• <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.

    99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 69av精品久久久久久| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产亚洲欧美98| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 赤兔流量卡办理| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 三级毛片av免费| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 午夜影院日韩av| 日日撸夜夜添| 久久6这里有精品| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 精品久久久噜噜| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区| 国产亚洲91精品色在线| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 身体一侧抽搐| 丰满的人妻完整版| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲成人av在线免费| av天堂在线播放| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 国产在线男女| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 黄片wwwwww| 97在线视频观看| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 一级黄片播放器| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 亚州av有码| 一进一出抽搐动态| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 热99在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产成人aa在线观看| 欧美潮喷喷水| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 精品人妻视频免费看| 日本a在线网址| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx在线观看| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看 | 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 亚洲av一区综合| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 内射极品少妇av片p| 午夜视频国产福利| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 99热网站在线观看| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 91av网一区二区| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 免费看光身美女| 日韩欧美在线乱码| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| a级毛色黄片| a级毛色黄片| 老司机福利观看| 久久久精品大字幕| 色视频www国产| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 黄色配什么色好看| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 免费观看在线日韩| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 日本五十路高清| av天堂在线播放| www.色视频.com| 99久久精品热视频| 波多野结衣高清作品| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 一级黄片播放器| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国内精品宾馆在线| 简卡轻食公司| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 欧美3d第一页| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久草成人影院| 99久国产av精品| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产成人一区二区在线| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 禁无遮挡网站| 三级毛片av免费| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| av在线老鸭窝| 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 欧美+日韩+精品| 在线观看66精品国产| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产成人福利小说| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| av在线天堂中文字幕| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲av熟女| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久精品夜色国产| 色av中文字幕| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 综合色丁香网| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 看片在线看免费视频| 久久久精品94久久精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产真实乱freesex| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲图色成人| 校园春色视频在线观看| 精品日产1卡2卡| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久久久九九精品影院| 级片在线观看| 在线国产一区二区在线| or卡值多少钱| 国产高清激情床上av| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲精品一区av在线观看| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 午夜激情欧美在线| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 直男gayav资源| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 床上黄色一级片| 国产美女午夜福利| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 久久中文看片网| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| avwww免费| 日本一二三区视频观看| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 久久久色成人| 97超碰精品成人国产| 成人三级黄色视频| 黄片wwwwww| a级毛片a级免费在线| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 在线看三级毛片| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 少妇高潮的动态图| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 黄色日韩在线| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 久久久久久大精品| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲无线在线观看| 久久草成人影院| 久久热精品热| 日本a在线网址| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| av专区在线播放| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 一进一出抽搐动态| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放 | 在线播放国产精品三级| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 欧美日本视频| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 91精品国产九色| 国产午夜精品论理片| 国产成人91sexporn| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 久久精品人妻少妇| 美女黄网站色视频| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 一本精品99久久精品77| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲av美国av| 俺也久久电影网| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 长腿黑丝高跟| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 级片在线观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 免费av观看视频| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 校园人妻丝袜中文字幕| aaaaa片日本免费| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 国产亚洲精品av在线| 国产老妇女一区| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 乱人视频在线观看| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 老司机福利观看| 在线国产一区二区在线| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 美女大奶头视频| 舔av片在线| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 极品教师在线视频| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 国产乱人视频| 嫩草影院新地址| 成人二区视频| 色5月婷婷丁香| www日本黄色视频网| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 99热6这里只有精品| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 日韩成人伦理影院| 日本五十路高清| 精品久久久久久久久av| 毛片女人毛片| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 身体一侧抽搐| 国产精品三级大全| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 国产91av在线免费观看| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 国产av在哪里看| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 久久人人爽人人片av| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 色在线成人网| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 精品人妻视频免费看| 欧美zozozo另类| 99久国产av精品| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲无线在线观看| 一本精品99久久精品77| 午夜影院日韩av| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 赤兔流量卡办理| 99热网站在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 天堂√8在线中文| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 久久久久国产网址| www.色视频.com| 性色avwww在线观看| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 日本 av在线| 成人综合一区亚洲| 午夜影院日韩av| av视频在线观看入口| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| ponron亚洲| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 嫩草影院精品99| 极品教师在线视频| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产精品无大码| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 久久这里只有精品中国| 春色校园在线视频观看| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 一进一出抽搐动态| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 乱人视频在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验 | 51国产日韩欧美| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 天美传媒精品一区二区| 校园春色视频在线观看| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 一级爰片在线观看| 成人亚洲欧美一区二区av| 各种免费的搞黄视频| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| av在线观看视频网站免费| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 国产色婷婷99| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久青草综合色| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 久热这里只有精品99| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 一本一本综合久久| 国产成人一区二区在线| 日韩av免费高清视频| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| av.在线天堂| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 成人二区视频| 五月开心婷婷网| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 在线观看三级黄色| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线 | 在线 av 中文字幕| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| av免费在线看不卡| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 男女免费视频国产| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 自线自在国产av| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 色5月婷婷丁香| 中国三级夫妇交换| 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 少妇的逼水好多| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产精品三级大全| 在线亚洲精品国产二区图片欧美 | 午夜91福利影院| 免费看不卡的av| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 免费大片18禁| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 亚洲天堂av无毛| a 毛片基地| 免费av不卡在线播放| av天堂久久9| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 亚洲内射少妇av| 内地一区二区视频在线| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 男女免费视频国产| 在线观看三级黄色| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 国产精品.久久久| 视频中文字幕在线观看| www.av在线官网国产| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 老司机影院成人| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影小说| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 97超视频在线观看视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 草草在线视频免费看| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 丁香六月天网| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 内地一区二区视频在线| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 极品教师在线视频| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级 | 一级毛片我不卡| 街头女战士在线观看网站| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 国产黄色免费在线视频| tube8黄色片| 国产av国产精品国产| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 观看免费一级毛片| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲av电影在线观看一区二区三区| 制服丝袜香蕉在线| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡 | 国产一区二区三区av在线| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 精品国产国语对白av| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 精品国产国语对白av| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 国产精品无大码| 秋霞伦理黄片| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 日韩成人伦理影院| 亚洲国产色片| 99久久精品热视频| 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 国产美女午夜福利| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 岛国毛片在线播放| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看|