Ioannis A Ziogas1,2, Dimitrios Giannis2,3, Stepan M Esagian2, Konstantinos P Economopoulos2,4, Samer Tohme5, David A Geller6. 1. Division of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Surgery Working Group, Society of Junior Doctors, Athens, Greece. 3. Institute of Health Innovations and Outcomes Research, Northwell Health Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, NY, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 5. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, MUH 7 South, 3459 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. 6. Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, MUH 7 South, 3459 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA. gellerda@upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51-3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72). CONCLUSION: LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers.
BACKGROUND: The implementation of the laparoscopic and robotic approaches for major hepatectomy (LMH and RMH) was slower than that for minor hepatectomy, but has significantly increased over the past years. The role or advantages of RMH remains controversial, and we aimed to compare the peri-/postoperative outcomes of LMH versus RMH. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA guidelines (end-of-search date: March 16th, 2020). Only comparative studies (LMH vs. RMH) reporting on outcomes of interest were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model when substantial heterogeneity was encountered; otherwise, the fixed-effects model was implemented. Quality of evidence assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Seven retrospective cohort studies comparing LMH (n = 300) versus RMH (n = 225) were identified. No significant difference was observed between LMH and RMH regarding overall complications [odds ratio (OR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-2.23; p = 0.13], severe complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) [risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.05; p = 0.72], and overall mortality (RD 0.00, 95% CI - 0.02 to 0.03; p = 0.73). The two approaches were also equivalent regarding conversion to open hepatectomy (RD 0.03, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.08; p = 0.15), margin-positive resection (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.51-3.52; p = 0.55), and transfusion rate (RD - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.16 to 0.11; p = 0.67). No significant difference was observed for LMH versus RMH regarding blood loss [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.27, 95% CI - 0.24 to 0.77; p = 0.30), operative time (SMD - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.51 to 0.34; p = 0.70), and length of stay (SMD 0.13, 95% CI - 0.58 to 0.84; p = 0.72). CONCLUSION:LMH and RMH have equivalent peri-/postoperative outcomes when performed in select patients and high-volume centers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laparoscopic hepatectomy; Major hepatectomy; Major liver resection; Meta-analysis; Minimally invasive liver surgery; Robotic hepatectomy
Authors: D Cherqui; E Husson; R Hammoud; B Malassagne; F Stéphan; S Bensaid; N Rotman; P L Fagniez Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: B Descottes; D Glineur; F Lachachi; D Valleix; J Paineau; A Hamy; M Morino; H Bismuth; D Castaing; E Savier; P Honore; O Detry; M Legrand; J S Azagra; M Goergen; M Ceuterick; J Marescaux; D Mutter; B de Hemptinne; R Troisi; J Weerts; B Dallemagne; C Jehaes; M Gelin; V Donckier; R Aerts; B Topal; C Bertrand; B Mansvelt; L Van Krunckelsven; D Herman; M Kint; E Totte; R Schockmel; J F Gigot Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2002-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Roberto Troisi; Roberto Montalti; Peter Smeets; Jacques Van Huysse; Hans Van Vlierberghe; Isabelle Colle; Steven De Gendt; Bernard de Hemptinne Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Ioannis A Ziogas; Alexandros P Evangeliou; Konstantinos S Mylonas; Dimitrios I Athanasiadis; Panagiotis Cherouveim; David A Geller; Richard D Schulick; Sophoclis P Alexopoulos; Georgios Tsoulfas Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-03-19
Authors: Pasquale Scognamiglio; Björn-Ole Stüben; Asmus Heumann; Jun Li; Jakob R Izbicki; Daniel Perez; Matthias Reeh Journal: Visc Med Date: 2021-11-12
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: Iswanto Sucandy; Shlomi Rayman; Eric C Lai; Chung-Ngai Tang; Yvette Chong; Mikhail Efanov; David Fuks; Gi-Hong Choi; Charing C Chong; Adrian K H Chiow; Marco V Marino; Mikel Prieto; Jae-Hoon Lee; T Peter Kingham; Mathieu D'Hondt; Roberto I Troisi; Sung Hoon Choi; Robert P Sutcliffe; Tan-To Cheung; Fernando Rotellar; James O Park; Olivier Scatton; Ho-Seong Han; Johann Pratschke; Xiaoying Wang; Rong Liu; Brian K P Goh Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Dorcas Opoku; Alexander Hart; Dakota T Thompson; Catherine G Tran; Mohammed O Suraju; Jeremy Chang; Sonja Boatman; Alexander Troester; Paolo Goffredo; Imran Hassan Journal: Surg Open Sci Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Eddy P Lincango Naranjo; Estefany Garces-Delgado; Timo Siepmann; Lutz Mirow; Paola Solis-Pazmino; Harold Alexander-Leon; Gabriela Restrepo-Rodas; Rafael Mancero-Montalvo; Cristina J Ponce; Ramiro Cadena-Semanate; Ronnal Vargas-Cordova; Glenda Herrera-Cevallos; Sebastian Vallejo; Carolina Liu-Sanchez; Larry J Prokop; Ioannis A Ziogas; Michail G Vailas; Alfredo D Guerron; Brendan C Visser; Oscar J Ponce; Andrew S Barbas; Dimitrios Moris Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Manuel Durán; Javier Briceño; Ana Padial; Ferdinando Massimiliano Anelli; Juan Manuel Sánchez-Hidalgo; María Dolores Ayllón; Rafael Calleja-Lozano; Carmen García-Gaitan Journal: World J Hepatol Date: 2022-01-27