We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Parenchymal-Sparing Surgery for the Surgical Treatment of Multiple Colorectal Liver Metastases Is a Safer Approach than Major Hepatectomy Not Impairing Patients' Prognosis: A Bi-Institutional Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Digestive Surgery 2018
BACKGROUND: The performance of parenchymal-sparing hepatectomy (PSH) versus major hepatectomy (MH) in patients with multiple colorectal liver metastases (CLM) is a matter that is yet debated. We investigated the outcome of patients with multiple CLM undergoing PSH instead of MH.
METHODS: Databases at 2 institutions were reviewed. A propensity score-matched analysis was applied. Among 554 patients, 110 undergoing PSH and 110 undergoing MH were matched. They were similar in baseline characteristics, comorbidity, and tumor features. Primary outcomes were short- and long-term outcomes.
RESULTS: Morbidity was significantly higher in the MH group, while mortality was not significantly different. There were no differences in free-margins width, but a trend of increased survival was seen in the PSH group with a median advantage of 6 months over the MH group. Among the prognostic factors, the T status (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; p = 0.001), the N status (HR 2.9; p = 0.001), the timing of CLM diagnosis (HR 2.1; p = 0.002), the tumor number (HR 2.0; p = 0.001), the tumor size (HR 2.2; p = 0.015), and the neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.7; p = 0.023) were found to be statistically and independently significant for survival.
CONCLUSIONS: PSH conveys advantage over MH in terms of decreased postoperative morbidity, and a trend of survival benefit. PSH should be considered a suitable alternative to MH whenever it is technically feasible.
METHODS: Databases at 2 institutions were reviewed. A propensity score-matched analysis was applied. Among 554 patients, 110 undergoing PSH and 110 undergoing MH were matched. They were similar in baseline characteristics, comorbidity, and tumor features. Primary outcomes were short- and long-term outcomes.
RESULTS: Morbidity was significantly higher in the MH group, while mortality was not significantly different. There were no differences in free-margins width, but a trend of increased survival was seen in the PSH group with a median advantage of 6 months over the MH group. Among the prognostic factors, the T status (hazard ratio [HR] 2.6; p = 0.001), the N status (HR 2.9; p = 0.001), the timing of CLM diagnosis (HR 2.1; p = 0.002), the tumor number (HR 2.0; p = 0.001), the tumor size (HR 2.2; p = 0.015), and the neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.7; p = 0.023) were found to be statistically and independently significant for survival.
CONCLUSIONS: PSH conveys advantage over MH in terms of decreased postoperative morbidity, and a trend of survival benefit. PSH should be considered a suitable alternative to MH whenever it is technically feasible.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app