Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1100_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Part I
- •Esophageal Surgery
- •Tracheo-Esophageal Fistula
- •Overview
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Diagnosis
- •Management
- •Conservative Management
- •Endoscopic Management
- •Operative Management
- •Postesophagectomy TEF
- •Postintubation TEF
- •Bronchoesophageal Fistula
- •Prevention of Tracheoesophageal Fistula
- •Outcomes
- •Conclusion
- •Five Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •Five Key Points to Diagnose or Manage Complications Intra or Postoperatively
- •References
- •Esophageal Strictures Refractory to Endoscopic Dilatation
- •Introduction
- •Etiology of Esophageal Strictures
- •Treatment
- •Treatment of Benign Esophageal Strictures
- •Nonsurgical Options
- •Endoscopic Dilatation
- •Steroid Injection
- •Esophageal Stenting
- •Rendez-Vous Procedure
- •Incisional Therapy
- •Surgical Options
- •Antireflux Surgery for Peptic Strictures
- •Esophagectomy
- •Malignant Esophageal Strictures
- •Endoscopic Treatment
- •Dilatation
- •Stent Placement
- •Laser Therapy
- •Brachytherapy
- •Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points for Avoiding Postsurgical Esophageal Strictures
- •Key Points for Managing Esophageal Strictures
- •References
- •Esophageal Anastomotic Leak
- •Introduction
- •Risk Factors for Anastomotic Leak
- •Presentation and Identification of a Leak
- •Prevention and Management of Anastomotic Leaks
- •Future Directions
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points on Avoiding an Esophageal Anastomotic Leak
- •Key Points on Diagnosis and Managing an Esophageal Anastomotic Leak
- •References
- •Transhiatal Esophagectomy—Intraoperative Disasters
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Risk Factors for Bleeding with a THE
- •General Considerations
- •Anesthetic Considerations
- •Conduct of the Operation
- •Bleeding Scenarios During THE
- •Tracheal Tear
- •Summary
- •Key Points: Avoiding Catastrophic Complications—Mediastinal Bleeding and Airway Injury—During Transhiatal Esophagectomy
- •Key Points: Diagnosing and Managing Catastrophic Complications—Mediastinal Bleeding and Airway Injury—During Transhiatal Esophagectomy
- •References
- •Chyle Leak After Esophageal Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Historical Review
- •Basic Science
- •Embryology
- •Anatomy
- •Physiology
- •Composition of Chyle
- •Chylothorax
- •Etiology/Cause
- •Post-esophagectomy Chylothorax
- •Diagnosis
- •Clinical Features
- •Fluid Studies
- •Imaging
- •Treatment
- •Conservative Management
- •Surgical Management
- •Summary
- •Key Points on Avoiding an Esophageal Anastomotic Leak
- •Key Points on Diagnosis and Managing an Esophageal Anastomotic Leak
- •References
- •Evaluation of the Vocal Cords
- •Treatment of Unilateral Vocal Cord Dysfunction
- •Injection Augmentation
- •Framework Surgery for Unilateral Vocal Cord Dysfunction
- •Treatment of Bilateral Vocal Paralysis
- •Key Summary Points
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Classification
- •Symptoms
- •Diagnosis
- •Management of Airway, Hoarseness, and Vocal Cord Dysfunction After Esophagectomy
- •Introduction
- •Vocal Fold Dysfunction
- •Symptoms of Unilateral Vocal Cord Dysfunction
- •Symptoms of Bilateral Vocal Cord Dysfunction
- •Treatment
- •Complications
- •Conclusion
- •Five Key Points on How to Avoid Complications
- •Five Key Points on Diagnosing and/or Managing the Complications Either Intraoperatively or Postoperatively
- •References
- •Intraoperative Solutions for the Gastric Conduit that Will Not Reach
- •Colon as an Alternative Conduit
- •Jejunum as an Alternative Conduit
- •Pedicled Jejunal Interposition
- •Free Jejunal Interposition
- •Summary
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Injury to the Right Gastroepiploic Artery
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy of the RGEA
- •Vascular Considerations in Esophagectomy
- •Preoperative Evaluation of the RGEA
- •Preparation and Mobilization of the Gastric Conduit
- •Techniques for Improving Tissue Oxygenation
- •Tension-Free Anastomosis
- •“Supercharging”
- •Venous Drainage
- •Conclusion
- •Five Key Points: Avoiding Injury to the Right Gastroepiploic Artery
- •References
- •Intra-Operative Solutions for Ischemic Gastric Conduit
- •Gastric Esophageal Replacement Conduit
- •Diagnosis of Gastric Conduit Ischemia
- •Summary
- •Key Points for Avoiding Gastric Conduit Necrosis
- •Key Points for Managing Gastric Conduit Necrosis Postoperatively
- •References
- •Jejunal Feeding Tube Complications
- •Introduction
- •Technique for Placement
- •Open Surgical Jejunostomy Tubes
- •Laparoscopic Jejunostomy Tubes
- •Complications
- •Bowel Necrosis
- •Bowel Obstruction
- •Tube Dysfunction
- •Infectious Complications
- •Aspiration
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Part II
- •Gastric Surgery
- •Gastroparesis
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Presentation and Evaluation
- •Management
- •Bile Reflux
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Presentation and Evaluation
- •Management
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points (Prevention)
- •Key Points (Management)
- •References
- •Dealing with Dumping Syndrome
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Prevention
- •Management of Dumping Syndrome
- •Diet
- •Pharmacologic Therapy
- •Acarbose
- •Somatostatin Analogs
- •Studies of the Fast-Acting Somatostatin Analog Octreotide
- •Studies of Long-Acting Octreotide LAR
- •Adverse Effects of Somatostatin Analogs
- •Surgical Treatment
- •Conversion of Billroth II to Billroth I Anastomosis
- •Roux-en-Y Conversion
- •Continuous Enteral Feeding
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Etiology
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical History
- •Physical Findings
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Diagnosis
- •Noninvasive Imaging Studies
- •Treatment
- •Medical Treatment
- •Endoscopic/Interventional Radiology
- •Surgical Intervention
- •Summary
- •Key Points for Avoiding
- •Key Points for Diagnosing/Managing
- •References
- •Duodenal Stump Blowout
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Presentation of Blowout
- •Mechanisms Contributing to Blowout
- •Staple Line Failure
- •Distal Obstruction
- •Malnutrition
- •The Difficult Duodenum
- •Techniques for Reducing the Risk of Blowout
- •Management of the Difficult Duodenum
- •General Principles of Closure
- •Nissen Technique
- •Bancroft Technique
- •Tube Duodenostomy and Drainage
- •Management of Stump Blowout
- •Medical Management
- •Percutaneous Radiologic Techniques
- •The Decision to Operate and Surgical Approach
- •Summary of Management
- •Ramifications of Blowout
- •Conclusions
- •Key Points: Avoiding Duodenal Stump Blowout
- •Key Points: Diagnosing and Managing Stump Blowout
- •References
- •Postoperative Complications After Surgery for Gastric Cancer: Anastomotic Leakage
- •Introduction
- •Incidence
- •Prospective Factors
- •Detection
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •General Management
- •External Drainage
- •Treatment of the Leakage Site
- •Duodenal Stump Leakage
- •Summary
- •Five Key Points to Avoid Anastomotic Leakage
- •Five Key Points to Diagnose and Manage Leakage
- •References
- •Part III
- •Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Definition of PHI
- •Risk Factors for PHI
- •Prevention of PHI
- •Systematic Volumetry of the “Fully Functioning” Part of the Liver
- •Portal Vein Embolization
- •Limiting the Duration of Preoperative Chemotherapy
- •Treatment of PHI
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Biliary Leaks and Thoracobiliary Fistula
- •Introduction
- •Definitions
- •Biliary Leak and Grading System
- •Controlled and Uncontrolled Biliary Leaks
- •Source
- •Risk Factors and Prevention
- •Prevention
- •Risk Factors for Bile Leaks After Extrahepatic Bilioenteric Anastomosis
- •Prevention
- •Risk Factors for Bile Leak After Liver Resection
- •Prevention of Biliary Leaks After Hepatectomy
- •Intraoperative Tests for Bile Leaks
- •Postoperative Drains
- •Diagnosis
- •Investigations
- •Ultrasonography or CT Scan
- •Fistulogram
- •MRC, ERC, and PTC
- •HIDA
- •Management
- •Medical Management
- •Endoscopic Management
- •Interventional Radiology
- •Combined Endoscopic and Interventional Radiology Approaches—Rendezvous Procedures
- •Thoracobiliary Fistula
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Five Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •Five Key Points to Diagnosis or Manage Complications
- •References
- •Contralateral Bile Duct Injury During Hepatic Resection
- •Introduction
- •Etiology and Risk Factors
- •Anatomical Variations
- •Difficult Surgical Resection and Reoperation
- •Type of Liver Resection
- •Aggressive Dissection and Devascularization of Bile Ducts
- •Initial Investigations and Management
- •Initial Investigations
- •Stabilization and Operative Planning
- •No Evidence of Distal Obstruction with Fistula
- •Evidence of Distal Obstruction with Fistula
- •Evidence of Distal Obstruction but no Fistula
- •Definitive Management
- •Anatomy Relevant to Operative Repair of Biliary Outflow of Remnant
- •Operative Repair
- •Repair of Injury to Right Liver Outflow
- •Repair of Injury to Left Liver Outflow
- •Prevention of Contralateral Bile Duct Injury
- •Attention to Variation in Biliary
- •Intrahepatic Control of Biliary Radicals
- •Tumor Close to the Hilum
- •Outcomes
- •Five Key Points to Avoid Contralateral Bile Duct Injury
- •Five Key Points to Diagnose and Treat Contralateral Bile Duct Injury
- •References
- •Massive Intraoperative Hemorrhage During Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery
- •Introduction
- •Hemorrhage During Liver Surgery
- •Magnitude of Problem
- •Hepatic Vascular Anatomy
- •Prevention of Major Hemorrhage During Hepatic Resection
- •Techniques Aimed at Reducing Blood Loss During Hepatic Surgery
- •Deliberate Dissection and Exposure of Retro-Hepatic Vena Cava and Major Hepatic Veins
- •Hepatic Inflow Control
- •Vascular Isolation
- •Acute Normovolemic Hemodilution (ANH)
- •Management of Intra-Operating Bleeding During Liver Resection
- •Massive Hemorrhage During Pancreatic Surgery
- •Pancreatic Anatomy
- •Bleeding During Pancreaticoduodenectomy
- •Summary
- •5 Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •References
- •Intraoperative Injury to Hepatic Arterial Structures
- •Introduction
- •Normal Anatomy of the Hepatic Arterial Vasculature
- •Variant Anatomy of the Hepatic Arterial Vasculature
- •Replaced and Accessory Right Hepatic Arteries
- •Replaced and Accessory Left Hepatic Arteries
- •Replaced Common Hepatic Artery
- •Celiac Artery Stenosis
- •Preoperative Radiographic Assessment
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Intraoperative Considerations
- •Specific Intraoperative Considerations
- •Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD)
- •Replaced/Accessory Right Hepatic Artery
- •Replaced Common Hepatic Artery
- •Celiac Artery Stenosis
- •Hemi-hepatectomy
- •Conclusions
- •Key Points: Preoperative Interventions
- •Key Points: Intraoperative Principles
- •References
- •Hepatic Abscess
- •Etiology
- •Diagnosis
- •Computed Tomography
- •Ultrasound
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •Treatment
- •Five Key Points on How to Avoid Complications
- •Five Separate Key Points on Diagnosing and/or Managing the Complication
- •References
- •Hepaticojejunostomy Anastomotic Strictures
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Clinical and Biological Presentation
- •Morphological Evaluation
- •Incidence and Risk Factors According to the Clinical Context
- •Iatrogenic Bile Duct Injury
- •Liver Transplantation (LT)
- •Pancreatic Head Resection
- •Choledochal Cyst
- •Therapeutic Options
- •Conservative Management
- •Choice of the Approach
- •To Stent or Not to Stent?
- •Periprocedural Management
- •Surgery
- •Revisionary Surgery
- •Liver Resection
- •Liver Transplantation (LT)
- •Key Points: How to Avoid HJ Stricture
- •Key Points: Diagnostic and Management
- •References
- •Defining Pancreatico-Jejunostomy Strictures (PJS) and Pancreatico-Jejunostomy Strictures (PGS) by Symptoms, Morphology and Function
- •Management of Intractable Pain Due to PJA or PGS Stenosis in Surgical Case Series
- •Endoscopic Techniques for Management of PJA Strictures
- •Technical Clinical Results for ERP
- •EUS-Guided Access and Drainage
- •EUS-Guided Rendezvous
- •Pancreatic Antegrade Needle Knife (PANK) Technique
- •EUS-Guided Pancreatogastrostomy
- •Jejunal Stenosis Mimicking PJA Stenosis
- •Conclusions
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Postoperative Portal, Mesenteric, and Splenic Vein Thrombosis
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Diagnosis: Clinical Manifestations and Blood Tests
- •Diagnosis: Imaging Tests
- •Treatment
- •Anticoagulation
- •Interventional Techniques
- •Surgery
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points for Diagnosis
- •Key Points for Treatment
- •References
- •Postpancreatectomy Hemorrhage: Early and Late
- •Introduction
- •Prevention of Late PPH
- •The Falciform Ligament
- •The Portal Dissection
- •GDA Ligation
- •Reinforcing the Pancreatic Transection Site (Distal Pancreatectomy)
- •Diagnosis of Late PPH
- •Symptoms/Signs
- •Imaging for Late PPH
- •Management of PPH
- •Early PPH
- •Late PPH
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •Key Points to Diagnose/Manage
- •References
- •Major Disruptions of Pancreaticojejunostomy
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points: How to Avoid Complications
- •Key Points: Diagnosis/Management
- •References
- •Persistent Pancreatic Fistula
- •Introduction
- •Definition of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Procedure-Specific Incidence and Risk Factors for Pancreatic Fistula
- •Pancreaticoduodenectomy
- •Distal Pancretectomy
- •Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection/Lateral Pancreaticojejunostomy
- •Pancreatic Pseudocyst Drainage/Pancreatic Necrosectomy
- •Other Pancreatic Resections
- •Prevention of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Complications of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Management of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Initial Management
- •Delineation of Pancreatic Duct
- •Definitive Treatment of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Operative Management of Pancreatic Fistula
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •Key Points: Diagnosing and/or Managing Complications Either Intra- or Postoperatively
- •References
- •Management of Chyle Leaks Following Pancreatic Resection
- •Introduction
- •Background
- •Anatomy and Physiology of Visceral Lymphatics
- •Diagnosis of a Chyle Leak
- •Management of a Chyle Leak
- •The Contained Chyle Leak
- •Chylous Ascites
- •Management of Refractory Chyle Leaks
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points in Managing a Chyle Leak
- •References
- •Overview
- •Diagnosis
- •Prevention
- •Identifying Risk Factors
- •Role of Octreotide
- •Role of Pancreatic Stenting
- •Dissection and Management of the Pancreatic Stump
- •Minimally Invasive Versus Open Techniques
- •Drain Placement and Management
- •Management of Complications of Pancreatic Leak
- •Goal-Directed Resuscitation and Infection Control
- •Further Definition of Anatomy and Source Control
- •Optimizing Patient Clinical Status for Ongoing Conservative Management
- •Deliberate Reintervention When Clinically Indicated
- •Summary
- •Key Points on Avoiding Complications
- •Key Points on Diagnosis/Management of Complications
- •References
- •Part IV
- •Colorectal Surgery
- •Pearls for the Small Bowel and Colon That Will Not Reach
- •Introduction
- •Anatomic Constraints
- •Diagnosing the Problem
- •Specific Techniques: Making It Reach
- •Colorectal and Coloanal Anastomosis
- •Lateral-to-Medial Approach
- •Medial-to-Lateral Approach
- •Ileal-Pouch Anal Anastomosis (IPAA)
- •Stomas that Do Not Reach
- •Bailout Maneuvers—It Just Does Not Reach
- •Conclusions
- •Key Points on How to Avoid the Complication
- •Key Points on Diagnosing/Managing the Complication
- •References
- •Anastomotic Leak/Pelvic Abscess
- •Introduction
- •Prevention
- •Diagnosis and Management
- •Diagnosis
- •Management
- •Type I: Generalized Peritonitis
- •Type II: Localized Pelvic Abscess
- •Type III: Fistula
- •Long-Term Outcome
- •Need for a Permanent Stoma
- •Stenosis or Stricture
- •Local Recurrence
- •References
- •Management of Anastomotic Stricture
- •Introduction
- •Etiology of Anastomotic Stricture
- •Presentation and Diagnosis
- •Nonoperative Treatment
- •Balloon Dilation and Endoscopic Options
- •Stents
- •Operative Treatment
- •Reoperative Surgery
- •Anastomotic Revision and Diverting Stomas
- •New Technology
- •Conclusion
- •To Avoid Anastomotic Strictures in Colorectal Resections
- •Five Points on Diagnosing and Managing Anastomotic Strictures
- •References
- •Intraoperative Ureteral Injury
- •Introduction
- •Role of Preoperative Stenting
- •Incidence of Ureteric Injury and Early Identification of Injury
- •Placement of Ureteral Stents
- •Detection of Ureter Injury
- •Management of Ureter Injury
- •Proximal Third Injuries
- •Middle Third Ureteral Injuries
- •Lower Third Ureteral Injuries
- •Delayed Ureteral Transection or Ligation
- •Management Post Repair
- •Outcomes
- •Key Points to Avoiding Injury
- •Key Points to Diagnosis and Manage the Complication
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Incidence
- •Types of Prostatic Urethral Injury
- •Prevention
- •Detection
- •Management
- •Delayed Rectourethral Fistula
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points on Avoiding Complications
- •Key Points on Diagnosing/Managing Prostatic Urethral Injuries
- •References
- •Vaginal Injury During Stapled Anastomosis
- •Introduction
- •How to Avoid Vaginal Injury
- •How to Fix Vaginal Injury
- •Key Points on How to Avoid Vaginal Injury
- •Management of Rectovaginal Fistula
- •Introduction
- •General Principles
- •Local Repair
- •Mucosal Advancement Flap Repair
- •Endorectal Advancement Flap with Muscular Plication (Anterior Levatorplasty)
- •Transanal Sleeve Advancement Flap
- •Transvaginal Repair
- •Fistulotomy
- •Ligation of Intersphincteric FistulaTract
- •Biological Agents: Fibrin Glue and Fistula Plug
- •Miscellaneous
- •Tissue Transfer Procedures
- •Gracilis Muscle Interposition Flap
- •Martius Flap
- •Abdominal Procedure
- •Transperineal Omental Flap
- •Perioperative Management
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points to Avoid Complications
- •Key Points on Diagnosis and/or Managing Complications
- •References
- •Management of Presacral/Pelvic Bleeding
- •Introduction
- •Anatomy
- •Patterns of Injury
- •Management
- •Role of the Anaesthesiologist
- •Role of the Surgeon
- •Minimal-Access Surgery
- •The Postoperative Period
- •Summary
- •Key Points
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Preoperative Evaluation
- •Medical Comorbidities
- •Radiation Therapy
- •Chemotherapy
- •Imaging
- •Timing of Reconstruction
- •Classification of Defect
- •Reconstructive Surgical Tenants
- •Adjuncts to Flap Surgery
- •Negative Pressure Wound Therapy
- •Tissue Expansion
- •Biologic Tissue Matrices
- •Rectus Abdominis Muscle
- •Gracilis Muscle Flap
- •Gluteus Maximus Muscle
- •Pudendal Flap
- •Anteriolateral Thigh Flap
- •Postoperative Care
- •Ambulation
- •Drain Management
- •Complications
- •Summary
- •Key Points: Preventing Complications
- •Key Points: Managing Complications
- •References
- •Complications After TEM (Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery) and TAMIS (Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery)
- •Background
- •Complications of TEM and TAMIS
- •Postoperative Fever
- •Wound Dehiscence
- •Rectal Pain
- •Peritoneal Perforation
- •Pelvic Phlegmon and Abscess
- •Fistula
- •Bleeding
- •Incontinence
- •Conclusion
- •Key Points: Avoiding a Complication
- •Key Points: Managing/Diagnosing Septic Complications
- •References
- •Parastomal Hernia
- •Overview
- •Definition and Classification
- •Incidence
- •Pathophysiology
- •Risk Factors
- •Complications
- •Prevention
- •Preoperative Considerations
- •Operative Considerations
- •Diagnosis
- •History and Physical Exam
- •Imaging
- •Management
- •Nonoperative Management
- •Operative Management
- •Open Approach
- •Laparoscopic Approach
- •Postoperative Complications
- •Management of Recurrent Parastomal Hernias
- •Key Points: Diagnosing/Managing Parastomal Hernia
- •Key Points: Avoiding Parastomal Hernia Complications
- •References
- •Stoma Retraction/Ischemia/Stenosis
- •Introduction
- •Etiology/Incidence/Risk Factors
- •Prevention
- •Recognition/Assessment/Severity/Therapy
- •Conclusions
- •Five Keys Points in Diagnosing and Managing Stenosis, Retraction, and Ischemia in an Ostomy
- •Five Key Points on How to Avoid Tension and Ischemia in an Ostomy
- •References
- •Incontinence After Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy/Fistulotomy
- •Introduction
- •Lateral Internal Sphincterotomy
- •Fistulotomy
- •Management
- •Evaluation
- •Treatment
- •Injectables
- •Magnetic Bowel Sphincter
- •Sacral Nerve Stimulator
- •Artificial Bowel Sphincter
- •Diversion
- •Key Points: Strategies to Avoid the Complication of Incontinence
- •Key Points: Diagnosing and/or Managing the Complication of Incontinence Either Intraoperatively or Postoperatively
- •References
- •Anal Stenosis After Hemorrhoidectomy: Avoidance and Management
- •Introduction
- •Diagnosis
- •Classification of Stenosis
- •Treatment
- •Prevention
- •Nonoperative Intervention
- •Operative Intervention
- •Anatomic Versus Functional Stenoses
- •Preoperative Planning
- •Postoperative Care
- •Summary
- •Key Points: Managing Complications
- •References
- •Part V
- •Other Considerations
- •Delivering Bad News: Conversations with My Surgeon
- •Introduction
- •Informed Consent
- •The Family Does Not Want the Patient to be Fully Informed
- •Perioperative Death
- •When an Intraoperative Death Does Occur
- •Discussion of Unresectability or Metastatic Disease that Precludes Resection
- •Discussion of a Postoperative Complication
- •Discussion of the Unanticipated Major Postoperative Complication
- •Discussion of Operative Findings
- •The Need for Reoperation
- •Complications that Occur in your Absence from the Hospital
- •Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Measures
- •Discussing the Pathology Report
- •Discussion of Long-term Survival Prospect
- •Management of the Difficult Family
- •References
- •Index

21 Intraoperative Injury to Hepatic Arterial Structures
225
GDA if it has an initial inferior course. The PHA
can also be mistaken for the LHA if the division
into a RHA and LHA occurs distally in the porta
hepatis. The safest technique to ensure selective
ligation of the LHA is to perform a test clamp of
the artery and ensure a contralateral pulse prior
to division. A RLHA/ALHA is easily visualized
in the gastrohepatic ligament, and contralateral
arterial injury is not a concern as it is divided.
Hilar Tumors Tumors in the hepatic hilum can
present unique surgical problems as they may
invade vascular structures entering the liver.
Hilar cholangiocarcinomas that extend along the
left hepatic duct can present particular difficulty
as they require a left hepatectomy to obtain a
complete resection, while they can simultaneously invade the RHA given the usual proximity
of the RHA to the posterior aspect of the common
hepatic duct. Both preoperative and intraoperative techniques have been described to address
this, including preoperative embolization of the
PHA [53, 80], and reconstruction of the RHA
using the gastroepiploic artery, GDA, LHA, and
vein grafts [75, 81].
Conclusions
Key Points: Preoperative Interventions
1. Evaluate normal and variant hepatic arterial
anatomy using CT with arterial phase imaging
and/or CT angiography.
2. Perform preoperative biliary drainage in jaundiced patients with significant risk of injury,
ligation, or thrombosis of any hepatic arterial
branch.
3. In a hemi-hepatectomy, consider preoperative
embolization of the arterial supply to the remnant liver if it is at substantial risk of ligation,
injury, or thrombosis.
Consider stent or arterial bypass in patients
4.
with hemodynamically
rotic stenosis of the celiac artery and expected operative ligation of the gastroduodenal
artery.
Consider preoperative embolization of the
5.
right
hepatic artery in patients requiring biliary reconstruction with significant risk of loss
of both the right hepatic artery and the gastroduodenal artery.
In situations where preservation of a hepatic
6.
artery branch(es) is critical,
preparations for possible operative reconstruction such as availability of appropriate
grafts or surgical consultations.
significant atheroscle-
make necessary
The close relationship of hepatic arterial branches to structures in the porta hepatis and their
frequent anatomic variations, compounded with
the presence of tumors that often exhibit a tropism toward vasculature, render branches of the
hepatic artery particularly susceptible to injury
during HPB surgery. Fortunately, much experience has been gained to aid our understanding of
the anatomic and clinical factors that predispose
the liver and biliary tree to complications following ligation of hepatic arterial branches. A thorough understanding of these clinical principles,
comprehensive knowledge of normal and variant
anatomy, careful preoperative radiologic evaluation, and meticulous intraoperative technique
will allow surgeons to safely navigate potentially
fatal clinical scenarios and minimize complications following complex hepatobiliary and pancreatic resections.
Key Points: Intraoperative Principles
1. Without jaundice, injury to a hepatic arterial
branch(es) can generally be treated with ligation, provided a single patent hepatic arterial branch remains. Injuries to the common
and proper hepatic arteries have been safely
treated with ligation, although reconstruction
is reasonable.
2. With jaundice, injury to any hepatic arterial
branch requires repair given the risk of hepatic necrosis and life-threatening complications
with occlusion.
3. With a biliary-enteric anastomosis, ligation
of either the right hepatic artery or the gastroduodenal artery is safe. Ligation of both is not
advised given the risk of anastomotic complications.

226 V. P. Balachandran and M. I. D’Angelica
4. Loss of a pulse in the porta hepatis with gastroduodenal artery clamping indicates celiac
artery stenosis. Division of the gastroduodenal
artery will hence risk significant hepatic/biliary ischemia and biliary-enteric anastomotic
complications. Dividing sources of extrinsic
compression and immediate or delayed operative revascularization should be considered.
5.
During extrahepatic arterial ligation
in a hemi-hepatectomy, test clamp and confirm a
pulse to the contralateral liver remnant, and/or
expose both hepatic arterial branches before
ligation to avoid inadvertent injury to the contralateral arterial supply.
References
1. Shukla PJ, Barreto SG, Kulkarni A, Nagarajan G,
Fingerhut A. Vascular anomalies encountered during
pancreatoduodenectomy: do they inuence outcomes? Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;17(1):186–93.
2. Chamberlain RS, El-Sedfy A,
rant hepatic arterial anatomy and the whipple
procedure: lessons learned. Am Surg. [Review].
2011;77(5):517–26.
3. Hann LE, Blumgart LH. Surgical
anatomy of the liver, biliary tract, and pancreas.
In: Jarnagin WR, editor. Blumgart’s surgery of the
liver, pancreas and biliary tract. 5th ed. Philadelphia:
Elsevier Saunders; 2012.
4. Rocha FG. Liver blood ow: physiology, measurement, and clinical relevance. In: Jarnagin WR, editor.
Blumgart’s surgery of the liver, pancreas, and biliary
tract. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2012.
5. Northover JM, Terblanche
rial supply of the bile duct in man and its surgical
implications. Br J Surg. 1979;66(6):379–84.
6. Michels NA. Newer anatomy of the liver and its
variant blood supply and collateral circulation. Am J
Surg. 1966;112(3):337–47.
7. Hiatt JR, Gabbay J, Busuttil R
of the hepatic arteries in 1000 cases. Ann Surg.
[Review]. 1994;220(1):50–2.
8. Covey AM, Brody LA, Maluccio MA, Getrajdman
GI, Brown KT. Variant hepatic arterial anatomy
revisited: digital subtraction angiography performed
in 600 patients. Radiology. 2002;224(2):542–7.
9. Koops A, Wojciechowski B, Broering DC, Adam
G, Krupski-Berdien G. Anatomic variations of the
hepatic arteries in 604 selective celiac and superior mesenteric angiographies. Surg Radiol Anat.
2004;26(3):239–44.
10. Abdullah SS, Mabrut J-Y, Garbit V, Roche E, Olagne
E, Rode A, et al. Anatomical variations of the hepatic
Rajkumar D. Aber-
and ragiologic
J. A new look at the arte-
W. Surgical anatomy
artery: study of 932 cases in liver transplantation.
Surg Radiol Anat. 2006;28(5):468–73.
11.
López-Andújar R, Moya A, Montalvá E, Beren
guer M, De Juan M, San Juan F, et
learned from anatomic variants of the hepatic
artery in 1081 transplanted livers. Liver Transplant.
2007;13(10):1401–4.
12. Suzuki T, Nakayasu A, Kawabe K, Takeda H, Honjo
I. Surgical signicance of anatomic variations of the
hepatic artery. Am J Surg. 1971;122(4):505–12.
Daly JM, Kemeny N, Oderman P
13.
hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy. Anatomic
considerations, operative technique, and treatment
morbidity. Arch Surg. 1984;119(8):936–41.
Rygaard H, Forrest M, Mygind
14.
tomic variants of the hepatic arteries. Acta Radiol
Diagn (Stockh). 1986;27(4):425–7.
Chen CY, Lee RC, Tseng HS, Chiang JH, Hwang JI,
15.
Teng MM. Normal and variant anatomy of hepatic
arteries: angiographic experience. Zhonghua Yi Xue
Za Zhi (Taipei). 1998;61(1):17–23.
16. De Santis M, Ariosi P, Calo GF, Romagnoli R.
Hepatic arterial vascular anatomy and its variants.
Radiol Med. 2000;100(3):145–51.
17.
Song S-Y, Chung JW,
al. Celiac axis
UB, et
variations in 5002 patients: systematic analysis with
spiral CT and DSA. Radiology. 2010;255(1):278–88.
Woods MS, T
18.
common hepatic artery during pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am Surg. 1993;59(11):719–21.
19. Volpe CM, Peterson S, Hoover EL, Doerr RJ. Justication for visceral angiography prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am Surg. 1998;64(8):758–61.
20. Furukawa H, Shimada K, Iwata R, Moriyama N. A
replaced common hepatic artery running through the
pancreatic parenchyma. Surgery. 2000;127(6):711–2.
21.
Sakorafas GH, Sarr MG, Peros G. Celiac Artery Ste-
nosis: an underappreciated
patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Am
Coll Surg. 2008;206(2):349–56.
22. Park CM, Chung JW, Kim HB, Shin SJ, Park
JH. Celiac axis stenosis: incidence and etiologies
in asymptomatic individuals. Korean J Radiol.
2001;2(1):8–13.
23. Berney T, Pretre R, Chassot G, Morel P. The role of
revascularization in celiac occlusion and pancreatoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 1998;176(4):352–6.
24. Corinne Winston JT. Computer tomography of the
liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. In: Jarnagin WR,
editor. Blumgart’s surgery of the liver, pancreas, and
biliary tract. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders;
2012.
25. Sahani D, Saini S, Pena C, Nichols S, Prasad SR,
Hahn PF, et al. Using multidetector CT
operative vascular evaluation of liver neoplasms:
technique and results. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2002;179(1):53–9.
Takahashi S, Murakami T, Takamura M, Kim T, Hori
26.
M, Narumi Y, et al. Multi-detector row helical CT
Yin YH, Jae HJ, Kim H-C, Jeon
and common hepatic artery
raverso LW. Sparing a replaced
and unpleasant surprise in
al. Lessons
, Botet J. Long-term
T, Baden H. Ana-
for pre-
-

21 Intraoperative Injury to Hepatic Arterial Structures
angiography of hepatic vessels: depiction with dualarterial phase acquisition during single breath hold.
Radiology. 2002;222(1):81–8.
27.
Winston CB, Lee NA, Jarnagin
J, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et
for deline
artery variants in patients undergoing hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2007;189(1):W13–9.
28.
Tamm EP, Balachandran
Fleming JB, Lee JH, et al. Imaging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: update on staging/resectability. Radiol
Clin North Am. 2012;50(3):407–28.
29.
Schwartz LH. Magnetic resonance imaging of the
liver
editor. Blumgart’s surgery of the liver, pancreas
and biliary tract. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier
Saunders; 2012.
30. Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi
ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatico-biliary cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90(2):251–63.
31.
Winston CB, Lee NA, Jarnagin
J, DeMatteo RP, Fong Y, et
for deline
artery variants in patients undergoing hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2007;189(1):W13–9.
32. Graham RR, Cannell CD. Accidental ligation of the
hepatic artery. Br J Surg. 1933;20:566.
33. Brittain RS, Marchioro TL,
WR, Starzl TE. Accidental hepatic artery ligation in
humans. Am J Surg. 1964;107:822–32.
34.
Plengvanit U, Chearanai O, Sindhvananda K, Dam-
brongsak D, Tuchinda S, Viranuvatti V. Collateral
arterial blood supply of the liver after hepatic artery
ligation, angiographic study of twenty patients. Ann
Surg. 1972;175(1):105–10.
35.
Mays ET, Wheeler
arterial ow after interruption of hepatic arteries in
man. N Engl J Med. 1974;290(18):993–6.
36.
Lewis FR, Lim RC Jr, Blaisdell
ligation: adjunct in the management of massive hemorrhage from the liver. J Trauma. 1974;14(9):743–55.
37.
Flint LM, Mays ET, Aaron
Selectivity in the management of hepatic trauma.
Ann Surg. 1977;185(6):613–8.
38.
McDermott WV Jr
to the liver treated by hepatic dearterialization. Ann
Surg. 1974;180(3):305–8.
39.
Lee YT. Liver function tests after ligation of hepatic
artery. J Surg Oncol. 1978;10(4):305–20.
40. Allen PJ, Stojadinovic A, Ben-Porat L, Gonen
M, Kooby D, Blumgart L, et al. The management
of variant
rial infusion pump placement. Ann Surg Oncol.
2002;9(9):875–80.
41
Nancy E. Kemeny ASE. Regional chemotherapy
liver tumors. In: Jarnagin WR, editor. Blumgart’s surgery of the liver, pancreas and biliary tract. 5th ed.
Philadelphia: Elsevier-Saunders; 2012.
ation of celiac and superior mesenteric
A, Bhosale PR, Katz MH,
, biliary tract, and pancreas. In: Jarnagin WR,
MA. The role of endoscopic
ation of celiac and superior mesenteric
CS. Demonstration of collateral
WS, Fulton RL, Polk HC.
, Hensle TW. Metastatic carcinoid
arterial anatomy during hepatic arte-
WR, Teitcher
al. CT angiography
WR, Teitcher
al. CT angiography
Hermann G, Waddell
FW. Hepatic artery
for
227
42.
Makary MA, Fishman EK, Cameron JL. Resection of
the celiac axis for invasive pancreatic cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(4):503–7.
43.
Smoot RL, Donohue
dure for resection of tumors of the pancreatic body
and tail with celiac axis involvement. J Gastrointest
Surg. 2012;16(11):2167–9.
Doppman JL, Girton M, V
44.
hepatic artery embolization in the presence of
obstructive jaundice. Radiology. 1982;143(1):37–43.
45.
Soares AF, Castro e Silva Junior O, Ceneviva
Roselino JE, Zucoloto S. Biochemical and morphological changes in the liver after hepatic artery
ligation in the presence or absence of extrahepatic
cholestasis. Int J Exp Pathol. 1993;74(4):367–70.
46. Nath B, Szabo G. Hypoxia and hypoxia inducible
factors: diverse roles in liver diseases. Hepatology.
2012;55(2):622–33.
47.
Alves A, Farges O, Nicolet
Belghiti J. Incidence and consequence of an hepatic
artery injury in patients with postcholecystectomy
bile duct strictures. Ann Surg. 2003;238(1):93–6.
48.
Traverso LW
The importance of preserving hepatic blood ow to
prevent biliary stula. Am Surg. 1989;55(7):421–6.
49.
Kochhar G, Parungao JM, Hanouneh
Biliary complications following liver transplantation.
World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(19):2841–6.
50. Mezhir JJ, Brennan MF, Baser RE, D’Angelica MI,
Fong
study of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with
pancreatic adenocarcinoma: routine drainage is not
justied. J Gastrointest Surg. 2009;13(12):2163–9.
51.
van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Bruno
MJ, van der Harst E, Kubben FJ, et al. Preoperative
biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(2):129–37.
52. Tol JA, Busch OR, van der Gaag NA, van Gulik
TM, Gouma DJ. The quandary of preresection
biliary drainage for pancreatic cancer. Cancer J.
2012;18(6):550–4.
53. Miura T, Hakamada K, Ohata T, Narumi S, Toyoki Y,
Nara M, et al. Resection of
tumor and the hepatic artery after stepwise hepatic
arterial embolization: a case report. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(22):3587–90.
54. Hasegawa K, Imamura H, Akahane M, Miura
Takayama T, Ohtomo K, et
for celiac
tomy. Surgery. 2003;133(4):440–2.
55.
Halazun KJ, Kotru A, Menon KV, Patel J, Prasad KR.
Stenting of coeliac axis stenosis facilitates pancreatectomy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006;32(7):811–2.
56. Farma JM, Hoffman JP
axis occlusion in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg. 2007;193(3):341–
4. Discussion 4.
57.
Lochan R, White
stenting of the coeliac trunk. Ann R Coll Surg Engl.
2008;90(2):173–4.
, Freeny PC. Pancreaticoduodenectomy.
Y, DeMatteo RP, et
axis stenosis before pancreaticoduodenec-
JH. Modied Appleby proce-
ermess M. The risk of
R,
J, Watrin T, Sauvanet A,
IA, Parsi MA.
al. A matche
a locally advanced hilar
al. Endovascular stenting
. Nonneoplastic celiac
SA. Pre-operative endovascular
d case-control
Y,

228 V. P. Balachandran and M. I. D’Angelica
58. Sharafuddin MJ, Olson CH, Sun S, Kresowik TF,
Corson JD. Endovascular treatment of celiac and
mesenteric arteries stenoses: applications and results.
J Vasc Surg. 2003;38(4):692–8.
59.
van Wanroij
Mensink PB, Gerrits DG, Kolkman JJ, et
vascular
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28(2):193–200.
60.
Cloyd JM, Chandra V, Louie
Preoperative embolization of replaced right hepatic
artery prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Surg
Oncol. 2012;106(4):509–12.
61.
Turrini O, W
lemoe KD, Schmidt CM. Preservation of replaced
or accessory right hepatic artery during pancreaticoduodenectomy for adenocarcinoma: impact
on margin status and survival. J Gastrointest Surg.
2010;14(11):1813–9.
62. Eshuis WJ, Olde Loohuis KM, Busch ORC, van
Gulik TM,
hepatic artery on perioperative course and longterm survival after pancreatoduodenectomy. HPB
(Oxford). 2011;13(3):161–7.
63.
Cikrit DF,
MJ, Goulet RJ, et
creatobiliary surgery. Am Surg. 1993;59(10):692–6.
Discussion 7.
64.
Lygidakis NJ. Regional vascular resection
creatic head carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology.
1996;43(11):1327–33.
65.
Fischer CP, Rosenberg
troduodenal artery used for arterial reconstruction
during the Whipple operation. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54(80):2228–9.
66.
Kusano T, Tamai O, Miyazato H, Isa T, Shiraishi M,
Muto Y. Vascular reconstruction of the hepatic artery
using the gastroepiploic artery: a case report. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46(28):2278–80.
67.
Sarmiento JM, Panneton JM, Nagorney DM. Recon-
struction of the hepatic artery using the gastroduode
nal artery. Am J Surg. 2003;185(4):386–7.
68.
Faulds J, Johner A, Klass D, Buczkowski A, Scuda
more CH. Hepatic artery transection reconstructed
with splenic artery transposition graft. Perspect Vasc
Surg Endovasc Ther. 2012;24(2):87–9.
69.
Ohwada S, Ogawa T, Ohya
mura S, Satoh Y, et
artery reconstruction.
1999;46(27):1823–6.
70.
Pessaux P, V
nectomy: superior mesenteric artery rst approach. J
Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(4):607–11.
JL, van Petersen AS, Huisman AB,
treatment of chronic splanchnic syndrome.
JD, Rao S, Visser BC.
iebke EA, Delpero JR, Viret F, Lil-
Gouma DJ. Inuence of aberrant right
Dalsing MC, Sawchuk AP, Lalka SG, Harl
arma D, Arnaud JP. Pancreaticoduode-
ascular injuries during pan-
al. V
W, Bridget F, Bass B. Gas-
al. Gonadal vein graft for hepatic
T, Kawashima Y, Naka-
Hepatogastroenterology.
al. Endo-
for pan-
71.
Dumitrascu T,
versus standard approach in pancreatoduodenectomy: a case-match study. Langenbecks Arch Surg.
2010;395(6):677–84.
72.
Pessaux P, Marzano E, Rosso E. A
rst dissection during pancreaticoduodenectomy. J
Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(1):142–3.
73. Weitz J, Rahbari N, Koch M, Buchler MW. The
“artery rst” approach for resection of pancreatic
head cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(2):e1–4.
74.
Lupascu C, Moldovanu R, Andronic D, Ursulescu
Vasiluta C, Raileanu G, et
C,
pancreaticoduodenectomy: best option for hepatic
anatomical variants. Hepatogastroenterology.
artery
2011;58(112):2112–4.
75.
Sakamoto Y, Sano
Y, Sakuraba M, et
struction of the right hepatic artery for biliary malignancy. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2006;391(3):203–8.
76.
Allendorf JD, Bellemare S. Reconstruction of
the replaced right hepatic artery at the time of
pancreaticoduodenectomy
2009;13(3):555–7.
77. Amano H, Miura F
Hayano K, et
tion of the right and left hepatic arteries for locally
advanced pancreatic cancer. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat
Surg. 2009;16(6):777–80.
78.
Yamamoto S, Kubota
Sakuma A. Disposal of replaced common hepatic
artery coursing within the pancreas during pancreatoduodenectomy: report of a case. Surg Today.
2005;35(11):984–7.
79.
Nagai H, Ohki J, Kondo Y,
Kanazawa K. Pancreatoduodenectomy with preservation of the pylorus and gastroduodenal artery. Ann
Surg. 1996;223(2):194–8.
80. Yasuda Y
Toei H. Resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma
-
-
with left hepatectomy after pre-operative embolization of the proper hepatic artery. HPB (Oxford).
2010;12(2):147–52.
81.
de Santibanes E, Ardiles
Brandi C, Beskow A. Hepatic artery reconstruction rst for the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma bismuth type IIIB with contralateral arterial
invasion: a novel technical strategy. HPB (Oxford).
2012;14(1):67–70.
82.
Blumgart LH, Hann LE.
liver, pancreas and biliary tract. Vol.
Springer; 2012.
David L, Popescu I. Posterior
plea for the artery-
al. Posterior approach
T, Shimada K, Kosuge T, Kimata
al. Clinical signicance
. J Gastrointest Surg.
, Toyota N, Wada K, Katoh K,
al. Pancreatectomy with reconstruc-
K, Rokkaku K, Nemoto T,
Yasuda T, Kasahara K,
, Larsen PN, Ishibashi T, Yamashita K,
V, Alvarez FA, Pekolj J,
Blumgart's surgery of the
1. New Y
of recon-
ork:

Hepatic Abscess
Michael A. Woods, Orhan S. Ozkan
and Sharon M. Weber
22
Etiology
Recent advances in surgical technique and perioperative management, as well as more careful
patient selection and better understanding of liver
anatomy and physiology, have significantly improved mortality rates to less than 3–5 % after
liver and pancreas surgery. However, the overall
morbidity rate after hepatic resection remains
high, ranging from 15 to 45 %, and up to 80 %
in prospectively collected series evaluating pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) [1–12]. The incidence of postoperative hepatic infection has been
reported to vary between 2.6 and 8.6 % in more
recent large studies [1–12]. In pancreas surgery,
the risk occurs following PD but not distal pancreatectomy, which is likely due to the most wellrecognized contributing factor—the presence of
a biliary-enteric anastomosis [8].
The negative impact of postoperative com-
plications on long-term oncological outcome
S. M. Weber ()
Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School
of Medicine and Public Health, H4/730 Clinical Science
Center, Madison, WI 53792, USA
e-mail: webers@surgery.wisc.edu
M. A. Woods · O. S. Ozkan
Department of Interventional Radiology, University of
Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA
e-mail: mwood@uwhealth.org
O. S. Ozkan
e-mail: oozkan2@uwhealth.org
has been reported after partial hepatectomy for
colorectal metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma with postoperative sepsis being an independent predictor influencing disease free and
overall survival [3, 4, 13–15]. The mechanism
behind which postoperative sepsis negatively affects long-term outcomes in oncologic surgery is
not completely understood, but has been linked
to negative effects of the systemic inflammatory
response on the immune system. In addition to
the adverse effect of postoperative infectious
complications on long-term outcomes after liver
and pancreas surgery, the morbidity of infectious
complications also results in increased hospital
stay, resource utilization with subsequent higher
costs of inpatient stay, and mortality. Therefore,
early recognition and aggressive treatment of infectious complications are of pivotal importance
to reduce postoperative complications and improve oncologic outcomes.
Perioperative blood loss and blood transfusion
have been associated with systemic side effects
and negative impacts on postoperative outcome,
with blood loss remaining one of the main predictors of morbidity and mortality after liver and
pancreas resection [14–19]. Blood product transfusion has been assumed to have a deleterious effect on the immune system by suppressive effects
on host immunity via a reduction in natural killer
cell function, decreased cytotoxic T-cell function,
increased numbers of suppressor T cells, and
decreased function of macrophages and monocytes. Some of these effects may be mitigated
by the use of leukocyte depleted allogenic blood
T. M. Pawlik et al. (eds.), Gastrointestinal Surgery, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2223-9_22,
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
229

230 M. A. Woods et al.
transfusions; however, larger studies are required
to confirm this assumption [20]. The correlation
between blood loss and blood transfusion and
postoperative infection has been demonstrated in
multiple studies involving hepatic resections for
colorectal metastases, hepatocellular carcinoma,
and cholangiocarcinoma [3–6, 8, 11, 21]. Meticulous surgical technique and advances in hemostatic approaches for liver and pancreas resection
have led to a significant decrease in perioperative
blood loss and the need for blood transfusion in
patients. Despite this, a number of factors contribute to poor postoperative outcomes following
liver and pancreas surgery.
The presence of bile leakage is associated
with postoperative infectious complications [5,
8–10, 12]. The incidence of bile leakage ranges
in the literature from approximately 4.0 to 17 %,
with common etiologies consisting of inadequate
control from the parenchymal transection margin, leakage at a bile duct-intestinal anastomosis,
or injury of the remnant bile duct [10, 22–24].
Biliary stricture plays a significant role in development of postoperative hepatic abscess, particularly in patients who have had a biliary stent and
thus have contaminated bile. In a recent series
evaluating hepatic abscess after PD, both the
need for reoperation, the majority of whom required revision of their choledochojejunostomy,
and the presence of a biliary fistula contributed to
the risk of hepatic abscess [8]. There was no effect on long-term survival, although the numbers
were small. If suspicion for bile leak remains
elevated, imaging techniques such as hepatic
scintigraphy and magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents
or more invasive techniques such as endoscopic
retrograde cholangiopancreatography can be
employed.
Significant steatosis (> 30 %) has also been associated with a threefold increase in overall postoperative complications following hepatectomy,
with a twofold increase in patients with < 30 %
steatosis undergoing more extensive resections
involving greater than three segments compared
to patients without steatosis [25]. Nonalcoholic
fatty liver disease may affect up to 30 % of the
Western adult population with its prevalence
mirroring that of obesity and the metabolic
syndrome which is also expected to increase in
non-Western countries due to globalization of
the Western diet [26]. Imaging techniques, specifically MRI, are being developed to quantify
fat composition of the liver, which would allow
hepatobiliary surgeons to have an informed discussion with patients with significant steatosis
about the risks of major hepatic surgery.
Vascular injury plays a strong role in the development of postoperative hepatic abscess. A
poorly perfused liver remnant and/or ischemia
to the biliary anastomosis will increase the risk
of hepatic abscess, particularly in the setting of
contaminated bile and/or biliary stricture. Thus,
meticulous technique is essential. Other factors
have been associated with postoperative infectious complications, such as serum albumin level,
presence of multiple medical comorbidities, longer operative times, and increasing complexity
of hepatic resection. Preoperative biliary drainage in patients with hyperbilirubinemia secondary to obstruction has also been associated with
increased postoperative infectious complications
due to bacterial contamination.
Diagnosis
Technological advances have significantly enhanced the role of radiology in the detection,
characterization, and management of postoperative changes in the liver. All cross-sectional
imaging techniques allow for a high rate of detection of postoperative fluid collections, and in
addition, image-guided percutaneous drainage
procedures have greatly improved the clinical
treatment of patients with postoperative infections throughout the abdomen and pelvis.
Computed Tomography
Due to its ready availability with high spatial and
contrast resolution, computed tomography (CT)
is the best approach for imaging patients who are
stable enough to be transported to the radiology
department. Intravenous contrast is preferred to

23122 Hepatic Abscess
evaluate for any complications in the perioperative period as well as to assess the enhancement
characteristics of postoperative fluid collections
in order to improve detection of infected collections rather than postoperative fluid. The use of
intravenous contrast and multiphasic imaging
also allows for the assessment of patency of the
hepatic vasculature. However, iodinated contrast
agents must be used cautiously or not at all in
the setting of acute or chronic renal failure and in
patients with an iodinated contrast allergy, unless
they are appropriately pretreated. Oral contrast is
not mandatory but if tolerated will likely be of
benefit in aiding the detection of bowel pathology
or to distinguish postoperative fluid collections
from adjacent loops of bowel. On CT examination, abscesses generally are hypoattenuating on
both contrast-enhanced and noncontrast examinations with attenuation values between 0 and
45 Hounsfield units, and are most commonly directly adjacent to the resection bed. Infected collections typically demonstrate a rim of contrast
enhancement and will usually result in adjacent
inflammatory changes in the peritoneal cavity or
retroperitoneal fat. The presence of gas within a
collection either as an air-fluid level or bubbles
of gas can be a specific sign for postoperative infection, however is not commonly present. Higher attenuation collections in the postoperative
bed may represent hematoma or the residual of
hemostatic material used intraoperatively. Postoperative intrahepatic abscesses are also hypoattenuating and are generally well-defined masses,
which may be unilocular with smooth margins
or complex with internal septations and irregular contours [27]. The presence of gas within a
collection either as an air-fluid level or bubbles
of gas can be a specific sign for postoperative
infection, although it is not commonly present.
Higher attenuation collections in the postoperative bed may represent hematoma or residual hemostatic material used intraoperatively. The use
of oxidized regenerated cellulose (Surgicel) can
be identified in the surgical bed up to 1 month
after placement. During placement, air likely
gets trapped with blood within the interstices of
the oxidized cellulose sponge and produces focal
linear or curvilinear gas collections which can be
confused for postoperative infections [28].
Ultrasound
Ultrasonography (US) is an imaging modality,
which can be performed at the bedside in patients
not stable enough to travel to the radiology department for other modes of cross-sectional imaging. US is, however, limited by the fact that
certain anatomic areas are difficult to visualize
and can be affected by patient body habitus,
wounds, surgical drains, and overlying bowel gas
in the setting of postoperative ileus. Ultrasound is
also subject to operator variability and has been
shown to be inferior to CT in evaluating postoperative patients with sepsis [29]. At the time of
US, large perihepatic fluid collections can demonstrate an appearance ranging from hypoechoic
to hyperechoic, with varying degrees of internal
echoes and debris. Gas in postoperative fluid
collections causes acoustic shadowing or reverberation artifacts. Small intrahepatic abscesses
often appear as discrete hypoechoic nodules or
ill-defined areas of distorted hepatic echogenecity [27]. Surgical hemostatic packing or omental
flaps may appear as echogenic masses in the operative bed and may demonstrate reverberation
artifact, which can be suggestive of infection
[30]. The patency of the hepatic vasculature can
also be assessed at the time of US with the addition of color and pulsed Doppler evaluation when
waveform and velocity analysis is included.
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
The role of MRI in evaluation of the early postoperative patient who is displaying signs of potential sepsis may be limited due to patient factors; however, with its multiplanar multisequence
capability and the use of hepatobiliary-specific
contrast agents, MRI is being used more often for
imaging of the postoperative patient. Postoperative fluid collections can have variable T1 and T2
signal intensity based on the protein content in

232 M. A. Woods et al.
the collection. Abscesses commonly demonstrate
inhomogeneous areas of low T1 signal intensity
with intermediate to high T2 signal intensity.
After the administration of gadolinium contrast,
an infected fluid collection will often display peripheral rim enhancement. Intrahepatic abscesses
may also demonstrate some mild perilesional
edema, which manifests as intermediate to high
signal intensity on T2-weighted images. Air
within a collection will demonstrate a signal void
on all acquired sequences and may be difficult
to differentiate from calcifications; however, the
shape and location of the signal void should allow
the correct diagnosis. Diffusion-weighted imaging also has been shown to be helpful in distinguishing infected fluid collections from cystic or
necrotic tumors and noninfected fluid collections
with abscesses typically showing restricted diffusion [31]. Also, in the postoperative setting, if
there is concern for bile leak or bile duct injury,
the use of hepatocyte-specific contrast agents can
add functional information to that obtained using
conventional T2-weighted imaging and may be
particularly useful in identifying the site of a bile
leak, or identifying an area of biliary stricture
which may be contributing to the hepatic abscess
[32]. Multiphasic MRI protocols also are ideally
suited to evaluate the patency of the hepatic vasculature, which may be a complicating factor in
the development of abscess formation. Surgicel
demonstrates marked low signal intensity on T2weighted images and is easy to distinguish on
MRI from a postoperative fluid collection [33].
Treatment
Once the diagnosis of postoperative hepatic infection is suspected on the basis of clinical findings and supportive imaging results, prompt
treatment is of paramount importance, as delay
in initiation of treatment may adversely affect
patient outcomes [2]. Administration of broadspectrum antibiotics should not be delayed and
aggressive source control should be pursued. The
choice of antibiotic regimen should cover the
more common pathogens associated with postoperative hepatic infection such as Gram-negative
enteric and Gram-positive cocci organisms [2,
34–37]. The choice of antibiotic regimen and du-
ration of therapy is guided by culture results and
sensitivities as well as clinical factors such as improvement in symptoms, decreased leukocytosis,
and duration of drainage if a catheter is placed.
Minimally invasive image-guided percutaneous treatments such as needle aspiration and catheter drainage have supplanted surgical therapy for
the treatment of pyogenic liver abscesses, with
resultant significant decreases in hospital stay,
overall cost, and morbidity. Thus, percutaneous
therapy is now considered first-line treatment in
the setting of postoperative hepatic infections [38,
39]. Repeat laparotomy still plays a critical role
for the treatment of recalcitrant infections which
are failing more conservative percutaneous treatment strategies, but this is exceedingly rare in the
context of modern era interventional radiologic
techniques and contemporary broad-spectrum
antibiotics. Abscesses less than 3 cm in size can
usually be treated successfully with parenteral antibiotics alone; however, aspiration plays a critical role in establishing the diagnosis of infection
in postoperative fluid collections and specific microbial identification in order to direct antibiotic
therapy [40] (See Fig. 22.1). Image-guided needle aspiration by either US or CT has been shown
to be highly effective for simple abscesses less
than 5 cm in size [38, 41, 42]. Multiple aspiration
sessions may be required for complete success.
Image-guided percutaneous catheter drainage is
preferred for abscesses larger than 5 cm in size,
complex abscesses, or those in direct continuity
with bile ducts or bowel [38, 39, 42, 43].
Prior to minimally invasive image-guided
therapies, assessment should include evaluation of coagulation parameters with a target INR
< 1.5, aPTT of less than 1.5x control, and platelet
count > 50,000/µL with correction of these parameters on a case by case basis [44]. Ultrasound
or CT guidance can be used for aspiration or
catheter drainage based on operator preference.
When choosing a puncture path, the least amount
of hepatic parenchyma should be traversed, and
care should be taken to avoid damaging adjacent organs or traversing the pleura due to the
risk of empyema (See Fig. 22.2). Ultrasound is

22 Hepatic Abscess
233
Fig. 22.1 A 50-year-old female presenting with biopsy-
proven recurrent epitheliod hemangioendothelioma
6 years post living-related liver transplantation measuring 3.8 × 2.9 cm (a) underwent an uneventful nonanatomic
wedge resection of the lesion with adequate margins. The
patient presented to the hospital on postoperative day
12 with worsening right upper quadrant pain, subjective fevers, and chills. A CT examination demonstrated
× 4.6 cm hypoattenuating
a 7.8
section bed with a few small foci of scattered gas without significant rim enhancement (b). The patient’s white
fluid collection in the re-
the preferred imaging modality in most cases
due to real-time guidance, multiplanar imaging,
portability, visualization, and avoidance of major
blood vessels and pleura/lung, and lack of ionizing radiation. Ultrasound-guided procedures can
be performed via a subcostal or intercostal approach. A subcostal approach is generally favored
over an intercostal puncture due to a lower risk
of pneumothorax, empyema, or intercostal artery
injury. Sonographically guided interventions can
be performed using either a free-hand technique
(which provides for greater freedom in needle
placement), or with an attached biopsy guide
which provides greater accuracy. Local anesthetic should be liberally applied from the skin entry
site down through the subcutaneous fat and peritoneum directly adjacent to the fluid collection.
If possible, the needle should be placed during
blood cell count was not elevated at 8.8 K/uL; however,
due to her immunosuppression and presenting symptoms
there was concern for postoperative infection. The patient
was initiated on broad-spectrum antibiotics and the fluid
collection was subsequently aspirated under US guidance
where it demonstrated a complex appearance with predominantly hypoechoic appearing fluid with echogenic
debris (c). The collection was completely aspirated with
removal of approximately 60 mL of dark bilious appearing fluid (d). The Gram stain and culture were negative
and the patient did not require any further management
a breath hold to reduce the risk of capsule laceration and to facilitate needle entry at the site of
local anesthetic administration. Visualization of
any adjacent large vascular structures can also be
assessed with Doppler US prior to needle placement. CT guidance may be beneficial in scenarios
where sonographic visualization is limited by either appearance of the collection on US, adjacent
wound complications necessitating a different
trajectory, and also to confirm appropriate needle
placement utilizing US guidance (See Fig. 22.3).
Most interventional CT units are capable of CT
fluoroscopy and gantry angle adjustment which
aid in procedural planning. Needle aspiration
is usually performed with an 18-gauge needle
and samples should be appropriately sent for
microbiologic analysis. During attempted needle
aspiration, if the fluid is too viscous for adequate

234 M. A. Woods et al.
Fig. 22.2 A 68-year-old female with history of cirrhosis
secondary to NASH and alcoholism, Child Pugh class A,
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery
disease who presented with a 5.6 cm arterially enhancing exhophytic mass in segment 6 of the liver with portal
venous washout consistent with hepatocellular carcinoma
(a). The patient underwent an uneventful nonanatomic
wedge resection, which revealed a well-differentiated
HCC without vascular invasion. Her postoperative course
was remarkable for postoperative bleeding which was
managed with transfusion of two units of packed red
blood cells and she was discharged on postoperative
day number 8. She presented with increasing right upper
quadrant pain approximately 8
laboratory evaluation revealed a normal white blood cell
count. A CT of the abdomen and pelvis demonstrated a
10.8
× 3.5 cm rim
tion with an air-fluid level along the right lateral liver (b).
CT guidance was utilized for an intercostal approach into
the collection and a 10 Fr locking loop drainage catheter
enhancing hypoattenuating fluid collec-
weeks after sur
gery and
was placed with aspiration of 60 mL of purulent fluid,
which grew Enterobacter cloacae and Escherichia coli
(c). She was discharged on appropriate antibiotic therapy,
however, presented to the hospital 2.5 weeks after percutaneous drainage catheter placement with altered mental
status. A CT examination demonstrated near-complete
resolution of the abscess cavity; however, the drainage
catheter was noted to cross the pleura and there was a new
pleural effusion with enhancement (d). A diagnostic thoracentesis was performed with aspiration of 260
serosanguinous fluid, which grew methicillin-resistant
staphylococcus aureus (images not shown). The patient’s
antibiotic regimen was adjusted accordingly and an abscessogram was performed demonstrating no significant
residual collection or evidence of biliary or bowel fistula
and the catheter was removed (e). A follow-up CT examination 6 weeks status post drainage catheter removal demonstrates no residual pleural fluid and a small amount of
residual inflammatory changes in the abscess cavity with
no evidence of residual or recurrent disease (f)
mL
of
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
