Next Article in Journal
Review on the Role of BRCA Mutations in Genomic Screening and Risk Stratification of Prostate Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
Lung Cancer Prevalence in Virginia: A Spatial Zipcode-Level Analysis via INLA
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Extended Right Hepatectomy following Clearance of the Left Liver Lobe and Portal Vein Embolization for Curatively Intended Treatment of Extensive Bilobar Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Case Series

Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany
Department of Radiology, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 13353 Berlin, Germany
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31(3), 1145-1161;
Submission received: 13 December 2023 / Revised: 2 February 2024 / Accepted: 19 February 2024 / Published: 21 February 2024


Background: Two-staged hepatectomy (TSH) including portal vein embolization (PVE) may offer surgical treatment for extensive bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and outcomes of extended right hepatectomy (ERH) within TSH including PVE for patients with extended CRLM. Methods: We retrospectively collected data of patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM between 2015 and 2021 at our institution. Clearance of the left liver lobe (clear-up, CU) associated with PVE was followed by ERH. Results: Minimally invasive (n = 12, 46%, MIH) or open hepatectomy (n = 14, 54%, OH) was performed. Postoperative major morbidity and 90-day mortality were 54% and 0%. Three-year overall survival was 95%. Baseline characteristics, postoperative and long-term outcomes were comparable between MIH and OH. However, hospital stay was significantly shorter after MIH (8 vs. 15 days, p = 0.008). Additionally, the need for intraoperative transfusions tended to be lower in the MIH group (17% vs. 50%, p = 0.110). Conclusions: ERH following CU and PVE for extended CRLM is feasible and safe in laparoscopic and open approaches. MIH for ERH may result in shorter postoperative hospital stays. Further high-volume, multicenter studies are required to evaluate the potential superiority of MIH.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC), among the most prevalent cancer types, is anticipated to account for approximately 1.9 million new cases and 0.9 million cancer-related deaths annually worldwide [1,2]. For patients diagnosed with CRC, liver metastases are present in up to a quarter of cases, and over the course of their disease, up to half of the patients develop metastatic spread to the liver [3,4]. Recent advances in personalized chemotherapy regimen, resection techniques and perioperative management have increased the number of patients eligible for surgical resection of advanced colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), ultimately leading to improved long-term outcomes with five-year survival rates over 50% [5,6].
However, patients with extensive bilobar liver spread and an insufficient future liver remnant (FLR) have traditionally been excluded from curatively intended surgical resections, resulting in a subset where only 10–25% of patients may profit from extensive liver surgery [7]. To address this issue, the concept of two-staged hepatectomy (TSH) was introduced in 2000 by Adam et al., involving a two-step surgical process [8]: First, the FLR is cleared of CRLM in the initial surgery (“clear-up”, CU), which may be combined with local ablation. Afterwards, the contralateral portal vein is embolized to induce hypertrophy of the FLR. After a growth period of approximately 4–8 weeks, a major hepatectomy of the contralateral liver is performed as the second stage [8]. TSH has been established as a standard approach in the multimodal treatment of patients with extensive CRLM, demonstrating promising long-term outcomes with median overall survival of 37 to 50 months, while reporting morbidity rates of 40–47% [9,10]. However, most studies have included standard as well as extended hemi-hepatectomies, and an exclusive analysis of extended right hepatectomies (ERH) after CU and PVE has not been published to date [9,10,11,12].
Therefore, the objective of this single-center case series was to evaluate the safety, feasibility and long-term outcome of ERH after CU and PVE in the context of TSH for patients initially deemed ineligible for resection of CRLM. Specifically, our aims were to analyze short-term postoperative outcomes, including postoperative morbidity and liver surgery-specific complications such as bile leakage, post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), and post-hepatectomy hemorrhage (PHH). Additionally, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes by examining overall and disease-free survival following ERH.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Inclusion Criteria and Study Design

Clinicopathological data of all consecutive patients who underwent ERH after CU and PVE for bilobar CRLM at the Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin between 2015 and 2021 were, retrospectively, collected. Only patients who received curatively intended treatment, defined as the ability to address all radiologically evident disease, and successfully completed both steps of the procedure, were included in the study. Patients were excluded if they underwent multivisceral resection involving other organs than the liver and the biliary system, underwent the ALPPS (associating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy) procedure, or were below 18 years of age at the time of resection. Approval for the study was obtained from the institutional ethics commission (EA2/006/16).

2.2. Preoperative Evaluation

The routine evaluation of patients included a standardized medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and imaging. All patients were discussed in our institutional multidisciplinary tumor board, which consisted of experienced hepatobiliary surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, pathologists and hepatologists [13]. Preoperative chemotherapy, with or without targeting agents based on mutational analysis, was generally administered to all patients [14,15]. Tumor staging and estimation of the FLR were conducted using triphasic contrast-enhanced computed tomography and/or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with liver-specific agents [14,15,16]. A recommendation for TSH was made when resection appeared feasible while preserving sufficient vascular supply and biliary drainage, but the FLR was expected to be inadequate for a one-stage approach. Additionally, only patients exhibiting tumor downsizing or at least stable disease after chemotherapy were considered eligible for the procedure. In cases where patients presented with synchronous CRLM, the primary tumor was either resected during CU or subsequently after completing TSH.

2.3. TSH and Perioperative Management

Procedures for CU included either atypical or segmental resection, local ablative therapy, or a combination of both. Local ablation was used for lesions <3 cm that were not accessible for parenchymal-sparing resections. In some cases, the primary tumor was resected during the first stage based on the recommendation of the tumor board. PVE was either performed during surgery through catheterization of an ileocolic vein or subsequently via ultrasound-guided transhepatic intervention [17]. Transhepatic PVE procedures were performed by an experienced interventional radiologist using Contour PVA Embolization Particles in combination with Interlock Embolization Coils (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA), or Tornado Embolization Coils (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA). Four weeks after PVE, the grade of hypertrophy was evaluated using computer tomography, and the FLR was calculated. In addition, the LiMAx (maximum liver function capacity) test was performed before CU to assess liver function before and, by interpolating the anticipated value using the calculated FLR, after surgery [18,19,20]. If sufficient liver function was anticipated as measured by the calculated post-surgery LiMAx value, and relevant tumor progression was ruled out, ERH was performed.
As necessitated by tumor spread, ERH was performed in all patients. ERH was defined by the resection of more than 4 continuous liver segments, that is segments 4–8, according to Couinaud’s classification of liver segments [21]. In some cases, segment 1 was also removed if affected by CRLM. Biliary and vasculary reconstruction was performed as necessary. All procedures were performed by five experienced hepatobiliary surgeons. The approach for ERH was either open (OH) or minimally invasive (MIH), including laparoscopic, hand-assisted (HALS) and robotic-assisted approaches, depending on patient-related factors and surgeon’s preference. A history of multiple prior abdominal surgeries did not exclude patients from MIH [22]. For robotic surgery (RS), the DaVinci Xi® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) was used [23,24]. At first, the abdominal cavity was examined for peritoneal dissemination. Intraoperative ultrasound was routinely used to accurately locate tumors in relation to the hepatic vasculature and biliary system, aiding in defining the transection plane. Dissection of liver parenchyma was conducted using various instruments based on the chosen surgical approach, as previously reported [25].
Following ERH, all patients were admitted to our specialized surgical intensive care unit (ICU) [25]. Histopathological analysis of resected specimens was performed by our institutional pathologists, and negative resection margins (R0) were defined as microscopically absence of tumor cells within 1 mm from the transection plane. Additionally, the presence of fibrosis was classified in grade 0 to 4 according to the Desmet and Scheuer scoring system [26]. All cases were presented in our institutional tumor board to determine further treatment recommendations based on international guidelines [14].

2.4. Postoperative Outcomes

Postoperative morbidity within 90 days after surgery was stratified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification [27]. Major morbidity was defined as any complication graded ≥3a. Post-hepatectomy-specific complications such as hemorrhage (post-hepatectomy hemorrhage, PHH) [28], liver failure (post-hepatectomy liver failure, PHLF) [29] and bile leakage [30], were defined based on the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS) criteria and categorized into three grades, respectively. Wound infections or intraabdominal abscesses were defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition for surgical site infections (SSI) [31].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Patients were stratified into MIH and OH groups based on the surgical approach of ERH and were then compared by clinicopathological parameters. Categorical variables were expressed as totals and frequencies, and continuous variables were presented as medians with ranges. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Fisher’s exact, chi-square, or Mann–Whitney U test as appropriate. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated from the date of ERH to the date of death, and local or distant recurrence, or last follow-up using the Kaplan–Meier method. Survival data were compared using the log-rank test. To identify factors associated with OS after ERH, the following clinicopathological parameters were analyzed: sex, age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status, sequence of development of CRLM, comorbidities, Desmet score, alcohol or nicotine abuse, number and size of CRLM, Rat sarcoma viral oncogene (RAS) mutation, LiMAx, duration of surgery, number of administrated red blood cell (RBC) units, length of ICU and hospital stay, overall and liver-specific postoperative morbidity, revision surgery, readmission to ICU, and postoperative chemotherapy. Factors resulting in p < 0.100 in univariate analysis were then entered into a Cox regression analysis with backward elimination. p values lower than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were conducted using the SPSS software package, version 27 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and R software (version 4.2.2, The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

During the study period from 2015 to 2021, a total of 35 patients were identified to be scheduled for ERH for CRLM after CU of the left liver lobe followed by PVE. Of those, nine patients (26%) were unable to proceed to ERH due to disease progression (n = 7), insufficient hypertrophy of the FLR (n = 1), or withdrawal of consent to surgical treatment (n = 1), and referred to systemic treatment (see Figure 1). Consequently, the final analysis included 26 patients who successfully completed TSH. The median age at the time of ERH was 55 years (range: 34–77 years), and median BMI was 26 kg/m2 (range: 17–34 kg/m2). Arterial hypertension (35%) and pulmonary diseases (15%) were the most common comorbidities. Normal liver parenchyma or mild fibrosis (score 0–1 according to Desmet and Scheuer [26]) was seen in 91% of patients. All patients received chemotherapy prior to CU (Table 1). The median interval between PVE and ERH was five weeks (range: 4–11 weeks). Patients were then stratified by surgical approach of ERH in MIH (n = 12, 46%) and OH (n = 14, 54%). Clinical baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (Table 1): No significant differences could be observed in terms of gender (p = 0.249), age (p = 0.940), BMI (p = 1), ASA physical status (p = 0.671), comorbidities, fibrosis score (p = 0.228), and the abuse of alcohol (p = 0.480) or nicotine (p = 1). Continuous data can be reviewed in Supplementary Figure S1.

3.2. Perioperative and Long-Term Outcomes

CU was performed via surgical resection, or a combination of resection and ablation in 83% and 8% for MIH, and 71% and 29% for OH, respectively (p = 0.652 and p = 0.330). One patient in the MIH group underwent ablation alone. Liver function, as measured by the LiMAx test, was comparable between the groups both before (295 vs. 296 µg/h/kg, p = 1) and after PVE (414 vs. 360 µg/h/kg, p = 0.131). Similarly, the calculated LiMAx of the FLR showed no significant difference before (80 vs. 90 µg/h/kg, p = 0.837) and after PVE (136 vs. 104 µg/h/kg, p = 0.063). For most patients, PVE was performed in a percutaneous transhepatic approach, while one patient in the OH group received a surgical transileocolic approach (p = 1). MIH procedures were performed hand-assisted laparoscopic, full laparoscopic and robotic-assisted in 8%, 25%, and 67% of cases, respectively. Three patients underwent trisectionectomy (p = 0.580). Duration of surgery was similar for MIH and OH (358 vs. 316 min, p = 0.705). Although the need for intraoperative red blood cell transfusions was lower during MIH, it did not reach statistical significance (17% vs. 50%, p = 0.110). The median length of ICU stay was one day in both groups (p = 0.899), but the median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter after MIH compared to OH (8 vs. 15 days, p = 0.008). Postoperative overall morbidity and major morbidity were 50% and 42% for MIH, and 79% and 64% for OH (p = 0.218 and p = 0.249). While the incidence of SSI tended to be lower after MIH (8% vs. 43%, p = 0.081), the incidences of intraabdominal abscess (p = 1), PHH (p = 1), biliary leakage (p = 1), and PHLF (p = 1) were equivalent between MIH and OH. Revision surgery was necessary in six cases (see Supplementary Table S2). No mortality was observed within 30 or 90 days after surgery in all patients (Table 2).
After a median follow-up of 16 months, three-year overall survival was 89% for MIH and 100% for OH (p = 0.292; Figure 2). One-year disease-free survival was 12% for MIH and 10% for OH (p = 0.416; Figure 3). OS comparison between patients after ERH and patients who dropped out after CU and PVE can be found in Supplementary Figure S2.
Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with OS are summarized in Supplementary Table S1. As indicated in univariate analysis, OS was significantly influenced by age at resection (p = 0.021), the calculated LiMAx of the FLR after PVE (p = 0.094), and the development of postoperative biliary leakage (p = 0.094). However, multivariate analysis failed to identify factors that were independently associated with worse OS.

3.3. Type of Recurrence and Therapy of Recurrence

Recurrent disease occurred in 67% of patients after MIH and 71% after OH (p = 1; Table 3). Hepatic recurrence was observed in four cases in both groups (p = 1). Recurrence at other sites or multiple sites including hepatic recurrence were evident in three and one cases for MIH, and four and two cases for OH (p = 1 and p = 1). Recurrence was accessible to surgical (33%) or local ablative therapy (11%), while recurrent disease was treated by systemic chemotherapy alone in 44% of cases.

4. Discussion

In our case series, we evaluated the concept of ERH within a TSH protocol including CU and PVE for patients with extensive bilobar CRLM. Our findings revealed comparable postoperative short- and long-term outcomes after MIH and OH. Notably, the length of stay was reduced after MIH. These results indicate that TSH with ERH for extended CRLM is surgically feasible and safe in both open and minimally invasive settings. Furthermore, multidisciplinary treatment including extended surgery achieved a three-year OS rate of 95%, suggesting that this approach may offer long-term survival benefits for carefully selected patients.
While the indications for surgical treatment of extended CRLM continue to expand, a significant proportion of patients remain ineligible for liver resection, which currently still offers the most effective treatment option for long-term survival [32,33]. Therefore, expanding the pool of patients suitable for surgical resection is a crucial aspect of the multidisciplinary therapeutic approach. Advances in systemic chemotherapy have allowed for more patients with extensive CLRM to undergo liver resection through down-sizing chemotherapy strategies. Moreover, staged procedures with FLR augmentation through PVE have further increased resectablity rates [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. In this study, we specifically evaluated the concept of TSH with PVE after CU of the left liver lobe. Previous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of this approach and reported favorable short- and long-term outcomes after standard and extended hepatectomies [34,43,44]. However, we focused on extended liver resections in this study to minimize heterogeneity, and, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to exclusively evaluate ERH in this setting. Although a recent French study included 30% extended hepatectomies, a subgroup analysis was not reported [35]. Furthermore, we limited the clinical analyses to the second stage of TSH, as this procedure is technically more demanding and carries greater risks, and therefore represents the critical part of TSH.
After ERH, we observed a major morbidity rate of 54% without any 90-day postoperative mortality, which is consistent with previous studies reporting morbidity rates ranging from 10–59% and mortality rates from 0–7% [9,11,34,35,44,45]. However, these studies included both extended and standard right hepatectomies within the setting of TSH. More specifically, postoperative rates of PHH, PHLF, and biliary leakage were mainly limited to grade A and B in our study. Revision surgery and readmission to ITS were required in only six and four cases, respectively. When comparing MIH and OH, postoperative morbidity rates were comparable between both approaches. However, the MIH group had a significantly shorter hospital stay and a reduced need for intraoperative transfusions. Although previous research has shown that blood loss predicts morbidity and mortality after hepatic resection [46,47], our results did not demonstrate a significant difference between the groups. Interestingly, despite all patients having a history of prior abdominal surgery after CU, there was no need for conversion to open surgery in the MIH group. This conversion rate is lower than reported data from two other studies comparing (extended) hepatectomy in a similar setting, reporting conversion rates of 11–15% [34,35]. These data support recent evidence that minimally invasive approaches are feasible even in patients with a history of abdominal surgery [22]. In summary, our findings align with the results of recent studies comparing laparoscopic and open TSH [34,35,45], indicating that both approaches can be safely performed with comparable short-term outcomes. In addition, our results may support the recommendation from the Southhampton Consensus guidelines on laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) for a stepwise implementation of LLS in specialist liver centers, which may be expanded for ERH after CU based on our results [48].
An alternative surgical strategy for bilobar CRLM is ALPPS, which was originally introduced to allow for a more rapid hepatic hypertrophy than PVE [49]. Since then, several modifications of ALPPS have been reported including CU of the liver remnant for extensive CRLM during the performance of ALPPS [50,51,52]. However, only few case series exist and none of them included exclusively patients with CRLM who underwent ALPPS with CU, making a comparison with our results difficult [53,54]. Generally, though ALPPS was associated with a greater increase of the FLR and more frequent completion of the second stage of TSH, it has a tendency to higher postoperative morbidity and mortality than TSH with PVE [55]. Considering this, TSH with PVE is the preferred strategy for extensive bilobar CLRM in our institution.
Our study reported a three-year OS rate of 95%, which is one of the highest compared to existing data [9]. While long-term survival is clearly limited by recurrence, surgical resection margins and the management of recurrent disease are crucial factors affecting OS. Surgery achieved a R0-resection in 76% of patients, which is in accordance with the results of a recent meta-analysis reporting a R0-resection rate of 75% [9]. Interestingly, the occurrence of local recurrence after R1 resection was low, supporting previous findings that positive resection margins may serve as a surrogate parameter for advanced disease without influencing the location of recurrence, as it is associated with an increased risk not only for local recurrence in general but also distant metastatic disease [56,57].
Still, DFS after one year was only 12% and 10% after MIH and OH, respectively, which is lower than a reported median DFS of 20% in the literature [9]. As we only included patients who underwent extensive liver resection with ERH, we believe that these low DFS numbers may be caused by a higher tumor burden in our cohort. Nevertheless, we were able to achieve a three-year OS of 95%, which may mainly be attributed to our management of recurrent disease. The preferred treatment approach for recurrent disease is repeated resection at our institution, which was performed in 23% of affected patients. The high percentage of patients undergoing repeated hepatectomy may have contributed to the favorable OS reported in our series [58,59,60,61]. A recent study by Takahashi et al. reported an 87% recurrence rate, but favorable long-term survival was achieved through repeated resection [62]. Conversely, data on systemic therapy for recurrent CRLM have shown median survival rates of 11–29 months and a five-year OS of 20% [63,64,65]. Multivariate analysis in our study did not reveal parameters independently associated with worse OS. Nevertheless, univariate analysis identified advanced age, inadequate preoperative LiMAx value, and the occurrence of postoperative bile leakage as factors linked to worse OS. These findings underscore the critical role of meticulous patient selection for TSH. Although elderly patients have often been associated with unfavorable postoperative outcomes in abdominal surgery [66,67,68,69], the recent literature suggests that liver resection can be considered even for patients with advanced age following thorough preoperative evaluation [70]. Moreover, our analysis highlights that achieving a sufficient FLR with optimal liver function, as assessed by the LiMAx test, reduces the risk of compromised OS due to PHLF, ultimately safeguarding patients from associated morbidity and mortality [71,72]. In the future, computational models may further assist in decreasing the probability of PHLF [73,74]. Lastly, our data support the notion that postoperative bile leakage is a known factor impacting long-term outcomes for patients after liver surgery [75].
The use of interval chemotherapy during the liver growth period after PVE, or after CU, remains a topic of debate. On the one hand, the non-embolized liver parenchyma requires time for regeneration and growth, as studies on FLR hypertrophy kinetics after PVE have demonstrated that the maximum volume increase occurs within the first three weeks after PVE [76]. On the other hand, tumor progression during the interval between the two stages of TSH may lead to unresectability, and clinical data suggest that PVE might even accelerate tumor progression [77,78,79,80]. In our study, we report a drop-out rate of 26% of patients, who did not proceed to the second step of TSH. Among these patients, tumor progression was indeed the most common reason for drop-out. Previous studies investigating the drop-out rate between the two stages have reported similar rates ranging from 24 to 38% [9,81,82]. Interval chemotherapy was not administered in this study, as previous research has suggested a negative impact on liver parenchyma regeneration [83,84]. Furthermore, Muratore et al. found that interval chemotherapy did not reduce the drop-out rate between the two stages [85]. In contrast, other studies have indicated that chemotherapy does not impair liver regeneration [86,87,88]. Goere et al. even reported no significant difference in the rate of hypertrophy after PVE whether chemotherapy was interrupted one month before PVE or continued until surgery [87]. In our study, the interval between PVE and ERH was five weeks, which is relatively short compared to other studies reporting intervals of 4–11 weeks [11,34,35,43,44]. A shorter chemotherapy-free interval may improve oncological outcomes and could be associated with improved OS, as observed in our study [89]. However, the chemotherapy-free interval itself, the fact that we induced liver hypertrophy through PVE, and careful patient selection may have contributed to our low rate of PHLF [83,84]. While comparable studies have reported PHLF rates between 5 and 8% [34,35], we did not observe any cases of grade B or grade C liver failure, despite all patients receiving prior chemotherapy and undergoing extended liver resection. In addition, PVE has been known to reduce the incidence of PHLF by augmenting the FLR, thus enhancing the safety of hepatectomy. In a prospective trial examining PVE before major hepatectomy, Farges et al. reported PHLF rates of 7% and 50% with and without preoperative PVE, respectively [90]. Other studies reported similar rates of 4–8% for PHLF following major hepatectomy after PVE [90,91,92,93].
In conclusion, our study establishes the feasibility and safety of the TSH approach, particularly in the context of extended hepatectomies. These findings provide valuable insights for devising a treatment plan tailored to patients with extensive bilobar CRLM. When assessing these patients for CRLM surgery, we recommend incorporating the following factors into consideration: patient-centered parameters, including general health status and comorbidities, tumor biology (including mutational characteristics and the effectiveness of applied chemotherapy), technical resectability (considering the relationship to anatomical structures such as blood vessels or bile ducts), and functional resectability (ensuring adequate liver function of the future liver remnant after surgery).
Finally, there are certain limitations of our study. Due to the retrospective study design and rather small cohort, conclusions from the results have to be interpreted with caution. The diversity of procedures for surgical treatment of bilobar CRLM poses a challenge in study design and comparison across different series. To address this issue, we focused on ERH for CRLM within the setting of TSH. The extent of liver resection is a known predictor for morbidity and mortality, which are increased in case of extended hepatectomies [46,94,95,96,97,98], this should be considered when comparing our results to existing studies.

5. Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that ERH in combination with clearance of the left liver lobe and PVE for CRLM can be conducted with favorable short- and long-term outcomes for carefully selected patients at specialized centers. The adoption of minimally invasive techniques may help to reduce hospital stay and the need for blood transfusions. Regarding long-term outcomes, minimally invasive and open approaches proved to be equivalent. Further prospective studies are needed to corroborate our results, as conclusions from this single-center case series should be carefully drawn.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at:, Figure S1: Boxplots of continuous data showing group comparison between MIH and OH. (A) Age at resection, in years; (B) BMI, in kg/m2; (C) number of CRLM after CU; (D) size of biggest CRLM, in mm; (E) LiMAx before PVE, in µg/kg/h; (F) calculated LiMAx of FLR before PVE, in µg/kg/h; (G) LiMAx after PVE, in µg/kg/h; (H) calculated LiMAx of FLR after PVE, in µg/kg/h; (I) duration of surgery, in minutes; (J) number of intraoperative RBC units; (K) length of ICU stay, in days; (L) length of hospital stay, in days. Boxes showing minimum to maximum, line at median. MIH, minimally invasive hepatectomy; OH, open hepatectomy; BMI, body-mass index; CRLM, colorectal liver metastases; CU, clear-up; PVE, portal vein embolization; FLR, future liver remnant; RBC, red blood cells; ICU, intensive care unit; NS, not significant; **, p < 0.010; Figure S2: Overall survival (OS) of all 35 patients who were eligible for this study, and who underwent clear-up (CU) of the left liver lobe followed by embolization of the right portal vein (PVE). Afterwards, nine patients (26%) dropped out due to disease progression, insufficient hypertrophy of the future liver remnant (FLR) after PVE, or withdrawal of consent for surgery, and were recommended for systemic treatment. In this survival analysis, OS between patients who did not proceed to ERH after CU (“Dropout”) were compared to those who underwent ERH. OS was calculated from the day of CU until the day of death or last follow-up. One-year OS rates were 100% and 95% in the Dropout and ERH groups, respectively (p = 0.3); Table S1: Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with overall and disease-free survival in 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM; Table S2: Indications for revision surgery, which was necessary in six cases (23%).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and W.S.; methodology, S.K.; validation, K.-H.H., S.M., U.F., T.A.A., N.R., G.L. and F.K.; formal analysis, S.K. and L.S.; investigation, S.K., L.S., U.F. and T.A.A.; resources, J.P. and W.S.; data curation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and L.S.; writing—review and editing, K.-H.H., S.M., U.F., T.A.A., N.R., G.L., F.K., J.P. and W.S.; supervision, J.P. and W.S.; project administration, S.K. and W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committe) of Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin (protocol code EA2/006/16).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to sensitive patient information.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ALPPSassociating liver partition with portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy
ASAAmerican Society of Anesthesiology
BMIBody mass index
CDCCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
CRCcolorectal cancer
CRLMcolorectal liver metastases
DFSdisease-free survival
ERHextended right hepatectomy
FLRfuture liver remnant
HALShand-assisted laparoscopic surgery
ICUintensive care unit
ISGLSInternational Study Group of Liver Surgery
LiMAxmaximum liver function capacity
LLSlaparoscopic liver surgery
MIHminimally invasive hepatectomy
MSImicrosatellite instability
OHopen hepatectomy
OSoverall survival
PHHpost-hepatectomy hemorrhage
PHLFpost-hepatectomy liver failure
PVEportal vein embolization
RASRat sarcoma viral oncogene
RBCred blood cell
RSrobotic surgery
SSIsurgical site infections
TSHtwo-stage hepatectomy


  1. Cardoso, R.; Guo, F.; Heisser, T.; Hackl, M.; Ihle, P.; De Schutter, H.; Van Damme, N.; Valerianova, Z.; Atanasov, T.; Majek, O.; et al. Colorectal cancer incidence, mortality, and stage distribution in European countries in the colorectal cancer screening era: An international population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2021, 22, 1002–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dyba, T.; Randi, G.; Bray, F.; Martos, C.; Giusti, F.; Nicholson, N.; Gavin, A.; Flego, M.; Neamtiu, L.; Dimitrova, N.; et al. The European cancer burden in 2020: Incidence and mortality estimates for 40 countries and 25 major cancers. Eur. J. Cancer 2021, 157, 308–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Martin, J.; Petrillo, A.; Smyth, E.C.; Shaida, N.; Khwaja, S.; Cheow, H.K.; Duckworth, A.; Heister, P.; Praseedom, R.; Jah, A.; et al. Colorectal liver metastases: Current management and future perspectives. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 11, 761–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Chan, K.M.; Wu, T.H.; Cheng, C.H.; Lee, W.C.; Chiang, J.M.; Chen, J.S.; Wang, J.Y. Prognostic significance of the number of tumors and aggressive surgical approach in colorectal cancer hepatic metastasis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 12, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kemeny, N. Presurgical chemotherapy in patients being considered for liver resection. Oncologist 2007, 12, 825–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Adam, R.; Laurent, A.; Azoulay, D.; Castaing, D.; Bismuth, H. Two-stage hepatectomy: A planned strategy to treat irresectable liver tumors. Ann. Surg. 2000, 232, 777–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lam, V.W.; Laurence, J.M.; Johnston, E.; Hollands, M.J.; Pleass, H.C.; Richardson, A.J. A systematic review of two-stage hepatectomy in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2013, 15, 483–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chavez, M.I.; Gholami, S.; Kim, B.J.; Margonis, G.A.; Ethun, C.G.; Tsai, S.; Christians, K.K.; Clarke, C.; Mogal, H.; Maithel, S.K.; et al. Two-Stage Hepatectomy for Bilateral Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Multi-institutional Analysis. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2021, 28, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wicherts, D.A.; Miller, R.; de Haas, R.J.; Bitsakou, G.; Vibert, E.; Veilhan, L.A.; Azoulay, D.; Bismuth, H.; Castaing, D.; Adam, R. Long-term results of two-stage hepatectomy for irresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann. Surg. 2008, 248, 994–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tsai, S.; Marques, H.P.; de Jong, M.C.; Mira, P.; Ribeiro, V.; Choti, M.A.; Schulick, R.D.; Barroso, E.; Pawlik, T.M. Two-stage strategy for patients with extensive bilateral colorectal liver metastases. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2010, 12, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hellingman, T.; de Swart, M.E.; Joosten, J.J.A.; Meijerink, M.R.; de Vries, J.J.J.; de Waard, J.W.D.; van Zweeden, A.A.; Zonderhuis, B.M.; Kazemier, G. The value of a dedicated multidisciplinary expert panel to assess treatment strategy in patients suffering from colorectal cancer liver metastases. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 35, 412–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Van Cutsem, E.; Cervantes, A.; Adam, R.; Sobrero, A.; Van Krieken, J.H.; Aderka, D.; Aranda Aguilar, E.; Bardelli, A.; Benson, A.; Bodoky, G.; et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. Off. J. Eur. Soc. Med. Oncol./ESMO 2016, 27, 1386–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Morris, V.K.; Kennedy, E.B.; Baxter, N.N.; Benson, A.B., 3rd; Cercek, A.; Cho, M.; Ciombor, K.K.; Cremolini, C.; Davis, A.; Deming, D.A.; et al. Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2023, 41, 678–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Primavesi, F.; Maglione, M.; Cipriani, F.; Denecke, T.; Oberkofler, C.E.; Starlinger, P.; Dasari, B.V.M.; Heil, J.; Sgarbura, O.; Soreide, K.; et al. E-AHPBA-ESSO-ESSR Innsbruck consensus guidelines for preoperative liver function assessment before hepatectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2023, 110, 1331–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. van Lienden, K.P.; van den Esschert, J.W.; de Graaf, W.; Bipat, S.; Lameris, J.S.; van Gulik, T.M.; van Delden, O.M. Portal vein embolization before liver resection: A systematic review. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2013, 36, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stockmann, M.; Lock, J.F.; Malinowski, M.; Niehues, S.M.; Seehofer, D.; Neuhaus, P. The LiMAx test: A new liver function test for predicting postoperative outcome in liver surgery. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2010, 12, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stockmann, M.; Lock, J.F.; Riecke, B.; Heyne, K.; Martus, P.; Fricke, M.; Lehmann, S.; Niehues, S.M.; Schwabe, M.; Lemke, A.J.; et al. Prediction of postoperative outcome after hepatectomy with a new bedside test for maximal liver function capacity. Ann. Surg. 2009, 250, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rahimli, M.; Perrakis, A.; Gumbs, A.A.; Andric, M.; Al-Madhi, S.; Arend, J.; Croner, R.S. The LiMAx Test as Selection Criteria in Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Couinaud, C. Liver lobes and segments: Notes on the anatomical architecture and surgery of the liver. Presse Med. (1893) 1954, 62, 709–712. [Google Scholar]
  22. Feldbrugge, L.; Wabitsch, S.; Benzing, C.; Krenzien, F.; Kastner, A.; Haber, P.K.; Atanasov, G.; Andreou, A.; Ollinger, R.; Pratschke, J.; et al. Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection in patients with a history of abdominal surgeries. HPB 2020, 22, 1191–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schmelzle, M.; Krenzien, F.; Schoning, W.; Pratschke, J. Possibilities and limits of robotic liver surgery—Current status 2020. Chirurg 2021, 92, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Schmelzle, M.; Schoning, W.; Pratschke, J. Liver Surgery—Setup, Port Placement, Structured Surgical Steps—Standard Operating Procedures in Robot-Assisted Liver Surgery. Zentralblatt Fur Chir. 2020, 145, 246–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Knitter, S.; Andreou, A.; Kradolfer, D.; Beierle, A.S.; Pesthy, S.; Eichelberg, A.C.; Kastner, A.; Feldbrugge, L.; Krenzien, F.; Schulz, M.; et al. Minimal-Invasive Versus Open Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Bicentric Analysis of Postoperative Outcomes and Long-Term Survival Using Propensity Score Matching Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 4027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Desmet, V.J.; Gerber, M.; Hoofnagle, J.H.; Manns, M.; Scheuer, P.J. Classification of chronic hepatitis: Diagnosis, grading and staging. Hepatology 1994, 19, 1513–1520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dindo, D.; Demartines, N.; Clavien, P.A. Classification of surgical complications: A new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Rahbari, N.N.; Garden, O.J.; Padbury, R.; Maddern, G.; Koch, M.; Hugh, T.J.; Fan, S.T.; Nimura, Y.; Figueras, J.; Vauthey, J.N.; et al. Post-hepatectomy haemorrhage: A definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). HPB 2011, 13, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rahbari, N.N.; Garden, O.J.; Padbury, R.; Brooke-Smith, M.; Crawford, M.; Adam, R.; Koch, M.; Makuuchi, M.; Dematteo, R.P.; Christophi, C.; et al. Posthepatectomy liver failure: A definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery 2011, 149, 713–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Koch, M.; Garden, O.J.; Padbury, R.; Rahbari, N.N.; Adam, R.; Capussotti, L.; Fan, S.T.; Yokoyama, Y.; Crawford, M.; Makuuchi, M.; et al. Bile leakage after hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery: A definition and grading of severity by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery. Surgery 2011, 149, 680–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Control, C.f.D. Surgical Site Infection (SSI) Event. Updated January 2015. Available online: (accessed on 3 March 2015).
  32. Misiakos, E.P.; Karidis, N.P.; Kouraklis, G. Current treatment for colorectal liver metastases. World J. Gastroenterol. WJG 2011, 17, 4067–4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Benson, A.B.; Venook, A.P.; Al-Hawary, M.M.; Arain, M.A.; Chen, Y.J.; Ciombor, K.K.; Cohen, S.; Cooper, H.S.; Deming, D.; Farkas, L.; et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw. 2021, 19, 329–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fuks, D.; Nomi, T.; Ogiso, S.; Gelli, M.; Velayutham, V.; Conrad, C.; Louvet, C.; Gayet, B. Laparoscopic two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar colorectal liver metastases. J. Br. J. Surg. 2015, 102, 1684–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Okumura, S.; Goumard, C.; Gayet, B.; Fuks, D.; Scatton, O. Laparoscopic versus open two-stage hepatectomy for bilobar colorectal liver metastases: A bi-institutional, propensity score-matched study. Surgery 2019, 166, 959–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bjornsson, B.; Sparrelid, E.; Rosok, B.; Pomianowska, E.; Hasselgren, K.; Gasslander, T.; Bjornbeth, B.A.; Isaksson, B.; Sandstrom, P. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy in patients with colorectal liver metastases--Intermediate oncological results. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 42, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Boning, G.; Fehrenbach, U.; Auer, T.A.; Neumann, K.; Jonczyk, M.; Pratschke, J.; Schoning, W.; Schmelzle, M.; Gebauer, B. Liver Venous Deprivation (LVD) Versus Portal Vein Embolization (PVE) Alone Prior to Extended Hepatectomy: A Matched Pair Analysis. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2022, 45, 950–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chebaro, A.; Buc, E.; Durin, T.; Chiche, L.; Brustia, R.; Didier, A.; Pruvot, F.R.; Kitano, Y.; Muscari, F.; Lecolle, K.; et al. Liver Venous Deprivation or Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy: A Retrospective Multicentric Study. Ann. Surg. 2021, 274, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Niekamp, A.S.; Huang, S.Y.; Mahvash, A.; Odisio, B.C.; Ahrar, K.; Tzeng, C.D.; Vauthey, J.N. Hepatic vein embolization after portal vein embolization to induce additional liver hypertrophy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Eur. Radiol. 2020, 30, 3862–3868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Homayounfar, K.; Liersch, T.; Schuetze, G.; Niessner, M.; Goralczyk, A.; Meller, J.; Langer, C.; Ghadimi, B.M.; Becker, H.; Lorf, T. Two-stage hepatectomy (R0) with portal vein ligation--towards curing patients with extended bilobular colorectal liver metastases. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2009, 24, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Jia, C.; Ge, K.; Xu, S.; Liu, L.; Weng, J.; Chen, Y. Selective occlusion of the hepatic artery and portal vein improves liver hypertrophy for staged hepatectomy. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 17, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Imai, K.; Adam, R.; Baba, H. How to increase the resectability of initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A surgical perspective. Ann. Gastroenterol. Surg. 2019, 3, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Narita, M.; Oussoultzoglou, E.; Bachellier, P.; Rosso, E.; Pessaux, P.; Jaeck, D. Two-stage hepatectomy procedure to treat initially unresectable multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases: Technical aspects. Dig. Surg. 2011, 28, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jaeck, D.; Oussoultzoglou, E.; Rosso, E.; Greget, M.; Weber, J.C.; Bachellier, P. A two-stage hepatectomy procedure combined with portal vein embolization to achieve curative resection for initially unresectable multiple and bilobar colorectal liver metastases. Ann. Surg. 2004, 240, 1037–1049; discussion 1049–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gorgec, B.; Suhool, A.; Al-Jarrah, R.; Fontana, M.; Tehami, N.A.; Modi, S.; Abu Hilal, M. Surgical technique and clinical results of one- or two-stage laparoscopic right hemihepatectomy after portal vein embolization in patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases: A case series. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 77, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jarnagin, W.R.; Gonen, M.; Fong, Y.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Ben-Porat, L.; Little, S.; Corvera, C.; Weber, S.; Blumgart, L.H. Improvement in perioperative outcome after hepatic resection: Analysis of 1,803 consecutive cases over the past decade. Ann. Surg. 2002, 236, 397–406; discussion 406–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. de Boer, M.T.; Molenaar, I.Q.; Porte, R.J. Impact of blood loss on outcome after liver resection. Dig. Surg. 2007, 24, 259–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Abu Hilal, M.; Aldrighetti, L.; Dagher, I.; Edwin, B.; Troisi, R.I.; Alikhanov, R.; Aroori, S.; Belli, G.; Besselink, M.; Briceno, J.; et al. The Southampton Consensus Guidelines for Laparoscopic Liver Surgery: From Indication to Implementation. Ann. Surg. 2018, 268, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Schnitzbauer, A.A.; Lang, S.A.; Goessmann, H.; Nadalin, S.; Baumgart, J.; Farkas, S.A.; Fichtner-Feigl, S.; Lorf, T.; Goralcyk, A.; Horbelt, R.; et al. Right portal vein ligation combined with in situ splitting induces rapid left lateral liver lobe hypertrophy enabling 2-staged extended right hepatic resection in small-for-size settings. Ann. Surg. 2012, 255, 405–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Baili, E.; Tsilimigras, D.I.; Moris, D.; Sahara, K.; Pawlik, T.M. Technical modifications and outcomes after Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged Hepatectomy (ALPPS) for primary liver malignancies: A systematic review. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 33, 70–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Robles-Campos, R.; Brusadin, R.; Lopez-Conesa, A.; Lopez-Lopez, V.; Navarro-Barrios, A.; Lopez-Espin, J.J.; Arevalo-Perez, J.; Parrilla, P. Long-Term Outcome After Conventional Two-Stage Hepatectomy Versus Tourniquet-ALPPS in Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. World J. Surg. 2019, 43, 2281–2289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schadde, E.; Malago, M.; Hernandez-Alejandro, R.; Li, J.; Abdalla, E.; Ardiles, V.; Lurje, G.; Vyas, S.; Machado, M.A.; de Santibanes, E. Monosegment ALPPS hepatectomy: Extending resectability by rapid hypertrophy. Surgery 2015, 157, 676–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kumar, N.; Duncan, T.; O’Reilly, D.; Kaposztas, Z.; Parry, C.; Rees, J.; Junnarkar, S. Partial ALPPS with a longer wait between procedures is safe and yields adequate future liver remnant hypertrophy. Ann. Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat. Surg. 2019, 23, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bednarsch, J.; Czigany, Z.; Sharmeen, S.; van der Kroft, G.; Strnad, P.; Ulmer, T.F.; Isfort, P.; Bruners, P.; Lurje, G.; Neumann, U.P. ALPPS versus two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases--a comparative retrospective cohort study. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 18, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eshmuminov, D.; Raptis, D.A.; Linecker, M.; Wirsching, A.; Lesurtel, M.; Clavien, P.A. Meta-analysis of associating liver partition with portal vein ligation and portal vein occlusion for two-stage hepatectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2016, 103, 1768–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pawlik, T.M.; Scoggins, C.R.; Zorzi, D.; Abdalla, E.K.; Andres, A.; Eng, C.; Curley, S.A.; Loyer, E.M.; Muratore, A.; Mentha, G.; et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann. Surg. 2005, 241, 715–722; discussion 722–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Andreou, A.; Knitter, S.; Schmelzle, M.; Kradolfer, D.; Maurer, M.H.; Auer, T.A.; Fehrenbach, U.; Lachenmayer, A.; Banz, V.; Schoning, W.; et al. Recurrence at surgical margin following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases is not associated with R1 resection and does not impact survival. Surgery 2021, 169, 1061–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Andreou, A.; Brouquet, A.; Abdalla, E.K.; Aloia, T.A.; Curley, S.A.; Vauthey, J.N. Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal liver metastases is associated with a high survival rate. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2011, 13, 774–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Butte, J.M.; Gonen, M.; Allen, P.J.; Peter Kingham, T.; Sofocleous, C.T.; DeMatteo, R.P.; Fong, Y.; Kemeny, N.E.; Jarnagin, W.R.; D’Angelica, M.I. Recurrence After Partial Hepatectomy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Potentially Curative Role of Salvage Repeat Resection. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2015, 22, 2761–2771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Vigano, L.; Ferrero, A.; Lo Tesoriere, R.; Capussotti, L. Liver surgery for colorectal metastases: Results after 10 years of follow-up. Long-term survivors, late recurrences, and prognostic role of morbidity. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2008, 15, 2458–2464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Adair, R.A.; Young, A.L.; Cockbain, A.J.; Malde, D.; Prasad, K.R.; Lodge, J.P.; Toogood, G.J. Repeat hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases. Br. J. Surg. 2012, 99, 1278–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Takahashi, M.; Hasegawa, K.; Oba, M.; Aoki, T.; Sakamoto, Y.; Sugawara, Y.; Kokudo, N. Repeat resection leads to long-term survival: Analysis of 10-year follow-up of patients with colorectal liver metastases. Am. J. Surg. 2015, 210, 904–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Tournigand, C.; Andre, T.; Achille, E.; Lledo, G.; Flesh, M.; Mery-Mignard, D.; Quinaux, E.; Couteau, C.; Buyse, M.; Ganem, G.; et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: A randomized GERCOR study. J. Clin. Oncol. Off. J. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. 2004, 22, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jonker, D.J.; Maroun, J.A.; Kocha, W. Survival benefit of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br. J. Cancer 2000, 82, 1789–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Heinemann, V.; von Weikersthal, L.F.; Decker, T.; Kiani, A.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Al-Batran, S.E.; Heintges, T.; Lerchenmuller, C.; Kahl, C.; Seipelt, G.; et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Duron, J.J.; Duron, E.; Dugue, T.; Pujol, J.; Muscari, F.; Collet, D.; Pessaux, P.; Hay, J.M. Risk factors for mortality in major digestive surgery in the elderly: A multicenter prospective study. Ann. Surg. 2011, 254, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Racz, J.; Dubois, L.; Katchky, A.; Wall, W. Elective and emergency abdominal surgery in patients 90 years of age or older. Can. J. Surg. 2012, 55, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Eamer, G.; Al-Amoodi, M.J.H.; Holroyd-Leduc, J.; Rolfson, D.B.; Warkentin, L.M.; Khadaroo, R.G. Review of risk assessment tools to predict morbidity and mortality in elderly surgical patients. Am. J. Surg. 2018, 216, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Elfrink, A.K.E.; Kok, N.F.M.; den Dulk, M.; Buis, C.I.; Kazemier, G.; Ijzermans, J.N.M.; Lam, H.D.; Hagendoorn, J.; van den Boezem, P.B.; Ayez, N.; et al. Short-term postoperative outcomes after liver resection in the elderly patient: A nationwide population-based study. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2021, 23, 1506–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Nardo, B.; Serafini, S.; Ruggiero, M.; Grande, R.; Fugetto, F.; Zullo, A.; Novello, M.; Rizzuto, A.; Bonaiuto, E.; Vaccarisi, S.; et al. Liver resection for metastases from colorectal cancer in very elderly patients: New surgical horizons. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 33, S135–S141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Blüthner, E.; Jara, M.; Shrestha, R.; Faber, W.; Pratschke, J.; Stockmann, M.; Malinowski, M. Future liver remnant function as a predictor of postoperative morbidity following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma—A risk factor analysis. Surg. Oncol. 2020, 33, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Birrer, D.L.; Tschuor, C.; Reiner, C.; Fritsch, R.; Pfammatter, T.; Garcia Schuler, H.; Pavic, M.; De Oliveira, M.; Petrowsky, H.; Dutkowski, P.; et al. Multimodal treatment strategies for colorectal liver metastases. Swiss Med. Wkly. 2021, 151, w20390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Verma, B.K.; Subramaniam, P.; Vadigepalli, R. Model-based virtual patient analysis of human liver regeneration predicts critical perioperative factors controlling the dynamic mode of response to resection. BMC Syst. Biol. 2019, 13, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Christ, B.; Collatz, M.; Dahmen, U.; Herrmann, K.H.; Hopfl, S.; Konig, M.; Lambers, L.; Marz, M.; Meyer, D.; Radde, N.; et al. Hepatectomy-Induced Alterations in Hepatic Perfusion and Function—Toward Multi-Scale Computational Modeling for a Better Prediction of Post-hepatectomy Liver Function. Front. Physiol. 2021, 12, 733868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yamamoto, M.; Kobayashi, T.; Kuroda, S.; Hamaoka, M.; Honmyo, N.; Yamaguchi, M.; Takei, D.; Ohdan, H. Impact of postoperative bile leakage on long-term outcome in patients following liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepato-Biliary Pancreat. Sci. 2020, 27, 931–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ribero, D.; Abdalla, E.K.; Madoff, D.C.; Donadon, M.; Loyer, E.M.; Vauthey, J.N. Portal vein embolization before major hepatectomy and its effects on regeneration, resectability and outcome. J. Br. J. Surg. 2007, 94, 1386–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Elias, D.; De Baere, T.; Roche, A.; Ducreux, M.; Leclere, J.; Lasser, P. During liver regeneration following right portal embolization the growth rate of liver metastases is more rapid than that of the liver parenchyma. Br. J. Surg. 1999, 86, 784–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kokudo, N.; Tada, K.; Seki, M.; Ohta, H.; Azekura, K.; Ueno, M.; Ohta, K.; Yamaguchi, T.; Matsubara, T.; Takahashi, T.; et al. Proliferative activity of intrahepatic colorectal metastases after preoperative hemihepatic portal vein embolization. Hepatology 2001, 34, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hoekstra, L.T.; van Lienden, K.P.; Doets, A.; Busch, O.R.; Gouma, D.J.; van Gulik, T.M. Tumor progression after preoperative portal vein embolization. Ann. Surg. 2012, 256, 812–817; discussion 817–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Spelt, L.; Sparrelid, E.; Isaksson, B.; Andersson, R.G.; Sturesson, C. Tumour growth after portal vein embolization with pre-procedural chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases. HPB 2015, 17, 529–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Imai, K.; Benitez, C.C.; Allard, M.A.; Vibert, E.; Cunha, A.S.; Cherqui, D.; Castaing, D.; Bismuth, H.; Baba, H.; Adam, R. Failure to Achieve a 2-Stage Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: How to Prevent It? Ann. Surg. 2015, 262, 772–778; discussion 778–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Vigano, L.; Torzilli, G.; Cimino, M.; Imai, K.; Vibert, E.; Donadon, M.; Castaing, D.; Adam, R. Drop-out between the two liver resections of two-stage hepatectomy. Patient selection or loss of chance? Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 42, 1385–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sturesson, C.; Nilsson, J.; Eriksson, S.; Spelt, L.; Andersson, R. Limiting factors for liver regeneration after a major hepatic resection for colorectal cancer metastases. HPB Off. J. Int. Hepato Pancreato Biliary Assoc. 2013, 15, 646–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sturesson, C.; Keussen, I.; Tranberg, K.G. Prolonged chemotherapy impairs liver regeneration after portal vein occlusion—An audit of 26 patients. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2010, 36, 358–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Muratore, A.; Zimmitti, G.; Ribero, D.; Mellano, A.; Vigano, L.; Capussotti, L. Chemotherapy between the first and second stages of a two-stage hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases: Should we routinely recommend it? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 1310–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Beal, I.K.; Anthony, S.; Papadopoulou, A.; Hutchins, R.; Fusai, G.; Begent, R.; Davies, N.; Tibballs, J.; Davidson, B. Portal vein embolisation prior to hepatic resection for colorectal liver metastases and the effects of periprocedure chemotherapy. Br. J. Radiol. 2006, 79, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Goere, D.; Farges, O.; Leporrier, J.; Sauvanet, A.; Vilgrain, V.; Belghiti, J. Chemotherapy does not impair hypertrophy of the left liver after right portal vein obstruction. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2006, 10, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Simoneau, E.; Alanazi, R.; Alshenaifi, J.; Molla, N.; Aljiffry, M.; Medkhali, A.; Boucher, L.M.; Asselah, J.; Metrakos, P.; Hassanain, M. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not impair liver regeneration following hepatectomy or portal vein embolization for colorectal cancer liver metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 113, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kambakamba, P.; Linecker, M.; Alvarez, F.A.; Samaras, P.; Reiner, C.S.; Raptis, D.A.; Kron, P.; de Santibanes, E.; Petrowsky, H.; Clavien, P.A.; et al. Short Chemotherapy-Free Interval Improves Oncological Outcome in Patients Undergoing Two-Stage Hepatectomy for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2016, 23, 3915–3923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Farges, O.; Belghiti, J.; Kianmanesh, R.; Regimbeau, J.M.; Santoro, R.; Vilgrain, V.; Denys, A.; Sauvanet, A. Portal vein embolization before right hepatectomy: Prospective clinical trial. Ann. Surg. 2003, 237, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vyas, S.; Markar, S.; Partelli, S.; Fotheringham, T.; Low, D.; Imber, C.; Malago, M.; Kocher, H.M. Portal vein embolization and ligation for extended hepatectomy. Indian J. Surg. Oncol. 2014, 5, 30–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Shindoh, J.; Tzeng, C.W.; Aloia, T.A.; Curley, S.A.; Huang, S.Y.; Mahvash, A.; Gupta, S.; Wallace, M.J.; Vauthey, J.N. Safety and efficacy of portal vein embolization before planned major or extended hepatectomy: An institutional experience of 358 patients. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2014, 18, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Giraudo, G.; Greget, M.; Oussoultzoglou, E.; Rosso, E.; Bachellier, P.; Jaeck, D. Preoperative contralateral portal vein embolization before major hepatic resection is a safe and efficient procedure: A large single institution experience. Surgery 2008, 143, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Aloia, T.A.; Fahy, B.N.; Fischer, C.P.; Jones, S.L.; Duchini, A.; Galati, J.; Gaber, A.O.; Ghobrial, R.M.; Bass, B.L. Predicting poor outcome following hepatectomy: Analysis of 2313 hepatectomies in the NSQIP database. HPB 2009, 11, 510–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Reddy, S.K.; Barbas, A.S.; Turley, R.S.; Steel, J.L.; Tsung, A.; Marsh, J.W.; Geller, D.A.; Clary, B.M. A standard definition of major hepatectomy: Resection of four or more liver segments. HPB 2011, 13, 494–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Stewart, G.D.; O’Suilleabhain, C.B.; Madhavan, K.K.; Wigmore, S.J.; Parks, R.W.; Garden, O.J. The extent of resection influences outcome following hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 2004, 30, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Shubert, C.R.; Habermann, E.B.; Truty, M.J.; Thomsen, K.M.; Kendrick, M.L.; Nagorney, D.M. Defining perioperative risk after hepatectomy based on diagnosis and extent of resection. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2014, 18, 1917–1928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Filmann, N.; Walter, D.; Schadde, E.; Bruns, C.; Keck, T.; Lang, H.; Oldhafer, K.; Schlitt, H.J.; Schon, M.R.; Herrmann, E.; et al. Mortality after liver surgery in Germany. Br. J. Surg. 2019, 106, 1523–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flowchart of patients included in the study. Of 35 patients with bilobar CRLM who were eligible for study inclusion, 26 patients underwent CU, PVE and finally ERH. Nine patients (26%) were excluded because of tumor progression after CU and PVE (n = 7), insufficient hypertrophy of the FLR after PVE (n = 1) and withdrawal of consent for ERH (n = 1). CRLM, colorectal liver metastases; ERH, extended right hepatectomy; CU, clear-up; PVE, portal vein embolization; FLR, future liver remnant.
Figure 1. Flowchart of patients included in the study. Of 35 patients with bilobar CRLM who were eligible for study inclusion, 26 patients underwent CU, PVE and finally ERH. Nine patients (26%) were excluded because of tumor progression after CU and PVE (n = 7), insufficient hypertrophy of the FLR after PVE (n = 1) and withdrawal of consent for ERH (n = 1). CRLM, colorectal liver metastases; ERH, extended right hepatectomy; CU, clear-up; PVE, portal vein embolization; FLR, future liver remnant.
Curroncol 31 00085 g001
Figure 2. Overall survival of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH. Median follow-up was 16 months. Three-year overall survival was 89% and 100% for MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.3).
Figure 2. Overall survival of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH. Median follow-up was 16 months. Three-year overall survival was 89% and 100% for MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.3).
Curroncol 31 00085 g002
Figure 3. Disease-free survival of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH. One-year disease-free survival was 12% and 10% for MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.4).
Figure 3. Disease-free survival of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH. One-year disease-free survival was 12% and 10% for MIH and OH, respectively (p = 0.4).
Curroncol 31 00085 g003
Table 1. Clinicopathological data of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
Table 1. Clinicopathological data of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
VariableAll Cases
(n = 26)
(n = 12)
(n = 14)
Gender, n (%) 0.249
  Female12 (46)7 (58)5 (36)
  Male14 (54)5 (42)9 (64)
Age, years, median (range)55 (34–77)58 (34–71)50 (40–77)0.940
Age > 65 years, n (%)5 (19)1 (8)4 (29)0.330
BMI, kg/m2, median (range)25 (17–34)25 (19–33)26 (17–34)1
BMI > 30 kg/m2, n (%)5 (19)3 (25)2 (14)0.635
ASA physical status, n (%) 0.671
  II12 (46)5 (42)7 (50)
  III14 (54)7 (58)7 (50)
Timing of metastasis, n (%) 0.225
  synchronous23 (89)12 (100)11 (79)
  metachronous3 (12)0 (0)3 (21)
Comorbidities, n (%)
  Diabetes1 (4)0 (0)1 (7)1
  Hypertension9 (35)5 (42)4 (29)0.683
  Coronary heart disease0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
  Pulmonary disease4 (15)3 (25)1 (7)0.306
  Renal disease0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
Liver fibrosis/cirrhosis (Desmet/Scheuer), n (%) 0.228
  none12 (55)7 (64)5 (46)
  Grade 18 (36)2 (18)6 (55)
  Grade 21 (5)1 (9)0 (0)
  Grade 31 (5)1 (9)0 (0)
  Grade 40 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Desmet-Score ≥ 3, n (%)1 (5)1 (9)0 (0)1
Alcohol abuse, n (%)1 (4)1 (8)0 (0)0.480
Nicotine abuse, n (%)3 (12)1 (8)2 (15)0.588
Previous abdominal surgery, n (%)26 (100)12 (100)14 (100)-
Preoperative chemotherapy, n (%)26 (100)12 (100)14 (100)-
Number of CRLM after CU, median (range)6 (2–19)7 (2–19)6 (3–14)0.297
Size of biggest CRLM after CU, mm, median (range)37 (12–130)37 (12–65)39 (14–130)0.560
RAS mutation, n (%)8 (33)2 (17)6 (59)0.193
BRAF mutation, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
MSI, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
MIH, minimally invasive hepatectomy; OH, open hepatectomy; BMI, body mass index; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiology; CRLM, colorectal liver metastasis; CU, clear-up; RAS, Rat sarcoma viral oncogene; BRAF, v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B; MSI, microsatellite instability.
Table 2. Perioperative and oncological data of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
Table 2. Perioperative and oncological data of 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
VariableAll Cases
(n = 26)
(n = 12)
(n = 14)
Type of CU, n (%)
  Resection20 (77)10 (83)10 (71)0.652
  Ablation1 (4)1 (8)0 (0)0.462
  Combination5 (19)1 (8)4 (29)0.330
Simultaneous resection of primary tumor during CU, n (%)9 (35)3 (25)6 (43)0.429
LiMAx before PVE, µg/kg/h, median (range)296 (195–537)295 (206–517)296 (195–537)1
Calculated FLR-LiMAx before PVE, µg/kg/h, median (range)85 (54–159)80 (54–159)90 (54–111)0.837
LiMAx after PVE, µg/kg/h, median (range)374 (151–659)414 (151–545)360 (182–659)0.131
Calculated FLR-LiMAx after PVE, µg/kg/h, median (range)120 (78–240)136 (78–240)104 (85–185)0.063
Approach of PVE, n (%) 1
  Percutaneous transhepatic25 (96)12 (100)13 (93)
  Surgical transileocolic1 (4)0 (0)1 (7)
Type of MIH, n (%)
  Laparoscopic surgery-2 (25)--
  HALS-1 (8)--
  Robotic-assisted surgery-8 (67)--
Extent of hepatectomy, n (%) 0.580
  Trisectionectomy3 (12)2 (17)1 (7)
  Extended right hepatectomy23 (89)10 (83)13 (93)
Duration of surgery, minutes, median (range)334 (197–605)358 (207–605)316 (197–483)0.705
Need for intraoperative RBC transfusion, n (%)9 (35)2 (17)7 (50)0.110
Number of RBCs, median (range)0 (0–5)0 (0–2)1 (0–5)0.145
Positive resection margins, n (%)6 (24)2 (17)4 (31)0.645
Length of ICU stay, days, median (range)1 (1–91)1 (1–7)1 (1–91)0.899
Length of hospital stay, days, median (range)12 (5–98)8 (5–39)15 (8–98)0.008
SSI, n (%)7 (27)1 (8)6 (43)0.081
Abscess, n (%)8 (31)4 (33)4 (29)1
PHH, n (%) 1
  Grade A3 (12)1 (8)2 (14)
  Grade B0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
  Grade C0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
  All categories3 (12)1 (8)2 (14)1
Biliary leakage, n (%) 0.636
  Grade A0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
  Grade B6 (23)3 (25)3 (21)
  Grade C1 (4)0 (0)1 (7)
  All categories7 (27)3 (25)4 (29)1
PHLF, n (%) 1
  Grade A3 (12)1 (8)2 (14)
  Grade B0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
  Grade C0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
  All categories3 (12)1 (8)2 (14)1
Postoperative dialysis, n (%)1 (4)0 (0)1 (7)1
Revision surgery, n (%)6 (23)1 (8)5 (36)0.170
Readmission to ITS, n (%)4 (15)1 (8)3 (21)0.598
Clavien-Dindo, n (%) 0.374
    12 (8)0 (0)2 (14)
    21 (4)1 (8)0 (0)
    3a7 (27)3 (25)4 (29)
    3b4 (15)1 (8)3 (21)
    43 (12)1 (8)2 (14)
    50 (0)0 (0)0 (0)
Postoperative morbidity, n (%)17 (65)6 (50)11 (79)0.218
Postoperative major morbidity, n (%)14 (54)5 (42)9 (64)0.249
30-day mortality, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
90-day mortality, n (%)0 (0)0 (0)0 (0)-
Postoperative chemotherapy, n (%)11 (42)4 (33)7 (50)0.684
MIH, minimally invasive hepatectomy; OH, open hepatectomy; CU, clear up; LiMAx, liver Maxi-mum capacity test; PVE, portal vein embolization; FLR, future liver remnant; HALS, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery; RBC, red blood cell; ICU, intensive care unit; SSI, surgical site infection; PHH, post-hepatectomy hemorrhage; PHLF, post-hepatectomy liver failure.
Table 3. Recurrent disease and respectable treatment in 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
Table 3. Recurrent disease and respectable treatment in 26 patients who underwent TSH for extended CRLM, stratified by approach in MIH and OH.
VariableAll Cases
(n = 26)
(n = 12)
(n = 14)
Recurrence, n (%)18 (69)8 (67)10 (71)1
  Hepatic8 (44)4 (50)4 (40)1
  Other localization than hepatic7 (39)3 (38)4 (40)1
  Combination3 (17)1 (12)2 (20)1
Therapy of recurrence, n (%)
  Surgical6 (33)3 (38)3 (30)1
  Local ablative2 (11)1 (12)1 (10)1
  Systemic chemotherapy8 (44)4 (50)4 (40)1
  No therapy or lost to follow-up2 (11)0 (0)2 (20)1
MIH, minimally invasive hepatectomy; OH, open hepatectomy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Knitter, S.; Sauer, L.; Hillebrandt, K.-H.; Moosburner, S.; Fehrenbach, U.; Auer, T.A.; Raschzok, N.; Lurje, G.; Krenzien, F.; Pratschke, J.; et al. Extended Right Hepatectomy following Clearance of the Left Liver Lobe and Portal Vein Embolization for Curatively Intended Treatment of Extensive Bilobar Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Case Series. Curr. Oncol. 2024, 31, 1145-1161.

AMA Style

Knitter S, Sauer L, Hillebrandt K-H, Moosburner S, Fehrenbach U, Auer TA, Raschzok N, Lurje G, Krenzien F, Pratschke J, et al. Extended Right Hepatectomy following Clearance of the Left Liver Lobe and Portal Vein Embolization for Curatively Intended Treatment of Extensive Bilobar Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Case Series. Current Oncology. 2024; 31(3):1145-1161.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Knitter, Sebastian, Linda Sauer, Karl-H. Hillebrandt, Simon Moosburner, Uli Fehrenbach, Timo A. Auer, Nathanael Raschzok, Georg Lurje, Felix Krenzien, Johann Pratschke, and et al. 2024. "Extended Right Hepatectomy following Clearance of the Left Liver Lobe and Portal Vein Embolization for Curatively Intended Treatment of Extensive Bilobar Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Single-Center Case Series" Current Oncology 31, no. 3: 1145-1161.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop