FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4221007046> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4221007046 endingPage "E93" @default.
• W4221007046 startingPage "E92" @default.
• W4221007046 abstract "HomeRadioGraphicsVol. 42, No. 3 PreviousNext Gastrointestinal ImagingFree AccessInvited Commentary: Issues at the Interface of Hepatic Imaging and Hepatic SurgeryEmily Winslow Emily Winslow Author AffiliationsFrom the Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute and Center for Liver and Pancreas Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, 2nd Floor PHC Building, Washington, DC 20007.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).Emily Winslow Published Online:Apr 1 2022https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.210222MoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In See also the article by Faria et al in this issue.In their comprehensive review, Faria et al (1) provide an excellent summary of the important areas of interface between imaging examinations and hepatic surgery. They highlight key aspects of hepatic surgery that are essential for imagers—namely, accepted international nomenclature for liver divisions, important anatomic variations, and the import of the future liver remnant volume. In these and many other areas, it is undisputed that high-quality hepatic imaging is an essential prerequisite for modern hepatic surgery.These core principles are relevant to all radiologists interpreting abdominal imaging studies. The clinical importance of the interpretation of an initial imaging study that uncovers a hepatic lesion cannot be overstated. The specific words in the radiographic impression set in motion a sequence of additional tests and specialty consultations, all of which have important ramifications for the patient. For example, it has recently been shown by using state registry data that there is a failure to operate on patients with colorectal liver metastases (2), especially when these patients are not evaluated by specialty multidisciplinary teams (3). Understanding the inherent complexity in identifying patients with potentially resectable hepatic metastases is an important area for all radiologists.As the review by Faria et al (1) illustrates, it is indisputable that high-quality imaging is the linchpin in the care of patients with hepatic masses. An accurate description of the lesion(s) (eg, the type, number, distribution, and position[s] relative to vascular and biliary structures) and the underlying liver (eg, the health of the nontumoral parenchyma and its vascular and biliary anatomy) is the foundation on which appropriate care of these patients depends. Faria et al (1) do an excellent job of covering both of these important aspects of hepatic imaging.The figures in this review provide good examples of the role of multiphasic CT and MRI in the diagnosis and determination of resectability of a variety of malignant hepatic lesions. It should, however, not be forgotten that imaging examinations are as, if not even more, important in the differentiation of benign from malignant liver lesions, as well as for the classification of benign lesions into specific pathologic conditions (eg, focal nodular hyperplasia versus hepatic adenoma). Further, the incorporation of other useful imaging modalities also deserves mention. The most notable is the absence of discussion of the utility of intraoperative US during hepatic surgery. Although institutional conditions determine how and if body radiologists are incorporated into intraoperative US examinations, it is worth noting that US helps guide many decisions in the operating room, namely the detection and characterization of unexpected lesions and localization of hepatic pedicles, as well as guidance for intraoperative ablation. In addition, nuclear imaging with both fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET and more recently tetraazacyclododecane tetraaceticacid–octreotate (DOTATATE) PET is essential to the care of patients with metastatic colorectal and neuroendocrine tumors, respectively.The broad range of anatomic variations of the liver are carefully enumerated by Faria et al (1). A thorough understanding of the vascular and biliary anatomy is essential for surgeons, and partnering with radiologists in their identification allows more reliable preoperative recognition. There are, however, important subtleties that deserve additional description. First, clearly differentiating between replaced and accessory arterial supply is surgically relevant. In addition, clarifying the segments that are supplied by a replaced artery is helpful. It is, for example, quite common for a “replaced left hepatic artery” to supply only segments 2 and 3, with segment 4 being supplied off the common hepatic artery. This can be relevant especially during a right hepatectomy to ensure that the right hepatic artery is ligated distal to the takeoff of the segment 4 branch (which would not be relevant if it was all supplied by a truly replaced left hepatic artery). A second surgically important detail is the precise location of the right posterior hepatic duct relative to the right portal vein. In this anatomic area referred to as the Hjortsjo crook, the location of the posterior duct ventral or dorsal to the portal vein is relevant, especially for living donor liver transplant but also during liver resections requiring biliary enteric reconstructions (4).The determination of the volume of the future liver remnant illustrates nicely the essential role that direct communication between the radiologist and surgeon plays in patient care. As is well described, the volume of both the whole liver and the future liver remnant can be determined by using three-dimensional volumetry. To accomplish this accurately, the planned resection type and plane of resection need to be specified in advance of the calculations (eg, right hepatectomy leaving the middle hepatic vein in situ). Also, it is important to emphasize that the total liver volume also be estimated on the basis of the body surface area and/or body weight of the patient (5). These estimates are useful clinically as the liver may be affected by tumor-related or disease-related hypertrophy or atrophy and not be a true representation of the patient’s normal total liver volume. An additional point of consideration is that in patients with an insufficient liver remnant who undergo augmentation strategies like portal vein embolization (or more recently described hepatic venous deprivation, also known as biembolization [6]), a key variable to report is the kinetic growth rate. This is a descriptor of the rate of percentage growth of the future liver remnant over time (in weeks), and it has been shown to be an accurate metric for assessment of the risk for posthepatectomy liver failure (7).The Brisbane 2000 Terminology of Liver Anatomy and Resections, highlighted by the authors, is crucial to the fields of liver imaging and liver surgery (8). Its inclusion in the review is important, and an emphasis on its use in radiology reporting will continue to help improve interspecialty communication. One point to quibble with is the authors’ preference throughout the article for the term “sector” over the term “section.” It is important to point out that these terms are not synonymous—the first is based on the portal venous anatomy and the second the biliary and arterial anatomy. While these two happen to be the same for the right liver, they are different on the left side (owing to the role of the left portal vein in the fetal circulation). The authors of the Brisbane guideline emphasized their preference for the term “section” over “sector” and incorporated the latter only in an addendum (9). Of note, the figures included in the review to illustrate the terminology delineate the “sections.” Rigor and consistency in terminology for hepatic anatomy are essential and will facilitate more effective communication.Overall, Faria et al (1) have helped illuminate an important area of interface between the specialties of abdominal radiology and hepatic surgery. There is no doubt that pathology does not respect the bounds of medical specialties. To effectively care for patients with hepatic masses, we are best served by continuing this interspecialty dialogue and carefully nurturing what has been best described as the “professionally intimate relationship between surgeon and radiologist (10).”The author has disclosed no relevant relationships.References1. Faria LL, Darece FG, Herman P, Jeisman VB, Ortega CD, Rocha MS. Liver surgery: important considerations for pre- and postoperative imaging. RadioGraphics 2022;42(3):722–740. Link, Google Scholar2. Raoof M, Jutric Z, Haye S, et al. Systematic failure to operate on colorectal cancer liver metastases in California. Cancer Med 2020;9(17):6256–6267. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3. Molina G, Ferrone CR, Qadan M. Failure to Refer Patients with Colorectal Liver Metastases to a Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Should be a “Never-Event”. J Natl Med Assoc 2020;112(5):553–555. Medline, Google Scholar4. Alghamdi HM, Almuhanna AF, Aldhafery BF, AlSulaiman RM, Almarhabi A, AlQurain A. The Prevalence of Hjortsjo Crook Sign of Right Posterior Sectional Bile Duct and Bile Duct Anatomy in ERCP. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;20172532610. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5. Vauthey JN, Abdalla EK, Doherty DA, et al. Body surface area and body weight predict total liver volume in Western adults. Liver Transpl 2002;8(3):233–240. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6. Le Roy B, Gallon A, Cauchy F, et al. Combined biembolization induces higher hypertrophy than portal vein embolization before major liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 2020;22(2):298–305. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7. Shindoh J, Truty MJ, Aloia TA, et al. Kinetic growth rate after portal vein embolization predicts posthepatectomy outcomes: toward zero liver-related mortality in patients with colorectal liver metastases and small future liver remnant. J Am Coll Surg 2013;216(2):201–209. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8. Terminology Committee of the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association. The Brisbane 2000 Terminology of Liver Anatomy and Resections. HPB (Oxford) 2000;2(3):333–339. Crossref, Google Scholar9. Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2005;12(5):351–355. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10. Monroe DP, Edeiken-Monroe BS, Perrier ND. Light and dark: surgeons, radiologists, and why they need mutual understanding to succeed. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205(6):805–806. Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarArticle HistoryReceived: Oct 17 2021Accepted: Oct 20 2021Published online: Apr 01 2022Published in print: May 2022 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsAccompanying This ArticleLiver Surgery: Important Considerations for Pre- and Postoperative ImagingApr 1 2022RadioGraphicsRecommended Articles Liver Surgery: Important Considerations for Pre- and Postoperative ImagingRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 3pp. 722-740Imaging Evaluation of Living Liver Donor Candidates: Techniques, Protocols, and AnatomyRadioGraphics2021Volume: 41Issue: 6pp. 1572-1591Role of CT in Two-Stage Liver SurgeryRadioGraphics2022Volume: 42Issue: 1pp. 106-124Irreversible Electroporation to Treat Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (COLDFIRE-2): A Phase II, Two-Center, Single-Arm Clinical TrialRadiology2021Volume: 299Issue: 2pp. 470-480Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: What the Surgeon Needs to Know RadioGraphics Fundamentals | Online PresentationRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 7pp. 2019-2020See More RSNA Education Exhibits Living Liver Donors: A Primer on Pre and Post-op Imaging for RadiologistsDigital Posters2020Role of Computed Tomography in Two Staged Liver SurgeryDigital Posters2020Vascular Complications of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgeries and Liver TransplantDigital Posters2022 RSNA Case Collection Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma RSNA Case Collection2021Arterioportal fistulaRSNA Case Collection2021Accessory Left Hepatic ArteryRSNA Case Collection2022 Vol. 42, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W4221007046 created "2022-04-03" @default.
• W4221007046 creator A5026053250 @default.
• W4221007046 date "2022-05-01" @default.
• W4221007046 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4221007046 title "Invited Commentary: Issues at the Interface of Hepatic Imaging and Hepatic Surgery" @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2039272512 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2092679286 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2103095576 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2130487812 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2734854425 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W2970917065 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W3044818933 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W4221072224 @default.
• W4221007046 cites W88960155 @default.
• W4221007046 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.210222" @default.
• W4221007046 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35363555" @default.
• W4221007046 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4221007046 type Work @default.
• W4221007046 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4221007046 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4221007046 hasAuthorship W4221007046A5026053250 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C113843644 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C150394285 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C178790620 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C55352822 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C113843644 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C126838900 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C150394285 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C178790620 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C185592680 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C19527891 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C55352822 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C61434518 @default.
• W4221007046 hasConceptScore W4221007046C71924100 @default.
• W4221007046 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W4221007046 hasLocation W42210070461 @default.
• W4221007046 hasLocation W42210070462 @default.
• W4221007046 hasOpenAccess W4221007046 @default.
• W4221007046 hasPrimaryLocation W42210070461 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W141524600 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W1754602832 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W1841185769 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W1986465740 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W2049214470 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W2072926321 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W2155887765 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W2331072469 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W2902148150 @default.
• W4221007046 hasRelatedWork W4313346385 @default.
• W4221007046 hasVolume "42" @default.
• W4221007046 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4221007046 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4221007046 workType "article" @default.