Paramin Muangkaew1,2, Jai Young Cho3, Ho-Seong Han1, Yoo-Seok Yoon1, YoungRok Choi1, Jae Yool Jang1, Hanlim Choi1, Jae Seong Jang1, Seong Uk Kwon1. 1. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Republic of Korea. 2. Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 300 Gumi-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-707, Republic of Korea. jychogs@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical strategy for treating colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in patients requiring major liver resection (MLR) is controversial, especially in rectal cancer patients. METHOD: Between March 2004 and January 2015, 103 patients underwent MLR for CRLM and underwent MLR simultaneously with colorectal surgery (simultaneous group; n = 55) or MLR after colorectal surgery (liver-only group; n = 48). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sex, age, ASA score, BMI, size and number of liver metastases, liver resection margin, surgical outcomes, and estimated blood loss. The rates of postoperative complications (simultaneous group vs. liver-only group; 76.4 % vs. 62.5 %; P = 0.126) and major complications (29.0 % vs. 25.0 %; P = 0.513) were also similar in both groups. The time to starting a soft diet was longer in the simultaneous group (6.0 days vs. 3.4 days; P < 0.001), but the length of hospital stay was similar (14.9 days vs. 13.3 days; P = 0.345). There were no perioperative deaths, anastomotic leakage, or septic complications. Among patients who underwent rectal surgery, the frequency of complications was greater in the simultaneous group (87.0 % vs. 56.2 %; P = 0.031), but there was no difference in major complications (34.7 % vs. 25.0 %; P = 0.822). The postoperative morbidity index was 0.204 and 0.180 in the simultaneous and liver-only groups, respectively, in all patients, and was 0.227 and 0.136, respectively, in the rectal surgery subgroup. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous MLR is feasible and safe in synchronous CRLM patients, including rectal cancer patients.
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical strategy for treating colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRLM) in patients requiring major liver resection (MLR) is controversial, especially in rectal cancerpatients. METHOD: Between March 2004 and January 2015, 103 patients underwent MLR for CRLM and underwent MLR simultaneously with colorectal surgery (simultaneous group; n = 55) or MLR after colorectal surgery (liver-only group; n = 48). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in sex, age, ASA score, BMI, size and number of liver metastases, liver resection margin, surgical outcomes, and estimated blood loss. The rates of postoperative complications (simultaneous group vs. liver-only group; 76.4 % vs. 62.5 %; P = 0.126) and major complications (29.0 % vs. 25.0 %; P = 0.513) were also similar in both groups. The time to starting a soft diet was longer in the simultaneous group (6.0 days vs. 3.4 days; P < 0.001), but the length of hospital stay was similar (14.9 days vs. 13.3 days; P = 0.345). There were no perioperative deaths, anastomotic leakage, or septic complications. Among patients who underwent rectal surgery, the frequency of complications was greater in the simultaneous group (87.0 % vs. 56.2 %; P = 0.031), but there was no difference in major complications (34.7 % vs. 25.0 %; P = 0.822). The postoperative morbidity index was 0.204 and 0.180 in the simultaneous and liver-only groups, respectively, in all patients, and was 0.227 and 0.136, respectively, in the rectal surgery subgroup. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous MLR is feasible and safe in synchronous CRLM patients, including rectal cancerpatients.
Authors: Nuh N Rahbari; O James Garden; Robert Padbury; Mark Brooke-Smith; Michael Crawford; Rene Adam; Moritz Koch; Masatoshi Makuuchi; Ronald P Dematteo; Christopher Christophi; Simon Banting; Val Usatoff; Masato Nagino; Guy Maddern; Thomas J Hugh; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Paul Greig; Myrddin Rees; Yukihiro Yokoyama; Sheung Tat Fan; Yuji Nimura; Joan Figueras; Lorenzo Capussotti; Markus W Büchler; Jürgen Weitz Journal: Surgery Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: René Adam; Gerard Pascal; Denis Castaing; Daniel Azoulay; Valerie Delvart; Bernard Paule; Francis Levi; Henri Bismuth Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Thomas Aloia; Mylène Sebagh; Marylène Plasse; Vincent Karam; Francis Lévi; Sylvie Giacchetti; Daniel Azoulay; Henri Bismuth; Denis Castaing; René Adam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Kerollos N Wanis; Karen Pineda-Solis; Mauro E Tun-Abraham; Jake Yeoman; Stephen Welch; Kelly Vogt; Julie Ann M Van Koughnett; Michael Ott; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro Journal: Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 7.293
Authors: Gerd R Silberhumer; Philip B Paty; Brian Denton; Jose Guillem; Mithat Gonen; Raphael L C Araujo; Garret M Nash; Larissa K Temple; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; Martin R Weiser; W Douglas Wong; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Yuman Fong Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 3.982