Propensity-score Matched and Coarsened-exact Matched Analysis Comparing Robotic and Laparoscopic Major Hepatectomies: An International Multicenter Study of 4822 Cases.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2023
01 12 2023
Historique:
medline:
9
11
2023
pubmed:
15
4
2023
entrez:
14
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH). Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH. This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups. A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047]. This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To compare the outcomes between robotic major hepatectomy (R-MH) and laparoscopic major hepatectomy (L-MH).
BACKGROUND
Robotic techniques may overcome the limitations of laparoscopic liver resection. However, it is unknown whether R-MH is superior to L-MH.
METHODS
This is a post hoc analysis of a multicenter database of patients undergoing R-MH or L-MH at 59 international centers from 2008 to 2021. Data on patient demographics, center experience volume, perioperative outcomes, and tumor characteristics were collected and analyzed. Both 1:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) and coarsened-exact matched (CEM) analyses were performed to minimize selection bias between both groups.
RESULTS
A total of 4822 cases met the study criteria, of which 892 underwent R-MH and 3930 underwent L-MH. Both 1:1 PSM (841 R-MH vs. 841 L-MH) and CEM (237 R-MH vs. 356 L-MH) were performed. R-MH was associated with significantly less blood loss {PSM:200.0 [interquartile range (IQR):100.0, 450.0] vs 300.0 (IQR:150.0, 500.0) mL; P = 0.012; CEM:170.0 (IQR: 90.0, 400.0) vs 200.0 (IQR:100.0, 400.0) mL; P = 0.006}, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application (PSM: 47.1% vs 63.0%; P < 0.001; CEM: 54.0% vs 65.0%; P = 0.007) and open conversion (PSM: 5.1% vs 11.9%; P < 0.001; CEM: 5.5% vs 10.4%, P = 0.04) compared with L-MH. On subset analysis of 1273 patients with cirrhosis, R-MH was associated with a lower postoperative morbidity rate (PSM: 19.5% vs 29.9%; P = 0.02; CEM 10.4% vs 25.5%; P = 0.02) and shorter postoperative stay [PSM: 6.9 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 8.0 (IQR: 6.0 11.3) days; P < 0.001; CEM 7.0 (IQR: 5.0, 9.0) days vs 7.0 (IQR: 6.0, 10.0) days; P = 0.047].
CONCLUSIONS
This international multicenter study demonstrated that R-MH was comparable to L-MH in safety and was associated with reduced blood loss, lower rates of Pringle maneuver application, and conversion to open surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37058429
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005855
pii: 00000658-202312000-00020
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
969-975Investigateurs
Mikel Gastaca
(M)
Celine De Meyere
(C)
Kelvin K Ng
(KK)
Diana Salimgereeva
(D)
Ruslan Alikhanov
(R)
Lip-Seng Lee
(LS)
Jae Young Jang
(JY)
Masayuki Kojima
(M)
Jaime Arthur Pirola Kruger
(JAP)
Victor Lopez-Lopez
(V)
Margarida Casellas I Robert
(M)
Montalti Roberto
(M)
Mariano Giglio
(M)
Boram Lee
(B)
Hao-Ping Wang
(HP)
Franco Pascual
(F)
Shian Yu
(S)
Simone Vani
(S)
Francesco Ardito
(F)
Ugo Giustizieri
(U)
Davide Citterio
(D)
Federico Mocchegiani
(F)
Marco Colasanti
(M)
Yoelimar Guzmán
(Y)
Kevin P Labadie
(KP)
Maria Conticchio
(M)
Epameinondas Dogeas
(E)
Emanuele F Kauffmann
(EF)
Mario Giuffrida
(M)
Daniele Sommacale
(D)
Alexis Laurent
(A)
Paolo Magistri
(P)
Kohei Mishima
(K)
Felix Krenzien
(F)
Prashant Kadam
(P)
Eric C H Lai
(ECH)
Jacob Ghotbi
(J)
Åsmund Avdem Fretland
(ÅA)
Fabio Forchino
(F)
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
B.K.P.G. has received travel grants and honorariums from Johnson and Johnson, Olympus and Transmedic, the local distributor for the Da Vinci Robot. M.V.M. is a consultant for CAVA robotics LLC. J.P. reports a research grant from Intuitive Surgical Deutschland GmbH and personal fees or non-financial support from Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, AFS Medical, Astellas, CHG Meridian, Chiesi, Falk Foundation, La Fource Group, Merck, Neovii, NOGGO, pharma-consult Peterson, and Promedicis. M. Schmelzle reports personal fees or other support outside of the submitted work from Merck, Bayer, ERBE, Amgen, Johnson and Johnson, Takeda, Olympus, Medtronic, and Intuitive. A.A.F. reports receiving speaker fees from Bayer. F.R. reports speaker fees and support outside the submitted work from Integra, Medtronic, Olympus, Corza, Sirtex, and Johnson and Johnson. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Reich H, McGlynn F, DeCaprio J, et al. Laparoscopic excision of benign liver lesions. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78:956–958.
Hobeika C, Fuks D, Cauchy F, et al. Benchmark performance of laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy and right hepatectomy in expert centers. J Hepatol. 2020;73:1100–1108.
Ibuki S, Hibi T, Tanabe M, et al. Short-term outcomes of “difficult” laparoscopic liver resection at specialized centers: report from INSTALL (International Survey on Technical Aspects of Laparoscopic Liver Resection)-2 on 4478 patients. Ann Surg. 2022;275:940–946.
Kawaguchi Y, Fuks D, Kokudo N, et al. Difficulty of laparoscopic liver resection: proposal for a new classification. Ann Surg. 2018;267:13–17.
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 Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:41–50.
Wakabayashi G, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. Recommendations for laparoscopic liver resection: a report from the second international consensus conference held in Morioka. Ann Surg. 2015;261:619–629.
Buell JF, Cherqui D, Geller DA, et al. The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: the Louisville Statement, 2008. Ann Surg. 2009;250:825–830.
Abu Hilal M, Aldrighetti L, Dagher I, et al. The southampton consensus guidelines for laparoscopic liver surgery: from indication to implementation. Ann Surg. 2018;268:11–18.
Chin KM, Linn YL, Cheong CK, et al. Minimally invasive vs open major hepatectomies for liver malignancies: a propensity score-matched analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2022;26:1041–1053.
Goh BK, Lee SY, Koh YX, et al. Minimally invasive major hepatectomies: a Southeast Asian single institution contemporary experience with its first 120 consecutive cases. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90:553–557.
Fagenson AM, Gleeson EM, Pitt HA, et al. Minimally invasive hepatectomy in North America: laparoscopic versus robotic. Br J Surg. 2021;25:85–93.
Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F, et al. Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery. 2011;149:29–39.
Liu Q, Zhang T, Hu M, et al. Comparison of the learning curves for robotic left and right hemihepatectomy: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg. 2020;81:19–25.
Goh BK, Low TY, Teo JY, et al. Adoption of robotic liver, pancreatic and biliary surgery in singapore: a single institution experience with its first 100 consecutive cases. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2020;49:742–748.
Chong CC, Fuks D, Lee KF, et al. Propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic and laparoscopic right and extended right hepatectomy. JAMA surg. 2022;157:436–444.
Beard RE, Khan S, Troisi RI, et al. Long-term and oncologic outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter, propensity score matching analysis. World J Surg. 2020;44:887–895.
Hu Y, Guo K, Xu J, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2021;44:615–628.
Lai EC, Tang CN. Long-term survival analysis of robotic versus conventional laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26:162–166.
Marino MV, Shabat G, Guarrasi D, et al. Comparative study of the initial experience in performing robotic and laparoscopic right hepatectomy with technical description of the robotic technique. Dig Surg. 2019;36:241–250.
Montalti R, Scuderi V, Patriti A, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic resections of posterosuperior segments of the liver: a propensity score-matched comparison. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:1004–1013.
Tsung A, Geller DA, Sukato DC, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: a matched comparison. Ann Surg. 2014;259:549–555.
Chong CCN, Lok HT, Fung AKY, et al. Robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy: application of the difficulty scoring system. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2000–2006.
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 Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:1108–1123.
Kadam P, Sutcliffe RP, Scatton O, et al. An international multicenter propensity-score matched and coarsened-exact matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic partial liver resections of the anterolateral segments. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2022;29:843–854.
Yang HY, Choi GH, Chin KM, et al. Robotic and laparoscopic right anterior sectionectomy and central hepatectomy: multicentre propensity score-matched analysis. Br J Surg. 2022;109:311–314.
Chiow AKH, Fuks D, Choi GH, et al. International multicentre propensity score-matched analysis comparing robotic versus laparoscopic right posterior sectionectomy. Br J Surg. 2021;108:1513–1520.
Strasberg SM. Nomenclature of hepatic anatomy and resections: a review of the Brisbane 2000 system. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2005;12:351–355.
Nagino M, DeMatteo R, Lang H, et al. Proposal of a new comprehensive notation for hepatectomy: the “New World” terminology. Ann Surg. 2021;274:1–3.
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.
Barron JO, Orabi D, Moro A, et al. Validation of the IWATE criteria as a laparoscopic liver resection difficulty score in a single North American cohort. Surg Endosc. 2021;36:3601–3609.
Ban D, Tanabe M, Ito H, et al. A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:745–753.
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.
Han HS, Shehta A, Ahn S, et al. Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: case-matched study with propensity score matching. J Hepatol. 2015;63:643–650.
Kasai M, Cipriani F, Gayet B, et al. Laparoscopic versus open major hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Surgery. 2018;163:985–995.
Kamarajah SK, Bundred J, Manas D, et al. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic liver resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Surg. 2021;110:290–300.
Choi SH, Han DH, Lee JH, et al. Safety and feasibility of robotic major hepatectomy for novice surgeons in robotic liver surgery: a prospective multicenter pilot study. Surg Oncol. 2020;35:39–46.
Spampinato MG, Coratti A, Bianco L, et al. Perioperative outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted major hepatectomies: an Italian multi-institutional comparative study. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:2973–2979.
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.
Zhang L, Yuan Q, Xu Y, et al. Comparative clinical outcomes of robot-assisted liver resection versus laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0240593.
Goh BKP, Lee LS, Lee SY, et al. Initial experience with robotic hepatectomy in Singapore: analysis of 48 resections in 43 consecutive patients. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89:201–205.
Cai J, Zheng J, Xie Y, et al. A novel simple intra-corporeal Pringle maneuver for laparoscopic hemihepatectomy: how we do it. Surg Endosc. 2020;34:2807–2813.
Troisi RI, Montalti R, Van Limmen JG, et al. Risk factors and management of conversions to an open approach in laparoscopic liver resection: analysis of 265 consecutive cases. HPB. 2014;16:75–82.
Cheung TT, Dai WC, Tsang SH, et al. Pure laparoscopic hepatectomy versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in 110 patients with liver cirrhosis: a propensity analysis at a single center. Ann Surg. 2016;264:612–620.
Yoon YI, Kim KH, Kang SH, et al. Pure laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score matched analysis. Ann Surg. 2017;265:856–863.
Kabir T, Tan ZZ, Syn NL, et al. Laparoscopic versus open resection of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: meta-analysis. Br J Surg. 2022;109:21–29.
Goh BKP SN, Lee SY, Koh YX, et al. Impact of liver cirrhosis on the difficulty of minimally-invasive liver resections: a 1:1 coarsened exact-matched controlled study. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:5231–5238.
Troisi RI, Berardi G, Morise Z, et al. Laparoscopic and open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis: multicentre propensity score-matched study. Br J Surg. 2021;108:196–204.