Relining of a Bridging Covered Stent to Treat a Rare Cause of Type IIIc Endoleak Following Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

PURPOSE: To present a rare cause of type III endoleak via the left renal artery (LRA) fenestration following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) and to describe a successful reintervention for treating this endoleak. TECHNIQUE: The patient presented with a type IIIc endoleak following FEVAR, due to inadvertent placement of the LRA bridging balloon expandable covered stent (BECS) via the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) fenestration, but deployed outside the SMA fenestration. The proximal part of the BECS was positioned outside of the main body. This caused a type IIIc endoleak via the open LRA fenestration. Reintervention was performed by relining the LRA with a new BECS. First, access to the lumen of the previously placed BECS was gained using a re-entry catheter, followed by placement of a new BECS via the LRA fenestration. Completion angiography, and computerized tomography angiography (CTA) at 3 months follow-up showed total obliteration of the endoleak and patency of the LRA. CONCLUSION: Placement of a bridging stent via an incorrect fenestration during FEVAR is a rare cause of type III endoleak. In certain cases, successful treatment of such an endoleak could be achieved by perforation and relining of the misplaced BECS via the correct fenestration of the target vessel. CLINICAL IMPACT: To our best knowledge, a type IIIc endoleak following fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair, due to placement of a bridging covered stent through an incorrect fenestration and deployed short of the fenestration, has not been described before. Reintervention was performed with perforation of the previously placed covered stent and relining using a new bridging covered stent. The technique presented here was successful for treating the endoleak in this case and could help guide clinicians when dealing with this or similar complications.

Successful Thrombectomy via a Surgically Reopened Umbilical Vein for Extended Portal Vein Thrombosis Caused by Portal Vein Embolization prior to Extended Liver Resection.

Selective portal vein embolization (PVE) before extended liver surgery is an accepted method to stimulate growth of the future liver remnant. Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) of the main stem and the non-targeted branches to the future liver remnant is a rare but major complication of PVE, requiring immediate revascularization. Without revascularization, curative liver surgery is not possible, resulting in a potentially life-threatening situation. We here present a new surgical technique to revascularize the portal vein after PVT by combining a surgical thrombectomy with catheter-based thrombolysis via the surgically reopened umbilical vein. This technique was successfully applied in a patient who developed thrombosis of the portal vein main stem, as well as the left portal vein and its branches to the left lateral segments after selective right-sided PVE in preparation for an extended right hemihepatectomy. The advantage of this technique is the avoidance of an exploration of hepatoduodenal ligament and a venotomy of the portal vein. The minimal surgical trauma facilitates additional intravascular thrombolytic therapy as well as the future right extended hemihepatectomy. We recommend this technique in patients with extensive PVT in which percutaneous less invasive therapies have been proven unsuccessful.

Resectability and Ablatability Criteria for the Treatment of Liver Only Colorectal Metastases: Multidisciplinary Consensus Document from the COLLISION Trial Group.

The guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer crudely state that the best local treatment should be selected from a 'toolbox' of techniques according to patient- and treatment-related factors. We created an interdisciplinary, consensus-based algorithm with specific resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). To pursue consensus, members of the multidisciplinary COLLISION and COLDFIRE trial expert panel employed the RAND appropriateness method (RAM). Statements regarding patient, disease, tumor and treatment characteristics were categorized as appropriate, equipoise or inappropriate. Patients with ECOG≤2, ASA≤3 and Charlson comorbidity index ≤8 should be considered fit for curative-intent local therapy. When easily resectable and/or ablatable (stage IVa), (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy is not indicated. When requiring major hepatectomy (stage IVb), neo-adjuvant systemic therapy is appropriate for early metachronous disease and to reduce procedural risk. To downstage patients (stage IVc), downsizing induction systemic therapy and/or future remnant augmentation is advised. Disease can only be deemed permanently unsuitable for local therapy if downstaging failed (stage IVd). Liver resection remains the gold standard. Thermal ablation is reserved for unresectable CRLM, deep-seated resectable CRLM and can be considered when patients are in poor health. Irreversible electroporation and stereotactic body radiotherapy can be considered for unresectable perihilar and perivascular CRLM 0-5cm. This consensus document provides per-patient and per-tumor resectability and ablatability criteria for the treatment of CRLM. These criteria are intended to aid tumor board discussions, improve consistency when designing prospective trials and advance intersociety communications. Areas where consensus is lacking warrant future comparative studies.

Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, biliary drainage is recommended to treat obstructive jaundice and optimise the clinical condition before liver resection. Little evidence exists on the preferred initial method of biliary drainage. We therefore investigated the incidence of severe drainage-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial at four academic centres in the Netherlands. Patients who were aged at least 18 years with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma requiring major liver resection, and biliary obstruction of the future liver remnant (defined as a bilirubin concentration of >50 µmol/L [2·9 mg/dL]), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage through the use of computer-generated allocation. Randomisation, done by the trial coordinator, was stratified for previous (attempted) biliary drainage, the extent of bile duct involvement, and enrolling centre. Patients were enrolled by clinicians of the participating centres. The primary outcome was the number of severe complications between randomisation and surgery in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4243. FINDINGS: From Sept 26, 2013, to April 29, 2016, 261 patients were screened for participation, and 54 eligible patients were randomly assigned to endoscopic biliary drainage (n=27) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (n=27). The study was prematurely closed because of higher mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group (11 [41%] of 27 patients) than in the endoscopic biliary drainage group (three [11%] of 27 patients; relative risk 3·67, 95% CI 1·15-11·69; p=0·03). Three of the 11 deaths among patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group occurred before surgery. The proportion of patients with severe preoperative drainage-related complications was similar between the groups (17 [63%] patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group vs 18 [67%] in the endoscopic biliary drainage group; relative risk 0·94, 95% CI 0·64-1·40). 16 (59%) patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group and ten (37%) patients in the endoscopic biliary drainage group developed preoperative cholangitis (p=0·1). 15 (56%) patients required additional percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after endoscopic biliary drainage, whereas only one (4%) patient required endoscopic biliary drainage after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. INTERPRETATION: The study was prematurely stopped because of higher all-cause mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group. Post-drainage complications were similar between groups, but the data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size. The results call for further prospective studies and reconsideration of indications and strategy towards biliary drainage in this complex disease. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Foundation.