OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to describe techniques of robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy provides the same oncologic outcomes as open liver resection and better early outcome. Limitations of laparoscopy remain resections in posterior and superior liver segments, frequently approached with laparoscopic right hepatectomy, bleeding from the section line, and prolonged operative times when a combined procedure is needed. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our series of robot-assisted liver resections between 2008 and September 2010 to evaluate whether robot assistance can overcome the limitations of laparoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients underwent robot-assisted liver resection for a total of 21 subsegmentectomies, 6 segmentectomies, 2 segmentectomies S6 + subsegmentectomies S7, 1 bisegmentectomy S2-3, and 2 pericystectomies. In ten cases (47.8%) liver nodules were located in the posterior and superior liver segments. In three cases the tumor was in contact with a main portal branch and in two cases with a hepatic vein. In one case the tumor had contact with both hepatic vein and portal branch. In the latter cases a no-margin resection was carried out. In 16 cases (65.5%) liver resection was associated with a concomitant procedure (10 laparoscopic colectomies, 1 robotic rectal resection, 3 laparoscopic radiofrequency ablations, and 2 extensive adhesiolyses). Mean operative time was 280 ± 101 min, blood loss was 245 ± 254 ml, and mean hospital stay was 8.9 ± 9.4 days. Mortality was nil. One case of biliary leakage and two of intraoperative hemorrhage requiring transfusion were the main complications encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Robot assistance allows optimal access to all liver segments and facilitates parenchymal-sparing surgery also for lesions located in the posterosuperior segments or in contact with main liver vessels.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to describe techniques of robot-assisted parenchymal-sparing liver surgery. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy provides the same oncologic outcomes as open liver resection and better early outcome. Limitations of laparoscopy remain resections in posterior and superior liver segments, frequently approached with laparoscopic right hepatectomy, bleeding from the section line, and prolonged operative times when a combined procedure is needed. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed our series of robot-assisted liver resections between 2008 and September 2010 to evaluate whether robot assistance can overcome the limitations of laparoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients underwent robot-assisted liver resection for a total of 21 subsegmentectomies, 6 segmentectomies, 2 segmentectomies S6 + subsegmentectomies S7, 1 bisegmentectomy S2-3, and 2 pericystectomies. In ten cases (47.8%) liver nodules were located in the posterior and superior liver segments. In three cases the tumor was in contact with a main portal branch and in two cases with a hepatic vein. In one case the tumor had contact with both hepatic vein and portal branch. In the latter cases a no-margin resection was carried out. In 16 cases (65.5%) liver resection was associated with a concomitant procedure (10 laparoscopic colectomies, 1 robotic rectal resection, 3 laparoscopic radiofrequency ablations, and 2 extensive adhesiolyses). Mean operative time was 280 ± 101 min, blood loss was 245 ± 254 ml, and mean hospital stay was 8.9 ± 9.4 days. Mortality was nil. One case of biliary leakage and two of intraoperative hemorrhage requiring transfusion were the main complications encountered. CONCLUSIONS: Robot assistance allows optimal access to all liver segments and facilitates parenchymal-sparing surgery also for lesions located in the posterosuperior segments or in contact with main liver vessels.
Authors: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Andrea Coratti; Fabio Sbrana; Pietro Addeo; Francesco Maria Bianco; Nicolas Christian Buchs; Mario Annechiarico; Enrico Benedetti Journal: Surgery Date: 2010-06-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Joseph F Buell; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Nicholas O'Rourke; David Iannitti; Ibrahim Dagher; Alan J Koffron; Mark Thomas; Brice Gayet; Ho Seong Han; Go Wakabayashi; Giulio Belli; Hironori Kaneko; Chen-Guo Ker; Olivier Scatton; Alexis Laurent; Eddie K Abdalla; Prosanto Chaudhury; Erik Dutson; Clark Gamblin; Michael D'Angelica; David Nagorney; Giuliano Testa; Daniel Labow; Derrik Manas; Ronnie T Poon; Heidi Nelson; Robert Martin; Bryan Clary; Wright C Pinson; John Martinie; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Robert Goldstein; Sasan Roayaie; David Barlet; Joseph Espat; Michael Abecassis; Myrddin Rees; Yuman Fong; Kelly M McMasters; Christoph Broelsch; Ron Busuttil; Jacques Belghiti; Steven Strasberg; Ravi S Chari Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Gi Hong Choi; Sung Hoon Choi; Sung Hoon Kim; Ho Kyoung Hwang; Chang Moo Kang; Jin Sub Choi; Woo Jung Lee Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-02-04 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Francesco Di Fabio; Morsal Samim; Paolo Di Gioia; Rosemary Godeseth; Neil W Pearce; Mohammed Abu Hilal Journal: World J Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Marcello Giuseppe Spampinato; Andrea Coratti; Luigi Bianco; Fabio Caniglia; Andrea Laurenzi; Francesco Puleo; Giuseppe Maria Ettorre; Ugo Boggi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 4.584