• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Tue, 28.05.24

Search results


June 2020
Lior Orbach MD, Ido Nachmany MD, Yaacov Goykhman MD, Guy Lahat MD, Ofer Yossepowitch MD, Avi Beri MD, Yanai Ben-Gal MD, Joseph M. Klausner MD and Nir Lubezky MD

Background: Abdominal tumors invading the inferior vena cava (IVC) present significant challenges to surgeons and oncologists.

Objectives: To describe a surgical approach and patient outcomes.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of surgically resected tumors with IVC involvement by direct tumor encasement or intravascular tumor growth. Patients were classified according to level of IVC involvement, presence of intravascular tumor thrombus, and presence of hepatic parenchymal involvement.

Results: Study patients presented with leiomyosarcomas (n=5), renal cell carcinoma (n=7), hepatocellular carcinoma (n=1), cholangiocarcinoma (n=2), Wilms tumor (n=1), neuroblastoma (n=1), endometrial leiomyomatosis (n=1), adrenocortical carcinoma (n=1), and paraganglioma (n=1). The surgeries were conducted between 2010 and 2019. Extension of tumor thrombus above the hepatic veins required a venovenous bypass (n=3) or a full cardiac bypass (n=1). Hepatic parenchymal involvement required total hepatic vascular isolation with in situ hepatic perfusion and cooling (n=3). Circular resection of IVC was performed in five cases. Six patients had early postoperative complications, and the 90-day mortality rate was 10%. Twelve patients were alive, and six were disease-free after a mean follow-up of 1.6 years.

Conclusions: Surgical resection of abdominal tumors with IVC involvement can be performed in selected patients with acceptable morbidity and mortality. Careful patient selection, and multidisciplinary involvement in preoperative planning are key for optimal outcome.

September 2018
Nir Lubezky MD, Ido Nachmany MD, Yaacov Goykhman MD, Yanai Ben-Gal MD, Yoram Menachem MD, Ravit Geva MD, Joseph M Klausner MD and Richard Nakache MD
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


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