4.6 Article

Therapeutic value of lymph node dissection during hepatectomy in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma with negative lymph node involvement

期刊

SURGERY
卷 145, 期 4, 页码 411-416

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2008.11.010

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Routine and radical lymph node dissection is a, clinical concern for improving the surgical outcome in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). The therapeutic value of the procedure during hepatectomy has, however; not, been evaluated. Methods. Between. January 1990 and December 2004, 704 patients with ICC undergoing macroscopic curative resections were investigated retrospectively with special reference to lymph node status. The role of lymph node dissection was evaluated according to macroscopic type: mass-forming (MF) type (n = 68) and W plus periductal infiltration, (PI) type (n = 36) of ICC. Results. Lymph node involvement, and intrahepatic metastases were an independent, unfavorable prognostic factor in the MF type of ICC. Negative lymph node involvement provided a favorable survival rate in the 41 patients without intrahepatic metastases (P <.0001). Among the 29 patients without lymph node involvement and intrahepatic metastases, there was no difference according to the use of lymph node dissection (P =.8071). Also, no difference was seen with lymph node involvement in the 24 patients with the MF plus PI type of ICC who had no intrahepatic metastases (P =.6620). Conclusion. For purpose of diagnostic staging and exclusion, of positive regional lymph nodes, lymph node dissections might he useful in patients with, the MF type and the MF plus PI type of ICC; however, routine use of lymph node dissection in patients with the MF type of ICC is not recommended, because no difference in survival was observed in the patients with negative lymph node metastases, irrespective of the use of lymph node dissection. (Surgery 2009;145:411-6.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据