Objective: This study aims to compare the clinical effects of interventional embolization and surgical resection on patients with postoperative recurrence of primary hepatic carcinoma.
Methods: Seventy-two patients with postoperative recurrence of primary hepatic carcinoma in our hospital from January, 2008 to June, 2011 were selected randomly. The patients were divided according to therapies into an intervention (n=30) and resection group (n=32). Patients of the intervention group were given interventional embolization, whereas patients of the resection group were given surgical resection treatment. The one-year, three-year and five-year survival rates, recurrence rates, incidence of adverse effect and hepatitis fibrosis indices of the two groups were compared.
Results: The resection group has significantly higher one-year, three-year and five-year survival rates than the intervention group (P<0.05). No statistical significance (P>0.05) was observed in the differences in the one-year, three-year and five-year recurrence rates of the two groups.
Conclusions: Compared with surgical resection, interventional embolization gave patients with postoperative recurrence of primary hepatic carcinoma significantly longer long-term survival rate and lower recurrence rate, but could also effectively improve the hepatitis fibrosis indices of patients. Interventional embolization can be widely promoted in clinical use.