Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial hepatic caudate lobectomy

Meta-analysis of postoperative incision infection risk factors in colorectal cancer surgery

Objective

To evaluate the risk factors for postoperative incision infection in colorectal cancer, this meta-analysis aimed to identify key variables impacting infection incidence following colorectal cancer surgery.

Methods

Utilizing a meta-analytical approach, studies published from January 2015 to December 2022 were systematically collected and analyzed through the assessment of factors like body mass index, diabetes, albumin levels, malnutrition, and surgical duration.

Results

The meta-analysis of eleven high-quality studies revealed that elevated BMI, diabetes, low albumin levels, malnutrition, and extended surgical duration were associated with increased infection risk, while laparoscopic procedures showed potential for risk reduction.

Conclusions

This study underscores the significance of preoperative risk assessment and management in mitigating postoperative incision infections in colorectal cancer patients. The findings present actionable insights for clinicians to enhance patient prognoses and overall quality of life.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for hepatic caudate lobectomy: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to investigate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic hepatic caudate lobectomy (LHCL) for treating liver tumor by comparing with the open hepatic caudate lobectomy (OHCL).

METHODS

In the LHCL group, we included 24 patients with liver tumor received LHCL in Qilu Hospital of the Shandong University from January 2014 to January 2019. Meanwhile, 24 matched liver tumor patients underwent OHCL in our hospital served as control. Then we compared the patient characteristics, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative outcomes between LHCL group and OHCL group.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in gender, age, degree of cirrhosis, tumor size, preoperative liver function, Child-Pugh grading, proportion of liver cirrhosis, and tumor size between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). No death was reported in both groups. The length of incision in LHCL group was significantly lower than that in OHCL group (4.22 ± 1.14 cm vs. 22.46 ± 4.40 cm, P < 0.001). The intraoperative blood loss in LHCL group was significantly lower than that of OHCL group (116.82 ± 71.61 ml vs. 371.74 ± 579.35 ml, P = 0.047). The total operation time, Pringle maneuver occlusion time, and blocking rate in LHCL group showed no statistical difference compared with those of the OHCL group (P > 0.05). The VAS scores at postoperative 24 and 48 h showed no statistical differences between LHCL group and OHCL group (P > 0.05). Compared with the OHCL group, significant decrease was noticed in the proportion of patients with severe pain 48 h after surgery (0 vs. 4.25 ± 0.46, P < 0.001) and dezocine consumption (90.45 ± 45.77 mg vs. 131.6 ± 81.30 mg, P = 0.0448) in the LHCL group.

CONCLUSION

LHCL is effective and feasible for treating liver tumor, which is featured by reducing intraoperative blood loss and serious pain.

Robotic Isolated Caudate Lobectomy for Solitary Colorectal Liver Metastasis

BACKGROUND

Safety of liver resection for colorectal adenocarcinoma continues to improve due to decreased morbidity of resection. Minimally invasive techniques contribute greatly to this morbidity reduction. Isolated caudate lobectomy presents a unique technical challenge because of proximity to major vasculature. The video aims to review nuances of robotic isolated caudate lobectomy for metastatic colon adenocarcinoma.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Robotic vs. Laparoscopic Hepatectomy: A Propensity-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study of American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

BACKGROUND

Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications.

METHODS

Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data.

RESULTS

In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001).

DISCUSSION

Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons' impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.

Robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy: A single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Current reports on robotic hepatic caudate lobectomy are limited to Spiegel lobectomy. This study aimed to compare the safety and feasibility of robotic isolated partial and complete hepatic caudate lobectomy.

METHODS

Clinical data of 32 patients who underwent robotic resection of the hepatic caudate lobe in our department from May 2016 to January 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into three groups according to the lobectomy location: left dorsal segment lobectomy (Spiegel lobectomy), right dorsal segment lobectomy (caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy), and complete caudate lobectomy. General information and perioperative results of the three groups were compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 32 patients, none had conversion to laparotomy, three received intraoperative blood transfusion (9.38%), and none had complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher or died in the perioperative period. Among them, 17 patients (53.13%) underwent Spiegel lobectomy, 7 (21.88%) underwent caudate process or paracaval portion lobectomy, and 8 (25.00%) underwent complete caudate lobectomy. The operative time and blood loss in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group were significantly better than those in the right dorsal segment lobectomy and complete caudate lobectomy groups (operative time: P = 0.010 and P = 0.005; blood loss: P = 0.005 and P = 0.017, respectively). The postoperative hospital stay in the left dorsal segment lobectomy group was significantly shorter than that in the complete caudate lobectomy group (P = 0.003); however, there was no difference in the postoperative hospital stay between the left dorsal segment lobectomy group and right dorsal segment lobectomy group (P = 0.240).

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic isolated partial and complete caudate lobectomy is safe and feasible. Spiegel lobectomy is relatively straightforward and suitable for beginners.

International consensus statement on robotic hepatectomy surgery in 2018

The robotic surgical system has been applied in liver surgery. However, controversies concerns exist regarding a variety of factors including the safety, feasibility, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of robotic surgery. To promote the development of robotic hepatectomy, this study aimed to evaluate the current status of robotic hepatectomy and provide sixty experts’ consensus and recommendations to promote its development. Based on the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development, a Consensus Steering Group and a Consensus Development Group were established to determine the topics, prepare evidence-based documents, and generate recommendations. The GRADE Grid method and Delphi vote were used to formulate the recommendations. A total of 22 topics were prepared analyzed and widely discussed during the 4 meetings. Based on the published articles and expert panel opinion, 7 recommendations were generated by the GRADE method using an evidence-based method, which focused on the safety, feasibility, indication, techniques and cost-effectiveness of hepatectomy. Given that the current evidences were low to very low as evaluated by the GRADE method, further randomized-controlled trials are needed in the future to validate these recommendations.