|
1
|
Falola A, Ezebialu C, Okeke S, Fadairo RT, Dada OS, Adeyeye A. Implementation of robotic and laparoscopic hepatopancreatobiliary surgery in low- and middle-income settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford) 2025:S1365-182X(25)00081-4. [PMID: 40199682 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2025.03.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2024] [Revised: 03/07/2025] [Accepted: 03/10/2025] [Indexed: 04/10/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Despite numerous barriers, the application of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) conditions has been increasing globally. This study aims to review the current status of HPB MIS in LMICs. METHODS Relevant databases were searched, identifying 3452 publications, 38 of which met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of outcomes was carried out using "R" statistical software. RESULTS This study reviewed reports of application of MIS for HPB conditions in LMICs, analyzing a total of 3272 procedures. India (66.87 %) and Egypt (20.11 %) contributed majorly to the procedures reviewed. Others were from Indonesia (8.68 %), Colombia (3.06 %), Pakistan (0.67 %), Sri Lanka (0.34 %), Trinidad and Tobago (0.18 %), and Nigeria (0.09 %). India was the only LMIC with robotic HPB MIS. The majority of the procedures were biliary (74.88 %). Basic procedures accounted for 55.63 %, while 44.37 % were advanced. The overall conversion rate and prevalence of morbidity were 8 % [95 % CI: 5; 13], and 15 % [95 % CI: 9; 22], respectively. Robotics was associated with higher conversion (14 % vs 6 %, p < 0.01) but lower morbidity (10 % vs 16 %, p = 0.91), compared to laparoscopic surgery. There were 5 cases of mortality from laparoscopy. CONCLUSION The outcomes in this systematic review, compared to findings in other settings indicate successful implementation of HPB MIS in LMICs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adebayo Falola
- University of Ibadan College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria; General Surgery Community, Surgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria.
| | - Chioma Ezebialu
- University of Ibadan College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria; General Surgery Community, Surgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Sophia Okeke
- University of Ibadan College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria; General Surgery Community, Surgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Rhoda T Fadairo
- University of Ibadan College of Medicine, Ibadan, Nigeria; General Surgery Community, Surgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria
| | - Oluwasina S Dada
- General Surgery Community, Surgery Interest Group of Africa, Lagos, Nigeria; University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Ademola Adeyeye
- Department of Surgery, University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Nigeria; Department of Medicine and Surgery, Afe Babalola University Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria; Significant Polyp and Early Colorectal Cancer Service, King's College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Cheah YL, Yang HY, Simon CJ, Akoad ME, Connor AA, Daskalaki D, Han DH, Brombosz EW, Kim JK, Tellier MA, Ghobrial RM, Gaber AO, Choi GH. The learning curve for robotic living donor right hepatectomy: Analysis of outcomes in 2 specialized centers. Liver Transpl 2025; 31:190-200. [PMID: 39441028 PMCID: PMC11732260 DOI: 10.1097/lvt.0000000000000480] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/23/2024] [Indexed: 10/25/2024]
Abstract
Robotic surgery is an emerging minimally invasive option for living donor hepatectomy. Currently, there are no studies on the learning curve of robotic donor hepatectomy. Thus, we evaluated the learning curve for robotic donor right hepatectomy. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data from consecutive living donors who underwent robotic hepatectomy at 2 specialized centers between 2016 and 2022. We estimated the number of cases required to achieve stable operating times for robotic donor right hepatectomy using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The complication rates were similar between the 2 centers (22.8% vs. 26.7%; p = 0.74). Most complications were graded as minor (70.4%). Analysis of the total operative time demonstrated that the learning curves reached a peak at the 17th case in center 1 and the 9th case in center 2. The average operation times for cases 1-17 versus 18-99 in center 1 were 603 versus 438 minutes ( p < 0.001), and cases 1-9 versus 10-15 in center 2 were 532 versus 418 minutes ( p = 0.002). Complication rates were lower after the learning curves were achieved, although this did not reach statistical significance. A comparison of outcomes between centers suggests that a standardized approach to this complex operation can be successfully transferred.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yee L. Cheah
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Hye Yeon Yang
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, South Korea
| | - Caroline J. Simon
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Mohamed E. Akoad
- Department of Surgery, Roger L. Jenkins Transplantation Institute, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ashton A. Connor
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Despoina Daskalaki
- Department of Surgery, Roger L. Jenkins Transplantation Institute, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Dai Hoon Han
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Elizabeth W. Brombosz
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
| | - Jae K. Kim
- Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Maureen A. Tellier
- Department of Surgery, Roger L. Jenkins Transplantation Institute, Lahey Hospital & Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts, USA
| | - R. Mark Ghobrial
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - A. Osama Gaber
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA
- Department of Surgery, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Li B, Yin D, Zhang Q, Qin L, Li J, Hong Z, Zhu P, Ding G, Shi Z, Zhang C, Zhang K, Peng J, Yue Y, Chen C, Liu L, Zheng S, Chen X, Gao Q, Zhang B, Yu D. Laennec approach for anatomical liver resection assisted by laparoscopy or robotics: a multicenter cohort study. Int J Surg 2025; 111:1929-1938. [PMID: 39774661 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000002212] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2024] [Accepted: 11/10/2024] [Indexed: 01/11/2025]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Laennec's capsule serves as a critical anatomical landmark in liver resection. Despite its potential, a lack of large-scale prospective studies limits the widespread use of the Laennec approach for minimally invasive hepatectomy. This multicenter cohort study aimed to compare the outcomes of the traditional and Laennec approaches in minimally invasive anatomical hepatectomy across multiple centers in China. METHODS A total of 445 patients from 11 centers were included, with 339 undergoing the Laennec approach and 106 receiving the traditional approach. Intraoperative parameters such as the duration of hepatic pedicle isolation, hepatic vein exposure, parenchymal transection, and liver mobilization were analyzed. Postoperative outcomes, including recurrence-free survival and R0 resection rates, were also assessed. Additionally, a series of subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the Laennec approach. RESULTS The Laennec approach demonstrated notable intraoperative advantages, including reduced durations for hepatic pedicle isolation, liver mobilization, hepatic vein exposure, and parenchymal transection. Robotic-assisted procedures, in particular, showed superior outcomes when compared with laparoscopic platform. The Laennec approach proved highly effective across various liver diseases, particularly hepatocellular carcinoma, hemangioma, and hepatolithiasis. The Laennec gap, a distinct gap between the liver parenchyma and surrounding vasculature, played a key role in identifying candidates for the Laennec approach. Subgroup analysis revealed that although the Laennec approach provides significant intraoperative benefits, these advantages do not seem not to translate into substantial postoperative improvements. CONCLUSIONS The Laennec approach offers clear intraoperative advantages over the traditional approach when utilizing laparoscopic or robotic systems. These findings support the Laennec approach as a standardized technique for anatomical liver resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Binghua Li
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
| | - Dalong Yin
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Organ Transplantation Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, He Fei, Anhui, China
| | - Qifan Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong China
| | - Lei Qin
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, Jiangsu province, P.R. China
| | - Jianwei Li
- Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Zhixian Hong
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Peng Zhu
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
| | - Guangyu Ding
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, and Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Ministry of Education), Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhitian Shi
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, kunming, China
| | - Changhe Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Taizhou people's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Taizhou, China
| | - Kai Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, The Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, China
| | - Jin Peng
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
| | - Yang Yue
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
| | - Chaobo Chen
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
| | - Lianxin Liu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Organ Transplantation Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, He Fei, Anhui, China
| | - Shuguo Zheng
- Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Xiaoping Chen
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
| | - Qiang Gao
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, and Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Cancer Invasion (Ministry of Education), Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Bixiang Zhang
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China
| | - Decai Yu
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Transplantation Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Niu F, Wang Y, Bai Z, He Z, Wang H, Li F. An updated meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopy hepatectomy and laparoscopic hepatectomy in the treatment of liver tumors. Medicine (Baltimore) 2025; 104:e40866. [PMID: 40184083 PMCID: PMC11709161 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000040866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/13/2024] [Revised: 11/16/2024] [Accepted: 11/20/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND To compare the efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) with laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in the treatment of liver tumors. METHODS A comprehensive search of English-language literature was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to June 2024. Studies comparing RALH and LH for liver tumors were identified, and after qualitative evaluation, a meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software. RESULTS After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were included, including 29,969 patients, with 5673 in the RALH group and 24,296 in the LH group. The meta-analysis showed that compared with the LH group, surgery time was longer in the RALH group (MD = 55.33; 95% CI: 34.84-75.83; P < .001), the conversion to open surgery rate was higher (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.05; P < .001), the total cost was higher (MD = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.14-0.73; P = .004), and the tumor diameter was larger (MD = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.24-0.49; P < .001). Additionally, the R1 resection rate was higher in the RALH group (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03-1.06; P < .001). However, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of intraoperative transfusion rate, hepatic hilar occlusion rate, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, mortality rate, malignancy rate, or R0 resection rate (P > .05). CONCLUSION Based on current evidence, RALH is safe and effective, although it is associated with higher total costs, increased blood transfusion rates, and longer operative times. However, there were no significant differences between RALH and LH in terms of other outcome indicators, suggesting that both procedures offer similar surgical efficacy and safety. Further clinical randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fuyong Niu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Yefei Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Zhiyuan Bai
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Zhiqiang He
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Hailin Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Furong Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Hospital of Yulin City, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Landry J, Jain AJ, Tzeng CW, Newhook TE, Ikoma N, Chun YS, Vauthey JN, Cheah YL, Hawksworth JS, Tran Cao HS. Robotic Hepatic Parenchymal Transection Techniques: A Choice Between Imperfect Tools. Ann Surg Oncol 2025; 32:438-439. [PMID: 39414702 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16350-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2024] [Accepted: 09/29/2024] [Indexed: 10/18/2024]
Abstract
Regardless of approach, safe and effective parenchymal transection is critical for hepatectomies.1 In robotic surgery, this can be accomplished via several methods. The authors highlight some of the more common tools and techniques used to transect the liver. The Vessel Sealer Extend is a console-controlled device with bipolar energy, mechanical cutting, full-wristed articulation, and grasping abilities that allow it to replicate the clamp-crush technique while sealing small vessels. However, the jaw is bulky and suboptimal for firm/fibrotic livers.2,3 The Synchroseal shares many features of the Vessel Sealer Extend but has thinner jaws, making it easier to advance in firm livers, and lacks a cutting blade, relying instead on a cut electrode to divide tissue. Proteinaceous char can accumulate on the jaws, impairing its effectiveness, but intermittent irrigation can mitigate this. The robotic Harmonic Scalpel coagulates, transects, and precisely dissects parenchyma. However, it is limited in length and lacks wristed articulation.4,5 Ultrasonic surgical aspiratory devices allow for precise, atraumatic dissection around vasculobiliary structures, but no robotic-integrated versions currently exist. Therefore, application of this technology in robotic surgery requires an experienced bedside assistant operating the laparoscopic version while the console surgeon uses robotic instruments to coagulate, clip, and divide larger structures.6-9 The dual bipolar technique is useful for spot coagulation and dissection but has limited transection ability.10 It often is an adjunct to other transection techniques.11-13 Several methods exist for robotic parenchymal transection, and although none are perfect, they can be combined for safe and effective transection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jace Landry
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Anish J Jain
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Ching-Wei Tzeng
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Timothy E Newhook
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Naruhiko Ikoma
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yun Shin Chun
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jean-Nicolas Vauthey
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Yee-Lee Cheah
- Department of Surgery, JC Walter Jr Transplant Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Jason S Hawksworth
- Department of Liver Transplant and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Columbia University Hospital, New York, NY, USA
| | - Hop S Tran Cao
- Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Pilz da Cunha G, Sijberden JP, van Dieren S, Gobardhan P, Lips DJ, Terkivatan T, Marsman HA, Patijn GA, Leclercq WKG, Bosscha K, Mieog JSD, van den Boezem PB, Vermaas M, Kok NFM, Belt EJT, de Boer MT, Derksen WJM, Torrenga H, Verheijen PM, Oosterling SJ, Rijken AM, Coolsen MME, Liem MSL, Tran TK, Gerhards MF, Nieuwenhuijs V, Abu Hilal M, Besselink MG, van Dam RM, Hagendoorn J, Swijnenburg RJ. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection: A Nationwide Propensity Score Matched Analysis. ANNALS OF SURGERY OPEN 2024; 5:e527. [PMID: 39711656 PMCID: PMC11661729 DOI: 10.1097/as9.0000000000000527] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/22/2024] [Accepted: 10/27/2024] [Indexed: 12/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Objective To compare nationwide outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) with laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Background Minimally invasive liver resection is increasingly performed using the robotic approach as this could help overcome inherent technical limitations of laparoscopy. It is unknown if this translates to improved patient outcomes. Methods Data from the mandatory Dutch Hepatobiliary Audit were used to compare perioperative outcomes of RLR and LLR in 20 centers in the Netherlands (2014-2022). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate selection bias. Sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of the learning curve (≥50 procedures for LLR and ≥25 procedures for RLR), concurrent noncholecystectomy operations, high-volume centers, and conversion on outcomes. Results Overall, 792 RLR and 2738 LLR were included. After PSM (781 RLR vs 781 LLR), RLR was associated with less blood loss (median: 100 mL [interquartile range (IQR): 50-300] vs 200 mL [IQR: 50-500], P = 0.002), less major blood loss (≥500 mL,18.6% vs 25.2%, P = 0.011), less conversions (4.9% vs 12.8%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (median: 3 days [IQR: 2-5] vs 4 days [IQR: 2-6], P < 0.001), compared with LLR. There were no significant differences in overall and severe morbidity, readmissions, mortality, and R0 resection rate. Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. When excluding conversions, RLR was only associated with a reduction in reoperations (1.1% vs 2.7%, P = 0.038). Conclusion In this nationwide analysis, RLR was associated with a reduction in conversion, blood loss and length of hospital stay without compromising patient safety, also when excluding a learning curve effect. The benefits of RLR seem to be mostly related to a reduction in conversions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriela Pilz da Cunha
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - Jasper P. Sijberden
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - Susan van Dieren
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Paul Gobardhan
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Medical Center, Breda, The Netherlands
| | - Daan J. Lips
- Department of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Türkan Terkivatan
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | | | - Koop Bosscha
- Department of Surgery, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
| | - J. Sven D. Mieog
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maarten Vermaas
- Department of Surgery, Ijsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den Ijssel, The Netherlands
| | - Niels F. M. Kok
- Department of Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eric J. T. Belt
- Department of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marieke T. de Boer
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Wouter J. M. Derksen
- Department of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hans Torrenga
- Department of Surgery, Deventer Ziekenhuis, Deventer, The Netherlands
| | - Paul M. Verheijen
- Department of Surgery, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
| | | | - Arjen M. Rijken
- Department of Surgery, Amphia Medical Center, Breda, The Netherlands
| | | | - Mike S. L. Liem
- Department of Surgery, Medical Spectrum Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - T.C. Khé Tran
- Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | | | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Brescia, Italy
| | - Marc G. Besselink
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jeroen Hagendoorn
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Department of Surgery, Radboud Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- Department of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
Broering DC, Elsheikh Y, Malago M, Alnemary Y, Alabbad S, Boehnert MU, Raptis DA. Outcomes of Fully Robotic Recipient Living Donor Liver Transplant in Relation to the Open Approach. Transplantation 2024; 108:2396-2402. [PMID: 38872242 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000005109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over the past 20 y, robotic surgery has entered nearly all surgical disciplines, aiming to improve patient outcomes. Liver transplantation has evolved with these advancements, and fully robotic liver transplants represent the latest innovation in this field. This study reports on the world's first series of fully robotic recipient liver transplants from robotic living donors, comparing them with matched cases from the standard open transplant approach. METHODS A case-control study was conducted at our center from August to December 2023. Patient selection criteria for robotic recipient liver transplantation included a Model for End-stage Liver Disease score of ≤25, specific anatomical characteristics, and logistics. A propensity score analysis with a 1:4 matching ratio was used. RESULTS The study analyzed 10 fully robotic living donor and robotic recipient liver transplant pairs with a median donor age of 29 y and a recipient age of 61 y. The main indication for transplantation was nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (6/10). There was 1 robotic to open conversion, and the median operation time was 10 h, with a median hospital stay of 13 d, shorter than the 18 d in the open group. Three recipients experienced a complication, and there was no mortality. CONCLUSIONS The first-ever series of fully robotic living donor recipient liver transplants showed encouraging initial results with a markedly reduced hospital stay. The ultimate goal is to refine the technique to offer robotic liver transplants to the majority of recipients, overcoming the current selection criteria. Further research and a planned randomized controlled trial will aim to confirm these results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dieter C Broering
- Organ Transplant Center of Excellence, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Ishikawa T, Itoh S, Toshima T, Yoshiya S, Bekki Y, Iseda N, Tsutsui Y, Sakamoto I, Abe K, Yoshizumi T. Robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma with Fontan-associated liver disease: a world-first case report. Surg Case Rep 2024; 10:210. [PMID: 39249546 PMCID: PMC11383910 DOI: 10.1186/s40792-024-02014-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2024] [Accepted: 08/31/2024] [Indexed: 09/10/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fontan-associated liver disease (FALD) encompasses hepatic complications following the Fontan procedure, ranging from fibrosis to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, robot-assisted laparoscopic hepatectomy (RALH) for HCC in patients with FALD has not been previously reported owing to concerns about the Fontan circulation. CASE PRESENTATION We present the first case of RALH for recurrent HCC in a 45-year-old man after the Fontan procedure. The preoperative evaluation confirmed good cardiac function. The procedure involved meticulous monitoring and management of central venous pressure and was successfully completed with minimal blood loss. Postoperative recovery was uneventful. With thorough preoperative cardiac assessment and close collaboration between cardiologists and anesthesiologists, RALH can be safely performed in selected patients with FALD. CONCLUSIONS Even if a patient has a history of FALD, RALH can be safely performed in selected patients under appropriate conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Takuma Ishikawa
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Shinji Itoh
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan.
| | - Takeo Toshima
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Shohei Yoshiya
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Yuki Bekki
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Norifumi Iseda
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Yuriko Tsutsui
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| | - Ichiro Sakamoto
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Kotaro Abe
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan
| | - Tomoharu Yoshizumi
- Department of Surgery and Science, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1 Maidashi, Higashi-Ku, Fukuoka-Shi, Fukuoka, 812-0054, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
9
|
Pilz da Cunha G, Coupé VMH, Zonderhuis BM, Bonjer HJ, Erdmann JI, Kazemier G, Besselink MG, Swijnenburg RJ. Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation. HPB (Oxford) 2024; 26:971-980. [PMID: 38853074 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2024.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2024] [Revised: 05/22/2024] [Accepted: 05/27/2024] [Indexed: 06/11/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center. METHODS In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022). RESULTS Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs. DISCUSSION In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gabriela Pilz da Cunha
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Veerle M H Coupé
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Barbara M Zonderhuis
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - H Jaap Bonjer
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Joris I Erdmann
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - G Kazemier
- Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marc G Besselink
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg
- Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Ni LT, Zhao R, Ye YR, Ouyang YM, Chen X. Incidence of surgical site infection in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 16:1121-1129. [PMID: 38690046 PMCID: PMC11056659 DOI: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i4.1121] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2024] [Revised: 02/12/2024] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/22/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of colorectal surgery. Minimally invasive surgery notably reduces the incidence of SSI. This study aimed to compare the incidences of SSI after robot-assisted colorectal surgery (RACS) vs that after laparoscopic assisted colorectal surgery (LACS) and to analyze associated risk factors for SSI in minimally invasive colorectal surgery. AIM To compare the incidences of SSI after RACS and LACS, and to analyze the risk factors associated with SSI after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. METHODS Clinical data derived from patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal surgery between October 2020 and October 2022 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University were collated. Differences in clinical characteristics and surgeryrelated information associated with RACS and LACS were compared, and possible risk factors for SSI were identified. RESULTS A total of 246 patients (112 LACS and 134 RACS) were included in the study. Fortythree (17.5%) developed SSI. The proportions of patients who developed SSI were similar in the two groups (17.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.887). Diabetes mellitus, intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 mL, and incision length were independent risk factors for SSI. Possible additional risk factors included neoadjuvant therapy, lesion site, and operation time. CONCLUSION There was no difference in SSI incidence in the RACS and LACS groups. Diabetes mellitus, intraoperative blood loss ≥ 100 mL, and incision length were independent risk factors for postoperative SSI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lu-Ting Ni
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Ru Zhao
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yi-Ru Ye
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Yi-Ming Ouyang
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| | - Xin Chen
- Department of Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215000, Jiangsu Province, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Wang J, Li Z, Chen LL, Zhao JB, Wu JL, Leng ZW. Comparing robotic and open surgical techniques in gallbladder cancer management: a detailed systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2024; 18:111. [PMID: 38441753 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-024-01851-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 01/28/2024] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of robotic surgery compared to open surgery in treating gallbladder cancer (GBC). In October 2023, we performed a literature search across major global databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We employed a Review Manager for parameter comparisons. This study has been registered with PROSPERO under the identifier CRD42023476686. Our final meta-analysis incorporated 5 cohort studies, encompassing a total of 353 patients. Compared to the Open Group (OG), the Robotic Group (RG) had reduced intraoperative blood loss (WMD - 217.72 ml, 95% CI - 371.08 to - 64.35; p = 0.005), shorter hospital stay (WMD - 1.80 days, 95% CI - 2.66 to - 0.95; p < 0.0001), and fewer overall complications (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.97; p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of operation duration, postoperative inpatient days, readmission rate, major complications, 1-year postoperative survival, 2-year postoperative survival, and mortality rates. In our study, we found that for patients with gallbladder cancer, robotic radical cholecystectomy offers certain potential advantages over open radical cholecystectomy. This suggests that robotic radical cholecystectomy might be the optimal choice for treating gallbladder cancer. However, further validation from high-quality randomized clinical trials is required.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Wang
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancrease II, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Zhao Li
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancrease II, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Lin-Lin Chen
- Department of Hemodialysis, Sixth People's Hospital, Nanchong, Sichuan, China
| | - Jing-Bing Zhao
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancrease II, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Jian-Lin Wu
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancrease II, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China
| | - Zheng-Wei Leng
- Department of Hepato-Biliary-Pancrease II, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
McCarron F, Cochran A, Ricker A, Mantha R, Driedger M, Beckman M, Vrochides D, Martinie J. 10 years, 100 robotic major hepatectomies: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:902-907. [PMID: 37845533 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10459-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2023] [Accepted: 09/06/2023] [Indexed: 10/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Adoption of robotic liver resections has been gradually increasing throughout the HPB surgical community over the past decade. Currently there is limited literature which demonstrates a significant benefit of robotic surgery for major hepatectomies over open or laparoscopic. As one of the first centers to develop a robotic HPB program, we have experienced improved outcomes over time with increasing utilization of robotics. Herein, we present our 10-year experience and outcomes for major robotic liver resections. METHODS From 2012 to 2022, 361 robotic liver procedures were performed, including 100 major hepatectomies. A retrospective data review of the electronic medical record was performed evaluating outcomes after robotic major hepatectomy. Outcomes for the first 50 cases (Group A) and second 50 cases (Group B) were compared to identify any improvements in practice. Demographic and clinical outcome variables were analyzed. Data were assessed for normality, and Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ2 tests, and a logistic regression model were performed appropriate for the data. Stata v.17 was utilized, and significance was set as p < .05. RESULTS There was no difference in median operative time (258 vs 256 min), EBL (500 vs 500 mL), median LOS (5 vs 3.5 days), 90-day readmission (14% vs 24%), major complications (14% vs 20%), and 90-day mortality (6% vs 4%) between early and late cases, respectively. ICU admissions and conversion rates were significantly lower in group B (14.0% vs 48.0%), while expert level difficulty indices were higher (82% vs 58%). CONCLUSION Development of a robotic liver program with good outcomes is feasible over time. Our data suggest that our institutional learning curve for robotic major hepatectomy plateaued at approximately 50 cases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frances McCarron
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, 1025 Morehead Medical Dr. Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
| | - Allyson Cochran
- Carolinas Center for Surgical Outcomes Science, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Ansley Ricker
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Rohit Mantha
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Michael Driedger
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Michael Beckman
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
13
|
Pang H, Yan M, Sun H. Considerations regarding an updated pooled analysis of minimally invasive surgery for major hepatectomy. Int J Surg 2024; 110:623-624. [PMID: 37800593 PMCID: PMC10793749 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000000824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2023] [Accepted: 09/24/2023] [Indexed: 10/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Huayang Pang
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Center
- Chongqing Key Laboratory of Translational Research for Cancer Metastasis and Individualized Treatment, Chongqing University Cancer Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China
| | | | - Hao Sun
- Gastrointestinal Cancer Center
| |
Collapse
|
|
14
|
Mao B, Zhu S, Li D, Xiao J, Wang B, Yan Y. Comparison of safety and effectiveness between robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2023; 109:4333-4346. [PMID: 37720925 PMCID: PMC10720848 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000000750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 09/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic platform has been increasingly applied in major hepatectomy. However, the role or advantage of robotic approach comparing with laparoscopic approach in major hepatectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compares perioperative outcomes of robotic major hepatectomy (RMH) to laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) for hepatic neoplasms. METHODS PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify comparative studies compared RMH versus LMH for hepatic neoplasms. The search timeframe was set before May 2023. Main outcomes were mortality, overall morbidities, serious complications, and conversion to open surgery. Secondary outcomes were operative time, intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion, postoperative length of hospital stay, R0 resection, reoperation, and readmission. Studies were evaluated for quality by Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data were pooled as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). This study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023410951). RESULTS Twelve retrospective cohort studies concerning total 1657 patients (796 RMH, 861 LMH) were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in mortality (OR=1.23, 95% CI=0.50-2.98, P =0.65), overall postoperative complications (OR=0.83, 95% CI=0.65-1.06, P =0.14), operative time (MD=6.47, 95% CI=-14.72 to 27.65, P =0.55), blood transfusion (OR=0.77, 95% CI=0.55-1.08, P =0.13), R0 resection (OR=1.45, 95% CI=0.91-2.31, P =0.12), reoperation (OR=0.76, 95% CI=0.31-1.88, P =0.56), and readmission (OR=0.63, 95% CI=0.28-1.44, P =0.27) between RMH and LMH. Incidence of serious complications (OR=0.60, 95% CI=0.40-0.90, P =0.01), conversion to open surgery (OR=0.41, 95% CI=0.27-0.63, P <0.0001), blood loss (MD=-91.42, 95% CI=-142.18 to -40.66, P =0.0004), and postoperative hospital stay (MD=-0.64, 95% CI=-0.78 to -0.49, P <0.00001) were reduced for RMH versus LMH. CONCLUSIONS RMH is associated with comparable short-term surgical outcomes and oncologic adequacy compared to LMH when performed by experienced surgeons at large centres. RMH may result in reduced major morbidities, conversion rate, blood loss, and hospital stay, but these results were volatile. Further randomized studies should address the potential advantages of RMH over LMH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benliang Mao
- Departments of General Surgery
- College of Clinical Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
| | | | - Dan Li
- Thoracic Surgery, Guangzhou Red Cross Hospital, Jinan University, Guangzhou
| | - Junhao Xiao
- Departments of General Surgery
- College of Clinical Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
| | - Bailin Wang
- Departments of General Surgery
- College of Clinical Medicine, Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang, China
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
McCarron FN, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Current progress in robotic hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery at a high-volume center. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2023; 7:863-870. [PMID: 37927925 PMCID: PMC10623982 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2023] [Revised: 07/18/2023] [Accepted: 08/19/2023] [Indexed: 11/07/2023] Open
Abstract
There has been steady growth in the adoption of robotic HPB procedures world-wide over the past 20 years, but most of this increase has occurred only recently. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of robotics has been in the United States, with very few, select centers of adoption in Italy, South Korea, and Brazil, to name a few. We began our robotic HPB program in 2008, well before almost all other centers in the world, with the most notable exception of Giullianotti and colleagues. Our program began gradually, with smaller cases carefully selected to optimize the strengths of the original robotic platform and included complex biliary and pancreatic resections. We performed the first reported series of choledochojejunostomy for benign biliary strictures and first series of completion cholecystectomies. We began performing robotic distal pancreatectomies and longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomies, reporting our early experience for each of these procedures. Over time we progressed to robotic pancreaticoduodenectomies. Initially, these were performed with planned conversions until we were able to optimize efficiency. Now we have performed over 200 robotic whipples, reaching a 100% robotic completion rate by 2020. Finally, we have added robotic major hepatectomies, including resections for hilar cholangiocarcinoma to our repertoire. Since the program began, we have performed over 1600 robotic HPB cases. Outcomes from our program have shown superior lymph node harvest, lower DGE rates, shorter hospitalizations, and fewer rehab admissions with similar overall complications to open and laparoscopic procedures, signifying that over time a robotic HPB program is not only feasible but advantageous as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Frances N. McCarron
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - John B. Martinie
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas SurgeryCarolinas Medical CenterCharlotteNorth CarolinaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Navinés-López J, Pardo Aranda F, Cremades Pérez M, Espin Álvarez F, Zárate Pinedo A, Sentí Farrarons S, Galofré Recasens M, Cugat Andorrà E. Robotic liver surgery: A new reality. Descriptive analysis of 220 cases of minimally invasive liver surgery in 182 patients. Cir Esp 2023; 101:746-754. [PMID: 37105365 DOI: 10.1016/j.cireng.2023.04.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 02/12/2023] [Indexed: 04/29/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The level of recommendation of the robotic approach in liver surgery is controversial. The objective of the study is to carry out a single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach in liver surgery during the same period. METHODS Descriptive analysis of the short-term results of the robotic and laparoscopic approach on 220 resections in 182 patients undergoing minimally invasive liver surgery. RESULTS Between April 2018 and June 2022, a total of 92 robotic liver resections (RLR) were performed in 83 patients and 128 laparoscopic (LLR) in 99 patients. The LLR group showed a higher proportion of major surgery (P < .001) and multiple resections (P = .002). The two groups were similar in anatomical resections (RLR 64.1% vs. LLR 56.3%). In the LLS group, the average operating time was 212 min (SD 52.1). Blood loss was 276.5 mL (100-1000) and conversion 12.1%. Mean hospital stay was 5.7 (SD 4.9) days. Morbidity was 27.3% and 2% mortality. In the RLS group, the mean operative time was 217 min (SD 53.6), blood loss 169.5 mL (100.900), and conversion 2.5%. Mean hospital stay was 4.1 (SD 2.1) days. Morbidity was 15%, with no mortality. CONCLUSION Minimally invasive liver surgery is a safe technique, and in particular, RLS allows liver resections to be performed safely and reproducibly; it appears to be a non-inferior technique to LLS, but randomized studies are needed to determine the minimally invasive approach of choice in liver surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordi Navinés-López
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Fernando Pardo Aranda
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain.
| | - Manel Cremades Pérez
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Francisco Espin Álvarez
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Alba Zárate Pinedo
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Sara Sentí Farrarons
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maria Galofré Recasens
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Esteban Cugat Andorrà
- Unidad de Cirugía Hepato-Bilio-Pancreática, Servicio de Cirugía General y Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
17
|
Chen A, Tsai KY, Wang WY, Chen HA, Huang MT. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: A single-center, propensity score- matched study. Asian J Surg 2023; 46:3593-3600. [PMID: 37537065 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.07.049] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2022] [Revised: 07/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although the effectiveness of robotic hepatectomy (RH) has been evaluated in several studies, the superiority of RH over other approaches has not been definitely established. Therefore, in the present propensity score-matched cohort study, we compared RH and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) in terms of perioperative and oncologic outcomes. METHODS This retrospective study included patients who underwent RH or LH for benign and malignant liver lesions at a single center in Taiwan at any time between 2014 and 2020. Confounding factors, specifically age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, IWATE criteria, and Charlson comorbidity index, were adjusted through propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS A total of 329 patients were finally included in this study. Two homogeneous groups (RH and LH; n, 72 each) were formed using PSM. The RH group had a longer operative time (median: 231 vs.180 min, respectively; P = .001) and lower conversion (to open surgery) rate (9.7% vs.0.0%, respectively; P = .013) than did the LH group. However, the two groups did not differ in terms of other perioperative outcomes, specifically blood loss, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission, mortality, morbidity, or tumor margin status. CONCLUSIONS The rate of conversion to open surgery is lower in RH than in LH. Although operative time is longer in RH than in LH, RH is feasible and safe for patients with benign or malignant liver lesion. Our study also demonstrated comparable oncological results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma between LH and RH group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alvin Chen
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.
| | - Kuei-Yen Tsai
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Wan-Yu Wang
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan
| | - Hsin-An Chen
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Taipei Medical University-Shuang Ho Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Ming-Te Huang
- Division of General Surgery, Xin Tai General Hospital, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
|
18
|
Ricker AB, Davis JM, Motz BM, Watson M, Beckman M, Driedger M, Martinie JB, Vrochides D. External validation of the Japanese difficulty score for laparoscopic hepatectomy in patients undergoing robotic-assisted hepatectomy. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:7288-7294. [PMID: 37558825 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10330-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The Japanese difficulty score (JDS) categorizes laparoscopic hepatectomy into low, intermediate, and high complexity procedures, and correlates with operative and postoperative outcomes. We sought to perform a validation study to determine if the JDS correlates with operative and postoperative indicators of surgical complexity for patients undergoing robotic-assisted hepatectomy. METHODS Retrospective review of 657 minimally invasive hepatectomy procedures was performed between January 2008 through March 2019. Outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), blood transfusion, complications, post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF), length of stay, 30-day readmission, and 30-day and 90-day mortality. Patients were grouped based on JDS defined as: low (< 4), intermediate (4-6), and high (7 +) complexity procedures. Statistical comparisons were analyzed by ANOVA or χ2 test. RESULTS 241 of 657 patients underwent robotic-assisted resection. Of these patients, 137 were included in the analysis based on JDS: 25 low, 58 intermediate, and 54 high. High JDS was associated with more major resections (≥ 4 contiguous segments) versus minor resections (median JDS 8 vs. 5, P < 0.0001). High JDS was associated with significantly longer operative times, higher EBL, and more blood transfusions. High JDS was associated with higher rates of PHLF at 16.7%, compared with 5.2% intermediate and 0.0% low, (P = 0.018). Complication rates, 30-day readmissions, and mortality rates were similar between groups. Median LOS was longer in patients with high JDS compared with intermediate and low (4 days vs. 3 days vs. 2 days; P = 0.0005). DISCUSSION Higher JDS was associated with multiple indicators of operative complexity, including greater extent of resection, increased operative time, EBL, blood transfusion, PHLF, and LOS. This validation study supports the ability of the JDS to categorize patients undergoing robotic-assisted hepatectomy by complexity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ansley Beth Ricker
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, 1025 Morehead Medical Drive, Suite 600, Charlotte, NC, 28204, USA.
| | - Joshua M Davis
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Benjamin M Motz
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Michael Watson
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Michael Beckman
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Michael Driedger
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John B Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Atrium Health - Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
- Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Liu R, Abu Hilal M, Wakabayashi G, Han HS, Palanivelu C, Boggi U, Hackert T, Kim HJ, Wang XY, Hu MG, Choi GH, Panaro F, He J, Efanov M, Yin XY, Croner RS, Fong YM, Zhu JY, Wu Z, Sun CD, Lee JH, Marino MV, Ganpati IS, Zhu P, Wang ZZ, Yang KH, Fan J, Chen XP, Lau WY. International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29:4815-4830. [PMID: 37701136 PMCID: PMC10494765 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i32.4815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2023] [Revised: 07/22/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rong Liu
- Faculty of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Hepatobiliary Pancreatic, Robotic & Laparoscopic Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia 25100, Italy
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama 362-0075, Japan
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, South Korea
| | - Chinnusamy Palanivelu
- GEM Hospital & Research Centre, GEM Hospital & Research Centre, Coimbatore 641045, India
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa 56126, Italy
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg 20251, Germany
| | - Hong-Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu 42415, South Korea
| | - Xiao-Ying Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
| | - Ming-Gen Hu
- Faculty of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | - Fabrizio Panaro
- Department of Surgery/Division of Robotic and HBP Surgery, Montpellier University Hospital-School of Medicine, Montpellier 34090, France
| | - Jin He
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States
| | - Mikhail Efanov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow 111123, Russia
| | - Xiao-Yu Yin
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China
| | - Roland S Croner
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany
| | - Yu-Man Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, United States
| | - Ji-Ye Zhu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Zheng Wu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710061, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Chuan-Dong Sun
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, Shandong Province, China
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan 682, South Korea
| | - Marco V Marino
- General Surgery Department, F. Tappeiner Hospital, Merano 39012, Italy
| | - Iyer Shridhar Ganpati
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore 189969, Singapore
| | - Peng Zhu
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430000, Hubei Province, China
| | - Zi-Zheng Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Senior Department of Hepatology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Ke-Hu Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu Province, China
| | - Jia Fan
- Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200000, China
| | - Xiao-Ping Chen
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430000, Hubei Province, China
| | - Wan Yee Lau
- Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
| |
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Li Q, Zhang T, Che F, Yao S, Gao F, Nie L, Tang H, Wei Y, Song B. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion weighted imaging for preoperative evaluation of liver regeneration after hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2023; 33:5222-5235. [PMID: 36892648 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09496-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2022] [Revised: 12/07/2022] [Accepted: 01/30/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To explore whether intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters could evaluate liver regeneration preoperatively. METHODS A total of 175 HCC patients were initially recruited. The apparent diffusion coefficient, true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), pseudodiffusion fraction (f), diffusion distribution coefficient, and diffusion heterogeneity index (Alpha) were measured by two independent radiologists. Spearman's correlation test was used to assess correlations between IVIM parameters and the regeneration index (RI), calculated as 100% × (the volume of the postoperative remnant liver - the volume of the preoperative remnant liver) / the volume of the preoperative remnant liver. Multivariate linear regression analyses were used to identify the factors for RI. RESULTS Finally, 54 HCC patients (45 men and 9 women, mean age 51.26 ± 10.41 years) were retrospectively analyzed. The intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.842 to 0.918. In all patients, fibrosis stage was reclassified as F0-1 (n = 10), F2-3 (n = 26), and F4 (n = 18) using the METAVIR system. Spearman correlation test showed D* (r = 0.303, p = 0.026) was associated with RI; however, multivariate analysis showed that only D value was a significant predictor (p < 0.05) of RI. D and D*showed moderate correlations with fibrosis stage (r = -0.361, p = 0.007; r = -0.457, p = 0.001). Fibrosis stage showed a negative correlation with RI (r = -0.263, p = 0.015). In the 29 patients who underwent minor hepatectomy, only the D value showed a positive association (p < 0.05) with RI, and a negative correlation with fibrosis stage (r = -0.360, p = 0.018). However, in the 25 patients who underwent major hepatectomy, no IVIM parameters were associated with RI (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS The D and D* values, especially the D value, may be reliable preoperative predictors of liver regeneration. KEY POINTS • The D and D* values, especially the D value, derived from IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging may be useful markers for the preoperative prediction of liver regeneration in patients with HCC. • The D and D* values derived from IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging show significant negative correlations with fibrosis, an important predictor of liver regeneration. • No IVIM parameters were associated with liver regeneration in patients who underwent major hepatectomy, but the D value was a significant predictor of liver regeneration in patients who underwent minor hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qian Li
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Tong Zhang
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Feng Che
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Shan Yao
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Feifei Gao
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Lisha Nie
- GE Healthcare, MR Research China, Beijing, China
| | - Hehan Tang
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China
| | - Yi Wei
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.
| | - Bin Song
- Department of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37, Guoxue Alley, Chengdu, 610041, China.
- Department of Radiology, Sanya People's Hospital, Sanya, 572000, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
21
|
Heinrich S, Tschuor C, Lang H. [Robotics in Liver Surgery - Tips and Tricks]. Zentralbl Chir 2023; 148:359-366. [PMID: 37130543 DOI: 10.1055/a-2060-9814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/04/2023]
Abstract
Since minimally invasive liver surgery has proven benefits over open surgery, this technique should also be implemented more broadly in Germany. With the dramatic development in minimally invasive and robotic liver surgery, this approach has been established in recent years. Most recent analyses suggest lower complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay compared to open and laparoscopic liver surgery. In contrast to laparoscopic surgery, the technical setting of robotic liver surgery is widely independent of the type of resection. The laparoscopic and robotic technologies should be considered to be equal at the moment, although most recent analyses even suggest additional advantages of robotic over laparoscopic liver surgery. Moreover, robotics has a greater potential for technical refinements, including the inclusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Most steps can be transferred from open and laparoscopic liver surgery, but a dissection device such as the CUSA has not yet been developed. Consequently, different techniques have been reported for parenchymal transsection. Due to the special technical features of robotic surgery, intensive training programs should be used prior to the establishment of a robotic liver surgery program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefan Heinrich
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Center Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland
| | - Christoph Tschuor
- Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Hauke Lang
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Center Mainz, Mainz, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Kwak BJ, Lee JH, Chin KM, Syn NL, Choi SH, Cheung TT, Chiow AKH, Sucandy I, Marino MV, Prieto M, Chong CC, Choi GH, Efanov M, Kingham TP, Sutcliffe RP, Troisi RI, Pratschke J, Wang X, D'Hondt M, Tang CN, Mishima K, Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Aghayan DL, Edwin B, Scatton O, Sugioka A, Long TCD, Fondevila C, Alzoubi M, Hilal MA, Ruzzenente A, Ferrero A, Herman P, Lee B, Fuks D, Cipriani F, Liu Q, Aldrighetti L, Liu R, Han HS, Goh BKP. Robotic versus laparoscopic liver resections for hepatolithiasis: an international multicenter propensity score matched analysis. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:5855-5864. [PMID: 37067594 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10051-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 03/26/2023] [Indexed: 04/18/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Minimally invasive liver resection (MILR) is widely recognized as a safe and beneficial procedure in the treatment of both malignant and benign liver diseases. Hepatolithiasis has traditionally been reported to be endemic only in East Asia, but has seen a worldwide uptrend in recent decades with increasingly frequent and invasive endoscopic instrumentation of the biliary tract for a myriad of conditions. To date, there has been a woeful lack of high-quality evidence comparing the laparoscopic (LLR) and robotic (RLR) approaches to treatment hepatolithiasis. METHODS This is an international multicenter retrospective analysis of 273 patients who underwent RLR or LRR for hepatolithiasis at 33 centers in 2003-2020. The baseline clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative outcomes of these patients were assessed. To minimize selection bias, 1:1 (48 and 48 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) and 1:2 (37 and 74 cases of RLR and LLR, respectively) propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. RESULTS In the unmatched cohort, 63 (23.1%) patients underwent RLR, and 210 (76.9%) patients underwent LLR. Patient clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the groups after PSM. After 1:1 and 1:2 PSM, RLR was associated with less blood loss (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.005 in 1:1 PSM), less patients with blood loss greater than 300 ml (p = 0.024 in 1:2 PSM; p = 0.027 in 1:1 PSM), and lower conversion rate to open surgery (p = 0.003 in 1:2 PSM; p < 0.001 in 1:1 PSM). There was no significant difference between RLR and LLR in use of the Pringle maneuver, median Pringle maneuver duration, 30-day readmission rate, postoperative morbidity, major morbidity, reoperation, and mortality. CONCLUSION Both RLR and LLR were safe and feasible for hepatolithiasis. RLR was associated with significantly less blood loss and lower open conversion rate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bong Jun Kwak
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ken Min Chin
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Nicholas L Syn
- Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Sung Hoon Choi
- Department of General Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Tan To Cheung
- Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
| | - Adrian K H Chiow
- Department of Surgery, Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Marco V Marino
- General Surgery Department, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy
- Oncologic Surgery Department, P. Giaccone University Hospital, Palermo, Italy
| | - Mikel Prieto
- Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Charing C Chong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mikhail Efanov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - T Peter Kingham
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Robert P Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Roberto I Troisi
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Division of HPB, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Federico II University Hospital Naples, Naples, Federico, Italy
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Xiaoying Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, People's Republic of China
| | - Mathieu D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Chung Ngai Tang
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, People's Republic of China
| | - Kohei Mishima
- Center for Advanced Treatment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan
| | - Daniel Cherqui
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Assistance Publique Hopitaux de Paris, Paul-Brousse Hospital, Centre Hepato-Biliaire, Villejuif, France
| | - Davit L Aghayan
- The Intervention Centre and Department of Hepatic, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway
| | - Bjorn Edwin
- The Intervention Centre and Department of Hepatic, Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery, Oslo University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oslo University, Oslo, Norway
| | - Olivier Scatton
- Department of Digestive, HBP and Liver Transplantation, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Tran Cong Duy Long
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, University Medical Center, University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - Constantino Fondevila
- General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- General and Digestive Surgery, Hospital Universitario La Paz, IdiPAZ, CIBERehd, Madrid, Spain
| | - Mohammad Alzoubi
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Mohammad Abu Hilal
- Department of Surgery, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK
- Department of Surgery, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
| | - Andrea Ruzzenente
- General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Dentistry, Gynecology and Pediatrics, University of Verona, GB Rossi Hospital, Verona, Italy
| | - Alessandro Ferrero
- Department of General and Oncological Surgery, Mauriziano Hospital, Turin, Italy
| | - Paulo Herman
- Liver Surgery Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Boram Lee
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - David Fuks
- Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Universite Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Federica Cipriani
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Qu Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Luca Aldrighetti
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy
| | - Rong Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Brian K P Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, National Cancer Centre Singapore and Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Academia, Level 5, 20 College Road, Singapore, 169856, Singapore.
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Baker EH. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomy: Conversion and Ability to Rescue. Ann Surg Oncol 2023; 30:4571-4572. [PMID: 37219659 DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13669-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 05/10/2023] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
|
|
24
|
Yoshino O, Wang Y, McCarron F, Motz B, Wang H, Baker E, Iannitti D, Martinie JB, Vrochides D. Major hepatectomy in elderly patients: possible benefit from robotic platform utilization. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-10062-5. [PMID: 37173594 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10062-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2022] [Accepted: 04/01/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Robotic surgery has been increasingly utilized, yet its application for hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) procedures remains low due to technical complexity, perceived financial burden, and unproven clinical benefits. We hypothesized that the robotic approach would be associated with improved clinical outcomes following major hepatectomy compared with the laparoscopic approach among elderly patients who would benefit from the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. METHODS A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent major hepatectomy between January 2010 and December 2021 at Carolinas Medical Center was performed. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 65 years and major hepatectomy of three segments or more. Patients who underwent multiple liver resections, vascular/biliary reconstruction, or concomitant extrahepatic procedures (except cholecystectomy) were excluded. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test when more than 20% of cells had expected frequencies less than five, and Wilcoxon two-sample or Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for continuous or ordinal variables. Results are described as median and interquartile range (IQR). Multivariate analyses were used on postoperative admission days. RESULTS There were 399 major hepatectomies performed during this time period, of which 125 met the criteria and were included. There were no differences in perioperative demographics among patients who underwent robotic hepatectomy (RH, n = 39) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH, n = 32). There was no difference in operative time, blood loss, or major complication rates. However, RH had lower rates of conversion to an open procedure (2.6% versus 31.3%, p = 0.002), shorter length of hospital stay [LOS, 4 (3-7) versus 6 (4-8.5) days, p ≤ 0.0001], cumulative LOS [4 (3-7) versus 6 (4.5-9) days, p ≤ 0.0001], and lower rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (7.7% versus 75%, p ≤ 0.001), with a trend toward fewer rehabilitation requirements. CONCLUSIONS Robot major hepatectomy shows clinical advantages in elderly patients, including shorter hospital and ICU stays. These advantages, as well as reduced rehabilitation requirements associated with minimally invasive surgery, could overcome the current perceived financial disadvantages of robotic hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osamu Yoshino
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.
- Division of HPB and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Austin Hospital, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Yifan Wang
- Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Frances McCarron
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Benjamin Motz
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Huaping Wang
- Division of Research, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Erin Baker
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - David Iannitti
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John B Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Robotic liver resection in the posterosuperior segments as a way to extent the mini-invasive arsenal: a comparison with transthoracic laparoscopic approach. Surg Endosc 2023:10.1007/s00464-023-09919-6. [PMID: 36808471 PMCID: PMC9937527 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09919-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 01/28/2023] [Indexed: 02/20/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The field of robotic liver resection (RLR) has developed in the past decades. This technique seems to improve the access to the posterosuperior (PS) segments. Evidence of a possible advantage over transthoracic laparoscopy (TTL) is not yet available. We aimed to compare RLR to TTL for tumors located in the PS segments of the liver in terms of feasibility, difficulty scoring, and outcome. METHODS This retrospective study compared patients undergoing robotic liver resections and transthoracic laparoscopic resections of the PS segments between January 2016 and December 2022 in a high-volume HPB center. Patients' characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and postoperative complications were evaluated. RESULTS In total, 30 RLR and 16 TTL were included. Only wedge resections were performed in the TTL group, while 43% of the patients in the RLR group had an anatomical resection (p < 0.001). The difficulty score according to the IWATE difficulty scoring system was significantly higher in the RLR group (p < 0.001). Total operative time was similar between the two groups. Complication rates, either overall or major, were comparable between the two techniques and hospital stay was significantly shorter in the RLR group. Patients in the TTL group were found to have more pulmonary complications (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION RLR may provide some advantages over TTL for the resection of tumors located in the PS segments.
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Kato Y, Sugioka A, Kojima M, Kiguchi G, Mii S, Uchida Y, Takahara T, Uyama I. Initial experience with robotic liver resection: Audit of 120 consecutive cases at a single center and comparison with open and laparoscopic approaches. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2023; 30:72-90. [PMID: 35737850 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/04/2022] [Revised: 05/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/03/2022] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE Surgical outcomes and utility of robotic liver resection (RLR) are undefined. METHODS We retrospectively studied perioperative and long-term outcomes of the single-center 120 RLRs including non-anatomic (NAR, n = 58) and anatomic (AR, n = 62) resections. To evaluate the feasibility and safety of RLR, perioperative outcomes of RLR (n = 103) were compared to those of open (OLR, n = 495) or laparoscopic (LLR, n = 451) resection in liver-only resections without reconstruction, using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). The changing trends from the earlier to the later RLR cases were assessed. Long-term outcomes were compared between RLR and LLR. RESULTS Various types of RLR with different surgical difficulties were performed, with mostly comparable postoperative morbidity between AR and NAR, or among AR subtypes. In segmentectomy and sectionectomy cases, perioperative outcomes significantly improved in the later period. In comparison between PSM-selected OLR and RLR cases (87:87), RLR had significantly longer operative time, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay. PSM-selected LLR and RLR cases (91:91) showed comparable perioperative outcomes. Overall and recurrence-free survivals after RLR for newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastasis were comparable to those after LLR. CONCLUSIONS RLR is applicable to various types of liver resection with acceptable perioperative and long-term outcomes in select patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yutaro Kato
- Department of Advanced Robotic and Endoscopic Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- International Medical Center, Fujita Health University Hospital, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Masayuki Kojima
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Gozo Kiguchi
- Department of Surgery, Hirakata Kosai Hospital, Hirakata, Japan
| | - Satoshi Mii
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Yuichiro Uchida
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | | | - Ichiro Uyama
- Department of Advanced Robotic and Endoscopic Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Hou Z, Xie Q, Qiu G, Jin Z, Mi S, Huang J. Trocar layouts in laparoscopic liver surgery. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:7949-7960. [PMID: 35578044 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-022-09312-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since the first laparoscopic wedge resection reported by Reich, laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has been progressively developed, acquiring safety and feasibility. The time has witnessed a milestone leap for laparoscopic hepatectomy from pure laparoscopic partial hepatectomy to anatomical hepatectomy and from minor liver resection to major liver resection. The numerous previous studies have paid more attention to the short-time and long-time surgical outcomes caused by surgical techniques corresponding to various segments and approaches. However, focus on trocar layouts remains poorly described, but it plays an indispensable role in surgical process. METHODS We have searched PubMed for English language articles with the key words "trocar," "laparoscopic liver resection," and "liver resection approaches." RESULTS This review highlighted each type of trocar layouts corresponding to specific circumstances, including targeted resection segments with various approaches. Notably, surgeon preferences and patients body habitus affect the trocar layouts to some extent as well. CONCLUSIONS Although there were fewer researches focus on trocar layouts, they determine the operation field and manipulation space and be likely to have an impact on outcomes of surgery. Therefore, further studies are warranted to firm the role of trocar layouts in LLR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ziqi Hou
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Qingyun Xie
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Guoteng Qiu
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zhaoxing Jin
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Sizheng Mi
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Jiwei Huang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Liver Transplantation Centre, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Cipriani F, Fiorentini G, Magistri P, Fontani A, Menonna F, Annecchiarico M, Lauterio A, De Carlis L, Coratti A, Boggi U, Ceccarelli G, Di Benedetto F, Aldrighetti L. Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: Multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2022; 29:1108-1123. [PMID: 34291591 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.1022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Revised: 06/12/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The benefits of pure laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resections (LLR and RALR) are known in comparison to open surgery. The aim of the present retrospective comparative study is to investigate the role of RALR and LLR according to different levels of difficulty. METHODS The institutional databases of six high-volume hepatobiliary centers were retrospectively reviewed. The study population was divided in two groups: LLR and RALR. The procedures were stratified for difficulty levels accordingly to three classifications. A propensity score matching was implemented to mitigate selection bias. Short-term outcomes were the object of comparison. RESULTS Nine hundred and thirty-six LLR and 403 RALR were collected. RALR exhibited fewer cases of intraoperative blood loss, lower transfusion and conversion rates (especially for oncological radicality) than LLR in the setting of highly difficult operations, whereas LLR had lower postoperative morbidity and fewer low-grade complications. For intermediate and low-difficulty resections, the intraoperative advantages of RALR gradually decreased to nonsignificant results and LLR remained associated with lower postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSION Robot-assisted liver resections do not show operative nor clinically significant benefits over LLR for low- and intermediate-difficulty resections. By reducing conversion rates, RALR can favour the operative feasibility of difficult resections possibly extending the indications of minimally invasive approaches for liver resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Federica Cipriani
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Guido Fiorentini
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- PhD School in Experimental Medicine, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
| | - Paolo Magistri
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Andrea Fontani
- General Surgery Division, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy
| | - Francesca Menonna
- General and Transplant Surgery Division, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Mario Annecchiarico
- Division of Surgical Oncologic and Robotics, Department of Oncology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Lauterio
- Department of General Surgery and Abdominal Transplantation, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
| | - Luciano De Carlis
- Department of General Surgery and Abdominal Transplantation, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Milan, Italy
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Coratti
- Division of Surgical Oncologic and Robotics, Department of Oncology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Ugo Boggi
- General and Transplant Surgery Division, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
| | - Graziano Ceccarelli
- General Surgery Division, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy
- General Minimally invasive and Robotic Surgery Division, San Matteo degli Infermi Hospital, Spoleto, Italy
| | - Fabrizio Di Benedetto
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Luca Aldrighetti
- Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
- Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
29
|
Laparoscopic versus Robotic Hepatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med 2022; 11:jcm11195831. [PMID: 36233697 PMCID: PMC9571364 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11195831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2022] [Revised: 08/28/2022] [Accepted: 09/24/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the surgical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, with a special focus on the meta-analysis method. Original studies were collected from three Chinese databases, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Our systematic review was conducted on 682 patients with robotic liver resection, and 1101 patients were operated by laparoscopic platform. Robotic surgery has a long surgical duration (MD = 43.99, 95% CI: 23.45-64.53, p = 0.0001), while there is no significant difference in length of hospital stay (MD = 0.10, 95% CI: -0.38-0.58, p = 0.69), blood loss (MD = -20, 95% CI: -64.90-23.34, p = 0.36), the incidence of conversion (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.41-1.69, p = 0.62), and tumor size (MD = 0.30, 95% CI: -0-0.60, p = 0.05); the subgroup analysis of major and minor hepatectomy on operation time is (MD = -7.08, 95% CI: -15.22-0.07, p = 0.09) and (MD = 39.87, 95% CI: -1.70-81.44, p = 0.06), respectively. However, despite the deficiencies of robotic hepatectomy in terms of extended operation time compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy is still effective and equivalent to laparoscopic hepatectomy in outcomes. Scientific evaluation and research on one portion of the liver may produce more efficacity and more precise results. Therefore, more clinical trials are needed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of robotic compared to laparoscopic hepatectomy.
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Rahimli M, Perrakis A, Andric M, Stockheim J, Franz M, Arend J, Al-Madhi S, Abu Hilal M, Gumbs AA, Croner RS. Does Robotic Liver Surgery Enhance R0 Results in Liver Malignancies during Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:3360. [PMID: 35884421 PMCID: PMC9320889 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14143360] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2022] [Revised: 07/05/2022] [Accepted: 07/08/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic procedures are an integral part of modern liver surgery. However, the advantages of a robotic approach in comparison to the conventional laparoscopic approach are the subject of controversial debate. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare robotic and laparoscopic liver resection with particular attention to the resection margin status in malignant cases. METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Only studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resections were considered for this meta-analysis. Furthermore, the rate of the positive resection margin or R0 rate in malignant cases had to be clearly identifiable. We used fixed or random effects models according to heterogeneity. RESULTS Fourteen studies with a total number of 1530 cases were included in qualitative and quantitative synthesis. Malignancies were identified in 71.1% (n = 1088) of these cases. These included hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, colorectal liver metastases and other malignancies of the liver. Positive resection margins were noted in 24 cases (5.3%) in the robotic group and in 54 cases (8.6%) in the laparoscopic group (OR = 0.71; 95% CI (0.42-1.18); p = 0.18). Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group (MD = 6.92; 95% CI (2.93-10.91); p = 0.0007). The operation time was significantly longer in the robotic procedure (MD = 28.12; 95% CI (3.66-52.57); p = 0.02). There were no significant differences between the robotic and laparoscopic approaches regarding the intra-operative blood loss, length of hospital stay, overall and severe complications and conversion rate. CONCLUSION Our meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the robotic and laparoscopic procedures regarding the resection margin status. Tumor size was significantly larger in the robotic group. However, randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are needed to demonstrate the benefits of robotics in liver surgery.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirhasan Rahimli
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Aristotelis Perrakis
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Mihailo Andric
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Jessica Stockheim
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Mareike Franz
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Joerg Arend
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Sara Al-Madhi
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Unità Chirurgia Epatobiliopancreatica, Robotica e Mininvasiva, Fondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero, Via Bissolati, 57, 25124 Brescia, Italy;
| | - Andrew A. Gumbs
- Department of Surgery, Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy/Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 10 Rue du Champ Gaillard, 78300 Poissy, France;
| | - Roland S. Croner
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Str. 44, 39120 Magdeburg, Germany; (A.P.); (M.A.); (J.S.); (M.F.); (J.A.); (S.A.-M.); (R.S.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Robinson J, Tschuor C, McKillop IH, Baker EH, Iannitti DA, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Robotic Revision of Hepaticojejunostomy for Benign Biliary Stricture. Am Surg 2022:31348221096834. [PMID: 35575212 DOI: 10.1177/00031348221096834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Surgical revision of biliary enteric anastomoses (BEA) can be a challenging undertaking and a robotic platform may provide advantages that address many of the technical obstacles. We present our technical approach and outcomes for patients undergoing robotic revision of BEA for benign strictures. A retrospective review was performed for robot-assisted benign BEA revision at our institution. Operative details, perioperative metrics, and outcomes are reported. Four patients underwent anastomotic revision following previously failed non-operative management. There were no intraoperative complications, mean length of stay was 4-days, and all patients experienced resolution of presenting clinical signs and symptoms. No patients required reoperation and there was no mortality. Postoperative outcomes were consistent with findings reported for other interventional modalities. Based on our experience we conclude robotic intervention in this context is safe and improves the technical feasibility of this complex procedure.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jordan Robinson
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Christoph Tschuor
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.,Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, 53146Copenhagen University Hospital, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Iain H McKillop
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Erin H Baker
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - David A Iannitti
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John B Martinie
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
32
|
Chong CC, Fuks D, Lee KF, Zhao JJ, Choi GH, Sucandy I, Chiow AKH, Marino MV, Gastaca M, Wang X, Lee JH, Efanov M, Kingham TP, D’Hondt M, Troisi RI, Choi SH, Sutcliffe RP, Chan CY, Lai ECH, Park JO, Di Benedetto F, Rotellar F, Sugioka A, Coelho FF, Ferrero A, Long TCD, Lim C, Scatton O, Liu Q, Schmelzle M, Pratschke J, Cheung TT, Liu R, Han HS, Tang CN, Goh BKP. Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Right and Extended Right Hepatectomy. JAMA Surg 2022; 157:436-444. [PMID: 35262660 PMCID: PMC8908223 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.0161] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 12/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Laparoscopic and robotic techniques have both been well adopted as safe options in selected patients undergoing hepatectomy. However, it is unknown whether either approach is superior, especially for major hepatectomy such as right hepatectomy or extended right hepatectomy (RH/ERH). OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this case-control study, propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias. Patients undergoing robotic or laparoscopic RH/EHR at 29 international centers from 2008 to 2020 were included. INTERVENTIONS Robotic vs laparoscopic RH/ERH. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data on patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and short-term perioperative outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS Of 989 individuals who met study criteria, 220 underwent robotic and 769 underwent laparoscopic surgery. The median (IQR) age in the robotic RH/ERH group was 61.00 (51.86-69.00) years and in the laparoscopic RH/ERH group was 62.00 (52.03-70.00) years. Propensity score matching resulted in 220 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' demographics and tumor characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate (19 of 220 [8.6%] vs 39 of 220 [17.1%]; P = .01) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 7.0 [5.0-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.11 [7.52] days vs median [IQR], 7.0 [5.75-10.0] days; mean [SD], 9.94 [8.99] days; P = .048). On subset analysis of cases performed between 2015 and 2020 after a center's learning curve (50 cases), robotic RH/ERH was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay (median [IQR], 6.0 [5.0-9.0] days vs 7.0 [6.0-9.75] days; P = .04) with a similar conversion rate (12 of 220 [7.6%] vs 17 of 220 [10.8%]; P = .46). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE Robotic RH/ERH was associated with a lower open conversion rate and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with laparoscopic RH/ERH. The difference in open conversion rate was associated with a significant decrease for laparoscopic but not robotic RH/ERH after a center had mounted the learning curve. Use of robotic platform may help to overcome the initial challenges of minimally invasive RH/ERH.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charing C. Chong
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - David Fuks
- Department of Digestive, Oncologic and Metabolic Surgery, Institute Mutualiste Montsouris, Universite Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Kit-Fai Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Joseph J. Zhao
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, Florida
| | - Adrian K. H. Chiow
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Unit, Department of Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Marco V. Marino
- General Surgery Department, Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedali Riuniti Villa Sofia-Cervello, Palermo, Italy and Oncologic Surgery Department, P. Giaccone University Hospital, Palermo, Italy
| | - Mikel Gastaca
- Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, Biocruces Bizkaia Health Research Institute, Cruces University Hospital, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain
| | - Xiaoying Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Department of Surgery, Division of Hepato-Biliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Mikhail Efanov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow, Russia
| | - T. Peter Kingham
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Mathieu D’Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Roberto I. Troisi
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Division of HPB, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Federico II University Hospital Naples, Naples, Italy
| | - Sung-Hoon Choi
- Department of General Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
| | - Robert P. Sutcliffe
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Liver Transplant Surgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Chung-Yip Chan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Eric C. H. Lai
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - James O. Park
- Hepatobiliary Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle
| | - Fabrizio Di Benedetto
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplant Unit, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
| | - Fernando Rotellar
- HPB and Liver Transplant, Department of General Surgery, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
- Institute of Health Research of Navarra (IdisNA), Pamplona, Spain
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University School of Medicine, Aichi, Japan
| | - Fabricio Ferreira Coelho
- Liver Surgery Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo School of Medicine, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Alessandro Ferrero
- Department of HPB and Digestive Surgery, Ospedale Mauriziano Umberto I, Turin, Italy
| | - Tran Cong Duy Long
- HPB Surgery Department, University Medical Center, HCMC, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
| | - Chetana Lim
- Department of Digestive, HBP and Liver Transplantation, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Scatton
- Department of Digestive, HBP and Liver Transplantation, Hopital Pitie-Salpetriere, APHP, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Qu Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Moritz Schmelzle
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Tan-To Cheung
- Department of Surgery, Queen Mary Hospital, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Rong Liu
- Faculty of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chung Ngai Tang
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Brian K. P. Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and Duke-National University Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
|
33
|
Ciria R, Berardi G, Alconchel F, Briceño J, Choi GH, Wu YM, Sugioka A, Troisi RI, Salloum C, Soubrane O, Pratschke J, Martinie J, Tsung A, Araujo R, Sucandy I, Tang CN, Wakabayashi G. The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases. JOURNAL OF HEPATO-BILIARY-PANCREATIC SCIENCES 2022; 29:181-197. [PMID: 33200536 DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.869] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2020] [Revised: 10/22/2020] [Accepted: 11/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis. METHODS A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly. RESULTS After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000. CONCLUSIONS The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruben Ciria
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Giammauro Berardi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan
- Department of Human Structure and Repair of Man, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Felipe Alconchel
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Virgen de la Arrixaca University Hospital (IMIB-Arrixaca), Murcia, Spain
| | - Javier Briceño
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, University Hospital Reina Sofía, Córdoba, Spain
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Yao-Ming Wu
- Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
| | - Atsushi Sugioka
- Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan
| | - Roberto Ivan Troisi
- Department of Human Structure and Repair of Man, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University, Naples, Italy
- Department of HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, King Faisal Hospital and Research Center, Al Faisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Chady Salloum
- Service de Chirurgie Hépato-Bilio-Pancréatique et Transplantation Hépatique, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Est, Créteil, France
- Centre Hépato-Biliaire, Hôpital Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Sud, Villejuif, France
| | - Olivier Soubrane
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Liver Transplantation Surgery, Hôpital Beaujon, Paris, France
| | - Johann Pratschke
- Department of Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - John Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Allan Tsung
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Raphael Araujo
- Barretos Cancer Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil
- Escola Paulista de Medicina-UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil
- Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Disease Institute, Florida Hospital Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Chung N Tang
- Department of Surgery, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
|
34
|
Durán M, Briceño J, Padial A, Anelli FM, Sánchez-Hidalgo JM, Ayllón MD, Calleja-Lozano R, García-Gaitan C. Short-term outcomes of robotic liver resection: An initial single-institution experience. World J Hepatol 2022; 14:224-233. [PMID: 35126850 PMCID: PMC8790404 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i1.224] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2021] [Revised: 12/02/2021] [Accepted: 12/25/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver surgery has traditionally been characterized by the complexity of its procedures and potentially high rates of morbidity and mortality in inexperienced hands. The robotic approach has gradually been introduced in liver surgery and has increased notably in recent years. However, few centers currently perform robotic liver surgery and experiences in robot-assisted surgical procedures continue to be limited compared to the laparoscopic approach.
AIM To analyze the outcomes and feasibility of an initial robotic liver program implemented in an experienced laparoscopic hepatobiliary center.
METHODS A total of forty consecutive patients underwent robotic liver resection (da Vinci Xi, intuitive.com, United States) between June 2019 and January 2021. Patients were prospectively followed and retrospectively reviewed. Clinicopathological characteristics and perioperative and short-term outcomes were analyzed. Data are expressed as mean and standard deviation. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.
RESULTS The mean age of patients was 59.55 years, of which 18 (45%) were female. The mean body mass index was 29.41 kg/m². Nine patients (22.5%) were cirrhotic. Patients were divided by type of resection as follows: Ten segmentectomies, three wedge resections, ten left lateral sectionectomies, six bisegmentectomies (two V-VI bisegmentectomies and four IVb-V bisegmentectomies), two right anterior sectionectomies, five left hepatectomies and two right hepatectomies. Malignant lesions occurred in twenty-nine (72.5%) of the patients. The mean operative time was 258.11 min and two patients were transfused intraoperatively (5%). Inflow occlusion was used in thirty cases (75%) and the mean total clamping time was 32.62 min. There was a single conversion due to uncontrollable hemorrhage. Major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo > IIIb) occurred in three patients (7.5%) and mortality in one (2.5%). No patient required readmission to the hospital. The mean hospital stay was 5.6 d.
CONCLUSION Although robotic hepatectomy is a safe and feasible procedure with favorable short-term outcomes, it involves a demanding learning curve that requires a high level of training, skill and dexterity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Manuel Durán
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Javier Briceño
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Ana Padial
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Ferdinando Massimiliano Anelli
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Juan Manuel Sánchez-Hidalgo
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GE09 Research in Peritoneal and Retroperitoneal Oncological Surgery, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - María Dolores Ayllón
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Rafael Calleja-Lozano
- Unit of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, General and Digestive Surgery Department, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
- GC18 Translational Research in Surgery of Solid Organ Transplantation, Maimonides Biomedical Research Institute, Córdoba 14004, Spain
| | - Carmen García-Gaitan
- Department of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation, Reina Sofia University Hospital, Cordoba 14004, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Kim WJ, Park PJ, Choi SB, Kim WB. Case report of pure single-port robotic left lateral sectionectomy using the da Vinci SP system. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e28248. [PMID: 34941098 PMCID: PMC8701933 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000028248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 11/25/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Since its first appearance in the early 1990s, laparoscopic hepatic resection has become increasingly accepted and recognized as safe as laparotomy. The recent introduction of robotic surgery systems has brought new innovations to the field of minimally invasive surgery, such as laparoscopic surgery. The da Vinci line of surgical systems has recently released a true single-port platform called the da Vinci SP system, which has 3 fully wristed and elbowed instruments and a flexible camera in a single 2.5 cm cannula. We present the first case of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system and demonstrate the technical feasibility of this platform. PATIENT CONCERNS AND DIAGNOSIS A 63-year-old woman presented with elevated liver function test results and abdominal pain. Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography showed multiple intrahepatic duct stones in the left lateral section and distal common bile duct stones near the ampulla of Vater. INTERVENTIONS The docking time was 8 minute. The patient underwent successful da Vinci SP with a total operation time of 135 minute. The estimated blood loss was 50.0 ml. No significant intraoperative events were observed. OUTCOMES The numerical pain intensity score was 3/10 in the immediate postoperative period and 1/10 on postoperative day 2. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 after verifying that the CT scan did not show any surgical complications. CONCLUSION We report a technique of left lateral sectionectomy, without the use of an additional port, via the da Vinci SP system. The present case suggests that minor hepatic resection is technically feasible and safe with the new da Vinci SP system in select patients. For the active application of the da Vinci SP system in hepatobiliary surgery, further device development and research are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wan-Joon Kim
- Division of Hepatobiliary Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Seoul, Korea
| | - Pyoung-Jae Park
- Division of Transplantation Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Seoul, Korea
| | - Sae-Byeol Choi
- Division of Hepatobiliary Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Seoul, Korea
| | - Wan-Bae Kim
- Division of Hepatobiliary Pancreas Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University Medical College, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Ishinuki T, Ota S, Harada K, Meguro M, Kawamoto M, Kutomi G, Tatsumi H, Harada K, Miyanishi K, Takemasa I, Ohyanagi T, Hui TT, Mizuguchi T. Maturation of robotic liver resection during the last decade: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2021; 9:462-473. [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v9.i5.462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2021] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 08/23/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
|
|
37
|
Tschuor C, Pickens RC, Isenberg EE, Motz BM, Salibi PN, Robinson JN, Murphy KJ, Iannitti DA, Baker EH, Vrochides D, Martinie JB. Robotic Resection of Gallbladder Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Comparative Study to Open Resection. Am Surg 2021:31348211047491. [PMID: 34652250 DOI: 10.1177/00031348211047491] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Minimally invasive surgery is gaining support for resection of gallbladder cancer (GBC). This study aims to compare operative and early outcomes of robotic resection (RR) to open resection (OR) from a single institution performing a high volume of robotic HPB surgery. METHODS Twenty patients with GBC underwent RR from January 2013 to August 2019. Outcomes were compared to a historical control of 23 patients with OR. Radical cholecystectomy for suspected GBC and completion operations for incidental GBC after routine cholecystectomy were both included. RESULTS Robotic resection had lower blood loss compared to OR (150 vs 350 mL, P = .002) and shorter postoperative length of stay (2.5 vs 6 days, P < .001), while median operative time was similar (193 vs 208 min, P = .604). There were no statistical differences in 30-day major complications or readmissions. No 30-day mortalities occurred. There was no statistical difference in survival trend (P = .438) or median lymph node harvest (5 vs 3, P = .189) for RR compared to OR. CONCLUSION Robotic resection of GBC is safe and efficient, with lower length of hospital stay and blood loss compared to OR. Technical benefits of robotic-assisted surgery may prove advantageous though larger studies are still needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christoph Tschuor
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA.,Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, 53146Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.,Department of Clinical Medicine, 4321University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Ryan C Pickens
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Erin E Isenberg
- School of Medicine, 6797University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Benjamin M Motz
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Patrick N Salibi
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Jordan N Robinson
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Keith J Murphy
- Carolinas Center for Surgical Outcomes Science, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - David A Iannitti
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Erin H Baker
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Dionisios Vrochides
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - John B Martinie
- Division of HPB Surgery, Department of Surgery, 22442Carolinas Medical Center, Atrium Health, Charlotte, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Systematic Review Comparing the Effectiveness of Robotic verse Laparoscopic Liver Surgery in Colorectal Liver Metastasis (CRLM). SURGERIES 2021. [DOI: 10.3390/surgeries2040035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the world. The liver is the most common site of metastasis with 15 to 25% of patients presenting with synchronous colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). This study is aimed at evaluating the long- and short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and robotic CRLM surgery, and directly comparing their respective effectiveness. Methodology: A literature search was performed and all studies that reported on operative characteristics, oncological outcomes for CRLM, morbidity or mortality and cost-effectiveness on robotic or laparoscopic surgery were included. The study design was in keeping with the PRISMA guidelines. Results: From the initial 606 manuscripts identified, 19 studies were included in the final qualitative analysis. A total of 1340 patients with 1194 LLR (Laparoscopic Liver Resection) and 146 RLR (Robotic Liver Resection) cases were analysed. Within the LLR group, the average tumour size excised was 32.1 mm compared to the RLR group of 33.8 mm. The average operative time in the LLR was 193 min, CI of 95% (147.4 min to 238.6 min) compared to RLR 257 min, CI of 95% (201.5 min to 313.8 min) with a p-value < 0.0001. Estimated blood loss was lower in the RLR group (210 mL) compared with the LLR group (246 mL). Conclusion: Despite the higher operative cost, RLRs do not result in statistically better treatment outcomes, with the exception of lower estimated blood loss and excision of larger CRLMs. Operative time and total complication rate are significantly more favourable with LLRs. Our study has shown that robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible in well-selected patients.
Collapse
|
|
39
|
Hawksworth J, Radkani P, Nguyen B, Belyayev L, Llore N, Holzner M, Mateo R, Meslar E, Winslow E, Fishbein T. Improving safety of robotic major hepatectomy with extrahepatic inflow control and laparoscopic CUSA parenchymal transection: technical description and initial experience. Surg Endosc 2021; 36:3270-3276. [PMID: 34370124 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08639-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2021] [Accepted: 07/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Blood loss is a major determinant of outcomes following hepatectomy. Robotic technology enables hepatobiliary surgeons to mimic open techniques for inflow control and parenchymal transection during major hepatectomy, increasing the ability to minimize blood loss and perform safe liver resections. METHODS Initial experience of 20 consecutive major robotic hepatectomies from November 2018 to July 2020 at two co-located institutions was reviewed. All cases were performed with extrahepatic inflow control and parenchymal transection with the laparoscopic cavitron ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA), and a technical description is illustrated. Clinical characteristics, operative data, and surgical outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS The median (range) patient age was 58 years (20-76) and the majority of 14 (70%) patients were ASA III-IV. There were 12 (60%) resections for malignancy and the median tumor size was 6.2 cm (1.2-14.6). Right or extended right hepatectomy was the most common procedure (12 or 60% of cases). There were 7 (35%) left or extended left hepatectomies and 1 (5%) central hepatectomy. The median operative time was 420 (177-622) minutes. Median estimated blood loss was 300 mL (25-800 mL). One (5%) case was converted to open. Two (10%) patients required blood transfusion. The median length of stay was 3 (1-6) days. Major complications included 1 (5%) Clavien-Dindo IIIa bile leak requiring percutaneous drainage placement. There was no 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION Advanced techniques to reduce blood loss in robotic hepatectomy may optimize safety and minimize morbidity in these complex minimally invasive procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Hawksworth
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. .,Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| | - Pejman Radkani
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Brian Nguyen
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Leonid Belyayev
- Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Nathaly Llore
- Department of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Matthew Holzner
- Department of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Rodrigo Mateo
- Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Erin Meslar
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Emily Winslow
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Thomas Fishbein
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
40
|
Tsekouras K, Spartalis E, Mamakos N, Tsourouflis G, Nikiteas NI, Dimitroulis D. The Use of Robotics in Surgery of Benign Liver Diseases: A Systematic Review. Surg Innov 2021; 29:258-268. [PMID: 34275339 DOI: 10.1177/15533506211031414] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgical treatment of benign liver diseases (BLD) remains a field of conflict, due to increased risk and high complication rate. However, the introduction of minimally invasive surgery has led to increased number of patients with BLD being treated surgically, with similar outcomes and fewer complications. Current data support the application of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and robotic surgery (RS) in surgical treatment of liver malignancies, but there are insufficient data concerning the application of robotic surgery in BLD. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the application of RS in BLD surgery. METHODS After a thorough search of Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, 12 studies were considered eligible with a total number of 115 patients with BLD. DISCUSSION In brief, RS appears to be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery. When compared to open surgery, RS is associated with lower blood loss, shorter length of stay, and fewer complication rate. Regarding LS, the peri- and postoperative outcomes were similar, but RS can overcome the technical limitations of LS. However, the cost of RS remains a major drawback in its widespread application. CONCLUSIONS Considering our findings, RS can be a safe and feasible option for BLD surgery, but further studies are needed to justify the introduction of RS in liver surgery and to define the type of patients that will benefit the most from it.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Konstantinos Tsekouras
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Eleftherios Spartalis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Mamakos
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Gerasimos Tsourouflis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos I Nikiteas
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitrios Dimitroulis
- Hellenic Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery (MIRS) Study Group, Athens Medical School, 68989National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.,Second Department of Propaedeutic Surgery, Laiko Hospital, Athens Medical School, 68993National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
|
41
|
Marubashi S, Nagano H. Laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy: Review of its current status. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2021; 5:484-493. [PMID: 34337297 PMCID: PMC8316741 DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Revised: 01/19/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy procedure has been developing rapidly. Although its use has increased worldwide, it is still only performed by experienced surgeons at a limited number of institutions. However, technical innovations have improved the feasibility of more widespread use of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy. The advantages of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy should not be overemphasized, and the fundamental principle of "living-donor safety first" cannot be neglected. This review aims to summarize the current status of laparoscopic living-donor hepatectomy and to emphasize that, while this procedure may soon be used as a reliable, donor-friendly substitute for traditional open donor hepatectomy, its safety and efficacy require further substantiation first.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shigeru Marubashi
- Department of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic and Transplant SurgeryFukushima Medical UniversityFukushimaJapan
| | - Hiroaki Nagano
- Department of Gastroenterological, Breast and Endocrine SurgeryYamaguchi University Graduate School of MedicineUbeJapan
| |
Collapse
|
|
42
|
Cai JP, Chen W, Chen LH, Wan XY, Lai JM, Yin XY. Comparison between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomy. Asian J Surg 2021; 45:265-268. [PMID: 34120821 DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2021.05.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/28/2020] [Revised: 04/26/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the safety and short-term outcomes between robotic-assisted and laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies in a single academic medical center. METHODS A cohort of 52 patients, who underwent robotic-assisted or laparoscopic left hemi-hepatectomies between April 2015 and January 2020 in Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University was recruited into the study. Their clinicopathological features and short-term outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS There were 25 robotic-assisted and 27 laparoscopic cases, with a median age of 55 years (34-77 years). There was one conversion to open in laparoscopic group. There were no significant differences in clinicopathological features between two groups, except robotic group had higher body mass index (23.9 vs. 22.0 kg/m2, p = 0.047). Robotic-assisted and laparoscopic groups had similar operative time (300 vs. 310 min, p = 0.515), length of hospital stay (8 vs. 8 days, p = 0.981) and complication rates (4.0% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.395), but the former had less blood loss (100 vs. 200 ml, p < 0.001) and lower incidence of blood transfusion (0% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.023) in comparison with laparoscopic group. R0 resection was achieved for all patients with malignancies. There was no perioperative mortality in both groups. The cost of robotic group was higher than laparoscopic group (105,870 vs. 64,191 RMB yuan, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION The robotic-assisted and laparoscopic approaches had similar safety and short-term outcomes in left hemi-hepatectomy, and the former can reduce operative blood loss and blood transfusion. However, the costs were higher in robotic group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jian-Peng Cai
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wei Chen
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Liu-Hua Chen
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xi-Yu Wan
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jia-Ming Lai
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiao-Yu Yin
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China.
| |
Collapse
|
|
43
|
Coletta D, Levi Sandri GB, Giuliani G, Guerra F. Robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic major hepatectomies: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Med Robot 2021; 17:e2218. [PMID: 34196090 DOI: 10.1002/rcs.2218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2020] [Revised: 12/07/2020] [Accepted: 12/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Major hepatectomy is still regarded as a technically demanding procedure for which minimally invasive surgery remains limited to selected cases in experienced centres and robotic platforms may provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopy in this setting. We aimed to combine and meta-analyse the available literature upon this topic. METHODS The PubMed, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were appraised to find all available studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic major hepatectomies. According to a pre-established pattern preoperative settings, operative and postoperative outcomes were assessed. The meta-analysis was performed by using the Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS A total of 485 patients from eight studies were included in the analysis. Robotic major hepatectomies showed a significantly lower conversion rate and estimated blood loss as compared to laparoscopic ones. Laparoscopic major hepatectomies patients experienced significant shorter postoperative hospitalisation. CONCLUSIONS Robotic surgery appears as competent as conventional laparoscopy to perform major hepatectomies, with possible advantages on conversion rate and perioperative blood loss, despite slightly prolonged postoperative hospitalisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Coletta
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, Italy
- Emergency Department-Emergency and Trauma Surgery Unit, Department of General Surgery, Umberto I University Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | | | - Giuseppe Giuliani
- Division of General and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Misericordia Hospital, Grosseto, Italy
| | - Francesco Guerra
- Department of General Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti Marche Nord, Pesaro, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
|
44
|
Vining CC, Skowron KB, Hogg ME. Robotic gastrointestinal surgery: learning curve, educational programs and outcomes. Updates Surg 2021; 73:799-814. [PMID: 33484423 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-021-00973-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Accepted: 01/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The use of the robotic platform for gastrointestinal surgery was introduced nearly 20 years ago. However, significant growth and advancement has occurred primarily in the last decade. This is due to several advantages over traditional laparoscopic surgery allowing for more complex dissections and reconstructions. Several randomized controlled trials and retrospective reviews have demonstrated equivalent oncologic outcomes compared to open surgery with improved short-term outcomes. Unfortunately, there are currently no universally accepted or implemented training programs for robotic surgery and robotic surgery experience varies greatly. Additionally, several limitations to the robotic platform exist resulting in a distinct learning curve associated with various procedures. Therefore, implementation of robotic surgery requires a multidisciplinary team approach with commitment and investment from clinical faculty, operating room staff and hospital administrators. Additionally, there is a need for wider distribution of educational modules to train more surgeons and reduce the associated learning curve. This article will focus on the implementation of the robotic platform for surgery of the pancreas, stomach, liver, colon and rectum with an emphasis on the associated learning curve, educational platforms to develop proficiency and perioperative outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles C Vining
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kinga B Skowron
- Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Melissa E Hogg
- Department of Surgery, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Walgreens Building, Floor 2, 2650 Ridge Road, Evanston, IL, 60201, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
45
|
Wang JM, Li JF, Yuan GD, He SQ. Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic minor hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100:e25648. [PMID: 33907124 PMCID: PMC8084038 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000025648] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2020] [Revised: 02/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robot-assisted and laparoscopic surgery are the most minimally invasive surgical approaches for the removal of liver lesions. Minor hepatectomy is a common surgical procedure. In this study, we evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of robot-assisted vs laparoscopic minor hepatectomy (LMH). METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies on robot-assisted vs. laparoscopicminor hepatectomy up to February, 2020. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the fixed-effects model or random-effects model. RESULTS A total of 12 studies involving 751 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 297 patients were in the robot-assisted minor hepatectomy (RMH) group and 454 patients were in the LMH group. There were no significant differences in intraoperative blood loss (P = .43), transfusion rates (P = .14), length of hospital stay (P > .64), conversion rate (P = .62), R0 resection rate (P = .56), complications (P = .92), or mortaliy (P = .37) between the 2 groups. However, the RMH group was associated with a longer operative time (P = .0003), and higher cost (P < .00001) compared to the LMH group. No significant differences in overall survival or disease free survival between the 2 groups were observed. In the subgroup analysis of left lateral sectionectomies, RMH was still associated with a longer operative time, but no other differences in clinical outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS Although RMH is associated with longer operation times and higher costs, it exhibits the same safety and effectiveness as LMH. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials should now be considered to obtain better evidence for clinical consensus.
Collapse
|
|
46
|
Mangano A, Valle V, Masrur MA, Bustos RE, Gruessner S, Giulianotti PC. Robotic liver surgery: literature review and future perspectives. Minerva Surg 2021; 76:105-115. [PMID: 33908236 DOI: 10.23736/s2724-5691.21.08495-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Minimally invasive liver resections (MILR) have been gaining popularity over the last decades. MILR provides superior peri-operative outcome. Despite these advantages, the penetrance of MILR in the clinical setting has been limited, and it was slowed down, among other factors, also by the laparoscopic technological limitations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A literature review has been carried out (Pubmed, Embase and Scopus platforms) focusing on the role of robotic surgery in MILR. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The literature review results are presented and our additional remarks on the topic are discussed. CONCLUSIONS Robotic MILR has been helping to expand the penetrance of MIS in liver surgery by making possible increasingly more challenging procedures. Minor resections still represent most of the robotic liver surgery data currently available. Robotic liver surgery is safe and effective, and it shows perioperative outcomes comparable with laparoscopic and open surgery. The oncological efficacy, within the limitations of the current level of evidence (mostly retrospective studies and literature heterogeneity), seems to show promising result. High quality prospective randomized studies, the use of prospective registry data, and multi-institutional efforts are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alberto Mangano
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA -
| | - Valentina Valle
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Mario A Masrur
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Roberto E Bustos
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Stephan Gruessner
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Pier C Giulianotti
- Division of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
47
|
Hawksworth J, Llore N, Holzner ML, Radkani P, Meslar E, Winslow E, Satoskar R, He R, Jha R, Haddad N, Fishbein T. Robotic Hepatectomy Is a Safe and Cost-Effective Alternative to Conventional Open Hepatectomy: a Single-Center Preliminary Experience. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25:825-828. [PMID: 33001352 DOI: 10.1007/s11605-020-04793-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/06/2020] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Hawksworth
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. .,Department of Surgery, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
| | - Nathaly Llore
- Department of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Matthew L Holzner
- Department of Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Pejman Radkani
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Erin Meslar
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Emily Winslow
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Rohit Satoskar
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| | - Ruth He
- Lombardi Cancer Center, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Reena Jha
- Department of Radiology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Nadim Haddad
- Department of Gastroenterology, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Thomas Fishbein
- MedStar Georgetown Transplant Institute, 2 PHC, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd. NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
48
|
Becker F, Morgül H, Katou S, Juratli M, Hölzen JP, Pascher A, Struecker B. Robotic Liver Surgery - Current Standards and Future Perspectives. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GASTROENTEROLOGIE 2021; 59:56-62. [PMID: 33429451 DOI: 10.1055/a-1329-3067] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic liver surgery is emerging as the future of minimal invasive surgery. The robotic surgical system offers a stable camera platform, elimination of physiologic tremor, augmented surgical dexterity as well as improved ergonomics because of a seated operating position. Due to the theoretical advantages of the robotic assisted system, complex liver surgery might be an especially interesting indication for a robotic approach since it demands delicate tissue dissection, precise intracorporeal suturing as well as difficult parenchymal transection with subsequent need for meticulous hemostasis and biliostasis. MATERIAL AND METHODS An analysis of English and German literature on open, laparoscopic and robotic liver surgery was performed and this review provides a general overview of the existing literature along with current standards and aims to specifically point out future directions of robotic liver surgery. RESULTS Robotic liver surgery is safe and feasible compared to open and laparoscopic surgery, with improved short-term postoperative outcomes and at least non-inferior oncological outcomes. CONCLUSION In complex cases including major hepatectomies, extended hepatectomies with biliary reconstruction and difficult segmentectomies of the posterior-superior segments, robotic surgery appears to emerge as a reasonable alternative to open surgery rather than being an alternative to laparoscopic procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix Becker
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Haluk Morgül
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Shadi Katou
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Mazen Juratli
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Jens Peter Hölzen
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Andreas Pascher
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| | - Benjamin Struecker
- Department of General, Visceral and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
|
49
|
Modern therapeutic approaches for the treatment of malignant liver tumours. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 17:755-772. [PMID: 32681074 DOI: 10.1038/s41575-020-0314-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 141] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/05/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Malignant liver tumours include a wide range of primary and secondary tumours. Although surgery remains the mainstay of curative treatment, modern therapies integrate a variety of neoadjuvant and adjuvant strategies and have achieved dramatic improvements in survival. Extensive tumour loads, which have traditionally been considered unresectable, are now amenable to curative treatment through systemic conversion chemotherapies followed by a variety of interventions such as augmentation of the healthy liver through portal vein occlusion, staged surgeries or ablation modalities. Liver transplantation is established in selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma but is now emerging as a promising option in many other types of tumour such as perihilar cholangiocarcinomas, neuroendocrine or colorectal liver metastases. In this Review, we summarize the available therapies for the treatment of malignant liver tumours, with an emphasis on surgical and ablative approaches and how they align with other therapies such as modern anticancer drugs or radiotherapy. In addition, we describe three complex case studies of patients with malignant liver tumours. Finally, we discuss the outlook for future treatment, including personalized approaches based on molecular tumour subtyping, response to targeted drugs, novel biomarkers and precision surgery adapted to the specific tumour.
Collapse
|
|
50
|
Zhao Z, Yin Z, Li M, Jiang N, Liu R. State of the art in robotic liver surgery: a meta-analysis. Updates Surg 2020; 73:977-987. [PMID: 33146887 DOI: 10.1007/s13304-020-00906-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
Although the number of robotic hepatectomy (RH) performed is increasing, few studies have reported its efficacy in comparison with the conventional surgical modalities. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the perioperative results of RH vs. open hepatectomy (OH) and RH vs. laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH). We systematically searched for English papers published in PubMed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane library before March 1, 2020. A total of 39 papers and 2999 patients were eventually included. Among the included patients, 1249, 1010, and 740 underwent RH, LH, and OH, respectively. Compared with OH, the operation time was significantly increased but the intraoperative blood loss, blood transfusion rate, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization were significantly reduced in patients with RH. However, there was no significant difference in the use of Pringle maneuver and overall incidence of complications. Compared with LH, the operation time was significantly increased, and the intraoperative blood loss was also more in RH. However, there were no differences in blood transfusion rate, use of Pringle maneuver, incidence of complications, incidence of severe complications, and length of postoperative hospitalization between the two groups. A longer operation time remains the main shortcoming of RH. However, based on the perioperative clinical efficacy, we conclude that RH is comparable to LH but is better than OH for selected patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zhiming Zhao
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhuzeng Yin
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Mengyang Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The Fourth Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Nan Jiang
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Rong Liu
- The Second Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center, Chinese People's Liberation Army General Hospital, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|