Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026
Application of the En Bloc Concept Combined with Anatomic Resection in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy
Published on: March 10, 2023
Anatomical versus non-anatomical liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma - an international multicenter
Soufyan El Adel1, Derar Jaradat2, Tijs J Hoogteijling3
1Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, the University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan; Department of Surgery, Al Khalidi Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Background:
The optimal surgical technique for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains debated, particularly regarding the balance between perioperative morbidity and long-term oncological outcomes when comparing anatomical resection (AR) with non-anatomical resection (NAR).
Methods:
This international, retrospective multicenter study included patients undergoing resection for solitary HCC ≤5 cm. Patients undergoing major hepatectomy (≥3 segments), two-stage hepatectomy, portal vein embolization, or non-curative procedures were excluded. After propensity score matching (PSM), perioperative outcomes, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed, with subgroup analyses by surgical approach and tumour size.
Results:
After propensity score matching, 442 patients were included in each group. NAR was associated with more favourable perioperative outcomes, including shorter operative time, lower blood loss, and lower rates of severe morbidity. DFS did not differ between groups. AR was associated with improved OS in the overall matched cohort (5-year OS: 77.2% vs. 67.2%; p = 0.041), in patients with larger tumours (≥3.6 cm; 81.3% vs. 61.3%; p = 0.022), and in those undergoing minimally invasive liver resection (74.5% vs. 63.2%; p = 0.001). No significant OS difference was observed in patients with smaller tumours (≤3.5 cm).
Conclusion:
NAR was associated with better perioperative outcomes, whereas AR was associated with improved OS in selected analyses. As DFS did not differ between groups and subgroup findings were exploratory, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Overall, the findings support an individualized, tumour-tailored surgical approach.