Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cancers (Basel) ; 13(9)2021 May 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34063684

ABSTRACT

Hepatic resection has been widely accepted as the first choice for the treatment of colorectal metastases. Liver surgery has been recognized as a major abdominal procedure; it exposes patients to a high risk of perioperative adverse events. Decision sharing and the multimodal approach to the patients' management are the two key items for a safe outcome, even in such a high-risk surgery. This review aims at addressing the main perioperative issues (preoperative evaluation; general anesthesia and intraoperative fluid management and hemodynamic monitoring; intraoperative metabolism; administration policy for blood-derivative products; postoperative pain control; postoperative complications), in particular, from the anesthetist's point of view; however, only an alliance with the surgery team may be successful in case of adverse events to accomplish a good final outcome.

2.
HPB (Oxford) ; 22(4): 570-577, 2020 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31530450

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Recent studies validated the possibility to detach colorectal liver metastases from vessels (R1vasc) featuring R1vasc equivalent to R0 and superior to tumor exposure along the transection plane (R1par). To clarify the outcome of R1 surgery (margin <1 mm) in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (MFCCC), distinguishing R1par and R1vasc resections. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection for MFCCC between 2008 and 2016 were considered. Tumor detachment from 1st/2nd-order Glissonean pedicles or hepatic veins was performed in advanced diseases. R0, R1par, and R1vasc were compared. RESULTS: The study included 84 resection areas in 59 patients (17 R1vasc). R1vasc group had local recurrence risk similar to R1par group (per-patient analysis 29% vs. 36%; per-resection area analysis 29% vs. 32%), higher than R0 group (3% and 2%, p = 0.003 and p = 0.0003). R1vasc and R1par groups had similar overall and recurrence-free survival (median OS 30 vs. 30 months; RFS 10 vs. 8 months), lower than R0 group (70 and 39 months, p = 0.066 and p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: In MFCCC patients, R1vasc resection is not an adequate treatment. Local disease control and survival after R1vasc resection are lower than after R0 resection and similar to R1par resection. R1vasc resection could be exclusively considered to achieve resectability in otherwise unresectable patients.


Subject(s)
Bile Duct Neoplasms/pathology , Bile Duct Neoplasms/surgery , Cholangiocarcinoma/pathology , Cholangiocarcinoma/surgery , Margins of Excision , Aged , Bile Duct Neoplasms/mortality , Cholangiocarcinoma/mortality , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Survival Rate , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...