Zi-Zheng Wang1, Wen-Bo Tang1, Ming-Gen Hu1, Zhi-Ming Zhao1, Guo-Dong Zhao1, Cheng-Gang Li1, Xiang-Long Tan1, Xuan Zhang1, Wan Yee Lau2, Rong Liu1. 1. Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgical Oncology, Military Institution of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China. 2. Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in hepatectomy. Previous studies comparing the robotic and laparoscopic minor hepatectomy have been documented, but comparative studies on robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) involving a large patient cohort are rare. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LH. METHODS: Data on the demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic or LH in a single center between November 2011 and July 2017 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients underwent robotic and 48 LH. Multiple linear regression analysis showed no significant difference in perioperative outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and mortality between the groups. Compared to the laparoscopic cohort, the robotic cohort had a significantly less estimated blood loss (120.24 mL; 95% confidence interval, 53.72-186.76) and a significantly lower conversation rate (1.09% vs 10.42%; P = .034). Stratified and interaction analyses demonstrated that disease type had an interaction effect on the association between the operative approach and the estimated blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic hemihepatectomy was safe and feasible in selected patients. It had similar perioperative outcomes as LH and was better than LH regarding estimated blood loss and open conversion.
BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is increasingly being used in hepatectomy. Previous studies comparing the robotic and laparoscopic minor hepatectomy have been documented, but comparative studies on robotic and laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH) involving a large patient cohort are rare. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes between robotic and LH. METHODS: Data on the demographics, clinicopathologic characteristics, and perioperative outcomes of consecutive patients who underwent robotic or LH in a single center between November 2011 and July 2017 were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 92 patients underwent robotic and 48 LH. Multiple linear regression analysis showed no significant difference in perioperative outcomes including operative time, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications, and mortality between the groups. Compared to the laparoscopic cohort, the robotic cohort had a significantly less estimated blood loss (120.24 mL; 95% confidence interval, 53.72-186.76) and a significantly lower conversation rate (1.09% vs 10.42%; P = .034). Stratified and interaction analyses demonstrated that disease type had an interaction effect on the association between the operative approach and the estimated blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic hemihepatectomy was safe and feasible in selected patients. It had similar perioperative outcomes as LH and was better than LH regarding estimated blood loss and open conversion.
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
Authors: Marco Milone; Michele Manigrasso; Pietro Anoldo; Anna D'Amore; Ugo Elmore; Mariano Cesare Giglio; Gianluca Rompianesi; Sara Vertaldi; Roberto Ivan Troisi; Nader K Francis; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-18