4.7 Review

Does Caudate Resection Improve Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Curative Resection for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 6759-6771

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11990-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines the impact of caudate lobe resection in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and supports the routine use of caudate lobectomy in the surgical management of this condition.
Background Margin-negative (R0) resection is the strongest positive prognostic factor in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC). Due to its anatomic location, the caudate lobe is frequently involved in PHC. This review aimed to examine the impact of caudate lobe resection (CLR) in addition to hepatectomy and bile duct resection for patients with PHC. Methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to October 2021 to identify studies comparing patients undergoing surgical resection with hepatectomy and bile duct resection with or without CLR for treatment of PHC. Outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving R0 resection, overall survival (OS), and perioperative morbidity. Results Altogether, 949 studies were screened. The review included eight observational studies reporting on 1137 patients. The patients who underwent CLR had a higher likelihood of R0 resection (odds ratio [OR], 5.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.64-12.95) and a better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54-0.79) than those who did not. The use of CLR did not increase the risk of perioperative morbidity (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.65-1.63). Conclusions Given the higher likelihood of R0 resection, improved OS, and no apparent increase in perioperative morbidity, this review supports routine caudate lobectomy in the surgical management of PHC. These results should be interpreted with caution given the lack of high-quality prospective data and the high probability of selection bias.

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

4.7
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