Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Background. Two-stage hepatectomy with or without portal vein embolization allows treatment of
multiple bilobar metastases, thereby expanding operative indications for these patients. Two operations
are needed, however, and some patients are not able to complete the treatment strategy because of disease
progression. Using experience gained from our policy of ultrasonographically guided resection, we
explored the safety and effectiveness of 1-stage operative procedures in patients otherwise recommended for
the 2-stage approach.
Methods. A total of 29 patients with multiple ($4) bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CLM) were selected from 100 consecutive patients submitted to surgical resection. The total number of preoperative
CLM was 163 (median, 5; range, 2--20). The operative strategy was based on tumor-vessel relationships
at intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) and on findings at color Doppler IOUS.
Results. There was no in-hospital mortality. Tumor removal was feasible with 1-stage operative
procedures in all but 3 patients who underwent laparotomy. The overall morbidity rate was 23%
(6/26); none of the patients required reoperation. Major morbidity occurred in 1 patient (4%). Blood
transfusions were administered in 4 patients (15%). After a mean follow-up of 17 months (median, 14;
range, 6--54), 3 patients had died from systemic recurrence, 12 patients were alive without disease, and
11 were alive with disease. No local recurrences were observed at the resection margin.
Conclusion. IOUS-guided resection based on strict criteria allows a 1-stage operative treatment in selected
patients with multiple bilobar CLM. This strategy decreases the need for a two-stage hepatectomy, thereby
avoiding the disadvantages of a 2-stage approach. (Surgery 2009;146:60-71.)
From the Third Department of General Surgery, University of Milan, IRCCS Istituto Clinico Humanitas,
Rozzano, Milan, Italy
60 SURGERY
Torzilli et al 61
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
DL
DL
CLM
DL
CLM
G A
B
P
CLM
G A
B
P
HV
E
DL
CLM
G A
B
P
CLM
DL
HV
Fig 1. Operative strategy based on intra-operative ultrasonography tumor type, appearance, and relation between
colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and major hepatic vessels: (A) <0.5 cm distance between the CLM and the Glissonian
pedicle (G); (B) <0.5 cm distance between the CLM and the hepatic vein (HV); (C) contact <1/3 circumference
between the CLM and G; (D) contact >1/3 circumference between the CLM and G; (E) contact between the CLM
and HV. The dotted line shows the dissection line (DL). A, Artery; B, bile duct; P, portal branch.
neoplasms, that a well-defined policy of ultrasonically guided hepatectomy allows us to carry out
radical operations safely and without major removal of liver parenchyma in the vast majority of
patients, even when the tumors have complex
presentations such as multiplicity and vascular
invasion.4-7 Using information gleaned from this
experience, we explored the feasibility, safety,
and effectiveness of a 1-stage operative procedure
in a prospective cohort of patients who otherwise
would have undergone the 2-stage approach.
METHODS
Terminology. The terminology for liver anatomy
and resections used in this study is based on the
Brisbane classification.8 Hepatic resections are
considered major when at least 3 adjacent segments
are removed. The hepatic vein (HV) at the caval
confluence, the so-called hepatocaval confluence,
was defined as the last 4 cm of the HV before its
confluence into the inferior vena cava (IVC). Postoperative death was analyzed at 30 days and 90 days
after operation. Any adverse event that required
additional operative treatment or any invasive
corrective procedure was considered a major
postoperative morbidity. Liver failure was considered mild when the total serum bilirubin concentration ranged from 2 to 5 mg/dL for >3 days
postoperatively, medium when it ranged from 5 to
62 Torzilli et al
Surgery
July 2009
Fig 2. The inferior right hepatic vein (IRHV) as it appears at intraoperative ultrasonography. The main feature is that it runs behind the main right (RPV) and
right sectional (P5-8 and P6-7) portal branches. IVC, Inferior vena cava.
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
Torzilli et al 63
Fig 4. Arrows in the image on the left are showing flow directions toward the inferior vena cava (IVC) in the right hepatic vein (RHV) and middle hepatic vein (MHV), using the eFlow mode. On the right, after finger compression is applied to the caval confluence of the RHV, flow direction in the RHV indicated by the arrows is reversed (red), while it
remains hepatofugal (blue) as shown by the arrows in the MHV. Furthermore, color flow in the portal branches to segment 8 ventral (P8v) and 8 dorsal (P8d) remains hepatopetal (red and blue, respectively).
d
d
64 Torzilli et al
Surgery
July 2009
Fig 5. From the left to the right, arrows show intraoperative ultrasonography detection (with the eFlow) of a collateral
vessel connecting the middle hepatic vein (MHV) and the right hepatic vein (RHV).
Fig 6. (A) The resection areas (arrows and asterisks) on various aspects of the liver surface defined with an electrocautery
device under intraoperative ultrasonography guidance to completely remove the 49 CLM. (B) From left to right,
the cuts (arrows and asterisks) on the various aspects of the liver surface obtained at the end of the resections that
were carried out to remove the 49 CLM.
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
Torzilli et al 65
Fig 8. The dissection plane (arrows) is visible at intraoperative ultrasonography and is passing just adjacent to
the portal branch to segment 5 and 8 (P5-8) along a systematic extended right posterior sectionectomy (SERPS)
procedure.
Fig 7. At intraoperative ultrasonography, the electrocautery device positioned between the liver surface (arrows)
and the surgeons fingertip positioned on the opposite
side of the liver (F) allow the surgeon to draw an ideal
plane for dissection (white arrows).
and clots, and then re-imaged with IOUS. If residual lesions were observed, the same procedure of
demarcation was repeated on the cut surface,
and resection was accomplished (Fig 10).
Finally, the cut surfaces of the liver (Fig 6, B)
were secured by suture control of vessels and, if
necessary, by electrocautery, fibrillar-oxidated regenerated cellulose (Fibrillar Tabotamp; Ethicon,
Somerville, NJ) and/or fibrin glue (either Tissucol
purchased from Baxter [Deerfield, IL] or Quixil
obtained from Ethicon). To rule out bile leakage,
we performed a careful examination of the resection area, but did not routinely perform intraoperative cholangiography.14 Multihole, 19-French,
closed-suction drains were always left near the resection area. Drains were removed on the 7th postoperative day (POD) or when the bilirubin level in
the drain discharge (sampled routinely on the 3rd,
5th, and 7th POD) showed a decrement, as
described previously.15 A chest tube was left in
patients undergoing thoracoabdominal incision.
Outcome measures. We studied the morbidity,
mortality, amount of blood loss, and rate of blood
transfusions, as well as the serum levels of total
bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and
alanine aminotransferase (ALT) on the 1st, 3rd,
5th, and 7th POD. Because the secondary outcome
for this study was the reliability of the procedure
66 Torzilli et al
Surgery
July 2009
Fig 9. Once the specimen is removed, the presence of the tiny CLM (arrows) is confirmed with intraoperative ultrasonography (A) and with the water bath technique (B). G, Gauze.
Fig 10. A tiny residual CLM (asterisk) is visualized with intraoperative ultrasonography (IOUS) exploring the cut
surface (arrows) after tissue removal was accomplished;
transparent arrows indicate the resection margin that is
defined on the cut surface with the electrocautery device
under IOUS guidance.
Torzilli et al 67
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
4
4
6
4
5
5
6
6
9
10
11
6
11
10
1 CHV; 1 CP3
1 AHV; 1 C+AP2; 1 CP2
2 AHV
12
13
12
11
14
15
16
17
13
5
7
18
1
1
1
3
18
17
1 AHV; 1 CHV
19
22
20
21
22
5
6
49
3 AHV
1 AHV
3 AHV; 1 BP2
23
11
1AHV; 1Cb
24
25
26
Total
9
12
5
269
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
AHV; 1 AP1
AHV; 1 C+AHV; 1 CP2
C P2+HV+AP2; 3 CP3
AHV; 1 CP3
AP1; 2 CP3; 1 CHV
CP2+AHV; 1 CP3
C P2+HV; 1 CP3
AP1; 1 CP2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BUP; 1 CHV
CHV; 1 CHV+AP2
AHV; 1 CHV; 1 CHV+AP2
AHV; 1 CP2
2 CP3
1 AP1
1 CP2
67
Type of resection
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS3 (1 les.); PRS4inf-5 (1 les.); PRS6-7 (1 les.)
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS5 (1 les.); PRS6-7 (2 les.)
PRS2-3 (1 les.); SS4sup (1 les.); SERPS (4 les.)
PRS2-4sup (1 les.); PRS1cl (1 les.); SS6 (1 les.); PRS7 (1 les.)
PRS2-3 (1 les.); PRS1cp (1 les.); PRS6 (1 les.); PRS7 (1 les.); PRS8d (1 les.)
SS2 (1 les.); PRS6-7 (2 les.); SS5 (1 les.); PRS8d (1 les.)
PRS3 (1 les.); PRS4 (1 les.); ext. S4inf RH (1 les.)
PRS2-3 (1 les.); PRS1pp (1 les.); PRS4inf-5 (1 les.); PRS5 (1 les.); PRS6
(1 les.); PRS5+SS8 (1 les.).
LL (1 les.); PRS4inf-5 (1 les.); PRS5 (1 les.); PRS7 (2 les.); PRS8v (1 les.).
PRS2-3 (2 les.); PRS4 (1 les.); SERPS (8 les.)
PRS4sup (1 les.); PRS2 (2 les.); PRS4inf (1 les.); PRS4inf-5 (1 les.); PRS6-7
(3 les.); PRS7 (2 les.)
PRS2-3 (1 les.); PRS3-4inf (1 les.); PRS4inf (1 les.); SERPS (9 les.)
ext S4sup LL (3 les.); PRS4inf (2 les.); PRS1pp (2 les.); PRS5 (1 les.); PRS8
(3 les.).
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS3-4-5 (6 les.); SERPS (4 les.); PRS8v (2 les.)
ext S4sup LL (1 les.); PRS4inf-5 (3 les.); SS7-8 with RHV in IRHV+ (1 les.)
ext S4sup LL (2 les.); PRS4inf-5 (3 les.); PRS6 (1 les.); PRS7 (1 les.)
PRS4sup-8d (3 les.); PRS2-3 (5 les.); PRS4inf (1 les.); PRS5-6 (3 les.); PRS8v
(2 les.); PRS7 (3 les.); PRS8d (1 les.)
LL (2 les.); PRS4-5-8 (2 les.); PRS5 (4 les.); PRS6 (2 les.); PRS6-7 (5 les.);
PRS8 (2 les.)
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS2-3 (3 les.); PRS4-5 (5 les.); PRS5 (3 les.); PRS6 (1 les.);
PRS7 (4 les.); PRS8v (3 les.); PRS8d (2 les.)
PRS3 (1 les.); PRS7 (3 les.); PRS5-8 (1 les.)
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS3 (2 les.); PRS5-6 (1 les.); PRS8 (2 les.)
PRS1cl (1 les.); PRS1cp (1 les.); PRS2-3 (14 les.); PRS4sup (1 les.); PRS4inf-5
(8 les.); PRS5-6 (7 les.); PRS6 (3 les.); PRS7-8 (11 les.); PRS7 (1 les.); PRS8
(2 les.)
PRS3 (1 les.); PRS3 (2 les.); PRS2 (1 les.); PRS2 (1 les.); PRS4sup (3 les.);
SS7-8 with RHV in IRHV+ (3 les.)
PRS2 (1 les.); PRS5 (1 les.); PRS8 (4 les.); PRS6-7 (3 les.)
SS2 (1 les.); PRS6-7 (5 les.); PRS4-5-8 (6 les.);
PRS3 (1 les.); PRS4sup (1 les.); SS6-7 (1 les.); PRS8 (2 les.)
IOUS, Intraoperative ultrasonography; CLM, colorectal liver metastases; cl, caudate lobe; cp, caudate process; IRHV, inferior right hepatic vein; HV, hepatic
vein; LL, left lobectomy (segments 2 and 3); P1, first-order portal branch; P2, second-order portal branch; P3, third-order portal branch; pp, paracaval
portion; PR, partial resection; RH, right hepatectomy; RHV, right hepatic vein; SERPS, systematic extended right posterior sectionectomy; SX, segment
X; SSX, segmental resection segment X; UP, umbilical portion.
68 Torzilli et al
Surgery
July 2009
remnant liver hypertrophy,18 whereas others have
a worse outcome because of a greater rate of new
lesions in the remnant liver compared with
patients who did not undergo PVE.3,19-23
Using the experience gained from our established policy,4-6 we herein explored the possibility
of providing at least the same therapeutic results
of the 2-stage approach with a 1-stage approach.
Rather than making major resections safer, our
aim was to establish a surgical procedure that
maximizes parenchymal-sparing and allows curative resection in 1 stage. Indeed, following and
expanding on previous experiences,24 we have
shown how, with the aid of IOUS, it is possible to
spare liver parenchyma in most circumstances, despite complex presentations.4-7 For this reason, it
was feasible to limit the use of a formal right hepatectomy to just 1 of the 26 patients (4%) in our
series, with no need for a two-stage approach.
This policy, however, often resulted in resection
margins of 0 mm.
It is noteworthy that, although we never achieved
a minimal resection margin of 1 cm, there was no
recurrence at the resection margin during a mean
follow-up similar to that of the 2 major reports on
2-stage hepatectomies: 17 (median, 14) of our series
versus 22 (median, not reported),2 and 19 (median,
12),3 respectively. Moreover, contrary to the 2 major
reports on 2-stage hepatectomies,2,3 we never adopted intraoperative ablation therapies, which we
believe are suboptimal even when compared with
0-mm margin resection.25
In contrast, several studies have demonstrated
that a limited tumor-free margin is not a contraindication for resection by showing that the risk of
recurrence at the resection margin does not appear to be greater.26,27 Based on precise criteria,4,5,7 IOUS guidance helps maximize the
possibility of getting closer to the tumor. Indeed,
other authors in the 1990s showed that 16% to
18% of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
who underwent liver resection without IOUS
guidance had positive margins, whereas none of
the patients who underwent liver resection
under the guidance of IOUS had residual
tumor.28,29
Performing more conservative hepatic resections allows for repeat hepatectomies should a
new CLM be detected.1 Indeed, in cases of recurrence, procedures that preserve major vascular
structures allow more surgical options than a major hepatectomy. As a consequence, re-resection
was possible in 2 of the 5 patients with hepatic
relapses only in our series, and in 1 patient with
hepatic recurrences and resectable extrahepatic
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
Torzilli et al 69
70 Torzilli et al
Surgery
July 2009
13. Torzilli G, Takayama T, Hui AM, Kubota K, Harihara Y, Makuuchi M. A new technical aspect of ultrasound-guided liver
surgery. Am J Surg 1999;178:341-3.
14. Ijichi M, Takayama T, Toyoda H, Sano K, Kubota K
Makuuchi M. Randomized trial of the usefulness of a bile
leakage test during hepatic resection. Arch Surg 2000;135:
1395-400.
15. Torzilli G, Olivari N, Del Fabbro D, Gambetti A, Leoni P,
Gendarini A, Makuuchi M. Bilirubin level fluctuation in
drain discharge after hepatectomies justifies long-term
drain maintenance. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:
1206-10.
16. Hemming AW, Reed AI, Howard RJ, Fujita S, Hochwald SN,
Caridi JG, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization for
extended hepatectomy. Ann Surg 2003;237:686-93.
17. Kianmanesh R, Farges O, Abdalla EK, Sauvanet A, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J. Right portal vein ligation: a new
planned two step all-surgical approach for complete resection of primary gastrointestinal tumors with multiple bilateral metastases. J Am Coll Surg 2003;197:164-70.
18. Abulkhir A, Limongelli P, Healey AJ, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization for major liver resection: a metaanalysis. Ann Surg 2008;247:49-57.
19. Aoki T, Imamura H, Hasegawa K, Matsukura A, Sano K, Sugawara Y, et al. Sequential preoperative arterial and portal
venous embolizations in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 2004;139:766-74.
20. Jaeck D, Oussoultzoglou E, Rosso E, Greget M, Weber JC,
Bachellier P. A two-stage hepatectomy procedure combined
with portal vein embolization to achieve curative resection
for initially unresectable multiple and bilobar colorectal
liver metastases. Ann Surg 2004;240:1037-49.
21. Di Stefano DR, de Baere T, Denys A, et al. Preoperative percutaneous portal vein embolization: evaluation of adverse
events in 188 patients. Radiology 2005;234:625-30.
22. Azoulay D, Castaing D, Smail A, Adam R, Cailliez V, Laurent
A, et al. Resection of nonresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer after percutaneous portal vein embolization.
Ann Surg 2000;231:480-6.
23. Elias D, Ouellet JF, De Baere T, Lasser P, Roche A. Preoperative selective portal vein embolization before hepatectomy
for liver metastases: long-term results and impact on survival. Surgery 2002;131:294-9.
24. Makuuchi M, Hasegawa H, Yamazaki S, Takayasu K. Four
new hepatectomy procedures for resection of the right hepatic vein and preservation of the inferior right hepatic
vein. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1987;164:68-72.
25. Abdalla EK, Vauthey JN, Ellis LM, Ellis V, Pollock R, Broglio
KR, et al. Recurrence and outcomes following hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and combined resection/ablation for colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 2004;239:
818-25.
26. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D, Abdalla EK, Andres A,
Eng C, et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival
and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal
metastases. Ann Surg 2005;241:715-22.
27. Kokudo N, Miki Y, Sugai S, Yanagisawa A, Kato Y, Sakamoto
Y, et al. Genetic and histological assessment of surgical margins in resected liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma:
minimum surgical margins for successful resection. Arch
Surg 2002;137:833-40.
28. Lai EC, Ng IO, Ng MM, Lok AS, Tam PC, Fan ST, et al.
Long-term results of resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of clinicopathological features. Hepatology 1990;11:815-8.
Surgery
Volume 146, Number 1
29. Lau WY, Leung KL, Lee TW, et al. Ultrasonography during liver
resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg 1993;80:493-4.
30. Imamura H, Seyama Y, Kokudo N, Maema A, Sugawara Y,
Sano K, et al. One thousand fifty-six hepatectomies without
mortality in 8 years. Arch Surg 2003;138:1198-206.
31. Torzilli G, Makuuchi M, Inoue K, et al. No-mortality liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients: is there a way? A prospective analysis of
our approach. Arch Surg 1999;134:984-92.
32. Man K, Fan ST, Ng IO, Lo CM, Liu CL, Wong J. Prospective
evaluation of Pringle maneuver in hepatectomy for liver tumors by a randomized study. Ann Surg 1997;226:704-13.
33. Belghiti J, Noun R, Malafosse R, Jagot P, et al. Continuous
versus intermittent portal triad clamping for liver resection:
a controlled study. Ann Surg 1999;229:369-75.
34. Petrowsky H, McCormack L, Trujillo M, et al. A prospective,
randomized, controlled trial comparing intermittent portal
triad clamping versus ischemic preconditioning with continuous clamping for major liver resection. Ann Surg
2006;244:921-30.
35. Sakamoto Y, Makuuchi M, Takayama T, Minagawa M, Kita Y.
Pringles maneuver lasting 322 min. Hepatogastroenterology 1999;46:457-8.
Torzilli et al 71