[Applicability of Anatomical Vascular Occlusion in Hepatectomy for Grand Hepatocarcinoma].
Li-ming Wang,Fan Wu,Jian-xiong Wu,Li-guo Liu,Wei-qi Rong,Cheng-li Miao,Yu-xin Zhong,Yi-peng Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2012.04.013
2012-01-01
Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively explore the clinical efficacies and applicability of anatomical vascular occlusion (AVO) in hepatectomy for grand primary hepatocarcinoma at different locations. METHODS:A total of 212 grand primary hepatocarcinoma cases undergoing hepatectomy were divided into 2 groups by vascular occlusion in the process of resection: AVO group (n = 97) and Pringle group (Pringle maneuver, n = 115). According to whether or not tumor was adjacent to main vessels, the cases were divided into 2 types: centrally (n = 98) and peripherally (n = 114) located lesions. And the perioperative outcomes were compared between 2 groups totally and by types respectively. RESULTS:No significance existed between the AVO and Pringle groups in the demographic characteristics and tumor background (P > 0.05). For total cases, there were no significant differences between 2 groups regarding the intraoperative blood loss volume ((632 ± 437) ml vs (546 ± 549) ml, P = 0.217) and the blood transfusion requirement (44.3% vs 33.0%, P = 0.092). The AVO group showed significantly better postoperative liver functions in terms of serum levels of total bilirubin and aminotransferase (P > 0.05). But no significant difference was found between 2 groups in the postoperative complication rate (18.6% vs 22.6%, P = 0.469) and hospital stay duration ((10.5 ± 4.8) vs (11.8 ± 5.6) days, P = 0.087). In centrally located lesions: the AVO group showed a significantly smaller intraoperative blood loss volume ((722 ± 492) ml vs (1032 ± 618) ml, P = 0.007) and blood transfusion requirement (45.6% vs 68.3%, P = 0.026). Also the AVO group showed significantly better postoperative liver functions in terms of serum levels of total bilirubin and aminotransferase (P < 0.01). As a consequence, the AVO group had a significantly lower postoperative complication rate (19.3% vs 39.0%, P = 0.031) and a shorter hospital stay duration ((10.7 ± 5.0) days vs (13.0 ± 6.2) days, P = 0.042). In peripheral located lesions: there were significantly larger intraoperative blood loss volume (504 ± 307 vs 278 ± 237 ml, P = 0.000) and blood transfusion requirement (42.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.001) in the AVO group. The postoperative liver functions (total bilirubin and aminotransferase levels, P > 0.05), postoperative complication rate (17.5% vs 13.5%, P = 0.808) and hospital stay duration ((10.3 ± 4.6) days vs (11.1 ± 5.1) days, P = 0.429) showed no significant differences between 2 groups. CONCLUSION:The technique of AVO is unsuitable for all types of grand hepatocarcinoma. Whether or not the tumor is adjacent to main vessels is an important consideration of choosing the vascular control technique. Considering the risk of vascular damage in the process of hepatectomy, the AVO technique is indicated for the resection of central lesions but not for peripheral lesions.