• <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 ?

    Hepatic resection vs percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma abutting right diaphragm

    2019-04-20 01:35:52KyoungDooSongHyoKeunLimHyunchulRhimMinWooLeeTaeWookKangYongHanPaikJongManKimJaeWonJoh
    關(guān)鍵詞:客觀性成巖狀況

    Kyoung Doo Song,Hyo Keun Lim,Hyunchul Rhim,Min Woo Lee,Tae Wook Kang,Yong Han Paik,Jong Man Kim,Jae-Won Joh

    Kyoung Doo Song,Hyunchul Rhim,Min Woo Lee,Tae Wook Kang,Department of Radiology,Samsung Medical Center,Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,Seoul 06351,South Korea

    Hyo Keun Lim,Department of Radiology,Samsung Medical Center,Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,Department of Health Sciences and Technology,SAIHST,Sungkyunkwan University,Seoul 06351,South Korea

    Yong Han Paik,Department of Medicine,Samsung Medical Center,Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,Seoul 06351,South Korea

    Jong Man Kim,Jae-Won Joh,Department of Surgery,Samsung Medical Center,Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine,Seoul 06351,South Korea

    Abstract

    Key words: Hepatic resection;Radiofrequency ablation;Hepatocellular carcinoma;Diaphragm;Treatment outcome

    INTRODUCTION

    Both hepatic resection and radiofrequency (RF) ablation are considered curative procedures for very early or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)[1].Many studies have revealed that RF ablation is comparable to hepatic resection in terms of long-term survival for patients with early-stage HCC[2-4].However,most studies have not taken into account the location of HCCs.Tumor location is an important factor affecting local tumor control especially for RF ablation due to its technical complexity[5].

    When an HCC is located in the liver abutting the right diaphragm,an adequate accomplishment of percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided RF ablation is difficult due to the poor sonic window resulting from lung shadowing and the potential risk of collateral thermal injury to the diaphragm.According to a preliminary study,local tumor progression (LTP) after percutaneous RF ablation was more frequent in patients with subphrenic HCCs (29%) than in nonsubphrenic HCCs (6%)[6].To overcome this inherent limitation,many investigators have used the infusion of artificial ascites or pleural effusion.Several studies have reported that percutaneous RF ablation with infusion of artificial ascites or pleural effusion was safe and effective[7-10].However,the LTP rate after RF ablation for subphrenic HCCs remained high even with the application of these special techniques[9].The effect of the specific location of HCC on the long-term therapeutic outcomes after hepatic resection and RF ablation has not yet been investigated.Thus,the aim of this study was to compare the long-term therapeutic outcomes of hepatic resectionvspercutaneous RF ablation for the curative treatment of HCCs abutting the diaphragm.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Our Institutional Review Board approved this retrospective study,and informed consent was waived.

    Patients

    Between January 2006 and October 2010,5981 patients were diagnosed with HCC at our institution.This study included patients from the same population as in a previous study that was conducted at our institution;however,the study design and result analysis methods are different[11].Inclusion criteria for our study were as follows:(1) patients who had undergone percutaneous US-guided RF ablation or hepatic resection for HCC as a first-line treatment;(2) patients who had a single HCC≤ 3 cm;(3) patients with HCC abutting the right diaphragm (subphrenic HCC);and(4) patients with Child-Pugh class A.A subphrenic HCC in our study was defined as a tumor that abutted the right diaphragm on axial or coronal images of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging.We excluded tumors that abutted the left diaphragm because they are different from the tumors abutting the right diaphragm in many ways,in terms of treatment.Most tumors abutting the left diaphragm are located under the heart and are,hence,considered more technically difficult to treat compared to those close to the right diaphragm.In addition,the use of artificial ascites or pleural effusion is usually ineffective for tumors abutting the left diaphragm.Instead,hepatic resection of tumors abutting the left diaphragm(especially in the left lateral segment) is easily performed either after laparotomy or with a laparoscopic approach.Finally,our study included 63 patients (49 men,14 women;mean age,60.3 years;range,41-78 years) who had undergone percutaneous RF ablation and 80 patients (62 men,18 women;mean age,53.5 years;range,30-78 years) who had been treated with hepatic resection.The patient inclusion flowchart is shown in Figure 1.

    In 3 (4.7%) patients in the RF ablation group,HCC was confirmed histologically via percutaneous US-guided biopsy.In the remainder of the patients in the RF ablation group,HCC was diagnosed based on one of two clinical guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases at the time of RF ablation[1,12].For all patients in the hepatic resection group,HCC was diagnosed histologically after hepatic resection.

    Treatment of HCC and follow-up

    The general inclusion criteria for hepatic resection at our institution were as follows:(1) a single tumor or oligonodular tumors within a monosegment of the liver;(2) an indocyanine green retention rate less than 20% at 15 min;(3) serum total bilirubin level less than 1.5 mg/dL;(4) no severe portal hypertension;and (5) no gross ascites.The inclusion criteria for percutaneous RF ablation at our institution were as follows:(1) a single tumor (≤ 5 cm in the greatest dimension) or multiple nodular tumors(three or fewer,each ≤ 3 cm in the greatest dimension);(2) Child-Pugh class A or B disease;(3) no evidence of portal vein thrombosis or extrahepatic metastasis;and (4)prothrombin time ratio > 50%,and platelet count > 50000/mm3(50 × 109/L).Treatment modality was decided based on age,liver function reserve,tumor location,surgical risk,and patient preference by a multidisciplinary tumor board composed of hepatologists,radiologists,surgeons,and medical and radiation oncologists.

    Hepatic resection was performed by one of two surgeons (JHK and JWJ) with more than 10 years of experience in hepatobiliary surgery by the end of the study.The types of hepatic resection were as follows:subsegmentectomy in 58 patients,bisegmentectomy in five patients,posterior sectionectomy in 12 patients,right hemihepatectomy in two patients,anterior sectionectomy in one patient,central hepatectomy in one patient,and extended left hemihepatectomy in one patient.As a result,anatomical resection was performed in 17 (21.3%) patients and non-anatomical resection was performed in 63 (78.8%) patients[13].Hepatic resection was performed after laparotomy in 78 (97.5%) patients and with laparoscopy in two (2.5%) patients.RF ablation was performed by one of five interventional radiologists (MWL,DC,HR,HKL,and YK) with more than 6 years of experience in RF ablation by the end of the study.The process and method of RF ablation were the same as those described in a previous study[14].In brief,RF ablation was performed percutaneously under the guidance of real-time US.We used internally cooled electrode systems with generators (Cool-tip RF System,Covidien,Mansfield,MA,United States;or VIVA RFA System,STARmed,Goyang,South Korea).Sedation was performed via an intravenous injection of pethidine hydrochloride (Samsung Pharmaceuticals,Seoul,South Korea) and fentanyl citrate (GUJU Pharma,Seoul,South Korea).To improve the sonic window and avoid thermal injury to the diaphragm,artificial ascites (5%dextrose in a water solution) was infused into the perihepatic space using a 5F angiosheath in 39 (61.9%) patients.

    Figure1 Flowchart of patient inclusion.HCC:Hepatocellular carcinoma;RF:Radiofrequency.

    After RF ablation,immediate follow-up contrast agent-enhanced CT was performed to evaluate the therapeutic response and possible complications.Contrast agent-enhanced CT was performed at the 1 mo follow-up,every 3 mo during the first 2 years,followed by every 4-6 mo according to the risk of recurrence for both the hepatic resection group and RF ablation group.

    應用地積累指數(shù)法(Igeo)評價土壤重金屬污染程度時,除考慮了當?shù)丨h(huán)境背景值、人為活動之外,還考慮到巖石自然成巖作用對當?shù)乇尘爸邓鶐淼淖儎佑绊?。因此,應用該方法評價土壤重金屬污染狀況時具有相對的客觀性,可以作為評價工業(yè)活動(如礦業(yè)開采選冶等)產(chǎn)生的土壤重金屬污染狀況的定量指標[10]。

    Data acquisition

    Baseline characteristics of patients and HCCs were obtained through review of their electronic medical record from our institution.To compare the therapeutic outcomes between the two groups,intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR),disease-free survival(DFS),and overall survival (OS) were calculated.IDR was defined as a new tumor appearing in the liver separate from the treated area.DFS was defined as the time interval from the date of treatment to one of the following events:intrahepatic recurrence,extrahepatic recurrence,or death.OS was defined as the time interval from the date of treatment to death.If the patients had undergone liver transplantation,they were considered to have been censored at the time of liver transplantation.Complications were stratified according to the Clavien classification of postoperative complications,and complications of grade II or higher were considered major complications[15].Local tumor progression (LTP) was evaluated for the RF ablation group.LTP was defined as the appearance of new tumor foci at the margin of the ablation zone after at least one contrast-enhanced follow-up study had demonstrated an absence of viable tumors[16].

    Statistical analysis

    Continuous data were compared using two-samplettests,and categorical variables were compared using chi-squared tests between the two groups.Cumulative LTP,cumulative IDR,DFS,and OS rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.Prognostic factors for DFS and OS were assessed using Cox regression models.Proportional hazard (PH) assumption for the Cox proportional hazard model was tested using Schoenfeld’s method.For the variables with violation of PH assumption,the time-dependent Cox regression was applied.When the time dependence was not significant,the Cox proportional hazard model was applied.Possible risk factors withPvalues of 0.1 or less at univariate analyses were entered into the multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.Subgroup analysis for patients with ≤ 2 cm HCCs was performed with Cox proportional hazard models.All statistical analyses were performed using a software (PASW statistical software,version 18.0;SPSS,Chicago,IL).For all tests,aPvalue < 0.05 was defined as a significant difference.

    RESULTS

    Baseline characteristics of patients and HCCs are shown in Table 1.The median follow-up period was 74.9 mo (range,10.3-117.8 mo) in the hepatic resection group and 65.3 mo (range,4.1-113.9 mo) in the RF ablation group.The RF ablation group was significantly older,and they exhibited a lower α-fetoprotein level,platelet count,and serum albumin level,and a higher prothrombin time.In the RF ablation group,the proportion of patients with liver cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus was higher and the proportion of patients with hepatitis B virus was lower compared to that in the hepatic resection group.The mean size of HCCs was not significantly different between the two groups.

    Therapeutic outcomes

    The cumulative IDR rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 15.0%,29.1%,and 35.9%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 13.1%,54.5%,and 65.8%,respectively,for the RF ablation group (Figure 2A).The estimated DFS rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 85.0%,70.9%,and 64.1%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 69.5%,27.5%,and 18.3%,respectively,for the RF ablation group (Figure 2B).The estimated OS rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 97.5%,92.3%,and 88.4%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 100%,81.4%,and 68.7%,respectively,for the RF ablation group (Figure 2C).For the RF ablation group,the cumulative LTP rates were 22.5%,37.8%,and 46.6% at 1-,3-,and 5-years,respectively (Figure 3).

    Analysis of risk factors

    Based on multivariate analysis,there was no in dependent prognostic factor for OS.Hepatic resection [P≤ 0.001;hazard ratio (HR),0.352;95% confidence interval (CI):0.205,0.605;with RFA as the reference category],alanine aminotransferase level (P=0.006;HR,1.011;95%CI:1.003,1.020),and serum albumin level (P= 0.014;HR,0.481;95%CI:0.269,0.860) were independent prognostic factors for DFS (Tables 2 and 3).

    Subgroup analysis for patients with ≤ 2 cm HCC

    Thirty-seven patients in the hepatic resection group and 27 patients in the RF ablation group had ≤ 2 cm HCC.The cumulative IDR rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 13.5%,27.3%,and 33.1%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 15.3%,60.3%,and 70.2%,respectively,for the RF ablation group.The estimated DFS rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 86.5%,72.7%,and 66.9%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 81.0%,27.4%,and 18.3%,respectively,for the RF ablation group.The estimated OS rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 100%,94.5%,and 91.7%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 100%,83.8%,and 65.4%,respectively,for the RF ablation group.In multivariate analysis,hepatic resection was an independent prognostic factor for DFS (P= 0.018;HR,0.365;CI:0.158-0.844),but was not an independent prognostic factor for OS.

    Complications and treatment for recurrent HCC

    There was no treatment-related mortality in either group.Major complications occurred in three patients (3.8%) in the hepatic resection group:Grade II,pneumonia(n= 1) and intraperitoneal hemorrhage (n= 1);and Grade III,wound infection requiring surgery (n= 1).In the RF ablation group,a major complication occurred in one patient (1.6%):Grade III,pleural effusion requiring drainage.The major complication rate was not significantly different between the two groups (P= 0.060).The posttreatment hospital stay was significantly longer in the hepatic resection group (median,9 d;range,5-23 d) than in the RF ablation group (median,1.0 d;range,1-4 d;P <0.001).

    During the follow-up period,peritoneal seeding occurred in one patient (1.3%) in the hepatic resection group and six patients (9.5%) in the RF ablation group,and the rate of peritoneal seeding was significantly different (P= 0.044).

    During the follow-up period,LTP occurred in 29 (46.0%) of the 63 patients in the RF ablation group.The initial treatment modalities for LTP were as follows:transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (n= 14),RF ablation (n= 12),hepatic resection (n= 1),combined TACE and RF ablation (n= 1),and combined TACE and radiation therapy(n= 1).In 26 of 29 patients,LTP was controlled with additional treatments,and the number of additional treatments was as follows:One (n= 17),two (n= 3),three (n=4),and six (n= 2).For the remaining three patients,LTP was not controlled even though they received repeated treatments with TACE or RF ablation.In addition,multiple intra- and extrahepatic metastases occurred.Finally,sorafenib treatment was administered.IDR occurred in 31 (38.8%) of the 80 patients in the hepatic resection group,and treatment modalities were as follows:TACE (n= 18),RF ablation (n= 11),cryoablation (n= 1),and hepatic resection (n= 1).IDR occurred in 42 (66.7%) of the 63patients in the RF ablation group,and treatment modalities were as follows:TACE (n= 16),RF ablation (n= 20),combined TACE and RF ablation (n= 3),hepatic resection(n= 1),liver transplantation (n= 1),and sorafenib treatment (n= 1).

    Table1 Baseline patient characteristics

    DISCUSSION

    In our study,we compared long-term therapeutic outcomes for treatments using hepatic resection and percutaneous RF ablation for HCCs (≤ 3 cm) abutting the right diaphragm;we found that the treatment modality was a significant prognostic factor for DFS,but was not an independent prognostic factor for OS.For the RF ablation group,the LTP rate was as high as 46.6% at 5 years.The location of tumors can affect the technical difficulty in local control of tumors,especially for RF ablation.Although there have been many studies that compared therapeutic outcomes between hepatic resection and RF ablation for HCC,most of them did not consider the location of tumors.In this way,the results of our study,which compares hepatic resection and percutaneous RF ablation for HCCs with consideration of the location of tumors,can provide important data for the proper management of HCCs abutting the diaphragm.

    In our study,the LTP rate was 46.6% at 5 years for the RF ablation group.The LTP rate was much higher than rates reported in previous studies that included all HCCs located in the liver[11,14,17-19].Percutaneous RF ablation for subphrenic HCCs is difficult to adequately perform for several reasons.First,the poor sonic window resulting from the lung shadow makes it difficult to accurately target tumors with the electrodes.Second,all tumors were subcapsular HCCs in our study.In general,subcapsular HCCs are considered to be more difficult to treat with percutaneous HCC than nonsubcapsular HCCs because of the difficulty of placing an electrode and not being able to obtain enough ablative margin along the hepatic capsule.

    In this study,patients who had undergone hepatic resection exhibited longer DFS compared to those who had undergone RF ablation.This result is in line with previous studies that compared DFS outcomes for hepatic resection and RF ablation for HCC[20,21].In our study,the estimated DFS rates at 1-,3-,and 5-years were 85.0%,70.9%,and 64.1%,respectively,for the hepatic resection group and 69.5%,27.5%,and 18.3%,respectively,for the RF ablation group.In the previous study at our institution that compared RF ablation with hepatic resection for single HCC ≤ 3 cm located in the liver,the estimated DFS rate at 5 years was 61.1% for the hepatic resection group and 31.7% for the RF ablation group[11].The DFS rate for the hepatic resection group of this study was similar to our previous result.However,the DFS rate for the RF ablation group of this study was lower than our previous result.This difference can most likely be explained by the high LTP rate for the RF ablation group in this study.

    Figure2 Cumulative intrahepatic distant recurrence rates (A),disease-free survival rates (B),and overall survival rates (C).IDR:Intrahepatic distant recurrence;RF:Radiofrequency.

    According to previous studies,RF ablation was comparable to hepatic resection for very early and early-stage HCCs in terms of OS[22-24].In our study,estimated OS rates for the hepatic resection group (97.5%,92.3%,and 88.4% at 1-,3-,and 5-years,respectively) appeared to be better than those for the RF ablation group (100%,81.4%,and 68.7% at 1-,3-,and 5-years).However,similar to previous studies,treatment modality was not an independent prognostic factor for OS according to multivariate analyses in our study.

    Figure3 Local tumor progression rate in the radiofrequency ablation group.LTP:Local tumor progression.

    Previous studies have reported comparable outcomes between RF ablation and hepatic resection in terms of long-term survival for patients with early-stage HCC.Based on these results,both hepatic resection and RF ablation are considered as curative treatment options for early stage HCC.Although treatment modality was not an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with subphrenic HCCs,there were some differences in treatment outcomes between patients with subphrenic HCCs and nonsubphrenic HCCs that need to be considered when treatment modality is determined.First,the LTP rate after RF ablation was much higher for patients with subphrenic HCCs.Second,recurrent LTP was common in patients with subphrenic HCCs.In 12 (41%) of 29 patients who had LTP,multiple treatments were performed to control the LTP.Third,the peritoneal seeding rate for subphrenic HCCs was as high as 9.5% in the RF ablation group.Considering these unfavorable outcomes of RF ablation for subphrenic HCCs,it may be reasonable to preferentially consider hepatic resection as the first-line treatment for subphrenic HCCs rather than percutaneous RF ablation.Otherwise,laparoscopic RF ablation or combined TACE and RF ablation should be considered because these modalities can be more effective than percutaneous RF ablation alone in terms of local tumor control[25-27].However,this issue needs to be investigated further.

    Our study has some limitations.First,because this is a retrospective study,the treatment groups were not randomized,and we could not exclude the possibility of selection bias.However,we analyzed the effect of treatment modality (hepatic resectionvspercutaneous RF ablation) after controlling for potential compounding factors.Second,HCC was diagnosed based on clinical guidelines in most patients in the RF ablation group.Therefore,there was a possibility of false-positive diagnosis,which could affect the outcomes.Third,this is a single-center study.In general,the outcomes of both hepatic resection and RF ablation greatly depend on the expertise and experience of the operators.In addition,we only used the single straight type of RF electrode and US as a guiding modality.Using other types of RF electrodes or guiding modalities may result in different therapeutic outcomes.Therefore,care should be taken when generalizing our results to that from other institutions.

    In conclusion,although OS was not significantly different between patients who had undergone hepatic resection or percutaneous RF ablation for HCCs abutting the diaphragm,DFS was better in the hepatic resection group,and LTP was as high as 46.6% at 5 years in the RF ablation group.Therefore,it may be reasonable that hepatic resection should be preferentially considered over percutaneous US-guided RF ablation as a first-line treatment for HCCs abutting the diaphragm.

    Table2 Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival

    Table3 Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for disease-free survival

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Many studies have revealed that radiofrequency (RF) ablation is comparable to hepatic resection in terms of long-term survival for patients with early stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).However,most studies have not taken into account the location of HCCs.

    Research motivation

    Our study attempted to analyze the effect of the subphrenic location of HCC on the long-term therapeutic outcomes after hepatic resection and RF ablation.

    Research objectives

    To compare the long-term therapeutic outcomes between hepatic resectionvspercutaneous RF ablation for HCCs abutting the diaphragm.

    Research methods

    A total of 143 Child-Pugh class A patients who had undergone hepatic resection (n= 80) or percutaneous RF ablation (n= 63) for an HCC (≤ 3 cm) abutting the right diaphragm were included.Therapeutic outcomes were compared.

    Research results

    Hepatic resection was an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (DFS) (P≤0.001;hazard ratio,0.352;95%CI:0.205,0.605;with RF ablation as the reference category);however,treatment modality was not an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS).The local tumor progression rate was 46.6% at 5 years for the RF ablation group.

    Research conclusions

    Although OS was not significantly different between patients who had undergone hepatic resection or percutaneous RF ablation for HCCs abutting the diaphragm,DFS was better in the hepatic resection group.

    Research perspectives

    Further studies with large sample size and multicenter prospective studies are needed to confirm the conclusion of this study.

    猜你喜歡
    客觀性成巖狀況
    聲敏感患者的焦慮抑郁狀況調(diào)查
    憲法解釋與實踐客觀性
    法律方法(2021年3期)2021-03-16 05:58:08
    2019年中國國際收支狀況依然會保持穩(wěn)健
    中國外匯(2019年13期)2019-10-10 03:37:38
    客觀性與解釋
    法律方法(2019年3期)2019-09-11 06:26:20
    能源領(lǐng)域中成巖作用的研究進展及發(fā)展趨勢
    實現(xiàn)“歷史解釋”多樣性與客觀性的統(tǒng)一
    第五節(jié) 2015年法學專業(yè)就業(yè)狀況
    論柴靜新聞采訪對客觀性的踐行
    新聞傳播(2016年4期)2016-07-18 10:59:23
    準中1區(qū)三工河組低滲儲層特征及成巖作用演化
    斷塊油氣田(2014年5期)2014-03-11 15:33:43
    “十五大”前夕的俄共組織狀況
    a级毛片黄视频| 国产福利在线免费观看视频| 国产高清激情床上av| 欧美午夜高清在线| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 国产精品.久久久| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 男女免费视频国产| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 国产精品 国内视频| 国产在线免费精品| 午夜福利,免费看| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 久久久久久久国产电影| 午夜激情av网站| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 97人妻天天添夜夜摸| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| cao死你这个sao货| 一区二区三区精品91| 女人精品久久久久毛片| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 国产精品一区二区在线不卡| xxx96com| 久久这里只有精品19| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 亚洲av美国av| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 露出奶头的视频| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 性色avwww在线观看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 色综合婷婷激情| 男人舔奶头视频| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 亚洲 国产 在线| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| bbb黄色大片| 看片在线看免费视频| 18禁观看日本| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 五月伊人婷婷丁香| 午夜免费激情av| 观看免费一级毛片| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 制服人妻中文乱码| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产人伦9x9x在线观看| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 深夜精品福利| av女优亚洲男人天堂 | 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 国产激情久久老熟女| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 宅男免费午夜| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| h日本视频在线播放| 久久久成人免费电影| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 免费av毛片视频| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | svipshipincom国产片| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 99热6这里只有精品| 国产熟女xx| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 九色成人免费人妻av| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 中文资源天堂在线| 丰满的人妻完整版| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 少妇丰满av| 嫩草影院入口| 久久久久久久久中文| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 日本免费a在线| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 91老司机精品| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产高清videossex| 999精品在线视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 手机成人av网站| 99热只有精品国产| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 99久国产av精品| 久久国产精品影院| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美大码av| 国产高潮美女av| 香蕉丝袜av| www.精华液| 欧美日韩黄片免| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 午夜福利18| a在线观看视频网站| 成人精品一区二区免费| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 曰老女人黄片| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 色av中文字幕| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| aaaaa片日本免费| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| or卡值多少钱| 久久人妻av系列| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 精品国产乱子伦一区二区三区| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 精品一区二区三区视频在线 | www日本黄色视频网| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 九色国产91popny在线| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 精品久久久久久久末码| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 久久中文看片网| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 99久国产av精品| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 黄频高清免费视频| 免费在线观看日本一区| 国产成人系列免费观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 欧美日韩黄片免| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 99热精品在线国产| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 美女高潮的动态| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看 | 99riav亚洲国产免费| 香蕉久久夜色| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 变态另类丝袜制服| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 日韩高清综合在线| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 成在线人永久免费视频| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 国产熟女xx| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 午夜福利高清视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 两个人视频免费观看高清| 天堂av国产一区二区熟女人妻| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影| xxxwww97欧美| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 欧美色视频一区免费| 亚洲色图av天堂| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 国产精品野战在线观看| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 最好的美女福利视频网| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 熟女电影av网| 久久亚洲真实| 日本熟妇午夜| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 波多野结衣高清作品| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式 | 日本 欧美在线| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| or卡值多少钱| 看黄色毛片网站| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 毛片女人毛片| 中文资源天堂在线| 97超视频在线观看视频| aaaaa片日本免费| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 日本黄色片子视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 久久久久九九精品影院| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 国产成人系列免费观看| 又大又爽又粗| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 性色avwww在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲中文av在线| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产成人福利小说| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| www.999成人在线观看| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 美女午夜性视频免费| 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 男人舔奶头视频| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 999久久久国产精品视频| 一本一本综合久久| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产精华一区二区三区| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| a在线观看视频网站| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 久久久色成人| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| av视频在线观看入口| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 嫩草影院精品99| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 91老司机精品| 变态另类丝袜制服| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 十八禁网站免费在线| 91老司机精品| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 天堂网av新在线| 日韩欧美三级三区| 脱女人内裤的视频| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 成人精品一区二区免费| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 看黄色毛片网站| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 一本综合久久免费| 日本a在线网址| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 黄色成人免费大全| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 校园春色视频在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 国内精品美女久久久久久| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 一本综合久久免费| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 久久久久亚洲av毛片大全| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 搞女人的毛片| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久| 一区福利在线观看| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 一区二区三区激情视频| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 精品久久久久久成人av| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 搞女人的毛片| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 美女黄网站色视频| 熟女少妇亚洲综合色aaa.| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 国产综合懂色| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 国产美女午夜福利| 日本黄大片高清| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 亚洲在线观看片| av国产免费在线观看| 俺也久久电影网| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 丰满的人妻完整版| 99热精品在线国产| 久久中文字幕一级| 手机成人av网站| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 999精品在线视频| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 久久国产乱子伦精品免费另类| 99久国产av精品| 久久久成人免费电影| 亚洲在线观看片| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 国模一区二区三区四区视频 | 国内精品久久久久久久电影| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 看黄色毛片网站| 日本免费a在线| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 香蕉国产在线看| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 免费观看精品视频网站| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 亚洲在线观看片| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 九九在线视频观看精品| 99久久国产精品久久久| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 亚洲国产欧美网| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 午夜两性在线视频| 久久这里只有精品19| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 中文字幕高清在线视频| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 在线观看一区二区三区| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 91av网站免费观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 三级毛片av免费| 99re在线观看精品视频| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 舔av片在线| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 校园春色视频在线观看| 亚洲av成人av| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 免费看a级黄色片| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产av不卡久久| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 国产三级中文精品| 日本三级黄在线观看| 天堂√8在线中文| 特级一级黄色大片| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 成人三级做爰电影| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| h日本视频在线播放| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 91av网一区二区| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产精品,欧美在线| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 国产精品久久视频播放| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 一个人看的www免费观看视频| 国产真实乱freesex| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国产成人精品无人区| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 床上黄色一级片| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 久久久成人免费电影| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 露出奶头的视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 美女高潮的动态| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 一a级毛片在线观看| 国产1区2区3区精品| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 黄色成人免费大全| xxxwww97欧美| 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 久久久成人免费电影| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| av国产免费在线观看| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 久久人妻av系列| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 不卡一级毛片| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 国产精品久久久久久久电影 | 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 国产美女午夜福利| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 搞女人的毛片| 国产美女午夜福利| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 久9热在线精品视频| 一区福利在线观看| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 亚洲片人在线观看| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲激情在线av| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 宅男免费午夜| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av | 国内精品美女久久久久久|