Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Metastases

  • Published:
Surgery Today Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the risks and benefits of repeat hepatectomy for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer.

Methods

During a recent 10-year-period, 106 patients underwent hepatectomy for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, in our hospital. Recurrence developed in the liver in 57 of these patients, 27 of whom underwent repeat hepatectomy. We reviewed the outcomes of these 27 patients.

Results

There were three complications after the first hepatectomy and six complications after the second hepatectomy, but there was no perioperative mortality after the first or second hepatectomy. The median survival from the date of second hepatectomy was 41 months with an actuarial 5-year survival rate of 48.7%. Patients who underwent repeat hepatectomy had significantly higher survival rates from the time of first hepatectomy than those who did not. Univariate analysis showed that among the prognostic factors of repeat hepatectomy, only a disease-free interval (DFI) between the first and second hepatectomy of more than 1 year was significantly predictive of a better outcome (P = 0.047).

Conclusion

Repeat hepatectomy for recurrent colorectal metastases can be performed safely with acceptable mortality and morbidity rates, and can help to extend survival, if the DFI between the first and second hepatectomy is longer than 1 year.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sugawara, G., Isogai, M., Kaneoka, Y. et al. Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Colorectal Metastases. Surg Today 35, 282–289 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-004-2945-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-004-2945-8

Key words

Navigation