4.6 Article

Liver resection versus radiofrequency ablation in octogenarian patients for hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score multicenter analysis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09826-2

关键词

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); Radiofrequency ablation (RFA); Surgical resection; Octogenarian patients; Propensity score matching

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the outcomes of liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in octogenarian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The results showed that LR had a higher rate of complications, longer operative time, and hospital stays, but had better long-term outcomes in terms of survival rate.
Background Liver resection (LR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are considered curative options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after LR and RFA in octogenarian patients with HCC.Materials and methods This multicenter retrospective study included 102 elderly patients (> 80 years old) treated between January 2009 and January 2019, who underwent LR or RFA for HCC (65 and 37 with, respectively).Results After Propensity Score Matching, the postoperative course of LR was burdened by a higher rate of complications than RFA group (64% vs 14%, respectively, p: 0.001). The LR group had also significantly longer operative time (207 +/- 85 min vs 33 +/- 49 min, p < 0.001) and postoperative hospital stays than the RFA group (7 d vs 2 d, p = 0.019). Overall survival at 1-, 2-, and 3-year were 86%, 86%, and 70% for the LR group and 82%, 64%, and 52% for the RFA group (p = 0.380). Disease-free survival at 1-, 2-, and 3-year were 89%, 74%, and 56% for the LR group, and 51%, 40%, and 40% for the RFA group (p = 0.037).Conclusion Despite a higher rate of Dindo-Clavien I-II post-operative complications, a longer operative time and length of hospital stay, LR in octogenarian patients can provide comparable 90d mortality than RFA and better long-term outcomes.

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