4.5 Article

Liver resection in obese patients: results of a case-control study

期刊

HPB
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 103-111

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00252.x

关键词

liver surgery; liver resection; obesity; BMI; case-control study; steatosis; ASA score; morbidity; postoperative outcomes; laparoscopic liver surgery; cirrhosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Obesity has been associated with worse postoperative outcomes. No data are available regarding short-term results after liver resection (LR). The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes in obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > 30 kg/m(2)) undergoing LR. Methods: 85 consecutive obese patients undergoing LR between 1998 and 2008 were matched on a ratio of 1: 2 with 170 non-obese patients. Matching criteria were diagnosis, ASA score, METAVIR fibrosis score, extent of LR, and Child-Pugh score in patients with cirrhosis. Results: Operative time, blood loss and blood transfusions were similar in the two groups. Mortality was 2.4% in both groups. Morbidity was significantly higher in the obese group (32.9% vs. 21.2%; P = 0.041). However, only grade II morbidity was increased in obese patients (14.1% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001) and this was mainly related to abdominal wall complications (8.2% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.046). No differences were encountered in terms of grade III or IV morbidity. The same results were observed in major LR and cirrhotic patients. When patients were stratified by BMI (< 20, 20-25, 25-30 and > 30 kg/m(2)), progressive increases in overall and infectious morbidity were observed (5.6%, 22.4%, 23.7%, 32.9%, and 5.6%, 11.8%, 14.5%, 18.8%, respectively). Rates of grade III and IV morbidity did not change. Discussion: Obese patients have increased postoperative morbidity after LR in comparison with non-obese patients, but this is mainly related to minor abdominal wall complications. Severe morbidity rates and mortality are similar to those in non-obese patients, even in cirrhosis or after major LR.

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

4.5
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