4.3 Article

Risk factors for bile leakage: Latest analysis of 10 102 hepatectomies for hepatocellular carcinoma from the Japanese national clinical database

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES
Volume 28, Issue 7, Pages 556-562

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.827

Keywords

bile leakage; hepatic resections; hepatocellular carcinoma; risk factors

Funding

  1. Japanese Society of Hepato-BiliaryPancreatic Surgery (JSHBPS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Male sex, diabetes, low levels of hemoglobin and albumin, as well as specific types of hepatic resection such as central bisectionectomy and left trisectionectomy, are associated with an increased risk of bile leakage.
Background/Purpose The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for bile leakage in hepatic resections without biliary reconstructions using the large Japanese national clinical database (NCD). Methods A total of 10 102 patients who had undergone hepatic resection involving more than one segment without biliary reconstructions for hepatocellular carcinoma during 2015-2017 were enrolled. Risk factors for bile leakage, with special reference to the type of hepatic resection, were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results Bile leakage occurred in 726 patients (7.2%). Risk factors for bile leakage were as follows: male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.58), diabetes mellitus (+) (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.39), hemoglobin <10 g/dL (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.02-1.93), albumin <3.5 g/dL (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.03-1.63), central bisectionectomy (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.81-5.13), left trisectionectomy (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.10-6.15), right anterior sectionectomy (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.58-2.72), and S5 or S8 segmentectomy (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00-1.77). Conclusion Central bisectionectomy, left trisectionectomy, and right anterior sectionectomy are high-risk types of hepatic resection for bile leakage.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available