Application value of mixed reality in hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: As a new digital holographic imaging technology, mixed reality (MR) technology has unique advantages in determining the liver anatomy and location of tumor lesions. With the popularization of 5G communication technology, MR shows great potential in preoperative planning and intraoperative navigation, making hepatectomy more accurate and safer. AIM: To evaluate the application value of MR technology in hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The clinical data of 95 patients who underwent open hepatectomy surgery for HCC between June 2018 and October 2020 at our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. We selected 95 patients with HCC according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria. In 38 patients, hepatectomy was assisted by MR (Group A), and an additional 57 patients underwent traditional hepatectomy without MR (Group B). The perioperative outcomes of the two groups were collected and compared to evaluate the application value of MR in hepatectomy for patients with HCC. RESULTS: We summarized the technical process of MR-assisted hepatectomy in the treatment of HCC. Compared to traditional hepatectomy in Group B, MR-assisted hepatectomy in Group A yielded a shorter operation time (202.86 ± 46.02 min vs 229.52 ± 57.13 min, P = 0.003), less volume of bleeding (329.29 ± 97.31 mL vs 398.23 ± 159.61 mL, P = 0.028), and shorter obstructive time of the portal vein (17.71 ± 4.16 min vs 21.58 ± 5.24 min, P = 0.019). Group A had lower alanine aminotransferas and higher albumin values on the third day after the operation (119.74 ± 29.08 U/L vs 135.53 ± 36.68 U/L, P = 0.029 and 33.60 ± 3.21 g/L vs 31.80 ± 3.51 g/L, P = 0.014, respectively). The total postoperative complications and hospitalization days in Group A were significantly less than those in Group B [14 (37.84%) vs 35 (60.34%), P = 0.032 and 12.05 ± 4.04 d vs 13.78 ± 4.13 d, P = 0.049, respectively]. CONCLUSION: MR has some application value in three-dimensional visualization of the liver, surgical planning, and intraoperative navigation during hepatectomy, and it significantly improves the perioperative outcomes of hepatectomy for HCC.

[Middle hepatic treatment algorithm in right lobe living donor liver transplantation for donor recipient safety].

OBJECTIVE: The treatment algorithm of donor middle hepatic vein (MHV) was made depending on the remnant liver volume of the total donor liver volume as calculated by computer tomography, estimated graft-to-recipient weight ratio and also anatomy. The present study was to analyze the influence of this algorithm upon the safety of donors and recipients in right lobe living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) and to provide references for our future clinical practices. METHODS: Data of 73 consecutive LDLT cases, operated and managed by the same surgical team according to the pre-operation MHV treatment algorithm, were analyzed. MHV was harvested in 28 cases and not in 45 cases. Donor and recipient gender, age, weight, operation time, blood loss volume, graft weight, non-hepatic phase, graft cold preservation time, perioperative survival rate and the incidence of small-for-size syndrome were compared, and also the peak post-operative values of ALT, AST, T-bilirubin and D-bilirubin. RESULTS: No donor needed blood transfusion and suffered small-for-size syndrome. One recipient recovered from small-for-size syndrome successfully by medical interventions. One recipient had acute hepatic necrosis at Day 6 post-operation and was converted into cadaveric liver transplantation. At Day 30 post-operation, one recipient died from disseminated infections and respiratory failure, but his liver function was normal. There was significant difference in donor and recipient age, actual GRWR, graft cold preservation time and recipient's ALT peak value between the MHV harvest group and the MHV non-harvest group. CONCLUSION: The MHV treatment algorithm is safe to both donors and recipients.

[Clinical analysis of donor hepatectomy in living donor liver transplantation: report of 74 cases].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the living donor selection, donor hepatectomy technique, and surgical complication in living donor liver transplantation. METHODS: From June 2007 to July 2008, 74 consecutive cases living donor hepatectomy were performed by the same surgical team. Seventy-four donors (64 males and 10 females) with a mean age of 29.2 years old passed the donor liver assessment and evaluation program successfully. The hepatectomy procedure types contained right liver resection (n = 72), of which 27 cases harvested the middle hepatic vein and 45 cases not, left liver resection contain middle hepatic vein (n = 1) and left lateral resection (n = 1). RESULTS: Of all the donors, operation time was (6.5 +/- 6.2) hours, the mean blood loss was 300 ml (100 - 500 ml) and didn't accept foreign blood transfusion. The maximum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level was (229.5 +/- 108.6) U/L, the ALT returned to normal time was (12.7 +/- 4.8) d, the maximum total bilirubin (TB) level was (78.7 +/- 44.3) micromol/L, the TB returned to normal time was (8.8 +/- 2.7) d, and the mean hospital stay time was 14 days (7 - 28 d). The complications included bile leak (n = 1), cut surface hemorrhage (n = 1) and anaphylactoid purpura (n = 1). All the donors returned to normal work and life finally. CONCLUSIONS: Precisely evaluating donor blood vascular and biliary anatomy before operation, keeping the blood vascular and bile duct integrity during operation and monitoring complication to solve it immediately after operation is crucial to ensure donor safety and recovering successfully.

Liver tumor boundaries identified intraoperatively using real-time indocyanine green fluorescence imaging.

PURPOSE: Clear delineation between tumors and normal tissues is ideal for real-time surgical navigation imaging. We investigated applying indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging navigation using an intraoperative administration method in liver resection. METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent liver resection were divided into two groups based on clinical situation and operative purpose. In group I, sizes of superficial liver tumors were determined; tiny tumors were identified. In group II, the liver resection margin was determined; real-time navigation was performed. ICG was injected intravenously at the beginning of the operation; the liver surface was observed with a photodynamic eye (PDE). RESULTS: Liver resection margins were determined using PDE. Fluorescence contrast between normal liver and tumor tissues was obvious in 32 of 35 patients. A boundary for half the liver or specific liver segments was determined in nine patients by examining the portal vein anatomy after ICG injection. Eight small tumors not observed preoperatively were detected; the smallest was 2 mm. CONCLUSIONS: ICG fluorescence imaging navigation is a promising, simple, and safe tool for routine real-time intraoperative imaging during hepatic resection and clinical exploration in hepatocellular carcinoma, enabling high sensibility for identifying liver resection margins and detecting tiny superficial tumors.