[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Treatment of synchronous resectable colorectal liver metastases has traditionally involved a staged surgical approach. Specialized centers have demonstrated good results with simultaneous resection. We aim to report our outcomes at the University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) with simultaneous liver metastasectomy at the time of operation for primary colorectal or gynecologic malignancy
From January 2010- September 2011, 6 patients underwent simultaneous resection of liver metastases and primary colorectal or gynecologic malignancy. Operative, postoperative, and pathologic data were retrospectively reviewed.
Four patients with colorectal primaries underwent simultaneous resection. One received abdominoperineal resection with resection of lesions in hepatic segments II and VII. A second received right hemicolectomy with en bloc resection of gallbladder and segments IV and V. The third and fourth patients both underwent left colectomy with resection of segments IV and V, respectively. All resections were non-anatomic, and frozen-sections were confirmed to be negative at the resection base. No patients suffered additional postoperative morbidity or mortality related to liver resection. Two patients had ovarian cancer with metastatic disease to the liver. The first underwent en bloc resection ofgallbladder and segments IV and V along with extensive debulking. The second had recurrent ovarian cancer with metastases with liver segments VI and VII. Both patients underwent simultaneous resection with no added postoperative morbidity or mortality attributed to hepatic resection. For gynecologic malignancy, the objective is to remove bulky disease, and although microscopic margins were positive, the goal of tumor load reduction was achieved.
Liver resection at the time of operation for primary colorectal or gynecologic malignancy can safely be performed with the benefit of avoiding morbidity of a second laparotomy without compromising safety.
Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association 02/2012; 53(2):36-40.