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_1209_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Sub Heading
- •Outcomes
- •Study Limitation
- •Inconsistency
- •Directness
- •Precision
- •Publication Bias
- •Features Increasing Quality of Observational Studies
- •Large Magnitude of Effect
- •Introduction
- •Ask the Clinical Question
- •Find the Evidence
- •Appraise the Studies
- •The GRADE System
- •The Header
- •Dose Response Gradient
- •All Plausible Confounding Would Reduce the Demonstrated Effect or Increase it if No Effect Was Observed
- •Summary of Findings
- •Other Resources
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection Versus Observation for Giant Hemangiomas
- •Treatment of Giant Hemangiomas: Operative Approaches and Non-surgical Therapies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Observation vs Surgical Treatment with Hepatectomy
- •Enucleation vs Hepatectomy
- •Minimal Invasive Approach
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Cavernous Hemangioma
- •Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •Hepatocellular Adenoma
- •Biliary Hamartoma
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Surgical Considerations
- •Congenital Cysts
- •Neoplastic Cysts
- •Traumatic Cysts
- •Infectious Cysts
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Non-operative Management
- •Angiography and Embolization
- •Outcomes
- •Surgical Strategies
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Resection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Expanding the Milan Criteria
- •Salvage Transplantation
- •Treatment Prior to Transplantation
- •Living Donor Liver Transplantation for HCC
- •Comparative Outcomes Between Resection and Transplantation for HCC
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Presentation
- •Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Alternative Therapies
- •Summary
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance and Risk Factors of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Screening Strategies
- •Serum Alpha-Feto Protein (AFP)
- •Ultrasonography (US) with or Without Serum AFP
- •Cross Sectional Imaging
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Short-Term Outcomes of Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •Long-Term Outcomes in Laparoscopic Liver Resection
- •Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Etiology of Liver Abscesses
- •Predicting Prognosis
- •Treatment Options
- •Antibiotic Therapy
- •Radiologic Intervention
- •Surgical Therapy
- •Liver Abscess After Liver Transplantation
- •Personal Experience
- •Summary
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recommendations
- •The EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines
- •Other Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Additional Considerations
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •The Child-Pugh Scoring System
- •The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) Score
- •Computed Tomography (CT) Volumetry
- •Transient Elastography
- •The Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Strategy Discussion
- •Results
- •Risk of Recurrence
- •Conclusion
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Liver Failure Following Liver Resection
- •Evaluation of the Degree of Chronic Liver Disease
- •Search Strategy
- •Liver Resections and the Childs-Turcotte-Pugh Score
- •Liver Resections and the Meld Score
- •Child-Turcotte-Pugh vs. MELD Score
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Retrospective Studies
- •Prospective Studies
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Operative Time
- •Perioperative Mortality and Morbidity
- •Hospital Length of Stay
- •Long-Term Outcomes
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Potential Exceptions to Recommendations
- •Utilization of CBDE and Future Directions for Training
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results of Single Incision Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Compared with Standard Multi-port Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
- •Peri-operative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Conversion Rates
- •Cost
- •Pain
- •Cosmesis, Patient Satisfaction, and Quality of Life Scores
- •Hernia Rates
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Retrospective Review
- •Randomized Trials
- •Meta-analysis/Systematic Reviews
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Hepatolithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis from Choledocholithiasis
- •Recurrent Cholangitis Following Biliary-Enteric Anastomosis for Benign Disease
- •Recommendations for Treatment of Recurrent Cholangitis
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •PBDS After Complex Hepatobiliary Procedures
- •PBDS After Cholecystectomy
- •Surgical Repair
- •Percutaneous Therapy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Studies with Multiple Treatment Techniques
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Long-Term Success Rate
- •Method of Repair
- •Mortality
- •Health-Related Quality of Life and Cost
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendation Based on the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •LCBDE Versus Postoperative ERCP
- •LCBDE Versus OCBCE
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology
- •Clinical Presentation
- •Literature Search
- •Results
- •Treatment of Tis and T1a Tumors
- •Treatment of T1b Tumors
- •Treatment Options for Stage T2/T3
- •Common Bile Duct Resections
- •Port Site Resections
- •Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •Expert View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Enterolithotomy vs Enterolithotomy with Cholecystectomy and Cholecysto-Enteric Fistula Closure
- •Recurrent Gallstone Ileus
- •Minimally Invasive Techniques
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Summary of Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Studies Comparing Endoscopic and Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Surgical Intervention
- •Outcomes of Endoscopic Intervention
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Routine Versus Selective Cholangiography
- •Near Infrared Fluorescent Cholangiography
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Endoscopic Therapy
- •Biliary Resection and Biliary Bypass
- •Risk of Malignancy
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA)
- •Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA)
- •Distal Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •Novel Endoscopic Techniques
- •Personal View
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Transcatheter Arterial Embolization
- •Biliary Stenting
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Importance of a Negative Resection Margin for Prognosis After Curative-Intent Surgery for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Achieving a Negative Bile Duct Margin: Hepatectomy Versus Bile Duct Resection
- •Impact of Caudate Lobectomy in Hepatectomy for Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Preoperative Assessment of Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma
- •Assessment of the Bile Duct Margin and Operative Outcome
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Clinical Relevance of PVT After Liver Transplantation
- •Treatment Strategies
- •Anticoagulation
- •Surgical Revascularization
- •Thrombolysis Without Mechanical Methods
- •Mechanical Methods with Thrombolysis
- •Mechanical Methods Without Thrombolysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •First Line Therapy
- •Rescue Therapies
- •Balloon Tamponade
- •TIPS
- •Early TIPS
- •Complications of TIPS
- •Surgical Shunt
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search
- •Results
- •Esophageal Varices
- •Ascites
- •Other Manifestations of Portal Hypertension
- •Non-esophageal Varices
- •Hepatic Hydrothorax
- •Hepatorenal Syndrome
- •Other
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Prevalence and Clinical Importance
- •Risk Factors
- •Detection and Evaluation
- •Natural History
- •Treatment Indications and Outcomes
- •Recommendations
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patients with Interstitial, Edematous, or Mild Gallstone Pancreatitis
- •Patients with Severe or Necrotizing Pancreatitis
- •The Role for Endoscopic Sphincterotomy
- •Cost Implications
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Feeding in Severe Acute Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Necrosis-EN vs. PN
- •Route of Enteral Feeding in Acute Pancreatitis-NG vs. NJ
- •Type of TF
- •Timing of Feeding Initiation- Early vs. Late
- •Future Directions
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Surgical Versus Endoscopic Management
- •Laparoscopic Management
- •Endoscopic Management
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Early Studies: Prophylaxis and Decreased Infected Necrosis
- •Recent Randomized Trials: Prophylaxis Reconsidered
- •A Review of Disparate Results
- •Antimicrobial Resistance and Atypical Organisms
- •Evidence-Based Protocol for “On-Demand” Antibiotics
- •Summary and Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Management of Symptomatic Walled-Off Necrosis (WON)
- •Indication of Drainage
- •Which Modality to Choose
- •The Diminishing Role of Open Necrosectomy
- •Minimally Invasive Necrosectomy (MIN)
- •Laparoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Retroperitoneal Necrosectomy
- •Percutaneous Drainage
- •Endoscopic Necrosectomy
- •Step-Up Approach
- •Conclusion/Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Open Procedure
- •Endoscopic Drainage
- •Laparoscopic Procedures
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Pain Relief
- •Morbidity and Mortality
- •Repeated Interventions, Hospitalizations, and Costs
- •Timing of Intervention
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Randomized Clinical Trials
- •Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
- •Recommendations
- •A Personal View of the Data
- •Recommendations
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Search Strategy
- •Results
- •Patient Selection
- •Perioperative Morbidity and Mortality
- •Islet Function
- •Pain Relief/Narcotic Requirement
- •QOL/Durability
- •Cancer Risk
- •Expert Consensus
- •Recommendations Based on the Data
- •A Personal View of the Data

126
9. Brozek JL, Akl EA, Alonso-Coello P, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recom-
mendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach
and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy. 2009;64(5):669–77.
10. Vanounou T, Steel JL, Nguyen KT, et al. Comparing the clinical and economic impact of lapa-
roscopic versus open liver resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(4):998–1009.
11. Bhojani FD, Fox A, Pitzul K, et al. Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open
liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience. J Am Coll
Surg. 2012;214(2):184–95.
12. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, Quillo A, McMasters KM, Martin 2nd RC. Financial
comparison of laparoscopic versus open hepatic resection using deviation-based cost modeling. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(9):2887–92.
13. Laurent A, Cherqui D, Lesurtel M, Brunetti F, Tayar C, Fagniez PL. Laparoscopic liver resec-
tion for subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma complicating chronic liver disease. Arch Surg.
2003;138(7):763–9; discussion 9.
14. Ker CG, Chen JS, Kuo KK, et al. Liver surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma: laparoscopic
versus open approach. Int J Hepatol. 2011;2011:596792.
15. Kim H, Suh KS, Lee KW, et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic versus open liver resection
Endosc. 2014;28(3):950–60.
16. Cheung TT, Poon RT, Yuen WK, et al. Long-term survival analysis of pure laparoscopic versus
open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center
experience. Ann Surg. 2013;257(3):506–11.
17. Kobayashi T. Long-term survival analysis of pure laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for
hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a single-center experience. Ann Surg.
2013;257:506–11.
18. Truant S, Bouras AF, Hebbar M, et al. Laparoscopic resection vs. open liver resection for
peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: a case-matched
study. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(11):3668–77.
19. Lee KF, Chong CN, Wong J, Cheung YS, Wong J, Lai P. Long-term results of laparoscopic
hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-matched analysis.
World J Surg. 2011;35(10):2268–74.
20. Hu BS, Chen K, Tan HM, Ding XM, Tan JW. Comparison of laparoscopic vs open liver lobec-
tomy (segmentectomy) for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol.
2011;17(42):4725–8.
21. Kim HH, Park EK, Seoung JS, et al. Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: case-
matched analysis of laparoscopic versus open resection. J Kor Surg Soc. 2011;80(6):412–9.
22. Tranchart H, Di Giuro G, Lainas P, et al. Laparoscopic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma:
a matched-pair comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(5):1170–6.
23. Aldrighetti L, Guzzetti E, Pulitano C, et al. Case-matched analysis of totally laparoscopic
versus open liver resection for HCC: short and middle term results. J Surg Oncol.
2010;102(1):82–6.
24. Belli G, Limongelli P, Fantini C, et al. Laparoscopic and open treatment of hepatocellular
carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Br J Surg. 2009;96(9):1041–8.
25. Sarpel U, Hefti MM, Wisnievsky JP, Roayaie S, Schwartz ME, Labow DM. Outcome for
patients treated with laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma: casematched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(6):1572–7.
26. Endo Y, Ohta M, Sasaki A, et al. A comparative study of the long-term outcomes after
laparoscopy- assisted and open left lateral hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg
Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2009;19(5):e171–4.
27. Lai EC, Tang CN, Ha JP, Li MK. Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma:
ten-year experience in a single center. Arch Surg. 2009;144(2):143–7; discussion 8.
28. Cai XJ, Yang J, Yu H, et al. Clinical study of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for malig-
nant liver tumors. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(11):2350–6.
A. Gleisner and D.A. Geller

127
29. Kaneko H, Takagi S, Otsuka Y, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Am J Surg. 2005;189(2):190–4.
30. Shimada M, Hashizume M, Maehara S, et al. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular
carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2001;15(6):541–4.
31. Montalti R, Berardi G, Laurent S, et al. Laparoscopic liver resection compared to open
approach in patients with colorectal liver metastases improves further resectability: oncological outcomes of a case-control matched-pairs analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol.
2014;40(5):536–44.
32. Iwahashi S, Shimada M, Utsunomiya T, et al. Laparoscopic hepatic resection for metastatic
liver tumor of colorectal cancer: comparative analysis of short- and long-term results. Surg
Endosc. 2014;28(1):80–4.
33. Guerron AD, Aliyev S, Agcaoglu O, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of colorectal
liver metastasis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1138–43.
34. Qiu J, Chen S, Pankaj P, Wu H. Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases –
a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60153.
35. Cannon RM, Scoggins CR, Callender GG, McMasters KM, Martin 2nd RC. Laparoscopic
versus open resection of hepatic colorectal metastases. Surgery. 2012;152(4):567–73; discussion 73–4.
36. Cheung TT, Poon RT, Yuen WK, et al. Outcome of laparoscopic versus open hepatectomy for
colorectal liver metastases. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(11):847–52.
37. Topal B, Tiek J, Fieuws S, et al. Minimally invasive liver surgery for metastases from colorec-
tal cancer: oncologic outcome and prognostic factors. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2288–98.
38. Hu MG, Ou-yang CG, Zhao GD, Xu DB, Liu R. Outcomes of open versus laparoscopic pro-
cedure for synchronous radical resection of liver metastatic colorectal cancer: a comparative
study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22(4):364–9.
39. Abu Hilal M, Underwood T, Zuccaro M, Primrose J, Pearce N. Short- and medium-term results
of totally laparoscopic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg.
2010;97(6):927–33.
40. Castaing D, Vibert E, Ricca L, Azoulay D, Adam R, Gayet B. Oncologic results of laparo-
scopic versus open hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases in two specialized centers. Ann
Surg. 2009;250(5):849–55.
10 When Is Laparoscopic Liver Resection Preferred Over Open Resection?

129© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
J.M. Millis, J.B. Matthews (eds.), Diffi cult Decisions in Hepatobiliary
and Pancreatic Surgery, Diffi cult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based
Approach, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-27365-5_11
Chapter 11
Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver
Abscesses
Trevor W. Reichman and W. Grayson Terral
Abstract Pyogenic liver abscesses are rare but if handled inappropriately can be
life-threatening. Early experiences with the management of these liver abscesses
yielded high morbidity and mortality. However, over the last three decades, treatment has moved away from surgery as the front-line therapy and has evolved to
include less invasive interventional radiologic procedures. This change in paradigm
has been accompanied by shorter length of hospital stay and decreased morbidity
and mortality. Despite these fi ndings in the general population, patients that develop
pyogenic liver abscesses following a liver transplant have a much higher morbidity
and mortality, with some ultimately requiring retransplantation. When managed
appropriately and in many cases with a multi-modality approach, patients with pyogenic liver abscesses can achieve excellent clinical outcomes.
Keywords Liver abscess • Pyogenic • Percutaneous aspiration • Percutaneous
drainage • Hepatectomy of liver abscess
Introduction
Pyogenic liver abscess es are relatively uncommon occurrences, with an incidence
ranging from 1.1 to 2.3 cases per 100,000 based on the most recent population- based
studies [ 1 , 2 ]. Although liver abscesses are uncommon, if left untreated, risk signifi -
cant morbidity and mortality . Liver abscesses were fi rst described by Ochsner and
Debakey in 1938, and surgical drainage was the primary treatment recommendation
[ 3 ]. Despite intervention, overall mortality was 77 %. Since then, therapy has evolved
with the advent of improved diagnostic imaging, antibiotics, and percutaneous intervention and this has improved the mortality in more recent studies to between 6 %
and 14 % [ 4 – 6 ]. In the past 30 years, the advent and wide spread acceptance of
T. W. Reichman (*) • W. G. Terral
Multi-Organ Transplant Institute, Department of Surgery , Ochsner Medical Center ,
1514 Jefferson Highway , New Orleans , LA 70121 , USA
e-mail:
treichman@ochsner.org

130
percutaneous aspiration and percutaneous drainage along with antibiotic regimens
has supplanted surgical intervention as the primary treatment modality.
As the etiology of pyogenic liver abscess has evolved, the appropriate treatment
modality has evolved as well. Appropriate patient selection based on etiology, nutritional status, abscess characteristics, and institutional interventional options should
be considered. This chapter addresses the indications for surgical intervention, percutaneous aspiration or drainage, and antibiotics therapy alone.
Search Strategy
A literature search of English language publications from 1980 to 2014 was used to
identity published data on pyogenic liver abscess using the PICO outline (Table 11.1 ).
Databases searched were PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Cochrane Reviews. Terms
used in the search were “pyogenic liver abscess, etiology”, “pyogenic liver abscess,
treatment”, “pyogenic liver abscess AND percutaneous drainage or percutaneous
aspiration ”, “pyogenic abscess, antibiotics”, “pyogenic liver abscess risk”, “pyogenic liver abscess AND surgery versus drainage”.
Etiology of Liver Abscesses
In review of the etiology by Johannsen et al. and Rahimian et al. abscesses can be
classifi ed by the presumed route: biliary, portal venous, hepatic artery, direct extension, and traumatic [ 7 , 8 ]. Biliary causes include suppurative cholangitis , the most
common identifi able cause, Caroli’s disease, and Ascaris lumbricoides invasion in
the developing world. According to Seeto and Rockey’s review, 52 of 142 identifi able causes (37 %) were attributed to biliary disease [ 9 ]. Eleven of the 52 had malig-
nant lesions, 31 had cholelithiasis or choledocholithiasis , 8 had strictures, and 2
with biliary cirrhosis . Appendicitis, historically the most common identifi able
cause, along with diverticulits, pancreatitis, infl ammatory bowel disease, and
abdominal surgery all represent common portal venous causes of abscesses. Again,
Seeto and Rockey’s review identifi ed 16 of 142 patients with a portal venous system
etiology as the cause for their liver abscess : 5 from diverticulitis, 4 from appendicitis, 3 with perforation of the small bowel, 2 patients with IBD, and 2 with other
intra-abdominal infections [ 9 ]. Any systemic bacterial infection can lead to liver
abscess, but as found at autopsy, these abscesses are typically micro-abscesses and
Table 11.1 PICO table for assessment of treatment of pyogenic liver abscess es
P (Patients) I (Intervention) C (Comparator) O (Outcomes)
Patients with pyogenic
liver abscess
Surgical
drainage
Percutaneous drainage or
aspiration, antibiotics alone
Mortality, morbidity,
resolution of abscess
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral

131
are not identifi able by imaging. Direct extension includes cholecystitis, perinephric
abscesses, and subdiaphragmatic abscesses. Traumatic causes include penetrating
trauma but also include ingestion of foreign objects, blunt trauma with resultant
infected hepatic hematoma, tumor necrosis, and sickle cell disease. Lastly, cryptogenic liver abscesses have become the most common fi nding and predominated in
reviews from both Rahimian et al. and Rockey and Seeto with cryptogenic causes as
48 % and 40 % respectively [ 8 , 9 ].
Predicting Prognosis
Several attempts have been made to try to stratify patients into risk categories in
attempt to identify patients that might have a higher risk of mortality and/or a more
complicated clinical course. Theoretically, stratifying patients should help to identify individuals that warrant more aggressive clinical management of their abscess
up front rather then taking a more conservative approach. Chen et al. studied 298
patients with pyogenic liver abscess es with an overall mortality rate of 10 % [ 10 ].
The authors demonstrated by multivariate analysis that the Acute Physiology and
Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), SAPS II score, the presence of a
gas-forming abscess, or an anaerobic infection was associated with higher mortality. These fi ndings were further substantiated in a study by Hsieh et al. which found
that a more aggressive approach in patients with APACHE II scores greater than 15
were associated with better clinical outcomes [ 11 ].
In addition to mortality , Alvarez Pérez et al. examined 133 patients in an attempt
to identify risk factors associated with a complicated clinical course from a pyogenic abscess [ 12 ]. They found by multivariate analysis that patients that present
with shock, a hemoglobin <10 g/dl, an elevated PT (>17) and/or polymicrobial
infections were more likely to have a complicated clinical course. In this study, the
overall rate of patients with a complicated clinical course was 36 %. In addition, the
authors also identifi ed factors that were associated with patient mortality. Pyogenic
abscesses associated with a biliary origin, multiple abscesses, a low hemoglobin
(<10 g/dl), or an elevated BUN (>28 mg/dL) were associated with death by multivariate analysis. In addition, the presence of shock was the highest predictor of
mortality by multivariate analysis with an odds ratio of 22.66. An additional study
by Ruiz-Hernández et al. also reported similar fi ndings in that patients that develop
sepsis and/or are in septic shock are at high risk of mortality [ 13 ].
Treatment Options
Interventions for pyogenic hepatic abscesses range in degree of invasiveness from
antibiotic therapy alone to more aggressive therapies such as hepatic resection .
Trials comparing methodologies to manage pyogenic liver abscess es are presented
in Table
11.2 .
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses

132
Antibiotic Therapy
Antibiotic therapy is almost universally used in conjunction with other treatment
modalities. However, in the absence of positive blood cultures, the disadvantage to
treatment of liver abscess es without any intervention is a lack of the ability to identify the offending organism(s) in which antibiotic therapy can be tailored. Current
recommendations for antibiotic treatment of pyogenic hepatic abscesses include
empiric coverage of Enterobacteriaceae , enterococci, anaerobes, and in certain sit-
uations staphylococci and streptococci. Empiric regimens should include a betalactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination, carbapenem, or second-generation
cephalosporin with anaerobic coverage. Metronidazole or clindamycin should be
included in the antibiotic regimen to cover Bacteroides fragilis if not covered by the
initial antibiotic(s). Systemic antifungal agents should also be initiated if a fungal
abscess is suspected. Once cultures and sensitivities are available, the antibiotic
regimen should be tailored appropriately. The recommended duration of antibiotic
therapy should be 4–6 weeks. However, this may potentially be shortened in patients
that have undergone drainage and an uncomplicated clinical course [ 14 ].
Earlier reports demonstrated inferior results in patients treated with antibiotics
alone versus an intervention plus antibiotics [ 12 ]. However, in appropriately selected
patients, antibiotic therapy alone can be effective in the treatment of certain pyogenic abscesses. In a series by Hope et al . the authors stratifi ed 107 patients with
pyogenic liver abscess es into 3 categories: (1) <3 cm, (2) Unilocular, >3 cm, and (3)
Complex, multilocular, >3 cm [ 15 ]. Patients were also stratifi ed into three treatment
algorithms that included one of the following treatment arms: (1) Antibiotics alone,
(2) Percutaneous drainage plus antibiotics, or (3) Surgery. In this series, antibiotic
therapy alone was effective in 100 % of patients with hepatic abscesses <3 cm in
Table 11.2 Trials comparing treatment modalities for pyogenic liver abscess es
First
author, year
Study
type n Comparison Outcome
Yu, 2004 RCT 64 Percutaneous
aspiration vs. qCD
Equivalent
Zerem,
2007
RCT 60 Percutaneous
aspiration vs. CD
Improved with CD
Rajak, 1998 RCT 50 (11 with PLA) Percutaneous
aspiration vs. CD
Improved with CD
Tan, 2005 RR 80 (PLA >5 cm) CD vs. surgery Improved with Surgery
Hsieh, 2008 RR 81 (APACHE II 15) CD vs. surgery Improved with surgery
Chou, 1997 RR 483 (single vs.
multiple PLA)
CD vs. surgery Single = CD
Multiple = surgery
Hope, 2008 RR 107 Abx vs. CD vs.
surgery
3 cm = Abx
>3 cm, UL = CD
>3 cm, ML = surgery
RCT randomized controlled trial, CD catheter drainage, PLA pyogenic liver abscess , RR retrospec-
tive review, APACHE II, Abx antibiotics, UL uniloculated, ML multiloculated
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral

133
size. Hsieh et al. also demonstrated successful treatment of <3 cm abscesses with
antibiotics alone, even in patient with high APACHE II scores [ 11 ]. Similarly,
Rahimian et al . reported successful treatment of approximately 17 % of their
patients (14 of 70 patients) treated for pyogenic liver abscess with no treatment
failures requiring additional interventions [ 8 ].
Radiologic Intervention
Percutaneous radiologic interventions (e.g. aspiration or placement of an indwelling
catheter) are becoming more commonly the modality of choice for patients with
pyogenic liver abscesses. Percutaneous interventions serve two purposes: (1) They
drain the underlying infection and (2) They provide abscess contents for culture and
sensitivity. There have been several studies that have demonstrated similar or
decreased mortality rates in patients treated with percutaneous intervention versus
open surgical drainage or resection [ 8 , 9 , 12 , 16 ].
The optimal percutaneous approach to abscess drainage (intermittent needle
aspiration versus continuous indwelling catheter and drainage) is still debated.
Intermittent needle aspiration has the advantage in that it is easier and more cost
effective to perform and is also less painful for the patient. The one disadvantage is
that it typically requires multiple interventions. In a randomized-controlled trial by
Yu et al. the authors compared intermittent needle aspiration to continuous catheter
drainage in 64 consecutive patients with a pyogenic liver abscess . There was no
statistically signifi cant difference in outcomes from either treatment modality,
however, there was a trend toward higher treatment success rate, shorter hospital
stay, and lower mortality rate in patients treated with needle aspiration [ 6 ]. However,
a similar randomized study by Rajak et al . demonstrated an improved outcome
using percutaneous catheters versus needle aspiration. However, this report has
been criticized due to the low sample size of confi rmed pyogenic abscesses (n = 11)
and the limitation on the number of aspirations allowed (2). A more recent study
however appeared to confi rm these fi ndings and again demonstrated improved outcomes with catheter drainage versus intermittent needle aspiration in a randomized
controlled trial with no treatment failures occurring in the percutaneous catheter
group [ 17 ].
Previously, the effectiveness of catheter-based drainage has been questioned in
patients with multiloculated abscesses. However, a recent publication by Liu et al .
compared 109 patients with either uniloculated or multiloculated abscesses who
were all treated with percutaneous catheter drainage [ 18 ]. Clinical success ranged
between 87 and 92 % regardless of whether the patient had single or multiple
abscesses or the abscess was uniloculated or multiloculated, indicating potentially
all abscesses regardless of their characteristics should have a trial of percutaneous
drainage . Overall mortality reported in this series was 3.5 %. However, no comparison to other modalities was made.
In a series from Memorial Sloan-Kettering, Mezhir et al . examined their series of
hepatic abscesses (n = 51) of which 88 % occurred the setting of a history of cancer .
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses

134
Twenty-two percent of the patient had previously underwent local-regional therapy
(transarterial chemoembolization or radiofrequency ablation). Percutaneous drainage was successful in 66 % of patients; 9 % of patients required surgical intervention. The presence of yeast and/or communication with the biliary tree was
associated with poorer outcomes . Overall mortality was 26 %, however many of
these patients (60 %) died of progression of disease [ 19 ].
Surgical Therapy
Prior to the advent of percutaneous radiology-based interventions, surgery was the
mainstay of treatment for patients with pyogenic liver abscess es. However, based on
review of the current literature, the paradigm has clearly switched from surgical
drainage to percutaneous procedures. However, in certain subsets of patients, surgical intervention might still be the most appropriate fi rst line therapy. In patients with
large abscesses (>5 cm), there may still be a role for open surgical drainage. Tan
et al . compared PD to surgical drainage (SD, 36 patients versus 44 patients, respec-
tively) in patients with pyogenic liver abscesses greater then 5 cm in size [ 20 ]. The
authors examined time to defervescence of fever, treatment failure, secondary procedures, length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality . Of these endpoints, patients
that had SD had less treatment failures, less secondary procedures performed, and
shorter length of stays. There was no statistical difference between morbidity and
mortality. Hope et al . also noted a high treatment failure rate in patients with large,
multiloculated abscesses (67 %). In comparison, patients treated with surgery up
front had no recurrence of their abscess [ 15 ]. In contrast to this, a recent publication
from 2009 noted a 87 % clinical success rate in patients treated percutaneous drainage with an average abscess size of 8.3 cm [ 18 ]. No comparison to other treatment
modalities was made in this series.
Patients also who score high on a severity-of-disease classifi cation system may
also warrant a more aggressive approach. Hsieh et al . compared the outcomes of
patients with an APACHE II score that underwent initial percutaneous drainage
versus surgical drainage [ 11 ]. The authors found a higher treatment success rate and
a lower mortality rate in patients treated initially treated with surgery . In addition,
less antibiotic use and a shorter length of stay were also noted in the group in which
surgery was performed upfront.
Additional clinical fi ndings might also warrant a surgical approach. Chou et al.
demonstrated a high failure rate in patients that underwent catheter-based therapy in
the setting of multiple abscesses [ 21 ]. The presence of fungus in the abscess culture
also appears to increase catheter-based treatment failure. On multivariate analysis,
yeast in the abscess culture was identifi ed as a risk factor for treatment failure via a
percutaneous approach [ 19 ]. Strong et al . also reviewed there experience with
patients treated for abscess and concluded that a non-surgical approach should be
undertaken for patients with pyogenic liver abscess es. However, for patients that
present with an initial intraperitoneal abscess rupture or in cases of hepatobiliary
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral

135
pathology causing multiple abscesses above an obstructed duct system, primary
surgical treatment of pyogenic liver abscess is likely indicated [ 22 ].
Liver Abscess After Liver Transplantation
Although rare, pyogenic liver abscess es following liver transplant ation can be challenging to manage, with many of these occur in the setting of vascular compromise
to the liver graft. Hepatic artery thrombosis is almost always the cause and is often
associated with biliary tree necrosis and/or biliary stricture s [ 23 ]. Management of
these abscesses can be challenging since with a compromised blood supply, the
infection is very diffi cult to clear. In addition, clinicians are often faced managing
these patients in the setting of chronic immunosuppression. Tachopoulou et al .
reviewed their experience at the Cleveland Clinic from 1990 to 2000 in solid organ
transplant patients and identifi ed 12 patients, all liver transplant recipients, with
hepatic abscesses [ 24 ]. Thirteen patients underwent aspiration of the abscess from
which 30 microbial isolates were obtained. Of these, 15 were gram-positive aerobic
bacteria, 9 were gram-negative aerobic bacteria, and 3 were anaerobic. All patients
except one were initially treated with percutaneous intervention. The overall mortality of the infected patients in this series was 36 %, signifi cantly higher then that
reported for non-transplant patients. Five patients required retransplantation.
Similarly, Nikeghbalian reviewed their experience and identifi ed 5 patients out of
560 liver transplant recipients with a hepatic abscess. Overall mortality in their
series was 40 % [ 25 ].
Personal Experience
As detailed by the authors of several of the quoted manuscripts in this chapter,
although now rare in the United States, in our experience, pyogenic abscesses when
diagnosed can be challenging to manage, often occurring in older, debilitated
patients. A combination approach which includes broad-spectrum antibiotics and
percutaneous intervention is typically performed. Although it is ideal to obtain cultures prior to the initiation of antibiotic therapy, it is rarely the case as many of these
patients present in extremis and empiric antibiotics have already been started prior
to any workup being initiated. Once antibiotic therapy has started, percutaneous
aspiration plus or minus placement of a pigtail catheter depending on the size of the
abscess is almost routinely performed. Patients are typically reimaged 5–7 days following catheter placement to assess for adequate drainage; sooner if the patients
clinical course is not improving. Repeat interventions are performed including
upsizing of catheters as needed to maximize drainage. Antibiotics are eventually
tailored once cultures and sensitivities have been obtained. Surgery is rarely indicated, and is only reserved for patients that have failed multiple attempts at percutaneous interventions. In patients with a prior liver transplant , liver abscess es can be
11 Clinical Management of Pyogenic Liver Abscesses

136
challenging. Hepatic arterial thrombosis should always be ruled out, either by CT
angiogram or ultrasound . Interrogation of the biliary system either via MRCP or
ERCP should also be performed to rule out biliary necrosis and/or biliary stricturing. In patients that fail intervention, many will require liver retransplantation especially if biliary or vascular complications are present.
Summary
Excellent outcomes can be obtained from patients with pyogenic liver abscess es
when managed appropriately. First-line therapy should include a percutaneous aspiration or trans-catheter drainage of the abscess in order to control the infection and
obtain a sample for culture and sensitivity. All patients should be treated with broad
spectrum antibiotics which can be tailored to the organism once identifi ed for a
duration of 4–6 weeks. Surgery should be reserved for patients that fail fi rst line
therapy, but can also be warranted in patients with large (>5 cm) abscesses or
patients who present with high APACHE II scores, depending on the experience and
expertise of the interventional radiology department.
Recommendations
• Percutaneous drainage is fi rst line therapy for the treatment of pyogenic liver
abscess es and surgical drainage or resection should be considered in patients
who fail initial therapy especially in patients with a large, multi-loculated (>5
cm) abscess (evidence quality good – strong recommendation)
• Surgery should be considered for patients with high APACHE II scores (evi-
dence quality poor – weak recommendation).
• Antibiotics alone are suitable fi rst line therapy for abscesses less then 3 cm, how-
ever, aspiration should be considered in order to tailor antibiotics if possible
(evidence quality good – strong recommendation)
References
1. Hansen PS, Schonheyder HC. Pyogenic hepatic abscess. A 10-year population-based retro-
spective study. APMIS. 1998;106(3):396–402.
2. Kaplan GG, Gregson DB, Laupland KB. Population-based study of the epidemiology of and
the risk factors for pyogenic liver abscess. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(11):1032–8.
3. Ochsner A, DeBakey M, Murray S. Pyogenic abscess of the liver. An analysis of 47 cases and
review of the literature. Am J Surg. 1938;40:292–319.
4. Mohsen AH, Green ST, Read RC, McKendrick MW. Liver abscess in adults: ten years experi-
ence in a UK centre. QJM. 2002;95(12):797–802.
T.W. Reichman and W.G. Terral
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
