Motaz Qadan1, Michael I D'Angelica2, Nancy E Kemeny3, Andrea Cercek3, T Peter Kingham4. 1. Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA. 3. Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, USA. Electronic address: kinghamt@mskcc.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) placement is associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In this study, we examined outcomes following robotic HAIP placement, which were compared with open and laparoscopic placement. METHODS: A retrospective review of HAIP placements by 2 surgeons at a single institution was carried out. All statistical tests were 2-sided and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were a total of 53 open HAIP cases, 21 laparoscopic cases, and 24 robotic cases. Robotic HAIP placement was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate to open operation than laparoscopic pump placement (17 vs. 67%; p = 0.0009). When cases with concomitant resections were excluded, there was a trend towards shorter median length of hospital stay with robotic pump placement compared with open and laparoscopic placement (4 vs. 5 vs. 5 days, respectively; p = 0.09). Complication rates were equivalent among the 3 groups when concomitant resections were excluded. CONCLUSION: Robotic HAIP placement is a safe minimally-invasive procedure that is associated with a significantly lower conversion rate to open operation compared with laparoscopic placement and a trend towards shorter hospitalization compared with open placement.
BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery infusion pump (HAIP) placement is associated with improved outcomes in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). In this study, we examined outcomes following robotic HAIP placement, which were compared with open and laparoscopic placement. METHODS: A retrospective review of HAIP placements by 2 surgeons at a single institution was carried out. All statistical tests were 2-sided and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There were a total of 53 open HAIP cases, 21 laparoscopic cases, and 24 robotic cases. Robotic HAIP placement was associated with a significantly lower conversion rate to open operation than laparoscopic pump placement (17 vs. 67%; p = 0.0009). When cases with concomitant resections were excluded, there was a trend towards shorter median length of hospital stay with robotic pump placement compared with open and laparoscopic placement (4 vs. 5 vs. 5 days, respectively; p = 0.09). Complication rates were equivalent among the 3 groups when concomitant resections were excluded. CONCLUSION: Robotic HAIP placement is a safe minimally-invasive procedure that is associated with a significantly lower conversion rate to open operation compared with laparoscopic placement and a trend towards shorter hospitalization compared with open placement.
Authors: Ioannis T Konstantinidis; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Richard K G Do; Mithat Gönen; Yuman Fong; Peter J Allen; Michael I D'Angelica; T Peter Kingham; Ronald P DeMatteo; David S Klimstra; Nancy E Kemeny; William R Jarnagin Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Peter J Allen; Aviram Nissan; Antonio I Picon; Nancy Kemeny; Paul Dudrick; Leah Ben-Porat; Joseph Espat; Alexander Stojadinovic; Alfred M Cohen; Yuman Fong; Philip B Paty Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Pierre J Guillou; Philip Quirke; Helen Thorpe; Joanne Walker; David G Jayne; Adrian M H Smith; Richard M Heath; Julia M Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 May 14-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Michelle L DeOliveira; Jordan M Winter; Markus Schafer; Steven C Cunningham; John L Cameron; Charles J Yeo; Pierre-Alain Clavien Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: M Margaret Kemeny; Sudeshna Adak; Bruce Gray; John S Macdonald; Thomas Smith; Stuart Lipsitz; Elin R Sigurdson; Peter J O'Dwyer; Al B Benson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joshua S Jolissaint; Kevin C Soares; Kenneth P Seier; Ritika Kundra; Mithat Gönen; Paul J Shin; Thomas Boerner; Carlie Sigel; Ramyasree Madupuri; Efsevia Vakiani; Andrea Cercek; James J Harding; Nancy E Kemeny; Louise C Connell; Vinod P Balachandran; Michael I D'Angelica; Jeffrey A Drebin; T Peter Kingham; Alice C Wei; William R Jarnagin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Roi Anteby; Nancy E Kemeny; T Peter Kingham; Michael I D'Angelica; Alice C Wei; Vinod P Balachandran; Jeffrey A Drebin; Murray F Brennan; Leslie H Blumgart; William R Jarnagin Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 6.113