Limits...
Simple and sure methodology for massive hepatectomy in the mouse.

Hori T, Ohashi N, Chen F, Baine AM, Gardner LB, Jermanus S, Nguyen JH - Ann Gastroenterol (2011)

Bottom Line: The impact of various factors in the different models was also analyzed, including learning curves, operative time, survival curves and histopathological findings.According to anatomical results, murine models with 75%, 80% and 90% of liver resection produced massive hepatectomy.Learning curves and operative times were most optimal with the clip technique.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA (Tomohide Hori, Norifumi Ohashi, Feng Chen, Ann-Marie T. Baine, Lindsay B. Gardner, Sura Jermanus).

ABSTRACT

Background: Reliable models for massive hepatectomy in the mouse are required for experimental liver research.

Methods: We analyzed anatomical findings in 100 mice following massive hepatectomy induced by liver reduction >70%. The impact of various factors in the different models was also analyzed, including learning curves, operative time, survival curves and histopathological findings.

Results: According to anatomical results, murine models with 75%, 80% and 90% of liver resection produced massive hepatectomy. Learning curves and operative times were most optimal with the clip technique. Each hepatectomy performed using the clip technique produced a reasonable survival curve, and there were no differences in histopathological findings between the suture and clip techniques.

Conclusion: Massive hepatectomy by the clip technique is simple and can provide reliable and relevant data.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Hepatic volume of each segment and massive hepatectomy models. A. The percentages of total volume of each segment were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS. B. Traditional 2/3 hepatectomy of RMS+RPS+OS (35.4±4.0%) is shown. Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make a 75% hepatectomy (RMS+RPS, 26.4±3.8 %). C. Hepatic remnant in 80% hepatectomy was RMS+OS (20.6± 2.6%). Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make an RMS-remnant 90% hepatectomy (RMS, 14.8±4.0%). D. OS-remnant 90% hepatectomy is shown (OS, 9.0±1.6%). Dilation of the PV due to portal hypertension is confirmed, in reverse proportion to the volume of hepatic remnant (yellow arrows in B-D).RAS, right anterior segment; RMS, right middle segment; RPS, right posterior segment; LAS, left anterior segment; LPS, left posterior segment; OS, omental segment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3959334&req=5

Figure 4: Hepatic volume of each segment and massive hepatectomy models. A. The percentages of total volume of each segment were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS. B. Traditional 2/3 hepatectomy of RMS+RPS+OS (35.4±4.0%) is shown. Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make a 75% hepatectomy (RMS+RPS, 26.4±3.8 %). C. Hepatic remnant in 80% hepatectomy was RMS+OS (20.6± 2.6%). Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make an RMS-remnant 90% hepatectomy (RMS, 14.8±4.0%). D. OS-remnant 90% hepatectomy is shown (OS, 9.0±1.6%). Dilation of the PV due to portal hypertension is confirmed, in reverse proportion to the volume of hepatic remnant (yellow arrows in B-D).RAS, right anterior segment; RMS, right middle segment; RPS, right posterior segment; LAS, left anterior segment; LPS, left posterior segment; OS, omental segment.

Mentions: The percentages of total volume for each of the segments were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS (Fig. 4A).


Simple and sure methodology for massive hepatectomy in the mouse.

Hori T, Ohashi N, Chen F, Baine AM, Gardner LB, Jermanus S, Nguyen JH - Ann Gastroenterol (2011)

Hepatic volume of each segment and massive hepatectomy models. A. The percentages of total volume of each segment were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS. B. Traditional 2/3 hepatectomy of RMS+RPS+OS (35.4±4.0%) is shown. Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make a 75% hepatectomy (RMS+RPS, 26.4±3.8 %). C. Hepatic remnant in 80% hepatectomy was RMS+OS (20.6± 2.6%). Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make an RMS-remnant 90% hepatectomy (RMS, 14.8±4.0%). D. OS-remnant 90% hepatectomy is shown (OS, 9.0±1.6%). Dilation of the PV due to portal hypertension is confirmed, in reverse proportion to the volume of hepatic remnant (yellow arrows in B-D).RAS, right anterior segment; RMS, right middle segment; RPS, right posterior segment; LAS, left anterior segment; LPS, left posterior segment; OS, omental segment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3959334&req=5

Figure 4: Hepatic volume of each segment and massive hepatectomy models. A. The percentages of total volume of each segment were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS. B. Traditional 2/3 hepatectomy of RMS+RPS+OS (35.4±4.0%) is shown. Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make a 75% hepatectomy (RMS+RPS, 26.4±3.8 %). C. Hepatic remnant in 80% hepatectomy was RMS+OS (20.6± 2.6%). Additional resection of OS (blue line) will make an RMS-remnant 90% hepatectomy (RMS, 14.8±4.0%). D. OS-remnant 90% hepatectomy is shown (OS, 9.0±1.6%). Dilation of the PV due to portal hypertension is confirmed, in reverse proportion to the volume of hepatic remnant (yellow arrows in B-D).RAS, right anterior segment; RMS, right middle segment; RPS, right posterior segment; LAS, left anterior segment; LPS, left posterior segment; OS, omental segment.
Mentions: The percentages of total volume for each of the segments were 21.2±3.3% for RAS, 11.5±2.1% for RMS, 14.8±4.0% for RPS, 11.9±1.7% for LAS, 31.6±3.6% for LPS and 9.0±1.6% for OS (Fig. 4A).

Bottom Line: The impact of various factors in the different models was also analyzed, including learning curves, operative time, survival curves and histopathological findings.According to anatomical results, murine models with 75%, 80% and 90% of liver resection produced massive hepatectomy.Learning curves and operative times were most optimal with the clip technique.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Neuroscience, Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA (Tomohide Hori, Norifumi Ohashi, Feng Chen, Ann-Marie T. Baine, Lindsay B. Gardner, Sura Jermanus).

ABSTRACT

Background: Reliable models for massive hepatectomy in the mouse are required for experimental liver research.

Methods: We analyzed anatomical findings in 100 mice following massive hepatectomy induced by liver reduction >70%. The impact of various factors in the different models was also analyzed, including learning curves, operative time, survival curves and histopathological findings.

Results: According to anatomical results, murine models with 75%, 80% and 90% of liver resection produced massive hepatectomy. Learning curves and operative times were most optimal with the clip technique. Each hepatectomy performed using the clip technique produced a reasonable survival curve, and there were no differences in histopathological findings between the suture and clip techniques.

Conclusion: Massive hepatectomy by the clip technique is simple and can provide reliable and relevant data.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus