Management of potential portal vein thrombus during laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy following portal vein embolization.

To analyze safety and effectiveness of simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization (PHVE) or sequential hepatic vein embolization (HVE) compared to portal vein embolization (PVE) for future remnant liver (FRL) hypertrophy prior to major hepatic surgery. Patients undergoing PVE, PHVE or HVE at our tertiary care center between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively included. FRLV, standardized FRLV (sFRLV) and sFRLV growth rate per day were assessed via volumetry, as well as laboratory parameters. 36 patients (f = 15, m = 21; median 64.5 y) were included, 16 patients received PHVE and 20 patients PVE, of which 4received sequential HVE. Significant increase of FRLV was achieved with both PVE and PHVE compared to baseline (p < 0.0001). sFRLV growth rate did not significantly differ following PHVE (2.2 ± 1.2 %/d) or PVE (2.2 ± 1.7 %/d, p = 0.94). Left portal vein thrombosis (LPVT) was observed after PHVE in 6 patients and in 1 patient after PVE. Sequential HVE showed a considerably high growth rate of 1.42 ± 0.45 %/d after PVE. PHVE effectively induces FRL hypertrophy but yields comparable sFRLV to PVE. Sequential HVE further induces hypertrophy after insufficient growth due to PVE. Considering a potentially higher rate of LPVT after PHVE, PVE might be preferred in patients with moderate baseline sFRLV, with optional sequential HVE in non-sufficient responders.

Simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization is better than portal embolization or ALPPS for hypertrophy of future liver remnant before major hepatectomy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

The use of the laparoscopic approach in one-stage or second-step of two-stage right hemihepatectomy (RHH) after portal vein embolization (PVE) in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) is technically demanding. Currently, there is limited published data regarding the technique and results required to better understand its safety and feasibility. This paper reports our experience, results, techniques and variety of tips and tricks (highlighted in the attached video), to facilitate this resection. A prospectively maintained database of laparoscopic liver surgery within our unit at a tertiary referral centre between August 2003 and March 2019 was reviewed. Patients with initially unresectable CRLMs who underwent laparoscopic RHH or extended RHH after PVE in the context of a one or two-stage procedure were included. Between August 2003 and March 2019, 19 patients with initially unresectable CRLMs underwent laparoscopic RHH after PVE. Twelve patients (63.2%) had RHH in the context of a two-stage hepatectomy and 7 as a one-stage procedure. Median time interval between PVE and surgery was 42.5 days (IQR, 34.5-60.0 days). Mean operating time was 351.8±80.5 minutes. Median blood loss was 850 mL (IQR, 475-1350 mL). Conversion to open surgery occurred in 2 of 19 cases (10.5%). Severe postoperative morbidity occurred in 2 patients. The mortality rate was 5.3%. Median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days (IQR, 4-7 days). Radical resection was obtained in eighteen patients (94.7%). Laparoscopic RHH after PVE in the context of a one- or two-stage resection in patients with initially unresectable CRLMs is a safe and feasible procedure with favourable oncological outcomes.

Short-term outcome of portal vein embolization vs. simultaneous portal and hepatic vein embolization for major liver resection – preliminary results?

Background Percutaneous transhepatic portal vein (PV) embolization (PVE) is a standard preoperative procedure for advanced biliary cancer when the future liver remnant (FLR) is insufficient, yet the effect of this procedure on portal hemodynamics is still unclear. Purpose To assess whether four-dimensional (4D) MRI flowmetry can be used to estimate FLR volume and to identify the optimal time for this measurement. Materials and Methods This prospective single-center study enrolled consecutive adult patients with biliary cancer who underwent percutaneous transhepatic PVE for the right liver between June 2020 and November 2022. Portal hemodynamics were assessed using 4D flow MRI before PVE and within 1 day (0-day group) or 3-4 days (3-day group) after PVE. FLR volume was measured using CT before PVE and after PVE but before surgery. Blood flow changes were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and correlations with Spearman rank correlation. Results The 0-day group included 24 participants (median age, 72 years [IQR, 69-77 years]; 17 male participants), and the 3-day group included 13 participants (median age, 71 years [IQR, 68-78 years]; eight male participants). Both groups showed increased left PV (LPV) flow rate after PVE (0-day group: from median 3.72 mL/sec [IQR, 2.83-4.55 mL/sec] to 9.48 mL/sec [IQR, 8.12-10.7 mL/sec], P < .001; 3-day group: from median 3.65 mL/sec [IQR, 2.14-3.79 mL/sec] to 8.16 mL/sec [IQR, 6.82-8.98 mL/sec], P < .001). LPV flow change correlated with FLR volume change relative to the number of days from PVE to presurgery CT only in the 3-day group (ρ = 0.62, P = .02; 0-day group, P = .11). The output of the regression equation for estimating presurgery FLR volume correlated with CT-measured volume (ρ = 0.78; P = .002). Conclusion Four-dimensional flow MRI demonstrated increased blood flow in residual portal branches 3-4 days after PVE, offering insights for estimating presurgery FLR volume. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Roldán-Alzate and Oechtering in this issue.

Combined portal and hepatic vein embolization (cPVE-HVE) induces hypertrophy of future liver remnant before hepatectomy. We compared liver hypertrophy and post-hepatectomy outcomes between cPVE-HVE and portal vein embolization (PVE) alone. Consecutive patient outcomes after cPVE-HVE and PVE were compared across all pathologies for degree of hypertrophy (DH), kinetic growth rate (KGR), impact of hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and post-hepatectomy complications at a single center. The study cohort included 305 patients, 250 underwent PVE and 55 underwent cPVE-HVE. Pre-embolization future liver remnant (FLR) was 28% versus 32% (p < 0.001) for cPVE-HVE and PVE. Post-embolization DH (11.3% versus 9.4%; p = 0.001) and KGR (3.33% versus 2.29%; p < 0.001) were significantly greater for cPVE-HVE over shorter interval (22 versus 28 days; p = 0.007). HAIC was used in 42% (n = 23) of patients before cPVE-HVE and did not impact hypertrophy. Post-hepatectomy outcomes were similar between cPVE-HVE (n = 38) and PVE (n = 250) cohorts. Rates of transfusion (39% versus 40%; p > 0.9), liver failure (7.9% versus 9.2%, p = 0.6), grade 3-5 complications (42% versus 42%, p > 0.9), 90 day all-cause mortality (5.3% versus 3.6%, p = 0.6), and median hospitalization (7 versus 8 days; p = 0.067) were not significantly different. cPVE-HVE was associated with greater hypertrophy than PVE alone, with similar post-hepatectomy outcomes. cPVE-HVE after HAIC was safe with similar hypertrophy. Randomized clinical trial evidence is needed to clearly delineate indication for cPVE-HVE and assess postoperative outcomes.

1:30 PM Abstract No. 196 - Baseline left portal vein and left liver lobe size predicts hypertrophy of the left liver lobe after right portal vein embolization

Selective portal vein ligation and embolization induce different tumoral responses in the rat liver

Two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) is the only treatment for the patients with multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRMs) who are not candidates for one-step hepatectomy because of insufficient future remnant liver volume and/or impaired liver function.1-5 Although laparoscopic approaches have been introduced for TSH,6-8 the postoperative morbidity and mortality remains high because of the technical difficulties during second-stage hepatectomy.9,10 The authors present a video of laparoscopic TSH with portal vein (PV) ligation and embolization, which minimizes adhesions and PV thrombosis risk in the remnant liver, thereby facilitating second-stage hepatectomy. Three patients with initially unresectable bilateral CRMs received a median of chemotherapy 12 cycles, followed by conversion TSH. After right PV ligation, laproscopic PV embolization was performed by injection of 100% ethanol into the hepatic side of the right PV using a 23-gauge winged needle. After PV embolization, a spray adhesion barrier (AdSpray, Terumo, Tokyo, Japan)11 was applied. During the first stage of hepatectomy, two patients underwent simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal resection (left hemicolectomy and high anterior resection). In the initial hepatectomy, two patients underwent two limited hepatectomies each, and one patient underwent six hepatectomies in the left lobe. After hepatectomy, all the patients underwent right PV embolization. During the second stage, two patients underwent open extended right hepatectomy (right adrenalectomy was performed because of adrenal invasion in one patient), and one patient underwent laparoscopic extended right hepatectomy. No postoperative complications occurred in the six surgeries. Laparoscopic TSH with PV embolization is recommended for safe completion of the second hepatectomy.

Portal Vein Embolization in a Patient with Renal Cell Carcinoma with Direct Extension into the Right Hepatic Lobe

Liver Vein Deprivation: Rationale, Technique, and Review of the Literature.

Preoperative Portal Vein Embolization with N-Butyl Cyanoacrylate Plus Ethiodized Oil: More Rapid and Robust Hypertrophy of the Future Liver Remnant.

Simultaneous Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization versus Portal Vein Embolization Only in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Review of Safety and Effectiveness.

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsPatients 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.DiscussionAdding 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 registrationThis study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 15th February 2019 (NCT03841305).

Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization versus Portal Venous Embolization Alone in Cirrhotic and Noncirrhotic Swine: A Pilot Study.