Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite retrospective studies comparing anatomical liver resection (AR) and non-anatomical liver resection (NAR), the efficacy and benefits of AR for hepatocellular carcinoma remain unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors systemically reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library for propensity score matched cohort studies that compared AR and NAR for hepatocellular carcinoma. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes were recurrence patterns and perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 22 propensity score matched studies (AR, n =2,496; NAR, n =2590) were included. AR including systemic segmentectomy was superior to NAR regarding the 3-year and 5-year OS. AR showed significantly better 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS than NAR, with low local and multiple intrahepatic recurrence rates. In the subgroup analyses of tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and tumours with microscopic spread, the RFS in the AR group was significantly better than that in the NAR group. Patients with cirrhotic liver in the AR group showed comparable 3-year and 5-year RFS with the NAR group. Postoperative overall complications were comparable between AR and NAR. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that AR showed better OS and RFS with a low local and multiple intra-hepatic recurrence rate than NAR, especially in patients with tumour diameter less than or equal to 5 cm and non-cirrhotic liver.