• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Clinical outcomes after major hepatectomy are acceptable in lowvolume centers in the Caribbean

    2019-03-21 11:34:34ShamirCawichRaviMaharajVijayNaraynsinghNeilPearceWesleyFrancisKimonBonadieDexterThomas
    World Journal of Hepatology 2019年2期

    Shamir O Cawich, Ravi Maharaj, Vijay Naraynsingh, Neil Pearce, Wesley Francis, Kimon O Bonadie,Dexter A Thomas

    Abstract BACKGROUND Major hepatectomies are routinely performed because they are often the only curative treatment for metastatic liver disease. There has been a trend to concentrate major hepatectomies in referral hospitals that perform these operations at high volumes. These high volume referral centers are usually located in developed countries, but many patients in developing nations are not able to access these centers because of financial limitations, lack of social support and/or travel restrictions. Therefore, local hospitals are often the only options many of these patients have for surgical treatment of metastatic liver disease.This is the situation in many Caribbean countries.AIM To determine the clinical outcomes after major liver resections in a low-resource hepatobiliary center in the Caribbean.METHODS We prospectively studied all patients who underwent major liver resections over five years. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, diagnoses,ECOG status, operation performed, post-operative morbidity and mortality.Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver 16.0 RESULTS There were 69 major liver resections performed by two teams at a mean case volume of 13.8 major resections/year. Sixty-nine major hepatic resections were performed for: colorectal liver metastases 40 (58%), non-colorectal metastases 9(13%), hepatocellular carcinoma 8 (11.6%), ruptured adenomas 4 (5.8%), hilar cholangiocarcinomas 4 (5.8%), hemangiomata 2 (2.9%), trauma 1 (1.5%) and hepatoblastoma 1 (1.5%). Twenty-one patients had at least one complication, for an overall morbidity rate of 30.4%. There were minor complications in 17 (24.6%)patients, major complications in 11 (15.9%) patients and 4 (5.8%) deaths.CONCLUSION There are unique geographic, political and financial limitations to healthcare delivery in the Caribbean. Nevertheless, clinical outcomes are acceptable in the established, low-volume hepatobiliary centers in the Eastern Caribbean.

    Key words: Liver; Surgery; Resection; Caribbean; Volume; Outcomes

    INTRODUCTION

    Major hepatectomies are routinely performed because they are often the only curative treatment for metastatic liver disease[1]. They are accepted to be safe procedures when performed by trained hepatobiliary teams in specialized, high-volume centers[1-3].

    There has been a trend to concentrate major hepatectomies in referral hospitals that perform these operations at high volumes[3,4,5]. These high volume referral centers are usually located in developed countries, but many patients in developing nations are not able to access these centers because of financial limitations, lack of social support and/or travel restrictions. Therefore, local hospitals are often the only options many of these patients have for surgical treatment of metastatic liver disease. This is the situation in many Caribbean countries.

    While there are hepatobiliary units in the Caribbean, none meet the criteria to be defined as high-volume[3,4,5,6,7]. Additionally, hepatobiliary units in the Caribbean operate in challenging, resource-poor environments. In this study, we sought to determine whether the clinical outcomes were acceptable when major hepatectomies were performed in a low-volume, resource-poor hepatobiliary unit in the Eastern Caribbean.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    In 2011, an attempt was made to achieve service centralization in the Caribbean with the establishment of three hepatobiliary units in the Bahamas, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago. They were intended to serve as regional referral centers for patients requiring major hepatectomies across the English-speaking Caribbean[8]. This was supported by the Americas Hepatopancreatobiliary Association (AHPBA),culminating with the formation of a Caribbean Chapter of the AHPBA in 2015.

    The hepatobiliary unit in Trinidad and Tobago is the largest referral unit in the English-speaking Caribbean[8-9]. This unit is comprised of two hepatobiliary teams each headed by fellowship-trained hepatobiliary surgeons. All cases are discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting where decisions are made for treatment of patients with hepatobiliary diseases.

    Ethics

    The local institutional review board granted permission to collect and examine data from all patients who underwent major hepatectomies in this setting.

    Study population

    We prospectively recorded data from all patients who underwent major hepatectomies with the hepatobiliary unit in Trinidad and Tobago over a five-year period from January 1, 2012 to December 30, 2016. We used the standardized definition of major hepatectomies as defined by Reddy et al[10]: resection of four or more liver segments.

    Data analysis

    The following data were recorded for all patients who underwent major hepatectomies during the study period: patient demographics, diagnoses, ECOG status, operation performed, operative details, therapeutic outcomes, post-operative morbidity and mortality. Complications were classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system[11]. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver 16.0.

    RESULTS

    There were 69 major hepatectomies performed over the five-year study period.Therefore, the mean annual case volume was 13.8 major hepatectomies per annum.When examined chronologically, there was a steady increase in the number of hepatectomies performed each year, except in the year 2016 (Figure 1). During this time, the nation experienced an economic recession.

    Indications for operation

    All major hepatectomies were performed by one of two trained hepatobiliary surgeons for the following indications: colorectal liver metastases 40 (58%), noncolorectal metastases 9 (13%), hepatocellular carcinoma 8 (11.6%), ruptured adenomas 4 (5.8%), hilar cholangiocarcinomas 4 (5.8%), hemangiomata 2 (2.9%), trauma 1 (1.5%)and hepatoblastoma 1 (1.5%).

    Patient demographics

    The patients in this series consisted of 40 men and 29 women, with a mean age of 63 years (Range 34-80; SD +/- 10.3; Median 65). Sixty-four (93%) patients had at least one co-morbidity. Overall, there were 40 (58%) patients with ASA scores ≥ III, as detailed in Table 1, and 39 (56.5%) patients with ECOG scores ≥ 2, as detailed in Table 2.

    After pre-operative multidisciplinary review, we anticipated that the hepatectomy procedure would be technically complex in 26 (37.7%) patients for: emergency hepatectomy for ruptured tumours or trauma (6), multiple intra-hepatic hepaticojejunostomies for hilar cholangiocarcinomas (4), IVC resection and reconstruction (4),borderline future liver remnants (4), synchronous colorectal operations (3),synchronous gastric resections (2), prior open hepatectomy scheduled for repeat laparoscopic resections (2) and synchronous nephrectomy (1).

    Operative details

    Fourteen (20.3%) hepatectomies were attempted using the laparoscopic approach,with 3 (21.4%) conversions for unclear anatomy (1), bleeding (1) and repair of IVC injury (1). The remaining 55 (79.7%) operations were planned using an open approach. No patients in this series underwent veno-venous bypass during major hepatectomies. The hanging maneuver with anterior parenchymal transection technique was used to complete hepatectomy in 18 (26.1%) patients and the conventional technique was used in the remaining 51 (73.9%) cases.

    Clinical outcomes

    Excluding patients who had synchronous resections performed, the mean operating time for a major hepatectomy alone was 380 min (Range 260-600; SD +/-75.8; Median 350). The operations in these patients were accompanied by a mean blood loss of 1405 mL (Range 600-4000; SD+/- 729; Median 1200) and mean transfusion requirements of 1.8 units of packed cells (Range 0-5; SD +/- 1.43; Median 2).

    Figure 1 Chronologic relationship of major liver resections performed.

    When we evaluated the subset of 26 patients in whom technically complex operations were anticipated, the mean operating time was 461.5 min (Range 300-650;SD+/-95.6; Median 455), mean estimated blood loss was 2009 mL (Range 800-3500;SD+/-667.4; Median 2000) and the mean transfusion requirement was 3.2 units of packed cells (Range 1-5; SD+/-1.05; Median 3).

    In the 43 cases where technical difficulty was not anticipated pre-operatively, the mean operating time was 367 min (Range 260-600; SD+/-69.4; Median 350), mean EBL of 1236.7 mL (Range 600-4000; SD+/-679.5; Median 1000) and mean transfusion requirements of 1.37 units (Range 0-4; SD+/-1.3; Median 1).

    In this setting, we maintained a policy of mandatory ICU admission after major hepatectomy because institutional limitations generally did not allow the expected level of supportive care outside of the ICU setting. Therefore, all patients were admitted to the ICU post-hepatectomy, with a mean ICU stay of 5.3 d (Range 1-40;SD+/-7.37; Median 3). Fifteen (21.7%) patients required a prolonged ICU stay beyond 72 h for invasive treatment, ventilator and/or inotropic support. Overall, the mean duration of hospitalization after major hepatectomy was 16 d (Range 9-103; SD+/-13.35; Median 12).

    Morbidity / mortality analysis

    There were 58 patients with no complications or minor morbidity. These patients had a mean ICU stay of 3.2 d (Range 1-8; SD+/-1.55; Median 3) and mean hospital stay of 13.2 d (Range 9-35; SD+/-6.85; Median 10). In comparison, the 11 patients with major morbidity had a mean ICU stay of 16.3 d (Range 5-40; SD+/-14.1; median 6) and mean overall hospital stay of 31.1 d (Range 13-103; SD+/-25.4; Median 23).

    Twenty-one patients experienced at least one complication in this series. Minor complications were recorded in 17 (24.6%) patients and major complications in 11(15.9%) patients. The individual complications are outlined in Table 3.

    There were 4 (5.8%) reported deaths within 30 d of operation in this series. These included: (1) a 69 year-old man who underwent an abdomino-perineal resection and synchronous major hepatectomy. He developed intra-abdominal sepsis after a leak from a bladder injury; (2) an 80-year old man who underwent an extended right hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. He developed a significant bile leak, with resultant collections and eventually succumbed to intra-abdominal sepsis; (3) a 69-year old woman who had extended right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma and developed post-hepatectomy liver failure despite a 40% functional liver remnant;and (4) a 79-year old man who had an extended right hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. He developed a small bowel anastomotic leak and eventually succumbed to intra-abdominal sepsis.

    DISCUSSION

    At the turn of the 21stcentury, we witnessed the era of service centralization wheresurgical treatment for complex diseases was concentrated in specific centers in order to support sub-specialty teams performing these operations at high volumes[7,12,13]. This trend was supported by accumulating data to suggest that there were better perioperative outcomes in high-volume referral hospitals[3,4,5,6,14,15,16,17].

    Table 1 ASA scores for patients undergoing major liver resections in a low volume Caribbean center

    Specifically for major hepatectomies, the data demonstrated that high-volume centers achieved significant reductions in overall morbidity[3,5,6,14,16], 30-day mortality[3,5,14,15,16,17], readmission rates[16], cost[14]and the duration of hospital stay[6,14,16].Lu et al[14]also reported that high-volume centers achieved longer 5-year survival rates. These data seem to lend strong support to the principle of centralization.

    However, a closer look at the existing data revealed that there is no standardized definition of “high volumes”, with researchers applying ad-hoc definitions that range from as low as 10 as cases per annum[16]to as high as 150 cases per annum[18]. Most papers in the literature quote numbers in excess of 20 cases per annum[3,19,20,21,22,23].Using these definitions, the hepatobiliary unit in Trinidad and Tobago does not qualify as high volume, with a mean case volume of 13.8 major hepatectomies per year.

    Furthermore, the high volume centers are often tertiary referral hospitals that serve large catchment populations and attract significant funding. They are usually located in major cities within developed countries. Unfortunately, many patients in lessdeveloped Caribbean countries cannot access care in these high volume centers because of travel restrictions, financial limitations, lack of health insurance coverage and/or a paucity of social support structures. Even within the United States,Eppsteiner et al[17]noted that there was socio-economic inequity for access to care at high volume centers.

    We observed that most current reports, even those supporting centralization,documented that the majority of major hepatectomies are being performed in lowvolume centers - even in developed countries in the 21stcentury. Fong et al[3]reported in 2005 that only 1% of the hospitals that offered major hepatectomies in the United States of America actually qualified as high-volume centers. In fact, Fong et al[3]reported that the 1272 low-volume centers in the United States performed an average of 1 major hepatectomy per annum - substantially below the “high-volume mark”.

    Similar findings were reported by other researchers: Choti et al[5]reported that only 2.7% (1) of the 37 facilities performing major liver resections in the state of Maryland qualified as high-volume. The low-volume facilities performed an average of 1.5 cases annually[5]. Similarly, Glasgow et al[6]reported that only 3% of 138 hospitals performing liver resections in the state of California qualified as high volume. The low-volume hospitals performed ≤ 3 hepatectomies per annum[6].

    It seems that there is still not universal buy in to the concept of centralization for major hepatectomies. One reason for this may be the lack of practicality. This is especially true in developing countries and it can be appreciated by examining the health care environment in the Anglophone Caribbean. Narayansingh et al[24]outlined the unique challenges to healthcare delivery in this setting: (1) many countries are island states that are geographically separated by the Caribbean Sea; (2) there are political barriers since each country is independent and separately governed; (3) each island has distinctly different cultures; and (4) many surgeons, even those with subspecialty training, are required to perform a wide repertoire of general surgical procedures at low volumes. In addition, most of these countries have underfunded health care systems[8], leadership deficiencies[25,26], cultural resistance to multidisciplinary collaboration[8]and limited access to specialists and subspecialists[9,24]. These factors were all obstacles to service centralization in the Anglophone Caribbean.

    Despite the obstacles, surgical leaders recognized the need and established a hepatobiliary unit in Trinidad and Tobago to serve patients in the Eastern Caribbean[8]. There has been some success in this regard, as measured by theconsistent increase in the annual number of major liver resections performed by this unit (Figure 1). The reduction in case volumes in the year 2016 correlated with the country experiencing a recession. This led to a lack of consumables in Governmentfunded hospitals and it highlights our point that these demanding operations require significant resources. Coupled with the fact that these hospitals face unique challenges(scarcity of specialized equipment, blood products, ICU space and operating lists),one can realize that the environment is not always conducive to observing best practice recommendations.

    Table 2 Performance scores for patients undergoing major liver resections in a low volume Caribbean center

    Nevertheless, the clinical outcomes in this established low-volume hepatobiliary unit were acceptable. The perioperative mortality rate was 5.8% in our setting.Although reported 30-d mortality in high-volume centers ranged widely from 1.5%[5]to 9.4%[6], most high volume centers reported 30-d mortality between 4% and 6.5%[3,5,16,19]. Our results compared favourably to these high-volume centers. In contrast, the reported 30-day mortality in low volume centers range from 5%-22.7%[3,5,6,17,22].

    Major complications occurred in 15.9% of our patients. This was comparable to reports in the existing medical literature, where major hepatectomies in high-volume centers resulted in major morbidity in 13.2%[22]to 27%[27]of cases. Similarly, minor morbidity (24.6%) rates were comparable to existing reports from high-volume centers, ranging from 9.3%[18]to 26.9%[22].

    Potential critics may suggest that therapeutic outcomes may appear reasonable because of “case selection”, where high-risk patients are referred onward to highvolume referral centers. Obviously, it could have skewed the results toward improved outcomes if only low-risk patients were selected for major hepatectomies in our setting. However, more than half of the major hepatectomies at our facility were performed in high-risk patients, with ASA scores ≥ III (58%), ECOG scores ≥ 2 (57%)and at least one co-morbidity (93%). Moreover, after pre-operative MDT assessment a further 38% of the major hepatectomies performed in this setting were technically difficult operations.

    We do acknowledge that high volume referral centers treat more patients,including high-risk cases with multiple co-morbidities and complicated surgical histories. However, in our setting in the Caribbean, we did not have the luxury of“case selection” because the patients treated at our facilities had no other options for care, for reasons already discussed. We believe, therefore, that referral practices/case selection could not account for the clinical outcomes in this setting. Furthermore, this was a resource-poor environment with limited support services and numerous institutional limitations. These results demonstrated that, despite multiple challenges,the outcomes are not solely dependent on numbers.

    We agree with Gasper et al[28]that modern hospitals are complex adaptive systems whose outputs are determined by interactions between internal agents. We also agree with Hashimoto et al[29]that annual volume only contributes a partial assessment and that there is also a substantial contribution by surgeon training and experience. In this regard, we attribute our outcomes to the unit staff (1) having appropriate training; (2)developing an intimate knowledge of the health care system in which they work; (3)fostering a spirit of collective teamwork; (4) maintaining due diligence in care administration; (5) continued audit; and (6) knowledge of population-based data[30,31,32].

    In conclusion, Caribbean hospitals do not, and possibly never will, qualify as highvolume centers due to unique geographic, political and financial limitations to healthcare delivery in the region. Nevertheless, there can be good short-term outcomes when major hepatectomies are performed in low-volume hepatobiliary units in the Eastern Caribbean, despite a high proportion of high-risk patients requiring technically complex operations. This demonstrates that case volume is not the only determinant of good outcomes after major hepatectomy. To achieve goodoutcomes, there is also the need for teamwork, appropriately trained staff, due diligence in care administration, continued audit and knowledge of population-based data.

    Table 3 Complications after major liver resections in patients undergoing major liver resections in a low volume Caribbean center

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    In the past two decades, there was a trend to concentrate major hepatectomies in specific centers in order to support sub-specialty teams performing these operations at high volumes. This trend was supported by accumulating data to suggest that there were better peri-operative outcomes in high-volume referral hospitals. However, this is not practical in the Caribbean and other resource-poor countries.

    Research motivation

    Clinicians in the Caribbean do not have the luxury of “case selection” because most patients treated at our facilities have no other options for care. Therefore, these patients must receive treatment at low-volume, resource-poor centers with limited support services and numerous institutional limitations. The motivation for our research was to determine if the clinical outcomes are acceptable despite the numerous limitations.

    Research objectives

    To determine the clinical outcomes after major hepatectomies in a low-volume, resource-poor center in the Caribbean.

    Research methods

    We prospectively studied post-operative morbidity and mortality in all patients undergoing major hepatectomies in a low-volume Caribbean hepatobiliary center over a five-year study period. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS ver 16.0.

    Research results

    There were 69 major hepatectomies performed over the study period (mean case volume of 13.8 major resections/year). More than half of the major hepatectomies were performed in high-risk patients, with ASA scores ≥ III (58%), ECOG scores ≥ 2 (57%) or at least one co-morbidity (93%).A further 38% of the major hepatectomies performed in this setting were technically difficult operations. Twenty-one patients experienced at least 1 complication, for an overall morbidity rate of 30.4%. There were minor complications in 17 (24.6%) patients, major complications in 11(15.9%) patients and 4 (5.8%) deaths.

    Research conclusions

    Although Caribbean hospitals do not qualify as high-volume centers, there can be good shortterm outcomes after major hepatectomies are performed in established hepatobiliary units. This demonstrates that case volume is not the only determinant of good outcomes after major hepatectomy.

    Research perspectives

    To achieve good outcomes, there is the need for teamwork, appropriately trained staff, due diligence in care administration, continued audit and knowledge of population-based data. Case volume is not the only determinant of good outcomes after major hepatectomy.

    欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 日韩欧美三级三区| 日本a在线网址| 操出白浆在线播放| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| av天堂久久9| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 91av网站免费观看| 97碰自拍视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 色综合站精品国产| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女 | 成人国语在线视频| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 自线自在国产av| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 成人手机av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 国产在线观看jvid| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久热爱精品视频在线9| a级毛片在线看网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 91大片在线观看| cao死你这个sao货| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 999精品在线视频| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 九色国产91popny在线| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 午夜免费激情av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 久久精品91蜜桃| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 色综合站精品国产| 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 搞女人的毛片| 久久狼人影院| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 欧美成人性av电影在线观看| 久久伊人香网站| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 国产免费男女视频| 午夜a级毛片| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 久久青草综合色| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 嫩草影院精品99| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 黄色女人牲交| 欧美色视频一区免费| 看片在线看免费视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 身体一侧抽搐| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 日本免费a在线| 亚洲精品国产精品久久久不卡| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 1024视频免费在线观看| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 精品高清国产在线一区| 午夜福利18| cao死你这个sao货| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 精品国产超薄肉色丝袜足j| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 欧美日本视频| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2 | 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美日本视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 无限看片的www在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| www.999成人在线观看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 99国产精品99久久久久| 此物有八面人人有两片| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 制服人妻中文乱码| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 日本三级黄在线观看| av免费在线观看网站| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产99久久九九免费精品| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 午夜福利欧美成人| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 嫩草影视91久久| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 国产高清videossex| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 窝窝影院91人妻| 嫩草影视91久久| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 我的亚洲天堂| 97碰自拍视频| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 午夜a级毛片| 1024视频免费在线观看| 日本在线视频免费播放| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 深夜精品福利| 黄色女人牲交| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 欧美午夜高清在线| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 看免费av毛片| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 丰满的人妻完整版| 三级毛片av免费| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 午夜福利18| 十八禁网站免费在线| 成在线人永久免费视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 大香蕉久久成人网| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 国产精品,欧美在线| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 人人澡人人妻人| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 麻豆av在线久日| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 亚洲国产看品久久| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 国产三级黄色录像| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 午夜影院日韩av| 国产av又大| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 久久精品影院6| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲 欧美 日韩 在线 免费| 黄频高清免费视频| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 成人三级黄色视频| 在线观看日韩欧美| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 日本免费a在线| 国产高清videossex| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 1024视频免费在线观看| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 性欧美人与动物交配| 在线观看66精品国产| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 怎么达到女性高潮| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 久久久久久人人人人人| 色播亚洲综合网| 欧美日本视频| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| www.自偷自拍.com| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 黄色视频不卡| 亚洲第一电影网av| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产av又大| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 午夜福利,免费看| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 国产精品永久免费网站| 成人精品一区二区免费| av电影中文网址| 久久国产精品影院| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 操美女的视频在线观看| 日本 欧美在线| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 午夜影院日韩av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 久久伊人香网站| 在线观看66精品国产| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 高清在线国产一区| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 中文字幕久久专区| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 成人18禁在线播放| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 中文字幕色久视频| 精品久久久久久,| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 嫩草影视91久久| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 国产精品99久久99久久久不卡| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看 | 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 久久久国产成人免费| 精品国产亚洲在线| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| av中文乱码字幕在线| av福利片在线| 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 天天添夜夜摸| videosex国产| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 级片在线观看| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| ponron亚洲| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 精品久久久精品久久久| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 精品久久久精品久久久| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 国产精品久久视频播放| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产不卡一卡二| 久久精品成人免费网站| 91在线观看av| 1024香蕉在线观看| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 成人国产综合亚洲| 1024香蕉在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| av免费在线观看网站| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 大码成人一级视频| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 亚洲九九香蕉| 91麻豆av在线| 91字幕亚洲| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 999久久久国产精品视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 丁香欧美五月| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 国产亚洲欧美98| 亚洲第一av免费看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 日本 av在线| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产不卡一卡二| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 99re在线观看精品视频| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 亚洲第一青青草原| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 嫩草影院精品99| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看 | 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品国产国语对白av| 长腿黑丝高跟| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 搞女人的毛片| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 天天添夜夜摸| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 在线观看66精品国产| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 午夜免费鲁丝| 丁香欧美五月| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 亚洲色图av天堂| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 天堂√8在线中文| 成人三级做爰电影| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡 | 日本在线视频免费播放| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 怎么达到女性高潮| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 亚洲精品在线美女| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 少妇 在线观看| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 日韩欧美免费精品| 九色国产91popny在线| 一区福利在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清 | 欧美乱妇无乱码| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 97碰自拍视频| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| svipshipincom国产片| 中文字幕人成人乱码亚洲影| av福利片在线| 欧美成人午夜精品| 露出奶头的视频| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲av美国av| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 午夜影院日韩av| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 午夜激情av网站| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 长腿黑丝高跟| 成人国语在线视频| 国产99白浆流出| 极品教师在线免费播放| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 后天国语完整版免费观看| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级 | 99国产精品99久久久久| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 久久久久久人人人人人| 久99久视频精品免费| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 国产片内射在线| 国产精品影院久久| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 丁香六月欧美| 在线视频色国产色| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清 | 国产单亲对白刺激| 国产99白浆流出| tocl精华| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 久久人妻av系列| 丰满的人妻完整版| www国产在线视频色| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片 | 久久青草综合色| 免费av毛片视频| 国产激情久久老熟女| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产成人影院久久av| 亚洲欧美激情在线| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 亚洲九九香蕉| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 日本a在线网址| av免费在线观看网站| 日韩高清综合在线| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 国产精品野战在线观看| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| avwww免费| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 免费看a级黄色片| 成人手机av| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国产三级黄色录像| 黄色a级毛片大全视频| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 日本免费a在线| 看黄色毛片网站| 88av欧美| 高清在线国产一区| 国产精品影院久久| 一进一出抽搐动态| av天堂在线播放|