RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There are no guidelines in the literature for the use of a computed tomography (CT) protocol in the initial phase of acute pancreatitis (AP). PURPOSE: To evaluate the contribution of single portal venous phase CT compared to triple-phase CT protocol, performed in the initial phase of AP for severity assessment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, a total of 175 patients with acute pancreatitis who underwent initial triple-phase CT protocol (non-contrast, arterial phase, and portal venous phase) between D3 and D7 after the onset of symptoms were included. Analysis of AP severity and complications was independently assessed by two readers using three validated CT severity scores (CTSI, mCTSI, EPIC). All scores were applied to the triple-phase CT protocol and compared to the single portal venous phase. Inter-observer analyses were also performed. RESULTS: No significant difference whatever the severity score was observed after analysis of the single portal venous phase compared with the triple-phase CT protocol (interstitial edematous pancreatitis: CTSI: 2 vs. 2, mCTSI: 2 vs. 2, EPIC: 1 vs. 1; necrotizing pancreatitis: CTSI: 6 vs. 6, mCTSI: 8 vs. 8, EPIC: 5 vs. 5). Inter-observer agreement was excellent (ICC = 0.96-0.99), whatever the severity score. CONCLUSION: A triple-phase CT protocol performed at the initial phase of AP was no better than a single portal venous for assessing the severity of complications and could lead to a 63% reduction in irradiation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar liver metastases from colorectal cancer, future liver remnant (FLR) growth can be achieved using several techniques, such as right portal vein ligation (RPVL) or right portal vein embolization (RPVE). A few heterogeneous studies have compared these two techniques with contradictory results concerning FLR growth. The objective of this study was to compare FLR hypertrophy of the left hemi-liver after RPVL and RPVE. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective comparative study using a propensity score of patients who underwent RPVL or RPVE prior to major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2020. The endpoints were FLR growth (%) after weighting using the propensity score, which included FLR prior to surgery and the number of chemotherapy cycles. Secondary endpoints were the percentage of patients undergoing simultaneous procedures, the morbidity and mortality, the recourse to other liver hypertrophy procedures, and the number of invasive procedures for the entire oncologic program in intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-four consecutive patients were retrospectively included and analyzed, 18 in the RPVL group, and 36 in the RPVE group. The demographic characteristics were similar between the groups. After weighting, there was no significant difference between the RPVL and RPVE groups for FLR growth (%), respectively 32.5% [19.3-56.0%] and 34.5% [20.5-47.3%] (p = 0.221). There was no significant difference regarding the secondary outcomes except for the lower number of invasive procedures in RPVL group (median of 2 [2.0, 3.0] in RPVL group and 3 [3.0, 3.0] in RPVE group, p = 0.001)). CONCLUSION: RPVL and RPVE are both effective to provide required left hemi-liver hypertrophy before right hepatectomy. RPVL should be considered for the simultaneous treatment of liver metastases and the primary tumor.