BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.
BACKGROUND: While minimally invasive liver surgery has been increasingly adopted at least for minor resections, experience with robotic liver surgery is still limited to a few highly specialized centers. Due to the fear of abdominal adhesions, a history of prior surgeries is still used as an argument for open approaches. METHODS: Clinical data of all consecutive robotic resections at our center, using the da Vinci Xi surgical system, between April, 2018 and December, 2020, were collected and analyzed as part of a prospective, post-marketing observational study (DRKS00017229). Prior abdominal surgeries were specified according to the surgical approach and localization. Baseline and perioperative outcome criteria were compared between patients with prior surgeries (PS) and patients with no prior surgeries (NPS) in univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Out of the 126 patients undergoing robotic liver resections, 59% had a history of abdominal surgeries, which were most often colorectal resections (28%) followed by liver resections (20%). Patients with NPS were more likely to undergo robotic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma or benign tumors, and to have underlying liver cirrhosis when compared to patients with PS. Other baseline characteristics as well as the extent of resections were similar. Duration of surgery (258 min), conversion rates (6%), and postoperative complications rates (21% Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) showed no differences between NPS and PS. A subgroup of patients with a history of prior liver surgery showed a longer duration of surgery in univariate analysis. However, this was not confirmed in multivariate analysis which instead revealed tumor entity and liver cirrhosis as independently correlated with duration of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We propose robotic liver resection to be safe and feasible, including in patients with prior abdominal surgeries. Each patient should be evaluated for a minimally invasive procedure regardless of a history of previous operations.
Authors: Go Wakabayashi; Daniel Cherqui; David A Geller; Joseph F Buell; Hironori Kaneko; Ho Seong Han; Horacio Asbun; Nicholas OʼRourke; Minoru Tanabe; Alan J Koffron; Allan Tsung; Olivier Soubrane; Marcel Autran Machado; Brice Gayet; Roberto I Troisi; Patrick Pessaux; Ronald M Van Dam; Olivier Scatton; Mohammad Abu Hilal; Giulio Belli; Choon Hyuck David Kwon; Bjørn Edwin; Gi Hong Choi; Luca Antonio Aldrighetti; Xiujun Cai; Sean Cleary; Kuo-Hsin Chen; Michael R Schön; Atsushi Sugioka; Chung-Ngai Tang; Paulo Herman; Juan Pekolj; Xiao-Ping Chen; Ibrahim Dagher; William Jarnagin; Masakazu Yamamoto; Russell Strong; Palepu Jagannath; Chung-Mau Lo; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Norihiro Kokudo; Jeffrey Barkun; Steven M Strasberg Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Marco Milone; Nicola de'Angelis; Nassiba Beghdadi; Francesco Brunetti; Michele Manigrasso; Giuseppe De Simone; Giuseppe Servillo; Sara Vertaldi; Giovanni Domenico De Palma Journal: Int J Med Robot Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 2.547
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: Shadi Katou; Franziska Schmid; Carolina Silveira; Lina Schäfer; Tizian Naim; Felix Becker; Sonia Radunz; Mazen A Juratli; Leon Louis Seifert; Hauke Heinzow; Benjamin Struecker; Andreas Pascher; M Haluk Morgul Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Paul Viktor Ritschl; Hannah Kristin Miller; Karl Hillebrandt; Lea Timmermann; Matthäus Felsenstein; Christian Benzing; Brigitta Globke; Robert Öllinger; Wenzel Schöning; Moritz Schmelzle; Johann Pratschke; Thomas Malinka Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 2.102