Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2021 Aug 13;100(32):e26773. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000026773

Risk factors of delayed recovery from general anesthesia in patients undergoing radical biliary surgery

What can we prevent

Guohui Zhang 1, Bingbing Pan 1, Dan Tan 1, Yingzi Ling 1,∗
Editor: Johannes Mayr1
PMCID: PMC8360616  PMID: 34397880

Abstract

Delayed recovery (DR) is very commonly seen in the patients undergoing laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, we aimed to investigate the potential risk factors of DR in the patients undergoing radical biliary surgery, to provide evidences into the management of DR.

Patients who underwent radical biliary surgery from January 1, 2018 to August 31, 2020 were identified. The clinical characteristics and treatment details of DR and no-DR patients were compared and analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify the potential influencing factors for DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery.

We included a total of 168 patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, the incidence of postoperative DR was 25%. There were significant differences on the duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, and use of intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (all P < .05), and there were not significant differences on American Society of Anesthesiologists, New York Heart Association, tumor-lymph node- metastasis, and estimated blood loss between DR group and control group (all P > .05). Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that age ≥70 years (odd ratio [OR] 1.454, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.146–1.904), body mass index ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 1.303, 95% CI 1.102–1.912), alcohol drinking (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.336–3.085), smoking (OR 1.128, 95% CI 1.007–2.261), duration of surgery ≥220 minutes (OR 1.239, 95% CI 1.039–1.735), duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes (OR 1.223, 95% CI 1.013–1.926), intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (OR 1.207, 95% CI 1.008–1.764) were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery (all P < .05).

It is clinically necessary to take early countermeasures against various risk factors to reduce the occurrence of DR, and to improve the prognosis of patients.

Keywords: biliary surgery, delayed recovery, general anesthesia, laparoscopic, nursing, treatment

1. Introduction

Hilar cholangiocarcinoma accounts for 50% to 70% of all cholangiocarcinomas.[1] The anatomical location of the tumor is special, the surrounding structure is complicated, and because of its invasive growth characteristics, it easily invades the hepatic artery and portal vein.[2] It has been reported that if treated with early radical resection, the 1-year survival rate of patients is 80% and the 5-year survival rate is 39%.[3,4] At present, surgical resection is the first choice for the treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma, and the choice of surgical method mainly depends on the extent of local invasion of the cancer.[5] Because of its special anatomical relationship and biological characteristics, the rate of radical surgery is not high, and the prognosis of patients is poor.[6] Therefore, the early diagnosis and treatment is vital to the prognosis of patients.

Delayed recovery (DR) from anesthesia generally refers to that the patient has not recovered 120 minutes after the end of general anesthesia, and cannot respond correctly to external stimuli and language commands.[7] With the continuous development of anesthetics and related monitoring technologies, the incidence of delayed recovery has been declining year by year, but it is still one of the main complications of general anesthesia.[8] It not only increases the perioperative risk, affects the recovery of the patient's physical function, but also increases the economic burden of the patient, and even causes death.[9] Due to the long operation time and the large amount of anesthetic drugs in laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, the risk of DR after surgery also increases.[10] Therefore, early detection of the risk factors for DR from anesthesia after laparoscopic radical biliary surgery is of crucial importance to reduce its incidence and ensure perioperative safety key. In recent years, most of the researches on high-risk factors for delayed recovery after general anesthesia have been limited to certain anesthetics or certain age groups, and there are few studies on DR after radical biliary tract surgery. In this present study, we analyzed the high-risk factors of DR after laparoscopic radical biliary surgery under general anesthesia, and aimed to provide a theoretical basis for the prevention of DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery, thereby providing evidence to the management of DR.

2. Methods

2.1. Ethical consideration

This present study was approved by the medical ethical committee of our hospital (160,933). We applied a retrospective study design, we had informed the patients that their treatment data might be used for research and the written informed consents had been obtained from all the included patients.

2.2. Patients

Patients who underwent laparoscopic radical biliary surgery treated in our hospital from January 1, 2018 to August 31, 2020 were identified as potential patients. The inclusion criteria for patients were as follows: according to the preoperative computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and color Doppler ultrasound examinations, it was clear that there was hilar space occupation, and the intraoperative or postoperative pathological report confirmed the diagnosis of hilar bile duct cancer.[11] The related characteristics and clinical pathological data were complete. Patients underwent general anesthesia; patients were well informed and signed the written informed consents. The exclusion criteria were: patients with duodenum, pancreas, and ampullary diseases that might require bile duct anastomosis; those patients did not agree to participant in our study.

2.3. Laparoscopic radical biliary surgery

The laparoscopic radical biliary surgery was performed by the same group of surgeons. All patients underwent partial hepatectomy, extrahepatic bile duct resection, regional lymph node dissection, lymph node biopsy, and Roux-en-Y bile duct jejunostomy. The laparoscopic radical biliary surgery was conducted as previous studies[12,13] reported. A biliary drainage catheter was used in all patients, and a grooved drainage tube was routinely placed near the liver section and anastomosis.

2.4. Data collection

We recorded and collected the patient's basic information, medical history, and auxiliary examinations and other indicators before surgery, including sex, age, body mass index (BMI), smoking history, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, anemia. And we collected and analyzed the surgery and anesthesia related information, including American Society of Anesthesiologists score, New York Heart Association, tumor (topography) - lymph node- metastasis (TNM) classification data (TNM Level I: The cancer tissue is limited to the place where the initial formation is initially formed, and there is no sign of diffusion. Level II: Cancer cells have spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues or organs; Level III: Cancer cells have spread to multiple organs or tissues of the body), duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, estimated blood loss, the use of intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation.

After the operation, all the patients were sent to the anesthesia recovery room, and we evaluated the patient every 15 minutes according to the Steward awakening score.[14,15] The Steward awakening score was divided into 3 dimension including awakeness, unobstructed breathing, extent of physical activity. Steward score <4 points was regarded as not awakened, Steward score ≥4 points was regarded as awakened. According to the Steward awakening score,[16] DR was defined as Steward scores <4 >120 minutes after stoppage of anesthetics. According to the occurrence of DR, the patients included in the study were divided into DR group and control group.

2.5. Statistical analysis

All the collected data were input into and processed with SPSS 22.0 statistical software for data analysis. t Test and Chi-square test were used to analyze the characteristics and treatment details of patients. Besides, we had included in multivariable logistic regression model including all variables that make sense clinically, even if they were insignificant at univariate analyses, to identify the potential influencing factors for DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery.[17]P < .05 was considered statistically significant in this study, and all of the tests were 2-sided.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of included patients

Overall, 180 patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery were identified initially, we excluded 12 patients with regards to incomplete medical record. In total, 168 patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery were included finally, of whom 42 patients occurred the DR, the incidence of DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery was 25%. As showed in Table 1, there were significant differences regarding the age and BMI between DR group and control group (all P < .05), and there were not significant differences regarding sex, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and anemia between DR group and control group (all P > .05).

Table 1.

Characteristics of included patients.

Variables DR group (n = 42) Control group (n = 126) t/χ2 P
Male/female 31/11 90/36 1.203 .094
Age, yr 73.03 ± 9.11 67.35 ± 10.12 10.406 .041
BMI, kg/m2 27.45 ± 3.21 24.13 ± 3.44 7.524 .028
Alcohol drinking 28 (66.67%) 89 (68.99%) 1.180 .097
Smoking 15 (35.71%) 52 (41.27%) 1.094 .101
Hypertension 29 (69.05%) 88 (69.84%) 1.182 .055
Diabetes 18 (42.85%) 50 (39.68%) 1.225 .073
Hyperlipidemia 11 (26.19%) 37 (29.37%) 1.136 .072
Anemia 9 (21.43%) 29 (23.02%) 1.085 .086
Open in a new tab

3.2. Treatment details comparison of 2 groups

As presented in Table 2, there were significant differences regarding the duration of surgery, duration of anesthesia, and use of intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (all P < .05), and there were no significant differences regarding American Society of Anesthesiologists, New York Heart Association, TNM, and estimated blood loss between DR group and control group (all P > .05).

Table 2.

Comparison of treatment details of 2 groups.

Variables DR group (n = 42) Control group (n = 126) t/χ2 p
ASA
 Level II 35 (83.33%) 99 (78.57%) 1.143 .093
 Level III 7 (16.67%) 27 (21.43%)
NYHA
 Level I 30 (71.43%) 87 (69.05%) 1.104 .088
 Level II 10 (23.81%) 31 (24.60%)
 Level III 2 (4.76%) 8 (66.35%)
TNM
 Level I 12 (28.57%) 39 (30.95%) 1.028 .156
 Level II 16 (38.09%) 51 (40.47%)
 Level III 14 (33.33%) 36 (28.57%)
Duration of surgery, min 238.07 ± 28.25 210.53 ± 32.11 32.063 .031
Duration of anesthesia, min 245.18 ± 21.22 205.12 ± 23.93 31.034 .018
Intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation 31 (73.81%) 50 (39.68%) 1.406 .011
Open in a new tab

3.3. Logistic regression analysis on the risk factors for DR

Table 3 demonstrates the assessment of variables of multivariable logistic regression. As Table 4 presented, multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that age ≥70 years (odd ratio [OR] 1.454, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.146–1.904), BMI ≥25 kg/m2 (OR 1.303, 95% CI 1.102–1.912), alcohol drinking (OR 2.041, 95% CI 1.336–3.085), smoking (OR 1.128, 95% CI 1.007–2.261), duration of surgery ≥220 minutes (OR 1.239, 95% CI 1.039–1.735), duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes (OR 1.223, 95% CI 1.013–1.926), intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation (OR 1.207, 95% CI 1.008–1.764) were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery (all P < .05).

Table 3.

Assessment of variables of multivariable logistic regression.

Factors Variables Assignment
DR Y Yes = 1, no = 2
Gender X1 Male = 1, female = 2
Age, yr X2 ≥70 = 1, <70 = 2
BMI, kg/m2 X3 ≥25 = 1, <25 = 2
Alcohol drinking X4 Yes = 1, no = 2
Smoking X5 Yes = 1, no = 2
Hypertension X6 Yes = 1, no = 2
Diabetes X7 Yes = 1, no = 2
Hyperlipidemia X8 Yes = 1, no = 2
Anemia X9 Yes = 1, no = 2
ASA X10 Level III = 1, level II = 2
NYHA X11 Level III = 1, level II = 2, level I = 3
TNM X12 Level III = 1, level II = 2, level I = 3
Duration of surgery, min X13 ≥220 = 1, <220 = 2
Duration of anesthesia, min X14 ≥230 = 1, <230 = 2
Intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation X15 Yes = 1, no = 2
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Logistic regression analysis on the risk factors for DR in patients who underwent radical biliary surgery.

Variables β SE OR 95% CI P
Age ≥70 yr 0.185 0.202 1.454 1.146∼1.904) .048
BMI ≥25 kg/m2 0.122 0.319 1.303 1.102∼1.912 .037
Alcohol drinking 0.119 0.121 2.041 1.336∼3.085 .042
Smoking 0.176 0.114 1.128 1.007∼2.261 .018
Duration of surgery ≥220 min 0.105 0.103 1.239 1.039∼1.735 .011
Duration of anesthesia ≥230 min 0.173 0.110 1.223 1.013∼1.926 .015
Intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation 0.118 0.106 1.207 1.008∼1.764 .043
Open in a new tab

4. Discussions

Previous studies[18,19] indicate that the incidence of DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery is high, and it has adverse effects on the short-term and long-term prognosis of patients. In this study, the incidence of DR in patients with laparoscopic radical biliary surgery was 25%, which was consistent with previous reports. Taking into account the potential correlation between DR and related complications, early identification, diagnosis and intervention of high-risk patients for DR have clinically significance to the prognosis of patients.[20–22] The results of this present study indicate that age ≥70 years, BMI ≥25 kg/m2, alcohol drinking, smoking, duration of surgery ≥220 minutes, duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes, and intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery (all P < .05).

The time for patients with general anesthesia to recover from anesthesia mainly depends on the metabolic rate of analgesic drugs.[23] In recent years, the comprehensive evaluation of patients before surgery and the continuous development of anesthetic drugs and monitoring technology have reduced the occurrence of anesthesia DR.[24] The rate gradually declines, and most patients can wake up quickly after surgery, but the phenomenon of delayed wake-up still occurs, which brings a huge challenge to medical staff related to anesthesia.[25] The basic patient factors include age, sex, genetic factors, and preoperative combined underlying diseases.[26] Some authors[27,28] hypothesize that there is a clear relationship between age and the occurrence of DR. The elderly are more likely to experience DR after surgery. The reason may be that the function of the body's central nervous system decreases with age. The clearance rate and plasma protein binding rate of drugs are reduced, and the free plasma concentration of the drug is higher, so the metabolism of anesthetic drugs is slower.

Smoking patients generally have varying degrees of pulmonary ventilatory dysfunction. Smoking can induce small airway remodeling, and the reduction of lung function is the case mechanism leading to hypoxemia.[29] Smoking can also increase HbCO in the blood, causing the dissociation curve of oxidized hemoglobin to shift to the left, and the tighter combination of Hb and oxygen makes it more difficult for tissues to use oxygen, which leads to DR.[30] Drinking alcohol is a risk factor for DR. After ethanol enters liver cells, it is oxidized to acetaldehyde through 2 pathways of liver alcohol dehydrogenase, hydrogen peroxide decomposition enzyme, and liver microsomal alcohol oxidase. A large amount of acetaldehyde has obvious effects on liver cells. Its toxic effects directly and indirectly lead to liver cell degeneration, necrosis and fibrosis, and can develop into cirrhosis or even liver cancer in severe cases.[31] Most anesthetics and analgesics are decomposed by the liver and increase the burden on the liver, which leads to prolonged and enhanced antagonistic effects of anesthetics and muscle relaxants,[32] which easily leads to postoperative DR.

In patients with higher BMI, there are dual factors of increased total dose of anesthetic drugs and slower metabolism. Therefore, the risk of DR is significantly higher than that of patients with normal BMI.[33] However, there are fewer studies on the specific cut-off value of BMI. Some authors[34–36] believe that awakening after anesthesia is usually related to the genetic modifications of the drug receptor or target. For example, the polymorphic changes of the gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor may make the anesthetic drug propofol in the body, and the rate of metabolism slows down accordingly. Studies[37,38] have shown that patients with preoperative heart disease, hypertension, and diabetes are prone to delayed recovery even if they undergo surgery unrelated to the comorbidities, but the specific mechanism is still unclear. In the perioperative factors of DR from anesthesia, the main factors are the dosage of anesthetic drugs, the patient's body temperature and duration of surgery, and the amount of intraoperative fluid infusion.[39] Patients who are lighter or have liver and kidney function abnormalities who are not carefully evaluated before surgery, may be given overdosed anesthetic drugs, which may lead to high drug concentration in the body and DR.[40] If the operation time is very long and the evaluation of the end of the operation is biased, the anesthesia duration will be too long accordingly,[41] which is also an important factor for occurrence of DR from anesthesia. It must be noted that patients with lower body temperature who enter the recovery room after surgery are more likely to develop DR.[42] Drops in body temperature may decrease the activity of enzymes related to drug metabolism, which may cause drugs to accumulate in the body and patients experience DR.[43]

Several limitations in this present study must be considered. Firstly, here is a high correlation between the amount of intraoperative fluid infusion and the delay in awakening after anesthesia.[44,45] Larger volumes of intraoperative fluid infusion increases the chance of delayed awakening after surgery.[46] However, this mechanism is unclear. In this present study, due to the lack of related data, we cannot include those factors into further analysis, future studies with larger sample size and more comprehensive factors are needed. Secondly, we chosen the cutoffs because our study was a retrospective design with small sample size, it would be better if we could build a model with time to recovery from anesthesia stop as a continuous variable, duration of surgery and duration of anesthesia used as continuous variables to evaluate the influence on DR, which will provide more reliable evidence into the clinical management of DR. Therefore, prospective studies on this topic are needed in the future.

5. Conclusions

In conclusions, we have found that age ≥70 years, BMI ≥25 kg/m2, alcohol drinking, smoking, duration of surgery ≥220 minutes, duration of anesthesia ≥230 minutes, and intraoperative combined sevoflurane inhalation were the independent risk factors for DR in patients with radical biliary surgery. Among the relevant factors analyzed in this study, patients’ age and BMI are high-risk factors that cannot be corrected immediately, but operation and anesthesia duration, intraoperative anesthetic drug use are factors that can be improved. On the one hand, clinicians should ensure patient safety and surgery under the premise of curative effect, accurately assess the patient's dosage of anesthetics, and minimize the operation time and the use time of anesthetics; on the other hand, it's necessary to accurately identify high-risk patients with delayed awakening, corresponding nursing strategies should be formulated on the basis of routine care, and the training of nursing staff should be strengthened. For patients with older age, higher BMI, and longer surgery and anesthesia time, it is necessary to closely monitor the patient's vital signs to reduce the risk of DR.

Author contributions

Guohui Zhang, Yingzi Ling designed research; Guohui Zhang, Bingbing Pan, Dan Tan conducted research; Guohui Zhang analyzed data; Guohui Zhang and Yingzi Ling had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Conceptualization: Guohui Zhang, Bingbing Pan, Dan Tan, Yingzi Ling.

Data curation: Guohui Zhang, Bingbing Pan.

Formal analysis: Guohui Zhang, Dan Tan, Yingzi Ling.

Investigation: Bingbing Pan, Dan Tan, Yingzi Ling.

Resources: Guohui Zhang.

Software: Guohui Zhang, Yingzi Ling.

Supervision: Guohui Zhang.

Visualization: Yingzi Ling.

Writing – original draft: Yingzi Ling.

Footnotes

Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index, CI = confidence interval, DR = delayed recovery, OR = odd ratio, TNM = tumor- lymph node- metastasis.

How to cite this article: Zhang G, Pan B, Tan D, Ling Y. Risk factors of delayed recovery from general anesthesia in patients undergoing radical biliary surgery: what can we prevent. Medicine. 2021;100:32(e26773).

Funding: None.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: This present study was approved by the medical ethical committee of our hospital (160933), and written informed consents had been obtained from all the included patients.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

BMI = body mass index.

TNM Level I: The cancer tissue is limited to the place where the initial formation is initially formed, and there is no sign of diffusion. Level II: Cancer cells have spread to nearby lymph nodes, tissues, or organs; Level III: Cancer cells have spread to multiple organs or tissues of the body.

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, NYHA = New York Heart Association, TNM = tumor- lymph node- metastasis.

ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, BMI = body mass index, DR = delayed recovery, NYHA = New York Heart Association, TNM = tumor- lymph node- metastasis.

BMI = body mass index, CI = confidence interval, DR = delayed recovery, OR = odd ratio.

References

  • [1].Mizuno T, Ebata T, Nagino M. Advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: An aggressive surgical approach for the treatment of advanced hilar cholangiocarcinoma: perioperative management, extended procedures, and multidisciplinary approaches. Surg Oncol 2020;33:201–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Zhang Y, Dou C, Wu W, et al. Total laparoscopic versus open radical resection for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 2020;34:4382–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Bednarsch J, Czigany Z, Lurje I, et al. Left- versus right-sided hepatectomy with hilar en-bloc resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. HPB (Oxford) 2020;22:437–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Birgin E, Rasbach E, Reissfelder C, Rahbari NN. A systematic review and meta-analysis of caudate lobectomy for treatment of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020;46:747–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Sapisochin G, Ivanics T, Subramanian V, Doyle M, Heimbach JK, Hong JC. Multidisciplinary treatment for hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A review of the general principles. Int J Surg 2020;82S:77–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Li J, Zhou MH, Ma WJ, Li FY, Deng YL. Extended lymphadenectomy in hilar cholangiocarcinoma: what it will bring? World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:3318–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Trepanier M, Valin-Thorburn A, Kouyoumdjian A, et al. Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis for right colectomy does not affect gastrointestinal recovery within an enhanced recovery after surgery program. Surg Endosc 2020;34:4601–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ohta J, Suto T, Kato D, Hiroki T, Obata H, Saito S. Loss of endogenous analgesia leads to delayed recovery from incisional pain in a rat model of chronic neuropathic pain. Brain Res 2020;1727:11–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Zhang XY, Zhang XZ, Lu FY, et al. Factors associated with failure of enhanced recovery after surgery program in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2020;19:51–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].Zhu J, Li X, Li H, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways benefit patients with soft pancreatic texture following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Am J Surg 2020;219:1019–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Mansour JC, Aloia TA, Crane CH, Heimbach JK, Nagino M, Vauthey JN. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford) 2015;17:691–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Li JD, Zhao ZL. [Current status of laparoscopic techniques in the surgical treatment of biliary carcinoma]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2018;56:338–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Yao H, Xiu D, Fu W, et al. [Outcomes evaluation of laparoscopic radical coloproctectomy and hepatectomy for resectable colorectal cancer with liver metastases]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 2014;52:919–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Li Y, Li XQ, Kang Y, Liu J. [Determination of dosage and effectiveness of propofol and ketamine for TIVA in adults]. Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban 2014;45:451–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Yildiz M, Tavlan A, Tuncer S, Reisli R, Yosunkaya A, Otelcioglu S. Effect of dexmedetomidine on haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation: perioperative haemodynamics and anaesthetic requirements. Drugs R D 2006;7:43–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Aldrete JA, Kroulik D. A postanesthetic recovery score. Anesth Analg 1970;49:924–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Lederer DJ, Bell SC, Branson RD, et al. Control of confounding and reporting of results in causal inference studies. guidance for authors from editors of respiratory, sleep, and critical care journals. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019;16:22–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Perinel J, Mariette C, Dousset B, et al. Early enteral versus total parenteral nutrition in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a randomized multicenter controlled trial (Nutri-DPC). Ann Surg 2016;264:731–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Cao D, Li X, Zhang H. Factors influencing the long-term prognosis of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Capital Univ Med Sci 2020;41:125–9. [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Takamoto T, Hashimoto T, Inoue K, et al. Applicability of enhanced recovery program for advanced liver surgery. World J Surg 2014;38:2676–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Warner S, McKiernan PJ, Hartley J, et al. Hepatopulmonary syndrome in children: a 20-year review of presenting symptoms, clinical progression, and transplant outcome. Liver Transpl 2018;24:1271–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].di Sebastiano P, Festa L, De Bonis A, et al. A modified fast-track program for pancreatic surgery: a prospective single-center experience. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2011;396:345–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Wong-Lun-Hing EM, van Dam RM, van Breukelen GJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of open versus laparoscopic left lateral hepatic sectionectomy within an enhanced recovery after surgery programme (ORANGE II study). Br J Surg 2017;104:525–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Choi SS, Cho SS, Ha TY, Hwang S, Lee SG, Kim YK. Intraoperative factors associated with delayed recovery of liver function after hepatectomy: analysis of 1969 living donors. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2016;60:193–202. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Huang H, Deng M, Jin H, Liu A, Dahmen U, Dirsch O. Reduced hepatic arterial perfusion impairs the recovery from focal hepatic venous outflow obstruction in liver-resected rats. Transplantation 2014;97:1009–18. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Dichtwald S, Ben-Haim M, Papismedov L, Hazan S, Cattan A, Matot I. Intrathecal morphine versus intravenous opioid administration to impact postoperative analgesia in hepato-pancreatic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Anesth 2017;31:237–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Kim D, Shin BS, Song I, et al. Relationship between intraoperative bispectral index and consciousness recovery in patients with hepatic encephalopathy undergoing liver transplant: a retrospective analysis. Transplant Proc 2019;51:798–804. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Marsman HA, de Graaf W, Heger M, et al. Hepatic regeneration and functional recovery following partial liver resection in an experimental model of hepatic steatosis treated with omega-3 fatty acids. Br J Surg 2013;100:674–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Andersson M, Blanc PD, Toren K, Jarvholm B. Smoking, occupational exposures, and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis among Swedish construction workers. Am J Ind Med 2021;64:251–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Bellou V, Belbasis L, Evangelou E. Tobacco smoking and risk for pulmonary fibrosis: a prospective cohort study in UK Biobank. Chest 2021;16:12–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Phan THG, Paliogiannis P, Nasrallah GK, et al. Emerging cellular and molecular determinants of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Cell Mol Life Sci 2021;78:2031–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Vassar RL, Rose J. Motor systems and postural instability. Handb Clin Neurol 2014;125:237–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Fukazawa K, Yamada Y, Gologorsky E, Arheart KL, Pretto EA, Jr. Hemodynamic recovery following postreperfusion syndrome in liver transplantation. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2014;28:994–1002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Lillemoe HA, Marcus RK, Kim BJ, Narula N, Davis CH, Aloia TA. Detours on the road to recovery: what factors delay readiness to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT) after liver resection for malignancy? J Gastrointest Surg 2019;23:2362–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Yang HR, Thorat A, Jeng LB, et al. Living donor liver transplantation in acute liver failure patients with grade iv encephalopathy: is deep hepatic coma still an absolute contraindication? A successful single-center experience. Ann Transplant 2018;23:176–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Suh SJ, Yim HJ, Yoon EL, et al. Is propofol safe when administered to cirrhotic patients during sedative endoscopy? Korean J Intern Med 2014;29:57–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Matsuo K, Rocha FG, Ito K, et al. The Blumgart preoperative staging system for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of resectability and outcomes in 380 patients. J Am Coll Surg 2012;215:343–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].de Jong MC, Marques H, Clary BM, et al. The impact of portal vein resection on outcomes for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis of 305 cases. Cancer 2012;118:4737–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Ito F, Agni R, Rettammel RJ, et al. Resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: concomitant liver resection decreases hepatic recurrence. Ann Surg 2008;248:273–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Dilek ON, Gungor F, Acar T, et al. The role of portoenterostomy with aggressive hilar dissection in biliary tract tumors: report of case series and review of the literature. Indian J Surg 2020;11:01–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Wang G, Wang Q, Fan X, Ding L, Dong L. The significance of adjuvant therapy for extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after surgery. Cancer Manag Res 2019;11:10871–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Hu HJ, Jin YW, Shrestha A, et al. Predictive factors of early recurrence after R0 resection of hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a single institution experience in China. Cancer Med 2019;8:1567–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Furuta T, Yamaguchi M, Nakagami R, et al. Delayed hepatic signal recovery on ferucarbotran-enhanced magnetic resonance images: an experimental study in rat livers with gadolinium chloride-induced Kupffer cell damage. MAGMA 2013;26:313–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Seo H, Jun IG, Ha TY, Hwang S, Lee SG, Kim YK. High stroke volume variation method by mannitol administration can decrease blood loss during donor hepatectomy. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:24–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Choi SS, Jun IG, Cho SS, Kim SK, Hwang GS, Kim YK. Effect of stroke volume variation-directed fluid management on blood loss during living-donor right hepatectomy: a randomised controlled study. Anaesthesia 2015;70:1250–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Choi SS, Kim SH, Kim YK. Fluid management in living donor hepatectomy: recent issues and perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:12757–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES