E Lorenz1, J Arend2, M Franz2, M Rahimli2, A Perrakis2, V Negrini2, A A Gumbs3, R S Croner2. 1. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular, and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. eric.lorenz@med.ovgu.de. 2. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular, and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Leipziger Strasse 44, 39120, Magdeburg, Germany. 3. Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Poissy/Saint-Germain-En-Laye, 10 Rue du Champ Gaillard, 78300, Poissy, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. METHODS: The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.
PURPOSE: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is a feasible and safe procedure for benign and malignant tumors. There has been an ongoing debate on whether conventional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) or robotic liver resection (RLR) is superior and if one approach should be favored over the other. We started using LLR in 2010, and introduced RLR in 2013. In the present paper, we report on our experiences with these two techniques as early adopters in Germany. METHODS: The data of patients who underwent MILS between 2010 and 2020 were collected prospectively in the Magdeburg Registry for Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (MD-MILS). A retrospective analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and perioperative parameters. RESULTS: We identified 155 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 (71.6%) underwent LLR and 44 (29.4%) received RLR. After excluding cystic lesions, 113 cases were used for the analysis of perioperative parameters. Resected specimens were significantly bigger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (405 g vs. 169 g, p = 0.002); in addition, the tumor diameter was significantly larger in the RLR vs. the LLR group (5.6 cm vs. 3.7 cm, p = 0.001). Hence, the amount of major liver resections (three or more segments) was significantly higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group (39.0% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.005). The mean operative time was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (331 min vs. 181 min, p = 0.0001). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly longer in the RLR vs. the LLR group (13.4 vs. LLR 8.7 days, p = 0.03). The R0 resection rate for solid tumors was higher in the RLR vs. the LLR group but without statistical significance (93.8% vs. 87.9%, p = 0.48). The postoperative morbidity ≥ Clavien-Dindo grade 3 was 5.6% in the LLR vs. 17.1% in the RLR group (p = 0.1). No patient died in the RLR but two patients (2.8%) died in the LLR group, 30 and 90 days after surgery (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive liver surgery is safe and feasible. Robotic and laparoscopic liver surgery shows similar and adequate perioperative oncological results for selected patients. RLR might be advantageous for more advanced and technically challenging procedures.
Authors: Bertram E Yuh; Joseph Ciccone; Rameela Chandrasekhar; Zubair M Butt; Gregory E Wilding; Hyung L Kim; James L Mohler; Khurshid A Guru Journal: JSLS Date: 2009 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.172
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
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: Andrew A Gumbs; Eric Lorenz; Tzu-Jung Tsai; Lee Starker; Joe Flanagan; Andrea Benedetti Cacciaguerra; Ng Jing Yu; Melinda Bajul; Elie Chouillard; Roland Croner; Mohammad Abu Hilal Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 6.639