Liver resection by ultrasonic dissection and intraoperative ultrasonography

Mesohepatectomy as an option for the treatment of central liver tumors

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial improvements in intra- and postoperative management of extended hemihepatectomy as the curative option for treatment of central liver tumors, the high morbidity and mortality rates accompanying the procedure still represent major obstacles. Mesohepatectomy preserves up to 35% more functional liver tissue than extended hepatectomy, but it has not been widely applied, perhaps because of its complexity as a resection method.

STUDY DESIGN

Forty-eight consecutive patients (29 men and 19 women) with centrally located liver tumors underwent mesohepatectomy. Peri- and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were prospectively evaluated and analyzed. Mean age of the patients was 60.7 years. Indications for mesohepatectomy were liver metastasis (n = 29), hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 5), gallbladder carcinoma (n = 4), cholangiocellular carcinoma (n = 4), hemangioma (n = 2), and other benign diseases (n = 4).

RESULTS

Mean operative time was 238 minutes (range 65 to 480 minutes) and mean intraoperative blood loss was 1,120 mL (range 100 to 5,000 mL). Mean amount of intraoperative red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma transfusion was 3.6 U (range 1 to 12 U) and 3.8 U (range 2 to 14 U), respectively. Mean postoperative hospitalization was 15.8 days (range 6 to 104 days). Postoperative surgical complications were seen in 18.8% of patients (n = 9) and included liver failure (n = 1), intraabdominal abscess (n = 1), bilioma or bile leakage (n = 4), hemorrhage and hematoma (n = 2), peritonitis because of intestinal perforation (n = 1), and wound infection (n = 1). One patient (2%) died in the early postoperative phase from portal vein bleeding and disseminated intravascular coagulation, followed by liver failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with extended liver resection, mesohepatectomy clearly leads to less parenchymal loss. Although it is a technically difficult operation and requires special attention to prevent surgical complications, it is justified in selected patients with centrally located tumors and is a feasible and safe alternative to extended liver resection.

Minimising blood loss and transfusion requirements in hepatic resection

BACKGROUND

Substantial blood loss and the requirement for blood transfusion remain major considerations for hepatic surgeons. We analysed the impact of a systematic protocol aimed at reducing intraoperative blood loss and homologous blood (HB) transfusion associated with hepatic resection.

METHODS

Prospective clinical data were collected from 151 elective liver resections performed during the period between 1980 and 1999. Further data directly related to blood loss and anaesthesia were retrospectively collected from the anaesthetic intra-operative record. Strategies implemented in 1991 included preoperative autologous blood donation, low central venous pressure anaesthesia, aprotinin administration, ultrasonic dissection, hepatic vascular inflow occlusion and a Cell Saver. Blood loss and transfusion requirements were studied before and after the implementation of these strategies.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the patient demographics, indications for operation or the scope of resections in the two time periods evaluated. Blood-saving strategies resulted in decreased estimated blood loss (4500 mL vs. 1000 mL p<0.001). In addition, the number of patients requiring transfusion decreased (91.8% vs. 25.5% respectively, p<0.001) and the mean number of units of HB transfusion was lower (I 3.7 vs. 2.3, p<0.001). Morbidity and mortality were also decreased (57.1% vs. 25.5%, p<0.001 and 10.2% and 4.9% p<0.001, respectively). No complications directly referrable to low CVP anesthesia were identified.

CONCLUSION

Systematic implementation of strategies designed to control blood loss are effective and may reduce morbidity and mortality associated with hepatic resections.