BACKGROUND: In recent years, increasingly sophisticated tools have allowed for more complex robotic surgery. Robotic hepatectomy, however, is still in its infancy. Our goals were to examine the adoption of robotic hepatectomy and to compare outcomes between open and robotic liver resections. METHODS: The robotic hepatectomy experience of 64 patients was compared to a modern case-matched series of 64 open hepatectomy patients at the same center. Matching was according to benign/malignant diagnosis and number of segments resected. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. The main outcomes and measures were operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate (robotic to open), Pringle maneuver use, single non-anatomic wedge resection rate, resection margin size, complication rates (infectious, hepatic, pulmonary, cardiac), hospital stay length, ICU stay length, readmission rate, and 90-day mortality rate. RESULTS: Sixty-four robotic hepatectomies were performed in 2010-2014. Forty-one percent were segmental and 34 % were wedge resections. There was a 6 % conversion rate, a 3 % 90-day mortality rate, and an 11 % morbidity rate. Compared to 64 matched patients who underwent open hepatectomy (2004-2012), there was a shorter median OR time (p = 0.02), lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (p < 0.001). Eleven of the robotic cases were isolated resections of tumors in segments 2, 7, and 8. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic hepatectomy is safe and effective. Increasing experience in more centers will allow definition of which hepatectomies can be performed robotically, and will enable optimization of outcomes and prospective examination of the economic cost of each approach.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, increasingly sophisticated tools have allowed for more complex robotic surgery. Robotic hepatectomy, however, is still in its infancy. Our goals were to examine the adoption of robotic hepatectomy and to compare outcomes between open and robotic liver resections. METHODS: The robotic hepatectomy experience of 64 patients was compared to a modern case-matched series of 64 open hepatectomy patients at the same center. Matching was according to benign/malignant diagnosis and number of segments resected. Patient data were obtained retrospectively. The main outcomes and measures were operative time, estimated blood loss, conversion rate (robotic to open), Pringle maneuver use, single non-anatomic wedge resection rate, resection margin size, complication rates (infectious, hepatic, pulmonary, cardiac), hospital stay length, ICU stay length, readmission rate, and 90-day mortality rate. RESULTS: Sixty-four robotic hepatectomies were performed in 2010-2014. Forty-one percent were segmental and 34 % were wedge resections. There was a 6 % conversion rate, a 3 % 90-day mortality rate, and an 11 % morbidity rate. Compared to 64 matched patients who underwent open hepatectomy (2004-2012), there was a shorter median OR time (p = 0.02), lower median estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter median hospital stay (p < 0.001). Eleven of the robotic cases were isolated resections of tumors in segments 2, 7, and 8. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic hepatectomy is safe and effective. Increasing experience in more centers will allow definition of which hepatectomies can be performed robotically, and will enable optimization of outcomes and prospective examination of the economic cost of each approach.
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: 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: Pier Cristoforo Giulianotti; Fabio Sbrana; Andrea Coratti; Francesco Maria Bianco; Pietro Addeo; Nicolas Christian Buchs; Subhashini M Ayloo; Enrico Benedetti Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2011-07
Authors: William R Jarnagin; Mithat Gonen; Yuman Fong; Ronald P DeMatteo; Leah Ben-Porat; Sarah Little; Carlos Corvera; Sharon Weber; Leslie H Blumgart Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Kevin Tri Nguyen; Alexis Laurent; Ibrahim Dagher; David A Geller; Jennifer Steel; Mark T Thomas; Michael Marvin; Kadiyala V Ravindra; Alejandro Mejia; Panagiotis Lainas; Dominique Franco; Daniel Cherqui; Joseph F Buell; T Clark Gamblin Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 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: 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: 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