INTRODUCTION: At present, liver resection offers the best long-term outcome and only chance for cure in patients with colorectal liver metastases. However, there are no large series that report the early and long-term outcomes of patients who require simultaneous diaphragm excision. This study was designed to investigate these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 285 consecutive liver resections were performed over a 10-year period. Of these, 258 had liver resections alone and 27 underwent liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision. Data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. Pre-operative assessment was standardised. The outcomes between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, hospital stay or intra-operative blood loss. The diaphragm was histologically involved in four out of 27 resections. As a result, the cancer involved resection margin incidence was greater in the liver resection and diaphragm excision group (14.8% versus 3.9%; P = 0.12). The median tumour size was also different between the two groups (60 mm versus 30 mm; P = 0.001). The liver and diaphragm resection group had a greater peri-operative complication rate (44.4% versus 21.3%; P = 0.02) and mortality (7.4% versus 1.6%; P = 0.25). Overall and disease-free survival was significantly worse in the group who underwent simultaneous diaphragm excision and liver resection (P = 0.04 and P = 0.005, respectively). Diaphragm invasion was found to be an independent predictor of poor overall outcome (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision have a greater incidence of peri-operative morbidity and mortality and a significantly worse long-term outcome compared with liver resection alone. However, these data suggest that liver resection in the presence of diaphragm invasion may still offer a favourable outcome compared with chemotherapy treatment alone. Therefore, we believe that diaphragm involvement by tumour should not be a contra-indication to hepatectomy.
INTRODUCTION: At present, liver resection offers the best long-term outcome and only chance for cure in patients with colorectal liver metastases. However, there are no large series that report the early and long-term outcomes of patients who require simultaneous diaphragm excision. This study was designed to investigate these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 285 consecutive liver resections were performed over a 10-year period. Of these, 258 had liver resections alone and 27 underwent liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision. Data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. Pre-operative assessment was standardised. The outcomes between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in age, hospital stay or intra-operative blood loss. The diaphragm was histologically involved in four out of 27 resections. As a result, the cancer involved resection margin incidence was greater in the liver resection and diaphragm excision group (14.8% versus 3.9%; P = 0.12). The median tumour size was also different between the two groups (60 mm versus 30 mm; P = 0.001). The liver and diaphragm resection group had a greater peri-operative complication rate (44.4% versus 21.3%; P = 0.02) and mortality (7.4% versus 1.6%; P = 0.25). Overall and disease-free survival was significantly worse in the group who underwent simultaneous diaphragm excision and liver resection (P = 0.04 and P = 0.005, respectively). Diaphragm invasion was found to be an independent predictor of poor overall outcome (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision have a greater incidence of peri-operative morbidity and mortality and a significantly worse long-term outcome compared with liver resection alone. However, these data suggest that liver resection in the presence of diaphragm invasion may still offer a favourable outcome compared with chemotherapy treatment alone. Therefore, we believe that diaphragm involvement by tumour should not be a contra-indication to hepatectomy.
Authors: Dominique Elias; Gabriel Liberale; Déwi Vernerey; Marc Pocard; Michel Ducreux; Valérie Boige; David Malka; Jean-Pierre Pignon; Philippe Lasser Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2005-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David Cunningham; Yves Humblet; Salvatore Siena; David Khayat; Harry Bleiberg; Armando Santoro; Danny Bets; Matthias Mueser; Andreas Harstrick; Chris Verslype; Ian Chau; Eric Van Cutsem Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-07-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Herbert Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; William Novotny; Thomas Cartwright; John Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Ari Baron; Susan Griffing; Eric Holmgren; Napoleone Ferrara; Gwen Fyfe; Beth Rogers; Robert Ross; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: George Z Li; Ryan S Turley; Michael E Lidsky; Andrew S Barbas; Srinevas K Reddy; Bryan M Clary Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: William J Hadden; Philip R de Reuver; Kai Brown; Anubhav Mittal; Jaswinder S Samra; Thomas J Hugh Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-01 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Gena P Kanas; Aliki Taylor; John N Primrose; Wendy J Langeberg; Michael A Kelsh; Fionna S Mowat; Dominik D Alexander; Michael A Choti; Graeme Poston Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Dietmar Tamandl; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Gernot Böhm; Klaus Emmanuel; Rosemarie Forstner; Reinhold Függer; Benjamin Henninger; Oliver Koch; Claus Kölblinger; Hans-Jörg Mischinger; Wolfgang Schima; Helmut Schöllnast; Stefan Stättner; Klaus Kaczirek Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Airazat M Kazaryan; Davit L Aghayan; Åsmund A Fretland; Vasiliy I Semikov; Alexander M Shulutko; Bjørn Edwin Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-03