• <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 ?

    Predictive model for acute abdominal pain after transarterial chemoembolization for liver cancer

    2020-11-30 06:55:52LiFangBianXueHongZhaoBeiLeiGaoShengZhangGuoMeiGeDongDiZhanTingTingYeYanZheng
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 2020年30期

    Li-Fang Bian, Xue-Hong Zhao, Bei-Lei Gao, Sheng Zhang, Guo-Mei Ge, Dong-Di Zhan, Ting-Ting Ye, Yan Zheng

    Abstract

    Key words: Liver cancer; Predictive model; Pain; Transarterial chemoembolization; Postembolization syndrome

    INTRODUCTION

    Primary liver cancer (PLC) is the seventh most common carcinoma worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality[1]. More than half of new cases of liver cancer occur in China. Transarterial chemo-embolization (TACE) is the most widely used treatment for unresectable PLC. TACE plays an important role in the treatment of tumors, improving quality of life and prolonging patient survival[2]. According to statistics, more than 600000 people undergo TACE in China each year[3].TACE is a procedure that consists of local delivery of a high dose of chemotherapeutic agents to the tumor, which can be associated with particulate and/or oily embolization of feeding arteries, which results in exposure of the tumor to a higher concentration of chemotherapeutic agent and subsequent tumor infarction and necrosis due to vascular occlusion[4,5]. Postembolization syndrome, which is characterized by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and fever, is the most frequently reported adverse event after TACE[6]. Approximately 60%-80% of patients complained of different levels of pain after TACE. Among those patients, more than 25% experienced moderate-to-severe pain[7,8]. While TACE is generally understood to require hospital admission and at least a one-night in-patient stay[9], postembolization pain is primarily associated with an extended hospital stay[10]. Painkillers, such as opioids, are effective and safe[11]. Clearly identifying factors associated with postembolization pain could help predict its occurrence and improve analgesic treatment.

    At present, few studies have examined the related risk factors or predictive models for postembolization pain after TACE; thus, no conclusions about the risk factors for postembolization pain have been reached. The present study aimed to evaluate the risk factors for postembolization pain and to establish a predictive model for postembolization pain in patients undergoing TACE.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    This single-center retrospective cohort study was approved as an expedited chart review study and obtained ethical approval from the institutional review board at our hospital.

    Patients

    Patients with PLC who underwent TACE at our hospital between January 2018 and September 2018 were analyzed retrospectively. Some patients underwent the procedure more than once during this period. A diagnosis of liver cancer was confirmed either histologically or based on consistent findings obtained from at least two imaging techniques, including ultrasonography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and selective hepatic arterial angiography[12]. The exclusion criteria were: (1) PLC in patients aged < 18 years; (2) Emergency embolization for rupture of liver cancer; (3) Severe complications such as bleeding after TACE; (4) Use of additional analgesics to relieve increased pain during TACE; (5) Cognitive impairment; (6) Use of psychiatric medications; and (7) Drug or alcohol abuse.

    Chemoembolization procedure

    All procedures were performed at a single tertiary center by board-certified interventional radiologists. All patients were administered with 10 mL of 2% lidocaine to achieve local anesthesia, and 5 mg of dezocine during surgery. An arterial catheter was inserted into the femoral artery using the Seldinger technique and subsequently placed in the hepatic artery. Tumor-feeding vessels were super-selected whenever possible. Chemotherapy drugs used were pirarubicin hydrochloride (10 mg/bottle; Shenzhen Main Luck Pharmaceuticals Inc., Shenzhen, China) at a dose of 30 mg mixed with Lipiodol (Laboratoire Guerbet, Aulnay-sous-Bois, France) for TACE, or at 60 mg for drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) treatment. Oxaliplatin (150 mg; Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd.) was used for arterial perfusion chemotherapy. Lipiodol and/or polyvinyl alcohol particles (350-510 μm; Ailikang Medicine Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, China) and Embosphere (Biosphere Medical, Rockland, MA, United States) were used as embolization materials. All patients received supportive treatment after TACE, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or dezocine, liver protection, antacid agents, and antiemetics. If moderate-to-severe abdominal pain was observed, the patient received tramadol (100 mg) or other opioids by intravenous administration.

    Identification of risk factors

    The aim of our study was to analyze the risk factors that helped to predict moderateto-severe postembolization pain. The numerical rating scale pain scores at rest were assessed in all patients within 24 h of embolization. The numerical rating scale pain score was used as the standard subjective evaluation using a score of 0-10, where 0 = painless; < 3 = mild pain; 4-6 = moderate pain; and 7-10 = severe pain. Additional painkillers were administered when the pain score was ≥ 4. The pain scores were recorded 0, 2, 4, 6, 12, and 24 h after TACE. The highest score through the overall time was defined as a pain score in each patient.

    Independent variables included demographics and clinical, imaging, and procedural data. Seventeen registered variables were included for each TACE procedure, including: Age and gender of the patient; tumor location (distance to liver capsule); tumor size and number; pathological properties of the tumor; invasion of blood vessels; disease type; history and number of TACE procedures; history of postembolization pain; drug delivery method (traditional TACEvsDEB-TACE); dosage of lipiodol; and complementary embolization (blank microsphere and/or polyvinyl alcohol particles; and postoperative prophylactic analgesics).

    Statistical analysis

    Quantitative data are described as the mean ± standard deviation or as medians (min, max). Qualitative data are described by the number of cases (proportion, %). Patient characteristics were compared using theχ2test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test ort-test were used to analyze continuous data. Two statistical methods were used to develop the predictive model: A primary analysis using classification and regression tree (CART), and a conjoint predictive model using logistic regression. In this research, cross-validation was used to select the regression model in which the mean cross-validated error was within one standard error of the minimum. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, specificity, sensitivity, and negative predictive value of the predictive model were calculated by ROC curve analysis to evaluate its performance. Two-sidedPvalues of < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Analyses were conducted using statistical software (IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0).

    RESULTS

    Patient cohort

    A total of 522 patients who underwent a total of 582 TACE procedures were enrolled in the study. Patient demographics, baseline clinical and laboratory data, and procedural details are listed in Table 1 and 2. As shown in Table 1, the age range of patients was 23-87 years (average, 60.1 ± 11.4 years). The median number of TACE procedures in the 582 patients was two. As shown in Table 2, the data set comprised 81 females (13.9%) and 501 males (86.1%). Ninety-seven (16.7%) patients had acute moderate-to-severe abdominal pain after TACE. A total of 57.2% (333/582) of patients had a history of TACE and 12.5% (73/582) had a history of abdominal pain after TACE. Blood vessel invasion occurred in 176 (30.2%) patients. Approximately 57.7% (336/582) of patients used traditional TACE and 42.3% (246) used DEB-TACE.

    Distribution of demographic and clinical factors associated with acute moderate and severe abdominal pain after TACE

    The results of the univariate analysis are shown in Table 3. Younger patients (P= 0.002) and those patients who had not undergone hepatectomy (P= 0.010) were more likely to have acute moderate-to-severe abdominal pain after TACE compared with older patients and those who had tumor recurrence after hepatectomy. History of TACE (P< 0.001), history of abdominal pain after TACE (P< 0.001), tumor size (P< 0.001), tumor number (P= 0.010), invasion of blood vessels (P< 0.001), use of the DEBTACE method (P< 0.001), and the number of TACE procedures (P< 0.001) were significantly associated with moderate-to-severe abdominal pain. The pathological properties of the tumor was not associated with moderate-to-severe abdominal pain.

    A predictive model built based on the dataset from the classification and regression trees identified known blood vessel invasion as the strongest predictor of subsequent performance, followed by history of TACE, method of TACE, and history of abdominal pain after TACE (Figure 1). We used ROC curve analysis to examine the efficacy of the predictive model. We set an optimal predictive probability threshold of 0.18, and demonstrated a sensitivity of 73.2% (71/97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 64.4%-82.0%), specificity of 65.6% (318/485; 95%CI: 61.3%-69.8%), negative predictive value of 92.4% (318/344; 95%CI: 89.6%-95.2%), and area under the curve of 0.736 (95%CI: 0.682-0.789) (Figure 2). Logistic regression produced similar results by identifying age (odds ratio [OR] = 0.971; 95%CI: 0.951-0.992;P= 0.007), history of TACE (OR = 0.378; 95%CI: 0.189-0.757;P= 0.007), history of abdominal pain after TACE (OR = 6.288; 95%CI: 2.963-13.342;P< 0.001), tumor size (OR = 1.978; 95%CI: 1.175-3.330;P= 0.01), multiple tumors (OR = 2.164; 95%CI: 1.243-3.769;P= 0.006), blood vessel invasion (OR = 1.756; 95%CI: 1.045-2.950;P= 0.034), and the DEB-TACE method (OR = 2.05; 95%CI: 1.260-3.334;P= 0.004) as independent predictive factors for postembolization pain.

    DISCUSSION

    Although painkillers were used prophylactically during and after TACE in our study, the incidence of moderate-to-severe abdominal pain in the first 24 h after TACE procedures remained as high as 16.7%. This conclusively demonstrated that use of asingle non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug or dezocine is often not sufficient for effective pain control. Multimodal analgesia was associated with superior pain relief and decreased opioid consumption when compared with use of a single pain medication[13]. Guoet al[8]demonstrated that patients who used preemptive parecoxib and a sufentanil-based multimodal analgesia regimen had better pain relief, evidenced by a lower incidence of severe pain (11.9%)[8]. Similar to a previous study[14], we observed that effective pain management could reduce the length of hospital stay. The prediction model can be used to predict the risk of postembolization pain after TACE, thus providing medical staff with a reference for pain management.

    Table 1 Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and procedural variables of patients (1)

    The cause of postembolization pain is not fully understood; however, it is believed to be caused by local tissue hypoxia, tumor necrosis, swelling of the capsule, ectopic embolization, or consequent cytokine release and the inflammatory response[15,16]. Identification of preoperative predictors of postembolization pain is challenging. In our pain predictive model using CART methods, blood vessel invasion was the strongest predictor of postembolization pain, followed by history of TACE, the DEBTACE method, and history of abdominal pain after TACE. Besides these four risk factors, age, tumor size (> 5 cm), and presence of multiple tumors were identified as predictors of postembolization pain by logistic regression.

    Invasion of blood vessels means portal vein tumor thrombosis

    Primary liver cancer has a great propensity to invade the portal venous system, which leads to portal vein tumor thrombosis. Portal vein tumor thrombosis is found in the trunk or branches of the portal vein, and TACE is considered if the portal vein trunk is not completely blocked or portal collateral circulation is already present in the hepatic hilar region[17]. No sources of data on blood vessel invasion as a risk factor for pain were found when conducting a literature review; thus, our study is the first in this respect, identifying blood vessel invasion as a predictor of pain. Tumor invasion of the portal vein is more common in the late stages of cancer[17], and is often accompanied by tumors that are large in size and/or numerous, which may be attributable to tumor necrosis and a more marked inflammatory response, which is caused by embolization of a larger site[18-20].

    The conclusions that can be drawn from the two statistical approaches are generally consistent. The tree graph output from CART is intuitive and easy to explain in terms of the interaction between variables and the influence of different factors on outcome variables. The four predictors of the model can be easily extracted as predictive risk factors prior to TACE. It is beneficial to provide a comprehensive analgesic plan for patients who are at a high risk of postembolization pain. The risk factors for postembolization pain identified in this study are similar to those identified by Khalafet al[21].

    Although DEB-TACE is considered less toxic and better standardized compared with traditional lipiodol-TACE, tolerance caused by DEB-TACE is controversial[22]. Traditional TACE is performed using lipiodol loaded with chemotherapy drugs to embolize blood vessels and kill tumor cells. DEB-TACE depends on drug-loaded microspheres to precisely control the release of drugs to maximize tumor necrosis and minimize adverse effects[23]. A randomized study performed by Lammeret al[23]reported that tolerance was better with DEB-TACE compared with traditional TACE[23]. The Precision Italia Study Group compared two types of TACE in 177 patients. The results showed that the probability of abdominal pain with DEB-TACE is lower than that of traditional TACE[24]. In contrast to this result, our analysis showed that patients who underwent DEB-TACE experienced increased postembolization pain and required more painkillers within 24 h of the procedure. This is in accordance with the data from two other studies, which showed that severe pain occurred significantly more frequently in patients who underwent DEB-TACE than in the traditional TACEgroup[21,25]. Some studies showed that the total dose of chemotherapeutic agents administered for TACE is related to the pain score[19,21,26]. In this study, the chemotherapy drug used was pirarubicin hydrochloride administered at a dose of 30 mg for traditional TACE and 60 mg for DEB-TACE, similar to the report of Benzakounet al[19], and that may be one of the reasons why postembolization pain was worse forDEB-TACE.

    Table 2 Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and procedural variables of patients (2)

    Table 3 Effects of variables on outcomes (univariate analysis)

    Figure 1 A predictive model built using a classification and regression tree. TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization; DEB-TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads.

    Figure 2 Receiver operating characteristic curve illustrating the performance of the predictive model. The area under the curve was 0.736 (95% confidence interval: 0.682-0.789). ROC: Receiver operating characteristic.

    Our findings suggest that first-time TACE patients were more likely to experience pain than those with previous experience of TACE and this is consistent with a recent study[27]. There are two possible reasons for this; first, the pain threshold is increased according to the time that TACE treatment is carried out and second, the tolerance to TACE is increased by repeated treatments. Patients with pain after TACE are more likely to develop pain in the future, which may be related to the individual’s pain threshold and the presence of liver disease.

    The predictive model that used CART was examined by ROC curve analysis. The area under the ROC curve was used to predict postembolization pain (0.736; 95%CI: 0.682-0.789). The model had a good sensitivity and specificity, and a high negative predictive value of 92.4%.

    Our study has several notable limitations common to retrospective, single-center studies. First, prior epidemiologic findings indicate that chronic liver disease, performance status, and psychological factors may contribute to postembolization pain after TACE. However, we did not control for or investigate these factors as part of our analysis. Future investigations with larger sample sizes should aim to develop more robust prediction models that include other potential contributing factors to further elucidate the risk factors for this disorder. Second, our patient population was obtained from a regional tertiary care center, which may not be representative of the general population. Finally, our model was not validated using an external population. Therefore, future studies with a larger sample size, a multicenter design, and using an external cohort are needed to confirm our findings.

    Despite these limitations, our predictive model is simple to use and provides a more rational reference to improve the quality of pain management after TACE. It is suggested that more comprehensive analgesic interventions should be provided for patients who are at a high risk of pain, such as multimodal analgesic therapy.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    国产一卡二卡三卡精品 | 亚洲伊人久久精品综合| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播 | 日本欧美国产在线视频| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 五月天丁香电影| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 精品久久久精品久久久| 热re99久久国产66热| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 午夜激情av网站| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 亚洲第一青青草原| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 男人爽女人下面视频在线观看| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 男女边摸边吃奶| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱| www.自偷自拍.com| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 久久热在线av| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 老司机靠b影院| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 国产亚洲最大av| 亚洲av成人精品一二三区| 亚洲精品久久久久久婷婷小说| av.在线天堂| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 亚洲综合精品二区| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 一级毛片电影观看| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 1024香蕉在线观看| 日本欧美视频一区| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 曰老女人黄片| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 久久久精品94久久精品| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 91精品三级在线观看| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 亚洲成人一二三区av| a级毛片黄视频| 婷婷色综合www| 精品一区在线观看国产| 大码成人一级视频| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| av在线观看视频网站免费| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 亚洲中文av在线| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 丰满少妇做爰视频| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 精品第一国产精品| 激情五月婷婷亚洲| 成人国产av品久久久| 一区二区三区激情视频| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 亚洲成人一二三区av| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲国产最新在线播放| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 天堂8中文在线网| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 高清av免费在线| 一级片'在线观看视频| 777米奇影视久久| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站 | 国产毛片在线视频| a级片在线免费高清观看视频| 秋霞伦理黄片| 国产一卡二卡三卡精品 | 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 老司机靠b影院| 久久久久久久国产电影| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 亚洲精品国产av蜜桃| 日本91视频免费播放| 搡老岳熟女国产| 欧美在线黄色| 久久婷婷青草| 美女中出高潮动态图| 美女中出高潮动态图| 考比视频在线观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| 久久婷婷青草| 下体分泌物呈黄色| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 在线天堂中文资源库| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看 | 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产淫语在线视频| 久久狼人影院| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| tube8黄色片| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 一级爰片在线观看| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 日本91视频免费播放| 午夜免费观看性视频| 国产成人一区二区在线| 九草在线视频观看| 天天添夜夜摸| 欧美xxⅹ黑人| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 亚洲国产欧美网| 高清不卡的av网站| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 美女福利国产在线| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 9热在线视频观看99| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 如何舔出高潮| 91成人精品电影| 日韩电影二区| 1024香蕉在线观看| videosex国产| 国产免费福利视频在线观看| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 成人国语在线视频| 男女国产视频网站| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 久久久久久久国产电影| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 啦啦啦 在线观看视频| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 搡老乐熟女国产| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 午夜激情av网站| 超碰97精品在线观看| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 久久久久久人人人人人| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 99国产精品免费福利视频| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 国产 一区精品| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆 | 国产成人系列免费观看| 亚洲第一青青草原| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 1024视频免费在线观看| 午夜av观看不卡| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲av电影在线进入| 一区二区av电影网| 日韩av免费高清视频| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 少妇 在线观看| 99久久人妻综合| 国产免费又黄又爽又色| 久久av网站| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 青草久久国产| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 亚洲国产精品一区三区| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 婷婷色综合www| 韩国av在线不卡| 黄色 视频免费看| 日本91视频免费播放| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 中文天堂在线官网| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 不卡av一区二区三区| 性色av一级| 自线自在国产av| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 亚洲成人av在线免费| 制服诱惑二区| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线 | 色吧在线观看| 精品第一国产精品| 国产片内射在线| 午夜福利乱码中文字幕| 考比视频在线观看| 一级爰片在线观看| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 亚洲国产精品999| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 电影成人av| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 无限看片的www在线观看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 久久99一区二区三区| 操美女的视频在线观看| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影 | 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 男女国产视频网站| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线 | 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 久久久精品区二区三区| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| av一本久久久久| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲图色成人| 熟女av电影| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 久热这里只有精品99| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区 | 97在线人人人人妻| 五月开心婷婷网| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 美国免费a级毛片| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区蜜桃| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 国产精品成人在线| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 黄频高清免费视频| 免费不卡黄色视频| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 色网站视频免费| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 午夜福利视频精品| 如何舔出高潮| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 天天添夜夜摸| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 韩国av在线不卡| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆 | 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产男女内射视频| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 老熟女久久久| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 看非洲黑人一级黄片| 亚洲色图综合在线观看| 在线观看www视频免费| 热99久久久久精品小说推荐| 国产成人精品无人区| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 99久国产av精品国产电影| 在线观看人妻少妇| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| av网站在线播放免费| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 中文天堂在线官网| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| kizo精华| 日本av免费视频播放| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 精品酒店卫生间| 一级毛片 在线播放| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 制服人妻中文乱码| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 国产麻豆69| 热99国产精品久久久久久7| 国产又爽黄色视频| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 两个人看的免费小视频| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 五月开心婷婷网| 免费不卡黄色视频| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 午夜免费鲁丝| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 香蕉国产在线看| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产一区二区 视频在线| 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 在线看a的网站| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 成人国产麻豆网| 高清不卡的av网站| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 国产1区2区3区精品| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 高清欧美精品videossex| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| www.精华液| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 一个人免费看片子| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播 | 男女午夜视频在线观看| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 久久热在线av| 乱人伦中国视频| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影 | 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 黄色视频不卡| 色吧在线观看| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 99热网站在线观看| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 中文字幕色久视频| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产精品三级大全| 黄色 视频免费看| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三区在线| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 欧美激情高清一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品一区蜜桃| 久久免费观看电影| 嫩草影院入口| 秋霞伦理黄片| 中文欧美无线码| 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 久久av网站| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| xxx大片免费视频| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 国产精品免费视频内射| 美女午夜性视频免费| 成人手机av| av不卡在线播放| 国产精品二区激情视频| 中文字幕色久视频| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 天堂8中文在线网| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 午夜av观看不卡| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 丝袜美足系列| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 国产成人av激情在线播放| 蜜桃在线观看..| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久 | 国产精品.久久久| svipshipincom国产片| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 亚洲图色成人| 又大又爽又粗| 无限看片的www在线观看| 国产在线免费精品| 亚洲欧洲精品一区二区精品久久久 | www日本在线高清视频| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 久久久国产一区二区| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 国产黄色免费在线视频| av电影中文网址| 久久久久精品人妻al黑| 国产片内射在线| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 日本色播在线视频| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99| 在线观看国产h片| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产精品二区激情视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 国产日韩欧美在线精品| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 赤兔流量卡办理| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播 | 青春草视频在线免费观看| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 午夜福利免费观看在线| 我的亚洲天堂| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| xxx大片免费视频| av在线app专区| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 亚洲成人手机| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 久久影院123| h视频一区二区三区| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 午夜福利网站1000一区二区三区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 在线天堂中文资源库| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 操美女的视频在线观看| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 国产精品一国产av| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 日本欧美国产在线视频| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 成人免费观看视频高清| 国产av国产精品国产| 国产在线视频一区二区| xxxhd国产人妻xxx| 亚洲精品美女久久久久99蜜臀 | 大码成人一级视频| av在线老鸭窝| 日日撸夜夜添| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 精品国产一区二区久久| 熟妇人妻不卡中文字幕| 又大又黄又爽视频免费| 999久久久国产精品视频| 精品国产一区二区久久| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网 | 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 成年av动漫网址| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线 | 久久久精品区二区三区| 国产极品天堂在线| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 午夜日本视频在线| a 毛片基地| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 1024视频免费在线观看| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕| 97精品久久久久久久久久精品| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 18在线观看网站| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 99热国产这里只有精品6| av线在线观看网站| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 大片电影免费在线观看免费|