Article

A Comprehensive Meta-regression Analysis on Outcome of Anatomic Resection Versus Nonanatomic Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Liver and Multiorgan Transplant Unit, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, .
Annals of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 4.12). 06/2012; 19(12):3697-705. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2450-z
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It remains unclear whether hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma should be performed as an anatomic resection (AR) or a nonanatomic resection (NAR). Because no randomized controlled trials are currently available on this topic, a meta-regression analysis was performed on available observational studies to control for confounding variables.
A systematic review of studies published from 1990 to 2011 in the PubMed and Embase databases was performed. Patient and disease-free survival (DFS), postoperative mortality, and morbidity were considered as outcomes. Results are expressed as relative risk (RR) or weighted mean differences with 95 % of confidence interval.
Eighteen observational studies involving 9,036 patients were analyzed: 4,012 were in the AR group and 5,024 in the NAR group. Meta-analysis suggested that AR provided better 5-year patient survival (RR 1.14; P = 0.001) and DFS than NAR (RR 1.38; P = 0.001). However, patients in the NAR group were characterized by a higher prevalence of cirrhosis (RR 1.27; P = 0.010), more advanced hepatic dysfunction (RR 0.90 for Child-Pugh class A; P = 0.001) and smaller tumor size (weighted mean difference 0.36 cm; P < 0.001) compared with patients in the AR group. Meta-regression analysis showed that the different proportion of cirrhosis in the NAR group significantly affected both 5-year patient survival (RR 1.28; P = 0.016) and DFS (RR 1.74; P = 0.022). Tumor size only slightly affected DFS (RR 1.72; P = 0.076). Postoperative mortality and morbidity were unaffected (P > 0.05 in all cases).
Patient survival and DFS after AR seem to be superior to NAR because the worse liver function reserve in the NAR group significantly affects prognosis.

1 Bookmark
 · 
116 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The anatomic resection of Couinaud's segments is one of the key techniques in liver surgery. However, the territories and volumes of the eight segments are not adequately assessed based on portal branching. Three-dimensional (3D) perfusion-based volumetry was performed in 107 normal livers. Based on Couinaud classification, the portal branches were identified and the volumes of each segment were calculated. The relationships between branching patterns of the portal veins and segmental volumes were assessed. In descending order of volume, median volumes of segments VIII, VII, IV, V, III, VI, II and I were recorded. Segment VIII was the largest, accounting for a median of 26.1% (range: 11.1-38.0%) of total liver volume (TLV), whereas segments II and III each represented <10% of TLV. In 69.2% of subjects, the portal branches of segment V diverged from the trunk of the branches of segment VIII. No relationship was found between branching type and segment volume. The territories and volumes of Couinaud's segments vary among segments, as well as among individuals. Detailed 3D volumetry is useful for preoperative evaluations of the dissection line and of future liver remnant volume in anatomic segmentectomy.
    HPB 08/2013; · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Whether anatomic resection (AR) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can really confer a survival advantage over non-AR (NAR), especially for cirrhotic patients, remains unclear. Prospectively collected data of 543 cirrhotic patients in Child-Pugh class A submitted to AR (n = 228) versus NAR (n = 315) for early HCC in an Eastern (n = 269) and a Western (n = 274) surgical unit, were reviewed. To control for confounding variable distributions, a 1-to-1 propensity score match was applied to compare AR and NAR outcomes (n = 298). The 5-year recurrence-free and overall survivals of the 543 patients were 32.3% and 60.0%, respectively, without differences between the 2 centers (P = .635 and .479, respectively). AR conferred better overall and recurrence-free survival than NAR (P = .009 and .041, respectively), but NAR patients suffered from significantly worse hepatic dysfunction. After 1-to-1 match, AR (n = 149) and NAR (n = 149) patients had similar covariate distributions. In this matched sample, AR still conferred better recurrence-free survival over NAR (P = .044) but the beneficial effect of AR was limited to the reduction of early recurrence (<2 years) of poorly differentiated tumors and of tumors with microvascular invasion (P < .05), resulting in better overall survival (P = .018). In cirrhotic patients, AR for early HCC can lead to a lower early recurrence rate in tumors with unfavorable tumor features, whereas NAR will not worsen the recurrence rate in well/moderately differentiated tumors or in the absence of microvascular invasion.
    Surgery 10/2013; · 3.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An evaluation of the literature demonstrates atypical wedge or single segment resections to be the most commonly performed laparoscopic liver procedures. Lesions that are both visible on the surface of segments 2-6 and ≤2-3 cm can be resected by most surgeons holding a fundamental understanding of liver anatomy. These criteria are based on the anatomical circumstance that sectoral and segmental pedicles should not course through depths necessary to obtain negative margins for these sized and positioned lesions. Videos of laparoscopic liver resections referenced in PubMed demonstrate complex procedures that are rarely performed and assume an advanced skill set for laparoscopic dissection and transection of parenchyma and management of vascular and biliary structures. Herein is demonstrated basic skill for peripheral resections via two cases in one video, so that these procedures can be safely performed by surgeons with commonly available laparoscopic equipment.
    Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition. 02/2014; 3(1):44-46.