• <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.

    搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 国产单亲对白刺激| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 免费在线观看日本一区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 色94色欧美一区二区| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 国产三级黄色录像| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 国产色视频综合| 91成人精品电影| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美在线黄色| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产亚洲欧美98| 亚洲av熟女| 飞空精品影院首页| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 在线观看66精品国产| 久久久久视频综合| 一夜夜www| 午夜福利欧美成人| 不卡一级毛片| 美国免费a级毛片| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 天堂动漫精品| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 不卡av一区二区三区| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 99香蕉大伊视频| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 老熟女久久久| 九色亚洲精品在线播放| 成人影院久久| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 一级毛片女人18水好多| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 极品教师在线免费播放| 亚洲国产看品久久| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 成人三级做爰电影| 国产av又大| 国产成人精品无人区| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 亚洲片人在线观看| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 国产单亲对白刺激| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 亚洲成人手机| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 国产1区2区3区精品| av网站免费在线观看视频| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 高清av免费在线| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 老司机影院毛片| 国产高清激情床上av| 久久香蕉精品热| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产成人精品久久二区二区91| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| www日本在线高清视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| videos熟女内射| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 免费观看人在逋| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 嫩草影视91久久| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 久久久精品免费免费高清| 一区二区三区激情视频| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 久99久视频精品免费| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 国产精品.久久久| 激情视频va一区二区三区| 久久九九热精品免费| www.自偷自拍.com| av一本久久久久| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 香蕉国产在线看| 免费少妇av软件| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 一本综合久久免费| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久99久视频精品免费| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 国产成人系列免费观看| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 韩国精品一区二区三区| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 国产精品1区2区在线观看. | 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 美国免费a级毛片| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 久久久国产一区二区| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 亚洲中文av在线| 宅男免费午夜| 人妻 亚洲 视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 一级黄色大片毛片| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 国产精品二区激情视频| av在线播放免费不卡| 精品久久久久久,| 日本五十路高清| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 国产男女内射视频| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 在线av久久热| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 搡老乐熟女国产| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 99热只有精品国产| 一夜夜www| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 一级黄色大片毛片| 9色porny在线观看| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 久久久久国内视频| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 9热在线视频观看99| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 午夜视频精品福利| 十八禁高潮呻吟视频| 国产又爽黄色视频| www.自偷自拍.com| 国产野战对白在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 婷婷成人精品国产| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 18禁观看日本| 国产又爽黄色视频| 黄色女人牲交| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院 | 一区福利在线观看| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲国产看品久久| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看 | 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 岛国在线观看网站| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 午夜激情av网站| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产又爽黄色视频| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 岛国毛片在线播放| 久久久久久久午夜电影 | a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 天堂动漫精品| 极品教师在线免费播放| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 久久亚洲真实| 久久久久久久午夜电影 | a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 99热只有精品国产| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 五月开心婷婷网| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 五月开心婷婷网| 男女免费视频国产| 中国美女看黄片| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 久久久久视频综合| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 看黄色毛片网站| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 高清欧美精品videossex| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 18在线观看网站| 午夜老司机福利片| 99热网站在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 午夜精品在线福利| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产又爽黄色视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 久久亚洲真实| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 成人18禁在线播放| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 国产精品影院久久| 丁香欧美五月| 大香蕉久久网| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 91大片在线观看| 丝袜美足系列| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 夜夜爽天天搞| 亚洲五月天丁香| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 9色porny在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 在线观看66精品国产| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 91麻豆av在线| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 国产成人系列免费观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲人成电影观看| 成人国语在线视频| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 国产精品1区2区在线观看. | 老司机影院毛片| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 国产免费男女视频| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 在线天堂中文资源库| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 校园春色视频在线观看| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 黄色成人免费大全| tube8黄色片| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 欧美人与性动交α欧美精品济南到| av天堂久久9| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 丰满的人妻完整版| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 免费不卡黄色视频| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费 | 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 老司机福利观看| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 欧美性长视频在线观看| av线在线观看网站| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看 | 久久久国产精品麻豆| 免费av中文字幕在线| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 国产1区2区3区精品| 免费少妇av软件| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 自线自在国产av| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 超碰成人久久| 宅男免费午夜| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 美女午夜性视频免费| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 露出奶头的视频| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 色94色欧美一区二区| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 色播在线永久视频| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片 | 日韩大码丰满熟妇| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 成在线人永久免费视频| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 欧美成人午夜精品| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 国产三级黄色录像| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 黄片播放在线免费| 免费看a级黄色片| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产99白浆流出| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 中文欧美无线码| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9 | 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 免费看十八禁软件| 窝窝影院91人妻| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 美女高潮到喷水免费观看| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 亚洲国产看品久久| 又大又爽又粗| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 久久精品成人免费网站| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 国产在线一区二区三区精| 狠狠婷婷综合久久久久久88av| svipshipincom国产片| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 一区福利在线观看| 久久性视频一级片| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 又大又爽又粗| 国产1区2区3区精品| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 大香蕉久久成人网| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www | 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 很黄的视频免费| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 免费看a级黄色片| 天天操日日干夜夜撸| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| avwww免费| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产精品免费视频内射| 亚洲久久久国产精品| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 多毛熟女@视频| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 黄色视频不卡| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 不卡av一区二区三区| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 国产淫语在线视频| 久久这里只有精品19| 少妇 在线观看| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 免费观看精品视频网站| 亚洲第一av免费看| 久久九九热精品免费| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 大型av网站在线播放| netflix在线观看网站| 亚洲第一青青草原| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| av线在线观看网站| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 午夜日韩欧美国产| av视频免费观看在线观看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 99国产精品99久久久久| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 国产淫语在线视频| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 一本综合久久免费| 国产99白浆流出| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 久久精品人人爽人人爽视色| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| videosex国产| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 中国美女看黄片| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 日日夜夜操网爽| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 男人操女人黄网站| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 人妻丰满熟妇av一区二区三区 | 亚洲五月天丁香| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 精品人妻1区二区| 午夜老司机福利片| 999久久久国产精品视频| 香蕉国产在线看| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 黄色女人牲交| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 国产av又大| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| a在线观看视频网站| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 一本综合久久免费| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 老司机影院毛片| 91在线观看av| 极品教师在线免费播放| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 老司机影院毛片| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 黄片小视频在线播放| 我的亚洲天堂| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 看免费av毛片| 天堂动漫精品| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 9191精品国产免费久久| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 欧美午夜高清在线| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区 | 久久久久久人人人人人| 日韩欧美三级三区| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 国产在线观看jvid| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 国产成人一区二区三区免费视频网站| 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 女警被强在线播放| 日本五十路高清| 在线av久久热| 亚洲国产看品久久| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 另类亚洲欧美激情|