导管动脉栓塞联合腹腔镜辅助微波消融治疗不同位置巨大肝血管瘤的疗效与安全性比较研究

Clinical outcomes of transarterial embolization combined with laparoscopic-assisted microwave ablation for giant hepatic hemangiomas at different anatomical locations

  • 摘要: 背景 巨大肝血管瘤(giant hepatic hemangioma,GHH)传统上以外科手术切除为主要治疗方式。近年来经导管动脉栓塞(trans-arterial embolization,TAE)联合腹腔镜辅助微波消融(laparoscopic microwave ablation,LMWA)逐渐应用于GHH的治疗,现有研究对病灶解剖位置对消融安全性及疗效的影响关注不足。目的 评估不同解剖位置的GHH患者接受TAE+LMWA的序贯治疗后的围手术期结局差异。方法 回顾分析2021 年11 月至2024 年8 月于解放军总医院肝胆胰外科医学部接受TAE+LMWA 治疗的GHH 患者。根据病灶解剖位置分为肝包膜下(liver subcapsular, LS) 组和肝实质内(liver parenchyma,LP)组。术后随访12 个月,依据影像学表现将疗效分为完全治愈、临床治愈及未完全治愈,并计算有效治愈率,同时比较围手术期指标及术后并发症发生情况。结果 共纳入76 例患者,LS组59 例,LP组17 例,其中LS组平均年龄(48.4±9.3)岁,男性17(28.8%)人,女性42(71.1%)人,HH最大径11.72(10.52 ~ 12.28)cm;LP 组平均年龄(47.1±7.5)岁,男性7(41.1%)人,女性10(58.8%)人,HH最大径10.50(10.10 ~ 11.30)cm。两组在性别、年龄、瘤体大小等基线特征上差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。LS组与LP组两组瘤体最大径均较术前显著缩小(6.30±2.02) cm vs (5.45±1.26) cm,P>0.05,且治愈率相近(P=0.224)。两组在术中出血量、手术时间、术后住院时间、住院费用及胃肠道功能恢复时间等围手术期指标方面差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。术后并发症方面,LP组发热发生率略高于LS组(47.0% vs 27.1%,P=0.119),但总体并发症发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 在标准化TAE+LMWA序贯治疗及减压通道技术辅助下,GHH的解剖位置对术后恢复及并发症发生影响有限,该治疗策略具有良好的安全性和有效性。

     

    Abstract: Background Giant hepatic hemangioma (GHH) is traditionally managed by surgical resection as the primary treatment modality. In recent years, transarterial embolization (TAE) combined with laparoscopic microwave ablation (LMWA) has been increasingly applied in the treatment of GHH. However, limited attention has been paid to the impact of lesion anatomical location on the safety and efficacy of ablation. Objective To evaluate the differences in perioperative outcomes among patients with GHH at different anatomical locations undergoing sequential TAE + LMWA. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted in patients with GHH who underwent TAE + LMWA at the Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery of PLA General Hospital from November 2021 to August 2024. According to lesion location, patients were categorized into the liver subcapsular (LS) group and the liver parenchymal (LP) group. All patients were followed up for 12 months postoperatively. Treatment efficacy was evaluated based on imaging findings and classified as complete cure, clinical cure, or incomplete cure, and the effective cure rate was calculated accordingly. Perioperative outcomes and postoperative complications were also compared between the two groups. Results A total of 76 patients were included, with 59 cases in the LS group and 17 cases in the LP group. In the LS group, the mean age was (48.4±9.3) years, with 17 males (28.8%) and 42 females (71.1%), and the median maximum tumor diameter was 11.72 (10.52 - 12.28) cm. In the LP group, the mean age was (47.1±7.5) years, with 7 males (41.1%) and 10 females (58.8%), and the median maximum tumor diameter was 10.50 (10.10 - 11.30) cm. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in baseline characteristics, including sex, age, and tumor size (all P>0.05). The maximum tumor diameter was significantly reduced in both groups compared with preoperative values, with no significant difference between the two groups (6.30±2.02 cm vs 5.45±1.26 cm, P>0.05). Cure rates were comparable between the two groups (P=0.224). There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes, including intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization cost, and recovery of gastrointestinal function (all P>0.05). Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence of fever was numerically higher in the LP group than that in the LS group (47.0% vs 27.1%, P=0.119), while the overall complication rates were not significantly different between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Under standardized sequential TAE + LMWA combined with decompression channel technique, lesion anatomical location has a limited impact on postoperative recovery and complication rates in patients with GHH. This strategy demonstrates favorable safety and efficacy.

     

/

返回文章
返回