PURPOSE: The significant advantages of robotic surgery have expanded the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed through minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver surgeries at a single center. METHODS: From July 2007 to October 2011, a total of 206 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic liver surgery at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. We compared the surgical outcomes between robotic liver surgery and laparoscopic liver surgery during the same period. Only patients who underwent left hemihepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy were included in this study. RESULTS: The robotic group consisted of 13 patients who underwent robotic liver resection including 10 left lateral sectionectomies and three left hemihepatectomies. The laparoscopic group consisted of 17 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection during the same period including six left lateral sectionectomies and 11 left hemihepatectomies. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, tumor type, and tumor size. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcome such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative liver function tests, complication rate, and hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, the medical cost was higher in the robotic group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible option for liver resection in experienced hands. The authors suggest that since the robotic surgical system provides sophisticated advantages, the retrenchment of medical cost for the robotic system in addition to refining its liver transection tool may substantially increase its application in clinical practice in the near future.
PURPOSE: The significant advantages of robotic surgery have expanded the scope of surgical procedures that can be performed through minimally invasive techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver surgeries at a single center. METHODS: From July 2007 to October 2011, a total of 206 patients underwent laparoscopic or robotic liver surgery at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. We compared the surgical outcomes between robotic liver surgery and laparoscopic liver surgery during the same period. Only patients who underwent left hemihepatectomy or left lateral sectionectomy were included in this study. RESULTS: The robotic group consisted of 13 patients who underwent robotic liver resection including 10 left lateral sectionectomies and three left hemihepatectomies. The laparoscopic group consisted of 17 patients who underwent laparoscopic liver resection during the same period including six left lateral sectionectomies and 11 left hemihepatectomies. The groups were similar with regard to age, gender, tumor type, and tumor size. There were no significant differences in perioperative outcome such as operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative liver function tests, complication rate, and hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, the medical cost was higher in the robotic group. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection is a safe and feasible option for liver resection in experienced hands. The authors suggest that since the robotic surgical system provides sophisticated advantages, the retrenchment of medical cost for the robotic system in addition to refining its liver transection tool may substantially increase its application in clinical practice in the near future.
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; Mark T Thomas; Steven Rudich; Michael Marvin; Ravi Nagubandi; Kadiyala V Ravindra; Guy Brock; Kelly M McMasters Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Michael Tsinberg; Gurkan Tellioglu; Conrad H Simpfendorfer; R M Walsh; Matthew R Walsh; David Vogt; John Fung; Eren Berber Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-31 Impact factor: 4.584
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: Carolijn L Nota; Inne H Borel Rinkes; Izaak Q Molenaar; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Yuman Fong; Jeroen Hagendoorn Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 3.647