Open Access

Liver surgery in the presence of cirrhosis or steatosis: Is morbidity increased?

Patient Safety in Surgery20082:8

DOI: 10.1186/1754-9493-2-8

Received: 05 December 2007

Accepted: 25 April 2008

Published: 25 April 2008

Abstract

Background data

The prevalence of steatosis and hepatitis-related liver cirrhosis is dramatically increasing together worldwide. Cirrhosis and, more recently, steatosis are recognized as a clinically important feature that influences patient morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection when compared with patients with healthy liver.

Objective

To review present knowledge regarding how the presence of cirrhosis or steatosis can influence postoperative outcome after liver resection.

Methods

A critical review of the English literature was performed to provide data concerning postoperative outcome of patients presenting injured livers who required hepatectomy.

Results

In clinical studies, the presence of steatosis impaired postoperative outcome regardless the severity and quality of the hepatic fat. A great improvement in postoperative outcome has been achieved using modern and multidisciplinary preoperative workup in cirrhotic patients. Due to the lack of a proper classification for morbidity and a clear definition of hepatic failure in the literature, the comparison between different studies is very limited. Although, many surgical strategies have been developed to protect injured liver surgery, no one have gained worldwide acceptance.

Conclusion

Surgeons should take the presence of underlying injured livers into account when planning the extent and type of hepatic surgery. Preoperative and perioperative interventions should be considered to minimize the additional damage. Further randomized trials should focus on the evaluation of novel preoperative strategies to minimize risk in these patients. Each referral liver center should have the commitment to report all deaths related to postoperative hepatic failure and to use a common classification system for postoperative complications.

Liver surgery is the only curative treatment of patients with liver tumors [13]. Developments in surgical techniques and advances in the management of critical patients have increased the number of potential candidates for surgery [4]. High-volume centers have convincingly reported a dramatic decrease in perioperative mortality after liver resection over the past two decades [5, 6]. Even zero mortality can be achieved with systematic preoperative patient selection [1].

As a result of better postoperative outcome, indications for liver surgery and the extent of liver resection have expanded and currently major liver resections are routinely performed despite the presence of underlying liver disorders [6]. While major hepatic resection (≥ 3 liver segments) can be safely performed on healthy livers, the risk of such resection in patients with underlying hepatic disease remains unclear. The available literature shows a great dispersion in postoperative mortality rates associated with liver failure after hepatic surgery in either sick or healthy liver [7, 8]. Moreover, the lack of a clear definition of postoperative liver failure, the use of different classification systems to assess postoperative complications and the absence of reliable parameters to estimate the remnant liver volume necessary to avoid hepatic failure makes the interpretation of the literature a difficult challenge [7, 9, 10].

A potentially increased risk of impaired postoperative recovery has been suggested for patient with cirrhosis [11] and recently, also for those with liver steatosis [12]. The objective of this review is to present the knowledge regarding how the presence of cirrhosis or steatosis can influence postoperative outcome after liver resection.

Steatotic livers

By definition hepatic steatosis is characterized by an accumulation of lipids in the liver and is related to a spectrum of etiologic features such as obesity, diabetes, excessive use of alcohol, and a variety of drugs and toxins [13, 14]. Fatty accumulation is considered pathologic when the hepatic fat content, consisting mainly of triglycerides, exceeds 5% of the actual wet weight of liver [15].

In a retrospective study of a large series of hepatic resections covering a decade (1991–2001), liver steatosis was found to be the most common underlying hepatic abnormality [6]. Even though the global prevalence has yet to be evaluated, studies reported prevalence of 10% to 20% in lean population, 60% to 74% among the obese (i.e. body-mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2) and over 90% in the morbidly obese (i.e. body-mass index ≥ 40 kg/m2) [1620]. Approximately, 3% of lean children are affected and the prevalence increases up to 53% among obese children [13, 21]. Incidence of steatohepatitis ranges from 3% in lean population, to 18% among obese to almost 50% in morbidly obese individuals. In patients with steatohepatitis, the risk to develop cirrhosis is 10% to 30% and is associated with a decreased 5- and 10-year survival of 67% and 59%, respectively [15]. Moreover, the prevalence of steatosis and steatohepatitis is expected to dramatically increase in the near future due to increasing obesity among the Western population.

Diagnosis

Steatosis is usually an incidental finding and hepatomegaly is often the only finding on physical examination. Despite widespread clinical use of imaging methods, ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imagining can only to some extent detect the degree of steatosis. Saadeh et al demonstrated the limitation of radiological modalities in a study where only steatosis >25–30% could be reliably detected radiologically [22]. In addition, none of these modalities was able to either distinguish the grading or the type of liver fat or to detect the individual pathologic features important to establish steatohepatitis such as necro-inflammatory changes, hepatocyte ballooning, and fibrosis [23].

There is consensus that the gold standard of diagnosis is = 2 liver biopsies, as a single biopsy can result in substantial misdiagnosis and staging inaccuracies [24]. However, due to the risk of fatal bleeding after liver biopsy (0.4%), it is not routinely performed in patients without apparent complicated liver disease [25]. A uniform quantitative grading for steatosis and steatohepatitis has been suggested, combining the identified key pathologic features [26]. Besides quantitative grading, steatosis can be classified qualitatively into microvesicular and macrovesicular forms. Most frequent is the macrovesicular one, and is frequently associated with obesity, non-insulin-dependent diabetes, some dyslipidemias, and alcohol abuse. Microvesicular steatosis is usually related to more acute conditions such as acute viral infections, metabolic disorders, and various toxins but also to acute fatty liver of pregnancy. The histopathologic features of steatosis are evaluated in preoperative needle biopsies or operative wedge specimens that are frozen and/or deparaffinized. The staining methods currently used are hematoxylin and eosin with which the fatty changes are assessed by considering the non-stained regions. In addition, specific fat stains such as Oil Red O and Sudan III are used. However, there are several problems in clinical application of these staining methods. The conventional techniques potentially underestimate the extent of fatty infiltration as they fail to identify microvesicular forms of steatosis [27]. Also the fat specific stains have pitfalls, for example, in Oil Red O-stained liver tissue, the quality and quantity of the staining are highly operator-dependent and false-positive results or overestimation of the severity are possible because of unspecific sinusoidal staining [28].

Associated Clinical Conditions

Patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease have an increased prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes, but the actual role of diabetes in postoperative recovery is unclear as studies report contradictory results. Non-insulin-dependent diabetes was identified as independent and significant variable predicting major postoperative complications in a cohort of 209 patients undergoing liver resection [29]. However, contrary to this study, a study including 525 diabetic and non-diabetic patients requiring hepatectomy, reported no difference in perioperative morbidity or mortality and no effect was observed in long-term prognosis [30]. Although the impact of diabetes on postoperative complications remains unclear, an increased rate of wound infections was reported in an impressive cohort of over 20,000 patients [31]. From the analysis of a large database, was concluded that a subset of diabetic patients having steatosis in the analysis of the liver specimen, poorly tolerate major liver resection [32]. Thus, when contemplating major hepatectomy in patients with diabetes mellitus, surgeons should be aware that the presence of diabetes mellitus may lead to higher incidence of hepatic failure postoperatively.

Obesity is crucially linked with steatosis [14]. In the past, obesity has been also linked to increased perioperative technical complications leading to prolonged postoperative recovery. However, Dindo et al prospectively investigated a cohort of 6336 patients undergoing elective major surgery and found no increase in postoperative morbidity and mortality between obese and non-obese, not even in morbidly obese patients [33]. However, the authors did not discriminate patients who underwent exclusively liver surgery. Unfortunately, reports referred to perioperative outcome of obese patients requiring hepatectomy are scarce in the literature.

In contrast to general obesity, body fat accumulation (subcutaneous or intraabdominal) has been reported to be independently associated with postoperative morbidity in a prospective study of 139 patients who underwent gastric or colorectal cancer surgery [34].

Post-Operative Complications

Only a few studies have focused on liver steatosis as a risk factor for postoperative complications after liver resection (Table 1). However, there are some general problems in the reporting of these studies. The histopathology methods for diagnosis of steatosis are not frequently, if ever, mentioned. So, the reliability of diagnosis of steatosis remains uncertain, rendering the comparison of the results difficult. Uniform grading together with a more detailed description of the staining methods used and the number and sort of biopsies taken are important to compare different studies [15]. In the absence of a uniform classification system accepted by most to better stratify morbidity by severity, scarce data is reported concerning the incidence of major complication rate after liver resection in steatotic patients. Finally, mortality is usually assessed as in-hospital mortality or 60 days mortality after operation, and there are no studies evaluating 5- or 10-year survival of steatotic patients after surgey.
Table 1

Reported studies focus on postoperative outcome after liver resection of patients with steatotic livers.

Authors

Year

Center

Grading of steatosis (%)

Number of patients

Overall Complication (%)

P value

Mortality (%)

P value

Behrns et al (35)

1998

Mayo Clinic. Rochester, USA.

None

72

10

NA

3

NA

   

Mild (<30)

56

14

 

7

 
   

Marked (≥ 30)

7

29

 

14

 

Belghiti et al (5)

2000

Hopital Beaujon. Paris, France.

None

441

8

0.003

1

0.5

   

Steatosis (≥ 30)

37

22

 

0

 

Jamargin et al (6)

2002

MSKCC. New York, USA.

None

1275

48

0.197

3.9

0.309

   

Steatosis (≥ 30)

380

44

 

2.8

 

Kooby et al * (36)

2003

MSKCC. New York, USA.

None

160

35

<0.01

3.1

0.29

   

Mild (<30)

223

48

 

3.6

 
   

Marked (≥ 30)

102

62

 

5.9

 

Mc Cormack et al * (12)

2007

Swiss HPB Center. Zurich, Switzerland.

None

58 @

6.9#

0.001

1.7

0.21

   

Steatosis (≥ 10)

58 @

27#

 

8.6

 

NA: Not Available; * Case matched analysis; # Referred only to major complication rate using Dindo et al classification (10); @ Only major liver resection were analyzed (≥ 3 liver segments)

In 1998, Behrns et al evaluated in a retrospective study of 135 patients, the safety of major resection in patients with hepatic steatosis [35]. They reported an increased postoperative mortality, morbidity, and blood transfusion rates together with longer operative time in the presence of steatosis of ≥ 30%. Belghiti et al, in a large database including 478 liver resections, detected the presence of hepatic steatosis ≥ 30% in 37 (7.7%) patients, and they demonstrated that steatosis was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications but not for mortality [5]. In the analysis of a cohort of 1803 liver resections, the histological analysis demonstrated that only 55% of the liver specimens had normal parenchyma and 18% had liver steatosis [6]. In contrast, the presence of steatosis was not a risk factor for postoperative outcome after hepatectomy. Later, Kooby et al reviewed the above-mentioned cohort to perform a case-matched study involving 325 steatotic patients compared with 160 with normal liver who were matched according to age, co-morbidities, and the extent of resection [36]. Interestingly, they showed that steatosis was a predictor of postoperative complications, but mainly due to minor complications. Major postoperative complications, eg, requiring major therapeutic intervention or mortality, were not affected by the presence of steatosis. To note, information regarding the presence of concomitant risk factors, such as nutritional parameters, kidney function and cholestasis, were not included in this analysis. Furthermore, the histologic analysis did not differentiate between the two types of liver steatosis or other histological features such as steatohepatitis or fibrosis. Therefore, we decided to investigate the influence of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of steatosis in postoperative outcome after major liver resection [12]. In our study, each patient with liver steatosis was matched with a similar patient with normal liver who required major hepatectomy according to the following variables: age, gender, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score, diagnosis, extent of hepatectomy, and the need of bilio-enteric bypass. We found that steatosis was the most significant preoperative risk factor for postoperative complications and should be considered for the planning of a major liver resection. Interestingly, neither the type nor the grading of liver steatosis influenced postoperative outcome after major hepatectomy. A novel finding in this study was that the presence of preoperative jaundice in a steatotic liver was an independent risk factor for mortality after surgery. Consequently, efforts should be made either to postpone surgery until normalization of bilirubin or to minimize the extent of liver resection in those patients (e.g., economic hepatectomy combined with ablation therapies, two-stage hepatectomy, etc).

Cirrhotic livers

Reduction of postoperative morbidity and mortality is still a great challenge in cirrhotic patients. Today, an improvement in perioperative outcome of cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery has been achieved as a result of a continuous advance in preoperative imagining, surgical technique, anesthesia and critical care unit management. However, probably the most important factor for better outcome in cirrhotic patients is based in a careful and accurate patient selection. Preoperative patient selection must be performed by multidisciplinary teams with special focus in hepatic diseases working in referral high-volume center [37].

Pre-operative management

Although blood tests intended to evaluate preoperative hepatic function in cirrhotic patients requiring liver resection, these techniques frequently underestimate the underlying liver disease [38]. In an attempt to solve this problem, many different methods have been used to evaluate hepatic functional reserve. Among all, the Child-Pugh clinical score is the most validated and used method for cirrhotic patients. Major hepatic resections are safely performed in patients scored as Child- Pugh A but this classification failed to be an adequate predictor of the extent of the liver resection that could be safely performed. In contrast, patients classified as Child- Pugh B and C have unacceptable morbidity and mortality risks and therefore are not suitable for major liver resections [39].

Several methods have been proposed to evaluate hepatic function prior to liver surgery including those based on liver perfusion and biliary excretion (e.g. indocyanine green), on microsomal or cytosolic function (e.g. aminopyrine breath test, galactosyl elimination capacity) and on functional imaging (e.g. 99m-Tc-galactosyl-human serum albumin scintigraphy) [8, 4043]. Redealli et al established in a prospective study that a galactosyl elimination capacity < 4.0 mg/min/Kg is a strong predictor of complications after hepatic surgery in patients with HCC and liver cirrhosis [41]. Among all, the most commonly used is the indocyanine green (ICG) clearance test widely used in eastern countries for cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma requiring liver surgery [40, 44]. The ICG clearance test evaluated the retention rate of the substance after 15 minutes wich is actively transfer into the hepatic parenchyma, which seems to be the only mechanism involved in metabolism. Finally it is secreted into the bile [8]. The ICG test values are determined by blood sampling or as the percent retention determined by pulsed spectrophotometry in a similar fashion to an oxygen saturation monitor [45]. However, the grater limitation of this test is the variation of results associated with changes in hepatic blood flow. While patients classified as Child-Pugh score A with ICG retention rate <14 % are eligible for large resection, those with results between 15% and 20% are only suitable for limited resections [46].

Some authors combined the results of Child-Pugh score, ICG retention rate at 15 minutes and other biochemical results to define the magnitude of resection, or to decide the use of a preoperative portal embolization to achieve a compensatory hypertrophy of the future liver remnant [1, 47]. For example, Wo et al sustained that in patients with ICG retention rate >50%, total bilirubin >4 mg/dl or protrombine time <75%, surgery should not be performed [48]. Taking these parameters into account there have been low mortality rates attributed to liver failure and acceptable morbidity [46, 49, 50].

However, the grater limitation of these tests is the variation of results associated with changes in hepatic blood flow and others entities affecting hepatic function leading some authors to discuss the accuracy of this method [51, 52]. For example, Herold et al found unequal results when comparing tests for hepatic metabolism as galactosyl elimination capacity or aminopyrine breath test with ICG test in patients affected with chronic hepatic diseases [42]. Currently, there is no functional test capable to define on its own the degree of functional reserve and the extent of resection. Therefore, a general algorithm used to evaluate the functional liver reserve in patients with chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis in many centers include clinical evaluation in the search of co-morbidities, blood testing including platelet count and coagulation studies, ICG test, hepatic volume measured by imaging and Child-Pugh classification [44, 47].

The presence of severe portal hypertension is an accepted contraindication for liver resection [53]. To exclude this situation, the grade of portal hypertension must be evaluated during preoperative work-up with platelet count, measurement of spleen by imaging studies and endoscopy to assess the presence of esophagus varices [44]. In case of esophagic varices grade III, the patient must be endoscopically treated before surgery [54]. Some authors recommended the systematic measurement of portal pressure gradient to select patients more accurately [11, 53]. Bruix et al demonstrated that a portal pressure gradient higher than 10 mmHg was associated with increased morbidity and reduced survival [53]. Furthermore in those with associated high bilirubin mortality was increased [11]. As a consequence, a systematic preoperative measurement of portal pressure gradient has been used in many centers to better select cirrhotic patients with liver tumors [11, 53]. Others proposed to delay or avoid hepatectomy in virus related cirrhotic patients with high hepatic transaminases to reduce postoperative mortality [47].

Another important factor to take into account when hepatic regeneration is desired is cholestasis. In this specific situation, most authors agree to perform a preoperative biliary percutaneous drainage of the hemi-liver that will remain after surgery [55]. Nevertheless, many variables such as the type and etiology of the underlying liver disease, the extent and location of the lesions, make the experience of the treating team of primary importance to define the extent of the liver resection in each particular patient [6]. Co-morbidities tend to start or enlarge perioperative complications, so it is sensitive to achieve ASA score I-II prior to surgery because it reduces risk [47]. Moreover, there are entities related to cirrhotic status that can be resolved during surgery to prevent further complications. For example, some authors recommended to perform splenectomy during hepatectomy to reduce postoperative medical complications in patients with severe hyperesplenism [56, 57].

Evidence from liver transplant suggests that the donor graft volume must represent ≥ 0.8% of the total body weight of the receptor to reduce the risks of acute hepatic failure [58]. However, the regeneration of chronically ill liver is not equal than that observed in normal organs [8, 39, 59, 60], thus surgeons must be extremely cautious when defining the extent of functional remaining parenchyma to avoid postoperative hepatic failure. Makuuchi et al proposes preoperative right portal vein embolization (PPVE) as a useful attempt to increase the volume of the future remaining liver [61]. Azulay et al demonstrated that resecability can be achieve when PPVE is indicated in cirrhotic patients when the estimated future remnant liver parenchyma ≤40% [62]. When the liver does not regenerate after PPVE, most agree that major hepatectomy should be contraindicated to avoid severe postoperative liver failure [63]. Today, most authors recommend to perform PPVE when the remaining liver is ≥ 25–30% of the whole organ in normal liver and ≥ 40% in injured livers [40, 47, 49, 62]. In eastern countries, where ICG test is widely used in cirrhotic patients, PPVE is recommended when the non-tumoral parenchyma to be removed is ≥ 40% of the organ together with ICG test of 10% to 20% [50].

Post-Operative Complications

A comparative analysis of morbidity and mortality in cirrhotic patients undergoing liver surgery is very limited as a result of the absence of a standard manner to report postoperative complications. Moreover, most of the studies involve cirrhotic as well as other patients with different hepatic disorders such as fibrosis, cholestasis or hepatitis. Finally, there is no description of severity degree of postoperative complications and often the cause of death is not reported (Table 2).
Table 2

Reported postoperative outcome of cirrhotic patients undergoing liver resection.

Authors

Year

Number of patients

Cirrhosis (%)

Overall Complication (%)

Liver Failure (%)

30-day Mortality (%)

Midorikawa et al (50)

1999

173

65

67.6

0&

0

Fong et al (86)

1999

154

64.9

45

5

4.5

Torzilli et al (49)

1999

107

59.8

26.2

NA

0

Belghiti (5)

2000

253

94.5

NA

NA

9.5

Takano et al (87)

2000

300

90 $

26 *

NA

4

Zhou et al (66)

2001

1000

88.8

NA

0.5

1.5

Poon et al (46)

2002

206

100

34.9

4.4

5.3#

Grazi et al (88)

2003

443

69.5

37

NA

5.9 #

The et al (89)

2005

82

100

NA

11

16

NA: Not Available; $ series including cirrhosis and other hepatic disorders; * Referred to major complication; &Hepatic insufficiency defined as the presence of both prolonged jaundice (total bilirubin level >3 mg/dL) and encephalopathy; # Hospital mortality defined as any death occurring during the same hospital admission of the hepatic resection

The evolution of hepatic surgery together with the introduction of novel surgical strategies and modern transection techniques has led to a dramatic reduction in mortality rates from 10–32% [7, 64, 65] to current series displaying mortality rated of <8% (Table 2). Although post-operative hepatic failure has also been reduced to <5% [46, 50, 66], most of the different surgical teams evaluate failure in their own fashion.

Many liver surgeons advocated to the conventional approach for the surgical treatment of these patients to reduce hemorrhagic complications. However, some authors have suggested that the laparoscopic approach when feasible can reduce complications related to the abdominal wall or ascitis [6769]. The use of systematic drainage of abdominal cavity after hepatic surgery in cirrhotic liver has no proven benefits [70, 71] and there is also an association with infections, abdominal wall complications and prolonged hospital stay [72].

Protective strategies in injured livers

Various approaches have been proposed to improve the poorer postoperative outcome of patients with steatosis or cirrhosis after liver surgery. A positive correlation between preoperative liver function, operative time, blood transfusion requirement and postoperative morbidity has been demonstrated [48]. In addition, the extent of blood loss by itself is responsible for short and long term complications [73]. Consequently, inflow occlusion by clamping of the portal triad (Pringle maneuver) has been used since the early 20th century to minimize blood loss during transection of the liver parenchyma in cirrhotic [74] and non-cirrhotic patients [75]. A randomized study confirmed the safety of using inflow occlusion during transection even in cirrhotic livers [76]. This strategy is particularly effective in preventing blood loss but only when associated with low central venous pressure. Anterior approach as a surgical tactic for broad lesions that affect right liver and inhibits its mobilization has proved to be also effective to reduce intra-operative bleeding [77]. Low central venous pressure anesthesia, inflow and/or outflow vascular control, novel transection or coagulation devices are intended all to reduce such loses [38, 50].

A recent randomized controlled trial showed that liver transection under inflow occlusion with the clamp crushing technique is associated with lower blood loss and reduced requirement for perioperative transfusions, than resection performed with more sophisticated transection devices claimed to enable safe surgery without the need for inflow occlusion [78]. However, the Pringle maneuver induces ischemic injury in the remnant liver, which is directly related to the duration of inflow occlusion and associated with increased morbidity and mortality [79]. The use of total vascular exclusion during hepatic resection, greatly reduces blood loss, and also ulterior liver regeneration is affected by ischemic organ injury suffered during this process [5]. Two protective strategies such as intermittent clamping (IC) and ischemic preconditioning (IP) intended to reduce ischemic injury and bleeding, however most available clinical data referred to non-cirrhotic patients [67, 74, 8082].

There is growing evidence that liver steatosis is associated with reduced outcome after hepatic resection [12]. Since in animal models was observed that steatotic livers poorly tolerate warm ischemia during hepatectomy, many surgeons advocated to develop protective strategies against ischemic injury of these livers [83]. However, animal models applied in experimental studies to protective strategies have all biases precluding the extrapolation of results to the clinical situation [15, 83]. The development of clinically relevant experimental models is also hindered by the spectrum of patients with different etiologic factors. Different etiologic backgrounds lead to different forms of steatosis combined with a range of pathologic features unique to some etiologic factors. Furthermore, the clinical significance of the type and extent of steatosis is not clear as larger cohort studies applying uniform diagnostic criteria are missing. In two clinical randomized trial comparing IP or IC versus continuous clamping the highly protective effect of both strategies in steatotic livers was clearly stated [84, 85]. In a recent study, the protection conferred by IC was fully preserved in steatotic livers, even if >30% of steatosis was present, while this protective effect was weaker in the IP group [81]. These data may imply that IC should be preferred in patients with severe steatosis and expected prolonged ischemia time. However, more research is needed in this field of surgery as the prevalence of steatosis and hepatitis-related liver cirrhosis is dramatically increasing together worldwide.

Conclusion

Cirrhosis and, more recently, steatosis are recognized as a clinically important feature that influences patient morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection when compared with patients with healthy liver. In the last years, steatosis has become a major concern as its prevalence is closely linked to obesity, an epidemic disease in Western countries. There is an urgent need for reliable noninvasive methods to detect steatosis and related pathologic features preoperatively.

Surgeons should take the presence of injured livers into account when planning the extent and type of hepatic surgery. Preoperative and perioperative interventions should be considered to minimize the additional damage. The future goal should be to use by consensus a proper classification for morbidity and hepatic failure in liver surgery to compare results between reference centers. These centers should have the commitment to report all deaths related to hepatic failure after surgery.

On choosing a standard of care and treatment for patients with chronic hepatic disease there are no fixed strategies. Each team based on current evidence should decide the best algorithm according to each patient to reach similar rates of morbidity and mortality than those of patients with healthy liver. Further randomized trials should focus on the evaluation of novel preoperative strategies, such as short-term intensive medical treatment of hepatic steatosis and preoperative portal vein embolization, to minimize risk in these patients.

Abbreviations

ASA: 

American Society of Anesthesiologists

ICG: 

indocyanine green

PPVE: 

Preoperative portal vein embolization

IC: 

intermittent clamping

IP: 

ischemic preconditioning

Declarations

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary and Liver Transplantation Unit, General Surgery Service, Hospital Aleman

References

  1. Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Lam CM, Yuen WK, Yeung C, Wong J: Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: toward zero hospital deaths. Ann Surg. 1999, 229: 322-330. 10.1097/00000658-199903000-00004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jarnagin WR, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, Gonen M, Burke EC, Bodniewicz BJ, Youssef BM, Klimstra D, Blumgart LH: Staging, resectability, and outcome in 225 patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2001, 234: 507-17; discussion 517-9. 10.1097/00000658-200110000-00010.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Tomlinson JS, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, Kornprat P, Gonen M, Kemeny N, Brennan MF, Blumgart LH, D'Angelica M: Actual 10-year survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases defines cure. J Clin Oncol. 2007, 25: 4575-4580. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.0833.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Redaelli CA, Wagner M, Krahenbuhl L, Gloor B, Schilling MK, Dufour JF, Buchler MW: Liver surgery in the era of tissue-preserving resections: early and late outcome in patients with primary and secondary hepatic tumors. World J Surg. 2002, 26: 1126-1132. 10.1007/s00268-002-6321-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Belghiti J, Hiramatsu K, Benoist S, Massault P, Sauvanet A, Farges O: Seven hundred forty-seven hepatectomies in the 1990s: an update to evaluate the actual risk of liver resection. J Am Coll Surg. 2000, 191: 38-46. 10.1016/S1072-7515(00)00261-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jarnagin WR, Gonen M, Fong Y, DeMatteo RP, Ben-Porat L, Little S, Corvera C, Weber S, Blumgart LH: Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann Surg. 2002, 236: 397-406; discussion 406-7. 10.1097/00000658-200210000-00001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Shirabe K, Shimada M, Gion T, Hasegawa H, Takenaka K, Utsunomiya T, Sugimachi K: Postoperative liver failure after major hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in the modern era with special reference to remnant liver volume. J Am Coll Surg. 1999, 188: 304-309. 10.1016/S1072-7515(98)00301-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Schneider PD: Preoperative assessment of liver function. Surg Clin North Am. 2004, 84: 355-373. 10.1016/S0039-6109(03)00224-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Balzan S, Belghiti J, Farges O, Ogata S, Sauvanet A, Delefosse D, Durand F: The "50-50 Criteria" on Postoperative Day 5: An Accurate Predictor of Liver Failure and Death After Hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2005, 242: 824-829. 10.1097/01.sla.0000189131.90876.9e.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004, 240: 205-213. 10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Llovet JM, Fuster J, Bruix J: Intention-to-treat analysis of surgical treatment for early hepatocellular carcinoma: resection versus transplantation. Hepatology. 1999, 30: 1434-1440. 10.1002/hep.510300629.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. McCormack L, Petrowsky H, Jochum W, Furrer K, Clavien PA: Hepatic steatosis is a risk factor for postoperative complications after major hepatectomy: a matched case-control study. Ann Surg. 2007, 245: 923-930. 10.1097/01.sla.0000251747.80025.b7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Wanless IR, Lentz JS: Fatty liver hepatitis (steatohepatitis) and obesity: an autopsy study with analysis of risk factors. Hepatology. 1990, 12: 1106-1110. 10.1002/hep.1840120505.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Angulo P: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. N Engl J Med. 2002, 346: 1221-1231. 10.1056/NEJMra011775.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Vetelainen R, van Vliet A, Gouma DJ, van Gulik TM: Steatosis as a risk factor in liver surgery. Ann Surg. 2007, 245: 20-30. 10.1097/01.sla.0000225113.88433.cf.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bellentani S, Saccoccio G, Masutti F, Croce LS, Brandi G, Sasso F, Cristanini G, Tiribelli C: Prevalence of and risk factors for hepatic steatosis in Northern Italy. Ann Intern Med. 2000, 132: 112-117.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Nomura H, Kashiwagi S, Hayashi J, Kajiyama W, Tani S, Goto M: Prevalence of fatty liver in a general population of Okinawa, Japan. Jpn J Med. 1988, 27: 142-149.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Luyckx FH, Desaive C, Thiry A, Dewe W, Scheen AJ, Gielen JE, Lefebvre PJ: Liver abnormalities in severely obese subjects: effect of drastic weight loss after gastroplasty. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998, 22: 222-226. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0800571.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Andersen T, Gluud C: Liver morphology in morbid obesity: a literature study. Int J Obes. 1984, 8: 97-106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sanyal AJ: AGA technical review on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2002, 123: 1705-1725. 10.1053/gast.2002.36572.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Powell EE, Cooksley WG, Hanson R, Searle J, Halliday JW, Powell LW: The natural history of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a follow-up study of forty-two patients for up to 21 years. Hepatology. 1990, 11: 74-80. 10.1002/hep.1840110114.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Saadeh S, Younossi ZM, Remer EM, Gramlich T, Ong JP, Hurley M, Mullen KD, Cooper JN, Sheridan MJ: The utility of radiological imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2002, 123: 745-750. 10.1053/gast.2002.35354.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Rinella ME, Alonso E, Rao S, Whitington P, Fryer J, Abecassis M, Superina R, Flamm SL, Blei AT: Body mass index as a predictor of hepatic steatosis in living liver donors. Liver Transpl. 2001, 7: 409-414. 10.1053/jlts.2001.23787.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, Gombert S, Giral P, Bruckert E, Grimaldi A, Capron F, Poynard T: Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005, 128: 1898-1906. 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.084.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. McGill DB, Rakela J, Zinsmeister AR, Ott BJ: A 21-year experience with major hemorrhage after percutaneous liver biopsy. Gastroenterology. 1990, 99: 1396-1400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Brunt EM, Janney CG, Di Bisceglie AM, Neuschwander-Tetri BA, Bacon BR: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a proposal for grading and staging the histological lesions. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999, 94: 2467-2474. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01377.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Urena MAG, Ruiz-Delgado FC, Gonzales EM, Romero CJ, Garcia IG, Segurola CL, Gonzales-Pinto I, Sanz RG: Hepatic steatosis in liver transplant donors: Common feature of donor population?. World J Surg. 1998, 22: 837-844. 10.1007/s002689900479.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Markin RS, Wisecarver JL, Radio SJ, Stratta RJ, Langnas AN, Hirst K, Shaw BW: Frozen section evaluation of donor livers before transplantation. Transplantation. 1993, 56: 1403-1409. 10.1097/00007890-199312000-00025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Shimada M, Matsumata T, Akazawa K, Kamakura T, Itasaka H, Sugimachi K, Nose Y: Estimation of risk of major complications after hepatic resection. Am J Surg. 1994, 167: 399-403. 10.1016/0002-9610(94)90124-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Poon RT, Fan ST, Wong J: Does diabetes mellitus influence the perioperative outcome or long term prognosis after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma?. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002, 97: 1480-1488. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05792.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Cruse PJ, Foord R: The epidemiology of wound infection. A 10-year prospective study of 62,939 wounds. Surg Clin North Am. 1980, 60: 27-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Little SA, Jarnagin WR, DeMatteo RP, Blumgart LH, Fong Y: Diabetes is associated with increased perioperative mortality but equivalent long-term outcome after hepatic resection for colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2002, 6: 88-94. 10.1016/S1091-255X(01)00019-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Dindo D, Muller MK, Weber M, Clavien PA: Obesity in general elective surgery. Lancet. 2003, 361: 2032-2035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)13640-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Tsukada K, Miyazaki T, Kato H, Masuda N, Fukuchi M, Fukai Y, Nakajima M, Ishizaki M, Motegi M, Mogi A, Sohda M, Moteki T, Sekine T, Kuwano H: Body fat accumulation and postoperative complications after abdominal surgery. Am Surg. 2004, 70: 347-351.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Behrns KE, Tsiotos GG, DeSouza NF, Krishna MK, Ludwig J, Nagorney DM: Hepatic steatosis as a potential risk factor for major hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998, 2: 292-298. 10.1016/S1091-255X(98)80025-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kooby DA, Fong Y, Suriawinata A, Gonen M, Allen PJ, Klimstra DS, DeMatteo RP, D'Angelica M, Blumgart LH, Jarnagin WR: Impact of steatosis on perioperative outcome following hepatic resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003, 7: 1034-1044. 10.1016/j.gassur.2003.09.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Clavien PA, Mullhaupt B, Pestalozzi BC: Do we need a center approach to treat patients with liver diseases?. J Hepatol. 2006, 44: 639-642. 10.1016/j.jhep.2006.01.015.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Emond JC, Samstein B, Renz JF: A critical evaluation of hepatic resection in cirrhosis: optimizing patient selection and outcomes. World J Surg. 2005, 29: 124-130. 10.1007/s00268-004-7633-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Denys A, Lacombe C, Schneider F, Madoff DC, Doenz F, Qanadli SD, Halkic N, Sauvanet A, Vilgrain V, Schnyder P: Portal vein embolization with N-butyl cyanoacrylate before partial hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and underlying cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005, 16: 1667-1674.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Clavien PA, Petrowsky H, DeOliveira ML, Graf R: Strategies for safer liver surgery and partial liver transplantation. N Engl J Med. 2007, 356: 1545-1559. 10.1056/NEJMra065156.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Redaelli CA, Dufour JF, Wagner M, Schilling M, Husler J, Krahenbuhl L, Buchler MW, Reichen J: Preoperative galactose elimination capacity predicts complications and survival after hepatic resection. Ann Surg. 2002, 235: 77-85. 10.1097/00000658-200201000-00010.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Herold C, Heinz R, Radespiel-Troger M, Schneider HT, Schuppan D, Hahn EG: Quantitative testing of liver function in patients with cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C to assess disease severity. Liver. 2001, 21: 26-30. 10.1034/j.1600-0676.2001.210104.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Kwon AH, Matsui Y, Ha-Kawa SK, Kamiyama Y: Functional hepatic volume measured by technetium-99m-galactosyl-human serum albumin liver scintigraphy: comparison between hepatocyte volume and liver volume by computed tomography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001, 96: 541-546. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03556.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. McCormack L, Petrowsky H, Clavien PA: Surgical therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005, 17: 497-503. 10.1097/00042737-200505000-00005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Okochi O, Kaneko T, Sugimoto H, Inoue S, Takeda S, Nakao A: ICG pulse spectrophotometry for perioperative liver function in hepatectomy. J Surg Res. 2002, 103: 109-113. 10.1006/jsre.2001.6328.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, Liu CL, Lam CM, Yuen WK, Yeung C, Wong J: Extended hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: is it justified?. Ann Surg. 2002, 236: 602-611. 10.1097/00000658-200211000-00010.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Poon RT, Fan ST: Assessment of hepatic reserve for indication of hepatic resection: how I do it. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005, 12: 31-37. 10.1007/s00534-004-0945-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wu CC, Yeh DC, Lin MC, Liu TJ, P'Eng FK: Improving operative safety for cirrhotic liver resection. Br J Surg. 2001, 88: 210-215. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2001.01653.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Torzilli G, Makuuchi M, Inoue K, Takayama T, Sakamoto Y, Sugawara Y, Kubota K, Zucchi A: 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: 984-992. 10.1001/archsurg.134.9.984.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Midorikawa Y, Kubota K, Takayama T, Toyoda H, Ijichi M, Torzilli G, Mori M, Makuuchi M: A comparative study of postoperative complications after hepatectomy in patients with and without chronic liver disease. Surgery. 1999, 126: 484-491.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Lam CM, Fan ST, Lo CM, Wong J: Major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with an unsatisfactory indocyanine green clearance test. Br J Surg. 1999, 86: 1012-1017. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.1999.01204.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Hemming AW, Gallinger S, Greig PD, Cattral MS, Langer B, Taylor BR, Verjee Z, Giesbrecht E, Nakamachi Y, Furuya KN: The hippurate ratio as an indicator of functional hepatic reserve for resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001, 5: 316-321. 10.1016/S1091-255X(01)80054-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Bruix J, Castells A, Bosch J, Feu F, Fuster J, Garcia-Pagan JC, Visa J, Bru C, Rodes J: Surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients: prognostic value of preoperative portal pressure. Gastroenterology. 1996, 111: 1018-1022. 10.1016/S0016-5085(96)70070-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wu CC, Ho WL, Yeh DC, Huang CR, Liu TJ, P'Eng F K: Hepatic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic livers: is it unjustified in impaired liver function?. Surgery. 1996, 120: 34-39. 10.1016/S0039-6060(96)80238-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Maguchi H, Takahashi K, Katanuma A, Osanai M, Nakahara K, Matuzaki S, Urata T, Iwano H: Preoperative biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007, 14: 441-446. 10.1007/s00534-006-1192-3.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Sugawara Y, Yamamoto J, Shimada K, Yamasaki S, Kosuge T, Takayama T, Makuuchi M: Splenectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and hypersplenism. J Am Coll Surg. 2000, 190: 446-450. 10.1016/S1072-7515(99)00294-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Wu CC, Cheng SB, Ho WM, Chen JT, Yeh DC, Liu TJ, P'Eng F K: Appraisal of concomitant splenectomy in liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients with hypersplenic thrombocytopenia. Surgery. 2004, 136: 660-668. 10.1016/j.surg.2004.01.010.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Dahm F, Georgiev P, Clavien PA: Small-for-size syndrome after partial liver transplantation: definition, mechanisms of disease and clinical implications. Am J Transplant. 2005, 5: 2605-2610. 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01081.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Farges O, Belghiti J, Kianmanesh R, Regimbeau JM, Santoro R, Vilgrain V, Denys A, Sauvanet A: Portal vein embolization before right hepatectomy: prospective clinical trial. Ann Surg. 2003, 237: 208-217. 10.1097/00000658-200302000-00010.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Lesurtel M, Graf R, Aleil B, Walther DJ, Tian Y, Jochum W, Gachet C, Bader M, Clavien PA: Platelet-derived serotonin mediates liver regeneration. Science. 2006, 312: 104-107. 10.1126/science.1123842.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Makuuchi M, Thai BL, Takayasu K, Takayama T, Kosuge T, Gunven P, Yamazaki S, Hasegawa H, Ozaki H: Preoperative portal embolization to increase safety of major hepatectomy for hilar bile duct carcinoma: a preliminary report. Surgery. 1990, 107: 521-527.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Azoulay D, Castaing D, Krissat J, Smail A, Hargreaves GM, Lemoine A, Emile JF, Bismuth H: Percutaneous portal vein embolization increases the feasibility and safety of major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in injured liver. Ann Surg. 2000, 232: 665-672. 10.1097/00000658-200011000-00008.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ogata S, Belghiti J, Farges O, Varma D, Sibert A, Vilgrain V: Sequential arterial and portal vein embolizations before right hepatectomy in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2006, 93: 1091-1098. 10.1002/bjs.5341.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Tjandra JJ, Fan ST, Wong J: Peri-operative mortality in hepatic resection. Aust N Z J Surg. 1991, 61: 201-206. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1991.tb07592.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Fan ST, Lai EC, Lo CM, Ng IO, Wong J: Hospital mortality of major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma associated with cirrhosis. Arch Surg. 1995, 130: 198-203.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhou XD, Tang ZY, Yang BH, Lin ZY, Ma ZC, Ye SL, Wu ZQ, Fan J, Qin LX, Zheng BH: Experience of 1000 patients who underwent hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2001, 91: 1479-1486. 10.1002/1097-0142(20010415)91:8<1479::AID-CNCR1155>3.0.CO;2-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Belli G, Fantini C, D'Agostino A, Belli A, Russolillo N, Cioffi L: [Laparoscopic liver resection without a Pringle maneuver for HCC in cirrhotic patients]. Chir Ital. 2005, 57: 15-25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Cherqui D: Laparoscopic liver resection. Br J Surg. 2003, 90: 644-646. 10.1002/bjs.4197.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Cherqui D, Laurent A, Tayar C, Chang S, Van Nhieu JT, Loriau J, Karoui M, Duvoux C, Dhumeaux D, Fagniez PL: Laparoscopic liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: midterm results and perspectives. Ann Surg. 2006, 243: 499-506. 10.1097/01.sla.0000206017.29651.99.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Belghiti J, Kabbej M, Sauvanet A, Vilgrain V, Panis Y, Fekete F: Drainage after elective hepatic resection. A randomized trial. Ann Surg. 1993, 218: 748-753. 10.1097/00000658-199312000-00008.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Fong Y, Brennan MF, Brown K, Heffernan N, Blumgart LH: Drainage is unnecessary after elective liver resection. Am J Surg. 1996, 171: 158-162. 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)80092-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Liu CL, Fan ST, Lo CM, Wong Y, Ng IO, Lam CM, Poon RT, Wong J: Abdominal drainage after hepatic resection is contraindicated in patients with chronic liver diseases. Ann Surg. 2004, 239: 194-201. 10.1097/01.sla.0000109153.71725.8c.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Kooby DA, Stockman J, Ben-Porat L, Gonen M, Jarnagin WR, Dematteo RP, Tuorto S, Wuest D, Blumgart LH, Fong Y: Influence of transfusions on perioperative and long-term outcome in patients following hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg. 2003, 237: 860-9; discussion 869-70. 10.1097/00000658-200306000-00015.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Capussotti L, Nuzzo G, Polastri R, Giuliante F, Muratore A, Giovannini I: Continuous versus intermittent portal triad clamping during hepatectomy in cirrhosis. Results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Hepatogastroenterology. 2003, 50: 1073-1077.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Makuuchi M, Mori T, Gunven P, Yamazaki S, Hasegawa H: Safety of hemihepatic vascular occlusion during resection of the liver. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1987, 164: 155-158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Takayama T, Makuuchi M, Kubota K, Harihara Y, Hui AM, Sano K, Ijichi M, Hasegawa K: Randomized comparison of ultrasonic vs clamp transection of the liver. Arch Surg. 2001, 136: 922-928. 10.1001/archsurg.136.8.922.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Liu CL, Fan ST, Cheung ST, Lo CM, Ng IO, Wong J: Anterior approach versus conventional approach right hepatic resection for large hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective randomized controlled study. Ann Surg. 2006, 244: 194-203. 10.1097/01.sla.0000225095.18754.45.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Lesurtel M, Selzner M, Petrowsky H, McCormack L, Clavien PA: How should transection of the liver be performed?: a prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive patients: comparing four different transection strategies. Ann Surg. 2005, 242: 814-22, discussion 822-3. 10.1097/01.sla.0000189121.35617.d7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wei AC, Tung-Ping Poon R, Fan ST, Wong J: Risk factors for perioperative morbidity and mortality after extended hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2003, 90: 33-41. 10.1002/bjs.4018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Kim YI, Kitano S: Segment VIII resection of the cirrhotic liver under continuous pringle maneuver with in situ cooling followed by temporary portal decompression. Am J Surg. 1999, 177: 244-246. 10.1016/S0002-9610(99)00009-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Petrowsky H, McCormack L, Trujillo M, Selzner M, Jochum W, Clavien PA: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing intermittent portal triad clamping versus ischemic preconditioning with continuous clamping for major liver resection. Ann Surg. 2006, 244: 921-8; discussion 928-30. 10.1097/01.sla.0000246834.07130.5d.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Selzner N, Rudiger H, Graf R, Clavien PA: Protective strategies against ischemic injury of the liver. Gastroenterology. 2003, 125: 917-936. 10.1016/S0016-5085(03)01048-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Selzner M, Clavien PA: Fatty liver in transplantation and surgery. Sem Liver Dis. 2001, 21: 105-113. 10.1055/s-2001-12933.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Belghiti J, Noun R, Malafosse R, Jagot P, Sauvanet A, Pierangeli F, Marty J, Farges O: Continuous versus intermittent portal triad clamping for liver resection: a controlled study. Ann Surg. 1999, 229: 369-375. 10.1097/00000658-199903000-00010.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Clavien PA, Selzner M, Rudiger HA, Graf R, Kadry Z, Rousson V, Jochum W: A prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive patients undergoing major liver resection with versus without ischemic preconditioning. Ann Surg. 2003, 238: 843-50; discussion 851-2. 10.1097/01.sla.0000098620.27623.7d.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Fong Y, Sun RL, Jarnagin W, Blumgart LH: An analysis of 412 cases of hepatocellular carcinoma at a Western center. Ann Surg. 1999, 229: 790-9; discussion 799-800. 10.1097/00000658-199906000-00005.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Takano S, Oishi H, Kono S, Kawakami S, Nakamura M, Kubota N, Iwai S: Retrospective analysis of type of hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. 2000, 87: 65-70. 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01308.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Grazi GL, Cescon M, Ravaioli M, Ercolani G, Gardini A, Del Gaudio M, Vetrone G, Cavallari A: Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotics and noncirrhotics. Evaluation of clinicopathologic features and comparison of risk factors for long-term survival and tumour recurrence in a single centre. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003, 17 Suppl 2: 119-129. 10.1046/j.1365-2036.17.s2.9.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Teh SH, Christein J, Donohue J, Que F, Kendrick M, Farnell M, Cha S, Kamath P, Kim R, Nagorney DM: Hepatic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score predicts perioperative mortality. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005, 9: 1207-15; discussion 1215. 10.1016/j.gassur.2005.09.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© McCormack et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.