Sivesh Kathir Kamarajah1,2, James Bundred3, Derek Manas2, Long Jiao4, Mohammad Abu Hilal5, S A White6,2. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Tyne and Wear, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK. 2. Institute of Cellular Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 3. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 4. Department of Surgery and Cancer, HPB Surgical Unit, Imperial College, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, London, UK. 5. Department of Surgery, Southampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. 6. Department of Hepatobiliary, Pancreatic and Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, The Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. RESULT: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.
BACKGROUND: Theoretical advantages of robotic surgery compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery include improved instrument dexterity, 3D visualization, and better ergonomics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine advantages of robotic surgery over laparoscopic surgery in patients undergoing liver resections. METHOD: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies comparing robotic assisted or totally laparoscopic liver resection. Meta-analysis of intraoperative (operative time, blood loss, transfusion rate, conversion rate), oncological (R0 resection rates), and postoperative (bile leak, surgical site infection, pulmonary complications, 30-day and 90-day mortality, length of stay, 90-day readmission and reoperation rates) outcomes was performed using a random effects model. RESULT: Twenty-six non-randomized studies including 2630 patients (950 robotic and 1680 laparoscopic) were included, of which 20% had major robotic liver resection and 14% had major laparoscopic liver resection. Intraoperatively, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly less blood loss (mean: 286 vs 301 mL, p < 0.001) but longer operating time (mean: 281 vs 221 min, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in conversion rates or transfusion rates between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in overall complications, bile leaks, and length of hospital stay between robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection. However, robotic liver resection was associated with significantly lower readmission rates than laparoscopic liver resection (odds ratio: 0.43, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Robotic liver resection appears to offer some advantages compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, although both techniques appear equivalent. Importantly, the quality of evidence is generally limited to cohort studies and a high-quality randomized trial comparing both techniques is needed.
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
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: Linh M Duong; Hui Cai; Martha J Shrubsole; Christina E Bailey; Kamran Idrees; Xiao-Ou Shu Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Mirhasan Rahimli; Aristotelis Perrakis; Mihailo Andric; Jessica Stockheim; Mareike Franz; Joerg Arend; Sara Al-Madhi; Mohammed Abu Hilal; Andrew A Gumbs; Roland S Croner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Moritz Schmelzle; Linda Feldbrügge; Santiago Andres Ortiz Galindo; Simon Moosburner; Anika Kästner; Felix Krenzien; Christian Benzing; Matthias Biebl; Robert Öllinger; Thomas Malinka; Wenzel Schöning; Johann Pratschke Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.453