Rajakannu Muthukumarassamy, Pascal Gerard, Castaing Denis, Vibert Eric, Ducerf Christian, Mabrut Jean-Yves, Baulieux Jacques, Adam René
Centre Hépato-Biliaire, AH-HP Hôpital Paul Brousse, Villejuif, France.
Inserm unité UMR-S 1193, Villejuif, France.
J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2021 May-Jun;11(3):321-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2020.09.008. Epub 2020 Oct 2.
Resection is rarely indicated in giant hepatic hemangiomas (HHs) that are symptomatic. Enucleation (EN), compared with anatomical resection (AR), is considered the better technique to resect them as EN has been reported to have lower morbidity while conserving the normal liver tissue. But no study has yet clearly established the superiority of EN over AR. In addition, the independent predictors of postoperative morbidity have not been established.
All consecutive patients operated for HH at two specialized hepatobiliary centers were reviewed. Patient demographics, operative variables, and postoperative outcomes were analyzed and compared between two techniques. Postoperative complications were graded as per Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. The aims of this study were to compare two techniques of HH resection with respect to postoperative outcomes and to identify the risk factors for 90-day major postoperative morbidity and mortality.
A total of 64 patients, including 41 who underwent AR, 22 who underwent EN, and 1 who underwent liver transplantation, were operated for hemangiomas during the study period. Ten patients (9 who were operated for hemangiomas of size ≤4 cm and 1 who underwent transplantation) were excluded. Fifty-four patients, the majority being women (85%), with a median age of 48 years, were operated for giant HH. These patients were classified into two groups based on the technique of resection, namely, EN (22 patients) and AR (32 patients). Both groups were comparable in all aspects except that the number of liver segments resected was significantly more with AR. Postoperative outcomes were similar in both groups. Independent predictors of 90-day major complications including mortality were the use of total vascular exclusion (relative risk [RR]: 2.3, = 0.028) and duration of surgery >4.5 h (RR: 2.3, = 0.025).
Both techniques yield similar results with respect to 90-day postoperative morbidity and mortality. The choice of technique should be based on the location of tumor and simplicity of liver resection.
对于有症状的巨大肝血管瘤(HH),很少进行切除术。与解剖性切除术(AR)相比,剜除术(EN)被认为是切除它们的更好技术,因为据报道EN发病率较低,同时能保留正常肝组织。但尚无研究明确证实EN优于AR。此外,术后发病的独立预测因素尚未确定。
回顾了在两个专业肝胆中心接受HH手术的所有连续患者。分析并比较了两种技术的患者人口统计学、手术变量和术后结果。术后并发症根据Clavien-Dindo手术并发症分类进行分级。本研究的目的是比较HH切除的两种技术的术后结果,并确定术后90天主要发病和死亡的危险因素。
在研究期间,共有64例患者接受了血管瘤手术,其中41例行AR,22例行EN,1例行肝移植。10例患者(9例因≤4 cm大小的血管瘤接受手术,1例接受移植)被排除。54例患者因巨大HH接受手术,大多数为女性(85%),中位年龄48岁。这些患者根据切除技术分为两组,即EN组(22例患者)和AR组(32例患者)。除AR切除的肝段数量明显更多外,两组在所有方面均具有可比性。两组术后结果相似。90天主要并发症(包括死亡)的独立预测因素是使用全血管阻断(相对危险度[RR]:2.3,P = 0.028)和手术时间>4.5小时(RR:2.3,P = 0.025)。
两种技术在术后90天的发病率和死亡率方面产生相似的结果。技术的选择应基于肿瘤的位置和肝切除的简易程度。