Dimitrios Moris1, Sean Ronnekleiv-Kelly2, Ioannis D Kostakis3, Diamantis I Tsilimigras4, Eliza W Beal1, Alexandros Papalampros4, Dimitrios Dimitroulis3, Evangelos Felekouras4, Timothy M Pawlik5. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. 2nd Department of Propedeutic Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 4. 1st Department of Surgery, Laikon General Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. 5. Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Wexner Medical Center and James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, The Ohio State University, 395 W. 12th Ave., Suite 670, Columbus, OH, USA. tim.pawlik@osumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has recently emerged as a treatment choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and inadequate future liver remnant (FLR). The aim of this study was to define the results of ALPPS compared with two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) for patients with CLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Identification of eligible studies was performed using three distinct databases through February 2017; Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane library-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a syntax including medical subject headings terms "portal vein ligation," "PVE," "staged hepatectomy," "staged liver resection," "liver resection," "two-stage hepatectomy," "TSH," "in situ liver transection with portal vein ligation," "associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy" and "ALPPS". RESULTS: Among the 634 records identified, 9 studies comparing ALPPS with TSH met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 657 patients with unresectable CLM (ALPPS, n = 186 vs TSH, n = 471). There was no difference in final postoperative FLR between ALPPS versus TSH (mean difference: 31.72, 95% CI: -27.33 to 90.77, p = 0.29). The kinetic growth rate was faster with the ALPPS versus TSH (mean difference 19.07 ml/day, 95% CI 8.12-30.02, p = 0.0006). TSH had a lower overall and major morbidity versus ALPPS (overall morbidity: RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07-1.8, p = 0.01; I 2: 58%, p = 0.01; major morbidity: RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.18-2.08, p = 0.002; I 2: 0%, p = 0.44). Overall survival was comparable following ALPPS versus TSH. CONCLUSION: While ALPPS may be a suitable approach for patients, the higher morbidity and mortality should be considered when determining the operative approach for patients with extensive CLM.
BACKGROUND: Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) has recently emerged as a treatment choice for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) and inadequate future liver remnant (FLR). The aim of this study was to define the results of ALPPS compared with two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) for patients with CLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Identification of eligible studies was performed using three distinct databases through February 2017; Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane library-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a syntax including medical subject headings terms "portal vein ligation," "PVE," "staged hepatectomy," "staged liver resection," "liver resection," "two-stage hepatectomy," "TSH," "in situ liver transection with portal vein ligation," "associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy" and "ALPPS". RESULTS: Among the 634 records identified, 9 studies comparing ALPPS with TSH met the inclusion criteria. These studies included 657 patients with unresectable CLM (ALPPS, n = 186 vs TSH, n = 471). There was no difference in final postoperative FLR between ALPPS versus TSH (mean difference: 31.72, 95% CI: -27.33 to 90.77, p = 0.29). The kinetic growth rate was faster with the ALPPS versus TSH (mean difference 19.07 ml/day, 95% CI 8.12-30.02, p = 0.0006). TSH had a lower overall and major morbidity versus ALPPS (overall morbidity: RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07-1.8, p = 0.01; I 2: 58%, p = 0.01; major morbidity: RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.18-2.08, p = 0.002; I 2: 0%, p = 0.44). Overall survival was comparable following ALPPS versus TSH. CONCLUSION: While ALPPS may be a suitable approach for patients, the higher morbidity and mortality should be considered when determining the operative approach for patients with extensive CLM.
Authors: P Kambakamba; M Linecker; F A Alvarez; P Samaras; C S Reiner; D A Raptis; P Kron; E de Santibanes; H Petrowsky; P A Clavien; M Lesurtel Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Erik Schadde; Victoria Ardiles; Ricardo Robles-Campos; Massimo Malago; Marcel Machado; Roberto Hernandez-Alejandro; Olivier Soubrane; Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Dimitri Raptis; Christoph Tschuor; Henrik Petrowsky; Eduardo De Santibanes; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: R Adam; K Imai; C Castro Benitez; M-A Allard; E Vibert; A Sa Cunha; D Cherqui; H Baba; D Castaing Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Michael G House; Hiromichi Ito; Mithat Gönen; Yuman Fong; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andreas A Schnitzbauer; Sven A Lang; Holger Goessmann; Silvio Nadalin; Janine Baumgart; Stefan A Farkas; Stefan Fichtner-Feigl; Thomas Lorf; Armin Goralcyk; Rüdiger Hörbelt; Alexander Kroemer; Martin Loss; Petra Rümmele; Marcus N Scherer; Winfried Padberg; Alfred Königsrainer; Hauke Lang; Aiman Obed; Hans J Schlitt Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: B Björnsson; E Sparrelid; B Røsok; E Pomianowska; K Hasselgren; T Gasslander; B A Bjørnbeth; B Isaksson; P Sandström Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: R Vera; E González-Flores; C Rubio; J Urbano; M Valero Camps; J J Ciampi-Dopazo; J Orcajo Rincón; V Morillo Macías; M A Gomez Braco; G Suarez-Artacho Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Arezou Abbasi; Amir A Rahnemai-Azar; Katiuscha Merath; Sharon M Weber; Daniel E Abbott; Mary Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-09-17
Authors: Mariana I Chavez; Sepideh Gholami; Bradford J Kim; Georgios A Margonis; Cecilia G Ethun; Susan Tsai; Kathleen K Christians; Callisia Clarke; Harveshp Mogal; Shishir K Maithel; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael I D'Angelica; Thomas A Aloia; Daniel Eastwood; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-01-03 Impact factor: 5.344