Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liver Anatomy and Function in the Planning of Hepatic Interventions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Primary Liver Cancer

Part of the book series: Clinical Gastroenterology ((CG))

  • 1519 Accesses

Abstract

The patient with newly diagnosed hepatic tumor faces the unique dilemma of having more cytoreductive treatment options available to them than any other type of solid organ cancer. As a simple example, a patient with well-compensated cirrhosis and a small tumor may be a candidate for any one of the options of hepatic resection, chemical or thermal ablation, or hepatic arterial therapy. Add to this the choice of an open versus laparoscopic versus percutaneous procedure, and the wide array of devices and hepatic artery infusates available, and the patient may have ten or more viable treatment options. Making sense of these options and in turn selecting the most appropriate treatment for an individual patient require a working knowledge of liver anatomy and function and require the practitioner to recognize the constraints of each modality. In this chapter, we will focus on liver anatomy and function as it pertains to decision-making in the treatment of hepatic tumors. We will focus first on how anatomy and function pertain to hepatic resection and later expand this to be applicable to decision-making regarding local and regional therapies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Couinaud CLeFoie. Etudes anatomiques et chirugicales. Paris: Masson & Cie; 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Healey Jr JE, Schroy PC. Anatomy of the biliary ducts within the human liver; Analysis of the prevailing pattern of branchings and the major variations of the biliary ducts. Arch Surg. 1953;66:599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Terminology Committee of the IHPBA. Terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB Surg. 2000;2:333–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12:351–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Doherty DA, et al. Body surface area and body weight predict total liver volume in western adults. Liver Transplant. 2002;8(3):233–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 1995;21:1317–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Truant S, Oberlin O, Sergent G, et al. Remnant liver volume to body weight ration >0.5%: a new cut-off to estimate postoperative risks after extended resection in noncirrhotic liver. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(1):22–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shoup M, Gonen M, D’Angelica M, et al. Volumetric analysis predicts hepatic dysfunction in patients undergoing major liver resection. J Gastrointest Surg. 2003;7:325–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yigitler C, Farges O, Kianmanesh R, et al. The small remnant liver after major liver resection: how common and how relevant? Liver Transplant. 2003;9:S18–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vauthey JN, Chaoui A, Do KA, et al. Standardized measurement of the future liver remnant prior to extended liver resection: methodology and clinical associations. Surgery. 2000;127: 512–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiuchi T, Kasharah M, Uryhuhara K, et al. Impact of graft size mismatching on graft prognosis in liver transplantation from living donors. Transplantation. 1999;67:321–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Malinchoc M, Kamath PS, Gordon FD, Peine CJ, Rank J, ter Borg PC. A model to predict poor survival in patients undergoing transjugular protosystemic shunts. Hepatology. 2000;31: 864–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kamath PS, Wesner RH, Malinchoc M, et al. A model to predict survival in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001;33:464–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Forman LM, Lucey MR. Predicting the prognosis of chronic liver disease: An evolution from the CHILD to MELD. Mayo end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2001;33:473–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Friedman LS. Surgery in the patient with liver disease. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2010;121:192–205.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O’Leary JG, Friedman LS. Predicting surgical risk in patients with cirrhosis: from art to ­science. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(4):1609–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schroeder RA, Marroquin CE, Bute BP, Khuri S, Henderson WG, Kuo PC. Predictive indices of morbidity and mortality after liver resection. Ann Surg. 2006;243:373–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jarnagin W, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB. 2010;12:302–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Teh SH, Sheppard BC, Schwartz J, Orloff S. Model for end-stage liver disease score fails to predict perioperative outcome after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients without cirrhosis. Am J Surg. 2008;195:697–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Teh SH, Nagorney DM, Stevens SR, et al. Risk factors for mortality after surgery in patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:1261–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Northup PG, Wanamaker RC, Lee VD, Adams RB, Berg CL. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) predicts nontransplant surgical mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Ann Surg. 2005;242:244–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mullin EJ, Metcalfe MS, Maddern GJ. How much liver resection is too much? Am J Surg. 2005;190:87–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Teh SH, Christein J, Donohue J, et al. Hepatic resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: model of end-stage disease (MELD) score predicts perioperative mortality. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9(9):1207–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cucchetti A, Ercolani G, Vivarelli M, et al. Impact of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score on prognosis after hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis. Liver Transplant. 2006;12:966–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tu R, Xia LP, Yu AL, Wu L. Assessment of hepatic functional reserve by cirrhosis grading and liver volume measurement using CT. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(29):3956–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vauthey JN, Dixon E, Abdalla EK, et al. Pretreatment assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(5):289–99.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Torzilli G, et al. Hepatectomy for stage B and stage C hepatocellular carcinoma in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification. Arch Surg. 2008;143(11):1082–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schneider PD. Preoperative assessment of liver function. Surg Clin North Am. 2004;84: 355–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tarantino G. Could quantitative liver function tests gain wide acceptance among hepatologists? World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(28):3457–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stadalnik RC, Vera DR. The evolution of (99m)Tc-NGA as a clinically useful receptor-binding radiopharmaceutical. Nucl Med Biol. 2001;28(5):499–503.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hwang EH, Taki J, Shuke N, et al. Preoperative assessment of residual hepatic functional reserve using 99mTc-DTPA-galactosyl-human serum albumin dynamic SPECT. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(10):1644–51.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kubo S, Shiomi S, Tanaka H, et al. Evaluation of the effect of portal vein embolization on liver function by (99m)tc-galactosyl human serum albumin scintigraphy. J Surg Res. 2001;107(1): 113–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kokudo N, Vera DR, Koizumi M, et al. Recovery of hepatic asialoglycoprotein receptors after major hepatic resection. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(1):137–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stockmann M, Lock JF, Malinowski M, Niehues SM, Seehofer D, Neuhaus P. The LiMAx test: a new liver function test for predicting postoperative outcome in liver surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(2):139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R, et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery. 2011;149(5): 713–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Balzan S, Belghiti J, Farges O, et al. The “50–50 criteria” on postoperative day 5: an accurate predictor of liver failure and death after hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2005;242(6):824–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shah A, Goffette P, Hubert C, et al. Comparison of different methods to quantify future liver remnants after preoperative portal vein embolization to predict postoperative liver failure. Hepatogastroenterology. 2011;58(105):109–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wakabayashi H, Ishimura K, Okano K, et al. Application of preoperative portal vein embolization before major hepatic resection in patients with normal or abnormal liver parenchyma. Surgery. 2002;131(1):26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. de Graaf W, van Lienden KP, van den Esschert JW, Bennink RJ, van Gulik TM. Increase in future remnant liver function after preoperative portal vein embolization. Br J Surg. 2011;98: 825–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Livraghi T, Meloni F, Di Stasi M, et al. Sustained complete response and complications rates after radiofrequency ablation of very early hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: Is resection still the treatment of choice? Hepatology. 2008;47(1):82–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Chen MS, Li JQ, Zheng Y, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing percutaneous local ablative therapy and partial hepatectomy for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2006;243(3):321–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Huang J, Yan L, Cheng Z, et al. A randomized trial comparing radiofrequency ablation and surgical resection for HCC conforming to the Milan criteria. Ann Surg. 2010;252(6):903–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Hsin IF, Hsu CY, Huang HC, et al. Liver failure after transarterial chemoembolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and ascites: incidence, risk factors, and prognostic prediction. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45(6):556–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Lau WY, Kennedy AS, Kim YH, et al. Patient selection and activity planning guide for selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;80(4):1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Coldwell D, Sangro B, Wasan H, Salem R, Kennedy A. General selection criteria of patients for radioembolization of liver tumors: an international working group report. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34(3):337–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Nicholas N. Nissen MD & Alagappan Annamalai MD

  2. Center for Liver Diseases and Transplantation, 8635W 3rd Street, Suite 590W, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA

    Nicholas N. Nissen MD

Authors
  1. Nicholas N. Nissen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alagappan Annamalai MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicholas N. Nissen MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Center, Center for Liver Disease, The University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland Ave. MC 7120, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA

    Nancy Reau

  2. , Texas Liver Institute, University of Texas, 621 Camden St, #202, San Antonio, 78215, Texas, USA

    Fred Poordad

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nissen, N.N., Annamalai, A. (2012). Liver Anatomy and Function in the Planning of Hepatic Interventions. In: Reau, N., Poordad, F. (eds) Primary Liver Cancer. Clinical Gastroenterology. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-863-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-61779-863-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-61779-862-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-61779-863-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation