PURPOSE: The optimal timing of surgical resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLMs) remains controversial. The aim of this metaanalysis was to compare outcomes between simultaneous resection and staged resection from all published comparative studies in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science, were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes following simultaneous resection with staged resection for SCLM. The metaanalysis was performed by RevMan 4.2. RESULTS: Fourteen comparative studies comprising 2,204 patients were identified. Patients undergoing simultaneous resection were found to have similar operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -34.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], -81.32-12.95, P = .16) and intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -161.33; 95% CI, -351.45-28.79, P = .10). Shorter hospital stay (WMD, -4.77; 95% CI, -7.26-2.28, P < .01) and lower morbidity rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88, P = .002) were observed in simultaneous resection group. The survival rate in the simultaneous resection group did not statistically differ with that in the staged resection group at 1 year (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.16, P = .21), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47, P = .43), and 5 years (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.50, P = .37) postresection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous resection is safe and efficient in the treatment of patients with SCLM while avoiding a second major operation. In appropriately selected patients, simultaneous resection might be considered as the preferred treatment. Since heterogeneity was detected, caution is needed in interpretation of the results. Better designed, adequately powered studies are required for addressing this issue.
PURPOSE: The optimal timing of surgical resection for synchronous colorectal liver metastases (SCLMs) remains controversial. The aim of this metaanalysis was to compare outcomes between simultaneous resection and staged resection from all published comparative studies in the literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Web of Science, were searched to identify studies comparing outcomes following simultaneous resection with staged resection for SCLM. The metaanalysis was performed by RevMan 4.2. RESULTS: Fourteen comparative studies comprising 2,204 patients were identified. Patients undergoing simultaneous resection were found to have similar operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -34.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], -81.32-12.95, P = .16) and intraoperative blood loss (WMD, -161.33; 95% CI, -351.45-28.79, P = .10). Shorter hospital stay (WMD, -4.77; 95% CI, -7.26-2.28, P < .01) and lower morbidity rate (odds ratio [OR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.88, P = .002) were observed in simultaneous resection group. The survival rate in the simultaneous resection group did not statistically differ with that in the staged resection group at 1 year (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.16, P = .21), 3 years (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.47, P = .43), and 5 years (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.50, P = .37) postresection, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous resection is safe and efficient in the treatment of patients with SCLM while avoiding a second major operation. In appropriately selected patients, simultaneous resection might be considered as the preferred treatment. Since heterogeneity was detected, caution is needed in interpretation of the results. Better designed, adequately powered studies are required for addressing this issue.
Authors: Robert Martin; Philip Paty; Yuman Fong; Andrew Grace; Alfred Cohen; Ronald DeMatteo; William Jarnagin; Leslie Blumgart Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Robert C G Martin; Vedra Augenstein; Nathan P Reuter; Charles R Scoggins; Kelly M McMasters Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Stefano Ferretti; Hadrien Tranchart; Joseph F Buell; Constantino Eretta; Alberto Patriti; Marcello Giuseppe Spampinato; Jung Wook Huh; Luca Vigano; Ho Seong Han; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Elio Jovine; Thomas Clark Gamblin; Giulio Belli; Go Wakabayashi; Brice Gayet; Ibrahim Dagher Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Francesco M Polignano; Aaron J Quyn; Pandanaboyana Sanjay; Nikola A Henderson; Iain S Tait Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: R M Lupinacci; W Andraus; L B De Paiva Haddad; L A Carneiro D' Albuquerque; P Herman Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: C Lim; A Doussot; M Osseis; F Esposito; C Salloum; J Calderaro; C Tournigand; D Azoulay Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Emilio De Raffele; Mariateresa Mirarchi; Samuele Vaccari; Dajana Cuicchi; Ferdinando Lecce; Barbara Dalla Via; Bruno Cola Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Osama H Hamed; Neil H Bhayani; Gail Ortenzi; Jussuf T Kaifi; Eric T Kimchi; Kevin F Staveley-O'Carroll; Niraj J Gusani Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2012-12-27 Impact factor: 3.647