Jae Keun Kim1, Joon Seong Park1, Dai Hoon Han2, Gi Hong Choi3, Kyung Sik Kim2, Jin Sub Choi2, Dong Sup Yoon1. 1. Division of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea. 2. Division of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemoon-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. 3. Division of Hepatopancreaticobiliary Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Yonsei University Health System, 250 Seongsanno, Seodaemoon-gu, Seoul, 120-752, Korea. CHOIGH@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS. METHODS: We retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.
BACKGROUND: A few studies have reported only short-term outcomes of various robotic and laparoscopic liver resection types; however, published data in left lateral sectionectomy (LLS) have been limited. The aim of this study was to compare the long- and short-term outcomes of robotic and laparoscopic LLS. METHODS: We retrospectively compared demographic and perioperative data as well as postoperative outcomes of robotic (n = 12) and laparoscopic (n = 31) LLS performed between May 2007 and July 2013. Resection indications included malignant tumors (n = 31) and benign lesions (n = 12) including intrahepatic duct (IHD) stones (n = 9). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes of estimated blood loss, major complications, or lengths of stay, but operating time was longer in robotic than in laparoscopic LLS (391 vs. 196 min, respectively) and the operation time for IHD stones did not differ between groups (435 vs. 405 min, respectively; p = 0.190). Disease-free (p = 0.463) and overall (p = 0.484) survival of patients with malignancy did not differ between groups. The 2- and 5-year disease-free survival rates were 63.2 and 36.5 %, respectively. However, robotic LLS costs were significantly higher than laparoscopic LLS costs ($8183 vs. $5190, respectively; p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic LLS was comparable to laparoscopic LLS in surgical outcomes and oncologic integrity during the learning curve. Although robotic LLS was more expensive and time intensive, it might be a good option for difficult indications such as IHD stones.
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: Daniel Cherqui; Alexis Laurent; Claude Tayar; Stephen Chang; Jeanne Tran Van Nhieu; Jérôme Loriau; Mehdi Karoui; Christophe Duvoux; Daniel Dhumeaux; Pierre-Louis Fagniez Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ioannis A Ziogas; Alexandros P Evangeliou; Konstantinos S Mylonas; Dimitrios I Athanasiadis; Panagiotis Cherouveim; David A Geller; Richard D Schulick; Sophoclis P Alexopoulos; Georgios Tsoulfas Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-19
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: Rachel E Beard; Sidrah Khan; Roberto I Troisi; Roberto Montalti; Aude Vanlander; Yuman Fong; T Peter Kingham; Thomas Boerner; Eren Berber; Bora Kahramangil; Joseph F Buell; John B Martinie; Dionisios Vrochides; Chengli Shen; Michele Molinari; David A Geller; Allan Tsung Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Henrik Petrowsky; Ralph Fritsch; Matthias Guckenberger; Michelle L De Oliveira; Philipp Dutkowski; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 46.802
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