Roland S Croner1, Aristotiles Perrakis2, Werner Hohenberger2, Maximillian Brunner2. 1. Department of Surgery, Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen, Krankenhausstrasse 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. Roland.Croner@uk-erlangen.de. 2. Department of Surgery, Liver Center, University Hospital Erlangen, Krankenhausstrasse 12, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing worldwide. The benefit of the robot in this scenario is currently controversially discussed. We compared our robotic cases vs. laparoscopic and open minor hepatic resections and share the experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, ten patients underwent robotic and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic minor liver resections in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen. These patients were compared to a case-matched control group of 53 patients. The perioperative prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Blood loss was significantly decreased in the robotic (306 ml) and laparoscopic (356 ml) vs. the open (903 ml) surgery group (p = 0.001). Mean tumor size was 4.1-4.8 cm in all groups (p = 0.571). Negative surgical margins were present in 94 % of the open and 100 % of the laparoscopic and robotic group (p = 0.882). Time for surgery was enlarged for robotic (321 min) vs. laparoscopic (242 min) and open (186 min) surgery (p = 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was decreased after robotic (7 days) and laparoscopic (8 days) vs. open (10 days) surgery (p = 0.004). Total morbidity was 17 % for open, 16 % for laparoscopic, and 1 % for robotic cases (p = 0.345). Postoperative pain medication and elevation of liver enzymes were remarkably lower after minimally invasive vs. open procedures. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery can be performed safely for minor hepatic resections and should be considered whenever possible. Minor liver resections can be performed by standard laparoscopy equivalent to robotic procedures. Nevertheless, the robot adds a technical upgrade which may have benefits for challenging cases and major liver surgery.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery is increasing worldwide. The benefit of the robot in this scenario is currently controversially discussed. We compared our robotic cases vs. laparoscopic and open minor hepatic resections and share the experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From 2011 to 2015, ten patients underwent robotic and 19 patients underwent laparoscopic minor liver resections in the Department of Surgery, University Hospital Erlangen. These patients were compared to a case-matched control group of 53 patients. The perioperative prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Blood loss was significantly decreased in the robotic (306 ml) and laparoscopic (356 ml) vs. the open (903 ml) surgery group (p = 0.001). Mean tumor size was 4.1-4.8 cm in all groups (p = 0.571). Negative surgical margins were present in 94 % of the open and 100 % of the laparoscopic and robotic group (p = 0.882). Time for surgery was enlarged for robotic (321 min) vs. laparoscopic (242 min) and open (186 min) surgery (p = 0.001). Postoperative hospitalization was decreased after robotic (7 days) and laparoscopic (8 days) vs. open (10 days) surgery (p = 0.004). Total morbidity was 17 % for open, 16 % for laparoscopic, and 1 % for robotic cases (p = 0.345). Postoperative pain medication and elevation of liver enzymes were remarkably lower after minimally invasive vs. open procedures. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery can be performed safely for minor hepatic resections and should be considered whenever possible. Minor liver resections can be performed by standard laparoscopy equivalent to robotic procedures. Nevertheless, the robot adds a technical upgrade which may have benefits for challenging cases and major liver surgery.
Authors: Jean-François Gigot; David Glineur; Juan Santiago Azagra; Martine Goergen; Marc Ceuterick; Mario Morino; José Etienne; Jacques Marescaux; Didier Mutter; Ludo van Krunckelsven; Bernard Descottes; Dominique Valleix; François Lachachi; Claude Bertrand; Baudouin Mansvelt; Guy Hubens; Jean-Pierre Saey; Romain Schockmel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-07 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: 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: Tan To Cheung; Ho-Seong Han; Wong Hoi She; Kuo-Hsin Chen; Pierce K H Chow; Boon Koon Yoong; Kit Fai Lee; Shoji Kubo; Chung Ngai Tang; Go Wakabayashi Journal: Liver Cancer Date: 2017-12-09 Impact factor: 11.740