Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal approach for managing hepatic hemangioma is controversial. AIM: To evaluate a clinical grading system for management of hepatic hemangioma based on our 17-year of single institution experience. METHODS: A clinical grading system was retrospectively applied to 1171 patients with hepatic hemangioma from January 2002 to December 2018. Patients were classified into four groups based on the clinical grading system and treatment: (1) Observation group with score < 4 (Obs score < 4); (2) Surgical group with score < 4 (Sur score < 4); (3) Observation group with score ≥ 4 (Obs score ≥ 4); and (4) Surgical group with score ≥ 4 (Sur score ≥ 4). The clinico-pathological index and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: There were significantly fewer symptomatic patients in surgical groups (Sur score ≥ 4 vs Obs score ≥ 4, P < 0.001; Sur score < 4 vs Obs score < 4, χ² = 8.60, P = 0.004; Sur score ≥ 4 vs Obs score < 4, P < 0.001). The patients in Sur score ≥ 4 had a lower rate of in need for intervention and total patients with adverse event than in Obs score ≥ 4 (P < 0.001; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, there was no significant difference in need for intervention and total patients with adverse event between the Sur score < 4 and Obs score < 4 (P > 0.05; χ² = 1.68, P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This clinical grading system appeared as a practical tool for hepatic hemangioma. Surgery can be suggested for patients with a score ≥ 4. For those with < 4, follow-up should be proposed.