Takeo Nomi1,2, David Fuks1, Christophe Louvet3, Yoshiyuki Nakajima2, Brice Gayet4. 1. Department of Digestive Disease, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 2. Department of Surgery, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho Kashihara-shi, Nara, 634-8522, Japan. 3. Department of Oncology, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. 4. Department of Digestive Disease, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Université Paris-Descartes, 42 Boulevard Jourdan, 75014, Paris, France. brice.gayet@imm.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the expansion of laparoscopic approach in the treatment of liver tumors, limited data have been reported regarding large colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). This study aimed at assessing the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large (≥5 cm) CRLMs. METHODS: This was a case-matched study (1:2) comparing patients with large (group L; ≥5 cm) and small (group S; <5 cm) CRLMs using demographic, tumor, and surgical characteristics as matching variables. Postoperative outcomes and survival data were compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Forty patients who underwent LLR for large CRLMs were matched with 80 patients with tumors <5 cm. Major hepatectomy was performed with 75.0 % of patients in Group L and 66.3 % in group S (p = 0.403). Operative time was 300 min in group L and 240 min in group S (p = 0.059). The postoperative mortality and overall morbidity rates were comparable in the 2 groups (p = 1.000 and 0.170, respectively). Postoperative major complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.072). R0 resection was achieved in 92.5 % in the group L and in 95.0 % in the group S (p = 1.000). The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were better for group S than for group L (47.3 vs. 35.4 %, p = 0.044 and 27.3 vs. 14.9 %, p = 0.042, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified positive surgical margins and synchronous presentation as prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Since LLR was performed safely with favorable oncological adequacy in selected patients with large CRLMs, tumor size should not modify the surgical approach.
BACKGROUND: Despite the expansion of laparoscopic approach in the treatment of liver tumors, limited data have been reported regarding large colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). This study aimed at assessing the short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for large (≥5 cm) CRLMs. METHODS: This was a case-matched study (1:2) comparing patients with large (group L; ≥5 cm) and small (group S; <5 cm) CRLMs using demographic, tumor, and surgical characteristics as matching variables. Postoperative outcomes and survival data were compared in the 2 groups. RESULTS: Forty patients who underwent LLR for large CRLMs were matched with 80 patients with tumors <5 cm. Major hepatectomy was performed with 75.0 % of patients in Group L and 66.3 % in group S (p = 0.403). Operative time was 300 min in group L and 240 min in group S (p = 0.059). The postoperative mortality and overall morbidity rates were comparable in the 2 groups (p = 1.000 and 0.170, respectively). Postoperative major complication (Dindo-Clavien ≥3) was similar between the two groups (p = 0.072). R0 resection was achieved in 92.5 % in the group L and in 95.0 % in the group S (p = 1.000). The 5-year overall survival and recurrence-free survival were better for group S than for group L (47.3 vs. 35.4 %, p = 0.044 and 27.3 vs. 14.9 %, p = 0.042, respectively). Multivariate analysis identified positive surgical margins and synchronous presentation as prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Since LLR was performed safely with favorable oncological adequacy in selected patients with large CRLMs, tumor size should not modify the surgical approach.
Authors: Vishal G Shelat; Federica Cipriani; Tiago Basseres; Thomas H Armstrong; Arjun S Takhar; Neil W Pearce; Mohammad AbuHilal Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: C Anne Doughtie; Michael E Egger; Robert M Cannon; Robert C G Martin; Kelly M McMasters; Charles R Scoggins Journal: Am Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Joseph F Buell; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Nicholas O'Rourke; David Iannitti; Ibrahim Dagher; Alan J Koffron; Mark Thomas; Brice Gayet; Ho Seong Han; Go Wakabayashi; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; Chen-Guo Ker; Olivier Scatton; Alexis Laurent; Eddie K Abdalla; Prosanto Chaudhury; Erik Dutson; Clark Gamblin; Michael D'Angelica; David Nagorney; Giuliano Testa; Daniel Labow; Derrik Manas; Ronnie T Poon; Heidi Nelson; Robert Martin; Bryan Clary; Wright C Pinson; John Martinie; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Robert Goldstein; Sasan Roayaie; David Barlet; Joseph Espat; Michael Abecassis; Myrddin Rees; Yuman Fong; Kelly M McMasters; Christoph Broelsch; Ron Busuttil; Jacques Belghiti; Steven Strasberg; Ravi S Chari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Peter Schullian; Edward W Johnston; Daniel Putzer; Gernot Eberle; Gregor Laimer; Reto Bale Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 4.379