Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modern Technical Approaches in Hepatic Surgery for Colorectal Metastases

  • Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases (MA Choti, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

The liver is the most common site of metastases from colorectal cancer and can present as synchronous or metachronous lesions. Successful, margin-negative resection of all liver metastases is associated with significant long-term survival, but was traditionally possible in only a minority of patients. Due to advances in multimodality systemic therapy, improved understanding of tumor biology, and new advances in technical and procedural strategies, a greater number of patients are eligible for resection and potential cure. The purpose of this report is to review the technical advances in liver resection for patients with colorectal liver metastases.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Tzeng CW, Aloia TA. Colorectal liver metastases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2013;17(1):195–201. quiz p 201–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, et al. Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983): long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;4(12):1208–15. Long-term results of randomized control trial comparing perioperative chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable CRLM. The study showed no improvement in overall survival with perioperative chemotherapy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brouquet A, Abdalla EK, Kopetz S, et al. High survival rate after two-stage resection of advanced colorectal liver metastases: response-based selection and complete resection define outcome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1083–90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Brouquet A, Mortenson MM, Vauthey JN, et al. Surgical strategies for synchronous colorectal liver metastases in 156 consecutive patients: classic, combined or reverse strategy? J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(6):934–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zorzi D, Mullen JT, Abdalla EK, et al. Comparison between hepatic wedge resection and anatomic resection for colorectal liver metastases. J Gastrointest Surg. 2006;10(1):86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guzzetti E, Pulitano C, Catena M, et al. Impact of type of liver resection on the outcome of colorectal liver metastases: a case-matched analysis. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97(6):503–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pawlik TM, Scoggins CR, Zorzi D, et al. Effect of surgical margin status on survival and site of recurrence after hepatic resection for colorectal metastases. Ann Surg. 2005;241(5):715–22. discussion 722–714.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dhir M, Lyden ER, Wang A, Smith LM, Ullrich F, Are C. Influence of margins on overall survival after hepatic resection for colorectal metastasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(2):234–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Muratore A, Ribero D, Zimmitti G, Mellano A, Langella S, Capussotti L. Resection margin and recurrence-free survival after liver resection of colorectal metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(5):1324–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Figueras J, Burdio F, Ramos E, et al. Effect of subcentimeter nonpositive resection margin on hepatic recurrence in patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases. Evidences from 663 liver resections. Ann Oncol. 2007;18(7):1190–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vauthey JN, Dixon E, Abdalla EK, et al. Pretreatment assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma: expert consensus statement. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(5):289–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Delis SG, Bakoyiannis A, Biliatis I, Athanassiou K, Tassopoulos N, Dervenis C. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, as a prognostic factor for post-operative morbidity and mortality in cirrhotic patients, undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(4):351–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ross SW, Seshadri R, Walters AL, et al. Mortality in hepatectomy: model for end-stage liver disease as a predictor of death using the national surgical quality improvement program database. Surgery. 2016;159(3):777–92. Retrospective study evaluating the predictive value of the MELD score for mortality after hepatectomy. This study showed increasing mortality after hepatectomy with increasing MELD scores.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Teh SH, Sheppard BC, Schwartz J, Orloff SL. Model for end-stage liver disease score fails to predict perioperative outcome after hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients without cirrhosis. Am J Surg. 2008;195(5):697–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. May BJ, Madoff DC. Portal vein embolization: rationale, technique, and current application. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2012;29(2):81–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zorzi D, Chun YS, Madoff DC, Abdalla EK, Vauthey JN. Chemotherapy with bevacizumab does not affect liver regeneration after portal vein embolization in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(10):2765–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hemming AW, Reed AI, Howard RJ, et al. Preoperative portal vein embolization for extended hepatectomy. Ann Surg. 2003;237(5):686–91. discussion 691–683.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. van Lienden KP, van den Esschert JW, de Graaf W, et al. Portal vein embolization before liver resection: a systematic review. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(1):25–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Leung U, Simpson AL, Araujo RL, et al. Remnant growth rate after portal vein embolization is a good early predictor of post-hepatectomy liver failure. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(4):620–30. Retrospective study evaluating FLR growth rate after PVE as a predictor of post-hepatectomy liver failure. This study showed that FLR growth rate and degree of hypertrophy is a strong predictory of post-hepatectomy liver failure.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 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(6):777–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Wicherts DA, Miller R, de Haas RJ, et al. Long-term results of two-stage hepatectomy for irresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. Ann Surg. 2008;248(6):994–1005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Narita M, Oussoultzoglou E, Jaeck D, et al. Two-stage hepatectomy for multiple bilobar colorectal liver metastases. Br J Surg. 2011;98(10):1463–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chua TC, Liauw W, Chu F, Morris DL. Summary outcomes of two-stage resection for advanced colorectal liver metastases. J Surg Oncol. 2013;107(2):211–6. Analysis of 12 studies examining outcomes after TSH for CRLM. In select patients, TSH is safe and is associated with improved survival.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schnitzbauer AA, Lang SA, Goessmann H, 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(3):405–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Alvarez FA, Ardiles V, de Santibanes M, Pekolj J, de Santibanes E. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy offers high oncological feasibility with adequate patient safety: a prospective study at a single center. Ann Surg. 2015;261(4):723–32. Single institution, prospective observational study of patients with liver malignancy who underwent ALPSS. This study showed that ALPSS can be performed with acceptable morbidity and mortality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schadde E, Ardiles V, Robles-Campos R, et al. Early survival and safety of ALPPS: first report of the International ALPPS Registry. Ann Surg. 2014;260(5):829–836. discussion 836–828. First analysis of the ALPSS registry demonstrating the morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure.

  27. Schadde E, Ardiles V, Slankamenac K, et al. ALPPS offers a better chance of complete resection in patients with primarily unresectable liver tumors compared with conventional-staged hepatectomies: results of a multicenter analysis. World J Surg. 2014;38(6):1510–9. Retrospective review of patients undergoing ALPPS versus staged resection for liver malignancies. This study showed increased probability of complete resection with ALPSS but ALPSS was associated with higher mortality.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aloia TA, Vauthey JN. Associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS): what is gained and what is lost? Ann Surg. 2012;256(3):e9. author reply e16-19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Aloia TA, Fahy BN, Fischer CP, et al. Predicting poor outcome following hepatectomy: analysis of 2313 hepatectomies in the NSQIP database. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11(6):510–5.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kruskal JB, Kane RA. Intraoperative ultrasonography of the liver. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging. 1995;36(3):175–226.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Silas AM, Kruskal JB, Kane RA. Intraoperative ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am. 2001;39(3):429–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Conlon R, Jacobs M, Dasgupta D, Lodge JP. The value of intraoperative ultrasound during hepatic resection compared with improved preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Ultrasound. 2003;16(3):211–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Paul MA, Mulder LS, Cuesta MA, Sikkenk AC, Lyesen GK, Meijer S. Impact of intraoperative ultrasonography on treatment strategy for colorectal cancer. Br J Surg. 1994;81(11):1660–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cervone A, Sardi A, Conaway GL. Intraoperative ultrasound (IOUS) is essential in the management of metastatic colorectal liver lesions. Am Surg. 2000;66(7):611–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zacherl J, Scheuba C, Imhof M, et al. Current value of intraoperative sonography during surgery for hepatic neoplasms. World J Surg. 2002;26(5):550–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kane RA, Hughes LA, Cua EJ, Steele GD, Jenkins RL, Cady B. The impact of intraoperative ultrasonography on surgery for liver neoplasms. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13(1):1–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kruskal JB, Kane RA. Intraoperative US of the liver: techniques and clinical applications. Radiographics. 2006;26(4):1067–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Agrawal N, Fowler AL, Thomas MG. The routine use of intra-operative ultrasound in patients with colorectal cancer improves the detection of hepatic metastases. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8(3):192–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shah AJ, Callaway M, Thomas MG, Finch-Jones MD. Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound improves detection of liver metastases during surgery for primary colorectal cancer. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12(3):181–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wang CC, Iyer SG, Low JK, et al. Perioperative factors affecting long-term outcomes of 473 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16(7):1832–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Poon RT, Fan ST, Lo CM, et al. Improving perioperative outcome expands the role of hepatectomy in management of benign and malignant hepatobiliary diseases: analysis of 1222 consecutive patients from a prospective database. Ann Surg. 2004;240(4):698–708. discussion 708–610.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schiergens TS, Rentsch M, Kasparek MS, Frenes K, Jauch KW, Thasler WE. Impact of perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion on recurrence and overall survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(1):74–82. Observational study evaluating the effects of transfusion on survival after resection of CRLM. This study showed that perioperative blood transfusion is associated with earlier disease recurrence.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mentha G, Terraz S, Andres A, Toso C, Rubbia-Brandt L, Majno P. Operative management of colorectal liver metastases. Semin Liver Dis. 2013;33(3):262–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yamamoto M, Katagiri S, Ariizumi S, Kotera Y, Takahashi Y. Glissonean pedicle transection method for liver surgery (with video). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2012;19(1):3–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Mouly C, Fuks D, Browet F, et al. Feasibility of the Glissonian approach during right hepatectomy. HPB (Oxford). 2013;15(8):638–45.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Huguet C, Gavelli A, Chieco PA, et al. Liver ischemia for hepatic resection: where is the limit? Surgery. 1992;111(3):251–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ishizaki Y, Yoshimoto J, Miwa K, Sugo H, Kawasaki S. Safety of prolonged intermittent pringle maneuver during hepatic resection. Arch Surg. 2006;141(7):649–53. discussion 654.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Huntington JT, Royall NA, Schmidt CR. Minimizing blood loss during hepatectomy: a literature review. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109(2):81–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Smyrniotis VE, Kostopanagiotou GG, Gamaletsos EL, et al. Total versus selective hepatic vascular exclusion in major liver resections. Am J Surg. 2002;183(2):173–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Petrowsky H, McCormack L, Trujillo M, Selzner M, Jochum W, Clavien PA. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing intermittent portal triad clamping versus ischemic preconditioning with continuous clamping for major liver resection. Ann Surg. 2006;244(6):921–8. discussion 928–930.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Selzner N, Rudiger H, Graf R, Clavien PA. Protective strategies against ischemic injury of the liver. Gastroenterology. 2003;125(3):917–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jang JH, Kang KJ, Kang Y, Lee IS, Graf R, Clavien PA. Ischemic preconditioning and intermittent clamping confer protection against ischemic injury in the cirrhotic mouse liver. Liver Transpl. 2008;14(7):980–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Belghiti J, Noun R, Malafosse R, et al. Continuous versus intermittent portal triad clamping for liver resection: a controlled study. Ann Surg. 1999;229(3):369–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Clavien PA, Selzner M, Rudiger HA, et al. A prospective randomized study in 100 consecutive patients undergoing major liver resection with versus without ischemic preconditioning. Ann Surg. 2003;238(6):843–50. discussion 851–842.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Li SQ, Liang LJ, Huang JF, Li Z. Ischemic preconditioning protects liver from hepatectomy under hepatic inflow occlusion for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2004;10(17):2580–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Gurusamy KS, Sheth H, Kumar Y, Sharma D, Davidson BR. Methods of vascular occlusion for elective liver resections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;1, CD007632.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhu Y, Dong J, Wang WL, et al. Ischemic preconditioning versus intermittent clamping of portal triad in liver resection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hepatol Res. 2014;44(8):878–87. Meta-analysis comparing IP and IC of the portal triad during liver resction. IP is associated with lower operative time and less liver injury.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hahn O, Blazovics A, Vali L, Kupcsulik PK. The effect of ischemic preconditioning on redox status during liver resections—randomized controlled trial. J Surg Oncol. 2011;104(6):647–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Smyrniotis V, Theodoraki K, Arkadopoulos N, et al. Ischemic preconditioning versus intermittent vascular occlusion in liver resections performed under selective vascular exclusion: a prospective randomized study. Am J Surg. 2006;192(5):669–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Nanashima A, Abo T, Arai J, et al. Usefulness of vessel-sealing devices combined with crush clamping method for hepatectomy: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2013;11(9):891–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Gotohda N, Yamanaka T, Saiura A, et al. Impact of energy devices during liver parenchymal transection: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. World J Surg. 2015;39(6):1543–9. Multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluating the benefit of energy devices during liver parenchymal transection. Utilization of energy devices was associated with shortened transection time and reduced incidence of bilary leak.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Day RW, Brudvik KW, Vauthey JN, et al. Advances in hepatectomy technique: toward zero transfusions in the modern era of liver surgery. Surgery. 2016;159(3):793–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Otsuka Y, Kaneko H, Cleary SP, Buell JF, Cai X, Wakabayashi G. What is the best technique in parenchymal transection in laparoscopic liver resection? Comprehensive review for the clinical question on the 2nd International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2015;22(5):363–70. Review article addressing the best technique for liver parenchymal transection during laparoscopic liver resection.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Belghiti J, Guevara OA, Noun R, Saldinger PF, Kianmanesh R. Liver hanging maneuver: a safe approach to right hepatectomy without liver mobilization. J Am Coll Surg. 2001;193(1):109–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ogata S, Belghiti J, Varma D, et al. Two hundred liver hanging maneuvers for major hepatectomy: a single-center experience. Ann Surg. 2007;245(1):31–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Nanashima A, Nagayasu T. Development and clinical usefulness of the liver hanging maneuver in various anatomical hepatectomy procedures. Surg Today. 2016;46(4):398–404. Review article addressing the usefulness and advantages/disadvantages of the hanging maneuver.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Bryant R, Laurent A, Tayar C, Cherqui D. Laparoscopic liver resection-understanding its role in current practice: the Henri Mondor Hospital experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250(1):103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R, Abecassis M. Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg. 2007;246(3):385–92. discussion 392–384.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Kluger M, Cherqui D. Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy. 2012. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Croner RS, Perrakis A, Brunner M, Matzel KE, Hohenberger W. Pioneering robotic liver surgery in Germany: first experiences with liver malignancies. Front Surg. 2015;2:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    Christina E Bailey, Heather A Lillemoe, Kamran Idrees & Alexander A Parikh

  2. 597 PRB, 2220 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Alexander A Parikh

Authors
  1. Christina E Bailey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather A Lillemoe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kamran Idrees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexander A Parikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander A Parikh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Christina E. Bailey, Heather A. Lillemoe, and Kamran Idrees declare that they have no conflict of interest. Alexander A. Parikh has received compensation from Genentech for service as a consultant.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Colorectal Cancer Hepatic Metastases

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bailey, C.E., Lillemoe, H.A., Idrees, K. et al. Modern Technical Approaches in Hepatic Surgery for Colorectal Metastases. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 12, 217–225 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0327-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-016-0327-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation