A propensity score matched analysis of robotic and open hepatectomy for treatment of liver tumors. Clinical outcomes, oncological survival, and costs comparison.


Journal

Journal of robotic surgery
ISSN: 1863-2491
Titre abrégé: J Robot Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101300401

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Oct 2023
Historique:
received: 24 05 2023
accepted: 04 07 2023
medline: 11 9 2023
pubmed: 10 7 2023
entrez: 10 7 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Minimally invasive robotic hepatectomy is gaining popularity with a faster rate of adoption when compared to laparoscopic approach. Technical advantages brought by the robotic surgical system facilitate a transition from open to minimally invasive technique in hepatic surgery. Published matched data examining the results of robotic hepatectomy using the open approach as a benchmark are still limited. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, survival, and costs between robotic and open hepatectomy undertaken in our tertiary hepatobiliary center. With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 285 consecutive patients undergoing hepatectomy for neoplastic liver diseases between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open hepatectomy was conducted by 1:1 ratio. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). The matching process assigned 49 patients to each arm, open and robotic hepatectomy. There were no differences in R1 resection rates (4% vs 4%; p = 1.00). Differences in perioperative variables between open and robotic hepatectomy included postoperative complications (16% vs 2%; p = 0.02) and length of stay (LOS) [6 (7 ± 5.0) vs 4 (5 ± 4.0) days; p = 0.002]. There were no differences between open and robotic hepatectomy regarding postoperative hepatic insufficiency (10% vs 2%; p = 0.20). No difference was seen in long-term survival outcomes. While there were no differences in costs, robotic hepatectomy was associated with lower reimbursement [$20,432 (39,191 ± 41,467.81) vs $33,190 (67,860 ± 87,707.81); p = 0.04] and lower contribution margin [$-11,229 (3902 ± 42,572.43) vs $8768 (34,690 ± 89,759.56); p = 0.03]. Compared to open approach, robotic hepatectomy robotic offers lower rates of postoperative complications, shorter LOS and similar costs, while not compromising long-term oncological outcomes. Robotic hepatectomy may eventually become the preferred approach in minimally invasive treatment of liver tumors.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37428364
doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01674-z
pii: 10.1007/s11701-023-01674-z
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

2399-2407

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Références

Sucandy I, Luberice K, Lippert T et al (2020) Robotic major hepatectomy: an institutional experience and clinical outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol 27(13):4970–4979. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-08845-4
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08845-4 pubmed: 32661848
Lai ECH, Tang CN (2017) Training robotic hepatectomy: the Hong Kong experience and perspective. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 6(4):222–229. https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2017.01.21
doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2017.01.21 pubmed: 28848744 pmcid: 5554762
Miyasaka Y, Nakamura M, Wakabayashi G (2018) Pioneers in laparoscopic hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 25(1):109–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.506
doi: 10.1002/jhbp.506 pubmed: 28963814
Sucandy I, Schlosser S, Bourdeau T et al (2020) Robotic hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. J Robot Surg 14(1):75–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-019-00935-0
doi: 10.1007/s11701-019-00935-0 pubmed: 30798483
Goh BKP, Lee SY, Teo JY et al (2018) Changing trends and outcomes associated with the adoption of minimally invasive hepatectomy: a contemporary single-institution experience with 400 consecutive resections. Surg Endosc 32(11):4658–4665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-018-6310-1
doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6310-1 pubmed: 29967997
Szold A, Bergamaschi R, Broeders I et al (2015) European association of endoscopic surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery. Surg Endosc 29(2):253–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3916-9
doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3916-9 pubmed: 25380708
Liu R, Wakabayashi G, Kim HJ et al (2019) International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018. World J Gastroenterol 25(12):1432–1444. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1432
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1432 pubmed: 30948907 pmcid: 6441912
Saito Y, Yamada S, Imura S et al (2018) A learning curve for laparoscopic liver resection: an effective training system and standardization of technique. Translat Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(July). https://doi.org/10.21037/tgh.2018.07.03
Sucandy I, Gravetz A, Ross S, Rosemurgy A (2019) Technique of robotic left hepatectomy: how we approach it. J Robot Surg 13(2):201–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0890-6
doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0890-6 pubmed: 30406886
Sucandy I, Durrani H, Ross S, Rosemurgy A (2019) Technical approach of robotic total right hepatic lobectomy: how we do it? J Robot Surg 13(2):193–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0881-7
doi: 10.1007/s11701-018-0881-7 pubmed: 30276634
Strasberg SM, Belghiti J, Clavien PA et al (2000) The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB 2(3):333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1365-182x(17)30755-4
doi: 10.1016/s1365-182x(17)30755-4
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML et al (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2):187–196. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2 pubmed: 19638912
Rahbari NN, Garden OJ, Padbury R et al (2011) Posthepatectomy liver failure: a definition and grading by the International Study Group of Liver Surgery (ISGLS). Surgery 149(5):713–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.10.001
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2010.10.001 pubmed: 21236455
Ban D, Tanabe M, Ito H et al (2014) A novel difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. J Hepato-Biliary-Pancreat Sci 21: 745–753. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.166
Tanaka S, Kawaguchi Y, Kubo S et al (2019) Validation of index-based IWATE criteria as an improved difficulty scoring system for laparoscopic liver resection. Surgery (United States) 165(4):731–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2018.10.012
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2018.10.012
Choi GH, Chong JU, Han DH, Choi JS, Lee WJ (2017) Robotic hepatectomy: the Korean experience and perspective. HepatoBiliary Surg Nutr 6(4):230–238. https://doi.org/10.21037/hbsn.2017.01.14
doi: 10.21037/hbsn.2017.01.14 pubmed: 28848745 pmcid: 5554764
Kamel MK, Tuma F, Keane CA, Blebea J (2022) National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic-assisted hepatectomy in the USA: a propensity-score matched analysis from the National Cancer Database. World J Surg 46(1):189–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-021-06315-w
doi: 10.1007/s00268-021-06315-w pubmed: 34528104
Gavriilidis P, Roberts KJ, Aldrighetti L, Sutcliffe RP (2020) A comparison between robotic, laparoscopic and open hepatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 46(7):1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.227
doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.03.227 pubmed: 32312592
Wong DJ, Wong MJ, Choi GH, Wu YM, Lai PB, Goh BKP (2019) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy. ANZ J Surg 89(3):165–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.14690
doi: 10.1111/ans.14690 pubmed: 29943881
da Chen P, Wu CY, Hu RH et al (2017) Robotic versus open hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a matched comparison. Ann Surg Oncol 24(4):1021–1028. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5638-9
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5638-9 pubmed: 27778128
Cortolillo N, Patel C, Parreco J, Kaza S, Castillo A (2019) Nationwide outcomes and costs of laparoscopic and robotic vs. open hepatectomy. J Robot Surg 13(4): 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-018-0896-0
Shapera E, Sucandy I, Syblis C et al (2022) Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: is the robotic platform more expensive? J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-022-01375-z
doi: 10.1007/s11701-022-01375-z pubmed: 36271266

Auteurs

Shlomi Rayman (S)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
Department of General Surgery, Assuta Ashdod Public Hospital, Ashdod, Israel.
Faculty of Health and Science, Ben-Gurion University, Beer-Sheba, Israel.

Iswanto Sucandy (I)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA. iswanto.sucandy@adventhealth.com.

Sharona B Ross (SB)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.

Kaitlyn Crespo (K)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.

Cameron Syblis (C)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.

Alexander Rosemurgy (A)

Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite#500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH