Robotic versus Laparoscopic Liver Resection in Various Settings: An International Multicenter Propensity Score Matched Study of 10.075 Patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic liver surgery (RLS) and laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) in various settings.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Clear advantages of RLS over LLS have rarely been demonstrated, and the associated costs of robotic surgery are generally higher than those of laparoscopic surgery. Therefore, the exact role of the robotic approach in minimally invasive liver surgery remains to be defined.

METHODS

In this international retrospective cohort study, the outcomes of patients who underwent RLS and LLS for all indications between 2009 and 2021 in 34 hepatobiliary referral centers were compared. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare both approaches across several types of procedures: minor resections in the anterolateral (2, 3, 4b, 5, and 6) or posterosuperior segments (1, 4a, 7, 8), and major resections (≥3 contiguous segments). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to mitigate the influence of selection bias. The primary outcome was textbook outcome in liver surgery (TOLS), previously defined as the absence of intraoperative incidents ≥grade 2, postoperative bile leak ≥grade B, severe morbidity, readmission, and 90-day or in-hospital mortality with the presence of an R0 resection margin in case of malignancy. The absence of a prolonged length of stay was added to define TOLS+.

RESULTS

Among the 10.075 included patients, 1.507 underwent RLS and 8.568 LLS. After PSM, both groups constituted 1.505 patients. RLS was associated with higher rates of TOLS (78.3% vs. 71.8%, P<0.001) and TOLS+ (55% vs. 50.4%, P=0.026), less Pringle usage (39.1% vs. 47.1%, P<0.001), blood loss (100 vs. 200 milliliters, P<0.001), transfusions (4.9% vs. 7.9%, P=0.003), conversions (2.7% vs 8.8%, P<0.001), overall morbidity (19.3% vs. 25.7%, P<0.001) and R0 resection margins (89.8% vs. 86%, P=0.015), but longer operative times (190 vs. 210 min, P=0.015). In the subgroups, RLS tended to have higher TOLS rates, compared to LLS, for minor resections in the posterosuperior segments (n=431 per group, 75.9% vs. 71.2%, P=0.184) and major resections (n=321 per group, 72.9% vs. 67.5%, P=0.086), although these differences did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While both producing excellent outcomes, RLS might facilitate slightly higher TOLS rates than LLS.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

COI/Disclosures: The authors have no related conflicts of interest to declare. However, outside of the submitted work Mohammed Abu Hilal and Marc Besselink received grants from Medtronic GmbH, Intuitive Surgical Inc and Johnson&Johnson Medical GmbH for investigator-initiated studies. Santi Lopez-Ben reported received fees from Baxter, Olympus and Johnson & Johnson. Moritz Schmelzle reported received fees from Merck Serono GmbH, Bayer AG, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Avateramedical GmbH, Johnson&Johnson Medical GmbH, TakedaPharmaceutical Limited, Olympus K.K., Medtronic GmbH, Intuitive Surgical Inc., Corzamedical, Baxter Int Inc. Åsmund Avdem Fretland reported speaker’s honoraria from Bayer and Olympus. Fernando Rotellar reported speakers honoraria from Olympus. Conflicts of interest and source of funding: No related conflicts of interest or funding.