Takeshi Takamoto1, Keiji Sano2, Takuya Hashimoto3, Akihiko Ichida3, Kei Shimada3, Yoshikazu Maruyama3, Masatoshi Makuuchi3. 1. Divisions of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, 4-1-22 Hiroo, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 150-8935, Japan. takamoto@nifty.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Divisions of Hepatobiliary-Pancreatic and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, 4-1-22 Hiroo, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, 150-8935, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in imaging technologies have enabled surgeons to perform precise planning using virtual hepatectomy (VH). However, the practical and clinical benefits of VH remain unclear. This study sought to assess how three-dimensional analysis using a VH contributed to preoperative planning and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing liver surgery for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: From 2007 to 2017, a total of 473 CRLM patients who received curative hepatectomy were retrospectively assessed. A 1:1 matched propensity analysis was performed between patients who did not receive a VH (without 3D group: n = 188) and received a VH (3D(+) group: n = 285). RESULT: The rate of VH increased over the study period (P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (n = 150 for each group), no significant differences were observed in the intraoperative and postoperative outcome, including liver transection time, blood loss, or morbidity between the groups. More patients received a small anatomical resection (plus limited resections) in the 3D(+) group (25 vs 11%, [P = 0.03]). A submillimeter margin was less frequent in the 3D(+) group. No significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were seen between the without 3D group and the 3D(+) group (38.0 vs. 45.9% [P = 0.99], 11.1 vs. 21.7%, respectively [P = 0.109]). CONCLUSION: Although VH did not significantly influenced on the long-term outcome after hepatectomy, a more parenchymal-sparing operative procedure (anatomical resections, plus limited resections) was selected and the risk of a submillimeter surgical margin was reduced after introduction of VH.
BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in imaging technologies have enabled surgeons to perform precise planning using virtual hepatectomy (VH). However, the practical and clinical benefits of VH remain unclear. This study sought to assess how three-dimensional analysis using a VH contributed to preoperative planning and postoperative outcome in patients undergoing liver surgery for the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). METHODS: From 2007 to 2017, a total of 473 CRLM patients who received curative hepatectomy were retrospectively assessed. A 1:1 matched propensity analysis was performed between patients who did not receive a VH (without 3D group: n = 188) and received a VH (3D(+) group: n = 285). RESULT: The rate of VH increased over the study period (P < 0.001). After propensity score matching (n = 150 for each group), no significant differences were observed in the intraoperative and postoperative outcome, including liver transection time, blood loss, or morbidity between the groups. More patients received a small anatomical resection (plus limited resections) in the 3D(+) group (25 vs 11%, [P = 0.03]). A submillimeter margin was less frequent in the 3D(+) group. No significant differences in the 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival rates were seen between the without 3D group and the 3D(+) group (38.0 vs. 45.9% [P = 0.99], 11.1 vs. 21.7%, respectively [P = 0.109]). CONCLUSION: Although VH did not significantly influenced on the long-term outcome after hepatectomy, a more parenchymal-sparing operative procedure (anatomical resections, plus limited resections) was selected and the risk of a submillimeter surgical margin was reduced after introduction of VH.
Authors: Scott Kopetz; George J Chang; Michael J Overman; Cathy Eng; Daniel J Sargent; David W Larson; Axel Grothey; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; David M Nagorney; Robert R McWilliams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: René Adam; Robbert J de Haas; Dennis A Wicherts; Eric Vibert; Chadi Salloum; Daniel Azoulay; Denis Castaing Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: W Lamadé; G Glombitza; L Fischer; P Chiu; C E Cárdenas; M Thorn; H P Meinzer; L Grenacher; H Bauer; T Lehnert; C Herfarth Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2000-11
Authors: Zaed Z R Hamady; J Peter A Lodge; Fenella K Welsh; Giles J Toogood; Alan White; Timothy John; Myrddin Rees Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-03 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: J Shindoh; C-W D Tzeng; T A Aloia; S A Curley; G Zimmitti; S H Wei; S Y Huang; S Gupta; M J Wallace; J-N Vauthey Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 6.939