Central hepatectomy versus major hepatectomy for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

<bold>Background: </bold>Both central hepatectomy (CH) and major hepatectomy (MH) are suggested surgical treatments for patients with centrally located hepatocellular carcinoma (CL-HCC). However, no consensus has been reached regarding which method is superior for managing these patients. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of CH and MH in patients with CL-HCC.<bold>Methods: </bold>An electronic search for studies published in all years up to July 2017 in PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed. The short-term outcome was the incidence of postoperative complications, and the long-term outcomes included 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) and corresponding disease-free survival (DFS), mortality and morbidity. The results were presented as Risk Ratios (RRs) or weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.<bold>Results: </bold>Four retrospective studies containing 465 patients with CL-HCC were included (248 in the CH group and 217 in the MH group). The results suggested no significant differences in the 1-, 3- and 5-year DFS, 1, 3 and 5-year OS, total morbidity or mortality between these groups. Nevertheless, the patients in the CH group presented a lower prevalence of vascular invasion (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93, P = 0.020) than did the MH group. In addition, CH led to a higher incidence of biliary fistula, while MH showed a higher incidence of postoperative liver failure.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>This study demonstrated that the long-term outcomes of the patients with CL-HCC in these two groups were not significantly different. For short-term outcomes, CH resulted in a lower rate of postoperative liver failure, while MH resulted in a lower incidence of biliary fistula. Nonetheless, compared with MH, CH provided CL-HCC patients with greater future remnant liver volume without an increased risk of early intra-hepatic recurrence. More multi-centre, randomized controlled trials comparing the therapeutic efficacy of CH and MH are urgently warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]