Sequential preoperative ipsilateral hepatic vein embolization after portal vein embolization to induce further liver regeneration in patients with hepatobiliary malignancy

First results from the international registry on liver venous deprivation (EuroLVD)

BACKGROUND

An international registry on liver venous deprivation (LVD, simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization) was created in 2020. This study assessed the outcomes after LVD in patients included in the registry.

METHODS

Eight international centers participated. Future liver remnant (FLR) and standardized FLR ratios were defined as FLR/total functional liver volume and FLR/total estimated liver volume.

RESULTS

216 patients were included (80 women, median age 63). Main surgical indication was colorectal metastases (n=124). Median and standardized FLR ratios before LVD were 33% (IQR27-47) and 32% (IQR24-39). In one patient, right hepatic vein embolization failed. Complications after LVD occurred in 14 patients (6.5%). After LVD, median and standardized FLR ratios significantly increased to 46% (IQR38-60, p<0.001) and 44% (IQR35-51, p<0.001), corresponding to a median kinetic growth rate of 3.4%/week (IQR1.5-6.0). Hepatectomy was performed in 160 patients (72 extended hepatectomies), while 56 dropped out (4% insufficient hypertrophy, 13% tumor progression). Seventy-seven patients had postoperative complications (48%; 5 postoperative liver failures, 3%). Median Comprehensive Complication Index was 20.9 (IQR0-30.8).

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data of this international registry showed that LVD had a high technical success rate with few post-procedural complications and significant kinetic growth. Major hepatectomy after LVD appeared to be safe.

Regional Liver Function Assessment Using 99mTc-GSA SPECT/CT Scintigraphy in Malignant Perihilar Biliary Tumor Undergoing Major Liver Resection: A Dual-Center Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Cholestasis can lead to unreliable results of routine liver function assessment tests in clinical practice and the functional cutoff value of hepatectomy is still unclear. The aim of this study was to determine which 99mTc-GSA scintigraphy functional indicators can predict post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) in patients before major liver resection due to malignant perihilar biliary disease. In addition, it aimed to assess the efficiency of functional future liver remnant (FLR) assessment of 99mTc-GSA scintigraphy indicators.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A 99mTc-GSA scintigraphy was performed prior to planned surgery in 187 patients, including 81 patients with major liver resection. The 99mTc-GSA scintigraphy parameters including functional liver volume (FLV), ratio of the FLR functional volume to body weight (FLVFLR-BWR), and predictive residual index (PRI) were calculated from radioactive count in regions of FLR and total liver (TOTAL). Morphological liver volume (MLV) was calculated from computed tomography and standardized by standard liver volume (SLV). The efficacy of these parameters in predicting PHLF was compared using generalized linear mixed models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

PHLF occurred in 22 patients, who showed lower MLVFLR/SLV, FLVFLR, FLVFLR/FLVTOTAL, FLVFLR-BWR, and PRI and higher resection rate (P < 0.05 for all) than patients without PHLF. After adjusting for clinical parameters, a decreased FLVFLR-BWR (odds ratio, OR 0.17; 95% confidence intervals, CI 0.05-0.53) was found to be an independently significant indicator in the model of GLMM. FLVFLR-BWR (0.835) had the highest ROC among all liver functional indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The FLR functional parameter preoperatively estimated from preoperative 99mTc-GSA scintigraphy protocol is a promising tool for regional liver function assessment, and it can distinguish high-risk patients who may develop PHLF with malignant perihilar biliary tumor undergoing major liver resection.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells Loaded in Injectable Alginate Hydrogels Promote Liver Growth and Attenuate Liver Fibrosis in Cirrhotic Rats

Cirrhosis, a marker of severe liver diseases, limits future liver remnant (FLR) growth, preventing many cancer patients from undergoing surgery. While portal vein blockade (PVB) techniques are used to stimulate liver regeneration, 20-30% of patients still fail to achieve the required growth. Although mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy improves PVB, its efficacy is limited by poor cell retention. To address this, we utilized alginate hydrogels to deliver MSCs and improve their retention. MSCs were loaded in the hydrogel and injected intraportally in cirrhotic rats. Liver volume, weights, enzyme levels, and histology were monitored. Results showed that the hydrogel maintained 89.0 ± 3.0% cell viability and gradually released MSCs for over two weeks. Furthermore, the rats injected with the MSC-loaded hydrogel demonstrated higher liver volumes (FLR ratio of 0.57 ± 0.32) and weights (FLR ratio of 0.84 ± 0.05). The treated rats exhibited more improved liver enzymes (AST: 72.75 ± 14.17 U/L, ALP: 135.67 ± 41.20 U/L, ALT: 46.00 ± 2.94 U/L) and decreased fibrotic areas in the liver (4.52 ± 0.22%) compared to the control group. Histology revealed increased retention when MSCs were delivered with the hydrogel (37.30 ± 16.10 MSCs/mm2) compared to cells alone (21.70 ± 22.10 MSCs/mm2). Overall, the MSC-loaded hydrogels enhanced the growth and reduced the fibrosis of the liver by promoting cell retention and efficacy in cirrhotic rats. This approach holds significant potential for improving outcomes among cancer patients, offering a promising therapeutic strategy for liver regeneration and treatment of liver diseases.

Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Liver Venous Deprivation and Portal Vein Embolization Before Planned Hepatectomy in Patients with Extensive Colorectal Liver Metastases and High-Risk Factors for Inadequate Regeneration

BACKGROUND

Liver venous deprivation (LVD) is known to induce better future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy than portal vein embolization (PVE). The role of LVD, compared with PVE, in inducing FLR hypertrophy and allowing safe hepatectomy for patients with extensive colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and high-risk factors for inadequate hypertrophy remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LVD (n = 22) were matched to patients undergoing PVE (n = 279) in a 1:3 ratio based on propensity scores, prior to planned hepatectomy for CLM at a single center (1998-2023). The propensity scores accounted for high-risk factors for inadequate hypertrophy, namely pre-procedure standardized FLR (sFLR), body mass index, number of systemic therapy cycles, an extension of PVE to segment IV portal vein branches, prior resection, and chemotherapy-associated liver injury.

RESULTS

The matched cohort included 78 patients (LVD, n = 22; PVE, n = 56). Baseline characteristics were comparable. The number of tumors in the whole liver was similar but more LVD patients had five or more tumors in the left liver (32% vs. 11%; p = 0.024). Post-procedure sFLR was similar but LVD patients had a significantly higher degree of hypertrophy (16% vs. 11%; p = 0.017) and kinetic growth rate (3.9 vs. 2.4% per week; p = 0.006). More LVD patients underwent extended right hepatectomy (93% vs. 55%; p = 0.008). Only one patient had postoperative hepatic insufficiency after PVE, and no patients died within 90 days of hepatectomy.

CONCLUSION

In patients with extensive CLM and high-risk factors, LVD is associated with better FLR hypertrophy compared with PVE and allows for safely performing curative-intent extended major hepatectomy.

Simultaneous Liver Venous Deprivation Following Hepatic Arterial Chemoembolization Before Major Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New Methods to Achieve Hypertrophy Liver Remnant

Purpose

Liver venous deprivation (LVD; simultaneous portal vein embolization and hepatic vein embolization) has been the latest surgical strategy for rapid future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of simultaneous LVD following hepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE-LVD) before major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Patients and Methods

A retrospective analysis of the outcomes of 23 HCC patients who underwent TACE-LVD at our center between October 2019 and October 2023 was conducted. An assessment of postoperative complications, FLR volume, liver function, and tumor response was performed.

Results

All patients successfully underwent TACE-LVD. No other serious complications occurred except in 1 patient who underwent puncture drainage due to excessive pleural effusion. Following TACE-LVD, transaminase levels peak two days before rapidly decreasing and return to preoperative levels within one week. The ratio of FLR to standardized liver volume increased from 35.9% (interquartile range [IQR], 8.6) to 46.4% (IQR, 8.2), with a mean degree of hypertrophy and kinetic growth rate of 13.2% (IQR, 5.4) and 4.4% (IQR, 1.8) per week, respectively. At the first assessment after TACE-LVD, most patients exhibited sufficient FLR for hepatectomy, except for 4 patients with cirrhosis. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumor assessment revealed a disease control rate of 95.7%, with only 1 patient (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) developing intrahepatic disease progression.

Conclusion

TACE-LVD seems to be a feasible, safe, and effective strategy for rapid FLR hypertrophy. Moreover, TACE-LVD may be a therapeutic choice if insufficient FLR hypertrophy precludes resection. This strategy warrants further exploration.

Debate: Improvements in Systemic Therapies for Liver Metastases Will Increase the Role of Locoregional Treatments

The benefit of resection of liver metastases depends on primary diseases. Neuroendocrine tumors are associated with favorable prognosis after resection of liver metastases. Gastric cancer has worse tumor biology, and resection of gastric liver metastases should be performed in selected patients. A multidisciplinary approach is well established for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). Resection remains the only curative treatment of CLM. Chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapy have improved survival in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Understanding of the following two strategies, conversion therapy and two-stage hepatectomy, are important to make this patient group to be candidates for curative-intent surgery.

Initial experience with Double-vein Embolization in Hungary

Introduction

In recent years several new techniques have emerged to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomies. We aimed to summarize our initial experience with Double-vein Embolization as the first center in Hungary.

Methods

Between March 2023 and August 2024 a total of 16 Double-vein Embolization procedures were performed in Semmelweis University. Future liver remnant volume was calculated based on computed tomography scans obtained within 4 weeks prior and 2-3 weeks after the procedure. Tc-99m mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy results were available for 12/16 patients.

Results

Technical success rate was 100 %. No major complication was observed. Successful resection rate was 93.8 %. One patient died due to post-hepatectomy liver failure. Future liver remnant volume and ratio increased significantly after the procedure compared to baseline (433.1 ± 163.8 cm3 vs. 603.5 ± 201.8 cm3, p < 0.0001 and 27.2 ± 6.5 % vs. 37 ± 8.8 %, p < 0.0001, respectively). Future liver remnant clearance improved significantly 1 and 2 weeks after the procedure (1.68 ± 0.58 %/min/m2 vs. 2.44 ± 0.64 %/min/m2 and 2.39 ± 0.31 %/min/m2, respectively). Mean function gain was 50.6 % after one week and 60.1% after two weeks, respectively.

Discussion

Volumetric and functional outcomes in the present study are comparable with results reported in the literature. Our findings provide further evidence that Double-vein Embolization is a safe procedure that offers sufficient volumetric and functional gain in most candidates for liver resection. However, further studies are needed to define the exact place of this new technique in clinical practice.

Comprehensive Review of Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Assessment and Hypertrophy Techniques Before Major Hepatectomy: How to Assess and Manage the FLR

BACKGROUND

The regenerative capacities of the liver and improvements in surgical techniques have expanded the possibilities of resectability. Liver resection is often the only curative treatment for primary and secondary malignancies, despite the risk of post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF). This serious complication (with a 50% mortality rate) can be avoided by better assessment of liver volume and function of the future liver remnant (FLR).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to understand and assess clinical, biological, and imaging predictors of PHLF risk, as well as the various hypertrophy techniques, to achieve an adequate FLR before hepatectomy.

METHOD

We reviewed the state of the art in liver regeneration and FLR hypertrophy techniques.

RESULTS

The use of new biological scores (such as the aspartate aminotransferase/platelet ratio index + albumin-bilirubin [APRI+ALBI] score), concurrent utilization of 99mTc-mebrofenin scintigraphy (HBS), or dynamic hepatocyte contrast-enhanced MRI (DHCE-MRI) for liver volumetry helps predict the risk of PHLF. Besides portal vein embolization, there are other FLR optimization techniques that have their indications in case of risk of failure (e.g., associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, liver venous deprivation) or in specific situations (transarterial radioembolization).

CONCLUSION

There is a need to standardize volumetry and function measurement techniques, as well as FLR hypertrophy techniques, to limit the risk of PHLF.

Transfemoral hepatic vein access in double vein embolization - initial experience and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Hepatic vein embolization in double vein embolization (DVE) can be performed with transhepatic, transjugular or transfemoral access. This study evaluates the feasibility and technical success of using a transfemoral access for the hepatic vein embolization in patients undergoing preoperative to induce hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of single center cohort including 17 consecutive patients. The baseline standardized FLR was 18.2% (range 14.7-24.9). Portal vein embolization was performed with vascular plugs and glue through an ipsilateral transhepatic access. Hepatic vein embolization was performed using vascular plugs. Access for the hepatic vein was either transhepatic, transjugular or transfemoral. Technical success, number of hepatic veins embolized and complications were registered. In addition, volumetric data including degree of hypertrophy (DH) and kinetic growth rate (KGR), and resection data were registered. R: Seven of the 17 patients had transfemoral hepatic vein embolization, with 100% technical success. No severe complications were registered. In the whole cohort, the median number of hepatic veins embolized was 2 (1-6). DH was 8.6% (3.0-19.4) and KGR was 3.6%/week (1.4-7.4), without significant differences between the patients having transfemoral versus transhepatic /transjugular access (p = 0.48 and 0.54 respectively). Time from DVE to surgery was median 4.8 weeks (2.6-33.9) for the whole cohort, with one patient declining surgery, two having explorative laparotomy and one patient having change of surgical strategy due to insufficient growth.

CONCLUSION

Transfemoral access is a feasible option with a high degree of technical success for hepatic vein embolization in patients with small future liver remnants needing DVE.

Additional hepatic artery embolization after liver venous deprivation for right hepatectomy: A case report

Post hepatectomy Liver Failure (PHLF) is a fatal complication, especially after major liver resection. Insufficient remnant liver volume is a common cause of postoperative liver failure. Many strategies have been applied to induce the remnant liver hypertrophy: Portal vein embolization (PVE), PVE combined with hepatic vein embolization (LVD), two staged liver resection, Associated liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS). We present a case of a 39-year-old male patient who underwent LVD for preoperative liver hypertrophy. After LVD, the patient underwent additional artery embolization, and the patient's remaining liver volume increased by 63.2% in 7 weeks. The patient underwent a right hepatectomy and was discharged after 10 days, with no complications of postoperative liver failure. Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is a technique that has been applied recently because it can significantly promote the speed and extent of liver hypertrophy before major liver resection compared to portal vein embolization procedure alone. In this case, additional hepatic artery embolization may be an important factor lead to hypertrophy of the remnant liver, thereby shortening the waiting time for surgery and reducing the risk of tumor progression. Liver venous deprivation is safe and feasible to perform. Additional hepatic artery embolization may accelerate the hypertrophy of the remnant liver.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Portal Vein Embolization and Double Vein Embolization/Liver Venous Deprivation

This CIRSE Standards of Practice document is aimed at interventional radiologists and provides best practices for performing liver regeneration therapies prior to major hepatectomies, including portal vein embolization, double vein embolization and liver venous deprivation. It has been developed by an expert writing group under the guidance of the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee. It encompasses all clinical and technical details required to perform liver regeneration therapies, revising the indications, contra-indications, outcome measures assessed, technique and expected outcomes.

Image-guided percutaneous strategies to improve the resectability of HCC: Portal vein embolization, liver venous deprivation, or radiation lobectomy?

Despite considerable advances in surgical technique, many patients with hepatic malignancies are not operative candidates due to projected inadequate hepatic function following resection. Consequently, the size of the future liver remnant (FLR) is an essential consideration when predicting a patient's likelihood of liver insufficiency following hepatectomy. Since its initial description 30 years ago, portal vein embolization has become the standard of care for augmenting the size and function of the FLR preoperatively. However, new minimally invasive techniques have been developed to improve surgical candidacy, chief among them liver venous deprivation and radiation lobectomy. The purpose of this review is to discuss the status of preoperative liver augmentation prior to resection of hepatocellular carcinoma with a focus on these three techniques, highlighting the distinctions between them and suggesting directions for future investigation.

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.

Role of the portal system in liver regeneration: From molecular mechanisms to clinical management

The liver has a strong regenerative capacity that ensures patient recovery after hepatectomy and liver transplantation. The portal system plays a crucial role in the dual blood supply to the liver, making it a significant factor in hepatic function. Several surgical strategies, such as portal vein ligation, associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and dual vein embolization, have highlighted the portal system's importance in liver regeneration. Following hepatectomy or liver transplantation, the hemodynamic properties of the portal system change dramatically, triggering regeneration via shear stress and the induction of hypoxia. However, excessive portal hyperperfusion can harm the liver and negatively affect patient outcomes. Furthermore, as the importance of the gut-liver axis has gradually been revealed, the effect of metabolites and cytokines from gut microbes carried by portal blood on liver regeneration has been acknowledged. From these perspectives, this review outlines the molecular mechanisms of the portal system's role in liver regeneration and summarizes therapeutic strategies based on the portal system intervention to promote liver regeneration.

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).

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.

Current status and perspectives in the surgical and oncological management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is the second most common primary liver tumor after hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Management depends on their resectability at the time of diagnosis. Two types can be distinguished by imaging: resectable ICCs amenable to surgery and locally advanced and/or metastatic ICCs, that are treated by chemotherapy, radiotherapy or loco-regional treatment (radioembolization, chemoembolization, intra-arterial chemotherapy and thermoablation). Over the last decade, the management strategy for these tumors has been modified by the appearance of loco-regional treatments as well as the introduction of immunotherapy that have shown their efficacy in the control of ICC. The aim of this review is to describe the current status of treatments for ICCs, as well as the different therapeutic strategies being assessed.

Comparing Liver Venous Deprivation and Portal Vein Embolization for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Is It Time to Shift the Focus to Hepatic Functional Reserve Rather than Hypertrophy?

Purpose: Among liver hypertrophy technics, liver venous deprivation (LVD) has been recently introduced as an effective procedure to combine simultaneous portal inflow and hepatic outflow abrogation, raising growing clinical interest. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of LVD for preoperative optimization of future liver remnant (FLR) in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC), especially when compared with portal vein embolization (PVE). Methods: Between January 2013 and July 2022, all patients diagnosed with PHC and scheduled for preoperative optimization of FTR, through radiological hypertrophy techniques, prior to liver resection, were included. FTR volumetric assessment was evaluated at two distinct timepoints to track the progression of both early (T1, 10 days post-procedural) and late (T2, 21 days post-procedural) efficacy indicators. Post-procedural outcomes, including functional and volumetric analyses, were compared between the LVD and the PVE cohorts. Results: A total of 12 patients underwent LVD while 19 underwent PVE. No significant differences in either post-procedural or post-operative complications were found. Post-procedural FLR function, calculated with (99m) Tc-Mebrofenin hepatobiliary scintigraphy, and kinetic growth rate, at both timepoints, were greater in the LVD cohort (3.12 ± 0.55%/min/m2 vs. 2.46 ± 0.64%/min/m2, p = 0.041; 27.32 ± 16.86%/week (T1) vs. 15.71 ± 9.82%/week (T1) p < 0.001; 17.19 ± 9.88%/week (T2) vs. 9.89 ± 14.62%/week (T2) p = 0.034) when compared with the PVE cohort. Post-procedural FTR volumes were similar for both hypertrophy techniques. Conclusions: LVD is an effective procedure to effectively optimize FLR before liver resection for PHC. The faster growth rate combined with the improved FLR function, when compared to PVE alone, could maximize surgical outcomes by lowering post-hepatectomy liver failure rates.

Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases: Multimodal Therapy

Despite a steady decline in incidence and mortality rates, colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cancer diagnosis in women and the third most common in men worldwide. Notably, the liver is recognized as the most common site of CRC metastasis, and metastases to the liver remain the primary driver of disease-specific mortality for patients with CRC. Although hepatic resection is the backbone of curative-intent treatment, management of CRLM has become increasingly multimodal during the last decade and includes the use of downstaging chemotherapy, ablation techniques, and locoregional therapy, each of which are reviewed herein.

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.

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.

Novel liver vein deprivation technique that promotes increased residual liver volume (with video): A case report

BACKGROUND

Inadequate volume of future liver remnant (FLR) is a major challenge for hepatobiliary surgeons treating large or multiple liver tumors. As an alternative to associating liver partition and portal vein ligation (ALPPS) for staged hepatectomy and liver venous deprivation (LVD) using stage 1 interventional radiology for vascular embolization combined with stage 2 open liver resection have been used.

CASE SUMMARY

A novel modified LVD technique was performed in a patient with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with liver metastases by using stage 1 laparoscopic ligation of the right hepatic vein, right posterior portal vein, and short hepatic veins combined with local excision of three liver metastases in the left hemiliver. The operation was followed three days later by interventional radiology to embolize an anomalous right anterior portal vein to complete LVD. A stage 2 laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy and pancreaticosplenectomy were then carried out.

CONCLUSION

The minimally invasive technique promoted a rapid increase, comparable to ALPPS, in volume of the FLR after the stage 1 operation to allow the laparoscopic stage 2 resection to be performed.

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.

Morbidity analysis of left hepatic trisectionectomy for hepatobiliary disease and live donor

BACKGROUND

Despite remarkable advances in surgical techniques and perioperative management, left hepatic trisectionectomy (LHT) remains a challenging procedure with a somewhat high postoperative morbidity rate compared with less-extensive resections. This study aimed to analyze the short- and long-term outcomes of LHT and identify factors associated with the postoperative morbidity of this technically demanding surgical procedure.

METHODS

The medical records of 53 patients who underwent LHT between June 2005 and October 2019 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The independent prognostic factor of postoperative morbidity was analyzed using the logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Hepatocellular carcinoma was the most common indication for surgery (n = 21), followed by hilar cholangiocarcinoma (n = 14), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 10), and other pathologies (including colorectal liver metastasis, hepatolithiasis, gallbladder cancer, living donor, hemangioma, and multilocular biliary cyst; n = 8). The rates of postoperative morbidities of Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher and 90-day mortality were 39.6% and 1.9%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates were 81.1%, 61.4%, and 44.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that preoperative jaundice [hazard ratio (HR) = 6.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-24.17, P = 0.009] and operative time > 420 min (HR = 4.66, 95% CI: 1.27-17.17, P = 0.021) were independent predictors of postoperative morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The in-hospital mortality of LHT surgery can be minimalized by a reliable preoperative evaluation of liver function and selection of the dominant anatomic features of right posterior sector, active and appropriate preoperative management for obstructive cholangitis and compensatory hypertrophy of the future remnant posterior sector, and the experience of the surgeon.

Liver Venous Deprivation (LVD) Versus Portal Vein Embolization (PVE) Alone Prior to Extended Hepatectomy: A Matched Pair Analysis

BACKGROUND

To investigate whether liver venous deprivation (LVD) as simultaneous, portal vein (PVE) and right hepatic vein embolization offers advantages in terms of hypertrophy induction before extended hepatectomy in non-cirrhotic liver.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2018 and August 2019, 20 patients were recruited for a prospective, non-randomized study to investigate the efficacy of LVD. After screening of 134 patients treated using PVE alone from January 2015 to August 2019, 14 directly matched pairs regarding tumor entity (cholangiocarcinoma, CC and colorectal carcinoma, CRC) and hypertrophy time (defined as time from embolization to follow-up imaging) were identified. In both treatment groups, the same experienced reader (> 5 years experience) performed imaging-based measurement of the volumes of liver segments of the future liver remnant (FLR) prior to embolization and after the standard clinical hypertrophy interval (~ 30 days), before surgery. Percentage growth of segments was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

After matched follow-up periods (mean of 30.5 days), there were no statistically significant differences in relative hypertrophy of FLRs. Mean ± standard deviation relative hypertrophy rates for LVD/PVE were 59 ± 29.6%/54.1 ± 27.6% (p = 0.637) for segments II + III and 48.2 ± 22.2%/44.9 ± 28.9% (p = 0.719) for segments II-IV, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LVD had no significant advantages over the standard method (PVE alone) in terms of hypertrophy induction of the FLR before extended hepatectomy in this study population.

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.

Preoperative Management of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is a rare hepatobiliary malignancy that requires thoughtful, multidisciplinary evaluation in the preoperative setting to ensure optimal patient outcomes. Comprehensive preoperative imaging, including multiphase CT angiography and some form of cholangiographic assessment, is key to assessing resectability. While many staging systems exist, the Blumgart staging system provides the most useful combination of resectability assessment and prognostic information for use in the preoperative setting. Once resectability is confirmed, volumetric analysis should be performed. Upfront resection without biliary drainage or portal venous embolization may be considered in patients without cholangitis and an estimated functional liver remnant (FLR) > 40%. In patients with FLR < 40%, judicious use of biliary drainage is advised, with the goal of selective biliary drainage of the functional liver remnant. Percutaneous biliary drainage may avoid inadvertent contamination of the contralateral biliary tree and associated infectious complications, though the relative effectiveness of percutaneous and endoscopic techniques is an ongoing area of study and debate. Patients with low FLR also require intervention to induce hypertrophy, most commonly portal venous embolization, in an effort to reduce the rate of postoperative liver failure. Even with extensive preoperative workup, many patients will be found to have metastatic disease at exploration and diagnostic laparoscopy may reduce the rate of non-therapeutic laparotomy. Management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma continues to evolve, with ongoing efforts to improve preoperative liver hypertrophy and to further define the role of transplantation in disease management.

Minimizing the risk of small-for-size syndrome after liver surgery

BACKGROUND

Primary and secondary liver tumors are not always amenable to resection due to location and size. Inadequate future liver remnant (FLR) may prevent patients from having a curative resection or may result in increased postoperative morbidity and mortality from complications related to small-for-size syndrome (SFSS).

DATA SOURCES

This comprehensive review analyzed the principles, mechanism and risk factors associated with SFSS and presented current available options in the evaluation of FLR when planning liver surgery. In addition, it provided a detailed description of specific modalities that can be used before, during or after surgery, in order to optimize the conditions for a safe resection and minimize the risk of SFSS.

RESULTS

Several methods which aim to reduce tumor burden, preserve healthy liver parenchyma, induce hypertrophy of FLR or prevent postoperative complications help minimize the risk of SFSS.

CONCLUSIONS

With those techniques the indications of radical treatment for patients with liver tumors have significantly expanded. The successful outcome depends on appropriate patient selection, the individualization and modification of interventions and the right timing of surgery.

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.

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.

Sequential Portal Vein Embolization and Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Future Liver Remnant Growth: A Minimally Invasive Alternative to ALPPS Stage-1 in Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: To evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of sequential portal vein embolization (PVE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (PVE+RFA) as a minimally invasive variant for associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) stage-1 in treatment of cirrhosis-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods: For HCC patients with insufficient FLR, right-sided PVE was first performed, followed by percutaneous RFA to the tumor as a means to trigger FLR growth. When the FLR reached a safe level (at least 40%) and the blood biochemistry tests were in good condition, the hepatectomy was performed. FLR dynamic changes and serum biochemical tests were evaluated. Postoperative complications, mortality, intraoperative data and long-term oncological outcome were also recorded.

Results: Seven patients underwent PVE+RFA for FLR growth between March 2016 and December 2019. The median baseline of FLR was 353 ml (28%), which increased to 539 (44%) ml after 8 (7–18) days of this strategy (p < 0.05). The increase of FLR ranged from 40% to 140% (median 47%). Five patients completed hepatectomy. The median interval between PVE+RFA and hepatectomy was 19 (15–27) days. No major morbidity ≥ III of Clavien-Dindo classification or in-hospital mortality occurred. One patient who did not proceed to surgery died within 90 days after discharge. After a median follow-up of 18 (range 3–50) months, five patients were alive.

Conclusion: Sequential PVE+RFA is a feasible and effective strategy for FLR growth prior to extended hepatectomy and may provide a minimally invasive alternative for ALPPS stage-1 for treatment of patients with cirrhosis-related HCC.

Optimization of the future remnant liver: review of the current strategies in Europe

Liver resection still represent the treatment of choice for liver malignancies, but in some cases inadequate future remnant liver (FRL) can lead to post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) that still represents the most common cause of death after hepatectomy. Several strategies in recent era have been developed in order to generate a compensatory hypertrophy of the FRL, reducing the risk of post hepatectomy liver failure. Portal vein embolization, portal vein ligation, and ALLPS are the most popular techniques historically adopted up to now. The liver venous deprivation and the radio-embolization are the most recent promising techniques. Despite even more precise tools to calculate the relationship among volume and function, such as scintigraphy with ^99mTc-mebrofenin (HBS), no consensus is still available to define which of the above mentioned augmentation strategy is more adequate in terms of kind of surgery, complexity of the pathology and quality of liver parenchyma. The aim of this article is to analyse these different strategies to achieve sufficient FRL.

Ligation of the middle hepatic vein to increase hypertrophy induction during the ALPPS procedure

PURPOSE

Here, we analyse the technical modification of the ALPPS procedure, ligating the middle hepatic vein during the first step of the operation to enhance remnant liver hypertrophy.

METHODS

In 20 of 37 ALPPS procedures, the middle hepatic vein was ligated during the first step. Hypertrophy of the functional remnant liver volume was assessed in addition to postoperative courses.

RESULTS

Volumetric analysis showed a significant volume increase, especially for patients with colorectal metastases. Pre-existing liver parenchyma damage (odds ratio = 0.717, p = 0.017) and preoperative chemotherapy were found to be significant predictors (odds ratio = 0.803, p = 0.045) of higher morbidity and mortality. In addition, a survival benefit for maintenance of middle hepatic vein was shown.

CONCLUSION

This technical modification of the ALPPS procedure can accentuate future liver remnant volume hypertrophy. The higher morbidity and mortality observed are most likely associated with pre-existing parenchymal damage within this group.

The value of a combined radiological-surgical approach in allowing curative resection of a locally advanced type IIIa Klatskin tumor

We report the case of a 53-year-old patient subjected to percutaneous embolization of right and middle hepatic veins to induce liver segments 2–3 hypertrophy before extended right hepatic resection for a locally advanced type IIIa perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.

Hepatic vein embolization (HVE) was performed 3 weeks after surgical recanalization of left portal vein (severely narrowed at its origin due to tumor infiltration) interposing an internal jugular vein graft between main and distal left portal vein.

Nine days after HVE, future liver remnant volume increased from 395 to 501 cc, i.e. 25.1% of standardized total liver volume, allowing to perform a radical right hepatic trisectionectomy plus caudatectomy. He was discharged home on postoperative day 15th after an uneventful postoperative course, with no sign of posthepatectomy liver failure.

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.

Debate: Improvements in Systemic Therapies for Liver Metastases Will Increase the Role of Locoregional Treatments

The benefit of resection of liver metastases depends on primary diseases. Neuroendocrine tumors are associated with favorable prognosis after resection of liver metastases. Gastric cancer has worse tumor biology, and resection of gastric liver metastases should be performed in selected patients. A multidisciplinary approach is well established for colorectal liver metastases (CLMs). Resection remains the only curative treatment of CLM. Chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapy have improved survival in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Understanding of the following two strategies, conversion therapy and two-stage hepatectomy, are important to make this patient group to be candidates for curative-intent surgery.

Integrative Concepts for Liver Surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the standard treatment for primary tumors and metastases. Due to improvements in surgical outcomes as well as the efficacy of systemic treatments, the role of surgery has changed in recent years.

SUMMARY

Liver surgery has become safe and efficient, with resectability being increased by multimodality concepts as well as staged liver resections and orthotopic liver transplantation. These concepts may be applied to primary liver tumors but also to selected patients with liver metastases from various diseases. In addition, even debulking surgery may be indicated for selected patients with endocrine metastases. While patient selection for liver resections was limited to clinical parameters in the past, histological and molecular characteristics have become increasingly important. Moreover, the response to regional or systemic chemotherapy has been demonstrated to be strong for a beneficial course of the disease even in advanced diseases.

KEY-MESSAGES

Due to the variety of available treatment options, optimal patient selection is crucial. Besides liver surgery, staged concepts as well as liver transplantation are curative tools for many patients.

The Future Liver Remnant : Definition, Evaluation, and Management

When considering patients for a major hepatectomy, one must carefully consider the volume of liver to be left behind and if additional procedures are necessary to augment its volume. This review considers the optimal volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) and analyzes the techniques of augmenting this volume, the various growth parameters to assess adequate growth of the FLR, as well as further management when there has been inadequate growth of the FLR.

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

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare portal vein embolization (PVE) and radiologica simultaneous portohepatic vein embolization (RASPE) for future liver remnant (FLR) growth in terms of feasibility, safety, and efficacy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

After portal vein embolization (PVE), 15% of patients remain ineligible for hepatic resection due to insufficient hypertrophy of the FLR. RASPE has been proposed to induce FLR growth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2016 and 2018, 73 patients were included in the study. RASPE was proposed for patients with a ratio of FLR to total liver volume (FLR/TLV) of <25% (RASPE group). This group was compared to patients who underwent PVE for a FLR/TLV <30% (PVE group). Patients in the 2 groups were matched for age, sex, type of tumor, and number of chemotherapy treatments. FLR was assessed by computed tomography before and 4 weeks after the procedure.

RESULTS

The technical success rate in both groups was 100%. Morbidity post-embolization, and the time between embolization and surgery were similar between the groups. In the PVE group, the FLR/TLV ratio before embolization was 31.03% (range: 18.33%-38.95%) versus 22.91% (range: 16.55-32.15) in the RASPE group (P < 0.0001). Four weeks after the procedure, the liver volume increased by 28.98% (range: 9.31%-61.23%) in the PVE group and by 61.18% (range: 23.18%-201.56%) in the RASPE group (P < 0.0001). Seven patients in the PVE group, but none in the RASPE group, had postoperative liver failure (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

RASPE can be considered as "radiological associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy." RASPE induced safe and profound growth of the FLR and was more efficient than PVE. RASPE also allowed for extended hepatectomy with less risk of post-operative liver failure.

Issues to be considered to address the future liver remnant prior to major hepatectomy

An accurate preoperative evaluation of the hepatic function and application of portal vein embolization in selected patients have helped improve the safety of major hepatectomy. In planning major hepatectomy, however, several issues remain to be addressed. The first is which cut-off values for serum total bilirubin level and prothrombin time should be used to define post-hepatectomy liver failure. Other issues include what minimum future liver remnant (FLR) volume is required; whether the total liver volume measured using computed tomography or the standard liver volume calculated based on the body surface area should be used to assess the adequacy of the FLR volume; whether there is a discrepancy between the FLR volume and function during the recovery period after portal vein embolization or hepatectomy; and how best the function of a specific FLR can be assessed. Various studies concerning these issues have been reported with controversial results. We should also be aware that different strategies and management are required for different types of liver damage, such as cirrhosis in hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangitis in biliary tract cancer, and chemotherapy-induced hepatic injury.

Hepatic atrophy treatment with portal vein embolization to control intrahepatic duct stenosis-associated cholangitis

We present two cases of hepatic atrophy treatment with portal vein embolization (PVE) to control intractable cholangitis. The first case was a 60-year-old male who was admitted for repeated episodes of cholangitis. He had undergone cholecystectomy and Roux-en-Y choledochojejunostomy 2 years earlier. Imaging studies showed left intrahepatic duct dilatation and anastomotic site stricture. The patient was reluctant to undergo another surgery. Thus, we decided to perform left PVE to induce atrophy of the left liver. The left liver shrank and stayed silent for 5 years, but a radiological intervention was necessary to treat symptomatic anastomotic stenosis. The patient has done well for 12 years after PVE. The second case was a 51-year-old female who was also admitted for repeated episodes of cholangitis. She had undergone excision of type I choledochal cyst 2 years earlier. Imaging studies showed right hepatic duct stenosis. Cholangitis developed repeatedly. Thus, radiologic interventions were performed 8 times over 9 years. Finally, she was referred for surgery, but she was very reluctant to undergo another surgery. We planned a wait-and-see strategy following right PVE. After PVE, the right liver progressively shrank. Three months after PVE, we decided to wait for a longer period until further atrophy of the right liver. The patient has been doing well for 14 months after PVE without any episode of cholangitis. In conclusion, experience from our two cases suggests that hepatic parenchymal induction therapy through percutaneous PVE can be a therapeutic option for patients with perihilar biliary stenosis-associated cholangitis.

Liver resection in Cirrhotic liver: Are there any limits?

Liver resection remains one of the most technically challenging surgical procedure in abdominal surgery due to the complex anatomical arrangement in the liver and its rich blood supply that constitutes about 20% of the cardiac output per cycle. The challenge for resection in cirrhotic livers is even higher because of the impact of surgical stress and trauma imposed on borderline liver function and the impaired ability for liver regeneration in cirrhotic livers. Nonetheless, evolution and advancement in surgical techniques as well as knowledge in perioperative management of liver resection has led to a substantial improvement in surgical outcome in recent decade. The objective of this article was to provide updated information on the recent developments in liver surgery, from preoperative evaluation, to technicality of resection, future liver remnant augmentation and finally, postoperative management of complications.

Study protocol of the HYPER-LIV01 trial: a multicenter phase II, prospective and randomized study comparing simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization to portal vein embolization for hypertrophy of the future liver remnant before major hepatectomy for colo-rectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing major liver resection, portal vein embolization (PVE) has been widely used to induce hypertrophy of the non-embolized liver in order to prevent post-hepatectomy liver failure. PVE is a safe and effective procedure, but does not always lead to sufficient hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR). Hepatic vein(s) embolization has been proposed to improve FLR regeneration when insufficient after PVE. The sequential right hepatic vein embolization (HVE) after right PVE demonstrated an incremental effect on the FLR but it implies two different procedures with no time gain as compared to PVE alone. We have developed the so-called liver venous deprivation (LVD), a combination of PVE and HVE during the same intervention, to optimize the phase of liver preparation before surgery. The main objective of this randomized phase II trial is to compare the percentage of change in FLR volume at 3 weeks after LVD or PVE.

METHODS

Patients eligible to this multicenter prospective randomized phase II study are subjects aged from 18 years old suffering from colo-rectal liver metastases considered as resectable and with non-cirrhotic liver parenchyma. The primary objective is the percentage of change in FLR volume at 3 weeks after LVD or PVE using MRI or CT-Scan. Secondary objectives are assessment of tolerance, post-operative morbidity and mortality, post-hepatectomy liver failure, rate of non-respectability due to insufficient FLR or tumor progression, per-operative difficulties, blood loss, R0 resection rate, post-operative liver volume and overall survival. Objectives of translational research studies are evaluation of pre- and post-operative liver function and determination of biomarkers predictive of liver hypertrophy. Sixty-four patients will be included (randomization ratio 1:1) to detect a difference of 12% at 21 days in FLR volumes between PVE and LVD.

DISCUSSION

Adding HVE to PVE during the same procedure is an innovative and promising approach that may lead to a rapid and major increase in volume and function of the FLR, thereby increasing the rate of resectable patients and limiting the risk of patient's drop-out.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 15th February 2019 (NCT03841305).