Background
There are concerns that non‐anatomical resection (NAR) worsens perioperative and oncological outcomes compared with those following anatomical resection (AR) for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Most previous studies have been biased by the effect of tumour size. The aim of this study was to compare oncological outcomes after NAR versus AR.
Methods
This was a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent CRLM resection with curative intent from 1999 to 2016. Data were retrieved from a prospectively developed database. Survival and perioperative outcomes for NAR and AR were compared using propensity score analyses.
Results
Some 358 patients were included in the study. Median follow‐up was 34 (i.q.r. 16–68) months. NAR was associated with significantly less morbidity compared with AR (31·1 versus 44·4 per cent respectively; P = 0·037). Larger (hazard ratio (HR) for lesions 5 cm or greater 1·81, 95 per cent c.i. 1·13 to 2·90; P = 0·035) or multiple (HR 1·48, 1·03 to 2·12; P = 0·035) metastases were associated with poor overall survival (OS). Synchronous (HR 1·33, 1·01 to 1·77; P = 0·045) and multiple (HR 1·51, 1·14 to 2·00; P = 0·004) liver metastases, major complications after liver resection (HR 1·49, 1·05 to 2·11; P = 0·026) or complications after resection of the primary colorectal tumour (HR 1·51, 1·01 to 2·26; P = 0·045) were associated with poor disease‐free survival (DFS). AR was prognostic for poor OS only in tumours smaller than 30 mm, and R1 margin status was not prognostic for either OS or DFS. NAR was associated with a higher rate of salvage resection than AR following intrahepatic recurrence.
Conclusions
NAR has at least equivalent oncological outcomes to AR while proving to be safer. NAR should therefore be the primary surgical approach to CRLM, especially for lesions smaller than 30 mm.
Surgical intervention for selected patients with symptomatic benign liver cysts results in low long-term recurrence rates and excellent patient-reported outcomes and quality of life. Laparoscopic-stapled excision can be done safely and reliably in carefully selected patients.
Background
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is often performed during the index admission after emergency presentation for acute biliary pain. Many patients have acute cholecystitis (AC) that may increase operative difficulty and complications. Our primary aim was to assess the validity of Tokyo Guidelines (TG18) for diagnosing AC by comparison with the admitting team diagnosis, operative findings and histopathology. The secondary aim was to assess outcomes after same‐admission or delayed LC.
Methods
Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent LC after presenting to a tertiary hospital emergency department over a 12‐month period was conducted.
Results
A total of 139 patients underwent LC with no mortality or bile duct injury. A diagnosis of AC made by the admitting surgical team had sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 57%. The TG18 diagnosis had sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 53%. A diagnosis of AC by the admitting surgical team correlated well with TG18 criteria diagnosis. There was poor correlation between clinical and histopathological diagnoses. Nine percent of patients had complications and 4% required conversion to open procedure. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of AC had longer post‐operative length of stay and more complications compared with those who had non‐AC diagnosis. There was no difference in outcomes between same‐admission LC or delayed LC.
Conclusion
TG18 diagnosis of AC does not improve accuracy of diagnosis or predictability of a poor outcome over the admitting surgical team diagnosis. Same‐admission LC for patients with AC is associated with similar outcomes compared to those who undergo delayed LC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.