Roberto Montalti1,2, Vincenzo Scuderi2, Alberto Patriti3, Marco Vivarelli1, Roberto I Troisi4. 1. Department. of Gastroenterology and Transplantation Surgery, Ospedali Riuniti Ancona, Ancona, Italy. 2. Department. of General and Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Liver Transplantation Service, Ghent University Hospital Medical School, De Pintelaan 185, 2K12 IC, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. 3. Division. of General, Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, General Hospital of Spoleto, Spoleto, Italy. 4. Department. of General and Hepato-Biliary Surgery, Liver Transplantation Service, Ghent University Hospital Medical School, De Pintelaan 185, 2K12 IC, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. roberto.troisi@ugent.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Open parenchymal-preserving resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the posterosuperior liver segments. Laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery are emergent surgical approaches for liver resections, even in posteriorly located lesions. The objective of this study was to compare robot-assisted to laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections for lesions located in segments 7, 8, 4a, and 1. METHODS: Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection in two centers for lesions in the posterosuperior segments between June 2008 and February 2014 were reviewed. A 1:2 matched propensity score analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the laparoscopic cohort based on demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, location, and type of resection. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients who underwent robot-assisted liver resection were matched with 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Matched patients displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, hospital stay, R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. The overall morbidity according to the comprehensive complication index was also similar (34.6 ± 33 vs. 18.4 ± 11.3, respectively, for robotic and laparoscopic approach, p = 0.11). Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer inflow occlusion time (77 vs. 25 min, p = 0.001) as compared with their laparoscopic counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Although number and severity of complications in the robotic group appears to be higher, robotic and laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments display similar safety and feasibility.
BACKGROUND: Open parenchymal-preserving resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the posterosuperior liver segments. Laparoscopy and robot-assisted surgery are emergent surgical approaches for liver resections, even in posteriorly located lesions. The objective of this study was to compare robot-assisted to laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections for lesions located in segments 7, 8, 4a, and 1. METHODS: Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent laparoscopic and robot-assisted liver resection in two centers for lesions in the posterosuperior segments between June 2008 and February 2014 were reviewed. A 1:2 matched propensity score analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the laparoscopic cohort based on demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, location, and type of resection. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients who underwent robot-assisted liver resection were matched with 72 patients undergoing laparoscopic liver resection. Matched patients displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, hospital stay, R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. The overall morbidity according to the comprehensive complication index was also similar (34.6 ± 33 vs. 18.4 ± 11.3, respectively, for robotic and laparoscopic approach, p = 0.11). Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer inflow occlusion time (77 vs. 25 min, p = 0.001) as compared with their laparoscopic counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Although number and severity of complications in the robotic group appears to be higher, robotic and laparoscopic parenchymal-preserving liver resections in the posterosuperior segments display similar safety and feasibility.
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
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: Ho Hyun Kim; Eun Kyu Park; Jin Shick Seoung; Young Hoe Hur; Yang Seok Koh; Jung Chul Kim; Chol Kyoon Cho; Hyun Jong Kim Journal: J Korean Surg Soc Date: 2011-06-09
Authors: Jennifer A Kalil; Jennifer Poirier; Bjoern Becker; Robert Van Dam; Xavier Keutgen; Erik Schadde Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: H Aselmann; T Möller; J-N Kersebaum; J H Egberts; R Croner; M Brunner; R Grützmann; T Becker Journal: Chirurg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Ioannis A Ziogas; Dimitrios Giannis; Stepan M Esagian; Konstantinos P Economopoulos; Samer Tohme; David A Geller Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 4.584