Abstract
At present, liver resection offers the best long-term outcome and only chance for cure in patients with colorectal liver metastases. However, there are no large series that report the early and long-term outcomes of patients who require simultaneous diaphragm excision. This study was designed to investigate these patients. A total of 285 consecutive liver resections were performed over a 10-year period. Of these, 258 had liver resections alone and 27 underwent liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision. Data were collected prospectively and analysed retrospectively. Pre-operative assessment was standardised. The outcomes between the two groups were compared. There was no difference in age, hospital stay or intra-operative blood loss. The diaphragm was histologically involved in four out of 27 resections. As a result, the cancer involved resection margin incidence was greater in the liver resection and diaphragm excision group (14.8% versus 3.9%; P = 0.12). The median tumour size was also different between the two groups (60 mm versus 30 mm; P = 0.001). The liver and diaphragm resection group had a greater peri-operative complication rate (44.4% versus 21.3%; P = 0.02) and mortality (7.4% versus 1.6%; P = 0.25). Overall and disease-free survival was significantly worse in the group who underwent simultaneous diaphragm excision and liver resection (P = 0.04 and P = 0.005, respectively). Diaphragm invasion was found to be an independent predictor of poor overall outcome (P = 0.02). Liver resection and simultaneous diaphragm excision have a greater incidence of peri-operative morbidity and mortality and a significantly worse long-term outcome compared with liver resection alone. However, these data suggest that liver resection in the presence of diaphragm invasion may still offer a favourable outcome compared with chemotherapy treatment alone. Therefore, we believe that diaphragm involvement by tumour should not be a contra-indication to hepatectomy.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.