• <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 ?

    Non-invasive tests for the prediction of posthepatectomy liver failure in the elderly

    2020-08-04 08:31:08GiovanniMarascoAntonioColecchiaMatteoMilandriBenedettaRossiniLuiginaVanessaAlemanniEltonDajtiFedericoRavaioliMatteoRenzulliRitaGoIfieriDavideFesti
    Hepatoma Research 2020年6期

    Giovanni Marasco, Antonio Colecchia, Matteo Milandri, Benedetta Rossini, Luigina Vanessa Alemanni, Elton Dajti, Federico Ravaioli, Matteo Renzulli, Rita GoIfieri, Davide Festi

    1Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna 40138, Italy.

    2Unit of Gastroenterology, Borgo Trento University Hospital of Verona, P.le Aristide Stefani 1, Verona 37126, Italy.

    3Radiology Unit, Sant’Orsola Malpighi Hospital, Bologna 40138, Italy.

    Abstract Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is associated with great morbidity and mortality after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Previous studies have underlined that advanced age could be a potential factor influencing post-operative complications and long-term survival.

    Keywords: Post-hepatectomy liver failure, liver resection, elderly, liver stiffness measurement, indocyanine green retention test

    INTRODUCTION

    Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common cause of death in patients with cirrhosis[1]. Despite numerous therapeutic options, the only curative treatments are liver transplantation and hepatectomy[2]. Patients with a single HCC nodule, Child-Pugh class A, normal bilirubin (< 1 mg/dL) and without portal hypertension have the best prognosis and are ideal candidates for liver resection.

    The presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) (port-hepatic pressure gradient greater than 12 mmHg) or clinical manifestation (platelet count < 100,000/mL, associated with splenomegaly or esophageal varices) appears to be associated with a worse prognosis, but does not preclude resection in selected patients[3,4]. Thus, patients with cirrhosis should be carefully selected to reduce the risk of postoperative liver failure and death. Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is still a major concern for liver surgeons[2]. In the last few years, there has been an increasing need for a simple and accurate tool for evaluating liver function before surgery to minimize PHLF and postoperative mortality[5]. It is difficult to define PHLF exactly since it manifests with one or more of these features: ascites, jaundice, coagulopathy or kidney failure. The most commonly used criteria for defining PHLF are the 50-50 Criteria where PHLF is defined as total serum bilirubin > 50 mmol/L 5 days after surgery or thereafter and an international normalized ratio (INR) > 1.7[6]. Other diagnostic criteria are the peak bilirubin > 7 mg/dL in any postoperative period, in the absence of cholestasis, and the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria that define PHLF by an increased INR and concomitant hyperbilirubinemia on or after postoperative day 5[7].

    In the past, the selection of candidates for resection was based on the Child-Pugh classification but its predictive value has been determined to be insufficient. Japanese groups use the indocyanine green retention test (ICG), which has proved to be more reliable than Child-Pugh and the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) to predict PHLF[8,9]. In Western countries, the selection of candidates for resection is usually based on the assessment of portal hypertension, which is clinically assessed by measurement of the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG > 10 mmHg)[10]. However, these methods are invasive and costly. Thus, several authors have tried to evaluate other non-invasive methods including biochemical scores, the measurement of liver and spleen stiffness (LSM and SSM) and imaging patterns as predictors of PHLF[8,11-14].

    With an increase in life expectancy and improvement in operative safety and efficacy of hepatic resection techniques, surgeons should also evaluate the best surgical option in elderly patients[15]. Indeed, previous studies have implicated older age as a potential factor influencing post-resection complications and survival, and are summarized in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis[15]which concluded that age > 70 was associated with increased 30-day and overall mortality when compared with non-elderly cohorts. A promising factor that also influences post-operative outcomes is patient frailty, defined as a syndrome characterized by decreased physiological reserves. Only one study has reported a specific association between frailty and PHLF[16]. However, frailty assessment is based on a self-reporting questionnaire, which could be affected by several biases.

    Thus, this review aims to summarize the recent advances on objective parameters such as non-invasive tests (NITs) for predicting PHLF, particularly in elderly patients.

    BIOCHEMICAL SCORES

    Fibrosis and liver functional reserve scores

    FIB-4

    The Fibrosis (FIB)-4 index was first proposed by Sterling and colleagues[17]and is based on four factors included in the following equation: [age(years) × AST(UI/L)]?[platelet count × ALT(UI/L)]. It is a noninvasive predictor of the progression of fibrosis in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. Over the years, several studies have validated its role as a marker of hepatic fibrosis[18,19].

    An important study[20]indicated that the Fib-4 index not only demonstrated the best predictive ability for cirrhosis, but it was also an independent prognostic factor for postoperative hepatic insufficiency, overall survival, and disease-free survival for HCC patients with radical liver resection. They also stratified patients, with the cut-off value of 3.15, into Low and High fibrosis-4 groups. The High fibrosis-4 group had a higher mean age (56.3 ± 10.4vs. 47.7 ± 11.7,P< 0.01), higher MELD score (P= 0.001), and more patients with Child-Pugh grade B (7.4%vs. 4.0%,P= 0.037).

    These results have also been confirmed by other studies[21]. Other groups have tried to use the ratio of the remaining liver volume (FLRVR) and FIB-4 to predict PHLF and showed that FLRVR/FIB-4 was an independent predictive factor of outcomes after liver resection in cirrhotic patients[22]. The most recent study by Zhouet al.[23]demonstrated that the FIB-4 index was a more accurate predictive factor for PHLF and survival than the Child-Pugh score; the authors thus proposed the use of the FIB-4 index to perform pre-hepatectomy assessment citing a low incidence of PHLF in patients with FIB-4 ≤ 4.16. On the other hand, Zhanget al.[24]showed that FIB-4 was an independent predictor of PHLF only in minor hepatectomy patients. Multivariate analysis in this subgroup of patients revealed that age (the older the patient, the more the risk), Child-Pugh score and Albumin-Bilirubin score/spleen thickness ratio (ALBI/ST) were predictors of PHLF in the APRI model, while Child-Pugh score, FIB-4, and ALBI/ST were found to be significant risk factors of PHLF in the FIB-4 model. Thus, it is possible to conclude that FIB-4 is able to predict PHLF since it is related not only to the degree of liver fibrosis but also, to the general performance of the patient since it includes age.

    Lok Index and Forns Index

    The Lok Index and Forns Index are two other non-invasive markers of fibrosis. The Lok index is a noninvasive tool introduced by an American research group[25]as a predictor of cirrhosis development in patients with chronic HCV-hepatitis. It is based on simple laboratory parameters and calculated through the following formula: log odds (predicting cirrhosis) 5.56 - 0.0089 × platelet count (× 103/mm3) + 1.26 × AST/ALT ratio + 5.27 × INR. Some studies have correlated the value of the Lok index with the grade of fibrosis. For example, Maet al.[26]showed that FIB-4 and Lok’s model were the most effective models for distinguishing significant and extensive fibrosis. Zhouet al.[27]found that a Lok index cut-off value of 0.4531 could further spare 24.2% of gastroscopies without missing high-risk varices (HRVs)[27]. Since this is a fibrosis marker, Mobaraket al.[28]found that it was also able to predict HCC development. To date, the Lok-index is predominantly used for the prediction of fibrosis and cirrhosis but not PHLF.

    The Forns Index was developed by Fornset al.[29]in 2002, before the introduction of transient elastography techniques. It was first proposed as a non-invasive tool for the detection of patients with non-significant liver fibrosis. It is calculated using four variables (age, gamma glutamyl transferase, total cholesterol and platelet count) with the following formula: 7.811 - 3.131 × ln [platelet count (109/L)] + 0.781 × ln [gamma GT (IU/L)] + 3.467 × ln [age (years)] - 0.014 × [cholesterol (mg/dL). The first studies on the Forns Index (FI) highlighted its accuracy in identifying patients with different stages of fibrosis and cirrhosis[29,30]. A recent study showed that the Forns index is also useful in evaluating liver functionality and the degree of liver fibrosis, so it is able to predict HCC recurrence and patient survival[31]. However, to date, little is known on the use of the Forns index to predict PHLF.

    ALBI score

    Another biochemical index used in clinical practice is the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) score, which was introduced by Johnsonet al.[32]to evaluate liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. It wasinitially proposed as an alternative to the Child-Pugh score, which has some limitations, such as the inclusion of non-objective parameters (ascites, encephalopathy). However, the ALBI score was also able to predict the severity and long-term prognosis of patients with chronic liver disease[33]. In particular, it was found to be a reliable prognostic tool in assessing short-term outcomes in hepatic decompensation[34], in predicting inhospital mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding[35]and as a prognostic factor in HCC patients[36]. The ALBI score is based on serum levels of albumin and total bilirubin and can be calculated through the following formula: (log10 bilirubin [μmol/L] × 0.66) + (albumin [g/L] × -0.0852). It was further categorized into three different grades: grade 3 (> - 1.39), grade 2 (> - 2.60 to ≤ - 1.39), and grade 1 (≤ - 2.60)[32].

    Table 1. Studies evaluating ALBI score in predicting PHLF

    The ALBI grade was also a significant prognostic factor for PHLF in HCC patients[5]. In a comparative study[37], the ALBI score showed superior predictive value of PHLF over the Child-Pugh score, MELD score and ICG R15. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the ALBI score (AUC 0.745) for predicting PHLF was significantly higher than that of the Child-Pugh score (AUC 0.665), MELD score (AUC 0.649) and ICG R15 (AUC 0.668). With a cut-off value of the ALBI score of -2.303, it was possible to reach a sensitivity of 77.3% and a specificity of 64.0% for predicting PHLF[37]. Another group[24]associated the ALBI score with spleen thickness (ST) as a surrogate of portal hypertension. In this study, they compared the predictive ability of ALBI/ST with FIB-4 and APRI and found that ALBI/ST had a higher diagnostic accuracy for PHLF than FIB-4 and APRI. The AUC for the ALBI/ST ratio (AUC = 0.774,P< 0.001) was larger than that of FIB-4 (AUC = 0.696,P< 0.001), APRI (AUC = 0.697,P< 0.001), ALBI (AUC = 0.701,P< 0.001), and ST (AUC = 0.710,P< 0.001)[24]. Also, in this study, multivariate analysis in the minor hepatectomy subgroup revealed that age, Child-Pugh score and ALBI/ST and Child-Pugh score, FIB-4, and ALBI/ST were significant predictors of PHLF in the APRI and FIB-4 models respectively. However, a study conducted by Zhanget al.[5]showed that the ALBI grade was a good predictor of overall survival in BCLC stage 0/A patients but not in other BCLC stages. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the novel ALBI score is certainly one of the most validated scores for predicting PHLF, as described in Table 1[5,33,45,37-44].

    Indocyanine Green Retention Test

    The clearance of indocyanine green (ICG) is a test used to assess liver excretory function quantitatively. ICG is a water-soluble fluorescent dye, which totally binds to albumin and β-lipoprotein in the blood and is exclusively taken up by hepatocytes and excreted unmodified in bile, without entero-hepatic circulation[46,47]. Thus, its clearance depends on several factors: hepatic blood flow, the function of the hepatocytes and biliary excretion[46,47]. However, this test takes time and is uncomfortable for patients. Thus, a faster sampling method was subsequently introduced, the ICG 15-min retention test (ICG-r15), consisting of an injection of an ICG bolus and peripheral venous blood sampling every 5 min for 20 min[48,49]. In the last few decades, a noninvasive ICG measurement by spectrophotometry, called LiMON? (Pulsion Medical System, Munich,Germany), was developed. The device uses a finger optical probe, which detects, after ICG infusion, the fractional pulsatile changes in optical absorption. The device has already been validated in several studies[50,51]with good correlation with ICG-r15 results, comparable with correction of a mathematical formula[50].

    Table 2. Studies evaluating ICG in predicting PHLF

    Since ICG clearance depends on blood flow, it was associated with portal hypertension[48]and liver function for its pharmacokinetics (uptake and excretion through the hepatocytes) as well[47,52-54]. Thus, in Eastern countries it is considered an accurate method to assess liver functional reserve pre-operatively and has been used for almost 30 years[47]; on the other hand, in Western countries, it is not widely used because it is highly influenced by hepatic blood flow[47]and thus, by other conditions that could affect it.

    The normal ICG-r15 value is about 10%[55]. The ICG-r15 reported cut-off for performing a safe major hepatectomy is between 14% and 17%, the latter in younger patients with milder liver disease[56,57]. Other authors have reported different cut-offs of 14% and 23% for safe major and minor hepatectomy respectively[55,58]. In another previous study[57]with age and sex-matched patients, the authors found no difference in terms of PHLF and mortality between patients with ICG-r15 of more than, and less than 14% who have undergone major hepatectomy. However, to date, the reported upper limit of ICG-r15 for considering liver resection is 40%[59]. The accuracy of ICG-r15 in predicting PHLF could be increased with the combination of bilirubin levels and ascites[59]. Several authors comparing the performance of ICG-r15 with other parameters found that it was superior to MELD[60]and that the combination with platelet count, portal hypertension (ICG-r15 cut-off value of 7.1%, sensitivity 52.2% and specificity 89.5%)[8]and Child-Pugh stage[61]was able to improve its accuracy. Moreover, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was also found to correlate with ICG-r15 and to provide additional information on the prognosis of the patient[62]. Other authors have found good correlation when comparing ICG-r15 with the degree of portal hypertension[48,54].

    In conclusion, no definitive lower ICG-r15 cut-offs for distinguishing between safe minor or major hepatectomy are currently available, as shown in Table 2[8,37,57,58,63-67]; major hepatectomy in the presence of unsatisfactory ICG-r15 results should be performed only in high-volume centers. ICG-r15 could be considered a good marker of liver function and indirectly, of the degree of portal hypertension. Further studies are needed however, for this latter association.

    Portal hypertension scores

    Plated to spleen stiffness ratio PSR

    Another widely used biochemical score is the PSR (platelet count-to-spleen ratio), which consists of the ratio between PLT (expressed in number/mm3) and spleen diameter (mm)[69]. The PSR value is strictly correlated with the degree of portal hypertension and, since it was first proposed, this score has shown good performance in predicting the development of esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients[69-71]. A recent Chinese study[72]evaluated the accuracy of PSR, calculated using platelet count and spleen volume (expressed in mm3), as a diagnostic index for the stage of liver fibrosis in patients with HCC and compared PSR with other currently-used scores. Among patients with severe fibrosis, AUROC was significantly higher for PSR (0.808) than for other NITs, except for APRI (0.739,P= 0.215). Penget al.[12], instead, conducted a study on the risk factors for PHLF in which they used, among various markers, a variant of PSR based on spleen stiffness measurement (SSM), instead of the spleen diameter or volume. On multivariate analysis, PSR seemed to be an independent prognostic index for the development of hepatic decompensation (P< 0.001, odds ratio [OR] = 0.622, 95%CI: 0.493~0.784). The PSR thus represents a promising prognostic index for the post-resection outcome.

    APRI score

    The APRI score (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] to platelet ratio index) was introduced in a study by Waiet al.[73]and can be calculated using the following formula: AST(UI/L) × [100/(platelet count 103/mm3)]. It was developed as a non-invasive predictor for progression of fibrosis in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. In 2019, a study by Maiet al.[74]found that the APRI score (AUC 0.743, 95%CI: 0.706-0.780;P< 0.001) had greater accuracy for predicting PHLF than the Child-Pugh, MELD and ALBI scores in the entire cohort of patients with HCC. The APRI-score cut-off value of 0.55 was able to reach a sensitivity of 72.2% and a specificity of 68.0% on PHLF prediction. However, Zhanget al.[24]observed that the APRI score showed a predictive significance only in the major hepatectomy subgroup. The Chinese group of Maiet al.[45]used a new combination of ALBI and APRI scores with the following formula: ALBI-APRI score = 5.280 × ALBI + 1.583 × APRI. The AUC of the ALBI-APRI model (AUC 0.766, 95%CI: 0.739-0.791) for predicting the risk of PHLF was significantly higher than the single ALBI (P< 0.001) or APRI scores (P= 0.047). The ALBI-APRI score cut-off value of -13.10 had a sensitivity of 78.1% and a specificity of 62.2% for predicting the risk of PHLF[45]. Thus, the APRI score in combination with other NITs could represent a good surrogate of portal hypertension and should be further investigated for predicting PHLF.

    LSPS

    The LSPS (LSM-spleen to platelet ratio score) is a biochemical index derived from the following formula: LSM (kPa) × [spleen diameter (mm)/platelet count (103/mm3)]. This score was first proposed as a predictive tool for high-risk esophageal varices in patients with HBV-related cirrhosis[75]. In a study by Chon and colleagues[76], LSPS was found to be an independent risk factor for both HCC (HR = 1.001) and hepatic decompensation (HR = 1.002) in patients with HBV-related hepatitis. Only a single report on 38 patients highlighted a potential predictive role of LSPS on univariate analysis[77]. However, not much is known about the role of LSPS in predicting PHLF.

    Other liver function tests

    Over time, other tests for estimating liver function have been developed. These tests use different substrates such as lidocaine, galactose, aminopyrine, amino acid, and methacetin. However, none have been shown to be superior to the ICG clearance test in the prediction of PHLF[55]. Other tests are based on the liver’s energy production (arterial ketone body ratio; AKBR) and the number of receptors for asialo-glycoprotein (ASGP-R; technetium-99m-galactosyl human serum albumin; 99mTc-GSA scan) but they are expensive and less common than ICG[55]. Of course, in the pre-operative assessment, other well-validated tools such as the Child-Pugh and MELD scores continue to be considered. Both have been used widely to predict the outcomes of cirrhotic patients in many different contexts; they showed similar prognostic significance in most cases, even with slight differences in accuracy due to specific settings, as described in a recent, comprehensive meta-nalysis[78]. However, as described above, nowadays several NITs (such as FIB-4[23], APRI score[74], ALBI score[37,39,41,42]or ICG-r15[8]) appear to be better predictors of PHLF, and warrant further study.

    Table 3. Studies evaluating LSM by elastography in predicting PHLF

    ULTRASOUND-BASED AND OTHER IMAGING PREDICTORS

    Liver stiffness measurement

    In the last few years, the liver stiffness measurement (LSM) has been proposed as a practical and widely validated surrogate of liver fibrosis and portal hypertension, able to accurately predict the risk of cirrhosis[79], CSPH[80]and its complications, such as the development of varices[81]and hepatic decompensation[82]. Given that these attributes are major determinants of the risk of PHLF development, LSM has been investigated as a predictor of decompensation and other complications after hepatic resection with several methods that are mainly ultrasound-based[11,83-99][Table 3].

    The study by Cesconet al.[84]was one of the first papers to demonstrate that LSM, evaluated by transient elastography (TE), was an independent predictor of PHLF, together with histological cirrhosis and lower sodium levels. Since then, numerous studies have confirmed that LSM by TE is an important prognostic preoperative variable that is able to stratify the risk of decompensation, PHLF and overall complications after liver resection[83,93,94,96,100]. Different cut-offs have been proposed for this purpose, ranging from 9.7 to 22 kPa[93,94], which correspond to current cut-offs for advanced chronic liver disease and CSPH respectively[80]. Positive findings have also been described for LSM evaluated by other elastosonography techniques. For instance, Huet al.[97]developed and validated a nomogram including LSM assessment by shear-wave elastography, which is able to accurately predict the risk of any grade of PHLF (c-statistic 0.825). More recently, Satoet al.[98]reported in a series of 96 consecutive patients who underwent liver resection, that LSM by magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), with a best-cut-off of 4.3 kPa, was an independent predictor of major surgical complications. When compared to other indices of portal hypertension, the accuracy of LSM was found to be non-inferior to that of the gold standard, hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG)[93], and superior to that of ICG-r15[83]Some preliminary studies have reported a promising role of the spleen stiffness measurement (SSM)[12,77], which is known to be a more accurate surrogate of portal hypertension[101]but its prognostic role and accuracy in this context have yet to be established.All the above-mentioned evidence supports the fact that LSM provides valuable prognostic information in patients undergoing liver resection[102]. Indeed, in the last European guidelines on HCC, LSM was included among the pre-operative tools to assess liver reserve before surgery. However, most of the prognostic models including LSM have not been validated externally, the proposed cut-offs differ among studies and differ too, for the elastosonography technique applied. Therefore, LSM is still not routinely used in pre-operative risk stratification of patients undergoing surgery.

    Noteworthy, in none of these studies was age an independent predictor of PHLF. However, a recent paper showed that the risk of PHLF development after right hepatectomy rapidly increased in patients over 75 (incidence 35% > 75 yearsvs. 7% < 75 years, OR = 8.8, 95%CI: 3.6-21)[103]. Considering that older age is a known risk factor for unreliable LSM measurement[104,105]and that this category of patients might have been underrepresented in the previously published cohorts, future studies are needed to investigate the prognostic role of LSM in elderly patients undergoing liver resection.

    Computed tomography

    Several computed tomography (CT) signatures have been reported in association with PHLF[106,107]. With regard to liver volumetry, this is performed using CT imaging, preferably utilizing the images obtained during the venous phase. Liver volumetry is obtained by contouring the liver boundaries and segments, with semi-automated methods or manually, on dedicated software. PHLF occurrence is closely related to the volume and functional capacity of the remnant liver. Patients with a small future liver remnant (FLR) are at higher risk of developing PHLF. Shoupet al.[108]demonstrated that the remnant liver volume (RLV) correlates with post-operative prothrombin time and bilirubin levels. In their analysis, a RLV < 25% was more predictive of PHLF than the anatomical extent of resection[108]. There is no consensus about “how much is enough” but, in general, a FLR of about 20%-30% has been reported as representing the limit of safety in hepatectomy, in non-cirrhotic livers, by some authors[109-112].

    Remnant liver function, estimated with CT volumetry, is reliable only when liver function is assumed homogeneous in the entire organ[113]. In cirrhotic patients, the small liver volume suggests the severity of cirrhosis and poor function of the liver. Indeed, cirrhotic livers have lower levels of hepatocyte growth factor and slower and less complete regeneration, compared with non-cirrhotic livers[114]. Therefore, in these patients, the hepatectomy-associated risk cannot be accurately determined with volumetry alone. In different published series, the critical minimum FLR for a safe hepatectomy was estimated to be approximately 40% in patients with cirrhosis[115,116].

    Spleen Volume (Sp) can also be a critical factor for the outcome of patients undergoing major liver resection. An increased Sp/RLV ratio (> 0.199) correlates with PHLF[114].

    Another imaging pre-operative evaluation that should be assessed is the quantification of hepatic steatosis, which is shown on pre-contrast CT images as lower attenuation of the liver than that of the spleen[117]. Steatosis contributes to post-operative liver dysfunction, especially in diabetic patients and in patients with chemotherapy-associated steatohepatitis undergoing major hepatic resection[117]. The effect of steatosis is explained by the higher incidence of ischemia-reperfusion injury due to altered sinusoidal microcirculation. A recent study found a significantly higher incidence of hepatic decompensation, 90-day post-operative morbidity and surgical hepatic complications in patients with steatohepatitis than in patients without[118].

    Among other conditions that could be associated with older age and contribute to the development of PHLF, it is widely known that primary sarcopenia is strongly associated with age. Therefore, elderly patients have less skeletal muscle mass than younger patients[119,120]and this loss of muscle mass is accelerated due to chronic medical illnesses and malnutrition[121]. At the same time, nutritional status is a major concern in liver disease. Cirrhotic patients often develop protein-energy malnutrition (PEM), as a result of poor dietary intake, malabsorption, increased intestinal protein loss, decreased hepatic protein synthesis, abnormal substrate utilization and hypermetabolism[122]. Malnutrition in liver disease is also associated with worse outcomes, increased complications and mortality[123,124], and leads to a high prevalence of secondary sarcopenia[125].

    Muscular mass can be evaluated by CT, using different methods such as calculating the area (cm2) and density of the psoas muscle at the level of the third lumbar vertebrae, or calculating the ratio between the muscular surface area (external and internal oblique, transverse, psoas and paravertebral muscles) and the square of height[126].

    Recent studies have investigated the effect of sarcopenia on the morbidity of patients undergoing liver surgery, both in cases of colon cancer metastases and of HCC. They have shown that sarcopenia is an independent risk factor for increased post-operative morbidity[120,121,127-129]. Indeed, sarcopenia is associated with a lower functional liver reserve; therefore, the average RLV of sarcopenic patients is statistically and significantly less than that of non-sarcopenic patients[130]. Obese patients can also be sarcopenic if they have increased fatty mass (BMI ≥ 30) but a loss of muscular mass[131]. Penget al.[121]showed that sarcopenic obesity multiplied the risk of major complications five-fold after hepatectomy in patients with liver metastases.

    In addition, on CT, is possible to calculate the intra-muscular adipose tissue content (IMAC) at the level of L3 (i.e., IMAC = CT attenuation value of the multifidus muscles [HU]/CT attenuation value of the subcutaneous fat [HU]). A recent paper demonstrated that muscle steatosis is associated with significantly lower overall survival and recurrence-free survival, and it is an independent risk factor for increased major post-operative complications in patients undergoing hepatectomy for HCC. Moreover, patients with high IMAC are older and have a higher mass index[132].

    Another comorbidity parameter that can be evaluated with pre-operative CT scan is the bone mineral density (BMD), which is classically defined as a “T-score”, evaluated by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the spine or hip. Of note, BMD has a significant negative correlation with age, especially in female patients[67]. Sharmaet al.[133]reported BMD by measuring the CT attenuation of the trabecular bone of the eleventh thoracic vertebral body and found that BMD < 160HU was an independent predictor of post-liver transplant mortality in HCC patients. Miyachiet al.[134]demonstrated however, that low BMD (< 160 HU) has a strong correlation with a poor outcome post-hepatectomy only for male patients. Thus, it is possible to utilize perioperative imaging parameters to assess the future liver remnant and the remnant liver volume, which are strictly correlated with the risk of PHLF; other imaging parameters associated with both the elderly and the health status of the patient, such as the presence of sarcopenia and low bone mineral density, are also associated with PHLF.

    Magnetic resonance imaging

    Both CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) show excellent accuracy and quantification of hepatic volume[106]. Volumetry assessment by MRI is preferable to be performed on the hepato-biliary phase (HBP, about 30 min after hepatospecific contrast agent injection). Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) measures the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of water, a parameter that is dependent on tissue structure[135]. Several reports suggest a lower ADC value in cirrhosis than in normal livers[136,137], probably due to the restricted water diffusion in fibrotic tissue. Chuanget al.[114]reported that pre-operative liver ADC values ≤ 1.34 × 10-3significantly predicted PHLF in patients undergoing hepatectomy.

    The administration of hepato-specific contrast agents can help the radiologist and the clinician to evaluate the liver’s reserve function and thus, predicts the occurrence of PHLF. Gadolinium, Gd-EOB-DTPA is a hepatospecific contrast agent that shows up to 50% hepatocyte uptake and is then excreted into the bile ducts. In non-cirrhotic livers, it has peak enhancement on T1-W images at about 20-30 min after injection[138,139]. Uptake and metabolism of this contrast agent is related to hepatocyte function[140,141]. Therefore, hepatic parenchymal enhancement is affected by the severity of cirrhosis[138]. The mean signal intensity (SI) of liver parenchyma on HBP reflects a quantitative measure of hepatocyte contrast agent uptake[114]. Watanabeet al.[142]found that liver SI on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI is strongly correlated with fibrosis stage and concluded that it is more reliable for staging hepatic fibrosis than DWI or hematologic and clinical parameters. Moreover, many recent studies[143,144]have reported the usefulness of relative liver enhancement [RLE = (SI HBP - SI PRE)/SI PRE] in predicting PHLF in patients with hepatic metastases or with HCC because of the superiority of pre-operative RLE over both the 50-50 criteria and ISGLS grading system[67,143]. Pre-operative RLE measurement is considered reliable and reproducible with high inter-observer variability[145]. However, further studies are necessary to understand the real role of RLE to predict PHLF.

    Other parameters derived from Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI have been evaluated as predictors of PHLF with modest success. Contrast enhancement ratio (CER= [(SIHBP - SIPRE)/(SITP - SIPRE] where SITP is measured on transitional phases, about 3 min post-contrast injection) is less affected by the hemodynamics of a patient than RLE, and better reflects Gd-EOB-DTPA uptake by hepatocytes. CER can also be multiplied by TLV/SLV ratio (total CER, tCER) and by RLV/SLV ratio (remnant CER, rCER)[138]. A recent study demonstrated that rCER correlates with the development of PHLF better than volumetry (cut off ≤ 1.23) and that tCER is an independent predictive factor for PHLF (cut off ≤1.42)[114]. The prognostic value of CER, in predicting PHLF, seems to be stronger than the ADC value and TVL/SLV ratio in cirrhotic patients[114]. Therefore, patients with a relatively small tCER should preferably go under local treatment rather than resection[114]. Asenbaumet al.[146]combined functional and morphological parameters (functional FLR, functFLR) by measuring remnant RLE on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI and the RLV by the formula: (RLV*remnantRLE)/body weight (BW). A decreased functFLR (< 8.73 mL/kg) demonstrated a strong correlation with the development of PHLF in patients that underwent major liver resection[146].

    Kimet al.[67]verified the correlation between the remnant hepatocellular uptake index (rHUI = RVL × [(L20/S20)-1]) and PHLF, where L20 is the mean SI of the FLR, and S20 is the mean SI of the spleen on HBP images. A lower rHUI (< 0.89) and a lower body weighted and corrected rHUI (rHUI-BW < 12.38) showed a statistically significant correlation with the development of PHLF in patients undergoing major liver resection, and predicted PHLF better than ICG related parameters. In this study, the severity of PHLF also showed a statistically significant association with rHUI-BW[67]. Nevertheless, despite numerous promising findings, MRI still represents an expensive, not immediate and not widely available technique, and careful evaluation about its use needs to be performed according to each hospital setting. Thus, pre-operative MRI parameters could be useful in predicting PHLF when available, otherwise, cheaper and faster techniques should be used.

    Single photon emission computed tomography

    Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using 99 metastable technetium diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid-galactosyl human serum albumin (99mTc-GSA) is of increasing interest for the preoperative evaluation of cirrhotic patients. The molecule 99mTc-GSA is taken up rapidly by the liver, reflecting accurately the volume of functional liver and FLR; indeed, it is correlated to bilirubin levels, INR, and ICG clearance[147]. Liver 99mTc-GSA SPECT has been reported to be more useful than CT in predicting remnant liver function before hepatic resection[148]. This technique is thought to be a substitute for ICG rate. It can be used for patients whose liver function cannot be fully estimated using multimodal algorithms, such as patients with jaundice, portal hypertension, or ICG intolerance[149]. However, as for MRI, there has not been real-life application of this technique for predicting PHLF to date.

    Interventional radiology

    Portal vein embolization (PVE) is an interventional radiological procedure. It consists of embolization of portal branches in the future resected liver, thus shifting blood flow to the FLR, allowing its hypertrophy before major hepatectomy. By increasing the volume of FLR, the risk for PHLF is decreased, even after extended liver resection[117]. Furthermore, preoperative PVE reduces intra-operative hepatocyte injury caused by the sudden increase in portal pressure at resection. Current guidelines recommend PVE for cirrhotic patients and an estimated FLR of ≤ 40%, or normal patients with an intended FLR of < 20%[150].

    CT volumetry should be performed 3-4 weeks after PVE to assess the degree of hypertrophy, which if > 5%, is associated with improved patient outcomes[115]. A study by Capussottiet al.[151]reported a FLR hypertrophy of 30%-40% in 4-6 weeks in more than 80% of patients, and was therefore able to prepare patients for hepatectomy after that period. Hepatic arterial buffer response, after reduction of portal blood flow post-PVE, can increase the size of the tumor. However, PVE preceded by trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) may prevent this by causing tumour necrosis[152]. RLE on Gd-EOB-DTPA-MRI has also been evaluated both pre- and post-PVE. In particular, the corresponding increase in RLE of the remnant liver at 14 and 28 days after PVE is significantly lower in patients who develop PHLF than in those who do not. Similar results were found comparing patients without or with mild PHLF versus those with severe PHLF[67].

    CONCLUSION

    PHLF is still an event associated with major concerns by surgeons, especially in elderly patients. Several attempts have been made to identify the best non-invasive predictor of PHLF, in order to introduce a preoperative tool for the assessment of such risk in routine clinical practice. Particularly, and when available, imaging parameters allow the identification of peri-operative risk factors related to the underlying cirrhosis, the volume of the liver remnant and patient related characteristics, mainly associated with the elderly such as sarcopenia and low bone mineral density. Otherwise, in other settings, LSM as well as ICG-r15 and the ALBI score are useful NITs able to mirror hepatic dysfunction and portal hypertension, and are thus being recommended before surgery for PHLF risk assessment. However, there is still poor evidence for their application in older patients. Further prospective and well-designed studies evaluating the ability of these NITs in predicting PHLF in the elderly are thus needed.

    DECLARATIONS

    Authors’ contributions

    Conceptualized and designed the review: Marasco G, Colecchia A

    Wrote, reviewed and edited the manuscript: Marasco G, Milandri M, Rossini B, Alemanni LV, Dajti E, Ravaioli F

    Provided the tables: Alemanni LV, Dajti E

    Reviewed and approved the final manuscript as submitted: Colecchia A, Renzulli M, Golfieri R, Festi D

    Read and approved the final manuscript: All authors

    Availability of data and materials

    Not applicable.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    None.

    Conflicts of interest

    All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Copyright

    ? The Author(s) 2020.

    国产精品无大码| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 国产精品三级大全| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 只有这里有精品99| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| av.在线天堂| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 国产亚洲最大av| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 黄片wwwwww| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 国产成人aa在线观看| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 久久精品久久久久久久性| 亚洲综合精品二区| 韩国av在线不卡| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 久久热精品热| 日韩av免费高清视频| 久久久久九九精品影院| 日日啪夜夜爽| av福利片在线观看| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说| av专区在线播放| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 中国三级夫妇交换| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 国产在视频线精品| 在线观看人妻少妇| 1000部很黄的大片| 男女国产视频网站| 韩国av在线不卡| 中文资源天堂在线| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 色哟哟·www| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 一级毛片我不卡| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 免费av不卡在线播放| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 高清欧美精品videossex| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 欧美日韩视频高清一区二区三区二| 人妻系列 视频| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 久久久久久伊人网av| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 欧美区成人在线视频| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄| 嫩草影院入口| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 国产视频内射| www.av在线官网国产| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 观看免费一级毛片| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 美女主播在线视频| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 两个人的视频大全免费| 舔av片在线| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 黄色日韩在线| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 老司机影院成人| 一级爰片在线观看| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| av在线app专区| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 国产成人精品一,二区| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久99精品国语久久久| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 高清欧美精品videossex| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 日日啪夜夜爽| 日本熟妇午夜| 日本黄大片高清| eeuss影院久久| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 久久影院123| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 一级毛片 在线播放| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 内射极品少妇av片p| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 欧美一级a爱片免费观看看| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 欧美3d第一页| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产探花极品一区二区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产一级毛片在线| 国产高潮美女av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 丝袜喷水一区| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 六月丁香七月| 精品一区二区三卡| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 有码 亚洲区| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花 | 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 欧美性感艳星| 老女人水多毛片| 午夜日本视频在线| 精品久久久精品久久久| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 亚洲av福利一区| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 免费观看性生交大片5| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 国产毛片在线视频| 777米奇影视久久| 日本黄色片子视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| av一本久久久久| 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 精品人妻视频免费看| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 久久久久国产网址| av一本久久久久| 日本三级黄在线观看| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 91久久精品电影网| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 亚洲性久久影院| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 91精品国产九色| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 免费观看性生交大片5| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 五月天丁香电影| 色综合色国产| 综合色av麻豆| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 婷婷色综合www| 色5月婷婷丁香| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 国产视频内射| 纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 一级毛片我不卡| 欧美人与善性xxx| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 午夜老司机福利剧场| av在线亚洲专区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| av线在线观看网站| 欧美bdsm另类| 国产视频内射| 22中文网久久字幕| 久久久久网色| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 免费少妇av软件| 美女主播在线视频| 美女高潮的动态| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 99久久精品热视频| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 国产精品无大码| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频 | 在线观看人妻少妇| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 欧美区成人在线视频| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 国产男女内射视频| 性色av一级| 伦精品一区二区三区| 七月丁香在线播放| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 最近中文字幕高清免费大全6| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 午夜日本视频在线| 欧美激情在线99| 日韩电影二区| 深夜a级毛片| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 18+在线观看网站| 日韩伦理黄色片| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 伦精品一区二区三区| 日本wwww免费看| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 色5月婷婷丁香| 国产精品一及| 久久久久网色| 在线精品无人区一区二区三 | 色吧在线观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| av黄色大香蕉| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 精品视频人人做人人爽| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品 | kizo精华| 美女国产视频在线观看| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 成年免费大片在线观看| 在线精品无人区一区二区三 | 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 久久久久久久久久成人| 黑人高潮一二区| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 特级一级黄色大片| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 97在线人人人人妻| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 毛片女人毛片| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 日本wwww免费看| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 色网站视频免费| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 99热全是精品| 精品一区二区三卡| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 欧美zozozo另类| 亚洲不卡免费看| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 免费av毛片视频| 亚洲国产色片| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 春色校园在线视频观看| 赤兔流量卡办理| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产一级毛片在线| 欧美日韩精品成人综合77777| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 三级经典国产精品| 亚洲高清免费不卡视频| 国产老妇女一区| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 亚洲色图av天堂| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 欧美 日韩 精品 国产| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 99热全是精品| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产精品成人在线| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 在线 av 中文字幕| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产 精品1| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| 一级黄片播放器| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 精品人妻视频免费看| 成人二区视频| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产成人91sexporn| 尤物成人国产欧美一区二区三区| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 国产高清三级在线| 国产成人福利小说| 免费av观看视频| 搡老乐熟女国产| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 九草在线视频观看| 六月丁香七月| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| av在线观看视频网站免费| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 国产 一区精品| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频 | 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲av.av天堂| 精品久久久噜噜| 久久久国产一区二区| av专区在线播放| 嫩草影院精品99| 欧美人与善性xxx| 91在线精品国自产拍蜜月| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| av.在线天堂| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 观看免费一级毛片| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| av国产精品久久久久影院| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 国产永久视频网站| 秋霞在线观看毛片| 黄片wwwwww| 伊人久久国产一区二区| 国产男女内射视频| 亚洲国产精品999| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 精品久久久久久久久av| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 日本免费在线观看一区| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 日韩大片免费观看网站| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 国产在视频线精品| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 九色成人免费人妻av| 亚洲精华国产精华液的使用体验| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 久久久久精品性色| 国产精品成人在线| 日本三级黄在线观看| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 国产毛片在线视频| 一级毛片我不卡| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| a级毛色黄片| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 老女人水多毛片| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产探花极品一区二区| 亚洲综合精品二区| 亚洲国产精品999| 午夜免费鲁丝| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 成年av动漫网址| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 亚州av有码| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂 | 精品一区二区免费观看| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 免费av不卡在线播放| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 高清在线视频一区二区三区| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 人妻制服诱惑在线中文字幕| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 黄色日韩在线| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 精品久久久噜噜| 欧美一区二区亚洲| h日本视频在线播放| 国产 精品1| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 观看免费一级毛片| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 色5月婷婷丁香| 97热精品久久久久久| 国产乱人视频| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 久久久国产一区二区| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 五月开心婷婷网| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 国产综合懂色| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 免费播放大片免费观看视频在线观看| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 日本一二三区视频观看| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 男女那种视频在线观看| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产欧美另类精品又又久久亚洲欧美| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国内精品宾馆在线| 日本午夜av视频| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 69av精品久久久久久| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 香蕉精品网在线| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| 少妇丰满av| 美女被艹到高潮喷水动态| 午夜福利视频精品| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品 | 丰满乱子伦码专区| .国产精品久久| 韩国av在线不卡| 色吧在线观看| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 久久久久精品性色| 精品久久久久久电影网| 日韩成人伦理影院| 大香蕉97超碰在线| 日韩伦理黄色片| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 97热精品久久久久久| 只有这里有精品99| 国产成人a区在线观看| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| av一本久久久久| 人体艺术视频欧美日本| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 亚洲综合色惰| 国产毛片在线视频| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 一区二区av电影网| 免费看不卡的av| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| av免费观看日本| 午夜视频国产福利| 国语对白做爰xxxⅹ性视频网站| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 欧美97在线视频| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 日日啪夜夜撸| 国产成人a区在线观看| 69av精品久久久久久| freevideosex欧美| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 男女那种视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 久久97久久精品| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 天堂网av新在线| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 国产精品久久久久久av不卡| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 中文字幕久久专区| av卡一久久| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| 成人欧美大片|