Robotic Approach for Lymphadenectomy in Biliary Tumors: The Missing Ring Between the Benefits of Laparoscopic and Reproducibility of Open Approach?
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2023
01 10 2023
Historique:
medline:
11
9
2023
pubmed:
8
11
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis. The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery. Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group). Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery. Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the oncological adequacy of lymphadenectomy (LND) for biliary tumors and surgical outcomes of resections performed using robotic, laparoscopic, and open approaches and to compare the techniques within a weighted propensity score analysis.
BACKGROUND
The need to perform formal LND is considered a limit for the applicability of minimally invasive liver surgery.
METHODS
Overall, 25 robotic resections with LND (2021-2022) from a single-center constituted the study group (Rob group), matched by inverse probability treatment weighting with 97 laparoscopic (Lap group) and 113 open (Open group) procedures to address the primary endpoint. A "per-period" analysis was performed comparing the characteristics and outcomes of the Rob group with the first 25 consecutive laparoscopic liver resections with associated LND (LapInit group).
RESULTS
Minimally invasive techniques performed equally well regarding the number of harvested nodes, blood transfusions, functional recovery, length of stay, and major morbidity and provided a short-term benefit to patients when compared with the open technique. A better performance of the robotic approach over laparoscopic approach (and both approaches over the open technique) was recorded for patients achieving LND with retrieval of >6 nodes. The open approach reduced both the operative time and time for LND, and robotic surgery performed better than laparoscopic surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Minimally invasive techniques are excellent tools for the management of LND in patients with biliary tumors, showing feasibility, and oncological adequacy. Robotics could contribute to the large-scale diffusion of these procedures with a high profile of complexity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36341600
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005748
pii: 00000658-990000000-00311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e780-e788Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, Cillo U, et al. Diffusion, outcomes and implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery: a snapshot from the I Go MILS (Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery) Registry. Update Surg. 2017;69:271–283.
Zwart MJW, Görgec B, Arabiyat A, et al. Pan-European survey on the implementation of robotic and laparoscopic minimally invasive liver surgery. HPB (Oxford). 2022;24:322–331.
Cucchetti A, Aldrighetti L, Ratti F, et al. Variations in risk-adjusted outcomes following 4318 laparoscopic liver resections. J Hepato-Bil Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:521–530.
Serenari M, Ratti F, Zanello M, et al. Minimally invasive Stage 1 to protect against the risk of liver failure: results from the hepatocellular carcinoma series of the associating liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy Italian registry. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2020;30:1082–1089.
Ratti F, Rawashdeh A, Cipriani F, et al. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma as the new field of implementation of laparoscopic liver resection programs. A comparative propensity score-based analysis of open and laparoscopic liver resections. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:1851–1862.
Cipriani F, Ratti F, Paganelli M, et al. Laparoscopic or open approaches for posterosuperior and anterolateral liver resections? A propensity score based analysis of the degree of advantage. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:1676–1686.
Ziogas IA, Giannis D, Esagian SM, et al. Laparoscopic versus robotic major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:524–535.
Ratti F, Casadei-Gardini A, Cipriani F, et al. Laparoscopic surgery for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a focus on oncological outcomes. J Clin Med. 2021;10:2828.
Cipriani F, Ratti F, Fiorentini G, et al. Systematic review of perioperative and oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Update Surg. 2021;73:359–377.
Ratti F, Fiorentini G, Cipriani F, et al. Perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic versus open lymphadenectomy for biliary tumors: a propensity-score-based, case-matched analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:564–575.
Salehi O, Kazakova V, Vega EA, et al. Selection criteria for minimally invasive resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma-a word of caution: a propensity score matched analysis using the national cancer database. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:5382–5391.
Hobeika C, Cauchy F, Fuks D, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: nationwide analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108:419–426.
Bagante F, Spolverato G, Weiss M, et al. Assessment of the lymph node status in patients undergoing liver resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: the New Eighth Edition AJCC Staging System. J Gastrointest Surg New Eighth Edition. 2018;22:52–59.
Sahara K, Tsilimigras DI, Merath K, et al. Therapeutic index associated with lymphadenectomy among patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: which patients benefit the most from nodal evaluation? Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:2959–2968.
Ratti F, Fiorentini G, Cipriani F, et al. Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: are we ready to step towards minimally invasiveness? Update Surg. 2020;72:423–433.
Ratti F, Cipriani F, Ariotti R, et al. Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic liver resection with associated lymphadenectomy for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a propensity score-based case-matched analysis from a single institution. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1999–2010.
Ratti F, Aldrighetti L. Comment on: laparoscopic versus open resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: nationwide analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108:e308.
Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Aldrighetti L, et al. A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2020;46:1214–1224.
Ratti F, Cipriani F, Lee Y, et al. Minimally invasive right hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2022;117:110–113.
Ratti F, Fiorentini G, Cipriani F, et al. Technical insights on laparoscopic left and right hepatectomy for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:5191–5192.
Fiorentini G, Ratti F, Cipriani F, et al. Challenges and technical innovations for an effective laparoscopic lymphadenectomy in liver malignancies. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29:72–75.
Rimini M, Casadei-Gardini A, Brandi G, et al. Risk-adjusted analysis of survival variability among hospitals treating biliary malignancy. J Chemother. 2022;34:543–549.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.
Wakabayashi T, Cacciaguerra AB, Abe Y, et al. Indocyanine green fluorescence navigation in liver urgery: a systematic review on dose and timing of administration. Ann Surg. 2022;275:1025–1034.
Hu Y, Fu T, Zhang Z, et al. Does application of indocyanine green fluorescence imaging enhance clinical outcomes in liver resection? A meta-analysis. Photodiagn Photodyn Ther. 2021;36:102554.
Ciria R, Berardi G, Nishino H, et al. A snapshot of the 2020 conception of anatomic liver resections and their applicability on minimally invasive liver surgery. A preparatory survey for the Expert Consensus Meeting on Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery. J Hepato-Bil Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:41–50.
Cipriani F, Fiorentini G, Magistri P, et al. Pure laparoscopic versus robotic liver resections: multicentric propensity score-based analysis with stratification according to difficulty scores. J Hepato-Bil Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:1108–1123.
Aldrighetti L, Cipriani F, Fiorentini G, et al. A stepwise learning curve to define the standard for technical improvement in laparoscopic liver resections: complexity-based analysis in 1032 procedures. Update Surg. 2019;71:273–283.
Chua D, Syn N, Koh YX, et al. Learning curves in minimally invasive hepatectomy: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Br J Surg. 2021;108:351–358.
Balzano E, Bernardi L, Tincani G, et al. Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience. Surg Endosc. 2022;36:3317–3322.
Zhou R, Lu D, Li W, et al. Is lymph node dissection necessary for resectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma? a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2019;21:784–792.
Morine Y, Shimada M, Utsunomiya T, et al. Clinical impact of lymph node dissection in surgery for peripheral-type intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Today. 2012;42:147–151.
Yoh T, Cauchy F, Le Roy B, et al. Prognostic value of lymphadenectomy for long-term outcomes in node-negative intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multicenter study. Surgery. 2019;166:975–982.
Zhang XF, Xue F, Dong DH, et al. Number and station of lymph node metastasis after curative-intent resection of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma impact prognosis. Ann Surg. 2021;274:e1187–e1195.
Reames BN, Bagante F, Ejaz A, et al. Impact of adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2017;19:901–909.