1
|
Yeung KTD, Vellaisamy R, Hussain A, Mingo O, Raobaikady R, Nicol D, Rasheed S, Tekkis P, Cunningham D, Jiao LR. Introduction of day-case robotic liver surgery: a case series from a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:4329-4335. [PMID: 38874609 PMCID: PMC11289181 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10913-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/21/2024] [Accepted: 05/05/2024] [Indexed: 06/15/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Liver surgery is associated with a significant hospital stay regardless the type of liver resection. A large incision is essential for open liver surgery which is a major factor in the course of the patient's recovery. For patients with small parenchyma liver lesions requiring surgical resection, robotic surgery potentially offers the opportunity to transform the patient's post-operative course. A day-case robotic liver resection pathway was formulated and implemented at our institution when patients were planned for discharge within 24 h of admission for liver surgery. METHODS Single surgeon case series of cases performed at a tertiary hepatobiliary and pancreatic centre between September 2022 and November 2023. The inclusion criteria were non-anatomical wedge resections, < 2 anatomical segmental resections, left lateral hepatectomy and minimally invasive surgery. RESULTS This is the first series of robotic day-case minor liver resection in the United Kingdom. 20 patients were included in this case series. The mean operative time was 86.6 ± 30.9 min and mean console time was 58.6 ± 24.5 min. Thirteen patients (65%) were discharged within 24 h of surgery. The main cause of hospitalisation beyond 24 h was inadequate pain relief. There were no Clavien-Dindo grade III or above complications, no 30-day readmission and 90-day mortalities. CONCLUSION This case series demonstrates that robotic day-case liver resection is safe and feasible. Robust follow-up pathways must be in place to allow for the safe implementation of this approach, to monitor for any complications and to allow intervention as required in a timely manner.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Tai Derek Yeung
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
- Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2BU, UK
| | - Rajendran Vellaisamy
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Aasim Hussain
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Olivia Mingo
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Ravishankar Raobaikady
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - David Nicol
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Shahnawaz Rasheed
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Paris Tekkis
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
- Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2BU, UK
| | - David Cunningham
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
| | - Long R Jiao
- Department of Surgery and Oncology, The Royal Marsden Hospital, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.
- Imperial College London, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London, SW7 2BU, UK.
- Department of Academic Surgery, The Royal Marsden Hospital, Imperial College London, 203 Fulham Road, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Koh YX, Zhao Y, Tan IEH, Tan HL, Chua DW, Loh WL, Tan EK, Teo JY, Au MKH, Goh BKP. Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Surgery 2024; 176:11-23. [PMID: 38782702 DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.04.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2024] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 04/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. METHODS A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection. RESULTS Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses. CONCLUSION Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ye Xin Koh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore.
| | - Yun Zhao
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore
| | | | - Hwee Leong Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Darren Weiquan Chua
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| | - Wei-Liang Loh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Ek Khoon Tan
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| | - Jin Yao Teo
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore
| | - Marianne Kit Har Au
- Group Finance Analytics, Singapore Health Services, Singapore; Finance, SingHealth Community Hospitals, Singapore; Finance, Regional Health System & Strategic Finance, Singapore Health Services, Singapore
| | - Brian Kim Poh Goh
- Department of Hepatopancreatobiliary and Transplant Surgery, Singapore General Hospital and National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Singapore; Liver Transplant Service, SingHealth Duke-National University of Singapore Transplant Centre, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sucandy I, Ross SB, Adorno Flores J, Syblis C, Pattilachan TM, Christodoulou M, Rosemurgy A. Comparison of IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, and Southampton Laparoscopic Liver Resection Difficulty Scoring Systems for Predicting Intra and Postoperative Outcomes in Robotic Hepatectomy. Am Surg 2024; 90:1853-1859. [PMID: 38520138 DOI: 10.1177/00031348241241616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND IWATE, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM), and Southampton are established difficulty scoring systems (DSS) for laparoscopic hepatectomy, yet none specifically address robotic hepatectomy. Our study evaluates these 3 DSS for predicting perioperative outcomes in robotic hepatectomy. METHODS With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 359 consecutive patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies, assessing categorical metrics like conversions to open, intra/postoperative issues, Clavien-Dindo Score (≥III), 30 and 90-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Area Under the Curve (AUC) to determine efficacy in predicting their occurrence for each DSS. Continuous metrics such as operative duration, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay, and total cost were analyzed using Spearman's correlation and regression. Predictive strength was significant with an AUC or correlation ≥.700 and P-value ≤.05. RESULTS IMM had highest predictive accuracy for conversions to open (AUC = .705) and postoperative complications (AUC = .481). Southampton was most accurate in predicting Clavien Dindo ≥ III complications (AUC = .506). IWATE excelled in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC = .552), intraoperative issues (AUC = .798), In-hospital mortality (AUC = .450), 90-day mortality (AUC = .596), and readmissions (AUC = .572). Regression showed significant relationships between operative duration, EBL, and hospital cost with increasing scores for all DSS (P ≤ .05). DISCUSSION Statistical analysis of the 3 DSS indicates that each has specific strengths that can best predict intra- and/or postoperative outcomes. However, all showed inaccuracies and conflicting relationships with the variables, indicating lack of substantial hierarchy between DSS. Given these inconsistencies, a dedicated comprehensive DSS should be created for robotic hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Sharona B Ross
- Digestive Health Institute AdventHealth Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Cameron Syblis
- University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine Tampa, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Guidetti C, Müller PC, Magistri P, Jonas JP, Odorizzi R, Kron P, Guerrini G, Oberkofler CE, Di Sandro S, Clavien PA, Petrowsky H, Di Benedetto F. Full robotic versus open ALPPS: a bi-institutional comparison of perioperative outcomes. Surg Endosc 2024; 38:3448-3454. [PMID: 38698258 PMCID: PMC11133099 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-10804-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/16/2024] [Accepted: 03/17/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In primarily unresectable liver tumors, ALPPS (Associating Liver Partition and Portal Vein Ligation for Staged hepatectomy) may offer curative two-stage hepatectomy trough a fast and extensive hypertrophy. However, concerns have been raised about the invasiveness of the procedure. Full robotic ALPPS has the potential to reduce the postoperative morbidity trough a less invasive access. The aim of this study was to compare the perioperative outcomes of open and full robotic ALPPS. METHODS The bicentric study included open ALPPS cases from the University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland and robotic ALPPS cases from the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy from 01/2015 to 07/2022. Main outcomes were intraoperative parameters and overall complications. RESULTS Open and full robotic ALPPS were performed in 36 and 7 cases. Robotic ALPPS was associated with less blood loss after both stages (418 ± 237 ml vs. 319 ± 197 ml; P = 0.04 and 631 ± 354 ml vs. 258 ± 53 ml; P = 0.01) as well as a higher rate of interstage discharge (86% vs. 37%; P = 0.02). OT was longer with robotic ALPPS after both stages (371 ± 70 min vs. 449 ± 81 min; P = 0.01 and 282 ± 87 min vs. 373 ± 90 min; P = 0.02). After ALPPS stage 2, there was no difference for overall complications (86% vs. 86%; P = 1.00) and major complications (43% vs. 39%; P = 0.86). The total length of hospital stay was similar (23 ± 17 days vs. 26 ± 13; P = 0.56). CONCLUSION Robotic ALPPS was safely implemented and showed potential for improved perioperative outcomes compared to open ALPPS in an experienced robotic center. The robotic approach might bring the perioperative risk profile of ALPPS closer to interventional techniques of portal vein embolization/liver venous deprivation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cristiano Guidetti
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Philip C Müller
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Department of Surgery, Clarunis - University Centre for Gastrointestinal and Hepatopancreatobiliary Diseases, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Paolo Magistri
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Jan Philipp Jonas
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Roberta Odorizzi
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Philipp Kron
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Gianpiero Guerrini
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Christian E Oberkofler
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
- Vivévis - Clinic Hirslanden Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Stefano Di Sandro
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy
| | - Pierre-Alain Clavien
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Henrik Petrowsky
- Swiss HPB and Transplantation Center, Department of Surgery and Transplantation, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Fabrizio Di Benedetto
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation Unit, University Hospital of Modena "Policlinico", University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41124, Modena, Italy.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rocca A, Avella P, Scacchi A, Brunese MC, Cappuccio M, De Rosa M, Bartoli A, Guerra G, Calise F, Ceccarelli G. Robotic versus open resection for colorectal liver metastases in a "referral centre Hub&Spoke learning program". A multicenter propensity score matching analysis of perioperative outcomes. Heliyon 2024; 10:e24800. [PMID: 38322841 PMCID: PMC10844024 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2023] [Revised: 01/14/2024] [Accepted: 01/15/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Surgical resection is still considered the optimal treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). Although laparoscopic and robotic surgery demonstrated their reliability especially in referral centers, the comparison between perioperative outcomes of robotic liver resection (RLR) and open (OLR) liver resection are still debated when performed in referral centers for robotic surgery, not dedicated to HPB. Our study aimed to verify the efficacy and safety of perioperative outcomes after RLR and OLR for CRLM in an HUB&Spoke learning program (H&S) between a high volume center for liver surgery and high volume center for robotic surgery. Methods We analyzed prospective databases of Pineta Grande Hospital (Castel Volturno) and Robotic Surgical Units (Foligno-Spoleto and Arezzo) from 2011 to 2021. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed according to baseline characteristics of patients, solitary/multiple CRLM, anterolateral/posterosuperior location. Results 383 patients accepted to be part of the study (268 ORL and 115 RLR). After PSM, 45 patients from each group were included. Conversion rate was 8.89 %. RLR group had a significantly lower blood loss (226 vs. 321 ml; p=0.0001), and fewer major complications (13.33 % vs. 17.78 %; p=0.7722). R0 resection was obtained in 100% of OLR (vs.95.55%, p =0.4944. Hospital stay was 8.8 days in RLR (vs. 15; p=0.0001).Conclusion: H&S represents a safe and effective program to train general surgeons also in Hepatobiliary surgery providing R0 resection rate, blood loss volume and morbidity rate superimposable to referral centers. Furthermore, H&S allow a reduction of health mobility with consequent money saving for patients and institutions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aldo Rocca
- Department of Medicine and Health Science “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy
| | - Pasquale Avella
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
| | - Andrea Scacchi
- General Surgery Department, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Chiara Brunese
- Department of Medicine and Health Science “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Micaela Cappuccio
- Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
| | - Michele De Rosa
- General Surgery Department, ASL 2 Umbria, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Foligno, Italy
| | - Alberto Bartoli
- General Surgery Department, ASL 2 Umbria, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Foligno, Italy
| | - Germano Guerra
- Department of Medicine and Health Science “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
| | - Fulvio Calise
- Department of Medicine and Health Science “V. Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery Unit, Pineta Grande Hospital, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy
| | - Graziano Ceccarelli
- General Surgery Department, ASL 2 Umbria, San Giovanni Battista Hospital, Foligno, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gao F, Zhao X, Xie Q, Jiang K, Mao T, Yang M, Wu H. Comparison of short-term outcomes between robotic and laparoscopic liver resection: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies. Int J Surg 2024; 110:1126-1138. [PMID: 37924495 PMCID: PMC10871648 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000000857] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 10/10/2023] [Indexed: 11/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) using data collected from propensity score-matched studies. METHODS The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to collect propensity score-matched studies comparing RLR and LLR. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using fixed-effect or random-effect models. Meta-regression analysis was performed for primary outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed for outcomes exhibiting high heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. RESULTS Twenty-two propensity score-matched studies were included to comprise 5272 patients (RLR group, 2422 cases; LLR group, 2850 cases). Intraoperative blood loss (SMD=-0.31 ml, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; P =0.0005), open conversion (OR=0.46, 95% CI 0.37-0.58; P <0.0001), and severe complications (OR=0.76, 95% CI 0.61-0.95; P =0.02) were significantly lower in the RLR group. Operation time, odds of use, and duration of Pringle maneuver, length of hospital stay, and odds of intraoperative blood transfusion, overall complications, R0 resection, reoperation, 30-day readmission, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. Further subgroup and sensitivity analyses suggested that the results were stable. Meta-regression analysis did not suggest a correlation between primary outcomes and study characteristics. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was medium or low, while that for the secondary outcomes was medium, low, or very low. CONCLUSION Although some short-term outcomes are similar between RLR and LLR, RLR is superior in terms of less blood loss and lower odds of open conversion and severe complications. In the future, RLR may become a safe and effective replacement for LLR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fengwei Gao
- Liver Transplantation Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center of Biotherapy, Chengdu
| | - Xin Zhao
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The People’s Hospital of Leshan, Leshan
| | - Qingyun Xie
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The People’s Hospital of Leshan, Leshan
| | - Kangyi Jiang
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The People’s Hospital of Leshan, Leshan
| | - Tianyang Mao
- North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Manyu Yang
- North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
| | - Hong Wu
- Liver Transplantation Center, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy and Cancer Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University and Collaborative Innovation Center of Biotherapy, Chengdu
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Sucandy I, Kang RD, Adorno J, Crespo K, Syblis C, Ross S, Rosemurgy A. Validity of the Institut Mutualiste Montsouris classification system for robotic liver resection. HPB (Oxford) 2023; 25:1022-1029. [PMID: 37217370 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2023.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2023] [Revised: 04/29/2023] [Accepted: 05/07/2023] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Institut Mutualiste Montsouris (IMM) classification system is one of several widely accepted difficulty scoring systems for laparoscopic liver resections. Nothing is yet known about the applicability of this system for robotic liver resections. METHODS We conducted a retrospective review of 359 patients undergoing robotic hepatectomies between 2016 and 2022. Resections were classified into low, intermediate, and high difficulty level. Data were analyzed utilizing ANOVA of repeated measures, 3 x 2 contingency tables, and area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) curves. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS Of the 359 patients, 117 were classified as low-difficulty level, 92 as intermediate, and 150 as high. The IMM system correlates well with tumor size (p = 0.002). The IMM system was a strong predictor of intraoperative outcomes including operative duration (p<0.001) and estimated blood loss (EBL) (p<0.001). The IMM system also showed a strong calibration for predicting an open conversion (AUC=0.705) and intraoperative complications (AUC=0.79). In contrast, the IMM system was a poor predictor of postoperative complications, mortality, and readmission. CONCLUSION The IMM system provides a strong correlation with intraoperative, but not postoperative outcomes. A dedicated difficulty scoring system should be developed for robotic hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iswanto Sucandy
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA.
| | - Richard D Kang
- University of South Florida, Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Cameron Syblis
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Sharona Ross
- AdventHealth Tampa, Digestive Health Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Winckelmans T, Wicherts DA, Parmentier I, De Meyere C, Verslype C, D'Hondt M. Robotic Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Single Surgeon Experience of 629 Consecutive Minimally Invasive Liver Resections. World J Surg 2023; 47:2241-2249. [PMID: 37208537 DOI: 10.1007/s00268-023-07060-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/21/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Robotic surgery has the potential to broaden the indications for minimally invasive liver surgery owing to its technical advantages. This paper compares our experience with robotic liver surgery (RLS) with conventional laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS). METHODS All consecutive liver resections between October 2011 and October 2022 were selected from our prospective database to be included in this cohort study. Patients who underwent RLS were compared with a LLS group for operative and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS In total, 629 patients were selected from our database, including 177 patients who underwent a RLS and 452 patients who had LLS. Colorectal liver metastasis was the main indication for surgery in both groups. With the introduction of RLS, the percentage of open resections decreased significantly (32.6% from 2011 to 2020 vs. 11.5% from 2020 onward, P < 0.001). In the robotic group, redo liver surgery was more frequent (24.3% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.031) and the Southampton difficulty score was higher (4 [IQR 4 to 7] vs. 4 [IQR 3 to 6], P = 0.02). Median blood loss was lower (30 vs. 100 ml, P < 0.001), and postoperative length of stay (LOS) was shorter in the robotic group (median 3 vs. 4 days, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in postoperative complications. Cost related to the used instruments and LOS was significantly lower in the RLS group (median €1483 vs. €1796, P < 0.001 and €1218 vs. €1624, P < 0.001, respectively), while cost related to operative time was higher (median €2755 vs. €2470, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS RLS may allow for a higher percentage of liver resections to be completed in a minimally invasive way with lower blood loss and a shorter LOS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Winckelmans
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Dennis A Wicherts
- Department of Abdominal and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Schiepse Bos 6, 3600, Genk, Belgium
| | - Isabelle Parmentier
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium
- Department of Oncology and Statistics, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, Kortrijk, België
| | - Celine De Meyere
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium
| | - Chris Verslype
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium
- Department of Abdominal and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Schiepse Bos 6, 3600, Genk, Belgium
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mathieu D'Hondt
- Department of Digestive and Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgery, Groeninge Hospital, President Kennedylaan 4, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Liu R, Abu Hilal M, Wakabayashi G, Han HS, Palanivelu C, Boggi U, Hackert T, Kim HJ, Wang XY, Hu MG, Choi GH, Panaro F, He J, Efanov M, Yin XY, Croner RS, Fong YM, Zhu JY, Wu Z, Sun CD, Lee JH, Marino MV, Ganpati IS, Zhu P, Wang ZZ, Yang KH, Fan J, Chen XP, Lau WY. International experts consensus guidelines on robotic liver resection in 2023. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29:4815-4830. [PMID: 37701136 PMCID: PMC10494765 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i32.4815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2023] [Revised: 07/22/2023] [Accepted: 08/09/2023] [Indexed: 08/25/2023] Open
Abstract
The robotic liver resection (RLR) has been increasingly applied in recent years and its benefits shown in some aspects owing to the technical advancement of robotic surgical system, however, controversies still exist. Based on the foundation of the previous consensus statement, this new consensus document aimed to update clinical recommendations and provide guidance to improve the outcomes of RLR clinical practice. The guideline steering group and guideline expert group were formed by 29 international experts of liver surgery and evidence-based medicine (EBM). Relevant literature was reviewed and analyzed by the evidence evaluation group. According to the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development, the Guidance Principles of Development and Amendment of the Guidelines for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment in China 2022, a total of 14 recommendations were generated. Among them were 8 recommendations formulated by the GRADE method, and the remaining 6 recommendations were formulated based on literature review and experts' opinion due to insufficient EBM results. This international experts consensus guideline offered guidance for the safe and effective clinical practice and the research direction of RLR in future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rong Liu
- Faculty of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Mohammed Abu Hilal
- Hepatobiliary Pancreatic, Robotic & Laparoscopic Surgery, Poliambulanza Foundation Hospital, Brescia 25100, Italy
| | - Go Wakabayashi
- Center for Advanced Treatment of HBP Diseases, Ageo Central General Hospital, Saitama 362-0075, Japan
| | - Ho-Seong Han
- Department of Surgery, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, South Korea
| | - Chinnusamy Palanivelu
- GEM Hospital & Research Centre, GEM Hospital & Research Centre, Coimbatore 641045, India
| | - Ugo Boggi
- Division of General and Transplant Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa 56126, Italy
| | - Thilo Hackert
- Department of General, Visceral and Thoracic Surgery, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg 20251, Germany
| | - Hong-Jin Kim
- Department of Surgery, Yeungnam University Hospital, Daegu 42415, South Korea
| | - Xiao-Ying Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery and Transplantation, Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
| | - Ming-Gen Hu
- Faculty of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Gi Hong Choi
- Division of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University, College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, South Korea
| | - Fabrizio Panaro
- Department of Surgery/Division of Robotic and HBP Surgery, Montpellier University Hospital-School of Medicine, Montpellier 34090, France
| | - Jin He
- Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21218, United States
| | - Mikhail Efanov
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Moscow Clinical Scientific Center, Moscow 111123, Russia
| | - Xiao-Yu Yin
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, Guangdong Province, China
| | - Roland S Croner
- Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Transplant Surgery, University Hospital Magdeburg, Magdeburg 39120, Germany
| | - Yu-Man Fong
- Department of Surgery, City of Hope Medical Center, Duarte, CA 91010, United States
| | - Ji-Ye Zhu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Zheng Wu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710061, Shaanxi Province, China
| | - Chuan-Dong Sun
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao 266000, Shandong Province, China
| | - Jae Hoon Lee
- Division of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan 682, South Korea
| | - Marco V Marino
- General Surgery Department, F. Tappeiner Hospital, Merano 39012, Italy
| | - Iyer Shridhar Ganpati
- Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore 189969, Singapore
| | - Peng Zhu
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430000, Hubei Province, China
| | - Zi-Zheng Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Senior Department of Hepatology, The Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100000, China
| | - Ke-Hu Yang
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, Gansu Province, China
| | - Jia Fan
- Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200000, China
| | - Xiao-Ping Chen
- Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430000, Hubei Province, China
| | - Wan Yee Lau
- Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Yim NH, McCarter J, Haykal T, Aral AM, Yu JZ, Reece E, Winocour S. Robotic Surgery and Hospital Reimbursement. Semin Plast Surg 2023; 37:223-228. [PMID: 38444958 PMCID: PMC10911894 DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/07/2024]
Abstract
The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicholas H. Yim
- Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Jacob McCarter
- Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Tareck Haykal
- Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Ali M. Aral
- Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas
| | - Jessie Z. Yu
- Department of Plastic Surgery at The University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, Texas
| | - Edward Reece
- Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery at Mayo Clinic in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Sebastian Winocour
- Department of Plastic Surgery at The University of Texas, MD Anderson, Houston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Sucandy I, Shapera E, Syblis CC, Crespo K, Przetocki VA, Ross SB, Rosemurgy AS. Propensity score matched comparison of robotic and open major hepatectomy for malignant liver tumors. Surg Endosc 2022; 36:6724-6732. [PMID: 34981238 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08948-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/06/2021] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Outcome data on robotic major hepatectomy are lacking. This study was undertaken to compare robotic vs. 'open' major hepatectomy utilizing patient propensity score matching (PSM). METHODS With institutional review board approval, we prospectively followed 183 consecutive patients who underwent robotic or 'open' major hepatectomy, defined as removal of three or more Couinaud segments. 42 patients who underwent 'open' approach were matched with 42 patients who underwent robotic approach. The criteria for PSM were age, resection type, tumor size, tumor type, and BMI. Survival was individually stratified for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC), and colorectal liver metastases (CLM). The data are presented as: median (mean ± SD). RESULTS Operative duration for the robotic approach was 293 (302 ± 131.5) vs. 280 (300 ± 115.6) minutes for the 'open' approach (p = NS). Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) was 200 (239 ± 183.6) vs. 300 (491 ± 577.1) ml (p = 0.01). There were zero postoperative complications with a Clavien-Dindo classification ≥ III for the robotic approach and three for the 'open' approach (p = NS). ICU length of stay (LOS) was 1 (1 ± 0) vs. 2 (3 ± 2.0) days (p = 0.0001) and overall LOS was 4 (4 ± 3.3) vs. 6 (6 ± 2.7) days (p = 0.003). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, overall survival was similar for patients with IHCC and CLM regardless of the approach. However, patients with HCC who underwent robotic resection lived significantly longer (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION Utilizing propensity score matched analysis, the robotic approach was associated with a lower EBL, shorter ICU LOS, and shorter overall LOS while maintaining similar operative duration and promoting survival in patients with HCC. We believe that the robotic approach is safe and efficacious and should be considered a preferred alternative approach for major hepatectomy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
| | - Emanuel Shapera
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Cameron C Syblis
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Valerie A Przetocki
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Sharona B Ross
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Alexander S Rosemurgy
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
What Is the Current Role and What Are the Prospects of the Robotic Approach in Liver Surgery? Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14174268. [PMID: 36077803 PMCID: PMC9454668 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14174268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2022] [Revised: 08/24/2022] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Robotic liver surgery is being applied with increasing frequency. Comparable, and in specific settings superior, perioperative outcomes compared to laparoscopic liver surgery have been reported. In its current form, the most commonly mentioned advantage of robotic surgery is improved dexterity. Important obstacles to its wider implementation in daily clinical practice are the associated costs, technical difficulties, and a scarce amount of evidence. Robotic liver surgery will likely continue to evolve in parallel with technological developments that enhance the robots’ abilities. Abstract In parallel with the historical development of minimally invasive surgery, the laparoscopic and robotic approaches are now frequently utilized to perform major abdominal surgical procedures. Nevertheless, the role of the robotic approach in liver surgery is still controversial, and a standardized, safe technique has not been defined yet. This review aims to summarize the currently available evidence and prospects of robotic liver surgery. Minimally invasive liver surgery has been extensively associated with benefits, in terms of less blood loss, and lower complication rates, including liver-specific complications such as clinically relevant bile leakage and post hepatectomy liver failure, when compared to open liver surgery. Furthermore, comparable R0 resection rates to open liver surgery have been reported, thus, demonstrating the safety and oncological efficiency of the minimally invasive approach. However, whether robotic liver surgery has merits over laparoscopic liver surgery is still a matter of debate. In the current literature, robotic liver surgery has mainly been associated with non-inferior outcomes compared to laparoscopy, although it is suggested that the robotic approach has a shorter learning curve, lower conversion rates, and less intraoperative blood loss. Robotic surgical systems offer a more realistic image with integrated 3D systems. In addition, the improved dexterity offered by robotic surgical systems can lead to improved intra and postoperative outcomes. In the future, integrated and improved haptic feedback mechanisms, artificial intelligence, and the introduction of more liver-specific dissectors will likely be implemented, further enhancing the robots’ abilities.
Collapse
|
13
|
Bahra M, Ossami Saidy RR. Current status of robotic surgery for hepato-pancreato-biliary malignancies. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2022; 22:939-946. [PMID: 35863758 DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2022.2105211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Robotic surgery is an emerging aspect of gastrointestinal surgery. Hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery is currently being explored for a broad spectrum of indications, entities, and postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority and financial aspects are the focus of studies. In this review, the impact on oncological therapies is assessed. AREAS COVERED An extensive literature review was conducted, and relevant studies and articles and reviews for robotic surgery in the field of hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery were examined. Special attention was given to the oncological aspects of robotic surgery and its possible impact on the therapy of malignant neoplasms. EXPERT OPINION Robotic-assisted surgery for oncological indications is promising, in part, an established technique that has already shown its advantages in the last decade, although high-quality studies are missing. Upcoming experience must consider the oncological benefit and putative new indications in a rapidly changing field of anti-neoplastic regimens. Also, robotic surgery may possess the ability to accelerate digitalization and AI-based augmentation in this context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marcus Bahra
- Krankenhaus Waldfriede, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Charité, Zentrum für Onkologische Oberbauchchirurgie und Robotik, Argentinische Allee 40, 14163 Berlin
| | - Ramin Raul Ossami Saidy
- Krankenhaus Waldfriede, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Charité, Zentrum für Onkologische Oberbauchchirurgie und Robotik, Argentinische Allee 40, 14163 Berlin
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Shapera E, Sucandy I, Syblis C, Crespo K, Ja'Karri T, Ross S, Rosemurgy A. Cost analysis of robotic versus open hepatectomy: Is the robotic platform more expensive? J Robot Surg 2022; 16:1409-1417. [PMID: 35152343 DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01375-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
The robotic platform is perceived to be more expensive when compared to laparoscopic and open operations. We aimed to compare the perioperative costs of robotic vs. open hepatectomy for the treatment of liver tumors at our facility. We followed 370 patients undergoing robotic and open hepatectomy for benign and malignant liver tumors. Demographic, perioperative, cost and payment data were collected and analyzed. For illustrative purposes, the data were presented as median (mean ± SD). Two hundred sixty-seven robotic and 104 open hepatectomies were analyzed. There were no significant differences in perioperative variables between the two cohorts. The robotic group had a significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (135 [208 ± 244.8] vs 300 [427 ± 502.5] ml, p < 0.0001), smaller lesion size (4 [5 ± 3.6] vs 5[6 ± 4.9] cm, p = 0.0052), shorter length of stay (LOS) (4 [4 ± 3.4] vs 6[8 ± 5.7] days, p < 0.0001) and decreased 90-day mortality (3 vs 7 p = 0.0028). There were no significant differences between the two groups any cost variable. The open group received significantly higher reimbursement ($29,297 [62,962 ± 75,377.96] vs $19,102 [38,975 ± 39,362.11], p < 0.001) and profit ($5005 [30,981 ± 79,541.09] vs $- 6682 [6146 ± 40,949.65], p < 0.001). Robotic hepatectomy is associated with lower EBL, shorter LOS and less mortality. There was no greater cost associated with the robotic platform despite a reduced reimbursement and profit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuel Shapera
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Iswanto Sucandy
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA.
| | - Cameron Syblis
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Kaitlyn Crespo
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Thomas Ja'Karri
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Sharona Ross
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| | - Alexander Rosemurgy
- Digestive Health Institute, AdventHealth Tampa, 3000 Medical Park Drive, Suite 500, Tampa, FL, 33613, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Multivisceral Resection in Robotic Liver Surgery. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14020355. [PMID: 35053518 PMCID: PMC8773961 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14020355] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2021] [Revised: 01/07/2022] [Accepted: 01/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Liver surgery can be performed simultaneously with operations to remove other organs in certain circumstances, such as removal of colorectal cancer in the colon or rectum at the same time as metastatic lesions to the liver. These types of operations have been performed as open or laparoscopic procedures; however, more recently, they can be performed with a robotic approach. In this article, we review the literature and describe robotic liver resections performed with robotic resection of other organs, including colon, rectum, and pancreas. These published reports demonstrate that, in select cases and experienced hands, robotic multivisceral resection can be safely performed with good outcomes. Abstract Minimally invasive surgery techniques are expanding in utilization in liver resections and now include robotic approaches. Robotic liver resection has been demonstrated to have several benefits, including surgeon ergonomics, wrist articulation, and 3D visualization. Similarly, for multivisceral liver resections, the use of minimally invasive techniques has evolved and expanded from laparoscopy to robotics. The aim of this article is to review the literature and describe multivisceral resections, including hepatectomy, using a robotic technique. We describe over 50 published cases of simultaneous robotic liver resection with colon or rectal resection. In addition, we describe several pancreatectomies performed with liver resection and one extra-abdominal pulmonary resection with liver resection. In total, these select reported cases at experienced centers demonstrate the safety of robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery with acceptable morbidity and rare conversion to open surgery. As robotic technology advances and experience with robotic techniques grows, robotic multivisceral resection in liver surgery should continue to be investigated in future studies.
Collapse
|