4.6 Review

The influence of resection margin width in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-023-02901-5

Keywords

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; Resection; Survival; Prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on literature research and statistical analysis conducted until December 31, 2021, it was found that a resection margin width of over 10 mm can improve the prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients, especially those with negative lymph nodes and early tumor stages. If the resection margin width cannot exceed 10 mm, it is recommended to ensure a width greater than 5 mm.
BackgroundSome studies have pointed out that a wide resection margin can improve the prognosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, but some researchers disagree and believe that a wide margin may increase complications. The optimal margin length of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is controversial.MethodThe literature was searched in PubMed, MedLine, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until December 31, 2021, to evaluate the postoperative outcomes of patients with different margin width after resection. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were used to determine the effect size.ResultA total of 11 articles were included in this meta-analysis, including 3007 patients. The narrow group had significantly lower 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates and recurrence-free survival rates than the wide group. Postoperative morbidity and prognostic factors were also evaluated.ConclusionA resection margin width of over 10 mm is recommended in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients, especially in patients with negative lymph node and early tumor stage. When the resection margin width cannot be greater than 10 mm, we should ensure that the resection margin width is greater than 5 mm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available