Surgery for malignant liver tumors

Recent decades have witnessed an increase in liver resections. There is a need for an update on factors related to the management of liver tumors in view of newer published data. A systematic search using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the years 1983-2008 was performed. The IHPBA classification provides a suitable nomenclature of liver resections. While one randomized trial has provided an objective time of 30 min as optimal for intermittent pedicle occlusion, another randomized study has demonstrated the feasibility of performing liver resections without pedicle clamping. A randomized trial has demonstrated the benefit of clamp crushing over newer techniques of liver transection. Cohort studies support anatomical resections when feasible in terms of outcomes. Nonrandomized studies also support nonanatomical and ablative therapies in patients with cirrhosis and small remnant livers. A randomized trial has shown comparable long-term outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and surgery for tumors < 5 cm. No randomized trials comparing laparoscopy and open surgery exist. Surgery remains an important treatment modality for malignant hepatic neoplasms. While anatomical resections provide improved survival, the choice of nonanatomical versus anatomical resections should be individualized taking into account factors such as cirrhosis and function of the liver remnant. A clear margin of resection is essential in all surgically resected cases. RFA is emerging as a useful, often complimentary tool, to surgery when dealing with complex tumors or tumors in patients with a poor liver function. Laparoscopic ultrasonography is useful in staging and performance of RFA

Post-operative abdominal drainage following major upper gastrointestinal surgery: Single drain versus two drains

Background: Traditionally, surgeons have resorted to placing drains following major gastrointestinal surgery. In recent years, the value of routine drainage has been questioned, especially in the light of their role in post-operative pain, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. The aim of this study was to compare the peri-operative outcomes following the use of a single versus two drains for gastric and pancreatic resections. Materials and Methods: Patients undergoing resections for gastric and pancreatic malignancies were included in the study. Patients were subdivided into two groups depending on the number of drains placed, viz. one drain (Group 1) or two drains (Group 2). Clinico-pathologic outcomes were recorded and compared. Results: Of the 285 patients included in the analysis, group 1 consisted of 226 patients while group 2 included 59 patients. Overall, drains alerted the surgeon to existence of complications in 62% of patients - 70% in group 1 and 44.4% in group 2 (P < 0.19). The morbidity and mortality rates in groups 1 and 2 were 25.2% and 3.9%, and 23.7% and 0%, respectively (P < 0.61 and P < 0.12). There were no drain-related complications. Median hospital stay was significantly lower in group 1 (11 vs. 14 days) (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The insertion of drains did aid in the detection of complications following gastric and pancreatic surgery. Two drains offer no further advantage over one drain in terms of detection of complications. While the number of drains did not contribute to, or reduce, the morbidity and mortality in the two groups, the use of one drain significantly reduced hospital stay. Taken together, these findings support the prophylactic insertion of a single intra-abdominal drain following gastric and pancreatic resections