Parenchymal-sparing liver surgery in patients with colorectal carcinoma liver metastases

Table 1 Different parenchymal-sparing operative procedures

Type of resection	Segment/s resected
Segment-oriented
Monosegmentectomy	Any isolated segment
Bisegmentectomy	Two contiguous segments
Right posterior sectionectomy	S6 and 7
Right anterior sectionectomy	S5 and 8
Right inferior bisegmentectomy	S5 and 6
Right superior bisegmentectomy	S7 and 8
Central anterior bisegmentectomy	S4b and 5
Central posterior bisegmentectomy	S4a and 8
Left medial sectionectomy	S4a and 4b
Central hepatectomy	S4, 5 and 8
Upper Transversal Hepatectomy	S7, 8, 4a and 2 + RHV and MHV
Non-segment-oriented
Corkscrew technique	Any segment
Mini-mesohepatectomy	Partial S8 and 4a + MHV
Mini upper-transversal hepatectomy	Partial S7, 8 + RHV
Hepatic Vein-Sparing Hepatectomy	Partial S7, 8, and 4a ± 1 paracaval
Systematic extended right posterior sectionectomy	Complete S6-7 + partial S5 and/or S8 (en-block)
Liver tunnel	Partial S4a, 8 and 1
Lower inferior hepatectomy	S3, 4b, 5, 6 and 7
Local ablation1	Any

¹Combined with other surgical resection. MHV: Middle hepatic vein; RHV: Right hepatic vein.

Table 2 Overview of the different comparative studies involving non-anatomic resection in patients with colorectal liver metastases

Ref.	Year	Groups (n)	Hospital stay (d)	Morbidity (%)	Mortality (%)	Operative time (min)	Blood loss (mL)	Margin + (%)	5-year DFS (%)	5-year OS (%)	Matching2
Mise et al[11]	2015	AR (144) vs NAR (156)	NA	36 vs 36	1 vs 0	128 vs 150	200 vs 1003	5 vs 2	NS	NS	1-8, 10
Von Heesen et al[89]	2012	AR (47) vs NAR (61)	NA	NA	NA	In favor of NAR3	In favor of NAR3	NA	37 vs 27	37 vs 48	NA
Lalmahomed et al[32]	2011	AR (88) vs NAR (113)	8 vs 73	27 vs 23	2 vs 1	NA	NA	9 vs 11	30 vs 32	49 vs 39	1-4, 6-10
Sarpel et al[86]	2009	AR 94 vs NAR 89	8 vs 63	NA	3 vs 0	NA	NA	1 vs 6	NS	NS	1, 2, 6, 9
Guzzetti et al[88]	2008	AR 102 vs NAR 106	9 vs 8	8.8 vs 16	0 vs 0	300 vs 2403	700 vs 5003	20 vs 11	NS	27 vs 29	1-8, 10
Finch et al[61]	2007	AR 280 vs NAR 96	NA	29 vs 15	4.4 vs 0	NA	NA	25 vs 33	35 vs 24	50 vs 54	1, 2, 8, 9
Zorzi et al[87]	2006	AR 181 vs NAR 72	7 vs 7	23 vs 28	1.1 vs 1.4	NA	NA	8.3 vs 8.3	NA	60 vs 61	1-3, 6-9
Kokudo et al[33]	2001	AR 96 vs NAR 78	NA	12 vs 6.4	2.1 vs 0	315 vs 2593	1489 vs 8953	27 vs 201	NA	46 vs 40	1-4, 6
DeMatteo et al[90]	2000	AR 148 vs NAR 119	8 vs 9	20 vs 13	0.8 vs 0.4	198 vs 189	531 vs 456	2 vs 163	NA	49 vs 373	1-3, 6-8

¹Margins < 2 mm;

²Matching: 1 = age; 2 = gender, 3 = number of tumors; 4 = tumor distribution; 5 = tumor size; 6 = primary tumor site; 7 = node positive primary; 8 = preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level; 9 = synchronous disease; 10 = disease-free interval.

³Statistically significant difference (P < 0.05).NAR: Non-anatomic resection; NA: Not-available; NS: Not-stated in the original article because of non-significant difference; DFS: Disease-free survival; OS: Overall survival. AR: Anatomic resection.