4.6 Article

Two-stage hepatectomy for multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 98, 期 10, 页码 1463-1475

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7580

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: As surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) remains the only treatment for cure, efforts to extend the surgical indications to include patients with multiple bilobar CLM have been made. This study evaluated the long-term outcome, safety and efficacy of two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) for CLM in a large cohort of patients. Methods: Patients undergoing surgery between December 1996 and December 2009 were reviewed. The early postoperative and long-term outcomes as well as the patterns of failure to complete TSH and its clinical implications were analysed. Results: Eighty patients were scheduled to undergo TSH. Sixty-one patients had completion of TSH combined with (58 patients), or without (3) portal vein embolization/ligation (PVE/PVL). Five patients were excluded after first-stage hepatectomy and 14 after PVE/PVL. The 5-year overall survival rate and median survival in patients who completed TSH were 32 per cent and 39.6 months respectively, and corresponding recurrence-free values were 11 per cent and 9.4 months respectively. Six patients were alive beyond 5 years after TSH. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that failure to complete TSH was driven by two independent prognostic scenarios: three or more CLM in the future remnant liver (FRL) combined with age over 70 years predicted tumour progression after first-stage hepatectomy, and three or more CLM in the FRL combined with carcinomatosis at the time of first-stage hepatectomy predicted the development of additional FRL metastases after PVE/PVL. Conclusion: A therapeutic strategy using TSH provided acceptable long-term survival with no postoperative mortality. Further efforts are needed to increase the number of patients who undergo TSH successfully.

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