Surgical vs percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma in dangerous locations.

AIM: To compare the long-term outcome of percutaneous vs surgical radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in dangerous locations.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-two patients with HCC in dangerous locations treated with percutaneous or surgical RFA were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into percutaneous RFA group and surgical RFA group. After the patients were regularly followed up for a long time, their curative rate, hospital stay time, postoperative complications and 5-year local tumor progression were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed in curative rate between the two groups (91.3% vs 96.8%, P=0.841). The hospital stay time was longer and more analgesics were required while the incidence of bile duct injury and RFA-related hemorrhage was lower in surgical RFA group than in percutaneous RFA group (P<0.05). The local progression rate of HCC in dangerous locations was significantly lower in surgical RFA group than in percutaneous RFA group (P=0.05). The relative risk of local tumor progression was 14.315 in percutaneous RFA group.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of severe postoperative complications and local tumor progression is lower after surgical RFA than after percutaneous RFA.