Alexander M Fagenson1, Elizabeth M Gleeson2, Henry A Pitt1, Kwan N Lau3. 1. Department of Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, 3401 N Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1259, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, 3401 N Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19140, USA. Kwannang.lau@tuhs.temple.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies. METHODS: Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias. RESULTS: Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive hepatectomy has been shown to be associated with improved outcomes when compared with open surgery. However, data comparing laparoscopic and robotic hepatectomy is lacking and limited to single-center studies. METHODS:Patients undergoing major (≥ 3 segments) or partial (≤ 2 segments) hepatectomy were identified in the 2014-2017 ACS-NSQIP hepatectomy targeted database. Patients undergoing laparoscopic and robotic approaches were compared, and propensity score matching was utilized to adjust for bias. RESULTS: Of 3152 minimally invasive hepatectomies (MIHs), 86% (N = 2706) were partial and 14% (N = 446) were major. The laparoscopic approach was utilized in 92% of patients (N = 2905) and 8% were performed robotically (N = 247). The percentage of MIHs increased over time (p < 0.01). After matching, 240 were identified in each cohort. Compared with the robotic approach, patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy had a significantly higher conversion rate (23% vs. 7.4%) but had shorter operative time (159 vs. 204 min) (p < 0.001). Laparoscopic cases undergoing an unplanned conversion to open were associated with increased morbidity (p < 0.001), but this difference was not observed in robotic cases. Both MIH approaches had low mortality (1.0%, p = 1.00), overall morbidity (17%, p = 0.47), and very short length of stay (3 days, p = 0.80). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive hepatectomy is performed primarily for partial hepatectomies. Laparoscopic hepatectomy is associated with a significantly higher conversion rate, and converted cases have worse outcomes. Both minimally invasive approaches are safe with similar mortality, morbidity, and a very short length of stay. Graphical Abstract.
Authors: Hye Yeon Yang; Gi Hong Choi; Ken-Min Chin; Sung Hoon Choi; Nicholas L Syn; Tan-To Cheung; Adrian K H Chiow; Iswanto Sucandy; Marco V Marino; Mikel Prieto; Charing C Chong; Jae Hoon Lee; Mikhail Efanov; T Peter Kingham; Robert P Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Johann Pratschke; Xiaoying Wang; Mathieu D'Hondt; Chung Ngai Tang; Rong Liu; James O Park; Fernando Rotellar; Olivier Scatton; Atsushi Sugioka; Tran Cong Duy Long; Chung-Yip Chan; David Fuks; Ho-Seong Han; Brian K P Goh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Adrian K H Chiow; David Fuks; Gi-Hong Choi; Nicholas Syn; Iswanto Sucandy; Marco V Marino; Mikel Prieto; Charing C Chong; Jae Hoon Lee; Mikhail Efanov; T Peter Kingham; Sung Hoon Choi; Robert P Sutcliffe; Roberto I Troisi; Johann Pratschke; Tan-To Cheung; Xiaoying Wang; Rong Liu; Mathieu D'Hondt; Chung-Yip Chan; Chung Ngai Tang; Ho-Seong Han; Brian K P Goh Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 6.939