Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021
The technical aspects of ex vivo hepatectomy with autotransplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Baimas-George Maria, Thompson Kyle J, Watson Michael D, Iannitti David A, Martinie John B, Baker Erin H, Levi David, Vrochides Dionisios
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Ex vivo hepatectomy is the incorporation of liver transplant techniques in the non-transplant setting, providing opportunity for locally advanced tumors found conventionally unresectable. Because the procedure is rare and reports in the literature are limited, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating technical variations of ex vivo hepatectomies.
METHODS: In the literature, there is a split in those performing the procedure between venovenous bypass (VVB) and temporary portacaval shunts (PCS). Of the 253 articles identified on the topic of ex vivo resection, 37 had sufficient data to be included in our review.
RESULTS: The majority of these procedures were performed for hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (69%) followed by primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. In 18 series, VVB was used, and in 18, a temporary PCS was performed. Comparing these two groups, intraoperative variables and morbidity were not statistically different, with a cumulative trend in favor of PCS. Ninety-day mortality was significantly lower in the PCS group compared to the VVB group (p=0.03).
CONCLUSION: In order to better elucidate these differences between technical approaches, a registry and consensus statement are needed.
METHODS: In the literature, there is a split in those performing the procedure between venovenous bypass (VVB) and temporary portacaval shunts (PCS). Of the 253 articles identified on the topic of ex vivo resection, 37 had sufficient data to be included in our review.
RESULTS: The majority of these procedures were performed for hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (69%) followed by primary and secondary hepatic malignancies. In 18 series, VVB was used, and in 18, a temporary PCS was performed. Comparing these two groups, intraoperative variables and morbidity were not statistically different, with a cumulative trend in favor of PCS. Ninety-day mortality was significantly lower in the PCS group compared to the VVB group (p=0.03).
CONCLUSION: In order to better elucidate these differences between technical approaches, a registry and consensus statement are needed.