PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare anatomical resection (AR) versus nonanatomical resection (NAR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with respect to perioperative and oncological outcomes. METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes for both AR and NAR for CLM. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Seven nonrandomized controlled studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 1,662 subjects, of whom 989 underwent AR, and 673 underwent NAR for CLM. Compared with the perioperative results, NAR reduced the operation time (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, 1.97-79.17) and blood transfusion requirement (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.87-4.74), whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncologic outcomes, there was no significant difference in surgical margins, overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: NAR is a safe procedure for CLM and does not compromise oncological outcomes. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the lower level of evidence.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare anatomical resection (AR) versus nonanatomical resection (NAR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) with respect to perioperative and oncological outcomes. METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes for both AR and NAR for CLM. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean differences (WMD with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using either the fixed effects model or random effects model. RESULTS: Seven nonrandomized controlled studies matched the selection criteria and reported on 1,662 subjects, of whom 989 underwent AR, and 673 underwent NAR for CLM. Compared with the perioperative results, NAR reduced the operation time (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, 1.97-79.17) and blood transfusion requirement (OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.87-4.74), whereas postoperative morbidity and mortality were similar between the two groups. With respect to oncologic outcomes, there was no significant difference in surgical margins, overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:NAR is a safe procedure for CLM and does not compromise oncological outcomes. However, the findings have to be carefully interpreted due to the lower level of evidence.
Authors: Timothy M Pawlik; Charles R Scoggins; Daria Zorzi; Eddie K Abdalla; Axel Andres; Cathy Eng; Steven A Curley; Evelyne M Loyer; Andrea Muratore; Gilles Mentha; Lorenzo Capussotti; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J Figueras; F Burdio; E Ramos; J Torras; L Llado; S Lopez-Ben; A Codina-Barreras; S Mojal Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-04-13 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Robbert J de Haas; Dennis A Wicherts; Eduardo Flores; Daniel Azoulay; Denis Castaing; René Adam Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Umut Sarpel; Anthony S Bonavia; Alexis Grucela; Sasan Roayaie; Myron E Schwartz; Daniel M Labow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2008-11-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dimitrios Moris; Sean Ronnekleiv-Kelly; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Evangelos Felekouras; Mary Dillhoff; Carl Schmidt; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Gang Deng; Hui Li; Gui-Qing Jia; Dan Fang; You-Yin Tang; Jie Xie; Ke-Fei Chen; Zhe-Yu Chen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Emilio De Raffele; Mariateresa Mirarchi; Dajana Cuicchi; Ferdinando Lecce; Claudio Ricci; Riccardo Casadei; Bruno Cola; Francesco Minni Journal: World J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2018-10-15