Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: a propensity score matching analysis

61Citations
Citations of this article
74Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a parenchymal-sparing strategy provides similar results in terms of morbidity, mortality, and oncological outcome of non-PSH hepatectomies in a propensity score matched population (PSMP) in case of multiple (>3) bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CLM). Background The surgical treatment of bilobar liver metastasis is challenging due to the necessity to achieve complete resection margins and a sufficient future remnant liver. Two approaches are adaptable as follows: parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) and extended hepatectomies (NON-PSH). Methods A total of 3036 hepatectomies were analyzed from a multicentric retrospective cohort of hepatectomies. Patients were matched in a 1:1 propensity score analysis in order to compare PSH versus NON-PSH resections. Results PSH was associated with a lower number of complications (≥1) (25% vs. 34%, p = 0.04) and a lower grade of Dindo-Clavien III and IV (10 vs. 16%, p = 0.03). Liver failure was less present in PSH (2 vs. 7%, p = 0.006), with a shorter ICU stay (0 day vs. 1 day, p = 0.004). No differences were demonstrated in overall and disease-free survival. Conclusion In conclusion, PSH resection for bilobar multiple CLMs represents a valid alternative to NON-PSH resection in selected patients with a reduced morbidity and comparable oncological results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Memeo, R., de Blasi, V., Adam, R., Goéré, D., Azoulay, D., Ayav, A., … Vittadello, F. (2016). Parenchymal-sparing hepatectomies (PSH) for bilobar colorectal liver metastases are associated with a lower morbidity and similar oncological results: a propensity score matching analysis. HPB, 18(9), 781–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2016.06.004

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free