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

Liver regeneration after portal and hepatic vein embolization improves overall survival compared with portal vein embolization alone: mid-term survival analysis of the multicentre DRAGON 0 cohort

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare 3-year overall survival after simultaneous portal (PVE) and hepatic vein (HVE) embolization versus PVE alone in patients undergoing liver resection for primary and secondary cancers of the liver.

METHODS

In this multicentre retrospective study, all DRAGON 0 centres provided 3-year follow-up data for all patients who had PVE/HVE or PVE, and were included in DRAGON 0 between 2016 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier analysis was undertaken to assess 3-year overall and recurrence/progression-free survival. Factors affecting survival were evaluated using univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 199 patients were included from 7 centres, of whom 39 underwent PVE/HVE and 160 PVE alone. Groups differed in median age (P = 0.008). As reported previously, PVE/HVE resulted in a significantly higher resection rate than PVE alone (92 versus 68%; P = 0.007). Three-year overall survival was significantly higher in the PVE/HVE group (median survival not reached after 36 months versus 20 months after PVE; P = 0.004). Univariable and multivariable analyses identified PVE/HVE as an independent predictor of survival (univariable HR 0.46, 95% c.i. 0.27 to 0.76; P = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Overall survival after PVE/HVE is substantially longer than that after PVE alone in patients with primary and secondary liver tumours.

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).

Mini-ALPPS-based multidisciplinary treatment leading to long-term survival in a patient with a large HCC: A case report

Background

The future liver remnant (FLR) induced by stage I associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might be limited due to liver fibrosis/cirrhosis or incomplete liver parenchymal transection.

Case presentation

A 51-year-old male with hepatitis B liver fibrosis was diagnosed with a large HCC (13.5 cm × 12.5 cm × 13.8 cm). The FLR of the patient was insufficient to permit one-stage tumor resection. Therefore, the two-stage ALPPS surgery was planned. Stage I ALPPS was performed with incomplete liver parenchymal transection due to bleeding (which is why we called it Mini-ALPPS). On postoperative day (POD) 18, CT revealed that the FLR hypertrophy was poor. The FLR/standard liver volume (SLV) had only increased from 22.00% to 34.63%. Salvage transhepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was performed on POD 22 days to control possible tumor progression during the waiting period and to further facilitate FLR growth. About 16 days later, a CT reassessment of FLR revealed a 42.5% FLR/SLV. A right hepatectomy was then uneventfully performed. Although HCC recurred after 586 days, the patient survived for more than 1,920 days after stage II ALPPS.

Discussion

Damage control during a difficult conventional stage I ALPPS was important. TACE during the interstage and postoperative periods of this Mini-ALPPS was safe and beneficial. A multidisciplinary based on Mini-ALPPS treatment could provide patients long-term survival; however, Mini-ALPPS should not be selected as the primary solution for such patients today, as some other minimally invasive and effective strategies are available.

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.