Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience.
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Learning curve
Liver resection
Outcomes
Robot
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
26
01
2021
accepted:
16
07
2021
pubmed:
5
10
2021
medline:
15
4
2022
entrez:
4
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program. This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs RESULTS: A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle's maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS). Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program.
METHODS
This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs RESULTS: A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle's maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34606006
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08645-1
pii: 10.1007/s00464-021-08645-1
pmc: PMC9001282
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3317-3322Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Liver Cancer. 2018 Mar;7(1):28-39
pubmed: 29662831
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Apr 08;2019:1835085
pubmed: 31080809
World J Hepatol. 2017 Feb 8;9(4):224-226
pubmed: 28217260
Liver Transpl. 2019 Jul;25(7):1110-1112
pubmed: 31021039
World J Surg. 2019 Jun;43(6):1594-1603
pubmed: 30706105
World J Gastroenterol. 2019 Mar 28;25(12):1432-1444
pubmed: 30948907
Arch Surg. 2003 Jul;138(7):777-84
pubmed: 12860761
World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Dec 21;22(47):10267-10274
pubmed: 28058008
Ann Surg. 2016 Jul;264(1):155-63
pubmed: 26649581
Surgery. 2011 Jan;149(1):29-39
pubmed: 20570305
Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2016 Aug;5(4):311-21
pubmed: 27500143
Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68(2):723-750
pubmed: 29624699
J Hepatol. 2019 Nov;71(5):920-929
pubmed: 31203152
World J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jul 21;21(27):8441-51
pubmed: 26217097
Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1301-1314
pubmed: 29307467
Int J Med Robot. 2016 Dec;12(4):735-742
pubmed: 26537176
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;24(4):866-867
pubmed: 27778129
World J Hepatol. 2016 May 8;8(13):591-6
pubmed: 27168871
Asian J Surg. 2019 Jan;42(1):19-31
pubmed: 30170946
Int J Surg. 2011;9(4):324-8
pubmed: 21334468
Updates Surg. 2015 Jun;67(2):177-83
pubmed: 26076915
Liver Int. 2014 Jul;34(6):e96-e104
pubmed: 24517642
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
HPB (Oxford). 2017 Sep;19(9):818-824
pubmed: 28599892
J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):182-236
pubmed: 29628281
Ann Surg Oncol. 2017 Apr;24(4):1021-1028
pubmed: 27778128