, and there was no post-hepatectomy liver failure in the patients who underwent DHVE. The signal intensity ratio in the area of DHVE was lower than that in the areas of PVE and the remnant liver (p < 0.01). The degree of congestion and necrosis was greater in the area of DHVE than in the area of PVE alone (p < 0.01 and p = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We observed good liver hypertrophy after DHVE and histological and radiological changes in the area of DHVE. Our findings provide a compelling rationale for further investigation of the mechanism of liver hypertrophy in DHVE.

Efficacy and perioperative safety of different future liver remnant modulation techniques: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In daily clinical practice, different future liver remnant (FLR) modulation techniques are increasingly used to allow a liver resection in patients with insufficient FLR volume. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and perioperative safety of portal vein ligation (PVL), portal vein embolization (PVE), liver venous deprivation (LVD) and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS).

METHODS

A literature search for studies comparing liver resections following different FLR modulation techniques was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central, and pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, 23 studies comprising 1557 patients were included. LVD achieved the greatest increase in FLR (17.32 %, 95% CI 2.49-32.15), while ALPPS was most effective in preventing dropout before the completion hepatectomy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.15-0.55). PVL tended to be associated with a longer time to completion hepatectomy (MD 5.78 days, 95% CI -0.67-12.23). Liver failure occurred less frequently after LVD, compared to PVE (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.87) and ALPPS (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.85).

DISCUSSION

ALPPS and LVD seem superior to PVE and PVL in terms of achieved FLR increase and subsequent treatment completion. LVD was associated with lower rates of post hepatectomy liver failure, compared to both PVE and ALPPS. A summary of the protocol has been prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022321474).

How to Determine Unresectability in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma is considered a biologically aggressive disease for which surgical resection remains the only curative treatment. Preoperative evaluation for resectability is challenging given tumor proximity to the porta hepatis, but minimal benefit and increased morbidity precludes recommendation for margin positive resection. This article reviews the determination of unresectability in hilar cholangiocarcinoma through discussion of the preoperative assessment, the intraoperative assessment, and key steps of surgical resection, as well as treatment options for unresectable tumors. Overall, evaluating patients preoperatively for resectability requires a multidisciplinary, holistic, and individualized approach to accurately determine resectability and optimize clinical outcomes for patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of liver venous deprivation versus portal vein embolization before hepatectomy: future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety

Introduction

This systematic review aimed to compare liver venous deprivation (LVD) with portal vein embolization (PVE) in terms of future liver volume, postoperative outcomes, and oncological safety before major hepatectomy.

Methods

We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines 2020 and AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Comparative articles published before November 2022 were retained.

Results

The literature search identified nine eligible comparative studies. They included 557 patients, 207 in the LVD group and 350 in the PVE group. This systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that LVD was associated with higher future liver remnant (FLR) volume after embolization, percentage of FLR hypertrophy, lower failure of resection due to low FLR, faster kinetic growth, higher day 5 prothrombin time, and higher 3 years' disease-free survival. This study did not find any difference between the LVD and PVE groups in terms of complications related to embolization, FLR percentage of hypertrophy after embolization, failure of resection, 3-month mortality, overall morbidity, major complications, operative time, blood loss, bile leak, ascites, post hepatectomy liver failure, day 5 bilirubin level, hospital stay, and three years' overall survival.

Conclusion

LVD is as feasible and safe as PVE with encouraging results making some selected patients more suitable for surgery, even with a small FLR.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO before conducting the study (CRD42021287628).

Right portal vein ligation is still relevant for left hemi-liver hypertrophy: results of a comparative study using a propensity score between right portal vein ligation and embolization

BACKGROUND

In two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar liver metastases from colorectal cancer, future liver remnant (FLR) growth can be achieved using several techniques, such as right portal vein ligation (RPVL) or right portal vein embolization (RPVE). A few heterogeneous studies have compared these two techniques with contradictory results concerning FLR growth. The objective of this study was to compare FLR hypertrophy of the left hemi-liver after RPVL and RPVE.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective comparative study using a propensity score of patients who underwent RPVL or RPVE prior to major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2020. The endpoints were FLR growth (%) after weighting using the propensity score, which included FLR prior to surgery and the number of chemotherapy cycles. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients undergoing simultaneous procedures, the morbidity and mortality, the recourse to other liver hypertrophy procedures, and the number of invasive procedures for the entire oncologic program in intention-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-four consecutive patients were retrospectively included and analyzed, 18 in the RPVL group, and 36 in the RPVE group. The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. After weighting, there was no significant difference between the RPVL and RPVE groups for FLR growth (%), respectively 32.5% [19.3-56.0%] and 34.5% [20.5-47.3%] (p = 0.221). There was no significant difference regarding the secondary outcomes except for the lower number of invasive procedures in RPVL group (median of 2 [2.0, 3.0] in RPVL group and 3 [3.0, 3.0] in RPVE group, p = 0.001)).

CONCLUSION

RPVL and RPVE are both effective to provide required left hemi-liver hypertrophy before right hepatectomy. RPVL should be considered for the simultaneous treatment of liver metastases and the primary tumor.

Extended Ligation of the Hepatic Vein May Yield a Similar Effect to Liver Venous Deprivation in a Rat Model

AIMS

To validate the hypothesis that hepatic vein ligation (HVL) alone may produce similar results to liver venous deprivation (LVD or HVL + portal vein ligation [PVL]).

METHODS

Rats were assigned to five groups, namely, the control group; the R group in which the right median hepatic vein (RMHV) was ligated; the M group in which the middle median hepatic vein (MMHV) was ligated; the RM group in which both the RMHV and MMHV were ligated (R + MMHVL, extended ligation of the hepatic veins); and the LVD group in which both the right median portal vein and the RMHV were ligated. The liver hypertrophy effect and liver enzymes were determined. Methylene blue staining and retrograde pressurized perfusion assays were performed to investigate the hemodynamic changes.

RESULTS

The RM and LVD groups exhibited similar significant hypertrophy in the future liver remnants when compared to that of the control group, and almost no additional hypertrophy effect was observed in the R and M groups. There was a remarkable elevation in serum transaminase levels in both groups. The methylene blue staining experiment indicated that pressure-dependent collaterals formed between the contiguous drainage areas, and the R + MMHVL procedure blocked the outflow of the right median lobe.

CONCLUSION

Extended ligation of the hepatic vein (R + MMHVL) resulted in a similar hypertrophy effect and hepatic damage to those of LVD (HVL + PVL) treatment in a rat model, and intrahepatic venovenous collaterals play key roles.

Multi-organ Radiomics-Based Prediction of Future Remnant Liver Hypertrophy Following Portal Vein Embolization

BACKGROUND

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is used to induce remnant liver hypertrophy prior to major hepatectomy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of baseline computed tomography (CT) data for future remnant liver (FRL) hypertrophy after PVE.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all consecutive patients undergoing right-sided PVE with or without hepatic vein embolization between 2018 and 2021 were included. CT volumetry was performed before and after PVE to assess standardized FRL volume (sFRLV). Radiomic features were extracted from baseline CT after segmenting liver (without tumor), spleen and bone marrow. For selecting features that allow classification of response (hypertrophy ≥ 1.33), a stepwise dimension reduction was performed. Logistic regression models were fitted and selected features were tested for their predictive value. Decision curve analysis was performed on the test dataset.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients with liver tumor were included in this study. sFRLV increased significantly after PVE, with a mean hypertrophy of FRL of 1.5 ± 0.3-fold. sFRLV hypertrophy ≥ 1.33 was reached in 35 (66%) patients. Three independent radiomic features, i.e. liver-, spleen- and bone marrow-associated, differentiated well between responders and non-responders. A logistic regression model revealed the highest accuracy (area under the curve 0.875) for the prediction of response, with sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity of 0.5. Decision curve analysis revealed a positive net benefit when applying the model.

CONCLUSIONS

This proof-of-concept study provides first evidence of a potential predictive value of baseline multi-organ radiomics CT data for FRL hypertrophy after PVE.

Single-Center Retrospective Study Comparing Double Vein Embolization via a Trans-Jugular Approach with Liver Venous Deprivation via a Trans-Hepatic Approach

PURPOSE

To compare safety, technical and clinical outcomes of double vein embolization (DVE) via a trans-jugular approach with liver venous deprivation (LVD) via a trans-hepatic approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-center retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing simultaneous portal and hepatic veins embolization in view of a major hepatectomy (June 2019-November 2022). Hepatic vein embolization was performed either by transjugular plug (DVE) or by transhepatic plug followed by glue injection (LVD). Inclusion criteria were availability of pre-procedural CT scan, and availability of CT scans acquired 10 days and 25 days post-procedure. Comparative data included complication rate, fluoroscopy time, dose area product (DAP), Future Liver Remnant volume and function increase (FLR-V and FLR-F increase, respectively) and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (n = 14 DVE; n = 22 LVD) were included. No baseline significant differences were observed among the two groups. One grade-3 complication (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group; one case of technical failure (2.8%) was observed in the DVE group. Fluoroscopy time and DAP were similar between DVE and LVD (29 ± 17.7 vs. 25 ± 8.2 min, p = 0.97; 105.1 ± 63.5 vs. 143.4 ± 79.5 Gy·cm2, p = 0.15). No differences arose at either time-point in FLR-V increase (46.7 ± 23.1% vs. 48.2 ± 28.2%, 52.9 ± 30.9% vs. 53.2 ± 29%, respectively, p = 0.9). FLR-F increase also did not differ significantly (62.8 ± 55.2 vs. 67.4 ± 57.5, p = 0.9). No differences in drop-out rate from surgery were observed. (28.6% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.93). One case of grade-B post-hepatectomy liver failure (2.8%) was observed in the LVD group.

CONCLUSION

LVD via transhepatic approach and DVE via transjugular approach seem equally safe and effective. Level of Evidence Level 3, Retrospective Cohort Study.

A "cui prodest" evaluation on the development of a minimally invasive liver surgery program: a differential benefit analysis of open and laparoscopic approach for left and right hemihepatectomies

BACKGROUND

The correlation between technical feasibility and short-term clinical advantage provided by laparoscopic over open technique for major hepatectomies is unclear. This monocentric retrospective study investigates the possible differences in the benefit provided by minimally invasive approach between left and right hepatectomy, deepening the concept of differential benefit in the setting of anatomical major resections.

METHODS

All hemihepatectomies performed from January 2004 to December 2021 were identified in the institutional database. A propensity score method was used to match minimal invasive (MILS) and open pairs in the left hemihepatectomies (LH) and right hemihepatectomies (RH) groups with a 1:1 ratio to adjust any potential selection bias. The differential benefit for left and right hepatectomy provided by laparoscopic over open technique was evaluated in a pure analysis (i.e., including cases converted to open) and a risk-adjusted analysis (i.e., after excluding open conversion from the laparoscopic series).

RESULTS

The analysis of the risk-adjusted differential benefit demonstrated better result of the MILS in the RH group than in the LH group, in terms of blood loss (∆ blood loss - 150 and - 350, respectively; differential benefit: 200 mL, p < 0.05), morbidity (∆ rate of morbidity - 11.3% and - 18.1%, respectively; differential benefit: 6.8%, p < 0.05) and length of stay, LOS (∆ LOS - 1 day and - 3 days, respectively; differential benefit: 2 days, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

While MILS is associated with improved clinical outcomes both in left and right hepatectomy procedures, the greater advantage provided by laparoscopy was documented in patients undergoing right hepatectomy, i.e. for more technically demanding procedures. A MILS program should include the broadest range of liver resections to ensure the full benefits of the laparoscopic technique.

Essential updates 2021/2022: Update in surgical strategy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Resection is the only potential curative treatment for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC); however, complete resection is often technically challenging due to the anatomical location. Various innovative approaches and procedures were invented to circumvent this limitation but the rates of postoperative morbidity (20%-78%) and mortality (2%-15%) are still high. In patients diagnosed with resectable PHC, deliberate and coordinated preoperative workup and optimization of the patient and future liver remnant are crucial. Biliary drainage is recommended to relieve obstructive jaundice and optimize the clinical condition before liver resection. Biliary drainage for PHC can be performed either by endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. The volumetric assessment of the future remnant liver volume and optimization mainly using portal vein embolization is the gold standard in the management of the risk to develop post hepatectomy liver failure. The improvement of systemic chemotherapy has contributed to prolong the survival not only in patients with unresectable PHC but also in patients undergoing curative surgery. In this article, we review the literature and discuss the current surgical treatment of PHC.

Safety and Efficacy of Liver Venous Deprivation Following Transarterial Chemoembolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of liver venous deprivation (LVD) following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

Between January 2021 and December 2022, HCC patients indicated for hepatectomy with initial insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) underwent LVD after TACE to induce preoperative liver hypertrophy.

Results

Twenty-seven HCC patients with a median age of 55 years underwent LVD. No TACE or LVD procedure-associated complications occurred, except for 1 case presenting with grade A liver failure after LVD (then recovered after 7 days). The FLR volume was 29.3% (interquartile range [IQR] = 7.5) and 48.9% (IQR = 8.6) of the total liver volume before and after LVD, respectively (p < 0.001). The degree of hypertrophy and FLR hypertrophy rate were 14.8% (IQR = 8.4) and 55.2% (IQR = 36.7), respectively. All 27 patients demonstrated sufficient FLR after LVD (24 patients at three weeks post-LVD, one at six weeks, and two at ten weeks), but only 21 patients accepted surgery. Postoperative histopathology showed 16 patients with cirrhosis and five with mild fibrosis (F1, F2). One patient presented with severe intraoperative bleeding due to damage of left hepatic vein and developed grade C liver failure, then died on day 32 postoperation.

Conclusion

LVD following TACE seems to be a safe, effective, and feasible method of inducing significant FLR regeneration in HCC, even in well-selected cirrhotic livers. Comparative studies with a large patient population and multicenter data are needed for further evaluation.

Establishment of a Rat Model of Liver Venous Deprivation: Simultaneous Portal and Hepatic Vein Ligation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim was to establish a liver venous deprivation (LVD) model in rats, compare hepatic hypertrophy between LVD and associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS), and explore the underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

The LVD or extended-LVD (e-LVD) group received portal vein ligation (PVL) combined with hepatic vein ligation (HVL). The ALPPS or e-ALPPS group received PVL plus parenchyma ligation. Liver regeneration was assessed by measuring the liver weight and performing pathological analysis. Liver functions and the sphingosine kinase 1 (SPHK1)/sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P)/sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1 (S1PR1) pathway were also investigated.

RESULTS

All future liver remnants (FLRs) in the ALPPS, e-ALPPS, LVD, and e-LVD groups exhibited significant hypertrophy compared with the control group. The LVD and e-LVD procedures induced similar liver hypertrophy than that in the corresponding ALPPS groups. Furthermore, the LVD and e-LVD methods led to obvious cytolysis in the venous-deprived lobes as well as a noticeable increase in serum transaminase levels, while no necrosis was observed in the ALPPS and e-ALPPS groups. SPHK1/S1P/S1PR1 pathway were distinctly activated after operation, especially in congestive/ischemic livers.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the first rat model of LVD and e-LVD with simultaneously associated HVL and PVL. Compared with the ALPPS technique, the LVD or e-LVD procedure had a comparable overall effect on the hypertrophy response and a stronger effect on liver function. The SPHK1/S1P/S1PR1 pathway was involved in the LVD- or ALPPS-induced liver remodeling.

Optimizing the future liver remnant: Portal vein embolization, hepatic venous deprivation, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy

Preservation of an adequate future liver remnant is paramount when planning any major liver resection and is of particular concern in the setting of bilateral colorectal liver metastases. Procedures including portal vein embolization and hepatic venous deprivation for one- or two-stage hepatectomy, and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy have been developed to enable curative-intent hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in patients with an initially insufficient future liver remnant.

Liver Venous Deprivation Versus Portal Vein Embolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Retrospective Comparison of Short- and Medium-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Liver venous deprivation (LVD) is a recent radiological technique performed to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant. Medium-term results of major hepatectomy after LVD have never been compared with the actual standard of care, portal vein embolization (PVE).

METHODS

We retrospectively compared data from 33 consecutive patients who had undergone LVD (n = 17) or PVE (n = 16) prior to a right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy indicated for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) between May 2015 and December 2019.

RESULTS

The 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates in the LVD group were 81.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 72-90) and 54.7% (95% CI: 46-63), respectively, against 85% (95% CI: 69-101) and 77.4% (95% CI: 54-100) in the PVE group; the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.64). The median disease-free survival (DFS) rate was also comparable: 6 months (95% CI: 4-7) in the LVD group and 12 months (95% CI: 1.5-13) in the PVE group (p = 0.29). The overall intra-operative and post-operative complication rates were similar between the two groups. The mean daily kinetic growth rate (KGR) was found to be higher after LVD than after PVE (0.2% vs. 0.1%, p = 0.05; 10 cc/day vs. 4.8 cc/day, p = 0.03), as was the mean increase in future liver remnant volume (FLR-V) (49% vs. 27%, p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The LVD technique is well tolerated in patients undergoing right hemi-hepatectomy or right extended hepatectomy for CRLM. When compared with the PVE technique, the LVD technique has similar peri-operative and medium-term outcomes, but higher KGR and FLR-V increase.

A prospective study of sequential hepatic vein embolization after portal vein embolization in patients scheduled for right-sided major hepatectomy: Results of feasibility and surgical strategy using functional liver assessment

BACKGROUND

Hepatic vein embolization (HVE) added to portal vein embolization (PVE) can further increase future remnant liver volume (FRLV) compared with PVE alone. This study was aimed to evaluate feasibility of sequential HVE in a prospective trial and to verify surgical strategy using functional FRLV (fFRLV).

METHODS

Hepatic vein embolization was prospectively indicated for post-PVE patients scheduled for right-sided major hepatectomy if the resection limit of fFRLV using EOB-magnetic resonance imaging was not satisfied. The resection limit was fFRLV: 615 mL/m² for predicting post-hepatectomy liver failure. Patients who underwent sequential PVE-HVE (n = 12) were compared with those who underwent PVE alone (n = 31).

RESULTS

All patients underwent HVE with no severe complications. Median fFRLV increased from 396 (range: 251-581) to 634 (range: 422-740) mL/m² by sequential PVE-HVE. From PVE to HVE, both of FRLV (P < .001) and fFRLV (P = .005) significantly increased. The increased width of fFRLV was larger than that of FRLV after performing HVE. Median growth rate was 71.3 (range: 33.3-80.3) %, which was higher than that of PVE alone (27.0%, range: 6.0-78.0). All-cohort resection rate was 88.3%. Strategy of using fFRLV for the resection limit and performing HVE in patients with insufficient functional volume resulted in no liver failure in all patients who underwent hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential HVE after PVE is feasible and safe, and HVE induced possibility of further liver growth and its functional improvement. Our surgical strategy using fFRLV may be justified.

Modification of ALPPS to avoid ischemia and congestion after stage 1: a case report

Background

Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been advocated for treating advanced liver tumors, but the devascularized ischemic area resulting from liver parenchymal division can become a nidus for sepsis. We present a patient who underwent ALPPS modified to avoid ischemia and congestion after liver partitioning during stage 1.

Case presentation

ALPPS was carried out for a patient with multiple bilobar liver metastases from rectosigmoid colon cancer. The 2-stage treatment included 3 partial resections within the left lateral section and parenchymal division at the umbilical fissure with right portal vein ligation as stage 1, followed by right trisectionectomy as stage 2. During parenchymal division at the umbilical fissure, Segment 4 portal pedicles and the middle hepatic vein had to be resected at their roots. To safely accomplish this, combined resection of Segment 4 and the drainage area of the middle hepatic vein was performed after parenchymal partition, aiming to avoid ischemia and congestion within the remnant liver. Successful stage 2 hepatectomy followed later. No ischemia or congestion occurred during stage 1 or 2.

Conclusions

During ALPPS, ischemia and congestion after stage 1 must be avoided to reduce morbidity and mortality. The modification described here should reduce likelihood of severe postoperative complications.

Volume and flow modulation strategies to mitigate post-hepatectomy liver failure

INTRODUCTION

Post hepatectomy liver failure is the most common cause of death following major hepatic resections with a perioperative mortality rate between 40% to 60%. Various strategies have been devised to increase the volume and function of future liver remnant (FLR). This study aims to review the strategies used for volume and flow modulation to reduce the incidence of post hepatectomy liver failure.

METHOD

An electronic search was performed of the MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases from 2000 to 2022 using the following search strategy "Post hepatectomy liver failure", "flow modulation", "small for size flow syndrome", "portal vein embolization", "dual vein embolization", "ALPPS" and "staged hepatectomy" to identify all articles published relating to this topic.

RESULTS

Volume and flow modulation strategies have evolved over time to maximize the volume and function of FLR to mitigate the risk of PHLF. Portal vein with or without hepatic vein embolization/ligation, ALPPS, and staged hepatectomy have resulted in significant hypertrophy and kinetic growth of FLR. Similarly, techniques including portal flow diversion, splenic artery ligation, splenectomy and pharmacological agents like somatostatin and terlipressin are employed to reduce the risk of small for size flow syndrome SFSF syndrome by decreasing portal venous flow and increasing hepatic artery flow at the same time.

CONCLUSION

The current review outlines the various strategies of volume and flow modulation that can be used in isolation or combination in the management of patients at risk of PHLF.

Portal vein embolization failure: Current strategies and future perspectives to improve liver hypertrophy before major oncological liver resection

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is currently considered the standard of care to improve the volume of an inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) and decrease the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). PHLF remains a significant limitation in performing major liver surgery and is the main cause of mortality after resection. The degree of hypertrophy obtained after PVE is variable and depends on multiple factors. Up to 20% of patients fail to undergo the planned surgery because of either an inadequate FRL growth or tumor progression after the PVE procedure (usually 6-8 wk are needed before surgery). The management of PVE failure is still debated, with a lack of consensus regarding the best clinical strategy. Different additional techniques have been proposed, such as sequential transarterial chemoembolization followed by PVE, segment 4 PVE, intra-portal administration of stem cells, dietary supplementation, and hepatic vein embolization. The aim of this review is to summarize the up-to-date strategies to overcome such difficult situations and discuss future perspectives on improving FRL hypertrophy.

Current evidence on posthepatectomy liver failure: comprehensive review

INTRODUCTION

Despite important advances in many areas of hepatobiliary surgical practice during the past decades, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) still represents an important clinical challenge for the hepatobiliary surgeon. The aim of this review is to present the current body of evidence regarding different aspects of PHLF.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify relevant articles for each topic of PHLF covered in this review. The literature search was performed using Medical Subject Heading terms on PubMed for articles on PHLF in English until May 2022.

RESULTS

Uniform reporting on PHLF is lacking due to the use of various definitions in the literature. There is no consensus on optimal preoperative assessment before major hepatectomy to avoid PHLF, although many try to estimate future liver remnant function. Once PHLF occurs, there is still no effective treatment, except liver transplantation, where the reported experience is limited.

DISCUSSION

Strict adherence to one definition is advised when reporting data on PHLF. The use of the International Study Group of Liver Surgery criteria of PHLF is recommended. There is still no widespread established method for future liver remnant function assessment. Liver transplantation is currently the only effective way to treat severe, intractable PHLF, but for many indications, this treatment is not available in most countries.

Portal vein embolization versus dual vein embolization for management of the future liver remnant in patients undergoing major hepatectomy: meta-analysis

Background

This meta-analysis aimed to compare progression to surgery, extent of liver hypertrophy, and postoperative outcomes in patients planned for major hepatectomy following either portal vein embolization (PVE) or dual vein embolization (DVE) for management of an inadequate future liver remnant (FLR).

Methods

An electronic search was performed of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases using both medical subject headings (MeSH) and truncated word searches. Articles comparing PVE with DVE up to January 2022 were included. Articles comparing sequential DVE were excluded. ORs, risk ratios, and mean difference (MD) were calculated using fixed and random-effects models for meta-analysis.

Results

Eight retrospective studies including 523 patients were included in the study. Baseline characteristics between the groups, specifically, age, sex, BMI, indication for resection, and baseline FLR (ml and per cent) were comparable. The percentage increase in hypertrophy was larger in the DVE group, 66 per cent in the DVE group versus 27 per cent in the PVE group, MD 39.07 (9.09, 69.05) (P = 0.010). Significantly fewer patients failed to progress to surgery in the DVE group than the PVE group, 13 per cent versus 25 per cent respectively OR 0.53 (0.31, 0.90) (P = 0.020). Rates of post-hepatectomy liver failure 13 per cent versus 22 per cent (P = 0.130) and major complications 20 per cent versus 28 per cent (Clavien–Dindo more than IIIa) (P = 0.280) were lower. Perioperative mortality was lower with DVE, 1 per cent versus 10 per cent (P = 0.010)

Conclusion

DVE seems to produce a greater degree of hypertrophy of the FLR than PVE alone which translates into more patients progressing to surgery. Higher quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

Parenchyma-Sparing Liver Resection or Regenerative Liver Surgery: Which Way to Go?

Liver resection for malignant tumors should respect oncological margins while ensuring safety and improving the quality of life, therefore tumor staging, underlying liver disease and performance status should all be attentively assessed in the decision process. The concept of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery is nowadays used as an alternative to major hepatectomies to address deeply located lesions with intricate topography by means of complex multiplanar parenchyma-sparing liver resections, preferably under the guidance of intraoperative ultrasound. Regenerative liver surgery evolved as a liver growth induction method to increase resectability by stimulating the hypertrophy of the parenchyma intended to remain after resection (referred to as future liver remnant), achievable by portal vein embolization and liver venous deprivation as interventional approaches, and portal vein ligation and associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy as surgical techniques. Interestingly, although both strategies have the same conceptual origin, they eventually became caught in the never-ending parenchyma-sparing liver surgery vs. regenerative liver surgery debate. However, these strategies are both valid and must both be mastered and used to increase resectability. In our opinion, we consider parenchyma-sparing liver surgery along with techniques of complex liver resection and intraoperative ultrasound guidance the preferred strategy to treat liver tumors. In addition, liver volume-manipulating regenerative surgery should be employed when resectability needs to be extended beyond the possibilities of parenchyma-sparing liver surgery.

Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is better than portal embolization or ALPPS for hypertrophy of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is the Achilles' heel of hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. The most commonly used procedure to generate hypertrophy of the functional liver remnant (FLR) is portal vein embolization (PVE), which does not always lead to successful hypertrophy. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has been proposed to overcome the limitations of PVE. Liver venous deprivation (LVD), a technique that includes simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization, has also been proposed as an alternative to ALPPS. The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review as the first network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of the three regenerative techniques.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search for literature was conducted using the electronic databases Embase, PubMed (MEDLINE), Google Scholar and Cochrane.

RESULTS

The time to operation was significantly shorter in the ALPPS cohort than in the PVE and LVD cohorts by 27 and 22 days, respectively. Intraoperative parameters of blood loss and the Pringle maneuver demonstrated non-significant differences between the PVE and LVD cohorts. There was evidence of a significantly higher FLR hypertrophy rate in the ALPPS cohort when compared to the PVE cohort, but non-significant differences were observed when compared to the LVD cohort. Notably, the LVD cohort demonstrated a significantly better FLR/body weight (BW) ratio compared to both the ALPPS and PVE cohorts. Both the PVE and LVD cohorts demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity rates compared to the ALPPS cohort. The LVD cohort also demonstrated a significantly lower 90-day mortality rate compared to both the PVE and ALPPS cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

LVD in adequately selected patients may induce adequate and profound FLR hypertrophy before major hepatectomy. Present evidence demonstrated significantly lower major morbidity and mortality rates in the LVD cohort than in the ALPPS and PVE cohorts.

Current trends in regenerative liver surgery: Novel clinical strategies and experimental approaches

Liver resections are performed to cure patients with hepatobiliary malignancies and metastases to the liver. However, only a small proportion of patients is resectable, largely because only up to 70% of liver tissue is expendable in a resection. If larger resections are performed, there is a risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Regenerative liver surgery addresses this limitation by increasing the future liver remnant to an appropriate size before resection. Since the 1980s, this surgery has evolved from portal vein embolization (PVE) to a multiplicity of methods. This review presents an overview of the available methods and their advantages and disadvantages. The first use of PVE was in patients with large hepatocellular carcinomas. The increase in liver volume induced by PVE equals that of portal vein ligation, but both result only in a moderate volume increase. While awaiting sufficient liver growth, 20%–40% of patients fail to achieve resection, mostly due to the progression of disease. The MD Anderson Cancer Centre group improved the PVE methodology by adding segment 4 embolization (“high-quality PVE”) and demonstrated that oncological results were better than non-surgical approaches in this previously unresectable patient population. In 2012, a novel method of liver regeneration was proposed and called Associating Liver Partition and Portal vein ligation for Staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). ALPPS accelerated liver regeneration by a factor of 2–3 and increased the resection rate to 95%–100%. However, ALPPS fell short of expectations due to a high mortality rate and a limited utility only in highly selected patients. Accelerated liver regeneration, however, was there to stay. This is evident in the multiplicity of ALPPS modifications like radiofrequency or partial ALPPS. Overall, rapid liver regeneration allowed an expansion of resectability with increased perioperative risk. But, a standardized low-risk approach to rapid hypertrophy has been missing and the techniques used and in use depend on local expertise and preference. Recently, however, simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PVE/HVE) appears to offer both rapid hypertrophy and no increased clinical risk. While prospective randomized comparisons are underway, PVE/HVE has the potential to become the future gold standard.

Liver venous deprivation versus associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy for colo-rectal liver metastases: a comparison of early and late kinetic growth rates, and perioperative and oncological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Different techniques have been developed to optimize the Future Liver Remnant (FLR). Associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) and liver venous deprivation (LVD) have shown the higher hypertrophy rates, but their place in clinical practice is still debated.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures for CRLM performed between December 2015 and December 2019 were included. This retrospective study evaluated kinetic growth rates (KGR) as primary outcome, and perioperative and oncological outcomes as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

A total of 17 patients underwent LVD before surgery, whereas 15 underwent ALPPS. On early evaluation (7 vs 9 days, respectively), KGR did not differ between ALPPS and LVD cohort (0.8% per day vs 0.3% per day, p = 0.70; 23 cc/day vs 26 cc/day, p = 0.31). Late evaluation (21 vs 9 days) showed a KGR significantly decreased in the LVD group (0.6% per day vs 0.2% per day, p = 0.21; 20 cc/day vs 10 cc/day p = 0.02). Mean FLR-V increase was comparable in the two groups (60% vs 49%, p 0.32). Successful resection rate was 100% and 94% in LVD and ALPPS group, respectively. The hospital stay (p < 0.0001) and severe complications rate (p = 0.05) were lower after LVD. One and 3-years overall survival (OS) were 72,7% and 27,4% in the ALPSS group, versus 81,3% and 54,7% in LVD group (p = 0.10). The Median DFS was comparable between both techniques (6.1 months and 5.9 respectively, p = 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

LVD and ALPPS shows similar KGR during the early period following preparation as well as similar survival outcomes. Hospital stay and severe complications are lower after LVD.

Advances in the surgical treatment of liver cancer

Liver resection is the standard curative treatment for liver cancer. Advances in surgical techniques over the last 30 years, including the preoperative assessment of the future liver remnant, have improved the safety of liver resection. In addition, advances in nonsurgical multidisciplinary treatment have increased the opportunities for tumor downstaging. Consequently, the indications for resection of more advanced liver cancer have expanded. Laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections have also gradually become more widespread. These techniques should be performed in stages, depending on the difficulty of the procedure. Advances in preoperative simulation and intraoperative navigation technology may have also lowered the threshold for their performance and may have promoted their widespread use. New insights and experiences gained from laparoscopic surgery may be applicable in open surgery. Liver transplantation, which is usually indicated for patients with poor liver function, has also become safer with advances in perioperative management. The indications for liver transplantation in liver cancer are also expanding. Although the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has forced the postponement of liver resection and transplantation procedures, liver surgeons should appropriately tailor the surgical plan to the individual patient as part of multidisciplinary treatment. This review may provide an entry point for future clinical research by identifying currently unresolved issues regarding liver cancer, and particularly hepatocellular carcinoma.

Combining Laparoscopic Liver Partitioning and Simultaneous Portohepatic Venous Deprivation for Rapid Liver Hypertrophy

Future liver remnant (FLR) volume is an important indicator of the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) and limits the feasibility of major hepatectomies. A case series of 5 patients treated with a novel approach is presented. Laparoscopic liver partitioning was combined with subsequent liver venous deprivation (embolization of both the portal and the hepatic veins). Baseline average FLR was 28.8%. All procedures were successfully performed without major complications. Mean 1-, 2- and 4-week hypertrophy of the FLR were 35%, 40.3%, and 46.4%, respectively. Four patients underwent planned surgery after a mean interval of 28 days. Of these, 2 patients achieved sufficient FLR volume and function after 2 weeks and underwent surgery before the 4-week volumetric analysis. One patient did not undergo surgery because of intraoperative diagnosis of peritoneal metastases. No cases of PHLF were observed at 5-day follow-up.

Imaging-guided interventions modulating portal venous flow: evidence and controversies

Portal hypertension is defined by an increase in the portosystemic venous gradient. In most cases, increased resistance to portal blood flow is the initial cause of elevated portal pressure. More than 90% of cases of portal hypertension are estimated to be due to advanced chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunts, a non-pharmacological treatment for portal hypertension, involve the placement of a stent between the portal vein and the hepatic vein or inferior vena cava which helps bypass hepatic resistance. Portal hypertension may also be a result of extrahepatic portal vein thrombosis or compression. In these cases, percutaneous portal vein recanalisation restores portal trunk patency, thus preventing portal hypertension-related complications. Any portal blood flow impairment leads to progressive parenchymal atrophy and triggers hepatic regeneration in preserved areas. This provides the rationale for using portal vein embolisation to modulate hepatic volume in preparation for extended hepatic resection. The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive evidence-based review of the rationale for, and outcomes associated with, the main imaging-guided interventions targeting the portal vein, as well as to discuss the main controversies around such approaches.

Percutaneous liver venous deprivation: outcomes in heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND

To evaluate liver venous deprivation (LVD) outcomes in patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) heavily pretreated with systemic and hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapies that had an anticipated insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy after portal vein embolization (PVE).

METHODS

PVE was performed with liquid embolics using a transsplenic or ipsilateral transhepatic approach. Simultaneously and via a trans-jugular approach, the right hepatic vein was embolized with vascular plugs. Liver volumetry was assessed on computed tomography before and 3-6 weeks after LVD.

RESULTS

Twelve consecutive CRLM patients that underwent LVD before right hepatectomy or trisectionectomy were included, all previously treated with systemic chemotherapy for a mean of 11.9 months. Six patients had additional HAIP. After embolization, FLR ratio increased from 28.7% ± 5.9 to 42.2% ± 9.0 (P < 0.01). Mean kinetic growth rate (KGR) was 3.56%/week ± 2.3, with a degree of hypertrophy (DH) of 13.8% ± 7.1. In the HAIP subgroup, mean KGR and DH were respectively 3.58%/week ± 2.8 and 14.3% ± 8.7. No severe complications occurred. Ten patients reached surgery after 39 days ± 7.5.

CONCLUSION

In heavily pretreated patients, LVD safely stimulated a rapid and effective FLR hypertrophy, with a resultant high rate of resection.

Feasibility and Safety of Delayed Catheter Removal Technique in Percutaneous Trans-Hepatic Portal Vein Embolization

Background: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of the delayed catheter removal technique in trans-hepatic portal vein embolization (PVE) and to explore a suitable technique. Methods: This was a retrospective study. In 278 consecutive patients, the puncture tract of the trans-hepatic PVE was treated using the delayed catheter removal technique after PVE. The existence of peripheral hepatic hematoma formation was assessed using ultrasound (US). Follow-up examinations such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and/or US were performed to evaluate perihepatic hematoma formation, hemoperitoneum, and other major complications. Results: Instant hemostasis was achieved in all patients after the procedure. PVE-associated complications were observed in 9 patients (3.24%). No perihepatic hematoma or hemoperitoneum was found in any of the patients. Conclusion: With the appropriate technique, the delayed catheter removal technique can be reliably utilized as a substitute for hemostasis as it is simple and free. This technique should be further evaluated and compared with other methods. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first to investigate the safety and feasibility of the delayed catheter removal technique for embolizing the puncture tract of the trans-hepatic PVE.

Prediction with functional liver volume assessment to achieve the resection limit after portal vein embolization in patients scheduled major hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE) stimulates liver hypertrophy and improves the safety of major hepatectomy. It is essential to predict the future remnant liver volume (FRLV) and resection limit following PVE. Previously, we reported that evaluating functional FRLV (fFRLV) using EOB-MRI could predict post-hepatectomy liver failure. In this study, we investigated the usefulness of fFRLV in predicting the achieving of adequate resection limit for safe hepatectomy following PVE.

METHODS

We included 55 patients who underwent PVE and were scheduled for major hepatectomy. We calculated the liver-to-muscle ratio in the remnant liver and fFRLV using EOB-MRI. We investigated the pre-PVE variables in determining the nonachievement of the resection limit.

RESULTS

The median observation period between PVE and the first evaluation was 21 days, and the median growth rate of FRLV was 26.4%. In 54.5% of patients, the resection limit of fFRLV (615 mL/m²) was achieved. In logistic regression and receiver-operating characteristic analyses, pre-PVE fFRLV (p < 0.001, area under the curve: 0.852) was the reliable predictor of achieving the resection limit; the cutoff value of pre-PVE fFRLV was 446 mL/m².

CONCLUSION

Pre-PVE fFRLV can be useful in predicting the achievement of adequate resection limit following PVE.

Treatment of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma-A Multidisciplinary Approach

Simple Summary

This review discusses multimodality treatment strategies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC). Surgical resection remains the only potentially curative therapeutic option and the central cornerstone of treatment. Adjuvant systemic treatment will be recommended after resection or in the palliative setting. Increasing knowledge of phenotypic subclassification and molecular profiling allows investigation of targeted therapies as (neo-)adjuvant treatment. High-dose brachytherapy, internal radiation therapy, and transarterial chemoembolization are among the interventional treatment options being evaluated for unresectable iCC. Given the multiple options of multidisciplinary management, any treatment strategy should be discussed in a multidisciplinary tumor board and treatment should be directed by a specialized treatment center.

Abstract

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) is distinguished as an entity from perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. Recently, molecular profiling and histopathological features have allowed further classification. Due to the frequent delay in diagnosis, the prognosis for iCC remains poor despite major technical advances and multimodal therapeutic approaches. Liver resection represents the therapeutic backbone and only curative treatment option, with the functional residual capacity of the liver and oncologic radicality being deciding factors for postoperative and long-term oncological outcome. Furthermore, in selected cases and depending on national guidelines, liver transplantation may be a therapeutic option. Given the often advanced tumor stage at diagnosis or the potential for postoperative recurrence, locoregional therapies have become increasingly important. These strategies range from radiofrequency ablation to transarterial chemoembolization to selective internal radiation therapy and can be used in combination with liver resection. In addition, adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapies as well as targeted therapies and immunotherapies based on molecular profiles can be applied. This review discusses multimodal treatment strategies for iCC and their differential use.

Induction of Robust Future Liver Remnant Hypertrophy Before Hepatectomy With a Modified Liver Venous Deprivation Technique Using a Trans-venous Access for Hepatic Vein Embolization

Purpose: Hepatic and/or portal vein embolization are performed before hepatectomy for patients with insufficient future liver remnant and usually achieved with a trans-hepatic approach. The aim of the present study is to describe a modified trans-venous liver venous deprivation technique (mLVD), avoiding the potential risks and limitations of a percutaneous approach to hepatic vein embolization, and to assess the safety, efficacy, and surgical outcome after mLVD. Materials and Methods: Retrospective single-center institutional review board-approved study. From March 2016 to June 2019, consecutive oncologic patients with combined portal and hepatic vein embolization were included. CT volumetric analysis was performed before and after mLVD to assess liver hypertrophy. Complications related to mLVD and surgical outcome were obtained from medical records. Results: Thirty patients (62.7 ± 14.5 years old, 20 men) with liver metastasis (60%) or primary liver cancer (40%) underwent mLVD. Twenty-one patients (70%) had hepatic vein anatomic variants. Technical success of mLVD was 100%. Four patients had complications (three minor and one major). FLR hypertrophy was 64.2% ± 51.3% (mean ± SD). Twenty-four patients (80%) underwent the planned hepatectomy and no surgery was canceled as a consequence of mLVD complications or insufficient hypertrophy. Fifty percent of patients (12/24) had no or mild complications after surgery (Clavien-Dindo 0-II), and 45.8% (11/24) had more serious complications (Clavien-Dindo III-IV). Thirty-day mortality was 4.2% (1/24). Conclusion: mLVD is an effective method to induce FLR hypertrophy. This technique is applicable in a wide range of oncologic situations and in patients with complex right liver vein anatomy.

Current strategies to induce liver remnant hypertrophy before major liver resection

Hepatic resection is the gold standard for patients affected by primary or metastatic liver tumors but is hampered by the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure. Despite recent improvements, liver surgery still requires excellent clinical judgement in selecting patients for surgery and, above all, efficient pre-operative strategies to provide adequate future liver remnant. The aim of this article is to review the literature on the rational, the preliminary assessment, the advantages as well as the limits of each existing technique for preparing the liver for major hepatectomy.

Muscularity Defined by the Combination of Muscle Quantity and Quality is Closely Related to Both Liver Hypertrophy and Postoperative Outcomes Following Portal Vein Embolization in Cancer Patients

BACKGROUND

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is a common procedure for preventing hepatic insufficiency after major hepatectomy. While evaluating the body composition of surgical patients is common, the impact of muscularity defined by both muscle quantity and quality on liver hypertrophy after PVE and associated outcomes after major hepatectomy in patients with hepatobiliary cancer remain unclear.

METHODS

This retrospective review included 126 patients who had undergone hepatobiliary cancer resection after PVE. Muscularity was measured on preoperative computed tomography images by combining the skeletal mass index and intramuscular adipose content. Various factors including the degree of hypertrophy (DH) of the future liver remnant and post-hepatectomy outcomes were compared according to muscularity.

RESULTS

DH did not differ by malignancy type. Patients with high muscularity had better DH after PVE (P = 0.028), and low muscularity was an independent predictor for poor liver hypertrophy after PVE [odds ratio (OR), 3.418; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.129-10.352; P = 0.030]. In subgroup analyses in which patients were stratified into groups based on primary hepatobiliary tumors and metastases, low muscularity was associated with higher incidence of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) ≥ grade B (P = 0.018) and was identified as an independent predictor for high-grade PHLF (OR 3.931; 95% CI 1.113-13.885; P = 0.034) among the primary tumor group. In contrast, muscularity did not affect surgical outcomes in patients with metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Low muscularity leads to poor liver hypertrophy after PVE and is also a predictor of PHLF, particularly in primary hepatobiliary cancer.

Liver Venous Deprivation (LVD) or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS)?: A Retrospective Multicentric Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare two techniques of remnant liver hypertrophy in candidates for extended hepatectomy: radiological simultaneous portal vein (PVE) and hepatic vein embolization (HVE); namely liver venous deprivation (LVD), and ALPPS.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Recent advances in chemotherapy and surgical techniques have widened indications for extended hepatectomy, before which remnant liver augmentation is mandatory. ALPPS and LVD typically show higher hypertrophy rates than PVE, but their respective places in patient management remain unclear.

METHODS

All consecutive ALPPS and LVD procedures performed in eight French centers between 2011 and 2020 were included. The main endpoint was the successful resection rate (resection rate without 90-day mortality) analyzed according to an intention-to-treat principle. Secondary endpoints were hypertrophy rates, intra- and post-operative outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 209 patients, 124 had LVD 37 [13,1015] days before surgery, while 85 underwent ALPPS with an inter-stages period of 10 [6, 69] days. ALPPS was mostly-performed for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), LVD for CRLM and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Hypertrophy was faster for ALPPS. Successful resection rates were 72.6% for LVD ± rescue ALPPS (n=6) versus 90.6% for ALPPS (p<0.001). Operative duration, blood losses and length-of-stay were lower for LVD, while 90-day major complications and mortality were comparable. Results were globally unchanged for CRLM patients, or after excluding the early 2 years of experience (learning-curve effect).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first one comparing LVD versus ALPPS in the largest cohort so far. Despite its retrospective design, it yields original results that may serve as the basis for a prospective study.

Failure to Cure Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases: The Impact of the Liver Surgeon

BACKGROUND

Lack of a liver surgeon (LS) may lead to failure to cure in patients with possibly resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aims to quantify the failure-to-cure rate due to noninclusion of an LS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who underwent chemotherapy with palliative intent for CRLM at a community oncology network between 2010 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively maintained cancer registry. Two LS blinded to patient management and outcome reviewed pretreatment imaging and assigned each scan a newly developed resectability score. Nominal group technique and independent scores were combined to determine probability of curative-intent resection. Interobserver agreement was calculated using κ testing.

RESULTS

This study included 72 palliative CRLM patients. Demographic factors were: 44 (59%) male, median age 68 years (range 36-94 years), 23 (32%) rectal primary, 24 (33%) receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Of the 72 patients with CRLM, 6 had left-sided metastases only. The median number of CRLM was 6 (1-8). Agreement on resectability was achieved in 32 (44%) patients for the entire cohort and 17 (54%) in patients without extrahepatic disease. A lower median number of CRLM was found in the group considered to be resectable by the two LS (2 versus 8; p = 0.001). Substantial agreement was found between liver surgeons in the group of patients without extrahepatic disease (κ = 0.9043).

CONCLUSIONS

Over 44% of patients who were assigned palliative chemotherapy at tumor boards without an LS were considered potentially resectable upon independent LS review.

Induction of liver hypertrophy for extended liver surgery and partial liver transplantation: State of the art of parenchyma augmentation-assisted liver surgery

Background

Liver surgery and transplantation currently represent the only curative treatment options for primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. Despite the ability of the liver to regenerate after tissue loss, 25–30% future liver remnant is considered the minimum requirement to prevent serious risk for post-hepatectomy liver failure.

Purpose

The aim of this review is to depict the various interventions for liver parenchyma augmentation–assisting surgery enabling extended liver resections. The article summarizes one- and two-stage procedures with a focus on hypertrophy- and corresponding resection rates.

Conclusions

To induce liver parenchymal augmentation prior to hepatectomy, most techniques rely on portal vein occlusion, but more recently inclusion of parenchymal splitting, hepatic vein occlusion, and partial liver transplantation has extended the technical armamentarium. Safely accomplishing major and ultimately total hepatectomy by these techniques requires integration into a meaningful oncological concept. The advent of highly effective chemotherapeutic regimen in the neo-adjuvant, interstage, and adjuvant setting has underlined an aggressive surgical approach in the given setting to convert formerly “palliative” disease into a curative and sometimes in a “chronic” disease.

Preoperative portal vein or portal and hepatic vein embolization: DRAGON collaborative group analysis

BACKGROUND

The extent of liver resection for tumours is limited by the expected functional reserve of the future liver remnant (FRL), so hypertrophy may be induced by portal vein embolization (PVE), taking 6 weeks or longer for growth. This study assessed the hypothesis that simultaneous embolization of portal and hepatic veins (PVE/HVE) accelerates hypertrophy and improves resectability.

METHODS

All centres of the international DRAGON trials study collaborative were asked to provide data on patients who had PVE/HVE or PVE on 2016-2019 (more than 5 PVE/HVE procedures was a requirement). Liver volumetry was performed using OsiriX MD software. Multivariable analysis was performed for the endpoints of resectability rate, FLR hypertrophy and major complications using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) statistics, regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 39 patients had undergone PVE/HVE and 160 had PVE alone. The PVE/HVE group had better hypertrophy than the PVE group (59 versus 48 per cent respectively; P = 0.020) and resectability (90 versus 68 per cent; P = 0.007). Major complications (26 versus 34 per cent; P = 0.550) and 90-day mortality (3 versus 16 per cent respectively, P = 0.065) were comparable. Multivariable analysis confirmed that these effects were independent of confounders.

CONCLUSION

PVE/HVE achieved better FLR hypertrophy and resectability than PVE in this collaborative experience.

Utility of remnant liver volume for predicting posthepatectomy liver failure after hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection

BACKGROUND

Hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection is associated with a high risk of posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). However, the utility of the remnant liver volume (RLV) in cholangiocarcinoma has not been studied intensively.

METHODS

Patients who underwent major hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection between 2002 and 2018 were reviewed. The RLV was divided by body surface area (BSA) to normalize individual physical differences. Risk factors for clinically relevant PHLF were evaluated with special reference to the RLV/BSA.

RESULTS

A total of 289 patients were included. The optimal cut-off value for RLV/BSA was determined to be 300 ml/m2. Thirty-two patients (11.1 per cent) developed PHLF. PHLF was more frequent in patients with an RLV/BSA below 300 ml/m2 than in those with a value of 300 ml/m2 or greater: 19 of 87 (22 per cent) versus 13 of 202 (6.4 per cent) (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, RLV/BSA below 300 ml/m2 (P = 0.013), future liver remnant plasma clearance rate of indocyanine green less than 0.075 (P = 0.031), and serum albumin level below 3.5 g/dl (P = 0.015) were identified as independent risk factors for PHLF. Based on these risk factors, patients were classified into three subgroups with low (no factors), moderate (1-2 factors), and high (3 factors) risk of PHLF, with PHLF rates of 1.8, 14.8 and 63 per cent respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

An RLV/BSA of 300 ml/m2 is a simple predictor of PHLF in patients undergoing hepatectomy with extrahepatic bile duct resection.