Full Laparoscopic Vascular Reconstruction for Portal Tumoral Invasion During a Right Hepatectomy Using the Caudal Approach

Background

Laparoscopic liver surgery has progressively evolved. Consequently, liver procedures are increasingly performed laparoscopically, particularly in experienced centers. However, vascular resection and reconstruction still are considered a limitation for laparoscopy1 due to the risk of bleeding and the technical difficulty.

Methods

A 72-year-old woman with a history of colorectal cancer had a 10 cm metastasis diagnosed in the right hemiliver with tumoral invasion of the right portal branch and tumor thrombus advancing to the portal confluence. After adjuvant chemotherapy and with stable disease, surgical resection was planned.2,3 Tips to avoid portal stenosis were carefully followed.

Results

The operation was performed with a fully laparoscopic procedure. To minimize manipulation, an in situ right hepatectomy was performed.4 The right hepatic artery was dissected and ligated. The liver transection was guided with a caudal approach of the middle hepatic vein.5 The right biliary duct was then divided, achieving an excellent exposure of the portal bifurcation. The main and left portal trunks were occluded with vascular clamps, and the right portal vein was sharply divided with scissors. The stump was sutured to minimize backflow bleeding and to cover the tumor thrombus. Then, the portal opening was transversally sutured with a 5/0 running suture. The clamps were released, and the authors observed no bleeding and an adequate caliber with no stenosis. The procedure was completed in the standard fashion. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the woman was discharged on postoperative day 3. No early or late complications were observed.6

Conclusions

In selected cases, patients who require vascular resection and reconstruction during hepatectomies can benefit from the advantages of a laparoscopic approach.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: physiopathology, risk factors, prophylaxis and treatment

Recognising the importance of the prevention and early treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is essential to avoid postoperative complications, improve patient satisfaction and enable the development of major outpatient surgery and fast-track surgery. The topic of PONV might seem to have become stagnant, but we are moving forward. New concepts and problems like post-discharge nausea and vomiting, new risk factors and new drugs are appearing. However, there continue to be mistaken notions about PONV, such as the association between PONV and post-anaesthesia care unit stays, or assuming that it is a risk factore characteristic of the patient, anaesthesia or surgery when it is not. Perhaps, now is the moment to tackle PONV in a different manner, implementing guidelines and going for more aggressive prophylaxis in some groups of patients. We present an extensive review of this topic.

[Postoperative nausea and vomiting and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting: guidelines for prevention and treatment]

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) causes patient discomfort, lowers patient satisfaction, and increases care requirements. Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) may also occur if opioids are used to treat postoperative pain. These guidelines aim to provide recommendations for the prevention and treatment of both problems. A working group was established in accordance with the charter of the Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación. The group undertook the critical appraisal of articles relevant to the management of PONV and OINV in adults and children early and late in the perioperative period. Discussions led to recommendations, summarized as follows: 1) Risk for PONV should be assessed in all patients undergoing surgery; 2 easy-to-use scales are useful for risk assessment: the Apfel scale for adults and the Eberhart scale for children. 2) Measures to reduce baseline risk should be used for adults at moderate or high risk and all children. 3) Pharmacologic prophylaxis with 1 drug is useful for patients at low risk (Apfel or Eberhart 1) who are to receive general anesthesia; patients with higher levels of risk should receive prophylaxis with 2 or more drugs and baseline risk should be reduced (multimodal approach). 4) Dexamethasone, droperidol, and ondansetron (or other setrons) have similar levels of efficacy; drug choice should be made based on individual patient factors. 5) The drug prescribed for treating PONV should preferably be different from the one used for prophylaxis; ondansetron is the most effective drug for treating PONV. 6) Risk for PONV should be assessed before discharge after outpatient surgery or on the ward for hospitalized patients; there is no evidence that late preventive strategies are effective. 7) The drug of choice for preventing OINV is droperidol.

Cost-effectiveness of three combinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

This study compares the cost-effectiveness of three combinations of antiemetics in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, double-blind study. Ninety ASA I-II females, 18-65 yr, undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery, with standardized postoperative analgesia (intrathecal 0.2 mg plus i.v. PCA morphine), were randomly assigned to receive: ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after induction and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 1); dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after induction and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2); ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg after induction and placebo 12 h later (Group 3). A decision analysis tree was used to divide each group into nine mutually exclusive subgroups, depending on the incidence of PONV, need for rescue therapy, side effects and their treatment. Direct cost and probabilities were calculated for each subgroup, then a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the hospital point of view.

RESULTS

Groups 1 and 3 were more effective (80 and 70%) than Group 2 (40%, P=0.004) in preventing PONV but also more expensive. Compared with Group 2, the incremental cost per extra patient without PONV was euro;6.99 (95% CI, -1.26 to 36.57) for Group 1 and euro;13.55 (95% CI, 0.89-132.90) for Group 3.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron+droperidol is cheaper and at least as effective as ondansetron+ dexamethasone, and it is more effective than dexamethasone+droperidol with a reasonable extra cost.

A comparison of three antiemetic combinations for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of three antiemetic combinations in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Ninety ASA status I-II women, aged 18-65 yr, undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, were included in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. A standardized anesthetic technique and postoperative analgesia (intrathecal morphine plus IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine) were used in all patients. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ondansetron 4 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 1, n = 30), dexamethasone 8 mg plus droperidol 1.25 mg after the induction of anesthesia and droperidol 1.25 mg 12 h later (Group 2, n = 30), or ondansetron 4 mg plus dexamethasone 8 mg after the induction of anesthesia and placebo 12 h later (Group 3, n = 30). A complete response, defined as no PONV in 48 h, occurred in 80% of patients in Group 1, 70% in Group 3, and 40% in Group 2 (P = 0.004 versus Groups 1 and 3). The incidences of side effects and other variables that could modify the incidence of PONV were similar among groups. In conclusion, ondansetron, in combination with droperidol or dexamethasone, is more effective than dexamethasone in combination with droperidol in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery with intrathecal morphine plus IV PCA with morphine for postoperative analgesia.

IMPLICATIONS

The combination of ondansetron plus dexamethasone or droperidol was significantly better than the combination of dexamethasone plus droperidol in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing general anesthesia for major gynecological surgery, with intrathecal and IV morphine (patient-controlled analgesia) for management of postoperative pain.

Combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting

We studied 100 ASA I-II females undergoing general anaesthesia for major gynaecological surgery, in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Patients received one of four regimens for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): ondansetron 4 mg (n = 25), dexamethasone 8 mg (n = 25), ondansetron with dexamethasone (4 mg and 8 mg, respectively, n = 25) or placebo (saline, n = 25) There were no differences in background factors or factors related to operation and anaesthesia, morphine consumption, pain or side effects between groups. The incidence of nausea and emetic episodes in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group was lower than in the placebo (P < 0.01), ondansetron (P < 0.05) and dexamethasone (P = 0.057) groups. There were no differences between ondansetron and dexamethasone, and both were more effective than placebo (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively). Dexamethasone appeared to be preferable in preventing nausea than emetic episodes. Fewer patients in the ondansetron with dexamethasone group needed antimetic rescue (P < 0.01 vs placebo and P < 0.05 vs ondansetron). We conclude that prophylactic administration of combined ondansetron and dexamethasone is effective in preventing PONV.