Peng Zhu1, Wei Liao1, Ze-Yang Ding1, Lin Chen1, Wan-Guang Zhang1, Bi-Xiang Zhang2, Xiao-Ping Chen3. 1. Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 2. Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. bixiangzhang@163.com. 3. Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. chenxpchenxp@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the learning curve effect on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR). METHODS: In 140 consecutive cases, all data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion. RESULTS: Among all 140 patients, no patients suffered from any organ dysfunction postoperatively and the operative mortality was 0%. The CUSUM analysis showed that at the 30th consecutive patient, the open conversion rate reached to the average value, and it further improved thereafter. In the last 70 patients, only 3 patients (4.3%) required conversion and 7 patients (10%) needed blood transfusion. Only 1 patient (1.3%) out of 79 patients with HCC had a positive resection margin. Univariate analyses showed the following risk factors associated with significantly higher risks of conversion (P < 0.05): tumor number > 1, lesions in segments 1/4a/7/8, right posterior sectionectomy, and lesions which were beyond the indications of the Louisville statement. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that both tumor number > 1 (OR: 2.10, P < 0.05) and right posterior sectionectomy (OR: 11.19, P < 0.01) were risk factors of conversion. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach for hepatectomy is safe and feasible. A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after the 30th consecutive patient. The long-term oncological outcomes of robotic hepatectomy still need further investigation.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the learning curve effect on the safety and feasibility of robot-assisted liver resection (RALR). METHODS: In 140 consecutive cases, all data about demographic, surgical procedure, postoperative course were collected prospectively and analyzed. Risk-adjusted cumulative sum model was used for determining the learning curve based on the need for conversion. RESULTS: Among all 140 patients, no patients suffered from any organ dysfunction postoperatively and the operative mortality was 0%. The CUSUM analysis showed that at the 30th consecutive patient, the open conversion rate reached to the average value, and it further improved thereafter. In the last 70 patients, only 3 patients (4.3%) required conversion and 7 patients (10%) needed blood transfusion. Only 1 patient (1.3%) out of 79 patients with HCC had a positive resection margin. Univariate analyses showed the following risk factors associated with significantly higher risks of conversion (P < 0.05): tumor number > 1, lesions in segments 1/4a/7/8, right posterior sectionectomy, and lesions which were beyond the indications of the Louisville statement. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed that both tumor number > 1 (OR: 2.10, P < 0.05) and right posterior sectionectomy (OR: 11.19, P < 0.01) were risk factors of conversion. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach for hepatectomy is safe and feasible. A learning curve effect was demonstrated in this study after the 30th consecutive patient. The long-term oncological outcomes of robotic hepatectomy still need further investigation.
Authors: Alessandro Fancellu; Alan S Rosman; Valeria Sanna; Giuseppe R Nigri; Luigi Zorcolo; Michele Pisano; Marcovalerio Melis Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 2.192
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: Hadrien Tranchart; Giuseppe Di Giuro; Panagiotis Lainas; Jean Roudie; Helene Agostini; Dominique Franco; Ibrahim Dagher Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-11-14 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Anne-Sophie Mehdorn; Florian Richter; Katharina Hess; Jan Henrik Beckmann; Jan-Hendrik Egberts; Michael Linecker; Thomas Becker; Felix Braun Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-19 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: M D'Hondt; A Devooght; E Willems; D Wicherts; C De Meyere; I Parmentier; A Provoost; H Pottel; C Verslype Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2022-03-24