4.6 Article

Repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 99, Issue 9, Pages 1278-1283

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8845

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Some 7580 per cent of patients undergoing liver resection for colorectal liver metastases develop intrahepatic recurrence. A significant number of these can be considered for repeat liver surgery. This study examined the outcomes of repeat liver resection for the treatment of recurrent colorectal metastases confined to the liver. Methods: Patients who underwent repeat liver resection in a single tertiary referral hepatobiliary centre were identified from a database. Clinicopathological variables were analysed to assess factors predictive of survival. Results: A total of 195 patients underwent repeat resection between 1993 and 2010. Median age was 63 years, and the median interval between first and repeat resection was 13.8 months. Thirty-three patients (16.9 per cent) underwent completion hemihepatectomy or extended hemihepatectomy and the remainder had non-anatomical or segmental resection. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.5 per cent, and the overall 30-day morbidity rate was 20.0 per cent. Overall 1-, 3- and 5-year survival rates were 91.2, 44.3 and 29.4 per cent respectively. Tumour size 5 cm or greater was the only independent predictor of overall survival (relative risk 1.71, 95 per cent confidence interval 1.08 to 2.70; P = 0.021). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection, perioperative blood transfusion, bilobar disease, R1 resection margin and multiple metastases were among factors that did not significantly influence survival. Conclusion: Repeat hepatic resection remains the only curative option for patients presenting with recurrent colorectal liver metastases. Copyright (c) 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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