Case-controlled study comparing peri-operative and cancer-related outcomes after major hepatectomy and parenchymal sparing hepatectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract

IntroductionLiver resection is potentially curative in selected patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). There has been a trend towards parenchyma sparing hepatectomy (PSH) rather than major hepatectomy (MH) due to lower perioperative morbidity. Although data from retrospective series suggest that long-term survival after PSM are similar to MH, these reports may be subject to selection bias. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of PSH and MH in a case-controlled study. Patients and methods917 consecutive patients who underwent liver resection for CLM during 2000–2010 were identified from a prospective database. 238 patients who underwent PSH were case-matched with 238 patients who had MH, for age, gender, tumour number, maximum tumour diameter, primary Dukes' stage, synchronicity and chemotherapy status using a propensity scoring system. Peri-operative outcomes, recurrence and long-term survival were compared. ResultsFewer PSH patients received peri-operative blood transfusions (p < 0.0001). MH patients had greater incidence of complications (p = 0.04), grade III/IV complications (p = 0.01) and 90-day mortality (p = 0.03). Hospital stay was greater in the MH group (p = 0.04). There was no difference in overall/disease-free survival. ConclusionPatients with resectable CLM should be offered PSH if technically feasible. PSH is safer than MH without compromising long-term survival.