• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 24.05.24

Search results

February 2011
M. Papoulas, N. Lubezky, Y. Goykhman, I. Kori, E. Santo, R. Nakache, J. Klausner and M. Ben-Haim

Background: The diagnostic and therapeutic approach to hilar cholangiocarcinoma and thus the prognosis have changed significantly over the last two decades. Nonetheless, hilar  cholangiocarcinoma  presents a complex surgical challenge.

Objectives: To assess the outcome of the radical approach for the management of types III and IV hilar  cholangiocarcinoma.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center study. Preoperative diagnosis was based on ultrasound, computed tomography and selective percutaneous cholangiography without tissue diagnosis. Surgery was radical and included en-bloc liver, extrahepatic biliary tree and hilar lymph nodes resection, followed by biliary reconstruction with hepatico-jejunostomy.

Results: Fifteen patients (mean age 49 years, range 24–72) were managed accordingly. Anatomic classification of the biliary involvement was Bismuth-Corlette type IIIA (n=4), type IIIB (n=3) and type IV (n=8). The surgical procedures performed included four right hepatic lobectomies, five left hepatic lobectomies and six trisegmentectomies (all extended to the caudate lobe). Complete negative resection margins (R0) were accomplished in 12 cases (80%). Regional lymph node metastases were detected in five cases. There were two perioperative mortalities. Long-term follow-up (mean 30 months, range 6–72) revealed local recurrences in two cases, distant metastases in three, and both local and distant in two cases. Eleven patients are alive and 6 are without evidence of disease. The overall 2- and 5-year survival is 78% and 38% respectively.

Conclusions: In selected patients, the aggressive surgical approach to hilar cholangiocarcinoma is justified and can result in long-term survival.

December 2010
Y. Goykhman, J. Paz, E. Sarid, J. Klausner and D. Soffer
November 2010
Y. Goykhman, M. Ben-Haim, G. Rosen, M. Carmiel-Haggai, R. Oren, R. Nakache, O. Szold, J. Klausner and I. Kori

Background: Inserting a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt by means of interventional radiology has become the procedure of choice for decompression of portal hypertension. The indications and criteria for patient selection have been expanded and refined accordingly.

Objectives: To review our experience with TIPS[1] and analyze the results with emphasis on patient selection and indication (conventional vs. atypical).

Methods: In this retrospective analysis in a single center all cases were managed by a multidisciplinary team (comprising liver surgery and transplantation, hepatology, imaging, interventional radiology and intensive care).

Results: Between August 2003 and December 2009, 34 patients (mean age 51, range 27–76 years) were treated with TIPS. The cause of portal hypertension was cirrhosis (23 cases), hypercoagulabilty complicated by Budd-Chiari syndrome (n=6), and acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5). Clinical indications for TIPS included treatment or secondary prevention of variceal bleeding (10 cases), refractory ascites (n=18), mesenteric ischemia due to acute portal vein thrombosis (n=5), and acute liver failure (n=1). TIPS was urgent in 18 cases (53%) and elective in 16. Three deaths occurred following urgent TIPS. The overall related complication rate was 32%: transient encephalopathy (6 cases), ischemic hepatitis (n=2), acute renal failure (n=2) and bleeding (n=1). Long-term results of TIPS were defined as good in 25 cases (73%), fair in 4 (12%) and failure in 5 (15%). In three of five patients with mesenteric ischemia following acute portal vein thrombosis, surgery was obviated. Revision of TIPS due to stenosis or thrombosis was needed in 7 cases (20%).

Conclusions: TIPS is safe and effective. While its benefit for patients with portal hypertension is clear, the role of TIPS in treatment of portal-mesenteric venous thrombosis needs further evaluation. Patient selection, establishing the indication and performing TIPS should be done by a multidisciplinary dedicated team.

[1] TIPS = transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

April 2008
O. Wiesel, V. Makrin, N. Lubezky, J. Klausner, C. I. Schulman and D. Soffer
November 2007
J. Issakov, I. Jiveliouk, I. Nachmany, J. Klausner and O. Merimsky

Background: The diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors is based on documentation of c-KIT and platelet-derived growth factor-alpha receptors or specific c-KIT mutations. Before the diagnosis of GIST[1] was possible, all cases had been classified as sarcomas or benign tumors.

Objectives: To identify cases of GIST formerly diagnosed as abdominal or retroperitoneal mesenchymal tumors.

Methods: We reviewed the archive material on all surgical cases diagnosed as gastrointestinal related malignant mesenchymal tumors or GIST in our medical center during the last decade (1995–2004).

Results: Sixty-eight cases of retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma were identified. Thirty-eight were reconfirmed to be GIST, 19 were newly diagnosed as GIST (the hidden cases), 8 cases were re-diagnosed as mesenchymal tumors, and 3 cases of sarcoma remained sarcomas. Of all the GIST tumors, c-KIT-positive and PDGFRα[2]-positive tumors were more characteristic of primary gastric tumors, while c-KIT-positive and PDGFRα-negative tumors were found in the colorectal area. The c-KIT-negative and PDGFRα-positive cases were of gastric origin.

Conclusions: Any c-KIT-negative malignant mesenchymal mass located near the proximal gastrointestinal tract should also be stained for PDGFRα to differentiate between GIST and other soft tissue sarcomas. Practically, formerly diagnosed abdominal or retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcomas should be reviewed to identify patients with misdiagnosed GIST and thereby avoid future unnecessary and ineffective chemotherapy.


[1] GIST = gastrointestinal stromal tumors

[2] PDGFRα = platelet-derived growth factor-alpha

March 2006
D. Bar-Zohar, B. Sagie, N. Lubezky, M. Blum, J. Klausner and S. Abu-Abeid

Background: Peritoneal dialysis is a widely accepted route for renal replacement. With the advent of endoscopy, many surgical techniques for the prevention of catheter failure have been proposed.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing laparoscopic Tenckhoff catheter implantation, using the pelvic fixation technique.

Methods: Data analysis was retrospective. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. A double-cuffed catheter was inserted using two 5 mm trocars and one 10 mm trocar, fixing its internal tip to the dome of the bladder and its inner cuff to the fascia. Catheter failure was defined as persistent peritonitis/exit-site/tunnel infection, severe dialysate leak, migration or outflow obstruction.

Results: LTCI[1] was performed in 34 patients. Mean patient age was 65 ± 17 years. In 12 of the 34 patients the indication for LTCI was end-stage renal failure combined with NYHA class IV congestive heart failure. Operative time was 35 ± 15 minutes. A previous laparotomy was performed in 9 patients. Hospital stay was 1.5 ± 0.6 days. The first continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis was performed after 20 ± 12 days. Median follow-up time was 13 months. There were several complications, including 5 (14%) exit-site/tunnel infections, 27 episodes (0.05 per patient-month) of bacterial peritonitis, 3 (9%) incisional hernias, 1 case of fatal intraabdominal bleeding, 2 (5.8%) catheter migrations (functionally significant), and 10 (30%) cases of catheter plugging, 8 of which were treated successfully by instillation of urokinase and 2 surgically. A complication-mandated surgery was performed in 8 patients (23.5%). The 1 year failure-free rate of the catheter was 80.8%. One fatal intraabdominal bleeding was recorded.
Conclusions: LTCI is safe, obviating the need for laparotomy in high risk patients. Catheter fixation to the bladder may prevent common mechanical failures

[1] LTCI = laparoscopic Tenckhoff catheter implantation

March 2005
M. Ben-Haim, M. Carmiel, N. Lubezky, R. Keidar, P. Katz, A. Blachar, A. Nomrod, P. Sorkine, R. Oren, J.M. Klausner and R. Nakache
Background: Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation is becoming an alternative to cadaveric transplantation in urgent and elective settings. Donor selection crucially affects donor safety and recipient outcome.

Objective: To present our algorithm of urgent and elective donor selection.

Methods: Urgent selection is expeditious and protocol‑based. Elective selection permits a comprehensive process. Both include medical, psychosocial and surgical-anatomic evaluations. Liver volumes and vascular anatomy are evaluated with computerized tomographic angiography. Informed consent is obtained after painstaking explanations. Independent institutional committees review and approve all cases.

Results: Between July 2003 and June 2004 we evaluated 43 potential live donors for 12 potential recipients (fulminant hepatic failure, n=5; chronic end-stage liver disease, n=6); primary graft non-function, n=1). Thirty-three candidates (76%) were excluded due to blood type incompatibility (n=14, 42%), incompatible anatomy (n=8, 24%) – including problematic volume distribution (n=2) or vascular anatomy (n=6) – psychosocial issues (n=4, 12%), or medical co-morbidity (n=7, 22%). Five recipients (FHF[1], n=4; chronic ESLD[2], n=1) were successfully transplanted from living donors. In the acute setting, two patients (FHF, PGNF[3]) died in the absence of an appropriate donor (cadaveric or living donor). In the elective group, one patient died of unexpected variceal bleeding and one received a cadaveric graft just before the planned living donor transplantation was performed. One candidate was transplanted overseas and two cases are scheduled. The ratio of compatibility for donation was 34% (10/29) for blood type-compatible candidates.

Conclusions: Donor selection for living donor liver transplantation is a complex, labor-intensive multidisciplinary process. Most exclusions are due to blood type incompatibility or anatomic details. Psychosocial aspects of these donations warrant special attention.


[1] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

[2] ESLD = chronic end-stage liver disease

[3] PGNF = primary graft non-function

August 2004
N. Lubezky, R. Nakache, M. Carmiel, R. Oren, P. Sorkin, J. Klausner and M. Ben-Haim

Background: The prognosis of patients with fulminant hepatic failure without timely liver transplantation is dismal. Given the limited availability of cadaveric organs for urgent transplantation in Israel, adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation may be the only alternative.

Objectives: To report our initial experience with urgent lifesaving LDLT[1] in this unique scenario.

Methods: Three adult patients with FHF[2] (two of unknown etiology, one with paracetamol intoxication) were transferred from other institutions and admitted to our intensive care unit. Initial treatment and monitoring included intracranial pressure monitoring and hepatic dialysis using the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System. Expeditious potential donor selection included medical, psychosocial and surgical evaluation. Liver volume and vascular anatomic compatibility were assessed with computed tomography angiography.

Results: Between July and October 2003 we performed three procedures of urgent adult-to-adult LDLT. The donors (two uncles, one sister) underwent hepatic resection (two right lobes, one left lateral segment) and recovered well. The recipients underwent total hepatectomy with caval preservation, followed by lobar grafting. All recipients recovered and are alive with good liver function and without any neurologic complications.

Conclusions: Urgent adult-to-adult living-donor segmental liver transplantation can be performed safely and timely as a lifesaving procedure in the setting of comatose patients with FHF.

[1] LDLT = living-donor liver transplantation

[2] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

February 2003
D. Lev-Chelouche, B. Sagie, A. Keidar, J. M. Klausner and A. Szold

Background: Developments in laparoscopic surgery have rendered it an efficient tool for many complex surgical procedures. In the last few years, laparoscopic adrenalectomy has become a more viable option for removal of adrenal pathology, with many surgeons preferring it to the conventional open technique.

Objectives: To describe the indications, technique, complications and follow-up of patients undergoing laparoscopic adrenalectomy in our department.

Methods: The hospital files of 30 patients who underwent the procedure were reviewed. There were 19 females and 11 males with a mean age of 45 years. Indications for surgery differed and included hypersecreting adenoma, pheochromocytoma, suspected malignancy, and incidentaloma.

Results: Of the 31 laparoscopic adrenalectomies performed, 11 were right, 18 were left, and 1 was bilateral. The conversion rate to an open procedure was 3%. The mean duration of procedure was 120 minutes. Only one patient required blood transfusion. Complications occurred in 20% of patients, all reversible. There was no mortality. Mean hospitalization duration was 3.4 days, and median follow-up 17 months. There were no late complications. All patients operated on for benign diseases are alive.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic adrenalectomy appears to be a useful tool for the treatment of a range of adrenal pathologies.

July 2000
Richard Nakache MD, Avi Weinbroum MD, Hadar Merhav MD, Eli Kaplan MD, Yehuda Kariv MD, Wessam Khoury MD, Mordechai Gutman MD and Joseph M. lausner MD

Background: In simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation, with both organs coming from the same donor, the addition of a pancreas to the kidney transplant does not jeopardize the kidney allograft outcome despite higher postoperative SPK morbidity. Pancreas allograft outcome has recently improved due to better organ selection and more accurate surgical techniques.

Objective: To demonstrate the positive impact of SPK on kidney allograft outcome versus kidney transplantation alone in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients with end-stage renal failure.

Methods: We performed 39 consecutive SPKs in 14 female and 25 male IDDM patients with renal failure after an average waiting time of 9 months. Multi-organ donor age was 30 years (range 12-53). The kidneys were transplanted in the left retroperitoneal iliac fossa following completion of the pancreas transplantation; kidney cold ischemia time was 16±4 hours. Induction anti-rejection therapy was achieved with polyclonal antithymocytic globulin and methylprednisolone, and maintenance immunosuppression by triple drug therapy (prednisone, cyclosporine or tacrolimus, and azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil). Infection and rejection were closely monitored.

Results: All kidney allografts produced immediate urinary output following SPK. Two renal grafts had mild function impairment due to acute tubular damage but recovered after a short delay. Three patients died from myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular event and abdominal sepsis on days 1, 32 and 45 respectively (1 year patient survival 92%). An additional kidney allograft was lost due to a renal artery pseudo-aneurysm requiring nephrectomy on day 26. Nineteen patients (49%) had an early rejection of the kidney that was resistant to pulse-steroid therapy in 6. No kidney graft was lost due to rejection. Patients with acute kidney-pancreas rejection episodes suffered from severe infection, which was the main cause of morbidity with a 55% re-admission rate. Complications of the pancreas allograft included graft pancreatitis and sepsis, leading to a poor kidney outcome with sub-optimal kidney function at 1 year. Kidney graft survival at one year was 89% or 95% after censoring the data for patients who died with functioning grafts.

Conclusions: Eligible IDDM patients with advanced diabetic nephropathy should choose SPK over kidney transplantation alone from either a cadaver or a living source.



SPK= simutaneous pancreas-kidney transplatation

IDDM= insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel